planning and environment act 1987...good urban design outcomes, enhanced public transport usage,...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Advisory Committee Report

Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Advisory Committee

30 May 2016

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Advisory Committee Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Advisory Committee

30 May 2016

Trevor McCullough, Chair Sue Porter, Member

Henry Turnbull, Member Kevin Breen, Member

Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Advisory Committee Report 30 May 2016

Contents Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Terms of Reference ................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Advisory Committee process ................................................................................... 9 1.4 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 9

2 Identification of issues .............................................................................................. 10 2.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions ............................................................. 10 2.2 The Committee’s approach to assessing the issues .............................................. 13 2.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 13

3 Historical context ...................................................................................................... 14

4 Background material presented to the Committee ................................................... 16 4.1 VicRoads Background Report ................................................................................ 16 4.2 Options Report ...................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Streamlining Hoddle Street Initiative and Punt Road Transport

Investigation .......................................................................................................... 21 4.4 Consultation undertaken by VicRoads .................................................................. 22 4.5 Other documents provided to the Committee ..................................................... 23

5 Legislative and strategic context ............................................................................... 24 5.1 Road Management Act 2004 ................................................................................. 24 5.2 The Transport Integration Act 2010 ...................................................................... 24 5.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987 ..................................................................... 27 5.4 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) ............................................................... 28 5.5 Plan Melbourne ..................................................................................................... 31 5.6 State Strategic work currently underway ............................................................. 35 5.7 Local Planning Policy Framework .......................................................................... 39 5.8 Other relevant policies and strategies .................................................................. 41 5.9 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 42 5.10 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 44

6 The strategic importance of the Punt Road PAO ....................................................... 46 6.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 46 6.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 46 6.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 50 6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 53

7 Economic issues ........................................................................................................ 54 7.1 Broader economic impacts for Melbourne ........................................................... 54 7.2 PAO replacement cost ........................................................................................... 57


8 Traffic and transport issues ....................................................................................... 60 8.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 60 8.2 The role of Punt Road in the transport network ................................................... 60 8.3 Comments on the concept options ....................................................................... 61 8.4 Modified Concept 5 ............................................................................................... 62 8.5 Punt Road traffic performance .............................................................................. 63 8.6 Broader road network performance ..................................................................... 67 8.7 The public transport impacts ................................................................................ 76 8.8 Cycling and pedestrian impacts and opportunities............................................... 78 8.9 Impact on local streets .......................................................................................... 81 8.10 Summary of parties preferred position ................................................................. 81 8.11 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 82

9 Heritage issues .......................................................................................................... 84 9.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 84 9.2 Background ............................................................................................................ 84 9.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 85 9.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 87 9.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 89

10 Environmental issues ................................................................................................ 90 10.1 Impacts on the Yarra River .................................................................................... 90 10.2 Air quality and noise .............................................................................................. 93 10.3 Stormwater management ..................................................................................... 96 10.4 Tree removal ......................................................................................................... 97 10.5 Impacts on Fawkner Park ...................................................................................... 99 10.6 Summary of conclusions on environmental issues ............................................. 100

11 Social issues ............................................................................................................ 101 11.1 Fairness and equity.............................................................................................. 101 11.2 Certainty .............................................................................................................. 105 11.3 Impacts on the community ................................................................................. 109

12 Impacts on strategic growth objectives ................................................................... 111

13 Other issues raised in submissions .......................................................................... 115 13.1 The cost of property acquisition and property values ........................................ 115 13.2 Compensation ..................................................................................................... 118 13.3 Streetscape design .............................................................................................. 121 13.4 Implications of emerging technologies ............................................................... 123 13.5 The suggested tunnel option ............................................................................... 125

14 Findings and recommendations .............................................................................. 128 14.1 Findings ................................................................................................................ 128 14.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 133

15 Response to Terms of Reference ............................................................................. 135


Appendix A Submitters to the Advisory Committee

Appendix B Parties to the Hearings

Appendix C Document list

Appendix D Terms of Reference

Appendix E Modified Concept 5

Appendix F Heritage map

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Summary of submissions ....................................................................................... 12

Table 2 VITM Two way estimated daily traffic volumes 2031 ........................................... 68

Table 3 Scenarios that could affect Punt Road south of the Yarra River ........................... 75

Table 4 Response to Terms of Reference ........................................................................ 135

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 Locality plan ............................................................................................................. 7

Figure 2 The existing PAO ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 SmartRoads road use hierarchy ............................................................................ 60


List of Abbreviations AQM Air Quality Management

AQST Air Quality Screening Tool

BITRE Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics

CBD Central Business District

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

EPA Environment Protection Authority

GRZ General Residential Zone

HO Heritage Overlay

LACA Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MAC Ministerial Advisory Committee

MMBW Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

PAO Public Acquisition Overlay

P&EA Planning and Environment Act 1987

PPTN Priority Public Transport Network

PTV Public Transport Victoria

RGZ Residential Growth Zone

SEPP State Environment Planning Policy

SIDRA Signalised and unsignalised Intersection Design and Research Aid

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

TIA Transport Integration Act

VAGO Victorian Auditor General

VCEC Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission

VITM Victorian Integrated Transport Model

VKT Vehicle Kilometres Travelled

VMM Victorian Metroscopic Model

VPD Vehicles Per Day

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

WHO World Health Organisation


Page 1 of 162

Executive Summary

(i) Summary

The Advisory Committee

The Victorian Government has committed to review the existing 20 metre Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) that affects 135 properties along the east side of Punt Road between Alexandra Avenue in South Yarra and Union Street in Windsor, as well as 49 and 51 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra.

The Minister for Planning has appointed an Advisory Committee (the Committee) under Section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&EA) to undertake a review and recommend whether to retain, modify or remove the PAO.

The Committee is required to respond to the (revised) Terms of Reference approved by the Minister on 16 August 2015. The Terms of Reference set out the purpose of the Committee, the method to be adopted for the inquiry, and notes that “the Government wishes to provide certainty about this matter as some affected property owners wish to plan for the future of their properties and are concerned about whether the road widening will be going ahead”.

In accordance with the Terms of Reference, VicRoads prepared a Background Report, published in August 2015. A further Options Report was published in October 2015 which set out seven possible concept options for the future road layout on Punt Road.

The Committee invited public submissions in October 2015, with submissions closing on 24 November 2015. A total of 120 written submissions were received.

Public Hearings were held on 9, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19 February 2016. The Committee heard 23 presentations from submitters and received seven expert witness reports on traffic engineering, transport planning, economics, planning and open space.

Submissions

VicRoads and PTV supported the retention of the PAO, raising the following key submissions:

The future of the PAO should consider the role it may play in meeting the long‐term transport requirements of Melbourne.

The Punt Road corridor is considered vital to maintaining Melbourne’s liveability and access.

The PAO balances the present and future needs of all Victorians ensuring real options are not built out, resulting in potential significant economic savings for all future Victorians.

Punt Road is a vital city asset to support economic growth and jobs for the State through the delivery of freight and connecting jobs and opportunities across Melbourne.

From a strategic planning perspective, the PAO should be retained to maintain the opportunity to relieve congestion and facilitate a short, medium and long term modal shift from private cars to public transport.

The Punt Road Hoddle Street corridor is the only north‐south arterial that can play a vital strategic bypass of central Melbourne, away from local roads and key activity centres.

Punt Road carries an important north‐south public transport service (bus) which is expected to increase patronage with increased population growth.


Page 2 of 162

Whilst seven concepts were presented, there are an infinite set of design possibilities that should have regard to changing transport needs and technologies.

All but three affected landowners have either been compensated or have purchased their property with the knowledge of the PAO.

This position was generally supported by the City of Melbourne, but with the following additional submissions:

Works to Punt Road should extend beyond simply improving travel times and include good urban design outcomes, enhanced public transport usage, improved pedestrian safety and experience and consideration of impacts on sites of heritage significance.

The need to minimise impacts of future road design on open space, including Fawkner Park, Alexandra Avenue and the Morrell Bridge area.

The majority of other submitters, including the City of Stonnington and Drop Punt (a group representing local residents and land owners along Punt Road) opposed the retention of the PAO and raised the following key issues:

The future of the PAO should be based on a triple bottom line assessment with the aim of achieving net community benefit.

There are negative social, urban and environmental impacts associated with the retention of the PAO, particularly in relation to heritage properties and along the Yarra River corridor.

Whilst supporting improvements to Bus Route 246, a dedicated bus lane is not justified on Punt Road.

The PAO is creating unacceptable uncertainty for landowners in terms of whether their properties will be acquired, and if so when and what compensation will be payable.

The PAO is outdated as it: “has been in place for over 60 years”; “it has never been called upon”; “VicRoads have no plans to widen the road”; “there is no budget allocated for any works or property acquisition”; and “there is no political will to widen it”; and therefore it should be removed.

Widening Punt Road will result in a six lane “freeway” within inner Melbourne which will have a significant impact on the liveability of the area, cause community division, impact on access to community facilities and open space, reduce pedestrian safety, as well as cause increased noise, air quality and vibrations and resultant health impacts, particularly for local school children.

The ability to improve north‐south traffic capacity along Punt Road is constrained by the Hoddle Bridge and the Punt Road Hoddle Street Corridor.

The widening of Punt Road would result in the removal of heritage properties and significant vegetation. The PAO is also hindering restoration of heritage properties.

The PAO is making it difficult to sell properties and is adversely impacting on property values.

Landowners have had difficulty obtaining planning permits to undertake renovations, repairs and maintenance to their properties and are unsure what they can do to their properties under the PAO. It acts as a disincentive to undertake maintenance and therefore results in significant deterioration of buildings.


Page 3 of 162

Committee Assessment

The Committee has considered the issues in the context of:

The requirements of the Terms of Reference

The objectives and decision making principles of the Transport Integration Act 2010 (TIA), and

The requirements of the P&EA, including whether the various concepts have a net community benefit.

The Committee’s analysis of strategic planning, economic and traffic issues confirms the importance of Punt Road south of the Yarra River as an important arterial road link in Melbourne’s road network. Analysis of relevant policy documents and expert evidence provided to the Committee confirms that this role is likely to continue in the future.

The Committee is firmly of the view that Punt Road should be upgraded in the short term to relieve existing congestion, and the PAO should be retained in the long term to the extent required to fulfil its role in the road network, relieve other parallel north‐south routes and improve public transport operation along and across the Punt Road corridor. The key question for the Committee is therefore the extent of widening required in the longer term.

The Committee has examined this question based on the evidence and submissions provided to it, and draws the following conclusions with reference to the seven concept options tabled by VicRoads in the Options Report:

Short term measures such as 24 hour clearways, signal linking, turn bans and improvements to cross road intersections are worthwhile and should be pursued.

The Committee was not provided with any definitive evidence about whether traffic volumes would increase in the Punt Road corridor beyond 2031. The Committee, however, believes that whilst there may be growth in local traffic demand, it is most likely that growth in corridor traffic demand would be limited given the demand management policies expected to continue and the capacity constraints elsewhere in the corridor.

A four‐lane road with turn lanes will provide adequate capacity in the short and medium term and is highly likely (given the assumptions adopted by the Committee) to continue to be satisfactory in the long term.

It was not clearly demonstrated that a six‐ lane road such as that presented by VicRoads as Concepts 6 and 7 is justified in the medium or long term.

The six lane concepts (supported by VicRoads and PTV) would require the acquisition of 135 properties and impacts on 40 heritage properties, including the likely demolition of 34 buildings with varying degrees of heritage status.

Concept 5 (involving substantial intersection upgrades but four lanes midblock) would require substantially less land acquisition and impact on 9 heritage properties and 5 heritage buildings, including the Fawkner Mansions, ‘Shan Teng’ and the Arcadia Hotel.

The Committee is generally supportive of Concept 5, but has shown a modified form of Concept 5 (Appendix E) for consideration that still provides for four lanes midblock, additional turn lanes and bus priority at each of the major intersections, but minimises land acquisition and removal of houses, and limits the impact on heritage properties. The Modified Concept 5 would require the demolition of only one heritage building, the Acadia Hotel. If the Modified Concept 5 were adopted, the Committee anticipates that the PAO


Page 4 of 162

could be removed from 81 properties as listed in Section 8.4 of this report (subject to final design).

The Committee is confident that the modified form of Concept 5 (which needs to be refined through more detailed design) would provide for adequate corridor capacity in the medium term and well beyond 2031. The Committee’s believes that the Modified Concept 5 will achieve good levels of service and more than adequately cater for 2031 Base Case traffic projections, and more so if permanent clearways and signal linking are implemented.

The Committee therefore recommends that the PAO be modified to provide only the land required for a road layout design based on the Modified Concept 5.

The Committee has suggested Modified Concept 5 in order to show how some of the issues raised in submissions might be addressed. The Committee is conscious that the modified layout was not produced until after the Hearing, and so has not yet been fully ‘tested’. However, the issues that have prompted the modified layout were well canvassed in submissions and at the Hearing. The Committee believes that modifying Concept 5 in the way shown would resolve the vast majority of concerns raised with the Committee, whilst still providing adequate future traffic capacity. The Committee acknowledges that further design work will be required whichever future concept is adopted, and any change to the PAO will require a planning scheme amendment.

The Committee believes that Modified Concept 5 represents a reasonable balance of the needs of the local community versus that of the broader Victorian community, and the needs of current versus future generations. The Committee believes that the outcome proposed substantially reduces the impacts on, and improves certainty for, landowners while responsibly providing for future capacity improvements for Punt Road. In short, the Modified Concept 5 provides the greatest net community benefit.

In making this recommendation, however, the Committee is aware that its assessment is based on a number of critical assumptions. The most critical of these is that government policy will continue to support traffic demand management policies that discourage private vehicle trips into the Melbourne CBD and encourage mode shift to public transport. Another critical assumption is that Punt Road north of the Yarra River will continue to be the capacity constraint in the corridor, and as a consequence there is little to be gained in significantly increasing the capacity of Punt Road south of the Yarra River.

The Committee believes that it may be worthwhile waiting for the completion of the 30 year infrastructure strategy being prepared by Infrastructure Victoria (expected to be completed in late 2016) to confirm support for these assumptions before making a final decision on the future of the Punt Road PAO.

The Committee has also made findings and recommendations in relation to submissions made to it on environmental and social issues, including addressing the key issue of certainty for landowners.


Page 5 of 162

(ii) Recommendations

The Committee makes the following recommendations in response to its Terms of Reference:

The Public Acquisition Overlay

A Public Acquisition Overlay should be retained to the extent required to ensure 1.that Punt Road can continue to fulfil its role in the short, medium and long term.

On the basis of the evidence and submissions provided to the Committee in 2.relation to traffic demand and the future role of Punt Road in the road network, the Committee recommends: a) VicRoads develop a more detailed design layout that generally accords with

the Modified Concept 5 as shown in Appendix E, minimising impacts on heritage properties and minimising overall land acquisition whilst providing for a safe and functional design.

b) The Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay should be modified to provide for a road layout generally in accordance with the design based on Modified Concept 5.

The Committee notes that Infrastructure Victoria is currently preparing a 30 year 3.Infrastructure Plan for Victoria, and recommends that the Committee’s assumptions regarding the future strategic role of Punt Road are confirmed before a final decision to remove the balance of the Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay.

If the Committee’s assumptions are confirmed, then the Committee recommends 4.removal of the balance of the Public Acquisition Overlay not required to implement the final approved road configuration.

Other actions recommended for Stonnington and Melbourne Councils

The Cities of Stonnington and Melbourne, in consultation with VicRoads, develop 5.an integrated land use and transport strategy for the Punt Road corridor that addresses:

The impact of future road widening on development potential of land abutting Punt Road;

Restrictions on direct property access to Punt Road for future development in favour of access via other roads; and

Preferred urban design outcomes, including improved pedestrian/bicycle access and landscaping.

Other actions recommended for VicRoads

In order to improve certainty for landowners, VicRoads should: 6.

Define the areas of the Public Acquisition Overlay required for the future widening of Punt Road according to its priority, that being short (0‐5 years), medium (5‐15 years) and long term (15+ years).

Adopt a more flexible arrangement with regards to works owners could undertake to their properties, particularly properties identified as long term priorities and develop guidelines to clearly identify the range of works that may be permitted and the conditions that would apply.


Page 6 of 162

Give priority to acquiring properties that are identified as required in the short and medium term, or at least give these property owners the option of acquisition.

Prepare a Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Fact Sheet which simply and concisely outlines the strategic context of Punt Road, the purpose of the Public Acquisition Overlay, the proposed stages of work and the owner’s rights and obligations.


Page 7 of 162

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Victorian Government has committed to review the 20 metre Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) along the east side of Punt Road between Alexandra Avenue in South Yarra and Union Street in Windsor as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The PAO has been in place since 1954.

Figure 1 Locality plan

The PAO affects 135 properties on the east side of Punt Road and 49 and 51 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra. VicRoads has paid compensation on ‘loss on sale’ or purchased outright a number of affected properties, however no funding has been allocated for further acquisition or the construction of any road widening to date.

The Punt Road/Hoddle Street corridor is one of Melbourne’s busiest and most congested key arterial roads. Punt Road is a declared State arterial road and is used by around 33,000 vehicles per day1. It forms a boundary between the Cities of Melbourne and Stonnington.

1 Source: VicRoads two way traffic count Punt Road (South Yarra) between Alexandra Avenue and Domain Road (2013) ‐

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic‐and‐road‐use/road‐network‐and‐performance/road‐use‐and‐performance


Page 8 of 162

Figure 2 The existing PAO

The Minister for Planning has appointed an Advisory Committee (the Committee) under Section 151 of the P&EA to undertake a review and recommend whether to retain, modify or remove the PAO.


Page 9 of 162

1.2 Terms of Reference

The Committee is required to respond to the (revised) Terms of Reference approved by the Minister on 16 August 2015. A copy of the Terms of Reference is attached as Appendix D.

The Terms of Reference set out the purpose of the Committee, the method to be adopted for the inquiry, and notes that “the Government wishes to provide certainty about this matter as some affected property owners wish to plan for the future of their properties and are concerned about whether the road widening will be going ahead”.

The Committee has conducted the inquiry process in accordance with the ‘Method’ requirements in the Terms of Reference and all materials required to be prepared and exhibited by VicRoads have been provided in accordance with the Terms of Reference.

1.3 Advisory Committee process

The Advisory Committee consisting of Trevor McCullough (Chair), Kevin Breen and Sue Porter were appointed by the Minister for Planning on 5 March 2015. Henry Turnbull was added to the Committee on 20 November 2015.

In accordance with the Terms of Reference, VicRoads prepared a Background Report, published in August 2015, and an Options Report, published in October 2015.

The Committee invited public submissions in October 2015, with submissions closing on 24 November 2015. A list of the 120 submitters is attached at Appendix A.

A Directions Hearing was held on 8 December 2015, following which the Committee issued directions to the parties on matters to be addressed prior to or at the Hearings. Included in these directions was a requirement for VicRoads and PTV to circulate a ‘Part A’ submission clarifying their position on a number of matters by 24 December 2015.

Public Hearings were held at the offices of Planning Panels Victoria on 9, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19 February 2016. The Committee heard 23 submissions from the parties and expert witnesses listed in Appendix B. The Committee conducted several unaccompanied site inspections to assist in familiarising itself with the area and to collect data for the preparation of the report.

1.4 Acknowledgements

The Committee would like to acknowledge the substantial work undertaken by VicRoads and other submitters in providing the large body of material for the Committee’s consideration. The quality of submissions was high and the Committee commends the parties for the respect shown to the process and to the range of views that were expressed.

The Committee also wishes to thank Greta Grivas (Senior Project Officer, Planning Panels Victoria) and the Planning Panels administration team for their support during the course of the Inquiry.


Page 10 of 162

2 Identification of issues

2.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions

The key issues raised in the 120 written submissions are briefly summarised as follows:

(i) VicRoads and PTV

The key issues raised by VicRoads and PTV were:

The future of the PAO should consider the role it may play in meeting the long‐term transport requirements of Melbourne.

The Punt Road corridor is considered vital to maintaining Melbourne’s liveability and access.

The PAO balances the present and future needs of all Victorians ensuring real options are not built out, resulting in potential significant economic savings for all future Victorians.

Punt Road is a vital city asset to support economic growth and jobs for the State through the delivery of freight and connecting jobs and opportunities across Melbourne.

