bayside city council submission to public transport ......similarly, bayside’s public transport...

Bayside City Council Submission to Public Transport Victoria Proposed Southland Railway Station 28 April 2015

Bayside City Council – Southland Station 2

Submission Contents 1. Introduction ...................................... ....................................................... 3 2. Project & Policy Framework ........................ ........................................... 3

2.1 Stakeholder Working Group – Station Adjacent to Southland Project3 2.2 Transport Integration Act 2010 .......................................................... 4 2.3 Plan Melbourne ................................................................................. 5 2.4 Bayside Housing Strategy (2012) ...................................................... 5 2.5 Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy (2013) ................................... 6 2.6 Bayside Planning Scheme ................................................................. 6 2.7 Activity Centre Design Guidelines (2005) .......................................... 7 2.8 Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (2005) ....................................... 7

3. Preliminary Station Design ........................ ............................................. 9 3.1 Proposed Station Access ................................................................... 9 3.2 Use of 60 Tulip Grove, Cheltenham ................................................ 10 3.3 Bus Access and Interchange ........................................................... 11 3.4 Bicycle Access & Parking ................................................................ 12 3.5 Disability Access & Facilities ........................................................... 13 3.6 Public Toilet Facilities ...................................................................... 13 3.7 Staffing of Station ............................................................................ 14 3.8 Provision of Commuter Car Parking ................................................ 14 3.9 Station Name ................................................................................... 15

4. Management of Residential Amenity Impacts ......... ........................... 16 4.1 Traffic and Car Parking .................................................................... 16 4.2 Overshadowing and Overlooking ..................................................... 17 4.3 Noise Emissions .............................................................................. 18 4.4 Light Emissions ............................................................................... 18 4.5 Security and Safety ......................................................................... 19 4.6 Other Potential Amenity Impacts ..................................................... 19

5. Summary of Recommendations ........................ ................................... 20


1. Introduction Bayside City Council appreciates the opportunity offered by Public Transport Victoria (PTV) to provide feedback regarding the design of the proposed Southland Station. The State Government’s commitment to continue the design and construction of the new station represents a significant investment in public transport for the benefit of the Bayside and Kingston communities. The new Southland Station will play a critical role, with PTV’s modelling indicating it is set to become the fourth busiest station on the Frankston line, with up to 4,400 passengers per day using the station. The importance of the Southland Activity Centre in Council’s planning for growth further emphasises the importance and future role of the station in supporting land use change, with the activity centre playing a primary role in accommodating Bayside’s projected residential growth. In view of this, it is vitally important that the design of the new station provides access, facilities and services that are responsive to the needs of users and the station’s long term role, rather than relying on retrofit solutions into the future. Designing and delivering the best standard station from the outset achieves the most efficient investment in such an important asset while ensuring a positive user experience encouraging more people to use public transport as an alternative to the private car. It would be disappointing for the design and construction of the station to be done in haste, towards an arbitrary deadline. Council provides this feedback to PTV and government seeking the best possible outcome for the Southland Station, both in the short and long term.

2. Project & Policy Framework The following provides an overview of Council’s involvement in the project along with relevant State and Local Policy and legislative directives, providing context to the strategic opportunities and importance of the station in this locality.

2.1 Stakeholder Working Group – Station Adjacent to Southland Project

Council was originally engaged in the Southland Station project in 2011 by the Department of Transport, as part of the preparation of a business case. The focus of this engagement was the development of a business case for the new station, following the 2010 State Government election. There was an absence of engagement in the project until 2014 when the announcement was made that the station design and construction was proceeding. At this time the Station Adjacent to Southland Project (SASP) Stakeholder Working Group was established. While Council was able to attend the first working group meeting, all participants were required by PTV to sign a confidentiality undertaking before they were permitted to participate in Working Group meetings. The confidentiality undertaking was far-reaching and ambiguous in its scope and the requirement unreasonably restricted Council in its community advocacy role. Irrespective of Council’s reluctance to accept the confidentiality undertaking, Stakeholder Working Group meetings at this time ceased in the lead up to the 2014 State Government election.


The Stakeholder Working Group was re-established and met again in late January 2014. Council appreciates the willingness of PTV to reschedule the current communications and consultation program, originally scheduled to commence within days of this meeting occurring. The distributed Terms of Reference outlined for this group are that the group would: • Provide advice on access and interface design solutions in delivering the Station

Adjacent to Southland Project (SASP) within the government’s financial commitment.

• Identify potential planning and accessibility impacts, and advise on ways to manage and mitigate these impacts.

• Provide an interactive stakeholder forum to share information and discuss issues relating to project design, construction, operations and maintenance.

• Ensure key stakeholders affected by the project have opportunities to participate in resolution of issues and development of agreements relating to construction, operation and maintenance that directly impact them.

• Ensure positive and constructive stakeholder relationships are maintained throughout the life of the project.

