Council minutes of 31st August 2010 record the following sentence in response to a public question – Under no circumstances are variations to standards allowed if they compromise safety. Given this unequivocal response, it would be fascinating to know exactly how many dispensations Council has granted to developers, or failed to enforce the standards, on developments for underground car parking – in particular ensuring the adequacy of sightlines for exiting cars. How many of these subterranean canyons have been allowed to exist that potentially endanger pedestrian safety? How many near misses have you experienced from cars exiting their steep driveways and you simply couldn’t see them until the last second?
Here are some examples from a range of material we’ve been sent by residents.
November 27, 2014 at 10:49 AM
My wife came within a few centimetres of being hit at one of these. As she said, she couldn’t see the car, and they couldn’t see her. The 7′ wall also muffled sound, and the car was accelerating up the steep slope. The video shows the problem that cars are crossing their property boundaries at speeds of 10kmh or more from these steep driveways, and if you don’t provide adequate pedestrian sightlines the risk is substantial.
According to the planning scheme, the sightlines, which the scheme calls corner splays, are supposed to be 2m x 2.5m. Well they sure aren’t here, they’re not even 1m. How did the developers con Council into granting them a permit? If they did get a permit, did they comply with the conditions?
My own experience with Council is not a happy one. A development very near me was initially built without a sightline, and with a maximum gradient steeper than their permit. Even at their second attempt, the sightline on western side still didn’t comply with their permit. I ended up asking a public question about it. Council contradicted their enforcement officer by claiming it measured 1m and complied with the endorsed plans. Since it measured 910mm I was curious what the endorsed plans showed.
They initially refused to let me see the endorsed plans without paying $51. Some weeks later they relented and the plans showed the sightline was supposed to be 1000mm. Lousy, non-compliant, unsafe, but that’s what it was supposed to be. I knew Council was being evasive when it rounded up the critical measurement to the nearest metre.
The upshot was the developer went to VCAT for a retrospective permit amendment to cover the non-compliant gradient. The Member refused me permission to be a party. Nobody at the hearing pointed out that substandard and non-compliant sightlines were being used in conjunction with a very steep gradient. Developer got their coveted permit amendment.
Council’s rhetoric doesn’t match its actions and I’ve learnt the hard way to question anything Council says. Safety is now as expendable as amenity.
November 27, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Thank You for the post
It would be like a subterranean cave, or underground or subterranean car park once built, this would be the description.
Although during digging it would be canyon like, and possibly a canyon, but really more like a large hole.
The cars do drive out forwards which is a big help, a newish apartment complex I saw has a driveway mirror to assist people, which is better than nil.
I noticed one of your photos showed some serious cracking in a driveway, looking very like shoddy workmanship. Reinforced concrete shouldn’t crack like that, if done correctly. If it gets worse, it will cost a bomb to fix. And all the residents cars will be parking in the streets until the work is over
I would be careful not to inadvertently disparage the living arrangements of people who live on these newer developments, they are our community
whether living in a house, unit, flat, apartment, caravan, or mansion, or sleeping in a car or in a park, they deserve our respect, I would give it!
November 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM
Dear anon,
we are certainly not disparaging residents. From the countless photos and emails we have received, we are merely pointing out the disparity between words and actions on the part of council. If safety is the top priority, then it is incumbent on council to ensure that any development meets all required standards – particularly when pedestrian safety is an issue. This applies to driveways and to construction sites when footpaths are blocked and pedestrians are forced onto streets in order to navigate past building works. It is both dangerous and reckless we maintain if contractors are permitted to do whatever they wish, whenever they wish on local streets.
November 27, 2014 at 2:39 PM
As a pedestrian using Station Street often to catch public transport it appears to be very unsafe to me that the Members’ Car Park entry there has become busier than most streets without any traffic calming installation for those leaving the premises. Most delivery drivers are directed to use that gate… even the current circus! Council has been asked about this and pointed out to the complainant that as it was private property … it did npt have any jurisdiction. (or interest if you ask me) and to write to the property owner- MRC. This has been done twice with no reply or resolution such as speed humps, rumble strips or a simple stop sign.
This is a really dangerous situation as mororists are hurrying out looking for gaps in traffic on Station Street and these drivers include the thousands of cars, trucks and even semi-trailers, four wheel drives towing horse floats and trailers… but no-one cares… anu suggestions as to what one should do next?
November 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM
I had a similar experience when walking along south side of Station St near Bond St. There was no problem with visibility, just a large dark green upmarket car driven by a suited gentleman at a speed in excess of 30kmh exiting in great haste. I jumped out of the way because I had no confidence he was going to stop or slow or even had seen me. Maybe he was drunk.
November 27, 2014 at 2:56 PM
GEPS sure as hell doesn’t say it is acceptable to compromise amenity and safety to help a developer squeeze in an extra dwelling or two. Council doesn’t have a definition for inappropriate development [or lacks the courage to state it], so here’s a starting point. Inappropriate development is where existing residential amenity and safety is compromised in order to squeeze in more dwellings while failing to deliver the putative public benefits of higher density, in areas lacking public open space and without the long-term plans and investment needed to ameliorate the worst of the intended and unintended cumulative consequences.
