136 north terrace level 6 attention: mr mark adcock · park lands, landscaping, level...

Enquiries:

Reference:

Janaki Benson 8203 7122

F/S10/0050/2015

Adelaide City Council

ABN 20 903 762 572

25 Pirie Street, Adelaide

GPO Box 2252 Adelaide

South Australia 5001

Tel 08 8203 7203

Fax 08 8203 7575

www.adelaidecitycouncil.com

30 November 2015

045

Development Assessment CommissionLevel 6136 North TerraceADELAIDE SA 5000

Attention: Mr Mark Adcock

Dear Mr Adcock/

The following application is of a kind that requires consultation with Councilunder the Development Act, 1993.

Application: S10/50/2015Applicant: DEPT OF PLANNING TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTUREAddress: RYMILL PARK, East Terrace, ADELAIDE SA 5000Description: 0-Bahn tunnel portal, significant and regulated tree -damaging

activities and ancillary buildings and structures associated with the0-Bahn city access project.

Council has the following comments to make:• Council considered the 0-Bahn proposal at its meetings held 09 June and

06 October 2015. Resolutions from these meetings are included asattachments to this correspondence.

• In respect to the development proposed as part of this application, thefollowing is noted:

Park Lands, Landscaping, Level Chanaes/Sculpture of

Landscapingo Tree replacements must be as large and mature as possible at the

time of planting. It is suggested trees are a minimum of 5 metreshigh at the time of planting, with the corresponding canopy widthsand trunk calliper's.

o Any level changes to existing levels around mature trees that areproposed to be retained needs further consideration by DAC.Mature trees to remain will be affected by an increase in levels

around the bases of trunk or within the Tree Protection Zone as

the existing root system will die back affecting the Useful LifeExpectancy of those trees. Over time, there is a strong chance

ioo%R^ydedpaper •DELAIDECITY COUNCIL

they will die or become unstable and a risk to public(acknowledging that this may take some years),

o Tree replacement should not be based purely on the typical DPTIvegetation offset policy e.g. 3 new for one significant tree loss.

The character of Rymill and Rundle Park should be acknowledgedand the landscape design should be reflective of this, meaning treespecies selection must be in keeping with the existing charactere.g. a mixture of exotic and native species as is the existing

situation.o Design concepts will resolve land shaping and detailed level

resolution to ensure all new or amended structures associated with

any aspect of the 0-Bahn City Access Project (tunnels, walls,retaining structures, barriers, etc.) blend with the existingsurrounding landscape levels and there are no visible evidence of

the tunnel from the park lands unless required (e.g. tunnel

services building, exit portals, and the like).o All species, selections, plant numbers, planting details and the like

should be to ACC approval.o All tree relocations should be to ACC approval.

Design of Tunnel & Ancillary BuildingAccess to Tunnel Services Building

o Elements associated with the subterranean building includingventing, access and visible structures should not be standalone

elements.o Consideration should be given and designs prepared to integrate

all structures within one structure. One scenario is that anadditional use be considered to integrate the stairs and ventstructures, such as new toilet facilities to ACC design approval andstandards (with external washing facilities as an example), asshown in the examples in the ACC document '0-Bahn City Access

Project, Adelaide Design Manual, East Terrace, Rundle Road andPublic Domain Elements Design Brief dated November 2015.

o Coreten should not to be the principle material of any building inthe Park Lands but part of a suite as referred in the ACC ParkLands Buildings Guidelines.

o The MCD tender design is too similar to the Adelaide Oval entrystructures (oval/circular structures) and should not to be used inRymill and Rundle Parks.

o CPTED principles need to be considered and open stairwellsdescending into the building are not appropriate nor acceptable.Recommend a separate CPTED audit based on the final design.

o Design concepts will resolve land shaping and detailed levelresolution to ensure the surface of the tunnel building is notobvious and blends with the surrounding landscape.

o Design process should involve ACC City Design and Transport staffin process, sign offs and approvals.

o Final design concepts should be to ACC approval.o Specifications for anti-graffiti coatings need to be considered and

approved by ACC (recommend standards used on GallipoliUnderpass).

Portalso Confirm eastern end of tunnel extent is as per Council endorsed

positon (the western mode end of the Rymill Lake extents).o Design concepts as shown in Attachment 2 ofAECOM report are to

be of the same 'family' and not distinctive designs (i.e. northern

portal to be similar to eastern portal and not as per the DPTIreference design by WAX),

o Eastern Portal should be minimal and not overt, obvious or adominant urban design feature - it should be screened with

landscaping.o Consideration of views from Grenfell Street have not been

provided at street level.o Portal frame design must not be climbable nor accessible by

people.o Retaining structures must blend and match the surrounding

existing landscape levels, with no sharp level increases noropportunities for CPTED issues.

o A suitable landscape treatment to deter access to the bus roadwayis required, with no visible fences. On this basis the hedges arenot supported (clipped hedges are not desirable in this locationdue to access and potential maintenance implications), and shouldform part of a more integrated landscape approach to screen any

barriers (if required) to prevent people walking across the busroadway.

o Extent of access prevention needs to be resolved in plan.o Connection detailing of portal frame and panels needs to be

designed to prevent damage and graffiti.o Height of portal frame needs to be confirmed as well as final

extent and materials (non reflective for example).o Anti-graffiti coatings are not specified - suggest specification used

on Gallipoli Underpass is used and extent of application is madeclear.

Bridge Over River Torrens - Drawing SK410

o (Tendered design) Bridge urban design is not appropriate andrequires additional concept development.

o (Tendered design) Edge details under shared path show a 225diameter pipe which is exposed and visible, and not acceptable.

o Width of path (i.e. clear width) needs to be confirmed andapproved.

o Conflicts with engineering drawings in terms of cross section,needs to be clarified to ACC approval as part of the Park Landstrail.

o General comment regarding allowance for existing paths under

bridge to be maintained including clear head heights, clear zonesand CPTED review.

Drawing SK420 - alternative proposal in tender documents:o This is a much better alternative; support structures are elegant

and allow better vistas from River Torrens Linear Park, appears

visually more transparent which is preferred to tender designwhich is visually too dominant, busy and lacking designdevelopment.

o Connection details at abutments need more design resolution.

o 225 diameter pipe edge detail still requires design development.

MovementConstruction Phase

o Currently 1,000+ bike trips and 2,000+ pedestrian trips take placeto and from the City each weekday via Botanic, Rundle, BartelsRoads and the shared use paths in Rundle and Rymill Parks.During construction works, it will be paramount that good and safeaccess is maintained for both people who walk and bike rideduring the day and night from the eastern suburbs to the City toensure that existing pedestrians and bike riders are safely cateredfor, but more importantly to encourage more people to considerwalking or bike riding as an alternative transport choice, otherthan the car, during the construction phase to assist with trafficmanagement.

o Good promotions and signage on-ground will be required to

support any detours put in place.

Park Lands Shared Use Paths in Rymill and Rundle Parkso Council's Smart Move Strategy sets directions for creating great

streets and places for people; and making the City safer andeasier to access for all users. Smart Move has eight key outcomeswith two being "Easy Walking" and "Safe Cycling". Relevant (andkey) strategic directions include: give priority to pedestrians oncity streets, improve pedestrian connections and ease of

navigation, create a safer cycling network within the city andimprove cyclists accessibility to the city. In regards to this project,a number of shared use paths in Rymill Park will be. impacted. Aspart of the project it is important that the following is considered:

• A review of the shared use path and footpath network isundertaken and caters for existing and new desire lines tothe City and inner rim suburbs.

Lighting requirements to cater for recreational and commuter

riders, particularly where new paths are created further away

from the street.• CPTED requirements.

DDA requirements.•• Wayfinding (in accordance with Council's Way-finding

strategy).• Pedestrian and bike access when Rundle and Rymil Parks are

in event mode.o A detailed plan of the path network in Rymill Park, and

connections with Rundle Park, the City and inner rim suburbs willbe essential as part of the projects landscape master plan,

Please note the above is limited to comment only and is not endorsement of the

Deed, easement that requires amendment (running from East Terrace to the

entrance ofTandanya) and other agreements that require modification andCouncil endorsement as part of separate legislative processes.

Yours faithfully/

.^' " • : '/''

/' ' . • ' -

Rebecca RutschackTEAM LEADER- PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Agenda Item 4 - Integrated Transport Planning [2015/01750] [C] - Matter is public information That Council: 1. Welcomes State Government improvements to public transport for the City of

Adelaide and for the State of South Australia generally and while Council would prefer improvements with no impacts, acknowledges that the State Government have amended their concept to respond to stakeholder and community concerns.

2. Supports a revised O-Bahn City Access Project concept that achieves the following:

2.1 The Council endorsed vision and guiding principles as outlined in Attachment A to Item 3 from the meeting of Council held on 31 March 2015.

2.2 The O-Bahn tunnel, if required, consists of a single tunnel and the entrance to the tunnel is as far west towards the western tip of Rymill Lake as possible, with appropriate urban design and greening elements to soften the portal further.

2.3 Rundle Road remains in its current location and is improved to create a flexible and adaptable space that provides a better integration of parking, traffic management, event flexibility, greening and pedestrian / cyclist connectivity through separated bikeway.

2.4 The number of on-street parking spaces delivered by the final design is broadly neutral or increased up to around 50 when compared with the current number of spaces, and that these spaces are in the same proximity to the East End as their current location.

2.5 There is clear and appropriate connectivity across Hackney Road, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

2.6 Access and amenity for the National Wine Centre and the Botanic Gardens is improved based on the current State Government proposal.

2.7 The final design includes flexibility to allow for future changes to city transport needs, including changes in demands for different modes of transport and possible future tram extensions.

2.8 There is no net loss to Park Lands and a desired net gain. 2.9 Trees that are removed as part of the works are replaced by mature trees of a

species and location approved by Council as a minimum and that a net gain of tree replacements is sought.

3. Requests that the Minister continues to work closely with Adelaide City Council throughout the design and construction phases of the project based on the revised concept plan provided by the Minister as shown in Attachment A to Confidential Item 4 on the Agenda for the Special meeting of the Adelaide City Council held on 9 June 2015 to ensure that:

3.1 The landscape and urban design for Park Land and urban areas, which are under the management of Council, is approved by Council and that there is Ministerial commitment of sufficient funds to achieve the realisation of the design agreed by both parties.