Considering the sporadic cycle of Stakeholder Working Group meetings over the broader course of the project, and limited meetings held this year, there has been insufficient opportunity to work constructively through a range of key matters identified in the Terms of Reference. Opportunities to thoroughly discuss fundamental strategic issues associated with the conceptual design of the station have been largely secondary to matters of regulatory process that would generally become the main focus only once issues of conceptual design were agreed upon. The opportunity to provide feedback in relation to these matters is therefore essential.

2.2 Transport Integration Act 2010 The Transport Integration Act 2010 establishes a legislated policy framework for the provision of an integrated and sustainable transport system in Victoria and sets out six objectives to achieve this:

• Social and economic inclusion; • Economic prosperity; • Environmental sustainability; • Integration of transport and land use; • Efficiency, coordination and reliability; and • Safety, health and wellbeing.

The Act sets out how the above objectives will be delivered through a set of decision making principles which outline the importance of the following:

• The principle of integrated decision making in ‘seeking to achieve Government policy objectives through coordination between all levels of government and government agencies and with the private sector’;

• The role of triple bottom line analysis which includes ‘an assessment of all the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits taking into account externalities and value for money’;


• Users have a significant focus in the principles that guide decision making by reinforcing the importance of ‘enhancing the usability of the transport system and the quality of experiences of the transport system’; and

• A decision making principle also reinforces the importance of ‘taking into account the interests of stakeholders, including transport system users and members of the local community’.

The comments provided throughout this submission reflect and build upon the objectives and decision-making principles prescribed through the Act which are relevant to how a major piece of transport infrastructure should be designed.

2.3 Plan Melbourne Plan Melbourne identifies Southland (Cheltenham – Southland) as an activity centre and reinforces the Southland station as an important future initiative in the Southern sub-region of Melbourne. This initiative is also likely to be the one of the projects that the State Government is most able to quickly advance and is something that, if done well, represents a significant improvement in public transport access along the Frankston Line and the southern sub-region. Plan Melbourne emphasises the importance of improving and maximising public transport services to provide access to job-rich areas in Melbourne’s suburbs. A new station at Southland presents the opportunity to integrate bus and train services to connect people to jobs and services, both at Southland shopping centre and the Bayside Business Employment Area (BBEA) to the west. Further, the station supports the realisation of the 20-minute neighbourhood by increasing the accessibility of Southland to the broader region, in addition to enabling transit-orientated urban renewal in an activity centre. The new station provides opportunities to combine active modes of transport (walking and cycling) with public transport. A new station at Southland facilitates increased access to jobs, improves connections to services and provides opportunities for housing choice, while reducing car dependency. If done well, the new station will reinforce Southland’s role in the Southern sub-region of Melbourne and enhance the liveability of the surrounding residential hinterland.

2.4 Bayside Housing Strategy (2012) The Bayside Housing Strategy guides how residential development in Bayside will be planned and managed over the next twenty years. The Strategy considers the location and type of residential development required in order to meet the changing needs of the Bayside community; whilst ensuring development is consistent with and enhances Bayside’s valued urban character, manages any associated environmental risk and is appropriately serviced. The strategy is a reference document within the Bayside Planning Scheme. The Strategy envisages that the Southland Activity Centre will become a major focus for future medium and high density residential development within Bayside, taking advantage of its proximity to the Southland Shopping Centre and the Frankston railway line. The Southland Activity Centre will provide good access to employment sources both locally, including the Bayside Business Employment Area (BBEA), and regionally. Southland’s role is reinforced by Plan Melbourne, which identifies Southland (Cheltenham – Southland) as a key employment and activity centre.


Understanding the Bayside Housing Strategy vision is important for the station, as it emphasises the need to design the station in a manner that responds to both Southland’s regional role and the change, particularly in housing density envisaged for the local area. This ultimately works toward achieving key policy directions of Plan Melbourne such as 20-minute neighbourhoods and providing housing choice.

2.5 Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy (2013)

The Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy (2013) sets the future direction for Council’s transport planning and provision through a set of guiding principles which have been derived through research, analysis and community feedback. A number of the proposed design elements associated with the new station do not complement a number of these guiding principles including:

• Improved local accessibility – Council will prioritise walking and cycling as the preferred mode of transport for short trips in Bayside;

• Create better public transport connections – Council will work with key partners such as Public Transport Victoria, to improve public transport access to, within and from Bayside;

• Integrated transport and land use – Council will work to ensure that land use and development supports sustainable transport use; and

• Improve perceptions and enable choice – Council will support initiatives designed to increase transport choice and contribute to the reduction of emissions from transport.

Similarly, Bayside’s Public Transport Advocacy Statement (2013) identifies the need for Council to advocate to the State Government for deliverable public transport improvements for the needs of Bayside residents and visitors. To maximise the opportunities associated with the opening of the new station it is important that the issues identified within this submission are addressed.

