air SOLUTIONS

TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Reference No: 19.20.044

3June 9020

The General Manager Orange City Council Po Box 35 135 Byng Street Orange NS\V 2800

Dear Sir,

Traffic and Parking Statement- Proposed Child Care Centre, 4 Kearneys Drive, Orange

Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd has been engaged by the applicant to provide Council with an assessment of the potential traffic and parking implications of a proposed 61 place Long Day Care Centre at the subject location.

This assessment has been undertaken with reference to plans prepared by Creative Drafting Services, Job No 191370, Drawing Numbers A0.00, A1.00 - A1.05 issue A and dated 14 October 2019.

Fourteen ( l+) parking spaces are proposed with vehicle access via a6.0m wide driveway direct to Kearneys Drive. The proposed driveway location is satisfactory and will provide very good sight distance in both directions along Kearneys Drive. The available sight distance easily exceeds the desirable 69m distance suggested by AS/NZS 2890.1:200·1< for 50km/h.

PARKING

Geometric design requirements for car park layouts are specified in the 'Australian/New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities Part I; Off Street Car Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1) of 2004 and Australian/New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities Part 6: Off street Parking for People with Disabilities of 9009. Part 1 of this standard classifies this development as a Class 3 off­ street car parking facility requiring a category 1 driveway. The following table provides a comparison on the requirements of AS/NZS 92890.1 and AS/NZS 9890.6 applicable to the car parking proposal.

FEATURE AS/NZS 9890.1 & AS/NZS 2890.6 PROPOSED CONFORMS REQUIREMENT TO

STANDARD Parking 5.+m x 2.+m longer term car spaces I 5.4mx 92.4m for staff spaces Space 5.4m x 2.6m higher turnover spaces I 5.4m x 9.7m for parent spaces no

Additional 300m111 when adjacent a spaces adjacent a \I all YES wall 5.4m x 2.4m plus 5.4m x '2.4m shared

I

5.4m X 2.4m plus 5.4m x 2.4m zone for disabled spaces shared zone for disabled space YES

I

Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd, PO Box 9161, Bathurst NSW 9795 Ph: 09 6331 0467 • Email: crag(traffic solutions.com.au

ABN 63 074 165 263

FEATURE AS/NZS 9890.1 & AS/NZS 9890.6 PROPOSED CONFORMS REQUIREMENT ! TO

I STANDARD Aisle Width 5.8m min 6.22m YES

Blind Aisle I.Om I I.Om YES

Driveway Category I d/w =3m -5.5m Category I driveway 6.0m wide YES Width Category 2 d/w = Gm - 9m

Note: Driveways are normally combined, but if separate, both entry and exit widths should be 3.0m min

Driveway • 1 in 20 (5%) for 1 6m I

Driveway at grade YES Grades • > 90m 1 in 5 (20%) max

• <9om 1 in 4(225%) max. I Transition required if grade

change in excess of 1 in 8(192.5%) I

Pedestrian 2m (along frontage) x 2.5m (into site) ! No obstruction YES sight line splay '

Accordingly, this development proposal adheres to the above Australian Standard Requirements.

CAR PARKING

An indication of the parking requirements of child care centres can be obtained by referencing the Roads and Maritime Services "Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Section 5 - Parking Requirements for Specific Landuses" of October 9002. This document states that off-street parking should be provided at the rate of one space for every four children in attendance.

Council's Development Control Plan (2004,) specifies the same car parking requirements for child care centres.

Utilising this rate, the requirements for a61 place child care centre is 15 car spaces.

Consequently, the proposed child care centre falls short of the Roads and Maritime Services and Council's parking requirements with the provision of Hoff-street parking spaces.

In this regard, the l car space shortfall, the RMS guide to traffic generating developments states:

Given the short length of stay (the RTA's surveys found an average length of stay of 6.8 minutes), parking must be provided in a convenient location, allowing safe movement of children to and from the centre.

Consideration could be given to reducing the parking required if convenient and safe on-street parking is available ( e.g. indented parking bays), provided that the use of such parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the adjacent area.

Given the extensive street frontage of the site (of 15m excluding the proposed driveway) and Kearneys Drive road width of 10.8m, parking on street for an additional car space is considered to be appropriate with no affectation on adjoining residential properties and therefore is considered to have no adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjacent area.

2

Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd has been advised that tandem car parking is not permitted by Orange Council, however, this is in my opinion is highly unusual considering the following:

1. Orange Council's DCP does not prohibit tandem parking.

2. AS/NZS 2890.1:2001" does not prohibit tandem parking.

3. The RMS guide to traffic generating developments guideline does not prohibit tandem parking.

1. State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 201 7 (the SEPP) States in section 3.8, in part, that staff parking may be stacked or tandem parking with no more than spaces in each tandem space.

5. The SEPP determines that a consent authority must take into consideration the Child Care Planning Guideline (August 2017) when assessing a development application (DA) for a centre-based childcare facility.

6. The SEPP also determines this Child Care Planning Guideline will take precedence over a Development Control Plan (DCP).

7. This firm is only aware of only one Council in NSW that prohibits tandem parking in their Development Control Plan.

8. Councils DCP permits tandem parking for residential dwellings provided they are in front of the undercover parking space (in "tandem") provided that this does not obstruct accessways.

9. Child Care Centre Staff will generally arrive before children arrive and depart after pick up.

TRAFFIC

An estimation of the traffic generation of the proposed development can be calculated by referring to the Roads and Maritime Services 'Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Section 3-Landuse Traffic Generation' of October 92002. The guide specifies the following peak hour generation rates:

Centre Type Peak Vehicle Trips/Child

7.00-9 00am 4.00-6.00pm

Pre-school

Long clay care

Before/after care

1.4

0.8 0.7

0.5

2.30-100pm

0.8

0.3

0.92 0.7

Accordingly, the estimated traffic generation of this development calculates as:

Children number and centre type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

61 place long daycare 61x0.8= 18.8 6Ix074927

Total 49 Trips 43 Trips

3

The estimated potential traffic generation of the subject site can be discounted by the estimated traffic generation of the existing residential house. Utilising the RMS suggested rate of 0.85 vehicle trips per dwelling in the peak hours the traffic generation of the proposal can be discounted by 0.85 vehicle trips.

The estimated net increase in traffic generation is in the order of 48 and 4 trips in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The RMS defines a vehicle trip as a one-way vehicular movement from one point to another excluding the return journey. Accordingly, the estimated trips will be in the order of 24 in and out in the morning peak hour and 91 m and out in the evening peak hour.

The additional traffic generation of the proposal is in the order of 1 vehicle trip either approaching or departing the subject site every 1 minute and 15 seconds on average. This trip generation is considered to have no unacceptable traffic impacts on Kearneys Drive or the surrounding road network.

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding assessment has revealed the following:

• The access driveway proposed to serve the development is suitably located and will provide very good sight distance in both directions along Kearneys Drive.

• The proposed development satisfies the related geometric design specifications contained in the Australian Standards for off street parking and vehicular access.

• The off-street parking provided in the proposed development is one car space short of the RMS and Council requirements, however, there is ample street frontage to cater for this shortfall, without any unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

• The proposal has a potential net increase in estimated peak hour traffic flows in the order of 48 vehicle trips in the morning and 4 evening peak hours respectively, which will not have any unacceptable traffic impacts upon Kearneys Drive or the surrounding road network.

Should you require any additional information or clarification of the contents of this letter please contact me on the numbers provided.

Yours sincerely

Craig Hazell Director

4