3.2 The opportunity for the relocation of significant and appropriate trees is fully considered.

3.3 Before any areas that are impacted by the construction of the O-Bahn project are returned to Council’s care and control that both parties agree that the approved design outcomes have been achieved.

3.4 The Adelaide City Council Administration is included as part of the technical evaluation process including design and asset management matters and has a further role during the construction phase of the project to ensure appropriate coordination of city activities, including events.

3.5 Contamination on the site is managed as part of an Environmental Protection Agency approved management plan and to the satisfaction of Council where contamination is managed in Council controlled areas, with a preference that any contamination is located within State Government managed areas.

3.6 The O-Bahn project is financially neutral for Council, or if there is a negative financial impact that this occurs only if the project outcomes are in line with Council’s strategic goals or asset management plans and as agreed by Council.

3.7 The State Government maintains any new infrastructure, new or remediated Park Lands and any other Council assets that have been in any way altered as a result of the O-Bahn City Access Project, for a period of at least 36 months after the project’s practical completion.

3.8 Long term maintenance, management and responsibilities for the various project elements are clearly identified and agreed.

4. Seeks to enter into a dialogue with the Minister for Transport regarding the broader strategic and integrated public transport infrastructure needs of the City, including:

4.1 Tram routes; 4.2 Broader network and transport mode improvements; and 4.3 Improvements to Currie and Grenfell Street as a major public transport

corridor, for the benefit and enjoyment of all users, stakeholders and bus patrons.

5. Notes that the Park Lands Development Plan Amendment process is currently underway and open for public consultation, and further notes that Council will consider this matter shortly including how best to achieve the project outcomes and approvals for the O-Bahn City Access Project in particular.

6. Indicates a willingness to provide concurrence to the State Government according to the Park Lands Act 2005 to realise the State Government’s revised O-Bahn City Access Project subject to the outcomes of Part 2 herein being met and the outcomes of Part 3 herein being progressed.

7. In accordance with Section 91(7) & (9) of the Local Government Act 1999 and on the grounds that Confidential Item 4 listed on the Agenda for the Special Meeting of Adelaide City Council held on 9 June 2015 was received, discussed and considered in confidence pursuant to Section 90(3) (j) of the Local Government Act 1999, this meeting of the Adelaide City Council, do order that:

7.1 the resolution, the report, the discussion and any other associated information submitted to this meeting and the Minutes of this meeting in relation to the matter remain confidential and not available for public inspection until 31 December 2015;

7.2 the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to review and revoke all or part of the order herein and directed to present a report containing the Item for which the confidentiality order has been revoked.

OriginContactDivisionDecision Date Meeting/Committee

Decison Status: New

13/10/2015

No Report

Murphy, NicolaCITY PLANNING & DESIGN

Agenda Item 17 - Recommendation of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee meeting held in confidence on 6 October 2015 [2014/04842] [C]Recommendation 17.1Recommendation for Committee Item 22 for Council Consideration in Confidence – Infrastructure Management Program – Land Tenure Arrangements [2011/00315] [C]That Council:1. Notes the letter from the Acting Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to the Lord Mayor dated 28 September 2015 (Attachment A of Item 22 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee on 6 October 2015).2. Requests the Lord Mayor to write to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to confirm Council’s intention to provide concurrence to the removal of a portion of Park Lands (Attachment B of Item 22 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee on 6 October 2015) from Council’s care, control and management on the express understanding that the same area of the Park Lands (excluding the area where the constructed tunnel and associated infrastructure will be located underground and the area from the tunnel portal to the Grenfell Street connection) be transferred back to Council’s care, control and management at the completion of the project and that the Minister enters into a project deed (or similar document) to regulate the delivery of the project and the occupation of the Park Lands including the following:2.1 an indemnity clause in which the Minister provides full indemnity to Council from and against any cost, actions, claims or challenge that Council may incur or otherwise suffer in relation to the project including the processes for Council’s concurrence, the use of the area of land covered by the project deed and any occupancy or use of any part of the Park Land;2.2 a reference to an accompanying licence for the areas ancillary to the portion of land to be transferred to the Minister’s care, control and management (Attachment B of Item 22 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee on 6 October 2015) that will be required to support the construction of the O-Bahn tunnel and associated infrastructure;2.3 the standards to be applied to any remediation or development of the Park Lands and surrounding roads, such that the final outcome provides an equivalent or better outcome than currently exists, and the process that will apply to finalise the urban design and handover methodology for the affected Park Lands and surrounding roads to the satisfaction of Council; and2.4 a consideration of the amount of investment that the Minister will commit from the project budget to deliver outcomes for the Park Lands and surrounding roads, to be commensurate with the equivalent licence fee for the area of land to be transferred to the Minister and used for construction under licence, not to be less than $2.145 Million.3. Instructs the CEO to bring back to Council the finalised Deed for Council’s consideration.4. In its capacity as landlord, approves the terms and conditions of the draft Park Lands Licence Agreement (Attachment C of Item 22 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee on 6 October 2015) over a portion of land located in Tainmuntilla (Park 11) , Rundle Park/Kadlitpinna and Rymill Park / Mullawirraburka (Attachment B of Item 22 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee on 6 October 2015) to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for 24 months for the purpose of erecting a works compound and other construction activities in support of the development of the O-Bahn Extension works for public consultation for a period of 21 days.5. Notes that the Licence Plan prepared and shown as Attachment B of Item 22 on the Agenda for the meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Partnerships Committee on 6 October 2015, is indicative and subject to change.6. Approves that the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to continue discussions and finalise the terms and conditions of the proposed Park Lands Licence Agreement with DPTI, this includes but not limited to; 6.1 Making the necessary changes to the licence area once the preferred tenderer is appointed by DPTI;6.2 Confirming the licence duration.7. Notes that community consultation on the licence will be undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999 and Council’s Communication and Public Consultation Policy.8. Notes that a further report on the licence will be brought back to Council with the results of the public consultation and will be considered in public.9. In accordance with Section 91(7) & (9) of the Local Government Act 1999 and on the grounds that Item # listed on the Agenda for the meeting of the Adelaide City Council on 13 October 2015 was received, discussed and considered in confidence pursuant to Section 90(3) (j) of the Local Government Act 1999, this meeting of the Adelaide City Council do order that:-9.1 the resolution, the report, the discussion and any other associated information submitted to this meeting and the Minutes of this meeting in relation to the matter remain confidential and not available for public inspection until 13 October 2022;9.2 the confidentiality of the matter be reviewed in December 2016;9.3 the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to review and revoke all or part of the order herein and directed to present a report containing the item for which the confidentiality order has been revoked.

Description:

Decision ID15919

Council

Page - 20

Development Application - Obahn Tunnel in Rymill Park

Stormwater Infrastructure Comments – Andrew Smith X 235

1. The proposed Rymill Park Tunnel Portal may be located within the 1 in 20 year ARI and 1 in 100 year ARI Botanic Creek floodplain asshown on the attached plan. The floodplain was developed as part of the First to Fifth Creeks Floodplain Mapping Study however thestormwater models used for the mapping were not very detailed and actual levels of inundation may be much greater. Track/road levelsaround the Rymill Park portal must provide a significant freeboard (>300 mm) to the 1 in 100 year ARI Flood Levels in Rymill Park.

2. Given the proposed tunnel will intersect the existing Ф1200 Botanic Creek Rymill Park Lake diversion pipe at approximately midwaythrough the tunnel (as shown on the sketch below), the Ф1200 Botanic Creek Rymill Park Lake diversion pipe will need to be diverted inan easterly direction to allow the pipe to flow beneath the tunnel / portal under gravity conditions. The proposed diversion must bedesigned with minimal losses to minimise the backwater effects upstream.

3. The southern stormwater catchment of Rymill Park (refer to attached catchment plan) accumulates at the northern end of Rymill ParkLake and discharges through an existing spillway. The proposed tunnel elevation through Rymill Park will increase the working spillwaylevel of Rymill Park Lake therefore during significant rainfall events, there is likely to be greater flooding to infrastructure in the southernsection of Rymill Park such as flooding damage to the existing kiosk. This flooding risk will need to be assessed and mitigated.

4. The attached catchment plan shows the 1 in 100 year ARI flow path for the Grenfell Street catchment which discharges into thenorthern catchment of Rymill Park. The Grenfell Street stormwater minor system (1 in 20 year ARI) also discharges to the BotanicCreek watercourse within this catchment of Rymill Park. It is possible that existing floodplain mapping did not include the full 1 in 100year ARI flows from the Grenfell Street catchment and that the level of flood inundation is higher than previously modelled.

5. The proposed footbridge over Torrens Lake adjacent to Hackney Road will involve drilling piers within the River Torrens Channel.Council will require a risk management plan and construction environmental management plan to ensure that the risk of materialspumped under pressure into the pier caissons discharging to the River Torrens Watercourse is minimised / prevented.

1

File Number: 155/709/2015 Enquiries To: Mark Thomson Direct Telephone: 8366 4567 By post & email: [email protected] 18 December 2015 Mr Simon Neldner Team Leader – Investment Management Development Assessment Commission G.P.O. Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Dear Mr Neldner I refer to your letter dated 19 October 2015 and accompanying Section 49 Referral notice (the Notice) dated the same, in relation to Development Application Number 155/V009/15, which has been lodged by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. I understand that the the Development Application has been lodged for works in the nature of:

• O-Bahn Tunnel Ramp and Tunnel Portal on Hackney Road; • consideration of the impacts on surrounding State Heritage items; and • ancillary buildings and structures, such as access and ventilation outlets from

the tunnel, tunnel services buildings, busway kerbing and stormwater infrastructure.

