My husband and I are currently doing first unit development in Victoria. We are building 2 one bedroom and 1 three bedroom units. Council took its time, but have now come back and asked for an assessment from a qualified Traffic Engineer. They say that we need to show vehicles driving in and out in a forward direction and some other information to meet Australian Standards. Our architect says that this is extra fees, and he can get quotes from a Traffic Engineer.
Is this normal for Council to ask, and shouldn't the architect be able to do this?
Council asking for cars to exist the garage forwards
Page 1 of 1
Tell me the following:
- Is your road a VicRoads Road (just tell me the colour of your road in your Melways if you don't know)?
- how many car spaces access the same crossover (I assume 4 as you would need two for the 3-bed and one for each 2-bed) or do you have 2 crossovers?
- has the architect shown any turning circles on the plans, and if so do they show access in and out of the garages?
- how wide is your driveway(s) and car park aisle?
- are your garages 3.5x6m for single width and 5.5x6m for double width?
- how are your garages oriented (i.e. 90 deg to aisle, parallel etc.)?
- Is your road a VicRoads Road (just tell me the colour of your road in your Melways if you don't know)?
- how many car spaces access the same crossover (I assume 4 as you would need two for the 3-bed and one for each 2-bed) or do you have 2 crossovers?
- has the architect shown any turning circles on the plans, and if so do they show access in and out of the garages?
- how wide is your driveway(s) and car park aisle?
- are your garages 3.5x6m for single width and 5.5x6m for double width?
- how are your garages oriented (i.e. 90 deg to aisle, parallel etc.)?
They say that we need to show vehicles driving in and out in a forward direction and some other information to meet Australian Standards.
This requirement is not unusual and it is a lot safer when a vehicle drives onto a busy road rather than reverse.
There are several companies that make appealing vehicle turntables that can enhance the property value.
http://www.3dparking.com.au/turntables.htm
- my road is a goldy colour in the Melways. It's a 2011, is that ok?
- your right we have 4 spaces for the houses but also have one visitor. We wanted 2 driveways but the architect said council won't let us
- i think only in, but I think it's also suppose to be the same for reverse out
- starts at 3m, then gets a bit bigger, I'm thinking maybe 3.5m but does not say
- yep exactly, one double and two single and also a 2.4x5.4m visitor space
- all ninety degree but the visitor space is at the end inline with the driveway
- your right we have 4 spaces for the houses but also have one visitor. We wanted 2 driveways but the architect said council won't let us
- i think only in, but I think it's also suppose to be the same for reverse out
- starts at 3m, then gets a bit bigger, I'm thinking maybe 3.5m but does not say
- yep exactly, one double and two single and also a 2.4x5.4m visitor space
- all ninety degree but the visitor space is at the end inline with the driveway
From what you are describing, it sounds like you are on a local street and not in a road zone.
To start with it may be a good idea if you have a glance at Clause 52.06 of your Planning Scheme at the following link (note always check for the latest version, and the one relevant to your municipality as this link may not be current/relevant at time of viewing).
http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/aavpp/52_06.pdf
It is common for Council to request one crossover for this type of development. Usually Council will request this in an effort to retain on-street parking and reduce the visual dominance of vehicle driveways. I’m not saying you cannot get two crossovers (in some cases it can be the better design), it just tends to be a much more difficult process depending on the Council you are dealing with (and I assume you don’t want to go to VCAT).
Regarding forward in/out, the current version of Clause 52.06 mentions the following on Page 8 on the link provided at the time of viewing:
“If the accessway serves four or more car spaces or connects to a road in a Road Zone,
the accessway must be designed so that cars can exit the site in a forward direction.”
Note that the visitor space dimensions you noted are based on the User Class 1A (i.e. residential, domestic and employee parking as noted on Page 9 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 at time of viewing). Note that Table 2 to Clause 52.06 (again always check the latest version) has space sizes that differ to that of the Australian Standards (refer to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part 1:Off-street Car Parking; however, always check for the latest version and you will probably need to purchase a copy of this standard). Clause 52.06, also notes the following:
“The dimensions in Table 2 are to be used in preference to the Australian Standard”
Notwithstanding the above, Council may in some cases still accept Australian Standard space sizes; however, it is best practice to use Clause 52.06 sizes unless you can demonstrate/convince Council of your reason.
It also should be noted that Table 1 to Clause 52.06 currently only requires 1 space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings. It is my understanding that you have only 3 dwelling on your lot, so I am unsure why you have proposed a visitor space, particularly given that your site sounds like it may be tight for vehicle manoeuvring. Also, removal of the end visitor space may improve opportunity for turnaround if the end garage is close to it; however, I couldn’t tell you without looking at it and/or performing a computer turning simulation assessment (I use a program called Autotrack).
The 3.0 metre crossover is usually the standard minimum (note: all councils have different design requirements for crossovers). Just curious, has Council requested pedestrian sight splays on both sides of the driveway at the property boundary? The aisle width is very narrow (i.e. it does not meet any relevant standard/guideline for the situation you have described) and would likely require a computer turning simulation assessment (as Council have requested). My other question is how far setback is all your garages from the car park aisle? Also, just curious what else has council asked for?