November 27, 2014 at 3:02 PM
Walking past some of these new buildings with a baby in a pram is a nightmare. Impossible to see anything until you are right alongside and that means the pram is into the drive. It is dangerous and can cost someone their lives or serious injury.
November 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM
Readers may be interested in the following Request for a Report from the minutes of Tuesday night’s council meeting –
Crs Lobo/Okotel
That a report be prepared on proactively asking Glen Eira community for
their input to identify where they think pedestrian upgrades are required
including State Governments control on Roads and Properties. The
community to identify difficulties in crossing roads, speed limits,
crossing signals etc.
DIVISION
Cr Lobo called for a DIVISION on the voting of the MOTION.
FOR
Cr Lobo
Cr Okotel
Cr Delahunty
Cr Esakoff
Cr Hyams
Cr Magee
AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ, PILLING, SOUNNESS
On the basis of the DIVISION the chairperson declared the Motion
CARRIED.
November 27, 2014 at 3:46 PM
What reasons did Crs Lipshutz, Pilling, and Sounness give for voting against the motion?
November 28, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Here’s some more information about just how poorly the relevant authorities have performed on the matter of car park design standards.
The reasons why AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 specifies a ramp gradient of no more than 1:20 for first 6m is so that exiting vehicles are substantially stationary prior to crossing the footpath. Council acknowledges this, for example in its Minutes of 12 Oct 2010.
Car Parking Advisory Committee in its 2011 report recommended weakening the standard to 1:10 for first 5m. It did so without input from reputable traffic safety experts such as MUARC. Its reasons were extraordinary: “The Australian Standard of a maximum grade of 1 in 20 (5%) is too restrictive and not consistent with current practice. The adoption of very flat grades restricts the development of sites and is unnecessary in the Advisory Committee’s view.” That is, the MAC didn’t consider pedestrian safety or the likely speed of vehicles across property boundaries or the relationship between speed and sightlines. Instead it endorsed contemporary, and unsafe, practice.
At 39 Rosstown Rd, Council’s Traffic Engineer Emma Donnelly in her original Traffic Engineering Assessment requested a ramp gradient of no more than 20:1 for first 6m plus pedestrian sightlines of no specific size. The Permit conditions ended up specifying 1.0m x 1.5m for sightlines. When the applicant discovered they couldn’t squeeze an 11th unit onto the site while complying, they requested a Permit Amendment to change the gradient to 1:10 for first 4.5m.
In response, Emma changed her assessment to support the applicant, and stated “Traffic Engineering considers that the proposed ramp grades would provide for adequate pedestrian driver sight lines”. This is extraordinary since gradients don’t provide sightlines. What they influence is the speed of exiting vehicles. She did however have the courage to say “A site inspection was considered unnecessary for the following reason: Unnecessary”. There is also the very odd expression “pedestrian driver”, which may be a reference to sight distance for cars on the road and not pedestrians on the footpath.
Traffic Engineering Assessments come with a Disclaimer, which in part reads “no person should act or rely on information contained in or omitted from the document”. That didn’t stop Council using it in support of the applicant at VCAT. It was supplied during the 1hr hearing at VCAT with no prior opportunity to assess her evidence. Nor was Emma available to be cross-examined.
The applicant’s representative, Gary Sharp of Sharp Design, tendered a letter of support from Russell Fairlie of Ratio Consultants. Russell said he supported the change “in association with good exit visibility (minimum sight distance splays of 1.5m)”. Russell was also not available to be cross-examined. Russell did not point out that the sightlines shown on the plans submitted to VCAT were only 600mm on western side or that the permit conditions specified only 1m.
His main arguments for supporting the change were that it was only a local road, claiming therefore that “any potential safety risk is minimized” [sight distances to vehicles were not in dispute but irrelevant to pedestrian safety], and that numerous Councils and VCAT had previously accepted “similar ramp arrangements”. Not very convincing.
The Member, Margaret Baird, in her decision claimed that “the proposed ramp grade has been assessed and found to be acceptable and safe by the Council’s traffic engineers and a reputable traffic consultant”. This is not true. They did find the ramp acceptable, but they didn’t consider whether it was safe for pedestrians, only vehicles. Margaret ignored the issue of sightlines, which on the advice of Russell were not adequate.
It is a simple matter of math to work out that a vehicle travelling at 10kmh travels over 4m in 1.5s, 1.5s being the “reaction time” Council has used in other decisions. It is reckless for Council and VCAT to assume that vehicles will always stop in time when exiting at speed from such steep and substandard basement carparks with sightlines of 1m [or less–as per the photos]. Council has compounded the problem by refusing to enforce the permit condition concerning sightlines at 39 Rosstown.
My wife was “lucky”, coming only within a few centimetres of being hit. Council and VCAT have decided there should be no safety margin for driver error, and both are guilty of compromising safety to help developers squeeze extra units in. This comment is very long I know, but I want there to be an easily discoverable record of historical and ongoing negligence for when an accident occurs.
November 28, 2014 at 11:25 AM
More evidence of neglect and abuse of planning rules is needed to be recorded. Perhaps L.A.R.G.E Inc or GERA Inc could pursue this issue with some vigor.
November 28, 2014 at 1:02 PM
Saddy running down residents the young or the old. Safety takes a back seat when big bucks are involved.