The Council understands that the plans for the O-Bahn tunnel ramp and tunnel portal on Hackney Road and related landscaping are yet to be finalised and are essentially conceptual at this stage. Given this, the Council is of the opinion that the Development Application is at a level that is not capable of being the subject of any meaningful assessment or valid approval. Further, the Council notes that the power of reservation of assessment of aspects of a Development Application, is not available in an assessment that is being undertaken pursuant to Section 49. Therefore, it is not possible for the Minister to lawfully grant Development Plan Consent to the substantive Development Application whilst reserving consideration of the final design of aspects such as the tunnel ramp or portal. In any event, these are fundamental matters which cannot be lawfully reserved for subsequent consideration. Pursuant to Section 49 subsection (5), the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters provides the following report to the Development Assessment Commission, on matters contained in the Notice. We provide this report as best as we can in light of the identified deficiencies in the proposal plans and lack of detail. The Council has today raised these and additional procedural concerns by way of separate correspondence to the Principal Planner of the Development Assessment Commission. You have been copied into that correspondence. 1. Landscaping and urban design concept plans which have been developed by

Wax Design and Taylor Cullity Lethlean (TCL) for the Project The Council was not consulted or involved in the development of the concept plans which have been developed by Wax Design and Taylor Cullity Lethlean (TCL), despite other parties being involved in this process. This has meant that the Council did not consider any of the concepts proposed in these plans until the release of the PIR. Council staff have reviewed the plans and comments have been forwarded to DPTI for consideration. In summary, the Council recommended that DPTI implements the following opportunities to improve the aesthetics of the Project and the streetscape of Hackney Road:

2

a. DPTI to undertake a Parking Management Strategy to identify solutions to accommodate the significant loss of on-street and off-street parking as a result of the O-Bahn Project. The Council requests that the Parking Management Strategy be undertaken across the street networks, to achieve a balanced redistribution across all areas. This Strategy should be undertaken in consultation with the Adelaide City Council and the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters.

b. DPTI to undertake an expanded urban design response to the Hackney Road corridor that

establishes a distinctive, greener urban streetscape with improved pedestrian and cyclist safety and accessibility. The response should from part of a co-ordinated „whole of corridor‟ urban design philosophy and appropriately address the Adelaide City Council, the Botanic Gardens and the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters interface. The urban design response must include:

i. enhanced pedestrian and cyclist crossing points at appropriate spacings along the

corridor, including improved safety and accessibility as well as intersection / verge treatments for users of all abilities and ages;

ii. additional greening of eastern and western verges, to include appropriate new tree plantings, under storey-planting and Water Sensitive Urban Design opportunities;

iii. greater detail regarding the landscape and urban design proposals for the Hackney Road median; and

iv. expanded urban design scope along the corridor beyond the portal that considers secondary interventions such as vertical walls, balustrades and protuberances and other opportunities along the eastern and western verges.

c. DPTI to fund the design, construction and management of a pedestrian bridge across

Hackney Road within the Project scope. The bridge design is to be undertaken in consultation with all stakeholders and form an integral part of a stronger urban design response to the Hackney Road corridor (above) and improved precinct access/circulation

d. DPTI to upgrade the Bundleys Road / Park Terrace / Hackney Road intersection to provide

signalised pedestrian crossing (east/west) as well as improve Richmond Street intersection for pedestrians, cyclist and service vehicles (including caravans turning/access).

2. The possibility of an additional U-turn facility along Hackney Road and in the vicinity of

Westbury Street. Concerns have been raised by residents of Hackney, regarding the ability to travel north along the southern section of Hackney Road which is affected by the Project. The residents have been advocating for this issue for some time now and have requested the installation of a U-turn facility in the vicinity of Westbury Street, to allow for northbound movements. It is the Councils view that the responses which have been provided by DPTI to date, regarding why this U-turn facility cannot be provided, has not been supported with the necessary and required evidence and data to substantiate the response. In this respect, the Council has confirmed its previous requests that a detailed analysis be undertaken by DPTI into the request which has been made by the residents. 3. The possibility of installing ‘KEEP CLEAR’ pavement markings along North Terrace, at its

intersection with Osborne Street. Concerns have been raised by residents of Hackney South, regarding the difficulties which will be experienced by residents seeking to exit Osborne Street onto North Terrace. In addressing these concerns, the residents have requested that DPTI install “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings which will assist in allowing gaps in peak hour traffic for drivers to enter North Terrace. The Council believes that this request has merit and should be considered favourably by DPTI. In this respect, the Council has requested that consideration be given to this request and a definitive response provided in terms of whether or not the pavement markings will be implemented.

3

4. On-street car parking spaces along Hackney Road and Dequetteville Terrace

The current Concept Design proposes the following in respect to car parking:

• Hackney Road (eastern side): Along the eastern side, between Richmond Street and Athelney Avenue, the on-street car parking spaces are contained within the Service Road and changes to current conditions are not proposed as part of the Project. Between Athelney Avenue and Botanic Street, the on-street car parking spaces are within Hackney Road itself and there are approximately 12 spaces. The Project is likely to result in the removal of these on-street car parking spaces during the AM and PM peak times, namely 7.00am to 9.00am and 3.00pm to 7.00pm. Parking outside of these times can be considered and will need to be discussed with DPTI‟s Project Team.

• Hackney Road (western side): Along the western side, just north of Plane Tree Drive, there

are 138 off-street angled car parking spaces which are under the care, control and management of the Adelaide City Council and which are ticketed for up to 8-hours. There are also approximately 39 on-street parallel car parking spaces which are uncontrolled and which are under the care, control and management of the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters.

• Dequetteville Terrace (eastern side): Along the eastern side, between North Terrace and King

William Street, there are five (5) on-street parallel car parking spaces. A No Standing restriction, 7.00am to 9.00am, Monday to Friday applies. Two-hour (2P) time limit controls apply, 9.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 12noon, Saturdays also applies. No restrictions apply outside of the stated times. These car parking provisions will be reviewed in discussions with Council staff.

• Dequetteville Terrace (western side): Along the western side, there are no car parking spaces

currently available as this is a No Stopping area at all times. No changes are proposed to these car parking provisions as part of the Project.

5. The Council is very disappointed and aggrieved by the process which has been used to

consult and negotiate in respect to the Project. Following the announcement of the Project in February 2015, DPTI undertook a stakeholder and community consultation process on the concept design. DPTI‟s consultation process included holding information sessions for the wider community, the Adelaide City Council and the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters. This process also included various discussions with Council staff. On 25 March 2015, DPTI‟s Project Team provided an Information Briefing to the Council‟s Elected Members, at which information on the concept design was provided. In respect to Hackney Road, there were a number of issues of concern which were raised and DPTI was requested to consider and address these concerns, when finalising its concept design. DPTI‟s Project Team advised that further information would be forthcoming in the PIR regarding the issues of concern which had been raised and that the PIR would also provide a summary of the issues which had been raised during the stakeholder and community consultation process and how DPTI would address these issues. On 24 April 2015, the Chief Executive Officer wrote to DPTI to confirm the various discussions held with Council staff, the concerns which had been raised by the Council and the need for the Council to formally consider the concept design of the Project. A response to the issues raised in this letter has not been received from DPTI. At its meeting held on 11 May 2015, the Council considered a report on the concept design which had been developed by DPTI for the Project at that time. In summary, the Council simply noted the concept design (i.e. it did not endorse the concept design) and awaited the PIR before reaching a final position on the Project. In implementing the Council‟s Resolution, the Chief Executive Officer wrote to DPTI (a second time) outlining the Council‟s concerns and requested that these matters be considered and addressed as part of the PIR. A response to this letter has also not been received from DPTI.

4

On 27 August 2015, the PIR was released. Although the issues raised by Council were mentioned in the PIR, it is evident that these issues have not been addressed in any detail nor were the concerns raised by this Council taken seriously by DPTI. The Council has taken the time to carefully consider the concept design on two occasions and has clearly articulated its concerns to DPTI, to no avail. In this respect, whilst this Council has raised legitimate issues of concern regarding the impacts associated with this Project, these were not addressed prior to completing and releasing the PIR. The Adelaide City Council also raised legitimate concerns and issues and yet the Council understands that these were resolved, an amended concept plan for the Project prepared and released before the PIR was finalised and released. The Council is of the view that whilst the issues of concern put forward by both Council‟s are different, the issues nonetheless relate to access, car parking and pedestrian and cyclist safety and should have been addressed concurrently with both Councils and resolved prior to finalizing and releasing to PIR. 6. Council’s expectations that a pedestrian bridge (overpass) is incorporated into the final design

for the Project and that the capital upfront cost associated with the construction of the structure as well as the ongoing maintenance of the same is entirely borne by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

DPTI has identified Hackney Road as a part of the Inner Ring Route which is intended to provide reliable cross-city travel and that it is therefore considered as a high frequency public transport corridor, major traffic and cycling route, freight route, etc. However, as it currently stands, the Project does not include the provision of critical and essential pedestrian and cycling facilities through an overpass bridge. The Council continues to advocate on this issue to ensure that the pedestrian bridge (overpass) is constructed as part of the Project. The Council has clearly communicated its position on this issue and its expectation is that the up-front capital cost of this infrastructure and its ongoing maintenance is entirely borne by DPTI. 7. Absorption of the cost of the proposed Council drainage works into the O-Bahn City Access

Project. As part of its Stormwater Drainage Program, the Council has identified a low point along Hackney Road, at its intersection with Athelney Avenue. To address the issue, the Council engaged Southfront to develop a design. The first order estimate based on this design is $501,250 (excluding GST). Initially, it was agreed to bring forward the timing of the works to coincide with the timing of the Project. However, in light of the Council‟s decision made at its meeting held on 6 October 2015, DPTI will be required to provide the Council with a subsidy for the implementation of these works, as is the case with all other arterial roads where such works are undertaken. DPTI meeting all the costs associated with the proposed drainage works is not unreasonable in the context of the Project and given the budgetary allowances of the Project. It has been agreed that DPTI will “firm up” the costs associated with the proposed drainage works and that further discussions will take place on how these works would be funded following confirmation of the costs. Should you have any questions regarding the Council‟s report on the matters contained in the Notice, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Carlos Buzzetti GENERAL MANAGER, URBAN PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Australian Gov{~rnment

" Department of the Environment

Notification of

REFERRAL DECISION - not controlled action O-Bahn City Access Project, Adelaide, South Australia (EPBC 2015/7601)

This decision is made under Section 75 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Proposed action

person named in the McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd referral

ABN: 002 929 017

proposed action To extend the O-Bahn public transport corridor from Gilberton to the Adelaide Central Business District; as described in the referral received by the Department on 30 October 2015. [See EPBC Act referral 2015/7601].

Referral decision: Not a controlled action

status of proposed action

The proposed action is not a controlled action.

