“Council made a Submission on this matter in March. The Guideline is being looked at by Government to identify the thresholds for where Transport Impact Assessments are to be compulsory as part of any development application in the ACT. Not all development applications will require a Transport Impact Assessment. Councils Submission can re read here and the Summary for Stakeholder Consultation may be accessed here.
Council was concerned that there needs to be an agreed threshold where a Transport Impact Assessment must be made. Council’s issue with the draft was with the low numbers stated in several categories as well as differing numbers being stated for similar land use activities.
A copy of Transport Impact Assessment Guide Draft is available here »…
COMMENTS on the DRAFT TRANSPORT IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES for the ACT
The Weston Creek Community Council [WCCC] would like to offer the following comments in relation to the draft Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines for the ACT.
Firstly, as a volunteer Organisation, tight time frames for comments on various matters make it difficult for Groups such as ours to comment effectively. For this particular request, we have 10 days in which to make an assessment, form an opinion and make objective comments. It is also disappointing to find the reference to these Guidelines, the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 12 is not free but comes at a cost and consequently no reference has been made to this Guide in this Submission because of this fact. Some consideration needs to be made by requestors for at least a summary to be provided to Councils in situations such as this so that we are able to see this for Reference.
As to the Draft Guide, Council is concerned that there is yet another requirement being added to those needed to be lodged with Development Applications. This is one more and, for those in the Community, finding ones way through the maze of plans and requirements lodged with a Development Application, one I have recently looked at had 20 separate files to look at, is difficult in the least. Council is also concerned with the additional workload on smaller applications where one would question the necessity for this assessment to be completed.
Council does agree though, with the need for a Traffic Assessment to be made
for developments once they reach a threshold that will impact on the local Community. Council’s issue is with the low impact number proposed. Council really questions the initial transport impact measure of 10 vehicle trips per hour in peak times as being a very low figure as the minimum figure requiring a Traffic Assessment Form or Report to be made. Perhaps 15 or 20 movements in the peak hour would be a better figure.
That aside, the following comments are offered by Council:
Table 1 is assumed to be indicative but it is inconsistent with Table 2. Under Residential, Apartment should be included with 15; Multi-unit should be changed to 15 to align with Table 2, Apartment.
Day Care Centre should be changed to Childcare Centre to conform with Table 2 or vice versa and there are different measures in Table 1 – 2 employees for Day Care; Table 2 – Childcare less than 5 child places.
Council is also of the opinion that both of these thresholds for Childcare or Day Care are too low as we would question how they could reach the threshold of 10 vehicle movements in the peak hour. Council suggests 10 or more childcare places as the better measure.
In relation to Table 2, Council assumes that all of those Land Uses with a range of none means that a Transport Assessment Report must be completed with any Development Application.  This should be included in the Table as a footnote.
Other seemingly inconsistencies in Table 2 are:
- Caravan Park/camping ground less than 135 sites while a Tourist Resort is less than 90 units and a Mobile Home Park is 18 to 90 sites – Council suggests 15 to 80 sites/units as per the proposed figure below;
- Motels are 15 to 80 rooms while Hotels are 15 to 75 rooms and Serviced Apartments are 15 to 85 dwellings  – Council suggests 15 to 80 rooms/dwellings to align with Tourist Resort above;
- Retirement Complex is 35 to 190 units while a Special Care Hostel is 35 to 185 beds and a Hospital is 40 beds – Council suggests that this number be reduced to 15 to 80 units/beds although it is unsure in relation to Hospitals. This would also align these with those above;
- Place of Assembly is for less than 50 occupants while a Place of Worship is 12 to 60 seats – Council suggests less than 60 occupants or seats for Places of Assembly and Worship although this could be increased to 80 to align with those suggestions made above;
- Apartment is 15 to 80 dwelling units, Multi-unit housing is 25 to 150 dwellings and a single family dwelling is 10 to 50 dwellings – Council suggests again for uniformity 15 to 80 dwelling units;
- Shop is 215 to 2000 sq m while a Convenience Store is less than 165 sq m and a Take-away Food Shop is less than 120 sq m – Council suggests that there will likely need to be good definitions of all of these as a Shop of less than 215 sq m will not require a Traffic Assessment Form although, for uniformity, Council would also suggest that Shop be less than 2000 sq m, and
Social Club is 200 to 1000 sq m and a Cultural Facility the same – this is good though they could be compared, at times, with Place of Assembly or Place of Worship.
Council hasn’t considered the remainder of the land use forms which are more industrial or commercial. Council hopes that these are all helpful suggestions on the draft Guidelines and would be happy to discuss any or all of these suggestions and comments.