From a strategic planning perspective, the PAO should be retained to maintain the opportunity to relieve congestion and facilitate a short, medium and long term modal shift from private cars to public transport.

Punt Road/Hoddle Street corridor is the only north‐south arterial that can play a vital strategic bypass of central Melbourne, away from local roads and key activity centres.

Punt Road carries an important north‐south public transport service (bus) which is expected to increase patronage with increased population growth.

Whilst seven concepts were presented, there are an infinite set of design possibilities that should have regard to changing transport needs and technologies.

All but three affected landowners have either been compensated or have purchased their property with the knowledge of the PAO.

(ii) Stonnington City Council

The key issues raised by Stonnington City Council were:

Concerns regarding the time‐frame and analysis undertaken in relation to traffic modelling assumptions.

In balancing competing interests, the future of the PAO must be considered not only from a traffic modelling perspective, but from an urban planning perspective.

Retention of the PAO will impact on Council’s ability to accommodate future residential growth along Punt Road.

The future of the PAO should be based on a triple bottom line assessment with the aim of achieving net community benefit.

There are negative social, urban and environmental impacts associated with the retention of the PAO, particularly in relation to heritage properties and along the Yarra River corridor.

Whilst supporting improvements to Bus Route 246, a dedicated bus lane is not justified given the lack of investigation into all modes of public transport outside Punt Road.

A future bicycle route is problematic particularly towards the northern end.


Page 11 of 162

(iii) Melbourne City Council

The key issues raised by Melbourne City Councils were:

The need for a vision and clearly articulated priorities to be achieved by a potential Punt Road upgrade before deciding on a final option.

Works to Punt Road should extend beyond simply improving travel times and include good urban design outcomes, enhancing public transport usage, improved pedestrian safety and experience and consideration of impacts on sites of heritage significance.

The need to minimise impacts of future road design on open space, including Fawkner Park, Alexandra Avenue and the Morrell Bridge area.

The need for a reduction in speed limits should a clearway be introduced.

The importance of prioritising public transport over the private vehicle.

The need to improve pedestrian safety.

The current presentation of Punt Road is poor and needs improvement.

(iv) Individual Submitters

The key issues raised by submitters were:

The PAO is creating unacceptable uncertainty for landowners in terms of whether their properties will be acquired, and if so when and what compensation will be payable.

Above all, landowners want certainty and to them certainty equates to the removal of the PAO, or for some submitters the immediate purchase of the reservation.

There is a need to develop a longer term plan to deal with Melbourne’s transport problems and Punt Road should not be considered in isolation.

The PAO is outdated as it: “has been in place for over 60 years”; “it has never been called upon”; “VicRoads have no plans to widen the road”; “there is no budget allocated for any works or property acquisition”; and “there is no political will to widen it”; and therefore it should be removed.

Alternative measures should be considered before full scale widening is contemplated including clearways, permanent removal of parking, off road bus stops, express lanes, tunnelling, congestion tolls, limiting right hand turns, light sequencing.

Widening Punt Road will result in a six lane freeway within inner Melbourne which will have a significant impact on the liveability of the area, cause community division, impact on access to community facilities and open space, reduce pedestrian safety, as well as cause increased noise, air quality and vibrations and resultant health impacts, particularly for local school children.

The proposed widening will attract induced traffic to Punt Road, which has experienced declining vehicle numbers over the last 20 years. This will increase congestion rather than achieving a modal change.

The proposed widening of Punt Road should not be considered in isolation, but rather in the context of broader road network and with an increased focus on public transport and more sustainable transport options, such as walking and cycling.

The widening of Punt Road will only lead to marginal improvements in travel times.

The ability to improve north‐south traffic capacity along Punt Road is constrained by the Hoddle Bridge and the Punt Road Hoddle Street Corridor.

The widening of Punt Road would result in the removal of heritage properties and significant vegetation. The PAO is also hindering restoration of heritage properties.


Page 12 of 162

The PAO is a misuse of a temporary planning instrument and has led to planning blight.

Removal of the PAO will regenerate the area, including derelict VicRoads sites.

The PAO is making it difficult to sell properties and is impacting property values.

Landowners have had difficulty obtaining planning permits to undertake renovations, repairs and maintenance to their properties and are unsure what they can do to their properties under the PAO. It acts as a disincentive to undertake maintenance and therefore results in significant deterioration of buildings.

Support for the retention of the PAO and identification of the need to upgrade the road, ensuring improvements to local amenity by providing a median strip and landscaping.

What impact will emerging technologies have on future transport planning?

There has been inadequate consultation and unreasonable timeframes for input.

A very useful numerical summary of issues raised in submissions was also provided by Kinghorn and Carter in their expert evidence:

Issue raised No. submissions

Increasing capacity will add more traffic to Punt Road 80

Historic traffic decline 58

Short term – clearways 27

Short term – off road parking 7

Short term – improvements to public transport 22

Short term – banning right turns 3

Short term – changing signal phasing 1

Long term ‐ widening 1

Long term – tunnel 16

Long term – public transport 7

Long term ‐ congestion 11

Long term – planning strategy 4

Loss in amenity to precinct (inc heritage) 90

Widening would divide suburb 20

Property values and uncertainty 60

Safety of school children and pedestrians 38

40 km/hr speed limit needed 55

Modelling indicates only marginal travel improvements 58

Further modelling is required 4

Table 1 Summary of submissions

The issues raised in submissions have been assessed as required in the Terms of Reference and the assessment is set out under each subject heading in the report.


Page 13 of 162

2.2 The Committee’s approach to assessing the issues

The Committee considered all background reports and written submissions, as well as the further submissions and expert evidence presented to it during the Hearings.

The approach taken by the Committee in this report is as follows:

Firstly, in Chapters 3 and 4, the report provides background to the issues and documents the material presented to the Committee.

Secondly, in Chapters 5 to 7 the Committee examines the historical, legislative and strategic context of the issues and seeks to answer whether there are strategic or economic imperatives that guide what the ultimate form of the PAO should be.

Thirdly, the Committee, in Chapter 8, reviews the traffic and transport issues and examines the most appropriate form of road layout to meet short, medium and long term requirements in the Punt Road corridor. This includes an examination of the seven concept options for future widening of Punt Road that were publicly exhibited by VicRoads.

Fourthly, the Committee, in Chapters 9 to 13 examines a range of other issues raised in submissions and how they impact, or are impacted on, by the various widening options going forward.

Finally, the Committee summarises its findings and recommendations in Chapter 14.

The Committee has considered the issues in the context of:

The requirements of the Terms of Reference

The objectives and decision making principles of the TIA, and

The requirements of the P&EA, including whether the various concepts have a net community benefit.

2.3 Limitations

The assessment carried out by the Committee has been necessarily limited by the information that was able to be provided to it. While the Committee acknowledges that VicRoads has pulled together a substantial body of information and developed concept options in a relatively short timeframe, the Committee was at times frustrated by not having access to information because “it could not be made publicly available”. An example of this is the unavailability of any detailed information on the Streamlining Hoddle Street Initiative.

The Committee was also disappointed with the absence of any submission from the RACV.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the Committee is satisfied that the material before it provides a balanced and very broad cross section of relevant views across the range of stakeholders.

The Committee also notes the work currently being done by Infrastructure Victoria on a 30 year infrastructure strategy for Victoria. This work is still in the consultation stage, but the direction coming out of the work may need to be monitored to see if it changes any of the Committee’s assumptions about the future of the Punt Road corridor. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.


Page 14 of 162

3 Historical context

The earliest days of European settlement of Melbourne saw the establishment of ferry and punt services connecting the north and south banks of the Yarra River. As noted in the City of Stonnington’s 2013 heritage citation for the Hoddle Bridge which now connects modern day Punt Road across the river:

From the mid 1850s, another punt crossed the Yarra between South Yarra and Richmond, thus giving the name Punt Road to the track that lead downhill to the river2.

The citation goes on to note:

In 1866, a footbridge was erected near Punt Road, but the punt itself continued to operate until 1898 when a bridge opened downstream at Anderson Street, South Yarra. The footbridge near Punt Road was replaced by a steel truss footbridge in the 1890s.

By the 1920s, increased use of motor cars was placing a heavy burden on Melbourne's limited number of river bridges3.

Among the earliest bridge projects proposed to address this increase in motorised traffic was what was to become the current Hoddle Bridge, officially opened in December 1938. The citation goes on to state:

The opening of Hoddle Bridge enabled Punt Road to become a major transport route connecting Melbourne's northern and southern suburbs. By October 1939, the bridge was carrying over 10,000 cars a day4,

VicRoads provided the Committee with an historical overview of how planning for the Punt Road transport corridor has evolved over the past century, particularly since 1929, as part of their Review of Punt Road Public Acquisition, Background Report, August 2015.

In 1929 the then Metropolitan Town Planning Commission proposed a planning scheme to prevent 'misuse' of land and protect property values, highlighting traffic congestion, the distribution of recreational open space and haphazard intermingling of land uses as key issues. This Plan included recommendations for a General Road Scheme which proposed an extensive network of roads and tramways with a proposed tramline partly on the current Punt Road alignment and partly to the west of the current road.

The 1929 plan was not implemented and it was only after the Second World War in the early 1950s that the broad planning system as it is today commenced with the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 1954 Report. This plan, prepared by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW), set out a network of proposed arterial roads which was later enabled by an adopted planning scheme that “designated land required for road construction to be compulsorily acquired from its owners”. It was through this 1954 planning scheme that the current PAO was imposed.

2 City of Stonnington, Heritage Citation and Background Report, 2013 3 Ibid 4 Ibid


Page 15 of 162

VicRoads also state that the proposed routes in the 1954 scheme have “formed the basis for much of the major freeway construction and major road widening that has since occurred in Melbourne over the past five decades.”5 They also note that variations to the locations of some routes, route deletions and new connections to rural highways have occurred since.

The 1954 MMBW plan for Punt Road between St Kilda Junction and the Yarra River was included as part of the ‘Proposed Arterial Road System’. In that plan, “Punt Road between St Kilda Junction and the Yarra River, was intended to be an arterial road with intersecting roads and adjoining properties having access. It was not intended to be a freeway, which would not have access to other roads or adjoining properties other than via interchanges.”6

VicRoads listed other sections of roads that generally affect Punt Road that have been constructed or widened over decades up to the 1980s including Punt Road and Hoddle Street north of the river; Nepean Highway and St Kilda Road south of and around St Kilda junction; and sections of Queens Way/Dandenong Road.

In 1969, a State Government Transportation Committee recommended a transport plan for Melbourne that included a comprehensive network of freeways as well as railway and tramways improvements. In this plan a “freeway (‘F2’) was proposed in the general vicinity of the Punt Road ‐ Hoddle Street corridor crossing Melbourne from the outer north to the outer south east”7. As VicRoads stated:

The implementation of this freeway network would have resulted in very extensive property acquisition, severance and adverse environmental effects. Such was the level of public concern, having regard to factors such as fuel shortages in the 1970s, reaction to property acquisition and neighbourhood severance, and preferences for public transport, that many reservations for future freeways were deleted from planning schemes, or were not proceeded with, particularly in established areas, where large scale property acquisition would have been required.8

While reservations for freeways in what were then outer areas were retained, or relocated or modified in response to environmental or heritage values, “the proposed inner sections of the F2, including the section in the vicinity of Punt Road between the Yarra River and Union Street, Windsor, have never proceeded”.9 The retention of the PAO along the section of Punt Road currently under consideration still enables strategic road widening projects to occur, although arguably in line with the 1954 designation of an arterial road system, rather than as part of a freeway system.

As described elsewhere in this report, under the provisions of the PAO the acquiring authority (VicRoads as it is now known) made some property acquisitions up to 1980 and have continued to respond to the administration of the Planning Scheme in respect of planning permit applications on affected properties and their basic obligations under land compensation legislation such as ‘Loss on Sale’ compensation.

5 VicRoads Review of Punt Road Public Acquisition, Background Report, August 2015.pp 6 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Ibid pp7 9 Ibid


Page 16 of 162

4 Background material presented to the Committee

4.1 VicRoads Background Report

The VicRoads Review of Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay: Background Report (Background Report) was published by VicRoads in August 2015. The Background Report was prepared in response to the Committee’s Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference identified that the Background Report should include information in relation to the following:

The history and background to the road widening/the overlay

Detailed mapping of the overlay

The current and projected traffic volumes for all modes of transport, including pedestrian, cyclist, car, heavy and public transport along and near Punt Road

The current and projected traffic volumes for all modes of transport, including pedestrian, cyclist, car, heavy and public transport along and near Punt Road

The current and projected regional road and transport network operation

The current and possible future configurations of Punt Road with and without the overlay

The current land use and built form of land subject to the overlay

The current public transport along and crossing Punt Road

The current planning controls

The benefits (advantages) and costs (disadvantages) of retaining the overlay

The benefits (advantages) and costs (disadvantages) of removing the overlay, including possible alternate road and transport network response

Whether any modifications to the overlay are necessary.

The Background Report focused on the history of Punt Road, land use and transport planning, legislative and policy frameworks, current alignment and land use contexts including the mapping of the PAO, property issues, current planning controls, land use and built form, current and future road configuration options. It also provided a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of retaining or removing the PAO, and included maps of the land subject to the PAO, detailed aerial review maps, road hierarchy maps and a traffic works report.

VicRoads noted that the Background Report was a preliminary report and not a detailed examination of the design, or a business case, for a future widened road.

4.2 Options Report

The Punt Road Concept Report (Options Report), published in October 2015, was prepared for VicRoads by Arup. The Options Report was prepared as part of Stage 2 of the Punt Road PAO Committee Terms of Reference, to expand on traffic modelling and projections for various future concept options (concepts) along Punt Road.


Page 17 of 162

The Options Report had the purpose: ‘to outline the key findings from an appraisal of a range of possible improvement concepts for the Punt Road corridor that respond to forecast travel conditions in order to provide input into the PAO review’.

The scope of the Options Report includes the consideration of concepts that provide for various configurations of at‐grade intersections along the corridor, as well as concepts that include new lanes for existing public transport routes both along and across the corridor. Concepts that may include grade separation, tunnels or major new transit corridors (e.g. new light rail systems) were not considered part of the scope of the study.

To accompany the Options Report, VicRoads prepared the VicRoads Overview Report. This was to be read in conjunction with the VicRoads Background Report and the Options Report.

Concepts identified in the Options Report

The Options Report focused on seven possible future concepts for Punt Road. The concepts included options that could be contained within the existing road reservation boundaries, and others that would require the use of part or all of the land covered by the existing PAO. The concepts all focussed on improved through‐traffic efficiency of the existing corridor.

The Options Report included the following comments on the concepts presented:

Each of the concepts are considered to be preliminary only and include a number of components that are common to each of the concepts as well as assumptions for improvements to the network including:

24 hour clearways implemented for all concepts with the extent of reprovision of parking varying between the concepts;

while outside the scope of this study, improvements to the intersection of St Kilda Road and Punt Road have been assumed to be undertaken if required which may include new turn lanes to be accommodated within the existing corridor;

the existing delays experienced along Hoddle Street (north of the investigation area) have been assumed to be improved in response to the forecast travel demands through signal timing adjustments in order to facilitate the delivery of the capacity improvements that are identified by each of the concepts;

tram lanes and new accessible tram stop have been proposed on Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street with the specific location, time of day of application, type and extent of the facility is to be further developed;

the changes that each of the concepts presents for property and local road access has not been considered in detail and would require further development including consultation with the community, Council and other stakeholders. This may require slight modification to the concepts to increase access to Punt Road or may require mechanisms to reduce the potential for increases in traffic on the local road network as a result of restrictions to the right turn movements;

general improvements to the walking and cycling facilities with possible treatments including new footpaths, improved signage, cycling head‐start storage boxes etc; and


Page 18 of 162

peak period right turn bans are included in each of the concepts with these applying to both the morning and evening peak hour unless indicated otherwise.

The seven concepts are summarised in the following paragraphs. Concept drawings were provided for each concept showing the possible lane configuration and property impact.

(i) Concept 1 – 24 Hour Clearways

Clearways currently apply along Punt Road in both the morning (6:30am to 9:30am) and evening (3:30pm to 6:30pm) on weekdays. Concept 1 involves the extension of clearways to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in order to improve the efficiency of Punt Road between Union Street and the Yarra River outside peak periods.

The Options Report assessed this concept as viable for the short term only, as it does not address the congestion issues during the AM and PM peak periods or provide significant benefits for other modes of transport.

The Government is currently undertaking the statutory requirements to allow the implementation of the 24 hour clearway option. This is briefly discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

(ii) Concept 2 – 4 Lane: Central Right Lane Turn

Concept 2 involves changes within the existing road reserve to provide a fifth central lane. This lane would be designated to provide right turn lanes at some major and minor roads. A number of changes would take place to the operation of key movements such as simplifying traffic signal operations and improving efficiency for all modes of transport.

The Options Report assessed this concept as a viable short term improvement concept, however, it does not have the flexibility to address the long term demands for travel across the network. This concept would address short to long term congestion issues to a degree and provide some benefits for users crossing the corridor including pedestrians, cyclists, tram and bus passengers.

(iii) Concept 3 – 4 Lane: Narrow Central Median

Concept 3 involves changes within the existing road reserve to provide a central median. This concept includes the same intersection changes as Concept 2 and modifies the operation of key right turn movements in order to simplify traffic signal operations.

The Options Report assessed this concept as providing similar benefits and impacts to Concept 2. Further assessment would be required in relation to the changes to local roads and property access.

(iv) Concept 4 – 5 Lane: Reversible Lane

Concept 4 involves changes within the existing road reserve (in most areas) to provide a fifth reversible central lane. A reversible central lane would utilise overhead signs to operate as a reversible lane, serving the typical peak direction of travel along the corridor (e.g. northbound in the morning peak and southbound in the evening peak hour). This concept is


Page 19 of 162

similar to the treatments along Queens Road in Melbourne and along Johnson Street in Collingwood/Abbotsford.

The Options Report assessed this concept as unviable in the short, medium and long term, would not offer significant benefits for road users and would require restrictions to strategic movements on the corridor.

Prior to the Hearing, VicRoads advised that it no longer regarded this as a viable option and accordingly, it was not considered further.

(v) Concept 5 – 4 Lane/6 Lane Widened Intersections

Concept 5 involves flaring of each of the major intersections through acquisition of properties on the east side of Punt Road. The cross sections would narrow back to broadly match the existing kerb line between intersections.

Concept 5 includes:

construction of a new or widened Hoddle Bridge

additional through and turn lanes at the intersections of High Street, Commercial Road, Toorak Road and Alexandra Avenue

increased green time for crossing roads; and

partial or full acquisition of 65 properties.

Similar to previous concepts, the operation of key right turn movements are modified in this concept in order to simplify traffic signal operations.

The Options Report assessed this concept as viable for the medium to long term and the overall travel demands of the corridor. It would provide benefits for the surrounding road network and for users crossing the corridor including pedestrians, cyclists, and tram and bus passengers. However, there would also be significant impacts, in particular for approximately half the existing properties currently subject to the PAO. Impacts on a substantial number of heritage properties would also result.

(vi) Concept 6 – 6 Lane: Dual Carriageway

Concept 6 involves the full utilisation of the PAO and the acquisition of properties on the east side for the length of Punt Road in order to provide a lane dual carriageway. Similar to previous concepts, the operation of key right turn movements are modified in this Concept, in order to simplify traffic signal operations.

The Options Report assessed this concept as only viable in the long term. This concept provides similar benefits to Concept 5 but will impact on all 135 properties subject to the PAO including those with a heritage overlay. Although there is limited additional benefit of this option in its current form when compared to Concept 5, the Options Report states that this concept would involve flexibility over a longer planning horizon (e.g. 30 plus years) for further enhancements to the corridor (e.g. high capacity public transport linkages) and streetscape improvements through landscaping.

(vii) Concept 7 – 4 Lane/6 Lane: Bus Lanes

Concept 7 involves acquisition of properties on the east side for the majority of the length of Punt Road in order to provide a six lane dual carriageway comprising two traffic lanes and a


Page 20 of 162

bus lane in each direction. This concept also incorporates widening on the approaches to the intersections to provide further capacity enhancements.

Similar to previous concepts, the operation of key right turn movements are modified in order to simplify traffic signal operations.