Person authorised to make decision

Name and position Bruce Edwards Assistant Secretary Assessments (WA, SA, NT) and Air Branch

signature

date of decision

Australian Government

Department of tine Environment

EPBC Ref: 2015/7601

Dr Ana Glavinic Environment Planning Coordinator Project Delivery Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Level 3 77 Grenfell Street ADELAIDE SA 5001

Dear Dr Glavinic

Decision on referral O-Bahn City Access Project, Adelaide, South Australia, (EPBC 2015/7601)

This is to advise you of my decision about the proposed action to extend the O-Bahn public transport corridor from Gilberton to the Adelaide Central Business District.

As a delegate of the Minister for the Environment, I have decided that the proposed action is not a controlled action. This means that the proposed action does not require further assessment and approval under the EPBe Act before it can proceed.

A copy of the document recording this decision is enclosed. This document will be published on the Department's website.

Please note that this decision relates only to the specific matters protected under Chapter 2 of the EPBC Act.

This decision does not affect any requirement for separate state or local government environment assessment and approvals of the proposed action.

If you have any questions about the referral process or this decision, please contact the project manager, Pablo Shopen, by email to [email protected] or telephone (02) 62742110 and quote the EPBC reference number shown at the beginning of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Assistant Secretary Assessments (WA, SA, NT) and Air Branch

IS-- December 2015

GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 • Telephone 02 6274 1111 • Facsimile 02 6274 1666 www.environment.gov.au

Ref: SH/13152 DDate: 11 December 2015

Ms Sara ZuidlandSecretaryDevelopment Assessment CommissionGPO Box 1815ADELAIDE SA 5001

Attention: Simon Neldner

Dear Mr Neldner

DESCRIPTION: DEVELOPMENT MATERIALLY AFFECTING CONTEXT OF A STATE HERITAGE PLACE:O- BAHN CITY ACCESS PROJECT - CONSIDERATION OF IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING STATEHERITAGE PLACES - PIRIE STREET; DEQUETTEVILLE TERRACE; BARTELS ROAD AND HACKNEY ROAD,ADELAIDE

Application number: 020/L073/15 BReferral received: 07/10/2015 (Amendments received 20/10/2015)State heritage place: General - Adelaide (CC), ADELAIDE

The above application has been referred to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment andConservation in accordance with Section 49/49A of the Development Act 1993 asdevelopment that directly affects a State heritage place or, in the opinion of the relevantauthority, materially affects the context within which a State heritage place is situated.

Subject to the recommendation set out below, the proposed development is considered to beacceptable in relation to nearby State heritage places for the following reason/s.

The Hackney Road and Grenfell Street portals have no physical impact and do notdetrimentally affect the visual context of the nearby State heritage places, as they arelocated some distance from the State heritage places and are situated either in the ParkLands or in the centre of a major road. Their context is contained within their immediateenvironment, and is not considered to extend to the nearby State heritage places.

The new pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the River Torrens is separated from the Stateheritage-listed Hackney bridge by a newer bridge. There will be no visual or physical impacton the State heritage-listed bridge.

The increased car parking areas on the western side of Hackney Road will not detrimentallyaffect the setting of the nearby State heritage places.

The construction works associated with the roadworks/car parking areas and creation of thetunnel works may have a physical impact on the nearby State heritage places arising fromvibration and its potential to damage the heritage listed buildings and structures. Acondition (as follows) is recommended to establish the condition of the affected places (inthe form of Dilapidation Reports) prior to works commencing, and to monitor the vibrationduring construction.

Recommendation

A. The following condition should be incorporated into any consent or approval.

Condition 1: The recommendations contained in Section 5 (Mitigation) of the ConstructionVibration Assessment Reports (prepared by AECOM and dated 23 July 2015) for both

STATE HERITAGE UNITConservation and LandManagement BranchStrategy and AdviceDirectorateFirst Floor1 Richmond RdKeswick SA 5035GPO Box 1047Adelaide SA 5001AustraliaDX138Ph: +61 8 8124 4960Fax: +61 8 8124 4980www.environment.sa.gov.au




Dear Mr Neldner









Recommendation







Dear Mr Neldner









Recommendation




2

Development Applications shall be followed including the construction scheduling, theequipment and site management and pre-construction dilapidation surveys for allaffected State Heritage Places. The State Heritage Places that fall within the 0.8mm/s or1.3mm/s boundaries for vibration as marked on Maps 1, 2 and 3 of the ConstructionVibration Assessment Report shall be the subject of pre-construction dilapidation surveysand shall be monitored during construction works.

The dilapidation surveys shall be prepared prior to the commencement of site works, tothe satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission. As well as recording fabricin good condition, the survey shall also record the location, type and dimensional extentof any existing physical damage to the place that might be affected by the proposedexcavation and construction works.Reason: To ensure the physical state of the State Heritage Places is known prior to workscommencing so that rectification works (if required) can occur after construction iscompleted and that the vibration levels are monitored throughout the project toprevent physical damage from occurring to the heritage places.

B. The following advice to the applicant should be incorporated into any consent for approval.

Advisory note 1: There is the potential for archaeological remains being encounteredduring excavation works. It is recommended that the proponent engage anarchaeologist experienced in indigenous and non-indigenous archaelogy for pre-disturbance advice, and for specific advice during the progress of the works if the needarises.

The proponent’s attention is drawn to the following legislative requirements.

Heritage Places Act 1993(a) If an archaeological artefact believed to be of heritage significance is encountered

during excavation works, disturbance in the vicinity shall cease and the SA HeritageCouncil shall be notified.

(b) Where it is known in advance (or there is reasonable cause to suspect) thatsignificant archaeological artefacts may be encountered, a permit is required priorto commencing excavation works.

For further information, contact the State Heritage Unit (Department of Environment,Water and Natural Resources) on 8124 4960.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.(a) If Aboriginal sites, objects or remains are discovered during excavation works, the

Aboriginal Heritage Branch of the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division of theDepartment of the Premier and Cabinet (as delegate of the Minister) should benotified under Section 20 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

General notes

1. Any changes to the proposal for which planning consent is sought or granted may give riseto heritage impacts requiring further consultation with the Department of Environment,Water and Natural Resources, or an additional referral to the Minister for Sustainability,Environment and Conservation. Such changes would include for example (a) anapplication to vary the planning consent, or (b) Building Rules documentation thatincorporates differences from the proposal as documented in the planning application.

2. To ensure a satisfactory heritage outcome, the Development Assessment Commission isrequested to consult the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources infinalising any conditions or reserved matters above.

3. In accordance with Regulation 43 of the Development Regulations 2008, please send theDepartment of Environment, Water and Natural Resources a copy of the DecisionNotification.

3

Any enquiries in relation to this application should be directed to Robyn Taylor on telephone8124 4922 or e-mail [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Peter WellsPrincipal Conservation ArchitectDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCESas delegate of theMINISTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION




Dear Mr Neldner

DESCRIPTION: DEVELOPMENT MATERIALLY AFFECTING CONTEXT OF A STATE HERITAGE PLACE:O-BAHN CITY ACCESS PROJECT: CONSIDERATION OF IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING STATEHERITAGE PLACES - ON THE ROAD RESERVE - HACKNEY ROAD, DEQUETTEVILLE TERRACE, KENTTOWN

Application number: 155/V009/15 BReferral received: 07/10/2015 (Amendments received 20/10/2015)State heritage place: General - Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (C), KENT TOWN


Subject to the recommendation set out below, the proposed development is considered tobe acceptable in relation to nearby State heritage places for the following reason/s.





Recommendation







Dear Mr Neldner









Recommendation







Dear Mr Neldner









Recommendation




2

Development Applications shall be followed including the construction scheduling, theequipment and site management and pre-construction dilapidation surveys for allaffected State Heritage Places. The State Heritage Places that fall within the 0.8mm/s or1.3mm/s boundaries for vibration as marked on Maps 1, 2 and 3 of the ConstructionVibration Assessment Report shall be the subject of pre-construction dilapidation surveysand shall be monitored during construction works.

The dilapidation surveys shall be prepared prior to the commencement of site works, tothe satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission. As well as recording fabricin good condition, the survey shall also record the location, type and dimensional extentof any existing physical damage to the place that might be affected by the proposedexcavation and construction works.Reason: To ensure the physical state of the State Heritage Places is known prior to workscommencing so that rectification works (if required) can occur after construction iscompleted and that the vibration levels are monitored throughout the project toprevent physical damage from occurring to the heritage places.

B. The following advice to the applicant should be incorporated into any consent for approval.

Advisory note 1: There is the potential for archaeological remains being encounteredduring excavation works. It is recommended that the proponent engage anarchaeologist experienced in indigenous and non-indigenous archaelogy for pre-disturbance advice, and for specific advice during the progress of the works if the needarises.

The proponent’s attention is drawn to the following legislative requirements.

Heritage Places Act 1993(a) If an archaeological artefact believed to be of heritage significance is encountered

during excavation works, disturbance in the vicinity shall cease and the SA HeritageCouncil shall be notified.

(b) Where it is known in advance (or there is reasonable cause to suspect) thatsignificant archaeological artefacts may be encountered, a permit is required priorto commencing excavation works.

For further information, contact the State Heritage Unit (Department of Environment,Water and Natural Resources) on 8124 4960.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.(a) If Aboriginal sites, objects or remains are discovered during excavation works, the

Aboriginal Heritage Branch of the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division of theDepartment of the Premier and Cabinet (as delegate of the Minister) should benotified under Section 20 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

General notes

1. Any changes to the proposal for which planning consent is sought or granted may give riseto heritage impacts requiring further consultation with the Department of Environment,Water and Natural Resources, or an additional referral to the Minister for Sustainability,Environment and Conservation. Such changes would include for example (a) anapplication to vary the planning consent, or (b) Building Rules documentation thatincorporates differences from the proposal as documented in the planning application.

2. To ensure a satisfactory heritage outcome, the Development Assessment Commission isrequested to consult the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources infinalising any conditions or reserved matters above.

3. In accordance with Regulation 43 of the Development Regulations 2008, please send theDepartment of Environment, Water and Natural Resources a copy of the DecisionNotification.