2.6 Bayside Planning Scheme

A new station will play a key role in achieving several opportunities presented in the Bayside City Council Planning Scheme. Those opportunities support key economic, social and environmental imperatives identified in Plan Melbourne and include:

• Consolidating and intensifying business uses within the significant Bayside Business Employment Area (BBEA), which is the major focal point for future business development and employment. This area is undergoing significant economic restructuring, shifting its emphasis from a purely ‘industrial area’ to that of a ‘wider business area’. Therefore, if done well, a new station could attract new knowledge-based industries to this employment cluster and fulfil an identifiable niche in the Southern sub-region of Melbourne.

• Realising Southland Activity Centre’s role as a Key Focus Residential Growth Area and as a Principal Activity Centre in the Bayside Planning Scheme, within which new medium and high density housing is to be directed. A new station will provide more sustainable transport options for residents living within walking distance of the future station.

• Building upon development that is currently occurring along Jack Road, Cheltenham and that will occur at the CSIRO site in Highett. These sites will provide for new medium to higher density residential communities within


close proximity to the Southland Activity Centre, public transport and employment opportunities.

• Providing pedestrian and cycle links that integrate the station with the local road network, open space and Bayside Business Employment Area.

It is therefore essential that transit (walking, cycling, bus and car) arrangements for Southland Station are well located and designed, in order to maximise the value of opportunities identified by metropolitan and local planning. This enhances Southland’s role in the Southern sub-region of Melbourne and confirms the station as an integral asset within the broader precinct.

2.7 Activity Centre Design Guidelines (2005)

Southland is identified as a Principal Activity Centre in the Bayside Planning Scheme (Activity Centre in Plan Melbourne). This designation acknowledges Southland’s significant regional shopping and service role, its ability to accommodate residential growth, its employment generation role and proximity to the significant Bayside Business Employment Area.

With increasing investment and development in identified Activity nodes, there is a significant focus placed on ensuring appropriate and safe urban design outcomes are achieved. The Activity Centre Design Guidelines have a range of relevant Objectives and Design Suggestions that relate to Station and Interchange environs and they include: • To encourage public transport use by providing convenient, prominent and active

stations and interchanges. • Develop station forecourts as part of an Activity Centre public space system • To provide high-quality passenger amenity. • Provide comfortable, weather-protected stops. • To provide safe, attractive and direct pedestrian and cycling access to stations,

interchanges and transit stops. • Provide clear, continuous, direct and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes to

stations and transit stops. • Ensure safe and convenient access is provided for people with special mobility

requirements such as people with a disability and those with prams. • To minimise the dividing effect of railway corridors on activity centres. • Improve the pedestrian and cycling connectivity around railway corridors. If the Southland Station is to be successful, these objectives must be integrated into its design. Such integration would reinforce Southland’s activity centre role. Encouraging public transport usage, providing safe and convenient access, and integrating direct pedestrian and cycling links is emphasised given the promotion of the station as a ‘Destination Station’.

2.8 Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (2005) The Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria have a specific section devoted to Public Transport stops, interchanges and stations, containing a range of Objectives and Design Suggestions. These include: • To provide access routes to public transport stops and stations which are direct

and maximise natural surveillance and visibility. • Provide clear, continuous and direct routes to transit stops and between modes

of transport. Ensure high visibility, activity and surveillance along these routes.


• Where underpasses or overpasses are unavoidable, design them with as much width as possible, ensure access to daylight and lighting, and provide clear sightlines from either end to promote safety.

• To ensure maximum natural surveillance of public transport stops and increase their visibility for users safety.

• Provide adequate lighting so that people can see around them at night. Integrating these objectives into the station design is vital in ensuring that it succeeds in providing a safe, inviting and accessible environment for passengers.


3. Preliminary Station Design Following a review of the current consultation material released by PTV for the proposed Southland Station, it is evident that there is more that can be done to improve the design of the station, including a number of essential facilities and services. The following section of Council’s submission outlines these design improvements that should be provided within the new train station that is set to become the fourth busiest station on the Frankston line.

3.1 Proposed Station Access Issue The proposed station entry is a fundamental weakness in the current design of the station, constraining future land use integration, and leading to sub-optimal user access, DDA compliance and user safety. Comments The proposed station access is located adjacent to the Southland Shopping Centre car park which will require passengers to navigate their way through a private car park when accessing the new station. This presents a major safety concern for passengers, provides poor pedestrian access to Bay Road and the Nepean Highway and limits the Government’s ability to provide fully accessible and compliant access. The current station access is a poor design outcome for such a major public transport infrastructure project, given that many new stations and most established stations within suburban Melbourne provide access via accessible public land. Pedestrians accessing the new station will encounter numerous locations within the Southland Shopping Centre car park where there is a high potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflict to occur. This will be exacerbated by the high volume of vehicles that use the car park every day. Should collisions occur between station users and vehicles, the State Government would be reliant on a private land owner to manage the risk. Additionally, pedestrian access through the car park is not DDA compliant, is confusing and inconvenient, and provides no protection to inclement weather for passengers. It is noted that there are alternative options available to the State Government in providing access to the station via accessible public land. Pedestrian access to the northern end of the station should be achieved from the southern side of Bay Road. The need for this access was recognised and included in a previous concept design prepared for Southland Station in 2011. While it is understood there are engineering and cost implications that result from this approach, similar access is provided to other stations and direct access to Bay Road should be integrated into the design and construction of the new station from the outset. Council has engaged with Kingston City Council during PTV’s consultation process to understand the analysis and position Kingston has developed in response to the station design concepts. It is understood that pedestrian access to the southern end of the station could be achieved using an existing reserve owned by the City of Kingston that runs along the southern boundary of the shopping centre. Kingston’s submission includes detailed analysis and plans to support a station entry in this location. Council supports the revised platform location and entries as proposed by the City of Kingston.