The Options Report assessed this concept as a viable concept for the Punt Road corridor in the medium to long term. This concept provides similar benefits to Concept 5 and also provides the opportunity to encourage mode shift to public transport in the long term and streetscape improvements through landscaping. It would address the short, medium and long term travel demands for the corridor, and provide benefits for the surrounding road network. It also offers a similar level of flexibility to Concept 6 for further enhancements to the corridor in the long term. However, similar to Concept 6 there would be significant impacts, due to the extent of land acquisition that would be required and impacts within the Heritage Overlay.

(viii) Other alternatives for side roads and intersection improvements

The Options Report showed a number of additional improvement alternatives not involving use of the Punt Road PAO including:

Raised tram stops in High Street, Commercial Road and Toorak Road

Changed lane configurations on High Street, Commercial Road and Toorak Road

U turn treatment in Commercial Road west of Punt Road

U turn treatment in Toorak Road west of Punt Road adjacent to Walsh Street (potentially requiring minor intrusion into Fawkner Park)

A continuous flow right turn lane from Alexandra Avenue south‐east to Punt Road north

A new bridge along‐side Morrell Bridge to allow right turns from Alexandra Avenue and linking across the River to Batman Avenue and Punt Road north (with no right turn from Alexandra Avenue into Punt Road north)

A new Batman Avenue link to Punt Road at Kelso Street

No right turn from Alexandra Avenue into Punt Road from either direction and use of a widened Dobson Street to access Punt Road.

Each of these alternatives were presented to show that there are other alternatives for improving traffic along and across Punt Road in addition to those that use the PAO. The Committee has not given detailed consideration to any of these additional alternatives. Some of the alternatives arguably would assist relieving congestion or improving traffic flow, however, none of them are considered ‘game changers’ in terms of the resolving the issue of the need to widen Punt Road or not. The Committee generally supports the notion of implementing other network improvements, but it is outside the scope of the work of the Committee to give detailed consideration to these alternatives.

(ix) The Committee’s Modified Concept 5

The Committee has shown a modified version of Concept 5 for comparison purposes. The layout is similar to Concept 5 but with substantially reduced land acquisition and not including a new or widened Hoddle Bridge. The Modified Concept 5 proposed is shown graphically in Appendix E.


Page 21 of 162

As is the case for the concepts presented by VicRoads, the Committee’s modified concept is a preliminary concept only and would need further refinement of the design before property acquisition boundaries could be finalised.

The performance of the modified layout is discussed in the Committee’s analysis of traffic and transport issues in Chapter 8.

4.3 Streamlining Hoddle Street Initiative and Punt Road Transport Investigation

VicRoads is currently undertaking these two studies aimed at short term improvements in the Hoddle Street‐Punt Road corridor.

Streamlining Hoddle Street Initiative

This Project is to explore innovative ideas to increase the movement of people along and across the section of Hoddle Street from the Eastern Freeway to CityLink.

As part of its investigations for Hoddle Street, VicRoads will look at short to medium term improvements that could be implemented in the next two to four years.

Strategies being investigated include:

enhancing computerised traffic management systems

revising operations at intersections

prioritising public transport

exploring the use of ‘continuous flow intersections’, which are designed to improve traffic flow through intersections by reducing delays caused by right‐turning traffic.

The Project is relevant to the Punt Road section if it is successful in relieving the existing congestion north of the Yarra River as a core assumption underpinning all the VicRoads Concepts was that the existing delays experienced along Hoddle Street (north of the Yarra River) have been assumed to be improved through signal timing adjustments.

The Government announced in April 2016 that $60 million has been allocated to fund the first stage of the Streamlining Hoddle Street initiative.

The first stage will include an upgrade to the Swan Street intersection with a concept for a continuous flow intersection being developed and construction expected to begin in mid 2017. The Committee requested more detailed information on the plans and information on expected capacity improvements; however VicRoads was unable to make any detailed information publicly available.

Punt Road Transport Investigations

This Project is considering short term road network changes to improve traffic movement within the existing road cross section on Punt Road between Alexandra Avenue and Union Street (south of the Yarra). The Project is considering 24 hour clearways, the potential for a fifth lane and concepts for improving traffic and public transport operations across Punt Road.

This investigation has directly informed the development of Concepts 1 to 4.

As a result of the investigation and associated consultation, steps to implement the introduction of 24 hour clearways were commenced in January 2016.


Page 22 of 162

It is proposed to change clearway operating times in the following locations:

Punt Road – from St Kilda Junction to Alexandra Avenue

Alexandra Avenue – for up to 80 metres in both directions on the west side of the Punt Road intersection

Toorak Road intersection on the: - East side for 55 metres outbound and 35 metres inbound - West side for 100 metres in both directions

Commercial Road – for 65 metres in both directions on the east side of the Punt Road intersection

High Street – for 70 metres in both directions on each side of the Punt Road intersection.

The clearways are proposed to operate 24 hours, 7 days a week (with the exception of Toorak Road east and Punt Road south of Gladstone Street where some sections will only operate in the morning and afternoon peak periods).

VicRoads is currently conducting consultation on the proposal in accordance with the Road Management Act 2004. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, the 24 hour clearways are likely to be implemented in mid‐2016.

4.4 Consultation undertaken by VicRoads

VicRoads undertook community consultation from 24 August to 21 September 2015, in relation to several projects along the Punt Road‐Hoddle Street Corridor. These projects included the Streamlining Hoddle Street Initiative and the Punt Road Transport Investigation.

As part of this consultation, VicRoads conducted online community consultation, which received 668 contributions. A total of 280 participants commented on the section of Punt Road south of the Yarra River, and of these participants, 54 per cent were concerned with issues that related to traffic and freight. Private Car Users made up the largest proportion of participants (30 per cent), followed by Residents (21 per cent), whilst 20 per cent of participants chose not to answer.10 Online participants raised the following issues:

Congestion is a major issue throughout the corridor for all user groups

There is support for extended clearways to ease congestion, enhance safety and improve traffic flow

Participants generally favoured higher priority for public transport

Cyclists and pedestrians do not feel safe in the corridor.11

The VicRoads community consultation also included ‘drop in’ information sessions about several projects in the Punt Road – Hoddle Street corridor and information about the Punt Road PAO Committee. These ‘drop in’ information sessions were held on 12 September 2015 at Catholic Leadership Centre, Simonds Hall, East Melbourne, and on 16 September 2015 at Wesley College, St Kilda Road Campus.

VicRoads also conducted stakeholder engagement with Government agencies, community representative groups, public transport operators, user groups and the RACV, and conducted three Council workshops with Councils interfacing with the Hoddle Street – Punt Road corridor.

10 VicRoads Concept Options Overview Report, p7. 11 VicRoads Information Update brochure, October 2015.


Page 23 of 162

4.5 Other documents provided to the Committee

The Committee was provided with a wide range of material. A full list of documents provided at the Hearings is attached as Attachment C.

The following is a list of the more significant documents provided:

VicRoads Noise Reduction Policy 2005

Plan Melbourne and Plan Melbourne Refresh (extracts)

VicRoads SmartRoads brochure 2011

Principal Bicycle Network Fact Sheet 2012

Various heritage property citations

VicRoads Traffic Monitor 2012‐13 2015

Punt Road Community Engagement Report 2015

Fawkner Park Master Plan 2006

City of Melbourne Open Space Strategy

City of Melbourne Road Safety Plan 2013‐2017

City of Melbourne Transport Strategy 2012

City of Stonnington Strategies for Creating Open Space

City of Stonnington Street Tree Strategy

City of Stonnington Significant Tree Registry

City of Stonnington heritage information for Punt Road properties

City of Stonnington Road Management Plan 2013

City of Stonnington Road Safety Policy 2008‐2017

City of Stonnington Public Transport Advocacy Statement 2014

City of Stonnington Cycling Strategy 2013‐2018.

In addition, the Committee considered expert witness reports provided to it from the following expert witnesses:

Mr Paul Carter and Mr Jonathon Kinghorn on Transport

Mr Reece Humphreys on Traffic Engineering and Transport

Mr Rob Milner on Planning

Mr Andrew Kinnaird on Economic/valuation

Mr Knowles Tivendale on Traffic and Transport

Mr Ian Shears on Open Space

Mr Jim Higgs on Traffic Engineering.


Page 24 of 162

5 Legislative and strategic context

VicRoads, Stonnington City Council and Melbourne City Council all referred to the legislative and strategic framework in place that guides the Committee’s decision making in relation to whether the PAO should be retained, modified or removed.

The Committee has reviewed the legislative framework and State and local strategic frameworks that guide the Committee’s consideration about the future of the PAO.

5.1 Road Management Act 2004

The Road Management Act 2004 provides the overarching governance for the road network, its management and performance. It is a statutory framework that provides a set of principles for the management of the road system.

Section 20(1) seeks to ensure that a network of roads is provided primarily for the movement of persons and goods as part of an integrated transport system and that road reserves are available for other appropriate uses. Further, Section 20(1A) states:

In giving effect to the principal object of road management consistent with the transport system objectives under the Transport Integration Act 2010 , the road network is to be managed to reflect the priorities of different modes of transport having regard to the intended function or functions of different parts of the road network.

5.2 The Transport Integration Act 2010

The Transport Integration Act 2010 (TIA) is the primary transport statute for Victoria and guides how transport decisions are to be made.

(i) Vision

In doing so, the TIA establishes a vision for the transport system based on five key objectives, these are:

Social and economic inclusion12

The transport system should provide a means by which persons can access social and economic opportunities to support individual and community wellbeing including by—

(a) minimising barriers to access so that so far as is possible the transport system is available to as many persons as wish to use it;

(b) providing tailored infrastructure, services and support for persons who find it difficult to use the transport system.

Economic prosperity13

The transport system should facilitate economic prosperity by—

12 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 8 13 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 9


Page 25 of 162

(a) enabling efficient and effective access for persons and goods to places of employment, markets and services;

(b) increasing efficiency through reducing costs and improving timeliness;

(c) fostering competition by providing access to markets;

(d) facilitating investment in Victoria;

(e) supporting financial sustainability.

Environmental sustainability14

The transport system should actively contribute to environmental sustainability by—

(a) protecting, conserving and improving the natural environment;

(b) avoiding, minimising and offsetting harm to the local and global environment, including through transport‐related emissions and pollutants and the loss of biodiversity;

(c) promoting forms of transport and the use of forms of energy and transport technologies which have the least impact on the natural environment and reduce the overall contribution of transport‐related greenhouse gas emissions;

(d) improving the environmental performance of all forms of transport and the forms of energy used in transport;

(e) preparing for and adapting to the challenges presented by climate change.

Efficiency, coordination and reliability15

(1) The transport system should provide for the effective integration of transport and land use and facilitate access to social and economic opportunities.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), transport and land use should be effectively integrated so as to improve accessibility and transport efficiency with a focus on—

(a) maximising access to residences, employment, markets, services and recreation;

(b) planning and developing the transport system more effectively;

(c) reducing the need for private motor vehicle transport and the extent of travel;

(d) facilitating better access to, and greater mobility within, local communities.

14 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 10 15 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 12


Page 26 of 162

Safety and health and wellbeing16

(1) The transport system should be safe and support health and wellbeing.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the transport system should—

(a) seek to continually improve the safety performance of the transport system through‐

(i) safe transport infrastructure;

(ii) safe forms of transport;

(iii) safe transport system user behaviour;

(b) avoid and minimise the risk of harm to persons arising from the transport system;

(c) promote forms of transport and the use of forms of energy which have the greatest benefit for, and least negative impact on, health and wellbeing.

(ii) Decision Making Principles

The Act also specifies a number of ‘Decision Making Principles’, these include:

Principle of integrated decision making17

The principle of integrated decision making means seeking to achieve Government policy objectives through coordination between all levels of government and government agencies and with the private sector.

Principle of triple bottom line assessment18

The principle of triple bottom‐line assessment means an assessment of all the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits taking into account externalities and value for money.

Principle of equity19

The principle of equity means—

(a) equity between persons irrespective of their—

(i) personal attributes, including age, physical ability, ethnicity, culture, gender and financial situation; or

(ii) location, including whether in a growth, urban, regional, rural or remote area;

(b) equity between generations by not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

16 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 13 17 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 15 18 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 16 19 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 17


Page 27 of 162

Principle of the transport system user perspective20

The transport system user perspective means—

(a) understanding the requirements of transport system users, including their information needs;

(b) enhancing the useability of the transport system and the quality of experiences of the transport system.

Precautionary principle21 (1) The precautionary principle means that if there are threats of serious

or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(2) The precautionary principle includes—

(a) a careful evaluation to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment wherever practicable; and

(b) an assessment of the risk‐weighted consequences of various options.

Principle of stakeholder engagement and community participation22

The principle of stakeholder engagement and community participation means—

(a) taking into account the interests of stakeholders, including transport system users and members of the local community;

(b) adopting appropriate processes for stakeholder engagement.

Principle of transparency23

The principle of transparency means members of the public should have access to reliable and relevant information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of transport issues and the process by which decisions in relation to the transport system are made.

5.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&EA) and the Transport Integration Act 2010 (TIA) are interface legislation. As interface legislation, implementation of this legislation is to be coordinated.

The P&EA establishes the objectives of planning, these are:

20 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 18 21 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 19 22 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 20 23 Transport Integration Act 2010 Section 21


Page 28 of 162

Objectives

(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;

(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man‐made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;

(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;

(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;

(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‐ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;

(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);

(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

5.4 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

There is a significant amount of State policy that is relevant, both directly and indirectly, to the future of the Punt Road PAO.

VicRoads, Stonnington City Council and Melbourne City Council all made reference to the SPPF, some in support for the retention of the PAO, and some for its removal. The Committee has also identified additional policy not referred to in submissions.

The relevant policy is outlined below: Clause 10.04 ‐ Integrated decision making – identifies that society has various needs and

expectations and that when integrating policy, conflicting objectives should be balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. It also emphasises that strategic planning should be co‐ordinated amongst municipal planning authorities and other public bodies to achieve sustainable development and effective and efficient use of resources.

Clause 11 – Settlement – emphasises that planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through a range of land uses, as well as the provision of infrastructure. In doing so, it seeks to integrate transport and land use (amongst others) emphasising that planning is to facilitate sustainable development that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns and investment in transport and other infrastructure.

Clause 11.04‐3 ‐ A more connected Melbourne objective – seeks to provide an integrated transport system connecting people to jobs and services, and goods to market. The relevant strategies include transforming the transport system to support a more productive central city; improving access to job‐rich areas across Melbourne and strengthening transport networks in existing suburbs; improving local travel


Page 29 of 162

options to increase social and economic participation; and improving the efficiency of freight networks while protecting urban amenity.

Clause 12.05‐2 ‐ Yarra River protection objective – seeks to maintain and enhance the natural landscape character of the Yarra River corridor in which the topography, waterway, banks and tree canopy are dominant features providing a highly valued, secluded, natural environment for the enjoyment of the public. It includes strategies to strengthen the river’s natural environment, heritage and overall health; maintaining a sense of place and landscape; as well as retaining and enhancing people’s enjoyment of the river and its environment. A key strategy is to protect the river’s riparian vegetation, natural riverbank topography and flood management capacity, as well as retaining a dominant and consistent tree canopy along the river corridor and within its broader landscape setting.

Clause 13.04‐1 ‐ Noise abatement objective – seeks to assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses.

Clause 13.04‐2 ‐ Air quality objective – seeks to assist the protection and improvement of air quality by ensuring land use planning and transport infrastructure provision contributes to improved air quality through improved transport accessibility, connections and providing infrastructure for public transport, walking and cycling.

Clause 15.01‐1 ‐ Urban design objective – seeks to create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity. One of the key strategies is to ensure transport corridors integrate land use planning and are developed and managed with particular attention to urban design aspects.

Clause 15.01‐4 ‐ Design for safety objective – seeks to improve community safety and encourage neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe. One of the key strategies is to support initiatives that provide safer walking and cycling routes and improve safety for people using public transport.

Clause 15.01‐5 ‐ Cultural identity and neighbourhood character objective – seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. Key strategies to achieve this include ensuring development responds to its context and reinforces heritage values/built form that reflects community identity; as well as the values, needs and aspirations of the community.

Clause 15.02‐1 ‐ Sustainable development ‐Energy and resource efficiency objective – seeks to encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions. Key strategies to achieve this include the integration of land use and transport by supporting low energy forms of transport, such as walking and cycling.

Clause 15.03‐1 ‐ Heritage conservation objective – seeks to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. Key strategies include providing for the conservation and enhancement of places of cultural or social significance; encouraging development that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations; retaining those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place and restoration of contributory elements; as well as ensuring an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or enhanced.


Page 30 of 162

Clause 15.03‐2 ‐ Aboriginal cultural heritage objective – seeks to ensure the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. A key strategy is to provide for the protection and conservation of pre and post‐contact Aboriginal cultural heritage places.

Clause 17.03‐2 ‐ Tourism in Metropolitan Melbourne objective – seeks to maintain and develop Metropolitan Melbourne as a desirable tourist destination. Relevant strategies include maintaining Metropolitan Melbourne's position as a destination in its own right by developing city precincts and promenades, as well as improving transport infrastructure.

Clause 18.01‐1 ‐ Integrated Transport ‐ Land use and transport planning objective – seeks to create a safe and sustainable transport system by integrating land‐use and transport. Two key strategies to achieve this are to develop transport networks to support employment corridors that allow circumferential and radial movements and to plan urban development to make jobs and community services more accessible. Some of the ways this is to be achieved by:

Ensuring access is provided to developments in accordance with forecast demand, taking advantage of all available modes of transport and to minimise adverse impacts on existing transport networks and the amenity of surrounding areas.

Coordinating improvements to public transport, walking and cycling networks with the ongoing development and redevelopment of the urban area.

Concentrating key trip generators such as higher density residential development in and around Central Activities Districts, Principal, Major and Specialised Activity Centres on the Principal Public Transport Network.

Providing safe, convenient and direct pedestrian and cycling access to activity centres, public transport interchanges and other strategic redevelopment sites.

Clause 18.01‐2 ‐ Transport system objective – seeks to coordinate development of all transport modes to provide a comprehensive transport system. The key strategies to achieve this include:

Requiring transport system management plans for key transport corridors and reserving land for strategic transport infrastructure.

Incorporating the provision of public transport and cycling infrastructure in all major new State and local Government road projects.

Locating transport routes to achieve the greatest overall benefit to the community and with regard to making the best use of existing social, cultural and economic infrastructure, minimising impacts on the environment and optimising accessibility, safety, emergency access, service and amenity.

Locating and designing new transport routes and adjoining land uses to minimise disruption of residential communities and their amenity.

Planning or regulating new uses or development of land near an existing or proposed transport route to avoid detriment to, and where possible enhance the service, safety and amenity desirable for that transport route in the short and long terms.

Encouraging higher land use densities and mixed use developments near principal bus routes and other locations.


Page 31 of 162

Ensuring transport practices, including design, construction and management reduce environmental impacts.

Consider all modes of travel, including walking, cycling, public transport, taxis and private vehicles (passenger and freight) in providing for access to new developments.

Clause 18.02‐1 ‐ Movement networks ‐ Sustainable personal transport objective – seeks to promote the use of sustainable personal transport. Strategies include developing safe and attractive walking and cycling environments that are also accessible to footpath‐bound vehicles such as wheelchairs, prams and scooters.

Clause 18.02‐2 ‐ Cycling objective – seeks to integrate planning for cycling with land use and development planning and encourage alternative modes of travel. One strategy seeks to ensure bicycle infrastructure is planned to separate cyclists from other road users, particularly motor vehicles, whilst providing the most direct route practical. It also seeks to link with and complement the metropolitan‐wide network of bicycle routes – the Principal Bicycle Network.

Clause 18.02‐3 ‐ Principal Public Transport Network objective – seeks to upgrade and develop the Principal Public Transport Network and local public transport services in Metropolitan Melbourne to connect activity centres, link activities in employment corridors and link Melbourne to the regional cities. A key strategy is to improve the operation of the existing public transport network with faster, more reliable and efficient on‐road transport by improving the movement, efficiency and reliability of the road‐based public transport through road‐space management measures including transit lanes, clearways, traffic‐light prioritisation and stop design.