3

Any enquiries in relation to this application should be directed to Robyn Taylor on telephone8124 4922 or e-mail [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Peter WellsPrincipal Conservation ArchitectDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCESas delegate of theMINISTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER 020/L073/15

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY OF STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY REFERRALS ON THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Page 1 of 14

SECTION 33 –DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PARK LANDS, WITHIN ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL

No. AUTHOR / DATE RECEIVED

ISSUE SUMMARY COMMENT/RESPONSE

1. General Manager, Operational Services for Commissioner of Highways

(12 November 2015)

1. The O-Bahn City Access Project is being undertaken by DPTI to increase the efficiency of bus and general traffic movements into and out of the CBD through the construction of a new tunnel under the east park lands and dedicated bus lanes on Hackney Road. The project is consistent with the objectives of the Operation Moving Traffic, which seeks to more efficiently move people, goods and services on our roads and public transport networks.

Comment noted.

2. SSD supports the proposed development. Comment noted.

2. Rebecca Rutschack, Team Leader – Planning Assessment, Adelaide City Council (30 November 2015)

Theme: Park Lands, Landscaping, Level Changes / Sculpture of Landscaping

1. Tree replacements must be as large and mature as possible at the time of planting. It is suggested trees are a minimum of 5 metres high at the time of planting, with the corresponding canopy widths and trunk calliper's.

A detailed landscaping plan is to be prepared in collaboration with Council. Tree plantings of 5m are specified for new tree plantings for the project. There may be some exceptions to this minimum size depending on final species selection (to be negotiated with Council) and other such factors.

The department will request that DAC include a condition on the Development Plan Consent relating to the provision of the detailed landscaping design.

2. Any level changes to existing levels around mature trees that are proposed to be retained needs further consideration by DAC. Mature trees to remain will be affected by an increase in levels around the bases of trunk or within the Tree Protection Zone as the existing root system will die back affecting the Useful Life Expectancy of those trees. Over time, there is a strong chance they will die or become unstable and a risk to public (acknowledging that this may take some years).

The existing levels and Tree Protection Zones will be maintained

around the retained Significant/Regulated and mature trees within

the affected area wherever possible to ensure the health and

vitality of such trees.

Work around such trees will be supervised by a suitably qualified

arborist design and during construction.

of 14



3. Tree replacement should not be based purely on the typical DPTI vegetation offset policy e.g. three new for one significant tree loss. The character of Rymill and Rundle Park should be acknowledged and the landscape design should be reflective of this, meaning tree species selection must be in keeping with the existing character e.g. a mixture of exotic and native species as is the existing situation.

The importance of replacement landscaping is acknowledged.

DAC will determine the replacement ratio appropriate for

significant tree planting offsets, not the department.

The department will continue to work closely with Council in

relation to replacement planting within Rymill and Rundle Parks.

4. Design concepts will resolve land shaping and detailed level resolution to ensure all new or amended structures associated with any aspect of the O-Bahn City Access Project (tunnels, walls, retaining structures, barriers, etc.) blend with the existing surrounding landscape levels and there are no visible evidence of the tunnel from the park lands unless required (e.g. tunnel services building, exit portals, and the like).

Comment noted.

5. All species, selections, plant numbers, planting details and the like should be to ACC approval.

See response to comment 1 above.

Species selection will be determined in consultation with Council

thought the detailed design development to ensure consistency

with the Adelaide Park Lands Design Manual and other guiding

principles.

6. All tree relocations should be to ACC approval. Comment noted.

DPTI also note the Council resolution on this matter and will

continue to liaise with Council on any tree relocation matters.

Theme: Design of Tunnel & Ancillary Building

Access to Tunnel Services Building

7. Elements associated with the subterranean building including venting, access and visible structures should not be standalone elements.

Comment noted.

Visible structures have been designed to complement the park setting. The final design of such structures will be undertaken in collaboration with Council.

The plans are continuing to be developed through the detailed design phase of the project and in consultation with key stakeholders.

As part of this process, key stakeholders, including the Adelaide City Council were further engaged in the review of the urban design approach through attendance at the Government Architect's independent urban design review process conducted on 25 November 2015. Most recently an ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’ was held on 28 January 2016 consisting of representatives from the project team, contractor team, Adelaide

of 14



City Council, City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, Botanic Gardens Board and the Government Architect (ODASA).

Overall, the final design is being developed through an innovative and collaborative process. The Development Assessment Commission may wish to include conditions or a Reserved Matter, seeking further clarity in relation to specific elements of the project

final tunnel and ramp design - including finished surface levels

final tunnel services and ancillary infrastructure design

final tunnel portal design

final shared use (River Torrens) bridge design

final car parking layout (Botanic Gardens) design

final hard and soft landscaping plan - including species schedule, planting locations, street furniture, pedestrian and cycle paths, wayfinding, corridor barriers and fencing details

8. Consideration should be given and designs prepared to integrate all structures within one structure. One scenario is that an additional use be considered to integrate the stairs and vent structures, such as new toilet facilities to ACC design approval and standards (with external washing facilities as an example), as shown in the examples in the ACC document 'O-Bahn City Access Project, Adelaide Design Manual, East Terrace, Rundle Road and Public Domain Elements Design Brief’ dated November 2015.


DPTI note that current advice from Council is that there are no

current proposals from Council to provide new toilet facilities within

the Park Lands and that the existing second toilet block within

Rundle Park is not required.

9. Corten should not to be the principal material of any building in the Park Lands but part of a suite as referred in the ACC Park Lands Buildings Guidelines.

Comment noted.

The Tunnel Service Building Plan prepared by Oxigen (in the

section 33 Development Application Response for Further

Information) indicates that the access door to the service building

and the air inlet riser may be clad with Corten (steel cladding),

however there is flexibility within the concept design for the

cladding material to be further developed in collaboration with

Council. This was discussed most recently with Council and other

stakeholders at the ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’ was held

on 28 January 2016.

10. The MCD tender design is too similar to the Adelaide Oval entry structures (oval/circular structures) and should not to

Comment noted.

of 14



be used in Rymill and Rundle Parks. See response to comment 7 & 9

11. CPTED principles need to be considered and open stairwells descending into the building are not appropriate nor acceptable. Recommend a separate CPTED audit based on the final design.

CPTED principles have been, and will continue to be considered

in the design of the Tunnel Services Building and associated

access points; and for the project as a whole.

The open stairwell option is not being pursued by DPTI for CPTED

reasons.

12. Design concepts will resolve land shaping and detailed level resolution to ensure the surface of the tunnel building is not obvious and blends with the surrounding landscape.

Comment noted.

Detailed land shaping and level resolution will be undertaken by

the contractor to ensure that the surface of the tunnel building is

not obvious and blends with the surrounding landscape.

13. Design process should involve ACC City Design and Transport staff in process, sign offs and approvals.


The department will continue to work closely with the ACC City

Design and Transport team through the detailed design of the

project in accordance with the executed project licence and the

project deed that is being finalised between DPTI and ACC.

14. Final design concepts should be to ACC approval. See response to comment 13 above.

15. Specifications for anti-graffiti coatings need to be considered and approved by ACC (recommend standards used on Gallipoli Underpass).

Comment noted.

The final materials and finishes selection is being undertaken by

DPTI with the contractor and will involve discussions and

agreement with ACC.

Portals

16. Confirm eastern end of tunnel extent is as per Council endorsed positon (the western mode end of the Rymill Lake extents).

Council position: The O-Bahn tunnel, if required, consists of a single tunnel and the entrance to the tunnel is as far west towards the western tip of Rymill Lake as possible, with appropriate urban design and greening elements to soften the portal further.

As noted in the Project Impact Report, DPTI has worked collaboratively with the Adelaide City Council in the development of the current scheme, which contains the following features:

• An extension of the tunnel by an additional 140 metres

(to a total length of 650 metres), with the entry/exit portal

located much closer to Grenfell Street, to reduce the

impact on the amenity of Rymill Park;

• Lowering of the grade line of the busway in Rymill Park

as it ramps back to ground level in the vicinity of the old

tram embankment.

of 14



• Better use made of the embankment to aid in the

provision of screening between the Rymill Park lake

recreational area and the busway.

This will increase the physical separation, and reduce the visual and noise impacts from buses in the vicinity of Rymill Park Lake.

Also see response to comment 7 above.

17. Design concepts as shown in Attachment 2 of the AECOM report are to be of the same 'family' and not distinctive designs (i.e. northern portal to be similar to eastern portal and not as per the DPTI reference design by WAX).

Comment noted.

Landscape and urban design has been an integral component in

developing the O-Bahn City Access Project’s concept design and

aims to recognise not only those using the transport network but

also those that live within its vicinity, Park Lands users and City

visitors. The detailed design of the tunnel portal within the Park

Lands is being refined and finalised in consultation with key

stakeholders, including Council.


18. Eastern Portal should be minimal and not overt, obvious or a dominant urban design feature - it should be screened with landscaping.

As noted above, the eastern tunnel portal within Rymill Park will

be significantly landscaped and screened to soften the visual

impact of the portal.

19. Consideration of views from Grenfell Street have not been provided at street level.

See response to comment 7 and 17, above.

20. Portal frame design must not be climbable nor accessible by people.

Comment noted.

The tunnel portals have been designed to consider Crime

Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to

prevent the potential for people to access or climb on the tunnel

structures. This will be further supported by material and finish

selection during the detailed design that prevents easy access to

the structures, in addition to landscaping surrounding the tunnel

portals to further provide a physical buffer to the portals.

Lighting and passive surveillance are also key considerations in

the detailed design development.

21. Retaining structures must blend and match the surrounding existing landscape levels, with no sharp level increases nor opportunities for CPTED issues.

Comment noted.

The proposed retaining structures associated with the tunnel

of 14



structures have been designed to blend with and complement the

surrounding existing landscape levels, to avoid sharp level

increases and in consideration of CPTED issues to prevent

access and enhance safety for O-Bahn users whilst balancing the

safety structural and functional requirements. As noted above, the

detailed design of the structures is currently being undertaken and

will consider the CPTED principles.

22. A suitable landscape treatment to deter access to the bus roadway is required, with no visible fences. On this basis the hedges are not supported (clipped hedges are not desirable in this location due to access and potential maintenance implications), and should form part of a more integrated landscape approach to screen any barriers (if required) to prevent people walking across the bus roadway.