Direct access to both ends of the station platforms provides the benefit of avoiding confusing and unsafe pedestrian and cycle access through the southland car park, and avoids the long term constraints of relying on private land to provide access to the station. Recommendation Council recommends moving the platforms north towards Bay Road and providing alternative access points to the station platforms at the northern and southern ends of the platform, including:

• Direct pedestrian access to the station is provided via publicly accessible land from Bay Road to the north of the station platforms; and

• Access from the southern station entry is provided from the strip of existing Kingston City Council Reserve providing direct and safe access to both Nepean Highway and through the reserve along a clearly defined existing direct and line-marked path into the shopping centre entry.

As part of undertaking detailed strategic planning for the area, that PTV identify future opportunities to provide a Bayside link to the recommended southern entry point to the station.

3.2 Use of 60 Tulip Grove, Cheltenham Issue PTV has specifically requested feedback regarding the opportunity for using the property purchased at 60 Tulip Grove, Cheltenham for access to the proposed Station. Comment At face value, the property 60 Tulip Grove provides the potential to open direct access to the station up to the Bayside side of the railway line. Long term, with the Southland Activity Centre identified as a key centre by Council to support future growth, the principle of direct access presents a number of benefits. However, there are a number of concerns Council has specifically with using 60 Tulip Grove for access to the station. Firstly, the property purchase was opportunistic, to provide PTV with improved construction access along the west side of the line. The actual use of the property for pedestrian access has been an afterthought. Despite this, the station concept drawings now show the proposed platform access subway aligned with 60 Tulip Grove, moving the station platforms further south. The subway location has further adversely influenced the location of the station entry, opening out onto the roundabout within the adjacent shopping centre car park, presenting numerous safety and convenience implications for station users. While direct access from the station into Bayside presents a number of positives, the poor permeability of the street network along and around Tulip Grove limits the ability to provide improved pedestrian access for the broader residential area, or the ability to effectively manage increased traffic and car parking implications. Pedestrian access to Tulip Grove will undoubtedly lead to increased car parking and drop offs to access the station. Even with changes to car parking restrictions and design changes to discourage traffic access and drop offs, there will inevitably be a significant negative impact within the local street network as a result of access to the station at this location. This is further exacerbated as Tulip Grove is the only entry and exit to the area, with vehicles needing to circulate the full extent of the street to the court bowl to turn. The location of 60 Tulip Grove, towards the cul-de-sac end of the street


further exacerbates the potential congestion which may be caused by providing pedestrian access at this location. Further to other recommendations presented in this submission, Council considers the most appropriate short term solution that should be pursued is to provide direct access from the platforms to Bay Road to the north. Tulip Grove is still easily accessed via the pedestrian path between the cul-de-sac and Bay Road. 60 Tulip Grove should be retained by PTV until such time that more detailed strategic planning has been undertaken for the activity centre, to determine the most appropriate use of the property. Recommendation That 60 Tulip Grove is not used for pedestrian access between the station and Tulip Grove in the short-term, with the property retained by PTV until more detailed strategic planning for the station has been completed. Direct access between the platforms and Bay Road is a preferable outcome, limiting short-term amenity impacts to property and the street network in Tulip Grove, while maximising pedestrian access to other parts of Bayside to the west.

3.3 Bus Access and Interchange Issue The proposed station design does not facilitate opportunities for bus and rail interchange and will result in a poor experience for passengers wishing to transfer between bus and rail if not addressed. Comments The smooth transition between rail and radial bus travel within the wider area is an important consideration when designing public transport infrastructure. However, the current station design does not contain any proposals to integrate bus services with the new train station. This is important given that the station will be located within the Southland Principal Activity Centre adjacent to the Bayside Business Employment Area. The location of the current bus interchange (east of Nepean Highway) is inappropriate, as the transition of public transport users between bus and rail will be compromised by an indirect walk through Southland Shopping Centre. This transition will be further compromised during the evening when pedestrian access through Southland Shopping Centre is restricted. The alternative pedestrian route will involve crossing approximately 10 lanes of the Nepean Highway. Furthermore, it is noted that the closest bus stops to the new station are located on Bay Road approximately 415 metres away from the proposed station access and are only served by one bus service (828 Hampton to Berwick Station via Southland). Given the level of investment currently occurring in the Bayside Business Employment area and the significant increase in residential density along Bay Road, employees and residents accessing the station via bus along Bay Road need to be better catered for. Whilst it is recognised that the new station will facilitate increased mode share for public transport within the area, a significant opportunity to achieve a fully integrated and effective transport hub will be lost if bus interchange is not resolved within the station’s design. Without addressing this issue, it is likely that those bus routes