Clause 18.02‐4 ‐ Management of the road system objective – seeks to manage the road system to achieve integration, choice and balance by developing an efficient and safe network and making the most of existing infrastructure. Key strategies include planning and regulating the design of transport routes and nearby areas to achieve visual standards appropriate to the importance of the route, including landscaping. In addition, it seeks to make better use of roads for all road users through techniques such as the provision of wider footpaths, bicycle lanes, transit lanes (for buses and taxis) and specific freight routes, as well as improving the management of key freight routes to make freight operations more efficient while reducing their external impacts.

Clause 18.05‐1 ‐ Freight ‐ Develop freight links objective – seeks to further develop key transport gateways and freight links and maintain Victoria’s position as the nation’s premier logistics centre. A key strategy to achieve this is to improve the freight and logistics network to optimise freight handling.

5.5 Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne outlines the vision for Melbourne’s growth to 2050. It seeks to define what kind of city Melbourne will be and identifies the infrastructure, services and major projects required to underpin the city’s growth. It is a blueprint for Melbourne’s future prosperity, liveability and sustainability.

Plan Melbourne is State policy and specifically referred to in Clause 9 of the SPPF.


Page 32 of 162

It recognises that Melbourne is a large metropolis, with a population of 4.3 million people, and is the fastest growing city in Australia. It identifies that population growth has been profound with 600,000 new residents added over the last decade and that growth is exceeding expectations. It recognises Melbourne will be a very different city in 2050 and given the rapid growth that has occurred over the past decade, the city could grow by another 3‐4 million people to be a city of around 7.7 million people by 2051.

Plan Melbourne seeks to accommodate this growth largely within the existing urban area; and particularly in locations with good access to services and transport.

In planning for this increased population, it recognises the city’s liveability and competitiveness over the coming decades could be undermined if a number of issues are not addressed. The first issue identified is ‘Congestion’ which recognises that ‘Melbourne’s transport infrastructure and services are under increasing pressure, with congestion increasing on road and public transport systems during peak periods.’

Whilst Plan Melbourne seeks to plan for this growth, it recognises that how people live and work is affected by changes in science, technology, communications and culture, but that these changes are both difficult to predict and can happen quickly. It emphasises that based on changes that have occurred over the last 40 years, planning for Melbourne’s future needs to be flexible, ongoing and adaptable.

It also emphasises the need to make better use of existing assets given the city’s rail, road and associated trunk infrastructure requires billions of dollars of investment to upgrade and maintain each year. It states that return on investment needs to be maximised to deliver value to taxpayers and ensure we can provide new infrastructure to meet the requirements of a growing population, stating successful cities respond to growth constraints by making better use of what they already have.

In establishing a vision for Melbourne, Plan Melbourne establishes seven outcomes and objectives. Three of these are directly relevant to the future of the PAO and issues raised in submissions, these include:

A more connected Melbourne

Liveable communities and neighbourhoods

Environment and Water.

(i) A more connected Melbourne

A more connected Melbourne seeks to provide an integrated transport system connecting people to jobs and services, and goods to market.

It recognises a key challenge for Melbourne is the need to ensure sufficient commuter capacity on public transport and roads systems, and to ensure that Victoria maintains its competitive advantage in freight and logistics.

This objective recognises that as Melbourne grows, the transport system will need to accommodate an additional 10.7 million daily person trips by 2050 on top of the existing 14.2 million trips per day. To accommodate this, it will be critical to add links to the network, gain greater efficiency out of existing infrastructure and increase our reliance on public transport.


Page 33 of 162

Whilst a large focus of this objective is on moving towards a public transport and metro‐style rail system, it recognises the importance and contribution the extensive road system makes in carrying trams, buses, commuter cycling, freight and pedestrians, in addition to the private motor vehicle. It recognises the various networks work together as an integrated system with changes and improvements in one part of the system having flow‐on effects to other parts; and that there will be challenges in managing this associated with Melbourne’s growth.

It also recognises we will need to use our transport infrastructure and services more efficiently, provide balanced investments across the system, ensure new initiatives represent value for money and deliver maintenance that preserves the long‐term performance of our transport assets.

The most relevant key directions include:

Direction 3.1 ‐ Transform the transport system to support a more productive central city – recognises that with the rapid population growth in inner Melbourne, public transport will continue to be an important means of getting people around Melbourne, with trams and buses sharing road space with private vehicles. It also recognises that at the same time, the availability of road space is often connected to the use of clear ways on arterial roads. It identifies three key challenges, the most relevant to the future of the Punt Road PAO being the need to improve travel across and within the expanded central city and inner Melbourne.

Relevant initiatives under this direction include:

Initiative 3.1.3 – Improve tram travel times, capacity and reliability and extend the tram network into key urban renewal precincts – recognises the important contribution trams play in the economy of central Melbourne and the need to enhance this network through improved travel times. It states this will be achieved by transforming the tram system into a light rail system with right‐of‐way.

Initiative 3.1.4 – Support growing areas of the central city by strengthening bus services to and around central Melbourne – recognises that bus patronage has increased dramatically in response to improved services and that this is expected to continue. It recognises that as the city develops and demand grows, options to progressively upgrade the inner‐city bus network will be examined, with a focus on increased frequency, reliability, improved travel times and connectivity.

Direction 3.4 – Improve local travel options to increase social and economic participation – recognises the importance of walking and cycling as forms of transport.

Relevant initiatives under this direction include:

Initiative 3.4.2 – Create a network of high‐quality cycling links – recognises not only the health benefits of cycling, but also that it is a sustainable form of transport. It recognises there are opportunities to provide dedicated cycle paths as part of new or upgraded road infrastructure, and through the identification of bicycle priority routes.


Page 34 of 162

Direction 3.5 – Improve the efficiency of freight networks while protecting urban amenity – recognises the important role freight plays to the economy and that Melbourne has a number of competitive advantages in freight, one being good transport links. It identifies that Plan Melbourne supports three key freight priorities, these being:

Ensuring the ability of businesses to access and service markets interstate and overseas through efficient freight gateways is vital to the economy of the city and state.

Implementing measures that enhance the efficiency of movement of goods on Melbourne’s existing road and rail networks will remain important to Melbourne’s economic development; and

Providing new infrastructure capacity where bottlenecks develop, or where efficiency measures have been exhausted, will be critical in future years as the size of the freight task grows.

A relevant initiative under this direction is:

Initiative 3.5.1 – Improve the efficiency of road freight connections – states the Government has a long‐term vision for the development of an efficient and effective road freight network for Melbourne, which not only includes new road infrastructure, but also upgrades to arterial roads.

Punt Road is identified as being a ‘Principal Freight Network – road.’

(ii) Liveable communities and neighbourhoods

Liveable communities and neighbourhoods seeks to create healthy active neighbourhoods and maintain Melbourne’s identity as one of the world’s most liveable cities. It recognises Melbourne is known for its well‐preserved heritage buildings and well‐designed urban spaces which are considered fundamental to Melbourne’s liveability and sense of identity; and that more can be done to strengthen protection of this heritage. It recognises that it will be inevitable that during times of growth there will be tension between preserving the best of the past and building for the future, but that growth needs to be managed so Melbourne’s distinctive characteristics and heritage are maintained and liveability enhanced.

The green leafy character of Melbourne streets is also seen as a key feature. An identified ‘Solution’ is to prepare a Distinctive Melbourne policy that specifies what Melbourne’s distinctive aspects are and how they should influence new development, and to prepare with VicRoads and local governments, a long‐term metropolitan boulevard strategy and implementation plan that identifies new boulevard corridors, which are tree lined major roads.

The most relevant key directions are:

Direction 4.6 – Create more great public places throughout Melbourne – recognises the goal to raise the standard of urban design of public places throughout the entire metropolitan area. It recognises that streets (amongst other places) have the potential to become distinctive and appealing places that can add to the city’s overall character and sense of place and that planning should seek to achieve a consistently high standard of design quality for public spaces.


Page 35 of 162

A key initiative under this direction is:

Initiative 4.6.2 – Develop Melbourne’s network of boulevards – which recognises that Melbourne’s grand boulevards are a proud and distinctive feature of the city’s urban fabric and will be extended to transform a network of selected existing road corridors into boulevards across Melbourne, providing greater tree coverage for shade and enhancing the attractiveness of major through‐roads.

Direction 4.7 – Respect our heritage as we build for the future – recognises managing the tension between development and conservation is an important task. In doing so, it seeks to value heritage when managing growth and change; and to respect and protect the city’s Aboriginal heritage.

(iii) Environment and Water

Environment and Water seeks to protect natural assets to create a sustainable city, recognising it is defined by the strength, health and beauty of the natural environment and the resilience of the built environment. It addresses the need to protect and restore natural habitats in urban areas; the need to improve noise and air quality to improve human and environmental health; and the need to integrate whole‐of water‐cycle management to deliver sustainable and resilient urban development. The Yarra River is identified as a ‘Waterway corridor’.

The most relevant key directions are:

Direction 5.2 – Protect and restore natural habitats in urban and non‐urban areas – recognises that Melbourne enjoys a rich natural amenity in its landscapes and waterways.


Initiative 5.2.2 – Protect the values of our waterways – recognises that increasing urbanisation poses a significant threat to the environmental condition of waterways, which is primarily affected the velocity and quality of stormwater runoff.

Direction 5.4 – Improve noise and air quality – recognises the need to minimise the air pollution impacts of urban living, including motor vehicle emissions.


Initiative 5.4.1 – Integrate noise and air quality guidelines into land use and transport planning provisions – recognises that adopting measures to control excessive noise through planning, building and urban design will help to safeguard community health and amenity.

5.6 State Strategic work currently underway

Plan Melbourne is currently being ‘refreshed’ and what is being identified and being undertaken as part of this process is relevant to the consideration of the future of the PAO. This work and its associated implications are discussed below.


Page 36 of 162

(i) Plan Melbourne Refresh/Plan Melbourne 2016

Plan Melbourne Refresh is not intended to be a wholesale review of all aspects of Plan Melbourne, but rather to ensure its directions are still relevant. The Plan Melbourne Refresh project will result in an updated strategy Plan Melbourne 2016.

The Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper reinforces that Melbourne is facing some big challenges associated with meeting the needs of an increasing population and reiterates the need to think and act thoughtfully about how to grow and develop the city.

It reiterates that a key challenge for Melbourne will be the increasing pressure on the city’s transport network to accommodate 7 million extra road, public transport, cycling and pedestrian trips per day on Melbourne’s transport network by 2040. To accommodate this, it recognises Melbourne needs to double the capacity of its transport system and improve its connectivity, efficiency and supporting investment in transport infrastructure. It emphasises that adaptive transport planning is vital to respond to Melbourne’s growth patterns as they emerge and change over time.

Plan Melbourne Refresh recognises that building new transport infrastructure will be a key part of responding to increased demand, particularly in the fastest growing parts of the city. To cope, the existing network will need to operate more efficiently ensuring the transport network supports the key land use directions of Plan Melbourne 2016.

Plan Melbourne Refresh identifies the need to transform the road and rail network and identifies transit corridors as key transport and land use concepts, reinforcing a commitment to expand the bus network with better facilities and access, along with greater road priority at critical parts of the network. In doing so, it proposes to include identification of the PPTN in Plan Melbourne 2016.

Plan Melbourne Refresh recognises that Melbourne’s growth patterns and economic needs will change over time and that successive governments will need to respond to the challenges and opportunities this presents for the transport network. It states Plan Melbourne 2016 will inform medium and long‐term transport options and support protection of transport corridors, which will be guided by Victoria’s transport planning obligations under the TIA and informed by the advice of Infrastructure Victoria, which has been established to advise on infrastructure investment and policy directions that will be reflected in Plan Melbourne 2016.

The Discussion Paper also makes reference to the importance of developing an enduring metropolitan strategy to provide certainty about long‐term strategic directions for sound investment decisions by government and the private sector, highlighting recommendations made by the Plan Melbourne 2015 Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) which stated:

Over a 40 year plan, it is imperative to develop long‐term, visionary plans and (as necessary) reserve transport corridors, areas for urban growth, green wedges, employment land, or biodiversity areas, as the Plan dictates. This approach was followed for Melbourne in the MMBW 1954 Plan and its 1970s plans.

What will be required by 2051 needs to be identified now and set out in PM Refresh. The nomination of, say, a road or rail project on the plan does not carry with it an obligation to build it now or in the near future. However, its


Page 37 of 162

inclusion in the plan does set out an intention and a need to protect that option. In the case of land components, this may involve land purchase, as and when the opportunity or requirement arises. While events and technology might make changes necessary or beneficial, the long‐term visionary plan needs to be freed from the budgetary priorities and constraints of the government of the day.

The short term may extend over a ten year period, and involve various levels of project planning and delivery. It is really only in the short term where major capital expenditure needs to be committed. MAC (2015) report, p.1

Plan Melbourne Refresh has accepted the MAC’s comments and recognises there is merit in revising Plan Melbourne 2014 to separate the long term plan from the implementation plan to create a more enduring strategy.

The proposed Punt Road widening has not been identified as a specific road project in the Discussion document.

(ii) Infrastructure Victoria’s 30‐year infrastructure strategy

As outlined in Plan Melbourne Refresh, an integral part of meeting the transport infrastructural requirements to be included in Plan Melbourne 2016 will be based on the advice of Infrastructure Victoria.

Infrastructure Victoria is currently in the process of preparing a 30 year infrastructure strategy that will inform Plan Melbourne Refresh, amongst other things.

Preparation of this strategy has involved three stages, which include:

Putting things into perspective –which provides an overview of Victoria 30 years ago, today and what things might look like in 30 years. It acknowledges the rapid growth in both public transport and private vehicle movements since 1986 and recognises greater network capacity, improved system connectivity and population growth to 9.4 million24 will drive even higher numbers of public transport passengers. It also identifies that innovations such as driverless cars will change how roads are used.

From the ground up –outlines some of the issues, ideas and opportunities Infrastructure Victoria will be considering as it develops the 30 year infrastructure strategy. It specifically identifies that in 30 years time Victoria will be a very different place. It emphasises that whilst we know some things, there are things we cannot even imagine that will shape of our society, economy and environment; just as our society, economy and environment will shape our infrastructure needs. It recognises that getting infrastructure right is not easy and that big infrastructure projects require long lead times, cost a lot of money and that using existing infrastructure better requires us to think in different ways; accepting that getting people to agree is perhaps the hardest thing of all.

It recognises that Victoria needs a well‐considered infrastructure strategy for the short, medium and long term that factors in social, economic and environmental impacts and builds community consensus. It also recognises this will assist governments to make

24 From Laying the Foundation


Page 38 of 162

informed decisions about the best ways to address challenges and make the most of opportunities. It states it will help take the politics out of infrastructure planning, providing more certainty for the community and business about our future infrastructure priorities.

This paper recognises that we are planning for an uncertain future. It emphasises that whilst we can be confident we know there will be more people, we don’t know how many, where they will live and what infrastructure they will require. It emphasises that population projections have been consistently revised upwards to reflect higher birth rates and immigration.

The paper also recognises that in addition to increasing population growth, advances in technology have and will continue to change the way our society and economy function. Driverless cars were specifically identified as one technological advancement that may disrupt the way we live and do business. It emphasises the need to be adaptable to seize technological change and use it to our best advantage; and highlights that uncertainty should not be an excuse for inaction. On the contrary, it states this is a reason to clearly articulate what we want our future to be, to make decisions based on available evidence and be adaptable in the face of change.

The paper identifies that this is the work being undertaken by Infrastructure Victoria, looking at both short and longer term infrastructure initiatives, recognising the longer term options may be more open and flexible.

Laying the foundations –sets out what Victoria’s 30 year infrastructure strategy is trying to achieve and identifies what is required to achieve our goals. It recognises the need to learn from the past, and in particular states that Victoria’s infrastructure landscape is a result of historical decisions and planning made throughout the State’s relatively rapid development. It examines the evolution of planning/infrastructure policy from the 1929 Plan of General Development which identified the need to reduce traffic congestion and recommended an underground rail network, through to the 1954 Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme Report which reserved transport corridors, primarily for arterial roads and freeways, to the 1971 Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region. It recognises that although aspects of these plans have not been fully delivered, they have laid the foundation for Melbourne’s subsequent plans.

Laying the Foundations recognises that land use planning and infrastructure planning should be closely aligned as land use planning informs infrastructure requirements, while infrastructure enables the achievement of land use objectives. It recognises the need for both Plan Melbourne Refresh and this 30 year infrastructure strategy to inform each other.

In developing this strategy, Infrastructure Victoria has developed a series of guiding principles with one of these relating to evidence required for decision‐making. It recognises that evidence may not exist or be fit for purpose to inform the strategy; and recognises that even the best available evidence will not mitigate uncertainty entirely. In this context, Infrastructure Victoria states it will seek to preserve options to provide more flexibility in future and identify solutions that meet a range of possible needs.


Page 39 of 162

It also states that, in recognising the cost of infrastructure, it will seek to manage the demands placed on infrastructure and use the assets we already have more efficiently as these can be cheaper and better options. It states that wherever possible, Infrastructure Victoria will look at non‐build solutions first.

As a case study, it considers the potential impact of emerging vehicle technology on infrastructure provision and recognises that whilst the implications of this may not be immediately clear, they could fundamentally affect the way people use Victoria’s transport networks. It specifically identifies driverless vehicles as technology that may have significant implications and emphasises the need for planning for the future to be cognisant of what this might mean, how it may contribute to better outcomes and what challenges it may present. It emphasises that whilst there are still many unknowns, this is not a cause for inaction.

Some of the questions it identifies emerging transport technologies may present are:

When? Gradual adoption or big bang?

More efficient use of road network? Road design implications?

More/lengthier trips by vehicles? Knock‐on implications for congestion?

Competition with public transport and other non‐car modes?

Role in delivery of goods?

Infrastructure Victoria released an options paper titled ‘All things considered’ on 19 May 2016, and the 30 year infrastructure strategy is expected to be completed by the end of 2016. It is not clear at this stage whether the strategy will assist in confirming the role of Punt Road in the road network, but the Committee considers that it is possible that project priorities developed in the strategy may have direct or indirect impacts on the Punt Road Hoddle Street corridor.

5.7 Local Planning Policy Framework

5.7.1 Stonnington Local Planning Policy Framework

Stonnington Council submitted the following local policies are relevant to the consideration of the future of the Punt Road PAO.

Clause 21.02‐3 – Overview – Key influences and challenges – identifies the ongoing and increasing pressures to accommodate additional development attracted by the City’s inner metropolitan location and the availability of services and infrastructure. It also identifies the need to uphold and restore the City’s key values which include heritage buildings, key landmarks and residential environs, whilst accepting change. How to optimise the use of and access to the public transport system, as well as encouraging sustainable transport options and managing traffic flows and parking on the City’s road were, also identified as challenges.

Clause 21.03‐ 2 – Vision – Strategic Vision – seeks to direct higher density housing to locations with the highest accessibility to public transport and services, including beside main roads with Smart buses. It also seeks to ensure key landmark features, such as the Yarra River frontage, are protected from intrusive development and that all heritage places of at least local significance are protected from intrusive development. In terms of road infrastructure, it seeks to significantly reduce through traffic from within the City and to


Page 40 of 162

reroute it around the City, resulting in reductions in congestion, air pollution and noise. It also places emphasis on the importance of sustainable personal transport modes.

The Strategic Framework Plan identifies Punt Road as a ‘Preferred traffic route’ and Tram/Bus Priority Route within the ‘VicRoads (Smart Roads) Road Use Hierarchy’. It also identifies the Punt Road Hill to the north (Toorak Road to the Yarra River) and Punt Road south (High Street – Dandenong Road) as areas which have ‘Special Built Form considerations’, and the Yarra River as ‘Areas of Natural/Environmental Considerations.’

Clause 21.05‐2 – Housing – Location of residential development ‐ seeks to direct the majority of new housing development to locations with the highest level of accessibility to both an Activity Centre and the Principal Public Transport Network, and away from the residential hinterland. Given the identification of Punt Road as a main road and a priority bus route, it is included within a ‘Substantial change area’ provided access arrangements onto main roads minimises conflicts of movement with vehicle traffic and public transport and does not introduce delays. It also qualifies that land within a residential heritage precinct in a Heritage Overlay, becomes a ‘Minimal Change area’.

Clause 21.06‐1 – Built Environment and Heritage – Overall urban structure ‐ seeks to protect and reinforce the key elements of the City’s overall urban structure and character, including the Yarra River. It also seeks to reinforce the hierarchy of main streets and boulevards with high quality street tree plantings. It directs higher density development to locations beside the Public Transport Network, as well as Activity Centres.