Comment noted.


23. Extent of access prevention needs to be resolved in plan. Comment noted.


24. Connection detailing of portal frame and panels needs to be designed to prevent damage and graffiti.

Comment noted.


25. Height of portal frame needs to be confirmed as well as final extent and materials (non-reflective for example).


26. Anti-graffiti coatings are not specified - suggest specification used on Gallipoli Underpass is used and extent of application is made clear.

Comment noted.

The department is continuing to develop the detailed design with

the contractor which includes final selections of materials and

finishes. DAC could include a condition on the Development Plan

Consent that the materials and finishes selected incorporate anti-

graffiti coatings.

Theme: Bridge Over River Torrens – Drawing SK410

27. (Tendered design) Bridge urban design is not appropriate and requires additional concept development.

As noted above, the detailed design of the structures is currently being undertaken. The department will continue to work with key stakeholders on the detailed design including Council.

As part of this process, an ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’

was held on 28 January 2016, additional screening options to

conceal the view of the pipe were discussed and are to be developed further during the detailed design.


of 14



28. (Tendered design) Edge details under shared path show a 225 diameter pipe which is exposed and visible, and not acceptable.

Comment noted.


29. Width of path (i.e. clear width) needs to be confirmed and approved.

Comment noted.


30. Conflicts with engineering drawings in terms of cross section, needs to be clarified to ACC approval as part of the Park Lands trail.

Comment noted.


31. General comment regarding allowance for existing paths under bridge to be maintained including clear head heights, clear zones and CPTED review.

Comment noted.


Drawing SK420 – alternative proposal in tender documents

NOTE ACC PREFER THIS OPTION

32. This is a much better alternative; support structures are elegant and allow better vistas from River Torrens Linear Park, appears visually more transparent which is preferred to tender design which is visually too dominant, busy and lacking design development.

Comment noted.

As stated previously, the department are developing the detailed design of the structures with the contractor and input from key stakeholders, and will consider comments made in submissions on the proposed development.


33. Connection details at abutments need more design resolution.

Comment noted.


the contractor.

34. 225 diameter pipe edge detail still requires design development.

Comment noted.

See response to comments 7 and 27 above.

Theme: Movement

Construction Phase

35. Currently 1,000+ bike trips and 2,000+ pedestrian trips take place to and from the City each weekday via Botanic, Rundle, Bartels Roads and the shared use paths in Rundle and Rymill Parks. During construction works, it will be paramount that good and safe access is maintained for both people who walk and bike ride during the day and night from the eastern suburbs to the City to ensure that existing pedestrians and bike riders are safely catered for, but more

Comment noted

The department recognises that a major challenge in delivering the O-Bahn City Access Project is ensuring that the impacts on the environment, business operations, residents and the hosting of major events during the construction phase are sensitively managed in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.

Accordingly, the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the project will be prepared to detail how the

of 14



importantly to encourage more people to consider walking or bike riding as an alternative transport choice, other than the car, during the construction phase to assist with traffic management.

contractor will manage temporary detours and construction works, and how this will be communicated to the public.

36. Good promotions and signage on-ground will be required to support any detours put in place.

Comment noted.


Park Lands Shared Use Paths In Rymill and Rundle Parks

37. Council's Smart Move Strategy sets directions for creating great streets and places for people; and making the City safer and easier to access for all users. Smart Move has eight key outcomes with two being "Easy Walking" and "Safe Cycling". Relevant (and key) strategic directions include: give priority to pedestrians on city streets, improve pedestrian connections and ease of navigation, create a safer cycling network within the city and improve cyclists accessibility to the city. In regards to this project, a number of shared use paths in Rymill Park will be impacted. As part of the project it is important that the following is considered:

A review of the shared use path and footpath network is undertaken and caters for existing and new desire lines to the City and inner rim suburbs.

Lighting requirements to cater for recreational and commuter riders, particularly where new paths are created further away from the street.

CPTED requirements.

DDA requirements.

Wayfinding (in accordance with Council's Way-finding strategy).

Pedestrian and bike access when Rundle and Rymill Parks are in event mode.

Comment noted.


the contractor and Adelaide City Council through the detailed

design and construction stages of the project.

The department will consider the following in discussion with

Council:

A review of the shared use path and footpath network is undertaken and caters for existing and new desire lines to the City and inner rim suburbs.

Lighting requirements to cater for recreational and commuter riders, particularly where new paths are created further away from the street.

CPTED requirements.

DDA requirements.

Wayfinding (in accordance with Council's Way-finding strategy).

Pedestrian and bike access when Rundle and Rymill Parks are in event mode.

38. A detailed plan of the path network in Rymill Park, and connections with Rundle Park, the City and inner rim suburbs will be essential as part of the project’s landscape master plan.

The response to the request for information to the DAC Development Assessment Commission on 6 November 2015 included the Park Lands Paths – Existing and New Plan (Attachment 10) which outlined the existing and new walking and cycling trails within the park lands associated with the project.

3. Nick Tridente, South Australian Associate

1. Support the proposal for the O-Bahn City Access Comment noted.

of 14



Government Architect, Office for Design & Architecture South Australia

(9 December 2015)

Development in principle.

2. Overall support for urban design approach as a means to preserve pedestrian amenity and improve public transport services, particularly during peak activity periods in the east end of the city.

Comment noted.

Landscape and urban design has been an integral component in developing the O-Bahn City Access Project’s concept design and aims to recognise not only those using the transport network but also those who live within its vicinity, Park Land users and City visitors.

3. Important to ensure that the intent of the urban design strategy is supported by innovative resolution of the infrastructure engineering and design.

Comment noted.


As part of this process, key stakeholders, including the Adelaide City Council were further engaged in the review of the urban design approach through attendance at the Government Architect's independent urban design review process conducted on 25 November 2015. Most recently an ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’ was held on 28 January 2016 consisting of representatives from the project team, contractor team, Adelaide City Council, City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, Botanic Gardens Board and the Government Architect (ODASA).







final hard and soft landscaping plan - including species schedule, planting locations, street furniture, pedestrian

of 14



and cycle paths, wayfinding, corridor barriers and fencing details.

4. Further opportunities exist to achieve more coherence in the design of each element in order to create a distinctive and positive addition to the park lands and to the experience of this gateway to the City.


5. Proposal includes optional treatment to the Rundle Street Intersection at East Terrace that would encourage shared use. Support as means to strengthen the connection and improve safety between the City and Park lands during festival time.

Comment noted.

6. Encourage protecting the proposed shared zone through design development and cost management processes.


7. Ongoing discussion with Adelaide City Council will inform the design development of this area.

Comment noted.


8. Potential light rail extensions through this intersection should be anticipated in the design.

Comment noted.

The project design has anticipated a potential future light rail extension as per the key project objectives in the Project impact Report.

9. Proposed connection to Grenfell Street incorporates realignment of the portion of East Terrace between Grenfell and Pirie Streets. Concerned that proposal should anticipate that uplift within the City, which is encouraged by current policy, is likely to result in increased use of connections through to the east Park Lands and Rymill Park in particular.

The Commission may wish to seek further information that demonstrates how the realignment will integrate with pedestrian and cycling connections as well as the likely impact on the Park lands and on public realm on the western side of East Terrace.

Comment noted.


10. Grenfell Street portal will be highly visible from the City and the Park Lands. It is critical to achieve a high quality and refined portal design facing Grenfell Street. The Commission may seek further information relating to design resolution of the Grenfell Street tunnel entrance.

Comment noted.


11. The proposed service and ancillary structures are separately housed in a series of sculptural elements within the Park

Comment noted.

of 14



Lands setting. The success of the current approach will rely on further refinement of the design concept without losing the generosity of the intent to achieve a well-designed series of distinctive objects.

Opportunities exist to optimise the proposed structures by incorporating services that will support the ambitions of the Park Lands Management Strategy such as public toilets and wayfinding information. Commission may wish to seek further information that demonstrated more resolved design of ancillary structures.


12. Both Hackney Road and Grenfell Street portals are conceptually delicate mesh structures that drape over the vehicle entry and exit structures which drape over the vehicle entry and exit options. The proposed portal on Hackney Road is for a series of ribs that land on a concrete base, which also forms the safety barrier. The overarching structure should be more seamlessly integrated with the safety barrier in order to achieve a strong and distinctive gateway statement that is connected to the ground plane.

In order to protect the design intent, it will be critical that innovative engineering solutions are investigated at an early stage.

Comment noted.


13. The Hackney Road section of the proposal includes a median strip barrier that is a vine covered structure which is a response to existing road barriers on the west of Hackney Road as well as a connection to the Botanic Gardens. Encourage further exploration of opportunities to extend a similar expression across the tunnel portal in this location.

Comment noted.


14. Next stage of design development should further consider ways to support better pedestrian connectivity between the Park Lands, as well as a lighting strategy to provide safe pedestrian/cycling connectivity.

Comment noted.


15. Support in principle pedestrian and cycling bridge across the Torrens that extends and improves existing cycling and walking networks. However, not convinced that proposed Super-T construction of the pedestrian bridge is commensurate with the existing quality and character of the linear park.

Commission may wish to seek further information that

Comment noted.


of 14



demonstrates how the proposed pedestrian bridge related to the riverbank context and how it responds to the adjacent heritage item.

16. Critical to the overall success of the project that pedestrian connections across the Park Lands are accessible and legible.

Commission may wish to seek further information relating to way-finding details for the final design and during the construction period.

Comment noted.


17. Need for further information that demonstrated how the realignment will integrate with pedestrian and cycling connections, as well as the likely impact on the Park Lands and on public realm on the western side of East Terrace.

Comment noted.


18. Further information relating to design resolution of the Grenfell Street tunnel entrance.

Comment noted.

See response to Comment 3 above.

19. Further information that demonstrates more resolved design of ancillary structures with reference to the public amenity ambitions of the Park Lands Management Strategy.

Comment noted.


20. Further information that demonstrated how the proposed pedestrian bridge relates to the riverbank context and how it responds to the adjacent heritage item.

Comment noted.


21. Further information relating to wayfinding details for the final design and during the construction period as well as a lighting strategy for the new pedestrian and cycling connections to the eastern suburbs.

Comment noted.


4. Peter Wells, Principal Conservation Architect, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources as delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

(11 December 2015)

1. Subject to the recommendation set out below, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in relation to nearby State heritage places.