currently serving Southland Shopping Centre and the wider community will continue to be under-utilised as journey’s combining bus and rail will remain an unattractive option for many people. Recommendation It is Council’s position that improved provision to facilitate bus and rail interchange is investigated and provided as part of the station design; either through:

• The provision of bus stops along Bay Road located within closer proximity to the new station;

• Exploration of the potential for some bus services to serve the new station directly via the existing shopping centre road network; or

• Moving the bus interchange closer to the proposed station.

3.4 Bicycle Access & Parking Issue Bicycle access to the station for those passengers cycling as part of their journey is poor. Additionally, secure bicycle parking is not currently proposed as part of the station concept designs. Comments Cycling is well suited for short journeys between 2kms to 5kms, and in partnership with rail it can be particularly effective in making long journeys competitive with the private car in terms of both time and convenience. However, bicycle access to the new station will require cyclists to navigate their way through the busy Southland Shopping Centre car park to access the station. This arrangement is far from ideal and will increase the risk of vehicle/cyclist conflict occurring in the shopping centre car park and provides little encouragement to potential new cyclists who may be considering riding to the station as part of their journey. Facilities such as secure bicycle parking are crucial in supporting the community to make more sustainable transport choices. Community feedback received as part of the development of Council’s Bicycle Strategy (2013) explicitly identifies the need for secure bicycle parking at train stations to encourage more people to cycle and to use public transport. Secure bicycle parking, in the form of ‘Parkiteer’ bike cages, are already available at Brighton Beach, Cheltenham and Sandringham stations and are well utilised. Despite this, secure bicycle parking provision within the current station design has not been included. The absence of secure bicycle parking facilities will essentially limit access to the station for members of the public within a wide catchment area of the station who wish to ride to the station, but are not provided with facilities to park their bicycle. Furthermore, given that PTV has confirmed that the new station will not be a designated commuter station due to the lack of land available for commuter parking, it is considered that this further warrants the inclusion of secure bicycle parking to provide passengers with an alternative option to access the station. Recommendation That PTV integrates secure bicycle parking of a sufficient amount as part of the design of the station. Improved bicycle access to the station can be addressed by reviewing the proposed station access arrangements as outlined earlier within this submission in section 3.1.


3.5 Disability Access & Facilities Issue The absence of lifts from the station design presents a significant impediment for members of the community with mobility difficulties from accessing and using the station. Comments Accessible public transport is critical for some members of the community, including those people with a disability or mobility restriction, older people and those travelling with children. However, as a result of the current station design, those passengers unable to use stairs will be required to use a pedestrian ramps to access the station platforms as lifts for improved access are not proposed at the new station. It is considered that the absence of lifts will be an encumbrance for some members of the community. It is noted that two of the most recently built train stations in Metropolitan Melbourne, South Morang which opened in November 2012, and Williams Landing which opened in April 2013, both have lifts to assist passengers. The lack of lift facilities represents a poor design outcome for a major piece of public transport infrastructure, particularly given the high number of passengers expected to use the station. Additionally, the absence of lifts at the station will have implications for those passengers wishing to access the public toilet facilities as it is understood that they will be located in the shopping centre car park and not on the station platform. Should passengers already on the station platform wish to use the public toilet facilities then they will be required to make their way from the platform via the stairs or pedestrian ramp to access the shopping centre car park, before returning to the platform. This will not be a viable option for some passengers. Providing greater access to public transport services by removing barriers to access will deliver wider access to the network for all public transport users. Recommendation It is recommended that lifts are provided as part of the station design.

3.6 Public Toilet Facilities Issue Whilst Council welcomes the news that Southland Station will now include a public toilet facility, it is understood that it will be accessed via the shopping centre car park. This raises concerns in relation to access, convenience, safety and security. Comments A general expectation amongst passengers using a brand new rail station is that they are able to access the public toilet facilities with relative ease from the station platform. The proposal to locate the public toilet facilities on the platform, yet accessed via the shopping centre car park will have implications for all passengers; and in particular those with restricted mobility, older people, the infirm and people with prams and children. This is further compounded by the lack of lifts at the station which such passengers would be heavily reliant should they needed to access the public toilet facilities. Additionally, once in the shopping centre car park, passengers would still be required to negotiate their way to the public toilet facilities.