Clause 21.06‐1 – Built Environment and Heritage – Significant trees and landscapes – seeks to protect significant trees and the landscape/environmental values of the Yarra River edge and escarpment. A key strategy is to ensure development and vegetation removal in the sensitive Yarra River environs area has minimal impact on the defined landscape and environmental values.

Clause 21.07‐2 – Open Space and Environment – Biodiversity ‐ seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity and public amenity through enhancing the municipality’s natural values.

Clause 21.07‐3 ‐ Significant trees and landscapes – seeks to protect significant trees and the landscape and environmental values of the Yarra River edge and escarpment. Two of the key strategies are to ensure development and vegetation removal in the sensitive Yarra River environs area have minimal impact on the defined landscape and environmental values; and to protect significant trees on private property to ensure overall quality and amenity of public and borrowed space.

Clause 21.08 – Infrastructure – Integrated infrastructure planning – seeks to integrate transport and land use planning and development to maximise accessibility, safety and sustainability of the transport network and the built environment.

Clause 21.08‐2 ‐ Infrastructure – Sustainable transport – recognises the importance of sustainable transport options such as walking, cycling and public transport and the need to promote these forms of transport, both as part of development, as well as throughout the City.

Clause 21.08‐3 – Infrastructure – Roads and Parking – identifies the need to manage the high traffic volumes, fast moving vehicles and traffic congestion which substantially undermine the quality of life in some parts of Stonnington. In managing the road system, it


Page 41 of 162

seeks to plan and manage the transport network by supporting the existing hierarchy of roads and promoting safe and efficient movement, and seeks to introduce traffic management measures to significantly reduce traffic through the municipality.

Clause 22.04 – Heritage – seeks to recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance. It outlines the classification of buildings and the associated level of significance allocated to each, with ‘Significant’ buildings being those graded as A1, A2 and B, with C graded buildings being ‘Contributory’.

Clause 22.19 – Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy – includes land at the intersection of Punt and Toorak Roads as being within the South Yarra Precinct with a Precinct Vision Statement that is:

A transformed employment, living and tourism hub founded on high quality, integrated public transport and pedestrian links, convenient neighbourhood and distinctive shopping and attractive networks of streets and spaces. Acknowledgement that the redevelopment of the Forrest Hill precinct and nearby Cremorne and Church Street Precincts will change the dynamics of South Yarra.

This is an area where growth will be focussed, with a focus on incorporating and encouraging sustainable transport options.

5.7.2 Melbourne Local Planning Policy Framework

The following Melbourne City Council local policies are also relevant:

Clause 21.06‐1 – Built Environment and Heritage – seeks to maintain the designated Yarra Corridor as a continuous, high pedestrian amenity focus for the City. It also seeks to increase the vitality, amenity, comfort, safety and distinctive City experience of the public realm.

Clause 21.10 – Infrastructure – Open space – seeks to maintain, enhance and increase Melbourne’s public open space network and promote greening of the City. Key strategies to achieve this include ensuring there is no net loss of the area of public open space, securing new public open space where opportunities arise and ensuring that development in and surrounding the City’s parks and gardens does not adversely impact on the recreational, cultural heritage, aesthetic values or amenity of the open space.

Clause 21.16‐1 – Other local areas – St Kilda Road and South Yarra – seeks to preserve and enhance the landscape qualities and recreational role of Fawkner Park.

Clause 21.09‐5 – Transport – Private Motor transport – seeks to reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking, particularly on residential areas and parklands.

5.8 Other relevant policies and strategies

A number of other strategies were referred to by various parties as listed in Section 4.5 of this report. Reference is made to these documents as appropriate in the discussion of key issues in later chapters.


Page 42 of 162

5.9 Planning scheme provisions

5.9.1 Zones

Land within the study area is included within a number of zones with schedules that provide particular guidance, these include:

Residential Growth Zone 1 – Key Boulevards

General Residential Zone 3 – Residential Boulevards and Corridors

General Residential Zone 9 – Garden River & Garden Suburban Precincts

General Residential Zone 12 ‐ Inner Urban Precincts

Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 – Inner Urban Precincts

Commercial Zone 1

Abuts Road Zone Category 1.

5.9.2 Overlays

(i) Public Acquisition Overlay

The purpose of the Public Acquisition Overlay is to:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To identify land which is proposed to be acquired by a Minister, public authority or municipal council.

To reserve land for a public purpose and to ensure that changes to the use or development of the land do not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired.

To designate a Minister, public authority or municipal council as an acquiring authority for land reserved for a public purpose.

The permit requirements under the PAO are extensive, with almost all buildings, works and subdivision requiring a planning permit. Routine maintenance and repairs, however, are exempt from these permit requirements under General Provision ‐ Section 62.02‐2 Buildings and works not requiring a permit unless specifically required by the planning scheme.

More substantial buildings and works are not prohibited and there is scope to apply for a planning permit. As ‘Determining Referral Authority’ VicRoads, however, has authority to direct whether a permit should be issued or not, or require permit conditions.

Under the Decision Guidelines of the PAO, a permit granted under this clause may be conditional on:

The extent of alterations and extension to an existing building and works, and the materials that may be used.

The location, dimensions, design and material or new building or works.

The demolition, removal, or alteration of any buildings or works.

The demolition or removal of buildings or works constructed or carried out in accordance with a permit under this clause.

No compensation being payable for the demolition or removal of any building or works constructed under the permit.


Page 43 of 162

VicRoads submitted that ”a PAO restricts how the land may be used or developed, so that any proposed use or development does not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired.”

VicRoads further submitted that25:

The effect of the PAO is to:

a) preserve the opportunity for the land to be used for the identified public purpose;

b) reduce the cost of the ultimate land acquisition; and

c) allow others (owners, local councils, adjoining land owners) to plan for the identified conversion of use of the land to that public purpose.

The PAO along Punt Road preserves the opportunity to provide future public benefits in the form of an improved transport corridor, whether it be the provision of additional traffic lanes, bus lanes, cycle lanes, shared paths, new forms of public transport or otherwise.

It is not often that section 4(1)(g) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is quoted. The final objective of planning in Victoria is “to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.” The PAO is one of the planning scheme tools that is available to enable the interests of future Victorians to be protected.

This Advisory Committee process squarely raises the issue of how we plan for the needs of future generations of Victorians, and how they should be balanced against the interests of current Victorians.

VicRoads has the power to compulsorily acquire properties within the overlay if required as it is the nominated acquisition authority. The provisions of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 and the P&EA provide landowners with access to compensation due to the overlay being in place. This includes compensation for loss on sale or the refusal of a planning permit by Council if directed by VicRoads as a referral authority.

It is clear to the Committee that a PAO is intended, in broad terms, to enable a future project to be implemented. The Committee believes, however, that it is implicit that the imposition of an overlay should be based on the demonstrated needs of an acquiring authority and set aside no more land than that which is reasonably required for that purpose. This is generally straight forward where a planning scheme amendment is being considered for a new overlay. In these cases the overlay is defined as the land need for the project, and no more.

The difficulty in this case is does the same standard apply? In other words, is VicRoads required to demonstrate that there is a defined project that requires the entire PAO; or is it sufficient to say that there might be a project in the future so the PAO should be retained “just in case”?

25 Document 6


Page 44 of 162

Despite the fact that an overlay is already in place along Punt Road, the Committee believes that it is necessary as part of this review of the PAO for VicRoads and PTV to demonstrate that the entire extent of the PAO is still required for a legitimate long term option.

(ii) Heritage Overlays

The area is affected by a number of Heritage Overlays. These are discussed in Chapter 9.

(iii) Other overlays affecting land within the PAO

Land within the PAO is also affected to varying degrees by the following overlays:

Design and Development Overlay 1 ‐ Royal Botanic Gardens, City of Melbourne

Design and Development Overlay 2 ‐ Shrine Vista

Design and Development Overlay 3 ‐ Yarra River Skyline Area

Design and Development Overlay 7 ‐ Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre

Special Building Overlay.

5.9.3 Particular provisions

The following particular provisions of the VPP are relevant:

Clause 52.29 ‐ Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

Clause 52.36 ‐ Integrated Public Transport Planning

Clause 62.02‐2 – Uses, Buildings, Works, Subdivision and demolition not requiring a permit.

Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

There are no specific Ministerial Directions or Practice Notes that relate to the consideration of the future of the Punt Road PAO, above the requirements of the TIA and P&EA.

5.10 Conclusions

In coming to its conclusions in relation to the PAO, the Committee has been guided principally by the legislative requirements of the TIA and the objectives of planning as defined in the P&EA, as these are the most relevant tests in considering the future of the Punt Road PAO. It has also had regard to existing State policy and work currently being undertaken to review this policy, as well as local policy.

In applying this legislation and policies the Committee has faced a number of key challenges. The first challenge has been balancing short term and long term planning; and what the Committee knows, with what the Committee can only anticipate.

The Committee must balance shorter term objectives with a longer term view consistent with the approach adopted in Plan Melbourne, and in particular consider whether the PAO has a longer term role in meeting the transport needs of Melbourne.

The other major challenge for the Committee is balancing the needs of individual and the broader community. Whilst the Committee must consider the needs of the individual landowners, it must also consider the broader needs of the current population with the needs of the future population.


Page 45 of 162

As discussed above, the Committee concludes that is necessary as part of this review of the PAO for VicRoads and PTV to demonstrate that the entire extent of the PAO is still required for a long term option. In order for the Committee to support the full retention of the PAO, it will need to be convinced that concepts similar to Options 6 or 7 will ultimately be required to meet future traffic needs or that it is necessary to keep those options open. If the Committee is convinced that a lesser option (in terms of road cross section and acquisition requirement) will adequately serve the future needs, then it follows that the PAO could, and should be reduced to match that required.

The Committee has sought to balance competing interests of current and future generations in favour of net community benefit.


Page 46 of 162

6 The strategic importance of the Punt Road PAO

6.1 The issue

Is the retention of the PAO in full or part needed to enable Punt Road to fulfil its long term strategic transport role within the metropolitan context?

6.2 Evidence and submissions

There were few individual submitters who addressed the Committee on the appropriateness of the retaining, modifying or removing the PAO based on the legislative requirements of either the TIA, the objectives of planning as outlined in the P&EA, or the strategic directions contained within the SPPF. Despite this, there were many submitters who made general submissions about the need to examine Punt Road in the context of the broader transport network and policy, rather than in isolation. Submitters also emphasised a need to focus on both existing and future public transport and other modes of sustainable transport rather than continuing to cater for private vehicles, with their perceived associated negative environmental, social and economic impacts. Several submitters did make reference, however, to the LPPF and particularly with regard to the need to protect heritage properties.

Mr Carassco of Drop Punt and other submitters submitted that good planning has turned away from creating freeways in inner city areas and is increasingly returning roads back to landscaping and dedicated places for more sustainable transport modes. They made submissions that a proposal to create a “six lane freeway” through inner Melbourne is an outdated approach which is contrary to world’s best practice.

Ms Murphy of Tract Consultants, on behalf of the owners of 5 Northampton Place, did address the objectives of the TIA, stating retention of the PAO is not consistent with the objective which seeks to create a sustainable and integrated mode of transport in Victoria. She also submitted that it is not consistent with the fairness objective in the P&EA and does not meet Clause 18 of the SPPF which encourages an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe.

Ms Sharp, on behalf of the Stonnington Council, acknowledged there are competing policy objectives in play and submitted that the question before the Committee is one of balancing those interests. She submitted that on the one hand there is VicRoads, wanting to retain the possibility that the PAO may one day be utilised for road widening; yet on the other hand there are directly affected property owners and the Stonnington City Council who experience the negative impacts associated with ongoing uncertainty regarding the future of the PAO and the consequential impacts of traffic and parking in the local street network. Whilst she accepted that on a first glance the balance may tip in favour of retaining the PAO, when one examines it further she submitted the balance rests with the removal of the PAO. These factors include:

how long the PAO has been in place

that the road has not been widened

that the last property purchased was 35 years ago

that there is no funding or political commitment towards widening

that there is no long‐term strategic plan for Punt Road


Page 47 of 162

that improvements can be made within the existing reservation without having to widen Punt Road

that it is causing planning blight

that widening would result in the loss of heritage buildings and significant trees; and

that widening would result in an increase in vehicular traffic and loss of amenity and will impact on west‐east connectivity.

Ms Sharp submitted that the balance rests with the removal of the PAO. She also submitted that the onus is upon VicRoads and PTV to demonstrate that the PAO is ‘definitely’ required and not that it would be ‘advisable’ to retain it.

Ms Forsyth submitted that the fundamental issue for this Committee to consider is how to plan for the needs of future generations of Victorians, and balance these against the interests of current Victorians. She submitted that in addition to the requirements of the TIA, the Committee should base its decision on the objectives of planning, and in particular the objective which seeks “to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.” She emphasised that the SPPF states that where there are competing objectives, these should be balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations; and that this is the test the Committee should apply.

Ms Forsyth highlighted the future of the Punt Road PAO is not simply a traffic engineering exercise, but rather raises more significant strategic planning questions. She submitted that the challenge facing planning for managing growth over the coming decades is well known, and given the growth anticipated in this location we need to take a longer term aspirational and visionary approach to growth. She submitted that the Committee needs to consider whether it is desirable from a strategic planning perspective to maintain the opportunity for the widening to occur at some time in the future, emphasising the exact timing bears little on the ultimate decision. She submitted that “if the Advisory Committee forms the view that a widened Punt Road may be needed at some future time – whether it will be in 10 years, 30 years or 50 years – then prima facie the PAO ought to remain.”

In considering the Future Transport needs of Melbourne, Ms Forsyth highlighted that Plan Melbourne sets a planning horizon at 2051 and provides a vision which allows us to contemplate the sort of city that we may see at that time. She highlighted that Plan Melbourne warns that the city we enjoy today has been shaped by the foresight and planning of earlier generations and that the changes in the way people live are difficult to predict and happen quickly, summarising that “we should plan for the knowns, and be flexible enough to adapt to the unknowns. So what will the role of Punt Road be in 2030? 2050? 2070? 2100? Will it still function as a preferred traffic route and bus priority route? Or will it take a new form of public transport? Will cars be automated? The fact is that there are many unknowns. What we can do is … plan for the things that we think are likely to happen and preserve the opportunity for flexibility if things change.

Ms Forsyth responded to submitters’ accusations that VicRoads is proposing a ‘six lane freeway’ through inner Melbourne, emphasising that VicRoads and PTV share common transportation objectives of less congestion, better public transport, better cycling infrastructure and improved pedestrian amenity. She submitted that the central question for the Committee is whether it is desirable to retain the PAO in the long term to assist in achieving these objectives. She submitted the PAO should be kept in place to provide


Page 48 of 162

options for a future integrated transport response, including one with a strong focus on public transport; and whilst submitters have stated that widening of Punt Road will just mean more cars, VicRoads and PTV consider retention of the PAO will also facilitate a modal shift by increasing public transport usage on Punt Road, as well as parallel and cross routes.

Ms Forsyth submitted the PAO preserves the opportunity to provide future public benefits in the form of an improved transport corridor, whether it be for the provision of additional traffic lanes, bus lanes, cycle lanes, shared paths, new forms of public transport or otherwise. She submitted the appropriately conservative approach to take is to retain the overlay, considering the potential future broad public benefits to be gained when weighed against the largely localised negative effects of retention of the overlay. It was her submission that retention of the PAO will achieve a net community benefit by preserving the option for future generations and therefore the PAO should be retained.

Ms Forsyth emphasised that the concepts presented are not the only concepts available, but rather an indication of what could be achieved. She urged the Committee to not get caught up in the design detail of the concepts, emphasising the question to be answered is a broader strategic question, not one of detail.

Ms Forsyth also submitted that imposition of the PAO in 1954 has and will significantly reduce the costs of land acquisition if and when the land is acquired for the widening in the future. She submitted that based on the economic evidence of Mr Kinnaird (which will be discussed later in this report), a significant cost would arise from removing the PAO now and reinstating it at some time in the future should acquisition be required again. For this reason, she submitted a conservative approach should be taken to the removal of the PAO in light of the very significant costs to the taxpayer that could occur as a result of underestimating the future transportation needs of the Victorian community.

In response to submissions from Ms Sharp, Ms Forsyth submitted the test is not whether the Committee is satisfied the PAO will ‘definitely’ be required, but rather, whether on balance and having regard to potential local, regional and state benefits and impacts, it is ‘advisable’ to retain the PAO, and Stonnington Council should adopt a more balanced and visionary view.

Ms Forsyth also relied upon expert town planning evidence from Mr Milner. In his evidence, Mr Milner stated the original application of the PAO was strategically justified and that its retention is also strategically justified. In saying this, however, he stated there is also a need to consider the future of Punt Road in the broader and longer term transportation context and land use vision.

Mr Milner stated that whilst he accepted recent traffic analysis indicates vehicle movements in Punt Road have decreased, the strategic context of policy and the metropolitan setting of Hoddle Street/Punt Road corridor indicates a quite different range of influences are at play which should inform the decision. He gave evidence that the decision regarding the PAO should not be overly influenced by recent, short‐term traffic demand studies, but rather should reconcile and plan for the appropriate balance of all these relevant considerations.

Mr Milner referred to the SPPF and Plan Melbourne as supporting the need to plan for increased transport to cope with significant population growth, particularly in this inner city location where greater residential densities are to be achieved. He said this is an important


Page 49 of 162

location given the expanded central city because of its location near key activity centres and urban renewal areas where growth will be accommodated; and its location near entertainment and recreational precincts which are proposed for expansion and will have more intense transport implications, particularly during weekends and evenings. He also highlighted that Punt Road serves and acts as an important emergency services corridor to the Alfred Hospital, which is a recognised State significant regional health and education centre in Plan Melbourne.

Mr Milner concluded that confinement of the review to the removal or retention of the PAO is too narrowly cast to appropriately determine the merits of any long term option and needs to be considered in a broader more strategic land use and transport context. He stated that a recommendation to remove the PAO would be premature and fall short of the expectations of the decision making principles of the TIA. He gave evidence that the future of the PAO requires integrated decision making by all levels of government, relevant stakeholders and an appropriate triple bottom line assessment of the consequences of removal and retention of the PAO. He recommended the PAO be retained until a long term strategy for the corridor has been resolved and that a land use and transport strategy with a 2051 horizon should be prepared. He accepted short term measures could be implemented that would improve transport efficiency.

Ms Forsyth also relied upon expert traffic and transport evidence from Mr Humphreys. In his evidence, Mr Humphreys stated there is to be a “staggering” 218 per cent population growth up to 2046 within 800m of the corridor alone, with population forecasts of 7.7M to 2051 for metro Melbourne and forecast job growth from 2.2M to 3.9M. Recognising the long term role that Punt Road may play in meeting the transport needs of this population growth, he said the PAO should be retained in its entirety in order to maintain concepts to facilitate that future role.

In considering the legislative, best practice and policy review, Mr Humphrey concluded that “Overall, there is strong strategic justification within both state and local policy identifying at the very least a need to protect assets such as the Punt Road PAO for the future legacy of the transport network.”

In considering whether retention of the PAO is appropriate he stated:

Having reviewed the available information afforded in preparing this evidence, I regard the key question of note with Punt Road is not whether to maintain the PAO, rather, what would be the traffic and transport implications for removing it?

Punt Road is a key link in the network and is the only north to south preferred traffic Route crossing both the Yarra River between CityLink to the west and Grange Road to the east, a distance of almost 9km. Both VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria have identified Punt Road as a traffic and public transport priority route and the need for improvements to it are overdue.

The strategic benefits of retaining the PAO in my view are quite clear in that it is critical to the management and improvement of the traffic and transport network. This view is supported by local and state policy documentation including Plan Melbourne and VicRoads SmartRoads Policy.


Page 50 of 162

In his evidence, Mr Humphreys concluded:

Maintaining the PAO allows for a range of future interventions to accommodate demand growth in a strategically important part of the network. It is consistent with the principles and intention of the Transport Integration Act and I support its retention.

Removing the PAO means permanently losing the ability to deal adequately with future growth, or at the very least burdens the community with significantly higher costs and/or lower amenity outcomes through elevated structures or submerged options (ie tunnels). This approach can not be supported from a policy perspective against the TIA framework and nor do I support it.