Comment noted.

of 14



2. The Hackney Road and Grenfell Street portals have no physical impact and do not detrimentally affect the visual context of the nearby State heritage places, as they are located some distance from the State heritage places and are situated either in the Park Lands or in the centre of a major road. Their context is contained within their immediate environment, and is not considered to extend to the nearby State heritage places.

Comment noted.

3. The new pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the River Torrens is separated from the State heritage-listed Hackney Bridge by a newer bridge. There will be no visual or physical impact on the State heritage-listed bridge.

Comment noted.

4. The increased car parking areas on the western side of Hackney Road will not detrimentally affect the setting of the nearby State heritage places.

Comment noted.

5. The construction works associated with the roadworks/car parking areas and creation of the tunnel works may have a physical impact on the nearby State heritage places arising from vibration and its potential to damage the heritage listed buildings and structures. A condition (as follows) is recommended to establish the condition of the affected places (in the form of Dilapidation Reports) prior to works commencing, and to monitor the vibration during construction.

Condition 1:

The recommendations contained in Section 5 (Mitigation) of the Construction Vibration Assessment Reports (prepared by AECOM and dated 23 July 2015) for both Development Applications shall be followed including the construction scheduling, the equipment and site management and pre-construction dilapidation surveys for all affected State Heritage Places. The State Heritage Places that fall within the 0.8mm/s or 1.3mm/s boundaries for vibration as marked on Maps 1, 2 and 3 of the Construction Vibration Assessment Report shall be the subject of pre-construction dilapidation surveys and shall be monitored during construction works.

The dilapidation surveys shall be prepared prior to the commencement of site works, to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission. As well as

Comment noted.

The Development Assessment Commission may wish to include the suggested condition and advisory notes from the State Heritage Branch on the relevant application approvals.

of 14



recording fabric in good condition, the survey shall also record the location, type and dimensional extent of any existing physical damage to the place that might be affected by the proposed excavation and construction works.

Advisory Notes (various)

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER 155/V009/15

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY OF STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY SUBMISSIONS ON THE CROWN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

DURING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PERIOD

Page 1 of 11

SECTION 49 – CROWN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE PARK LANDS, WITHIN THE CITY OF NORWOOD PAYNEHAM & ST PETERS



1. General Manager, Operational Services for Commissioner of Highways

(12 November 2015)

1. The O-Bahn City Access Project is being undertaken by DPTI to increase the efficiency of bus and general traffic movements into and out of the CBD through the construction of a new tunnel under the east park lands and dedicated bus lanes on Hackney Road. The project is consistent with the objectives of the Operation Moving Traffic, which seeks to more efficiently move people, goods and services on our roads and public transport networks.

Comment noted.

2. SSD supports the proposed development. Comment noted.

2. Nick Tridente, South Australian Associate Government Architect, Office for Design & Architecture South Australia

(9 December 2016)

1. Support the proposal for the O-Bahn City Access Development in principle.

Comment noted.

2. Overall support for urban design approach as a means to preserve pedestrian amenity and improve public transport services, particularly during peak activity periods in the east end of the city.

Comment noted.

Landscape and urban design has been an integral component in developing the O-Bahn City Access Project’s concept design and aims to recognise not only those using the transport network but also those who live within its vicinity, Park Land users and City visitors.

3. Important to ensure that the intent of the urban design strategy is supported by innovative resolution of the infrastructure engineering and design.

Comment noted.

The plans are continuing to be developed through the detailed design phase of the project and in consultation with

of 11



key stakeholders.

As part of this process, key stakeholders, including the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, Adelaide City Council and Botanic gardens were further engaged in the review of the urban design approach through attendance at the Government Architect's independent urban design review process conducted on 25 November 2015. Most recently an ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’ was held on 28 January 2016 consisting of representatives from the project team, contractor team, Adelaide City Council, City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, Botanic Gardens Board and the Government Architect (ODASA).

Overall, the final design is being developed through an innovative and collaborative process. The Development Assessment Commission may wish to include conditions or a Reserved Matter, seeking further clarity in relation to specific elements of the project:






final hard and soft landscaping plan - including species schedule, planting locations, street furniture, pedestrian and cycle paths, wayfinding, corridor barriers and fencing details.

4. Further opportunities exist to achieve more coherence in the design of each element in order to create a distinctive and positive addition to the park lands and to the experience of this gateway to the City.


5. Proposal includes optional treatment to the Rundle Street Intersection at East Terrace that would encourage shared use. Support as means to strengthen the connection and improve safety between the City and Park lands during festival time.

Comment noted.

The plans are continuing to be developed through the detailed design phase of the project in consultation with Adelaide City Council and other key stakeholders.

of 11



6. Encourage protecting the proposed shared zone through design development and cost management processes.


7. Ongoing discussion with Adelaide City Council will inform the design development of this area.

Comment noted.


8. Potential light rail extensions through this intersection should be anticipated in the design.

Comment noted.

The project design has anticipated a potential future light rail extension.

9. Proposed connection to Grenfell Street incorporates realignment of the portion of East Terrace between Grenfell and Pirie Streets. Concerned that proposal should anticipate that uplift within the City, which is encouraged by current policy, is likely to result in increased use of connections through to the east Park Lands and Rymill Park in particular.

The Commission may wish to seek further information that demonstrates how the realignment will integrate with pedestrian and cycling connections as well as the likely impact on the Park lands and on public realm on the western side of East Terrace.

Comment noted.


10. Grenfell Street portal will be highly visible from the City and the Park Lands. It is critical to achieve a high quality and refined portal design facing Grenfell Street. The Commission may seek further information relating to design resolution of the Grenfell Street tunnel entrance.

Comment noted.


11. The proposed service and ancillary structures are separately housed in a series of sculptural elements within the Park Lands setting. The success of the current approach will rely on further refinement of the design concept without losing the generosity of the intent to achieve a well-designed series of distinctive objects.

Opportunities exist to optimise the proposed structures by incorporating services that will support the ambitions of the Park Lands Management Strategy such as public toilets and wayfinding information. Commission may wish to seek further information that demonstrated more resolved design of ancillary structures.

Comment noted.


12. Both Hackney Road and Grenfell Street portals are conceptually delicate mesh structures that drape over the

Comment noted.


of 11



vehicle entry and exit structures which drape over the vehicle entry and exit options. The proposed portal on Hackney Road is for a series of ribs that land on a concrete base, which also forms the safety barrier. The overarching structure should be more seamlessly integrated with the safety barrier in order to achieve a strong and distinctive gateway statement that is connected to the ground plane.

In order to protect the design intent, it will be critical that innovative engineering solutions are investigated at an early stage.

13. The Hackney Road section of the proposal includes a median strip barrier that is a vine covered structure which is a response to existing road barriers on the west of Hackney Road as well as a connection to the Botanic Gardens. Encourage further exploration of opportunities to extend a similar expression across the tunnel portal in this location.

Comment noted.


14. Next stage of design development should further consider ways to support better pedestrian connectivity between the Park Lands, as well as a lighting strategy to provide safe pedestrian/cycling connectivity.

Comment noted.


15. Support in principle pedestrian and cycling bridge across the Torrens that extends and improves existing cycling and walking networks. However, not convinced that proposed Super-T construction of the pedestrian bridge is commensurate with the existing quality and character of the linear park.

Commission may wish to seek further information that demonstrates how the proposed pedestrian bridge related to the riverbank context and how it responds to the adjacent heritage item.

Comment noted.


16. Critical to the overall success of the project that pedestrian connections across the Park Lands are accessible and legible.

Commission may wish to seek further information relating to way-finding details for the final design and during the construction period.

Comment noted.


17. Need for further information that demonstrated how the realignment will integrate with pedestrian and cycling connections, as well as the likely impact on the Park Lands

Comment noted.


of 11



and on public realm on the western side of East Terrace.

18. Further information relating to design resolution of the Grenfell Street tunnel entrance.

Comment noted.


19. Further information that demonstrates more resolved design of ancillary structures with reference to the public amenity ambitions of the Park Lands Management Strategy.

Comment noted.


20. Further information that demonstrated how the proposed pedestrian bridge relates to the riverbank context and how it responds to the adjacent heritage item.

Comment noted.


21. Further information relating to wayfinding details for the final design and during the construction period as well as a lighting strategy for the new pedestrian and cycling connections to the eastern suburbs.

Comment noted.


3. Peter Wells, Principal Conservation Architect, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources as delegate of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

(11 December 2015)

1. Subject to the recommendation set out below, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in relation to nearby State heritage places.

Comment noted.

2. The Hackney Road and Grenfell Street portals have no physical impact and do not detrimentally affect the visual context of the nearby State heritage places, as they are located some distance from the State heritage places and are situated either in the Park Lands or in the centre of a major road. Their context is contained within their immediate environment, and is not considered to extend to the nearby State heritage places.

Comment noted.

3. The new pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the River Torrens is separated from the State heritage-listed Hackney Bridge by a newer bridge. There will be no visual or physical impact on the State heritage-listed bridge.

Comment noted.

4. The increased car parking areas on the western side of Hackney Road will not detrimentally affect the setting of the

Comment noted.

of 11



nearby State heritage places.

5. The construction works associated with the roadworks/car parking areas and creation of the tunnel works may have a physical impact on the nearby State heritage places arising from vibration and its potential to damage the heritage listed buildings and structures. A condition (as follows) is recommended to establish the condition of the affected places (in the form of Dilapidation Reports) prior to works commencing, and to monitor the vibration during construction.

Condition 1:

The recommendations contained in Section 5 (Mitigation) of the Construction Vibration Assessment Reports (prepared by AECOM and dated 23 July 2015) for both Development Applications shall be followed including the construction scheduling, the equipment and site management and pre-construction dilapidation surveys for all affected State Heritage Places. The State Heritage Places that fall within the 0.8mm/s or 1.3mm/s boundaries for vibration as marked on Maps 1, 2 and 3 of the Construction Vibration Assessment Report shall be the subject of pre-construction dilapidation surveys and shall be monitored during construction works.

The dilapidation surveys shall be prepared prior to the commencement of site works, to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission. As well as recording fabric in good condition, the survey shall also record the location, type and dimensional extent of any existing physical damage to the place that might be affected by the proposed excavation and construction works.