The location of access to the public toilet facilities outside the confines of the station also raises potential safety and security issues, especially during the evening. During the day Southland Shopping Centre car park is a hive of activity and passengers using the public toilet facilities will be afforded high levels of passive surveillance. However, as activity at the shopping centre progressively reduces towards the end of each day so will the level of passive surveillance. This may be a cause of concern for some train passengers and may discourage them from using the public toilet facilities. Recommendation It is recommended that public toilet facilities are sited in an accessible location within the confines of the station platform, accessed in a manner which is convenient, safe and secure for passengers, with ease of access from the station platform.

3.7 Staffing of Station Issue The station will be unmanned, yet will experience greater patronage than half of the ‘premium stations’ along the Frankston railway line. Comments It is recognised that customer service officers at train stations are a direct point of contact for passengers requiring assistance with travel planning information, including timetable, route and ticketing information. Customer service officers are also a point of contact for service updates in the event of delays and cancellations. They provide important assistance to people with a disability or mobility restriction and will provide assistance to all passengers in the event of an emergency. Those train stations where a customer service centre is staffed from first train to last, seven days per week, are known as ‘premium stations’. It is proposed that Southland Station will not be a premium station. Beyond the City Loop there are 10 premium stations on the Frankston line. Analysis of the patronage data relating to these stations indicates that daily passenger numbers at 5 of the 10 stations (Bentleigh, Carrum, Mentone, Moorabbin and Mordialloc) is less than the 4,400 predicted daily passengers expected to use Southland Station. Given that Southland Station is predicted to become one of the busiest stations on the Frankston line, it is considered that the presence of customer service staff is warranted. Recommendation The Station should be upgraded to become a ‘premium station’ and accordingly should be a staffed station.

3.8 Provision of Commuter Car Parking Issue PTV has advised that the new station will be a ‘Destination Station’ for shoppers and staff to access the shopping centre as its primary purpose. The station will therefore not be provided with commuter car parking. Comments Council acknowledges that PTV has advised the station is intended to be a ‘Destination Station’ and as a result commuter car parking will not be provided for the


new station. Further, it is acknowledged that there are constraints, in terms of available land and costs, in providing commuter parking at the new station. However, while the station might be designated as a ‘destination station’, this will not discourage station users from relying on the surrounding residential streets to provide for commuter car parking. Even with changes to parking restrictions within the local area, there is expected to be an impact without improved commuter car parking facilities within the broader area. Council understands that a current PTV proposal to install a new sub-station within the car park at the Cheltenham Station may further exacerbate constraints on the limited supply of commuter car parking, representing a loss of approximately 30 car spaces. Council supports the position put forward by the City of Kingston, that PTV should not consider the two projects in isolation. PTV should work with the City of Kingston to actively deliver an increased supply of commuter car parking as envisaged by the City of Kingston’s Cheltenham Structure Plan. While this approach does not directly address a lack of commuter parking at the proposed Southland Station, strengthening the role of Cheltenham Station in providing opportunities for greater commuter car parking provision is appropriate. Recommendation That PTV considers both the Southland Station and Cheltenham Station sub-station upgrade in a coordinated manner. Further, that PTV actively engages with the City of Kingston to accelerate the planning and delivery of additional (beyond the current provision) commuter car parking provision at Cheltenham Station.

3.9 Station Name Issue Council understands that as part of future consultation to be undertaken by PTV, a preference will be sought regarding a future name of the station. Comments For many years, Government announcements and the project have consistently referred to the facility as ‘Southland Station’. More recently Government agencies have referred to the project as the ‘Station Adjacent to Southland’. It is understood from Stakeholder Working Group meetings that there is reluctance in naming the station ‘Southland Station’ due to the association with the adjacent privately owned shopping centre. As highlighted earlier, Council refers to the area as the Southland Activity Centre across its planning framework, in particular the Bayside Housing Strategy (2012) and the Bayside Planning Scheme. Further, Plan Melbourne refers to the activity centre as ‘Cheltenham – Southland’. Obviously with the following station being called ‘Cheltenham’, it is not appropriate to include the suburb within the station name. With the Station being described by PTV as a Destination Station to support the Southland Shopping Centre, it is important that a clear sense of place is provided to the destination. Recommendation Council’s position is that the Station should be officially named Southland Station.


4. Management of Residential Amenity Impacts Council acknowledges that the Southland area is likely to change over the long term. Nevertheless, it is important that the amenity impacts created by the new station are addressed, in relation to the immediate residential neighbours, the local road network and the broader neighbourhood. This section of the submission presents key residential amenity impacts and provides recommendations to mitigate such impacts, in addition to recommending key work that PTV should conduct before construction of the station commences.