There is no case presented for modifying the PAO at this point in time. However, given the nature of the PAO and potential options, any modifications are likely to be minor in nature and only able to be confirmed after the ultimate treatment is agreed. I do not support modification of the PAO based on the information available to myself.

On that basis of the information set out within this report, I am confident that retention of the PAO provides the greatest opportunity to implement improvement works for all modes and meet the future needs of the continually growing population and economy. This includes the opportunity to provide high levels of public transport, pedestrian and cyclists facilities, and improvements to the traffic network for private vehicles and freight.

6.3 Discussion

The Committee agrees with submissions of VicRoads/PTV and their expert witnesses who say the future of the PAO needs to be considered both in a strategic context, as well as from a traffic engineering perspective. The first question for this Committee is therefore whether Punt Road has a strategic role to play in meeting the transport needs of Melbourne.

In considering the strategic importance of Punt Road within the metropolitan context, the Committee notes that whilst the widening of Punt Road is not specifically identified in the SPPF or as a major project within Plan Melbourne, it does not consider this means it is not a strategically important project. This policy is necessarily broad and does not, nor should it, identify every potential road widening that may occur, yet it does recognise Punt Road as a ‘Principal Freight Network – road’. As part of the ‘Priority Public Transport Network’ (PPTN), it is also proposed that Punt Road will be recognised within Plan Melbourne 2016 by association. VicRoads SmartRoads policy identifies it as a ‘preferred traffic route’ and a ‘bus priority route’ and local policy identifies it as a ‘Preferred traffic route’. Punt Road has also been identified since 1954 as an important transport corridor and a reservation/PAO was put in place to protect options for the potential future widening of Punt Road.

It is clear from this policy framework that whilst Punt Road may not be specifically identified in all State policy, there has been a clear and long standing statement of strategic intent that Punt Road will play an important long term transport role in meeting the needs of Melbourne.


Page 51 of 162

The importance of the strategic role of Punt Road is also supported by the expert evidence of Mr Milner and Mr Humphreys.

Whilst some submitters and expert witnesses submitted that it should not perform that role and that traffic should be redirected to other north‐south routes within metropolitan Melbourne to alleviate the pressure on Punt Road, or that alternate transport modes should be maximised to reduce the role of Punt Road, the Committee consider these submissions fail to recognise that Punt Road has for many years been clearly identified as a strategic transport asset for metropolitan Melbourne. The Committee is satisfied that Punt Road has an identified significant strategic role to perform in meeting the transport needs of Melbourne; and that this needs to be considered when making decisions about the future of the PAO.

The Committee is also aware that land within the PAO is predominantly in private ownership and that owners have lived for over 60 years with the uncertainty as to when or if their properties may be required for road widening purposes. The Committee is also acutely aware that this uncertainty is causing significant distress for some residents, with 20 of the 135 directly affected property owners making submissions expressing these concerns to the Committee.

The Committee agrees with the VicRoads/PTV and Stonnington Council submissions that a fundamental issue for consideration is balancing the needs of the individual against the needs of the broader community. The Committee considers it also extends beyond that to require a balancing of broader competing community aspirations, in particular transport planning and heritage protection. In doing so, the Committee agrees with Ms Forsyth that, when balancing the conflicting objectives, the SPPF clearly states they should be balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

Whilst Ms Murphy made submissions that retention of the PAO is not consistent with the TIA, P&EA objectives and the SPPF, through cross‐examination she acknowledged she had only emphasised those aspects that supported her case and had not attempted to either outline or balance competing objectives. She accepted that a more full analysis of the objectives and policies would require a balancing of these competing objectives.

Accepting that Punt Road has an important strategic role to play in meeting the long term transport needs of Melbourne, the critical question for the Committee is whether the PAO needs to be retained to achieve this role, and ultimately what achieves the greatest net community benefit.

VicRoads defined Short‐term as 0 to 5 years, Medium‐term as 5 to 15 years and Long‐term as 15+ years. The Committee has adopted these timeframes for the purposes of this report.

The traffic analysis is based on data projections to 2031. Various concept options for Punt Road to deal with projected traffic volumes to 2031 are discussed in Chapter 8. The Committee needs to be confident that options for Punt Road are capable of maintaining appropriate levels of service beyond 2031. Planning in Plan Melbourne extends out to 2050 and the Committee believes that future widening options should plan for at least this timeframe.


Page 52 of 162

The Committee is aware that Plan Melbourne, Plan Melbourne Refresh and Infrastructure Victoria have all recognised that Melbourne will undergo significant long‐term population growth, both metropolitan wide and specifically in this location, and historically beyond general expectations. Along with this growth will come significant transport challenges about how to move people and freight throughout the both broader transport network, as well as around the inner suburbs and central city.

It is clear there is much we already know and must plan for, but the Committee agrees with Ms Forsyth that there is also much we do not know and cannot foresee, particularly with the rate of population growth and technological advancements that are occurring; which is acknowledged in both Plan Melbourne, Plan Melbourne Refresh and the strategic work currently being undertaken by Infrastructure Victoria. One example of this as raised by both VicRoads and submitters alike was the potential impact of autonomous vehicles and other transport technologies on the future of transport planning; what will this bring, what are the associated infrastructure requirements and what will this mean for public transport? We don’t know the answers to these questions yet, but autonomous vehicles are increasingly becoming more likely. Other unknowns are what improvements are likely to the connecting road network and what are the impacts of these on the function of Punt Road?

The Committee agrees with Ms Forsyth that to be able to respond to the challenges that will face managing the growth of Melbourne, we need to “adopt a longer term aspirational and visionary approach to growth.” For this reason, the Committee agrees with the VicRoads submissions and the evidence presented by both Mr Milner and Mr Humphreys that to remove the PAO without an understanding of the potential long term role of Punt Road in context of broader metropolitan planning would be inappropriate.

The Committee considers the PAO is an important piece of community infrastructure already in place. Planning for new major transport infrastructure projects, and particularly within the inner city areas, is extremely difficult and expensive to achieve as it generally affects a significant number of people and properties. State policy encourages making the most of existing infrastructure, rather than introducing new infrastructure. The existing PAO is identified as land that could be used for future transport infrastructure, and the Committee considers it should only be reduced or removed if it is clear that it is not required in the long term and future transport needs can be met within a reduced footprint. This issue is discussed in Chapter 8.

The Committee is aware that Infrastructure Victoria is currently preparing a 30‐year infrastructure strategy which will define the long‐term infrastructural requirements to meet the needs of Melbourne to 2051. Whilst no submissions were made to the Committee on the work being undertaken by Infrastructure Victoria, the Committee considers that this work may help to confirm the longer term role of Punt Road.

The Committee therefore considers there is value in referring the future role of Punt Road to Infrastructure Victoria to consider in the preparation of the 30 year infrastructure strategy.

The Committee is aware that affected owners are seeking certainty about the future of the PAO and may consider referral of the Punt Road and the PAO to Infrastructure Victoria to be yet another delay, however, the Committee understands that this work is due to be completed by the end of 2016, and does not consider this to be unreasonable.


Page 53 of 162

6.4 Conclusions

The Committee concludes that:

Punt Road currently plays an important strategic role in the road network reinforced in State and local policy.

The existing PAO should be retained to the extent required to guarantee that Punt Road can continue to fulfil its role in the short, medium and long term.

Punt Road is likely to continue to play an important strategic role in Melbourne’s road network, although there are some unknowns about whether that role will change in the longer term.

The greatest net community benefit will balance fulfilling this long term role against minimising the impacts on landowners.

The Committee also concludes that there is benefit in referring the question of the long term role of Punt Road to Infrastructure Victoria for consideration as part of the preparation of the 30 year infrastructure strategy.


Page 54 of 162

7 Economic issues

7.1 Broader economic impacts for Melbourne

(i) The Issue

What are the broader economic impacts for Melbourne resulting from any decision to retain, modify or remove the Punt Road PAO?

(ii) Evidence and Submissions

The joint VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria ‐ Part A submission states that:

The current PAO balances the present and future needs of all Victorians ensuring that real options are not built out, resulting in potentially significant economic savings for all future Victorians.

At the heart of the issue about the potential future widening of Punt Road is the role Punt Road currently plays and may play in the future in supporting an efficiently functioning city, both for economic and social purposes.

VicRoads noted that Punt Road plays an important role in providing a north‐south connection in the road network for freight and commercial vehicles, as they stated in their Part A submission:

With a high proportion of road users undertaking business, delivering freight and connecting with jobs and opportunities across Melbourne, it is economically important to optimise this vital city asset to support economic growth and jobs for our state.

VicRoads stated that in relation to expected population growth, and a proportionate growth in travel demand, in the outer north and across established suburbs in the north, south and east there will increased demand for travel along and across the Hoddle Street‐Punt Road corridor that will have significant access implications for the economy. These include access to employment, education, retail, services and leisure in and around the central city as well as the ability to bypass the city. They also cited the role the corridor plays as part of journeys to cross Melbourne to access key freight and industrial destinations such as the Port of Melbourne and inner west and outer eastern locations.

The economic importance of the corridor is reinforced when VicRoads stated

Protecting and developing the Hoddle Street‐Punt Road corridor (arguably, the most important arterial road for Central Melbourne) is of vital significance for the state. If the problems facing the corridor are not planned for, it will limit the achievement of an expanded central city and impact on goals in Plan Melbourne to create a more connected, liveable and thriving Melbourne.

In response to a request from the Committee to provide information on the role Punt Road plays in accommodating vehicles that service the local economy, such as localised deliveries and service trades, Ms Forsyth referred the Committee to the advice from Arup which stated:


Page 55 of 162

… that commercial vehicles comprise approximately 4.7% of average weekday daily traffic along Punt Road with a majority of these vehicles being small trucks.

Ms Forsyth advised, however, that:

VicRoads has not been able to ascertain the percentage of trips that are undertaken for business, as opposed to private, purposes along Punt Road. However, VicRoads acknowledges that the number of commercial vehicles shown in [information provided by ARUP] … does not accurately represent the break down between business and private trips given that many of the vehicles which use Punt Road for business purposes are not classified as commercial vehicles.

In response to a request for information relating to the cost of congestion in Melbourne, she referred the Committee to two more general reports.

The first report is the 2015 Federal Government’s Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) report Traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian capital cities (an update of earlier reports) which estimated the costs of congestion for the eight major Australian cities to be $16.5 billion. It identified that in Melbourne, the 2015 cost of congestion was estimated to be $4.6 billion and on historical trends, this can be expected to grow by more than double to around $10.2 billion by 2030.

The report suggests that the actual extent of future traffic congestion will depend on a range of technical and social factors and the adoption of potential options for congestion management, including pricing measures and emerging technologies, will need to be carefully weighed to achieve the most economically efficient responses.

The second report is the 2013 Victorian Auditor General (VAGO) report into Managing Traffic Congestion which referred to a 2006 estimate of the economic costs of Melbourne's congestion, prepared by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC), to be in the range $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion per year; and that this was likely to double by 2020.

In relation to the costs of traffic congestion, the VAGO report stated these costs are incurred generally by the community as a whole and are not paid for by the road users who have caused them.

While the report does not examine particular aspects of the road network, it does make observations about inner urban areas, such as that covered by the Punt Road environs, stating:

Between 2001 and 2010, Melbourne's population grew by approximately 17 per cent with the majority of that growth, around 63 per cent, occurring in the outer metropolitan zone. In the middle and outer zones, the percentage growth in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) since 2001 has followed the percentage growth of these populations very closely—around 25 per cent.

However, the inner Melbourne zone has experienced a significantly different trend, where a 25 per cent increase in population since 2001 has resulted in only a 4 per cent increase in VKT.


Page 56 of 162

This shows that population growth in the inner suburbs of Melbourne has a far smaller impact on the road network than growth in the middle and outer suburbs. This is likely to reflect better public transport options and shorter trip lengths in inner areas.

Despite this, information supplied by VicRoads indicates that overall road congestion is concentrated in inner Melbourne and the minutes of delay per kilometre travelled is more than twice that experienced on the outer network.

A section of the VAGO report focussed on the importance of public transport planning to achieve mode shift and reduce car dependence. The reports stated:

Public transport accessibility is an important factor that influences demand for road use. Therefore, more explicit consideration of mode shift goals, targets and strategies within tactical plans would provide greater assurance that they are optimally focused and integrated with other initiatives to manage congestion across the transport portfolio.

The VAGO report provided a significant focus and commentary on traffic demand management in preference to increasing road space supply as the most economically efficient means of addressing the challenge of traffic congestion.

In the resource constrained environment facing the State Government, the report indicated that a focus of the supply side “is unlikely to be financially sustainable” so it concludes the need for agencies “to develop initiatives that effectively mitigate the demand‐side causes of congestion, including both the need for, and cost of, expensive infrastructure solutions.”

In relation to the consideration of supply side solutions against demand management techniques, the VAGO report stated:

It is generally acknowledged that cities cannot continue to build their way out of congestion and that a greater focus is needed on helping to meet demand by better managing the assets that already exist.

Achieving this requires a focus on optimising the efficiency of existing road infrastructure. Important initiatives in this respect include:

allocating road space to higher priority travel modes that maximise person throughput and the efficient movement of freight

incident response services and real time traffic management systems, such as traffic signalling and freeway management systems that aim to minimise disruptions to traffic and optimise flow

ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the operation of the road network.

The report acknowledged that VicRoads was actively working to improve the efficiency of the road network with some encouraging results, however, it recognised that this is limited by “the lack of clear system‐wide performance data for network efficiency and congestion management.”

(iii) Discussion

The continuing important role of Punt road in providing a key network link for commercial traffic was not contested. Nor was the economic importance of providing access to the


Page 57 of 162

Melbourne CBD for employment, education, services, retail and entertainment and leisure. It was not suggested that these roles for Punt Road would dramatically change in the future. VicRoads noted that heavy freight vehicles are primarily directed to the freeway network and Punt Road would continue to play only a secondary role in freight movement. In this regard, it is noted that commercial vehicles comprise approximately 4.7 per cent of average weekday daily traffic along Punt Road with a majority of these vehicles being small trucks and medium or large trucks making up only slightly above 1 per cent of total traffic volumes.

VicRoads did not submit that Punt Road would need to be widened to support any change in road network hierarchy or to support any specific economic direction.

It is clear that traffic congestion acts as a major impediment to the economic efficiency of Melbourne, as it does for cities across Australia. In addition, congestion has major social implications.

The VAGO report into managing traffic congestion provided a useful and quite recent overview of the issues that affect Melbourne’s transport system; and why any ‘first blush’ analysis concerning measures to relieve traffic congestion through the development of expensive infrastructure would be misplaced. A key theme across the VAGO report is to decrease traffic demand through a combination of modal shift to public transport; the implementation of a range of demand management strategies including pricing measures; and optimising the efficiency of existing road infrastructure through emerging technologies and intelligent transport systems. Whilst the VAGO report made this as a general point, the Committee believes this applies equally to the Punt Road corridor.

(iv) Conclusion


Punt role plays an important role in supporting the economic prosperity of Melbourne, in particular through its roles as:

- A north‐south connector route for private and commercial traffic - A secondary freight route - Access to the Melbourne CBD - A bypass of the central city area.

There is no evidence that the economic role of Punt Road in Melbourne’s road network is likely to change significantly in the foreseeable future.

At the broad level, while the economic costs of traffic congestion in Melbourne are very significant at over $4.6 billion and likely to more than double by 2030, the limited literature review undertaken by the Committee indicates that simply increasing road capacity will not address congestion without a range of demand management measures and the use of improved technology and intelligent transport systems.

7.2 PAO replacement cost

(i) The issue

What would be the financial costs of reinstating the PAO in the future if the existing PAO is removed; and how should this be taken into account in considering any decision to retain, modify or remove the PAO?


Page 58 of 162

(ii) Evidence and submissions

Ms Forsyth stated in her opening submission that Mr Kinnaird’s evidence demonstrates that there would be a very significant economic cost imposed upon the Victorian taxpayer if the overlay was removed and then land had to be acquired in the future …

Mr Kinnaird’s evidence considered the scenario where the PAO was removed and VicRoads sold the properties they own and recovered the prior compensation paid under the P&EA in respect of the 41 properties affected; making an adjustment for the cost of selling the properties. He estimated that a net amount of $52,220,000 would be realised.

Mr Kinnaird then estimated the theoretical cost of acquiring the full number of 135 properties under the PAO again ‘the next day’, and concluded this would result in a net difference of $215,600,000 in 2016 figures.

Mr Kinnaird then calculated the future cost of purchasing the properties in 2051 with the cost of capital employed increasing in value by 5.5 per cent annually. He concluded that in 2051, the estimated cost would be net $1,690,000,000 ($1.69 billion).

Mr Kinnaird then provided a table which shows the difference between the value of retaining the PAO and removing it, based on various compensation levels.

In this table four different compensation scenarios are modelled that equate to 20, 50, 70 and 90 per cent compensation levels. The ‘P&EA reduction’ relates to the Loss on Sale compensation i.e. The amount of compensation paid for the loss on sale of properties as a percentage of the total compensation entitlement.

As at 2016

20 per cent P&EA reduction: $215,600,000 less $200,940,000 $14,660,000




As at 2051

20 per cent P&EA reduction: $1,690,000,000 less $1,310,000,000 $380,000,000



90 per cent P&EA reduction: $1,690,000,000 less $940,000,000 $750,000,000

Mr Kinnaird then assessed the level of redevelopment that would likely occur on the subject properties over a 35 year time period and the potential impact on the economic cost of reinstating the PAO in 2051. Based on a number of assumptions concerning the level of likely redevelopment, Mr Kinnaird estimated that this could result in a building value uplift of $82,450,000 by 2051. This amount would be in addition to the range of 2051 estimates in the above table.

As outlined above, several submissions from property owners disputed the reasoning and conclusions drawn by Mr Kinnaird about the cost to VicRoads of exercising the PAO and also the cost of replacing the PAO if it was lifted then reimposed at a later date.


Page 59 of 162

Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson submitted that the 2016 figures are not relevant as VicRoads is not seeking to acquire properties now and “The 2051 figures are more indicative of the likely cost impact. This is the timeframe set by VicRoads and is far more likely given how long how long it is anticipated VicRoads will take to progress the matter.” This submission also asserts that the final costs to the government of the day are likely to be above even the highest modelled costs because voluntary acquisitions on both sides of Punt Road would need to be factored in.

The issues of fairness and accuracy of acquisition and property valuations as raised by several submitters is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13.

(iii) Discussion

The economic and valuation evidence provided for VicRoads demonstrates that under a range of scenarios, based on differing levels of prior compensation, the total replacement cost of the PAO varies between $14,660,000 and $71,700,000 in 2016 and $462,450,000 and $832,450,000 in 2051; with the 2051 figures inclusive of the uplifted values due to assumed redevelopment over the intervening period. The various scenarios demonstrate that VicRoads holds significant embedded value as the PAO has been in place over an extended period of time, and because prior compensation has been paid on a third of the affected properties, the eventual cost to VicRoads of acquiring these properties under the PAO would be mitigated. By removing the existing PAO, VicRoads would forego this benefit. Further, in the event of removing or partly removing the PAO, if the property owners of the 41 affected properties repay the prior compensation in line with legislative requirements then they can unlock significant value in their properties.

The Committee is of the view that if the PAO is relinquished now it will most likely never be recovered due to the high likelihood that the land will be further developed and become prohibitively expensive to buy back. The consequence of any decision to remove the PAO is therefore, in the Committee’s view, likely to be final.

(iv) Conclusions


The existing PAO, including the land already in VicRoads ownership, is a significant public asset.

Based on evidence provided to the Committee, the cost of relinquishing the PAO and buying it back in the future is prohibitively expensive.

Any decision to relinquish all or part of the PAO should for all practical purposes be viewed as irreversible.


Page 60 of 162

8 Traffic and transport issues

8.1 The issues

At the core of the Committee’s task is to examine the implications for Melbourne’s transport system of removing, modifying or retaining the PAO. The Committee has considered the extensive evidence and submissions in relation to the various future concepts for Punt Road and reached some conclusions about the most appropriate short, medium and long term road layout for Punt Road.