Advisory Notes (various)

Comment noted.

The Development Assessment Commission may wish to include the suggested condition and advisory notes from the State Heritage Branch on the relevant application approvals.

4. Carlos Buzzetti, General Manager, Urban Planning & Environment, City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters

(18 December 2015)

1. Plans for the O-Bahn tunnel ramp and tunnel portal on Hackney Road and related landscaping are yet to be finalised and are essentially conceptual at this stage. Given this, the Council is of the opinion that the Development Application is at a level that is not capable of being the subject of any meaningful assessment or valid approval.

Comment noted.


As part of this process key stakeholders, including the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters were further engaged in the review of the urban design approach through attendance at the Government Architect's independent urban design review process conducted on 25 November 2015. Most recently an ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’ was held on 28 January 2016 consisting of representatives from the project team,

of 11



contractor team, Adelaide City Council, City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, Botanic Gardens Board and the Government Architect.







final hard and soft landscaping plan - including species schedule, planting locations, street furniture, pedestrian and cycle paths, wayfinding, corridor barriers and fencing details.

2. Council notes that the power of reservation of assessment of aspects of a Development Application is not available in an assessment that is being undertaken pursuant to Section 49. Therefore, it is not possible for the Minister to lawfully grant Development Plan Consent to the substantive Development Application whilst reserving consideration of the final design of aspects such as the tunnel ramp or portal.

Under section 49 (13) of the Development Act 1993, the Minister may approve the whole or part of a proposed development, subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit.

Thus, the Minister may ‘reserve’ his decision on various aspects of the project.

3. Council was not consulted or involved in the development of the concept plans which have been developed by Wax Design and TCL despite other parties being involved in the process. Council recommends that DPTI implements the following opportunities to improve the aesthetics of the Project and the streetscape of Hackney Road.

In August 2015, the State Government released the O-Bahn City Access Project Impact Report), following an extensive community consultation period. This report included the concept designs developed by Wax and Taylor Cullity Lethlean (TCL). The department has briefed City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters elected members on 21 July 2015 regarding the status of the project which included information from Wax and TCL reports. Key stakeholders, including the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters were further engaged in the review of the urban

of 11



design approach through attendance at the Government Architect's independent urban design review process conducted on 25 November 2015. Most recently, this has involved Council staff participating in the ‘Urban Design Alignment Workshop’ was held on 28 January 2016.

DPTI and the project contractor will continue to refine and finalise the detailed design of the project in collaboration with Council and other key stakeholders.

4. DPTI should undertake a Parking Management Strategy to identify solutions to accommodate the significant loss of on-street parking as a result of the O-Bahn Project. Strategy should be undertaken in consultation with the Adelaide City Council and the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters.

There are currently a total of 116 off-street car parks at the National Wine Centre and the Botanic Gardens south of Plane Tree Drive. A proposed concept design for new off-street parking at this location has been developed by design firm Taylor Cullity Lethlean in conjunction with Adelaide Botanic Gardens. Following further design work, this concept will now increase the number of car parks at the National Wine Centre and Botanic Gardens to approximately 200 spaces, depending on the final agreed plan which, will be developed during the detailed design phase in consultation with the Botanic Gardens.

There are currently 138 off-street angled parking spaces adjacent to Botanic Park between Plane Tree Drive and Botanic Drive along the western side of Hackney Road. The Botanic Gardens preferred option is to provide a tree lined shared pedestrian - bike path along Botanic Park and to improve the landscape character for users of Botanic Park and to make the eastern entry of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens safer for pedestrians.

All 138 of the off-street angle parking spaces adjacent to Botanic Park will be removed as part of the project to achieve the preferred option proposed by the Botanic Gardens. These parking spaces will be partly offset by the additional parking spaces to be provided at the National Wine Centre and Botanic Gardens south of Plane Tree Drive.

The project team is liaising with the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters regarding the on-street and off-street parking strategy proposed as part of the O-Bahn City Access project.

of 11



5. DPTI should undertake an expanded urban design response to the Hackney Road corridor that establishes a distinctive, greener urban streetscape with improved pedestrian and cyclist safety and accessibility. The response should form part of a co-ordinated ‘whole of corridor’ urban design philosophy and appropriately address the Adelaide City Council, he Botanic Gardens and the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters interface. The urban design response must include:

Enhanced pedestrian and cyclist crossing points at appropriate spacings along the corridor

Additional greening of eastern and western verges

Greater detail regarding the landscape and urban design proposals for the Hackney Road median

Expanded urban design scope along the corridor beyond the portal that considers secondary interventions such as the vertical walls, balustrades and protuberances and other opportunities along the eastern and western verges.

The project team is committed to work with Council and all other key stakeholders to undertake an holistic urban design response to the Hackney Road corridor that establishes a green urban streetscape with improved pedestrian and cyclist safety and accessibility.

The response will form part of a co-ordinated 'whole of corridor' urban design philosophy to appropriately address and balance the key objectives of and interfaces with the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters and other key stakeholders including Adelaide City Council and the Botanic Gardens.

See also response to comment 1.

6. DPTI to fund the design, construction and management of a pedestrian bridge across Hackney Road within the Project scope.

The request to fund the design, construction and management of a pedestrian bridge across Hackney Road within the project scope was communicated to Council's Chief Executive Officer on 1 December 2015.

The department has received a response dated 5 January 2016 and as requested will continue to progress the discussions with both the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters and Adelaide City Council.

7. DPTI to upgrade the Bundeys Road / Park Terrace / Hackney Road intersection to provide signalised pedestrian crossing (east/west) as well as improve Richmond Street intersection for pedestrians, cyclist and service vehicles (including caravans turning/access).

The request to upgrade the Bundeys Road/Park Terrace/Hackney Road intersection to provide signalised east - west pedestrian crossing has been considered.

This intersection already includes a signalised east-west pedestrian crossing on the northern side of the intersection. Provision of an additional east-west crossing on the southern side of the intersection would conflict with the right turn signal phase from Bundeys Road onto Hackney Road. The introduction of the additional east-west signalised crossing at this intersection would require a new phase which would result in significant additional delays to the traffic operation at this intersection and impact the performance of the Inner Ring Route. For these reasons the introduction of an additional east-west signalised pedestrian crossing at this

of 11



intersection is not supported by the department.

The department is committed to work with Council staff through the design phase of the project to determine the improvements at Richmond Street junction with Hackney Road for pedestrians, cyclist and service vehicles.

8. Concerns raised by residents of Hackney regarding ability to travel north along the southern section of Hackney Road which is affected by the project. The residents have been in the vicinity of Westbury Street to allow for northbound movements.

Council confirms previous requests that a detailed analysis be undertaken by DPTI into the request which has been made by the residents.

The Norwood Payneham & St Peters Council were informed on 22 January 2016 Following feedback from the community and the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, it is proposed to install a new u-turn facility along Hackney Road, directly south of the existing tunnel portal and the intersection of Hackney Road/ Dequetteville Terrace/North Terrace. This will address the concerns raised by Hackney residents from Westbury Street, Botanic Street and AtheIney Avenue. The installation of a u-turn facility in this location will also allow the removal of the previously proposed u-turn south of the traffic signals on Dequetteville Terrace, and minimise the travel-time impact to the local residents.

9. Concerns raised by residents of Hackney South, regarding difficulties which will be experienced by residents seeking to exit Osborne Street onto North Terrace. In addressing these concerns, the residents have requested that DPTI install “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings which will assist in allowing gaps in peak hour traffic for drivers to enter North Terrace.

Council believes this request has merit and should be considered favourably by DPTI.

NPSP were informed on 22-1-16 that the department agrees to install the "KEEP CLEAR" pavement markings on the westbound carriageway of North Terrace at Osborne Street to assist in providing gaps for vehicles attempting a right-turn out of Osborne Street, in particular during the construction

period.

10. Current Concept Design proposes the following in respect to car parking –

Hackney Road (eastern side): the project is likely to result in the removal of these on-street car parking spaces on the road reserve in between Richmond Street and Athelney Avenue during the AM and PM peak times. Parking outside of these times can be considered and will need to be discussed with DPTI’s project team.

Hackney Road (eastern side)

Hackney Road (western side)

See response to comment 4.

The project team is liaising with the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters regarding the on-street and off-street parking strategy proposed as part of the O-Bahn City Access project.

of 11



Dequetteville Terrace (eastern side)

Dequetteville Terrace (western side)

11. Council is very disappointed and aggrieved by the process which has been used to consult and negotiate in respect to the Project.

Council has taken the time to carefully consider the concept design on two occasions and has clearly articulated its concerns to DPTI, to no avail. While Council has raised legitimate issues of concern regarding the impacts associated with this Project, these were not addressed prior to completing and releasing the PIR.

Council is of the view that whilst issues of concern put forward by both Councils are different, the issues nonetheless relate to access, car parking and pedestrian and cyclist safety and should have been addressed concurrently with both Councils and resolved prior to finalising and releasing to PIR.

See response to comment 3

12. Council’s expectations that a pedestrian bridge (overpass) is incorporated into the final design for the Project and that the capital up front cost associated with the construction of the structure as well as the ongoing maintenance of the same is entirely borne by DPTI.

See response to comment 6.

13. Absorption of the cost of the proposed Council drainage works into the O-Bahn City Access Project – As part of its Stormwater Drainage Program, the Council has identified a low point along Hackney Road, at its intersection with Athelney Avenue. To address the issue the Council engaged Southfront to develop a design. The first order estimate based on this design in $501,250 (excl. GST).

DPTI is meeting all the costs associated with the proposed drainage works is not unreasonable in the context of the proposed drainage works is not unreasonable in the context of the Project and given the budgetary allowances of the Project.

Has been agreed that DPTI will ‘firm up’ the costs associated with the proposed drainage works and that further discussions will take place on how these works would be funded following confirmation of the costs.

The contractor, McConnell Dowell, has provided a quote higher then outlined by City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters to undertake the stormwater drainage works as per design drawings provided by Council.

The department is committed to work with Council staff to refine the design and cost estimate for the proposed drainage works. Funding commitments can then be negotiated.

136 north terrace level 6 attention: mr mark adcock · park lands, landscaping, level...

Documents