Also, I wouldn’t look into use of turntable just yet as per link provide SaveH20. Councils tend to be nervous to approve them and best suited for situations where no other option is possible (i.e. the site is very tight/narrow and there is absolutely no other design option). At this stage, just assume Council will not consider a turntable. Notwithstanding turntables, mechanical parking in the form of vehicle stackers are much more common these days and I design car parks to accommodate these quite frequently (particularly for sites located near/surrounding CBD where land is limited/costly). However, based on the situation you have described, it would probably best to focus on a conventional car park layout for now.
To start with it may be a good idea if you have a glance at Clause 52.06 of your Planning Scheme at the following link (note always check for the latest version, and the one relevant to your municipality as this link may not be current/relevant at time of viewing).
http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/aavpp/52_06.pdf
It is common for Council to request one crossover for this type of development. Usually Council will request this in an effort to retain on-street parking and reduce the visual dominance of vehicle driveways. I’m not saying you cannot get two crossovers (in some cases it can be the better design), it just tends to be a much more difficult process depending on the Council you are dealing with (and I assume you don’t want to go to VCAT).
Regarding forward in/out, the current version of Clause 52.06 mentions the following on Page 8 on the link provided at the time of viewing:
“If the accessway serves four or more car spaces or connects to a road in a Road Zone,
the accessway must be designed so that cars can exit the site in a forward direction.”
Note that the visitor space dimensions you noted are based on the User Class 1A (i.e. residential, domestic and employee parking as noted on Page 9 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 at time of viewing). Note that Table 2 to Clause 52.06 (again always check the latest version) has space sizes that differ to that of the Australian Standards (refer to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part 1:Off-street Car Parking; however, always check for the latest version and you will probably need to purchase a copy of this standard). Clause 52.06, also notes the following:
“The dimensions in Table 2 are to be used in preference to the Australian Standard”
Notwithstanding the above, Council may in some cases still accept Australian Standard space sizes; however, it is best practice to use Clause 52.06 sizes unless you can demonstrate/convince Council of your reason.
It also should be noted that Table 1 to Clause 52.06 currently only requires 1 space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings. It is my understanding that you have only 3 dwelling on your lot, so I am unsure why you have proposed a visitor space, particularly given that your site sounds like it may be tight for vehicle manoeuvring. Also, removal of the end visitor space may improve opportunity for turnaround if the end garage is close to it; however, I couldn’t tell you without looking at it and/or performing a computer turning simulation assessment (I use a program called Autotrack).
The 3.0 metre crossover is usually the standard minimum (note: all councils have different design requirements for crossovers). Just curious, has Council requested pedestrian sight splays on both sides of the driveway at the property boundary? The aisle width is very narrow (i.e. it does not meet any relevant standard/guideline for the situation you have described) and would likely require a computer turning simulation assessment (as Council have requested). My other question is how far setback is all your garages from the car park aisle? Also, just curious what else has council asked for?
Also, I wouldn’t look into use of turntable just yet as per link provide SaveH20. Councils tend to be nervous to approve them and best suited for situations where no other option is possible (i.e. the site is very tight/narrow and there is absolutely no other design option). At this stage, just assume Council will not consider a turntable. Notwithstanding turntables, mechanical parking in the form of vehicle stackers are much more common these days and I design car parks to accommodate these quite frequently (particularly for sites located near/surrounding CBD where land is limited/costly). However, based on the situation you have described, it would probably best to focus on a conventional car park layout for now.
Wow thanks you seem to know a lot. But shouldn't the architect know or do all this? I have no idea why we have the visitor space, i will ask the architect. The garages are setback about 2m from the driveway. Yer they have also asked this, but I have shortened it a bit:
- 2x2.5msight splays in acc with the Australian Std
- relocate crossover outside the prohibited zone on the continuous side of the t-intersection in acc Australian Std
- increase garage height clearance to 2.2m in acc with Australian Std
- car park layout to comply with clause 52.06
- 2x2.5msight splays in acc with the Australian Std
- relocate crossover outside the prohibited zone on the continuous side of the t-intersection in acc Australian Std
- increase garage height clearance to 2.2m in acc with Australian Std
- car park layout to comply with clause 52.06
Architects will tend to know some of the basic components of car park design; however, Traffic Engineering is a very specialised field and it would be unreasonable to expect that an architect would know all the requirements.
I do a lot of work for tight sites such as yours where say you are trying to fit several dwelling on a lot that was only intended for one dwelling. It is best to get a Traffic Engineer in during the early design stage as it could save you costs in the long run (i.e. layout redesign fees, land holding costs as Council may take a while to respond especially if you have to submit several versions of the plans etc) and maybe even save you some stress too as developing can be a nervous process at least the first time around.