8.2 The role of Punt Road in the transport network

VicRoads SmartRoads policy identifies Punt Road as ‘preferred traffic route’ and a ‘bus priority route’. See Figure 3. Of the routes crossing Punt Road, Toorak Road is identified as a tram and bicycle priority route and a pedestrian priority area, and Commercial Road and High Street are identified as tram, bus and bicycle priority routes.

Figure 3 SmartRoads road use hierarchy


Page 61 of 162

VicRoads submitted that26:

The Hoddle Street‐Punt Road corridor is the only major north‐south arterial on the east of an Expanding Central City that can provide a strategic bypass of central Melbourne. Punt Road is identified as a preferred traffic route and bus priority route in the VicRoads Smart Roads hierarchy. It ought to play a critical role in:

diverting traffic from going into town and then out again to get across the city by acting as an efficient route for vehicular traffic;

diverting public transport users from going into town and then out again to get across the city by acting as an efficient route for buses; and

encouraging through traffic away from parallel roads and key activity centres such as Chapel Street and St Kilda Road, which are nominated as tram, bicycle and pedestrian priority areas.

8.3 Comments on the concept options

The Committee makes the following comments on the concepts presented by VicRoads, acknowledging that the seven concepts are indicative only and other options and variations are possible.

Concept 1 involves the implementation of 24 hour clearways on both sides of Punt Road.

The Committee notes the Government has announced that it has initiated the statutory process to implement 24 hour clearways and subject to the necessary approvals, the clearways should operate from the middle of the year.

The Committee supports the introduction of the clearways and notes that once implemented, they would be expected to be part of any of the concepts suggested.

Concept 2 has been reviewed by the Committee. It is the minimal improvement option involving minor changes that can be achieved without any use of the PAO.

Concept 3 has not been considered by the Committee. It is not substantially different in performance from Concept 2, and although it may have some operational advantages, it does not impact on the PAO.

Concept 4 has not been considered by the Committee. VicRoads has discounted the use of a reversible lane based on the advice of Arup27. The Committee agrees that the reversible lane arrangement would have operational challenges with limited benefits.

Concepts 5, 6 and 7 all involve longer term options utilising part or all of the PAO and have therefore been the main basis of the Committee’s assessment.

26 Document 2 27 Concept Options Report page 21


Page 62 of 162

8.4 Modified Concept 5

The Committee has also prepared a suggested Modified Concept 5 for comparison purposes as noted in section 4.2 and shown graphically in Appendix E. The Modified Concept 5 is similar to Concept 5 in that it involves widening at intersections and a four lane cross section midblock, but involves much less flaring in order to reduce land acquisition and reduce impacts on heritage buildings in particular.

Modified Concept 5 proposes the following variations to the Concept 5 design:

Generally contained within the existing road reserve except at the major signalised intersections, similar to Concept 5 but with reduced land acquisition

Impacts on heritage buildings are avoided with the exception of the Arcadia Hotel on the south east corner of the Punt Road/Toorak Road intersection

No widening of the Hoddle Bridge

Provides for at least two through lanes, plus one left and one right lane at all major intersections. (Concept 5 provides a third shared through and left lane at Toorak Road and Commercial Road)

Similarly to Concept 5, the modified layout provides for buses to share the left lane and/or have a ‘bus jump’ lane at all major intersections

Allows for improved pedestrian areas at major intersections. In particular, the modified layout proposes widening at the Domain Road intersection to allow for widened footpaths

Achieves sufficient traffic capacity to more than adequately cater for 2031 Base Case volumes

Requires acquisition of part or all of 54 properties (subject to final design). Of these, 38 are relatively small acquisitions not affecting buildings and 16 buildings would be affected

Similarly to Concept 5, the modified layout assumes permanent clearways.

If the Modified Concept 5 were adopted, the Committee anticipates that the PAO could be removed from the following 81 properties (subject to final design):

90‐110 Punt Road (11 properties)



442‐456 Punt Road and 1A Shipley Street (6 properties)

498‐526 Punt Road and 1A and 2B Gordon Avenue (13 properties)

49 and 51 Alexandra Avenue (2 properties).

The Committee has suggested Modified Concept 5 in order to show how some of the issues raised in submissions might be addressed. The drawings as shown in Appendix E were prepared after the Hearing and so the parties have not had a chance to comment on them. The Committee is, however, comfortable that the Terms of Reference require the Committee to advise on “whether to retain, modify or remove the overlay”, and in that context, the Committee believes it is important to explore possible modifications that might be appropriate.


Page 63 of 162

In any case, the Committee believes that further design work will be required on whichever future concept is adopted, with appropriate consultation between VicRoads and affected landowners.

8.5 Punt Road traffic performance

(i) Evidence and submissions

A summary of which submitters and experts supported which Concepts is provided in Table 4 in Section 8.10 below.

The Concept Options Report provided an assessment of the traffic performance of the Punt Road corridor based on a Victorian Metroscopic Model (VMM) analysis and using traffic data from the Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM). Concepts 1 to 3 were analysed assuming a 4 lane traffic demand and Concepts 5 to 7 analysed based on six lane traffic demands. The analysis looked at traffic growth (from existing), travel time and mean speed as indicators.

VicRoads submitted that the congested nature of the existing road means that there is suppressed demand estimated to be in the order of 5 per cent to 10 per cent, mainly due to limited capacity further north along Hoddle Street.

The main findings of the Concept Options Report are:

the four lane concepts provide significant travel time improvements along Punt Road (particularly northbound in the critical morning peak hour) with Concept 2 providing higher average speeds;

the six lane concepts (Concepts 5, 6 and 7) accommodate a significantly higher travel demand providing relief to alternative routes (see Section 7.1) with a marginally reduced level of performance along Punt Road when compared to the four lane concepts; and

Concept 5 (intersection widening only) provides for similar performance when compared to Concept 6 which provides for widening along the length of the corridor.

The Options Report noted that a substantial advantage of Concepts 5, 6 and 7 is the flexibility to reallocate road space to public transport (as in Option 7) or to allocate a greater proportion of green time to improve vehicle and public transport conditions on cross routes.

The report also noted:

without improvements to the network, existing intersections will become considerably more congested in 2031, particularly the Alexandra Avenue, Toorak Road and Commercial Road intersections;

Concepts 2 and 3 are able to cater for the forecast growth during the peak hours of between 10% and 15% when compared to the existing conditions and both offer similar levels of traffic performance with this additional demand; and

Concepts 5, 6 and 7 are able to cater for the forecast growth during the peak hours of up to 70% when compared to the existing conditions whilst still offering significant improvements in traffic performance.


Page 64 of 162

VicRoads and PTV submitted that “Concept Option 5 has the potential to address the short and medium travel demands for the corridor as well as providing benefits across the surrounding network, particularly for trams and buses on Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street. It would ensure safety and operational improvements could be implemented at the three major intersections … Both Options 6 and 7 would provide a long term option with better provisions for safety and cyclists than Option 5.” VicRoads highlighted the need to preserve the option for a dedicated bus lane on Punt Road as a primary reason for retaining the PAO.

The Concept Options report assessed Concept 5 as follows:28

This concept would address the short, medium and long term travel demands for the corridor as well as providing benefits for the surrounding road network. It also provides benefits for users crossing the corridor including pedestrians, cyclists and tram and bus passengers.

The expert evidence of Mr Kinghorn and Mr Carter was that Concept 5 was a medium to long term option “providing benefits for Punt Road and the wider network at all times of the day”.29

A number of submitters submitted that increasing road capacity will not resolve congestion. In response, Mr Kinghorn and Mr Carter gave evidence that the six lane options increase throughput on Punt Road, reducing traffic volumes on parallel roads and improving cross road performance.

A number of submitters including Drop Punt submitted that traffic volumes have declined in recent years, with an 18 per cent reduction between 2003 and 2013. In response, Mr Kinghorn and Mr Carter gave evidence that population growth in Melbourne broadly, and the local area more specifically, will drive demand up for the Punt Road‐Hoddle Street corridor. They gave evidence that the VITM forecasts showing future increased demand are considered reasonable.

Drop Punt submitted that Concept 2 performs better than any of the six lane options based on the ARUP traffic analysis provided. Mr Carrasco presented a comparison of travel times along Punt Road under various concept options. He submitted that the travel time savings were very small (or in some cases not a saving at all) when comparing Concept 2 (not widened) to Concept 7 (six lanes with bus lane). VicRoads responded that such a conclusion fails to take into account the substantial network improvements accruing to other routes such as Chapel Street and St Kilda Road. VicRoads submitted that it also fails to recognise the significant increase in throughput of the six lane options with subsequent improvements for travel times and reliability for public transport, on Punt Road and on crossing routes.

Drop Punt submitted that Punt Road north of the Yarra and Hoddle Street will continue to act as the capacity constraint in the corridor and the Committee should have no confidence that the mooted Hoddle Street improvements will make any substantial difference. Mr Allatson drew the Committee’s attention to the scope of the Hoddle Street capacity upgrade project as shown in the Australian Infrastructure Plan30. That document describes the

28 Concept options report page 33 29 Assessment conclusions in expert evidence provided to the Hearing – Document 4 page 25 30 Australian Infrastructure Plan February 2016 – Document 33


Page 65 of 162

project as addressing ‘connectivity between Eastern Freeway and Melbourne CBD’. Mr Allatson submitted that the Committee should therefore not expect that the project would assist congestion in the Punt Road section of the corridor.

Mr Higgs gave evidence that the Punt Road Swan/Street intersection and the section of Punt Road between the Yarra River and Swan Street will continue to act as the most significant constraints on traffic capacity in the corridor. Mr Higgs’ evidence was that the Alexandra Avenue and M1 freeway interchange also provide constraints on capacity in that section and these constraints will continue to constrain the capacity of Punt Road to the south. He noted that any widening of Punt Road adjacent to Gosch’s Paddock is unlikely to be supported by the City of Melbourne.

Mr Higgs supported Concept 5, arguing that the increased lane capacity at intersections would provide operational advantages and the opportunity for bus jump lanes:

The Arup Report provides Year 2031 level of service modelling for the key intersections. All concepts except Concept 1 show very satisfactory level of service for the peak periods.

In the multi‐criteria analysis the operational outcomes of Concepts 2, 3 and 5 are similar, and Concepts 6 and 7 are not rated significantly better than Concept 5.

In my opinion Concept 5 could provide an advantage in that bus queue‐jump provision provided that left turn islands with bus stops could be included, in a similar form to that which is already present at Hoddle Street/Bridge Road.

Concept 5 could be further refined from the layout shown in the VicRoads Drawings Numbered 668664‐668670 and dated 12/01/11, through reducing the extent of the 6 lane configuration through the intersections and thus reducing the extent of PAO that it would be appropriate to retain under adoption of that Concept.31

Mr Higgs summarised his position:

In summary it is my opinion that the PAO should either be removed in its entirety or limited to what would facilitate reasonable designs for intersection capacity enhancements.

Mr Tivendale gave evidence that he supported Concept Option 6 as an appropriate long term treatment for Punt Road, and in response to questions from the Committee, stated that the PAO should be retained.

Mr Humphreys evidence primarily related to network performance (discussed in the next section) rather than the performance of individual intersections, but he did comment that Concepts 5, 6 and 7 would have the benefits of lower signal cycle times, reducing delays for pedestrians and crossing traffic. He noted that queue lengths for Concept 7 would be substantially longer than for Concepts 5 and 6 due to the dedication of one lane to bus only. Mr Humphreys made the assumption that queue lengths for Concept 5 would be the same as for Concept 6 on the basis that the intersection treatments are identical.

31 Mr Higgs’ expert report page 6


Page 66 of 162

The City of Melbourne submitted that a 40 km/hr speed limit ought to be imposed along the entire section of Punt Road south of the Yarra River in order to improve pedestrian safety. This position was supported by Mr Tivendale in evidence called by Melbourne Council and was supported by a number of other submitters including Ms Chia and Ms Williamson. Mr Humphreys gave evidence that any extension of 40 km/hr zones outside school times is not likely to be necessary. He noted (and the Committee agrees) that in any case this is a matter that does not impact on the PAO and is outside the gambit of the Committee’s consideration.

(ii) Discussion

The Committee agrees with Drop Punt and Mr Higgs that Punt Road north of the Yarra River and the Swan Street intersection will likely continue to act as a capacity constraint on Punt Road south of the River. The Committee does not have any confidence that the Hoddle Street capacity upgrade project will have any significant impact on traffic capacity at the southern end of Hoddle Street or the Swan Street intersection. The Committee agrees with Mr Higgs’ evidence that the M1 interchange will also be a constraint, and additionally, the Committee sees little likelihood that the historic Hoddle Bridge would be widened even in the long term.

Based on the reports and evidence provided by Arup and the Committee’s own analysis of the SIDRA outputs, the Committee makes the following observations:

The requirement to provide a significant increase in peak hour capacity along Punt Road is not well founded as there are, and will remain to be, capacity restraints north of the River. In fact, the Committee observes that under current conditions in the AM peak, traffic queues regularly spread across the Hoddle Bridge such that traffic cannot exit Punt Road or Alexandra Avenue.

The provision of 24 hour clearways will give an increase in daily capacity for Punt Road and will allow some relief of parallel routes.

There is significant congestion at the intersections with Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street during peak periods which restricts the amount of ‘green time’ able to be allocated to the east‐west flows on Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street.

Flaring of the Punt Road carriageways at its intersections with Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street would allow the north‐south capacity at these intersections to closer reflect the mid‐block capacity.

Meaningful flaring can be undertaken within the PAO area as demonstrated by Concept 5 and the Modified Concept 5.

The Committee is not persuaded that the suggested traffic benefits of a full widening as provided in Concepts 6 and 7 would ever be achieved and that significant and meaningful improvement can be obtained by limiting upgrade works to the flaring of Punt Road at the key intersections.

The Committee believes that a Modified Concept 5, which restricts the extent of flaring at the key intersections of Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street compared to Concept 5, and which also recognises a desire to minimise impacts on buildings within the PAO, would achieve significant benefits overall.

When considering the Modified Concept 5, the Committee was cognisant that to fully utilise the two‐lane each way midblock capacity of Punt Road, either the provision of


Page 67 of 162

three stand‐up through lanes (similar to Concept 5) or the prioritisation of traffic flows (signal linking) would be preferable in each direction at the signalised intersections.

A review of the traffic predictions and the SIDRA analyses provided by VicRoads showed that there was no need to substantially increase Punt Road peak hour flows because sufficient downstream capacity was not available (nor likely to become available).

The Modified Concept 5 provides for separate left and right turn lanes at the major intersections to allow maximum flow from the two stand‐up through lanes. SIDRA analysis of the Modified Concept 5 plans shows that the 2031 Base Case traffic volumes can be accommodated with a good level of service, although not as well as Concept 5. The only capacity situation occurs at the Punt Road/Toorak Road intersection where the AM peak period had degrees of saturation approaching 1.0.

It is significant that the Committee found that the operation of the Punt Road/Alexandra Avenue intersection was unlikely to be a capacity constraint even with 2031 traffic volumes and beyond. The current simple traffic signal phasing allows high utilisation of the existing lane configuration and capacity constraints, particularly in the AM peak, resulting from a lack of roadspace on Punt Road north of Hoddle Bridge. The Committee saw no benefit in changes to the lane configuration or right turn arrangements and further, did not agree that any river bank land should be acquired to increase traffic capacity in the future.

It is appropriate to note that the Committee was concerned that the ARUP traffic model had allocated an 80 per cent increase in traffic (20,000 vpd in 2013 to 36,000 vpd in 2031) on Alexandra Avenue west of Punt Road. By any measure, this level of traffic would exceed the capacity of that section of Alexandra Avenue and the necessary works to accommodate such an increase would be most unlikely to ever be approved.

8.6 Broader road network performance


The VicRoads Concept Options Report made the following observations:

Punt Road volumes increase significantly under the six lane concepts when compared to the Base Case as additional demand is attracted to the corridor (particularly during the inter peak period);

volumes on parallel north‐south roads such as Chapel Street reduce providing improved travel times along these corridors with greater benefits associated with the 6 lane scenarios; and

volumes on east‐west road vary with a minimal change in traffic overall.

The VITM data provided by Arup shows that any improvements to Punt Road will draw traffic from parallel routes. Table 1 is reproduced from the evidence statement of Mr Humphreys. It shows that Concepts 5, 6 and 7 in particular draw considerably more traffic into the Punt Road corridor for the benefit of St Kilda Road, Chapel Street and Williams Road.


Page 68 of 162

Location 2013 Arup Options (2031)

Do Nothing Options 1‐3 Option 5 & 6 Option 7

Punt Road – South of Toorak Road

32,000 34,000 30% 65% 64%

St Kilda Road – South of Toorak Road

44,000 47,000 1% ‐3% ‐2%

Chapel Street – South of Toorak Road

17,000 19,000 ‐5% ‐9% ‐8%

Williams Road – South of Toorak Road

23,000 25,000 ‐6% ‐10% ‐10%

Total 116,000 125,000 7% 13% 13%

Table 2 VITM Two way estimated daily traffic volumes 2031

Mr Humphreys gave the following evidence in relation to the VITM outputs:

Interrogation of the volumes identifies that with the expected population and employment growth, and maintaining the Punt Road corridor as it currently stands (i.e. do nothing scenario), the north‐south routes are anticipated to increase by approximately eight percent. The growth is expected to vary across each of the four corridors of between two and three thousand additional vehicles per day.

It is sensible that Options 5 and 6 from a strategic (VITM) perspective have been modelled as similar options given that the throughput at each of the intersections would be generally similar to a degree. I would expect Option 6 may have a marginal higher level of throughput given the reduced levels of merging and diverging upstream and downstream of the intersections.

The capacity improvements provided with Options 5, 6 and 7 show a large uplift in throughput as a result of the additional capacity. In broad terms, an additional lane on Punt Road would be expected to provide more than 50% additional throughput in each direction. This higher level of throughput in the options highlights that demand in the network exists regardless of the level of capacity improvement provided. Whilst the strategic model does not include the local street network, the higher level of demand increase in Options 5, 6 and 7 suggests that there will also be increased pressure on the local road network. This is on the basis that the forecast population, employment and educational increases in the immediate vicinity of the corridor (refer to Table 2.1 earlier in this report) will create additional demand on the local road network with residents and workers trying to access jobs and housing.

The increased capacity of Punt Road in Options 5, 6 and 7 makes this an attractive route for north south movements and results in a net decrease on the three competing routes. There are a number of reason for this in my view with the key reasons being the higher speeds on Punt Road with the increased capacity as well as the connectivity that the corridor plays both north and south of its extents (i.e. it is a continuous corridor as opposed to the other three routes).


Page 69 of 162

Mr Humphreys also commented on the VMM outputs, noting that the forecast throughput of Concepts 5, 6 and 7 is slightly higher under the VMM (approximately 70 per cent increase in throughput in the peaks compared to 50 per cent under the VITM).

Mr Humphreys provided the following summary of his evidence in relation to his assessment of the Concept Options:

The strategic objectives for the Hoddle Street – Punt Road corridor (as detailed in the Arup Report) include the movement of people along and across the corridor, improving travel times and reliability for bus services as well as the local amenity and priority of sustainable transport. The options reviewed allow for a staged approach (if required) to progressively construct capacity improvements at the key intersections (Option 5), followed by midblock improvements (Option 6) and the introduction of high capacity lanes or public transport lanes (Option 7).

Without improvements to the corridor, increased congestion will have an impact on both car travel and public transport with travel times making the services unreliable and unattractive. Further, the current congestion and provision of north‐south priority along punt road also impacts on intermodal connectivity between buses, train and trams.

The information provided by VicRoads, PTV and Arup have confirmed that from a traffic and transport perspective each of the options provide benefit to the Punt Road corridor as well as the wider and localised transport network.

The VicRoads and PTV position that the corridor should have a focus on both passenger vehicle throughput as well as public transport is supported and should be planned for. In the short term, Option 5 and 6 provide outcomes for traffic that will benefit all modes and the network up to 2031. Beyond 2031, transport solutions will be required so that more people can be moved efficiently, as such I am satisfied that Option 7 will provide the best outcome for the transport network.

On this basis Mr Humphreys concluded that the PAO should be retained because “maintaining the PAO allows for a range of future interventions to accommodate demand growth in a strategically important part of the network.”32 He added the qualification that he had “not investigated in great detail as to whether or not the PAO could be modified which is due to the fact that options are preliminary in nature and would require more detail and documentation prior to finalising on and exact layout and alignment.”