4.1 Traffic and Car Parking Issue The introduction of a new station within the local neighbourhood, couples with a lack of commuter parking will cause significant traffic and car parking management implications for both Council and the local community. PTV has not indicated to Council how it plans to contribute to addressing these impacts. Comments It is clear that the opening of a new railway station within an existing urban area will create significant traffic and car parking management issues. This is further exacerbated with the lack of commuter car parking, potential parking restrictions Westfield may introduce once the station opens and potential access provided via 60 Tulip Grove. The currently quiet residential area to the west of the proposed station exhibits particularly poor movement permeability and access, featuring a single entry point at Tulip Grove, numerous cul-de-sacs and dead ends and limited road width. The constraints presented by the design and layout of the street network limits the ability to effectively manage increased traffic and car parking created by the station. As highlighted earlier, pedestrian access to Tulip Grove will undoubtedly lead to increased car parking and drop offs to access the station. Even with changes to car parking restrictions and design changes to discourage traffic access and drop offs, there will inevitably be a significant negative impact within the local street network as a result of access to the station at this location. The likely use of Tulip Grove and surrounding streets for commuter parking is a significant concern of the community given the constraints of the existing road network. While Council acknowledges its role in managing local traffic and car parking arrangements, PTV has not indicated to Council how it will contribute to assisting in the mitigation of these impacts, nor whether the State Government will contribute to undertaking any required improvements or upgrades to the road network. PTV has also not provided Council with traffic modelling which is a critical factor in determining the impacts of the proposed station. Recommendation PTV undertake traffic modelling to consider the impacts of traffic and car parking within the local area resulting from the new station. Further, that PTV engages with Council to analyse and address potential traffic and car parking impacts.


4.2 Overshadowing and Overlooking Issue The design of Platform 1 and its shelters will result in significant overshadowing and overlooking for residential properties adjoining the platform. Comments Council has concerns regarding the design of Platform 1 and the resulting adverse impacts for residential properties adjoining the platform. Council is concerned that the height and design of the platform and associated buildings and structures will contribute to significant overshadowing of residential properties abutting the railway line. This will significantly impact the amenity of these properties by restricting solar access to private open space and habitable rooms of dwellings. In addition, the topography of the land and the height of the platform could lead to significant overlooking of these properties, severely compromising the ability of residents to enjoy their currently secluded private open space. Given the platform being elevated 1.2 metres above the track, it is likely that there will be significant overlooking issues, in some areas the platform significantly exceeding the height of rear boundary fences. Council notes that there is nominated screening proposed adjacent to residential properties however the type, material, height and permeability of screening structures is not clear. Further, the actual height of the platforms as compared with rear fences and dwellings has not been determined, or shared with residents. The design of the structures proposed has the potential to create significant visual bulk, dominating the vistas from habitable room windows of these dwellings. The height and design of required infrastructure should be considered in regard to its significant impact on residential amenity. Council recommends that the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2 objectives be considered in determining the built form, given the prominent focus on neighbourhood and landscape character, building scale and minimising impacts on neighbouring properties. A response illustrating how overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk are addressed, in addition to how the station responds to the residential interface and its impact on neighbourhood character is required. Further engagement with affected residents is essential in developing a design that addresses these impacts. Recommendation That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2 objectives be considered in determining the built form of the railway station. PTV to develop a design response illustrating how overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk are addressed, in addition to how the station responds to the residential interface and its impact on neighbourhood character is required. Further engagement with affected residents is undertaken as part of developing a design that addresses these impacts.


4.3 Noise Emissions Issue The new railway station and associated public announcement system and platform activity will exacerbate current noise impacts on adjoining residents. Noise attenuation measures have not been addressed by PTV in the station’s design. Comments Council acknowledges that there is an existing impact on residential amenity due to the presence of the train line. However, it is considered that the new railway station has the potential to exacerbate current noise impacts. Trains accelerating and decelerating, horns sounding on approach, public announcements, ticket validating machines beeping, patron activity on the platforms and the sound of doors opening/closing/buzzing will increase noise levels within the immediate locality. There is no evidence provided to date, apart from verbal assurances, to suggest that the impacts of noise have been fully considered, nor that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the station design. Recommendation That PTV provides to Council and affected residents the noise studies that have been prepared, including the considerations taken into account in testing potential noise impacts. That PTV further develops noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the station’s design and engage affected residents as part of addressing these matters.

4.4 Light Emissions Issue While it is critical that appropriate lighting is provided to station platforms and access ways for safety, security and usability; station lighting has the potential to cause off-site impacts to adjoining residential properties. Comments Council acknowledges that it is critical that appropriate lighting be provided to station platforms and access ways for the safety, security and accessibility of users. However, this needs to be balanced against the impacts to residential amenity. The specifications of the lighting design are unclear and therefore the resulting impacts to adjoining residential properties. This is of particular concern as the platforms rise significantly above the screening mechanisms proposed. Council considers that further assessment of the impact of light spill is required, which would also involve consulting with residents in the adjoining residential properties. Lighting should be designed so that it balances safety and security considerations with mainlining residential amenity. Further, lighting must be screened and baffled where possible. Recommendation Further assessment of the impact of light spill is required, including the engagement of affected residents in designing these solutions. Design lighting so that impacts to residential amenity are reduced while maximising the safety, security and useability of the station, platforms and access ways. Lighting should be screened and baffled where possible.