- The sight triangles are in noted in Figure 3.3 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, and with a one lane driveway you would notice that they would be required on both sides. The current version of Clause 52.06 also refers to sight splays on Page 8 as follows:
"Have a corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions extending at
least 2 metres along the frontage road from the edge of an exit lane and 2.5 metres along
the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of
the frontage road. The area clear of visual obstructions may include an adjacent entry or
exit lane where more than one lane is provided."
Some Councils may accept other design solutions if a sight triangle cannot be provided; however, depending on the driveway design you may be able to stagger the driveway on entry to meet the above, then taper it back in.
- I am not sure of your layout; however, going by Council comments you are located opposite a T-intersection. The prohibited zone is shown in Figure 3.1 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004. When Council mentions the continuous side, I am assuming they mean the area noted as Y-Y on the above mentioned diagram. In does say under note 1 of that figure that 'domestic driveways are excluded......of the the kerb section marked Y-Y'. Domestic property is defined on page 7 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 as 'a property comprising three or less domestic units'. My understanding is that your property is only three dwellings, so this may not necessarily apply to your site.
- While AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 does currently note 2.2m on page 48, the recently revised Clause 52.06 notes the following on page 8:
'Provide at least 2.1 metres headroom beneath overhead obstructions, calculated for a
vehicle with a wheel base of 2.8 metres.'
The wheel base is only relevant to sag gradients; however, if you have a flat entry and you have provided 2.1m clearance then you may not need an increased height unless you are designing specifically for disabled spaces (note disabled spaces have there own separate standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009 with increased height requirements that differ to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 and Clause 52.06).
- From what you have told me, it doesn't look like you can strictly meet the dimensional requirement of 52.06 given your aisle width; however, this is where a computer turning simulation is useful in order to convince Council
I hope the above has been useful to you. Cheers
I do a lot of work for tight sites such as yours where say you are trying to fit several dwelling on a lot that was only intended for one dwelling. It is best to get a Traffic Engineer in during the early design stage as it could save you costs in the long run (i.e. layout redesign fees, land holding costs as Council may take a while to respond especially if you have to submit several versions of the plans etc) and maybe even save you some stress too as developing can be a nervous process at least the first time around.
- The sight triangles are in noted in Figure 3.3 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, and with a one lane driveway you would notice that they would be required on both sides. The current version of Clause 52.06 also refers to sight splays on Page 8 as follows:
"Have a corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions extending at
least 2 metres along the frontage road from the edge of an exit lane and 2.5 metres along
the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of
the frontage road. The area clear of visual obstructions may include an adjacent entry or
exit lane where more than one lane is provided."
Some Councils may accept other design solutions if a sight triangle cannot be provided; however, depending on the driveway design you may be able to stagger the driveway on entry to meet the above, then taper it back in.
- I am not sure of your layout; however, going by Council comments you are located opposite a T-intersection. The prohibited zone is shown in Figure 3.1 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004. When Council mentions the continuous side, I am assuming they mean the area noted as Y-Y on the above mentioned diagram. In does say under note 1 of that figure that 'domestic driveways are excluded......of the the kerb section marked Y-Y'. Domestic property is defined on page 7 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 as 'a property comprising three or less domestic units'. My understanding is that your property is only three dwellings, so this may not necessarily apply to your site.
- While AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 does currently note 2.2m on page 48, the recently revised Clause 52.06 notes the following on page 8:
'Provide at least 2.1 metres headroom beneath overhead obstructions, calculated for a
vehicle with a wheel base of 2.8 metres.'
The wheel base is only relevant to sag gradients; however, if you have a flat entry and you have provided 2.1m clearance then you may not need an increased height unless you are designing specifically for disabled spaces (note disabled spaces have there own separate standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009 with increased height requirements that differ to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 and Clause 52.06).
- From what you have told me, it doesn't look like you can strictly meet the dimensional requirement of 52.06 given your aisle width; however, this is where a computer turning simulation is useful in order to convince Council
I hope the above has been useful to you. Cheers
Thank you Zav
My architect has given me quotes from two other Traffic Engineers and I just nearly had a heart attack.
I noticed you profile website is www.zavtraffic.com.au and you are located in Kew
Can I contact you via that? Also, before we decide on a traffic engineer, my husband and I would like to talk to you in person and discuss our options. Can we come into your office to discuss our plans?
My architect has given me quotes from two other Traffic Engineers and I just nearly had a heart attack.
I noticed you profile website is www.zavtraffic.com.au and you are located in Kew
Can I contact you via that? Also, before we decide on a traffic engineer, my husband and I would like to talk to you in person and discuss our options. Can we come into your office to discuss our plans?
That is correct. Prices for traffic engineers can vary, so it is a good idea to get a few quotes. Also, always look at what you are getting for a like to like comparison. You are most welcome to come in for a chat. cheers
Related
23/11/2023
4
Thanks again for this information. If you do hear anything different, would be great to know >
11/05/2023
1
Even if it's not being sub-divided and you want to keep it as Torrens title, you will still need to talk to a town planner or Council themselves, to see if they will allow…
7/06/2023
0
We've had the offer of a short term tenant whilst waiting for CDC/DA home approval and demolition for our knock down rebuild. It would achieve a pretty low rent as it's…