4.5 Security and Safety Issue Safety and security measures require clarification, particularly outside Westfield’s peak trading hours. Lighting arrangements are unclear and there appears to be little consideration given to creating opportunities for passive surveillance. Comments Design measures regarding safety and security require clarification, in addition how anti-social behaviour will be discouraged. The height of fencing needs to be sufficient to ensure that residential properties are not targeted, particularly outside Westfield’s peak trading hours where car park activity may be minimal. Maximising surveillance from the Westfield car park will be crucial as well as the use of graffiti resistant materials throughout the design. Recommendations PTV to specifically address safety and security measures to be integrated into the station design, in addition to how anti-social behaviour will be discouraged.

4.6 Other Potential Amenity Impacts Issue Other issues that could impact upon residential amenity, including detailed design, vermin/litter control and stray shopping trolleys, require consideration. Comments The location of rail infrastructure and site facilities such as poles and wires, the signal box, electricity substations, bicycle parking and public toilets is unclear. The placement and design of these services and facilities could also contribute to adverse amenity impacts for residents as outlined earlier in this submission. Waste management and eradication and management of vermin is an important consideration which is not addressed in the material provided to date. Recommendations PTV to address issues relating to detailed design, vermin and litter control and shopping trolley management as part of the station design.


5. Summary of Recommendations The following provides an overall summary of Council’s recommendations regarding the current design of the proposed Southland Station: Station Access Council recommends moving the platforms north towards Bay Road and providing alternative access points to the station platforms at the northern and southern ends of the platform, including:

• Direct pedestrian access to the station is provided via publicly accessible land from Bay Road to the north of the station platforms; and

• Access from the southern station entry is provided from the strip of existing Kingston City Council Reserve providing direct and safe access to both Nepean Highway and through the reserve along a clearly defined existing direct and line-marked path into the shopping centre entry.

As part of undertaking detailed strategic planning for the area, that PTV identify future opportunities to provide a Bayside link to the recommended southern entry point to the station. Use of 60 Tulip Grove for Pedestrian Access That 60 Tulip Grove is not used for pedestrian access between the station and Tulip Grove in the short-term, with the property retained by PTV until more detailed strategic planning for the station has been completed. Direct access between the platforms and Bay Road is a preferable outcome, limiting short-term amenity impacts to property and the street network in Tulip Grove, while maximising pedestrian access to other parts of Bayside to the west. Bus Access & Interchange It is Council’s position that improved provision to facilitate bus and rail interchange is investigated and provided as part of the station design; either through:

• the provision of bus stops along Bay Road located within closer proximity to the new station;

• exploration of the potential for some bus services to serve the new station directly via the existing shopping centre road network; or

• moving the bus interchange closer to the proposed station. Bicycle Access and Parking That PTV integrates secure bicycle parking of a sufficient amount as part of the design of the station. Improved bicycle access to the station can be addressed by reviewing the proposed station access arrangements as outlined earlier within this submission in section 3.1. Disability Access & Facilities It is recommended that lifts are provided as part of the station design. Public Toilet Facilities It is recommended that public toilet facilities are sited in an accessible location within the confines of the station platform, accessed in a manner which is convenient, safe and secure for passengers, with ease of access from the station platform.


Staffing of Station The Station should be upgraded to become a ‘premium station’ and accordingly should be a staffed station. Provision of Commuter Car Parking That PTV considers both the Southland Station and Cheltenham Station sub-station upgrade in a coordinated manner. Further, that PTV actively engages with the City of Kingston to accelerate the planning and delivery of additional (beyond the current provision) commuter car parking provision at Cheltenham Station. Station Name Council’s position is that the Station should be officially named Southland Station. Traffic and Car Parking PTV undertake traffic modelling to consider the impacts of traffic and car parking within the local area resulting from the new station. Further, that PTV engages with Council to analyse and address potential traffic and car parking impacts. Overlooking and Overshadowing That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2 objectives be considered in determining the built form of the railway station. PTV to develop a design response illustrating how overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk are addressed, in addition to how the station responds to the residential interface and its impact on neighbourhood character is required. Further engagement with affected residents is undertaken as part of developing a design that addresses these impacts. Noise Emissions That PTV provides to Council and affected residents the noise studies that have been prepared, including the considerations taken into account in testing potential noise impacts. That PTV further develops noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the station’s design and engage affected residents as part of addressing these matters. Light Emissions Further assessment of the impact of light spill is required, including the engagement of affected residents in designing these solutions. Design lighting so that impacts to residential amenity are reduced while maximising the safety, security and useability of the station, platforms and access ways. Lighting should be screened and baffled where possible. Safety and Security PTV to specifically address safety and security measures to be integrated into the station design, in addition to how anti-social behaviour will be discouraged. Other Amenity Impacts PTV to address issues relating to detailed design, vermin and litter control and shopping trolley management as part of the station design.

bayside city council submission to public transport ......similarly, bayside’s public transport...

Documents