Stonnington Council submitted the Committee should consider that the PAO has been in place for 62 years but that the road has not been widened in that time and there is no funding or political commitment to widen it. Council submitted that there are other options to improve the operation of Punt Road within the existing road reserve. Council submitted that the traffic engineering justification for the retention of the overlay is far from conclusive.

32 Mr Humphreys evidence page 33


Page 70 of 162

Stonnington Council resolved to seek the removal of the PAO partly on the basis of ‘recent and proposed improvements to Melbourne’s road network and public transport network’. Stonnington Council submitted that the following projects ought to be considered in a broader network analysis:

The Melbourne Metro Rail Project

The proposed merging of Tram Routes 8 and 55 to establish Route 58

The proposed downgrading traffic function of St Kilda Road

The immediate rebranding of Bus Route 246 as a SmartBus

The proposed (rail) grade separations; and

Car parking policies that actively seek reduction in car parking and ownership.

Melbourne Council also pointed to a number of initiatives introduced over the past two decades that have reduced the attractiveness of driving to the City, including parking levies, speed restrictions, tram superstops and other traffic limitations. A number of submitters including Mr Cleaver (who appeared at the Hearing with Ms Oldfield) and Ms Dwyer submitted that ride sharing services will also have a substantial impact in reducing traffic in the future. Drop Punt also submitted that the majority of traffic on Punt Road is bound for the City and that a number of demand management measures can be employed to discourage traffic into the City.

While acknowledging that the precise effect of each of these projects is difficult to predict, Stonnington Council submitted that these projects are more likely to assist mode shift towards public transport and lessen the traffic load on Punt Road in the longer term.

In response, VicRoads submitted that the VITM model does account for Melbourne Metro and car parking policies. VicRoads submitted that simply rebranding the 246 bus route as a SmartBus would not increase capacity without moving the bus more quickly and increasing reliability, both of which would be achieved through increasing the traffic capacity of Punt Road. VicRoads also pointed out that any downgrading of St Kilda Road would be supported by an upgrade of Punt Road.

Stonnington Council submitted that the traffic analysis:

does show that time savings along Punt Road will not be significantly improved by road widening and that intersectional changes (which can primarily be provided within the existing Punt Road reservation and land outside the PAO) create immediate benefits.

The Committee was not provided with any definitive evidence about whether increased capacity would be required in the Punt Road corridor beyond 2031. The argument of VicRoads and PTV was that additional capacity may be required so therefore the PAO should be retained. Evidence and submissions were presented in relation to the likelihood of future demand management measures such as congestion tax, CBD parking restrictions etc. and the expectation that this would reduce traffic on Punt Road. Counter to this, the Committee received information on overall projected population increases in Melbourne and the likely localised development and population increase in the vicinity of the Punt Road corridor. Mr Humphreys’ evidence assumed that this would likely result in increased traffic demand beyond 2031, but he acknowledged that this was a broad assumption rather than as a result


Page 71 of 162

of detailed analysis. The Committee cannot draw any conclusion about whether traffic demand will continue to increase beyond 2031.

(ii) Discussion

The Committee notes that the VITM analysis shows that Concept 5 has similar benefits to Concepts 6 and 7 in terms of the ability to absorb higher traffic throughput and hence relieve parallel routes such as St Kilda Road, Chapel Street and Williams Road.

The Committee agrees that some upgrading of Punt Road is justified to cater for projected future traffic volumes, allow for improved conditions for crossing traffic and public transport and to relieve congestion, particularly outside of peak times, on parallel routes.

The Committee does believe that Concepts 2 or 3 are adequate as long term solutions and believes that an upgrade to the Concept 5 or the Modified Concept 5 will be required in five to ten years’ time. This would necessitate the retention of part of the overlay, but only to the extent required for the proposed intersection widening. The Committee believes that Concept 5 would provide an appropriate level of service, but does not believe that the extent of widening proposed is necessary. The Committee is confident that the Modified Concept 5 will function adequately.

The modified Concept 5 retains the right turns from Punt Road as well as providing for bus priority. Using the 2031 Base Case volumes, it achieves a good level of service.

It reaches capacity, even retaining turn movements, with about half the additional traffic (base case to concept 5, 6, 7). Alternatively, it provides additional capacity for east‐west movements when catering for the base case volumes.

We are confident it will work well because:

it provides significantly more capacity for Punt Road traffic than existing volumes which are restricted north of the river (or alternatively provide better for east‐west movements),

it retains the ability for all turns which can be restricted in the future if necessary to provide additional through capacity, and

it is conducive to signal linking.

Whilst the Modified Concept 5 will not provide the same through traffic capacity as Concept 5, the Committee believes that this is an appropriate concession in minimising the impact of the widening and limiting acquisition.

The additional capacity provided by allowing separate left and right turn lanes can be shared by additional traffic on Punt Road as well as extra “green time” for the major cross streets.

The Committee does not believe that provision of additional through capacity on Punt Road (over and above that achievable by the Modified Concept 5) is warranted because of upstream/downstream restrictions in adjacent sections. The additional capacity provided off‐peak by the introduction of 24 hour clearways and the localised flaring at the major intersections will see the daily capacity along Punt Road under the Modified Concept 5 effectively match that of Concept 5.


Page 72 of 162

The Committee believes that its Modified Concept 5 provides an appropriate balance between widening Punt Road and meeting the demands for future capacity in the corridor.

A key question for the Committee is: should the PAO be retained in case it might be needed in the future? The difficulty for the Committee is that no traffic modelling was done beyond 2031, so there is a level of uncertainty associated with drawing conclusions about the most appropriate longer term solution. Even if modelling had been done beyond 2031, it would have been based on uncertain assumptions. It comes down to a question of the level of risk that can be assigned to each possible outcome.

On one hand the conservative approach could be taken, and on the basis that future traffic volumes are unknown it would be reasonable to conclude that the PAO should be retained ‘just in case’. This would be the low risk approach from a transport planning viewpoint and is the approach supported by Mr Humphreys and quite understandably supported by VicRoads in its role as the State’s transport planner. Mr Humphries evidence is that “Option 7 will provide the best outcome for the transport network”. The Committee accepts that Options 6 and 7 may well provide the best outcome to preserve options for providing higher levels of traffic capacity. However, for the reasons set out above, the Committee does not accept that increased capacity is required, or that it is necessarily desirable.

The Committee agrees that some degree of caution is warranted, but believes that it is in a position to provide advice based on broader consideration of the issues and drawing on reasonable assumptions about likely transport policy influences into the future.

For the reasons set out above, the Committee believes that the Modified Concept 5 will provide a satisfactory level of performance from a traffic and transport viewpoint, and at the same time is at the low end of the risk scale.

The Committee believes that this approach is low risk based on the following assumptions:

Issues limiting future traffic volumes:

Further demand management measures are likely to be employed to further restrict vehicle access and parking in the Melbourne CBD

The sports and entertainment precinct is likely to have less rather than more parking provision in the future, with patrons encouraged to use public transport

Public transport upgrades including Melbourne Metro and SmartBus will encourage mode shift from private vehicles to public transport

Government policies will continue to encourage mode shift from private vehicles to public transport

Alternative transport modes such as ride sharing will make at least a small positive contribution to reducing traffic volumes

Even if traffic does grow by 50 to 65 per cent, the VITM analysis shows that the corridor can cater for these volumes without the need for a six lane road33

Capacity constraints

Punt Road north of the Yarra River and the intersections with Swan Street will continue to be a capacity constraint on the Punt Road corridor and the scope to overcome this

33 See Table 1


Page 73 of 162

constraint is limited (The Committee believes that this will continue to be the case even if continuous flow lanes are introduced to improve capacity at Swan Street).

Widening of Punt Road into Gosch’s Paddock to upgrade the M1 interchange is unlikely to be supported

Widening of the Hoddle Bridge is unlikely to be supported (on heritage and visual impact grounds)

Widening of the Alexandra Avenue intersection is unlikely to be supported if it impacts on the River environs.

The Committee acknowledges that population growth, both more broadly across Melbourne and locally, works against some of these factors that would otherwise reduce traffic. The Committee is confident, however, that Punt Road with a four lane cross section mid‐block, widening at key intersections and appropriate signal linking will more than adequately cater for the traffic needs of the corridor well beyond 2031.

VicRoads, supported by Mr Humphreys accepted that Concept 5 would be a satisfactory treatment based on 2031 traffic projections, but, based on his assumption that traffic would continue to grow beyond that date, favoured preserving the ability to scale up to the higher capacity Concepts 6 or 7 in the longer term. The Concept Options Report and traffic engineering expert evidence from Mr Kinghorn and Mr Carter referred to Concept 5 as a medium to long term option, and Mr Higgs favoured Concept 5 (or similar) as a long term solution.

The Committee is not convinced that traffic volumes would increase considerably beyond 2031, and was not presented with any definitive expert evidence to the contrary. For the reasons set out above, the Committee believes that traffic volumes are likely to be contained and not increase significantly beyond 2031 volumes.

(iii) The future role of Punt Road

As noted above, the Committee believes that reducing the PAO is at the lower end of the risk scale. It is fair to say, however, that this is based on the Committee’s understanding of the issues and a number of assumptions about what might unfold in the future. The Committee therefore believes it is important to list the assumptions it has relied upon.

The Committee has based its conclusions on the following assumptions about the future strategic role of Punt Road between Union Street and the Yarra River:

Punt Road will continue to act as an urban arterial road and will not become a freeway

A primary function will be as a key north‐south bypass of the Melbourne CBD

Punt Road will continue to function as an access route to the Melbourne CBD and the Yarra Park sporting precinct, and as a local access road

Punt Road will continue to provide regionally important access to hospitals, schools, recreation, employment and business

Government policies will continue to attempt to manage traffic demand in the corridor and encourage mode shift from private vehicles to public transport

The ability to increase capacity north of the Yarra River is limited, and this section of Punt Road and the Swan Street/Punt Road intersection will continue to act as critical capacity constraints in this part of the corridor


Page 74 of 162

Bus services will continue to operate along Punt Road, but there will be limited demand for new services along the route, apart from increasing the frequency of the existing service.

These assumptions are based on what is known or can be reasonably predicted by the Committee at the time of preparing this report. In the event that these assumptions change substantially, and this may be informed by the work of Infrastructure Victoria, then the future options for Punt Road should be reviewed and the PAO should also be further reviewed.

The Committee has given some consideration to scenarios that could challenge these assumptions and makes the following comments:


Page 75 of 162

Scenario Committee comment

Significant major arterial road upgrades on either end of Punt Road require it to carry substantially more traffic.

Given constraints on existing arterials this is considered unlikely.

Punt Road north of the Yarra River and Hoddle Street would continue to act as the capacity constraint unless significantly upgraded.

Significant upgrade in capacity to Punt Road north of the Yarra River and Hoddle Street.

Given spatial constraints and the high cost of upgrade, this is likely to be limited in effect.

The road corridor is required for additional public transport capacity.

Unlikely given the extent of parallel services that better serve demand for travel to and from the City.

The expansion of the existing bus service is likely to be limited given its ‘niche’ market.

Major development of the Yarra Park sporting precinct.

Unlikely to be done with additional car parking provision.

Access is likely to rely on public transport access.

New technologies dramatically change traffic demands or require road space to implement.

Most initiatives (e.g. ride sharing) are aimed at reducing traffic on the roads. It is not clear whether driverless cars would increase or decrease traffic.

There are no new technologies that were brought to the Committee’s attention that would require additional road space.

Government policies on restricting demand on CBD traffic and parking change

The Committee believes that policies are likely to be more restrictive in favour of shifting more demand to public transport

Table 3 Scenarios that could affect Punt Road south of the Yarra River

In summary, this ‘risk analysis’ shows that there are no future scenarios that cause the Committee to doubt its assumptions about the future role of Punt Road.

The most likely of these future scenarios is if future works increase the capacity of Punt Road and Hoddle Street north of the Yarra River. Whilst the cost of this would likely be high given the spatial constraints, it is likely that some increase in capacity will be achieved through initiatives such as the continuous flow lanes recently announced. This may result in an increase in demand on Punt Road feeding into the higher capacity north of the River. If this scenario does arise, it may not be desirable to further widen Punt Road south of the Yarra (beyond two through lanes each way) in order to restrict demand on the additional capacity north of the Yarra. In other words it may not be desirable to remove the congestion on Punt Road north simply to see it return by widening Punt Road south.

In any case, the Committee believes that any increase in capacity north of the Yarra is likely to be limited and, at best, just means that flows through the Alexandra Avenue intersection and over the Hoddle Bridge will be freed up, allowing a widened Punt Road (to the extent proposed) to operate closer to optimal capacity.


Page 76 of 162

8.7 The public transport impacts


The Concept Options Report noted that travel speeds improve for six land concepts (Concepts 5, 6 and 7) with consequent improved reliability for on road public transport. The reliability of public transport on other parallel routes (Chapel Street, Williams Road and St Kilda Road) can also be expected to improve as congestion is relieved. The concepts that provide four lanes with 24 hour clearways (e.g. Concepts 1, 2 and 3) will also provide benefits (of a lesser degree) for traffic and public transport during the middle of the day both along Punt Road and also on the surrounding road network.

The Concept Options Report noted:

The concepts that provide for six lanes along Punt Road provide considerable flexibility in terms of the operation of the network. For example, the capacity that is added to Punt Road under the six lane concepts could be utilised to provide a balance of improved north‐south travel as well as promoting east‐west travel across the corridor for key public transport movements. Alternatively, there would be opportunities to provide added public transport or bicycle priority on parallel routes such as Chapel Street and St Kilda Road as a result of the reduction in traffic demands on these routes.

Mr Humphreys summarised the VITM estimates of public transport patronage in his expert report. He noted that the six lane options (Concepts 5, 6 and 7) could be expected to attract an increase in patronage of 22 per cent over the ‘do‐nothing’ scenario. VITM predicts no additional demand generated by Concept 7 (exclusive bus lane) compared to Concepts 5 and 6, however Mr Humphreys gave evidence that the introduction of SmartBus bus priority measures and increased reliability would be likely to increase patronage considerably.

VicRoads and PTV submitted that the Route 246 bus service, which operates along Punt Road‐Hoddle Street from St Kilda Junction to Clifton Hill, is an important service, providing a cross town linkage and connections to a range of employment, education, sporting and retail destinations. The service currently caters for approximately 1.5 million passenger boardings per annum. VicRoads submitted that the route reduces the need for users to travel in to the City and out again to reach their destination. Current trip times and reliability on the 246 route are highly variable with travel times from St Kilda Junction to Clifton Hill varying from as low as 18 minutes off peak to as high as 40 minutes during the peak. The service operates every ten minutes during the peak. PTV advised that it is intended to ultimately increase frequency to five minutes in the peak. PTV and VicRoads submitted that it is important to protect options to improve public transport travel times and reliability and encourage mode shift from private vehicles to public transport.

Ms Murphy, on behalf of the residents of Northampton Place, supported improvements to route 246, although, as pointed out by VicRoads, does not support a separate bus lane or bus jump lanes.

Other submitters, including Drop Punt, submitted that the route 246 bus was of limited value, effectively running parallel to the Sandringham rail line along the Punt Road section. Drop Punt also submitted that other major destinations within the Punt Road corridor such


Page 77 of 162

as Wesley College and the Alfred Hospital ere well served by tram routes along St Kilda Road. Drop Punt submitted that upgrading the 246 route does not justify the economic, social and environmental cost of widening Punt Road.

Mr and Mrs Allatson submitted that the likelihood of a significant modal shift to the route 246 bus is highly questionable. They submitted that the majority of vehicle traffic on Punt Road is destined for the City and so the 246 bus does not provide a substitute for such trips.

In response, PTV provided more detailed information on route 246 boardings34, and highlighted boarding numbers supporting the importance of the route in accessing the Richmond Railway Station, Swan Street and the Alfred Hospital and other key stops along the route.

There was general agreement from all parties that use of public transport should be prioritised over use of private cars. VicRoads, PTV and Melbourne Council all submitted that increased road capacity (through widening or other improvements) ought to be used to improve conditions for public transport along and across Punt Road. Melbourne Council submitted that care needed to be taken to ensure that additional road capacity was not simply taken up by more car trips and planning should ensure that public transport is the main beneficiary. Melbourne Council submitted that “it supports an ultimate solution which includes a bus/multi passenger vehicle lane.”35

(ii) Discussion

The Committee believes that Concept 5 and the Modified Concept 5 provide the opportunity for bus jump lanes and would improve bus reliability considerably. The ability for buses to utilise the left‐turn approach lane and be provided with a bus‐stop on the departure side of the intersection is a significant benefit operationally. The Committee believes that the Modified Concept 5 is as effective as Concept 5 in this regard.

The Committee was not convinced that an exclusive bus lane (Concept 7) is justified for such small bus numbers. Even in the future at five minute headways, there would only be 12 buses per hour in each direction.

The Committee agrees that the scope for substantial mode shift to the route 246 bus is limited. The route fills a niche market for users with destinations in the corridor but is limited in its long‐term appeal given the parallel train and tram routes and the fact that the majority of private vehicle trips along Punt Road will not easily substitute to the bus route (or other public transport mode introduced along Punt Road) along the corridor.

34 Document 45 35 Melbourne Council submission – Document 13


Page 78 of 162

8.8 Cycling and pedestrian impacts and opportunities


Cycling

Punt Road is not included on VicRoads' SmartRoads as a preferred bicycle route. The Melbourne and Stonnington Bicycle Plans do not show Punt Road as a preferred bicycle route. Alexandra Avenue (riverside path), Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street are all shown on SmartRoads as priority cycle routes.

Melbourne City Council submitted that long term planning should consider provisions for cycling, perhaps considering that powered assisted bicycles may have more of a role in the future. This position was supported in evidence by Mr Tivendale.

Pedestrians

The City of Melbourne and City of Stonnington submissions raised concerns about longer pedestrian crossing times if Punt Road was widened.

Mr Humphreys, in his evidence, agreed that it would take longer for pedestrians to cross Punt Road but noted that signal cycle times would be reduced with all options that upgrade capacity, hence reducing overall delays for pedestrians. He also noted that widened intersections would most likely create opportunities to stage pedestrian movements on traffic islands.

38 of the 121 submissions received identified concerns about pedestrian safety, particularly for school children, and broader pedestrian amenity. In many cases it was submitted that pedestrian safety is already an issue in Punt Road and that the road widening options presented would exacerbate the problem. A common theme was the large number of school children who regularly need to cross Punt Road to access schools on the west side, and concerns about traffic throughput increasing risk, as would increased crossing times for a widened road.

The submission from Ms Bilu refers to 6,554 school children who regularly cross Punt Road throughout the day to attend schools and use local amenities.

The City of Melbourne made submissions and introduced expert evidence regarding pedestrian safety and amenity.

While there appeared to be common ground between the Council and VicRoads around a number of matters, the Council made the following statement regarding pedestrians in their submission:

…. the analysis of the pedestrian usage of Punt Road falls well short of what ought to be expected and that more work ought to be done to ensure that any proposal improves the safety of pedestrians and improves the pedestrian experience within the corridor.

Mr Tivendale gave evidence in relation to pedestrian issues as follows:

The northern end of Punt Road has very narrow (in some cases no) footpaths. In every case this is because lane width for private vehicles has been considered to be more important than adequate space for pedestrians. An


Page 79 of 162

example from the south western side of the intersection of Domain Road and Punt Road is shown below. This footpath does not meet the minimum standard endorsed by the City of Melbourne and is likely to be non‐compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act.

As the intensity of residential development, commercial activity and schools in the surrounding area increases the demands on the footpath space across the whole area are increasing. In particular there is significant need for residents on the western side of Punt Road to cross the road for their daily shopping needs and residents on the eastern side of the road often need to cross in order to access education and recreation facilities (Fawkner Park and Botanic Gardens in particular).

A number of submitters, including Drop Punt submitted that widening Punt Road would create pedestrian safety issues, especially for school children. VicRoads strongly disputed this, submitting that utilising the PAO creates the opportunity to design wider, more pedestrian friendly areas. Ms Murphy, on behalf of the residents of 5 Northampton Place, submitted that additional vehicle traffic would increase risk for pedestrians. She advocated for improvements to pedestrian infrastructure in the local area to encourage local trips by foot instead of short car trip.

The VicRoads 2012 Punt Road Study noted that:

Pedestrian activity is particularly pronounced at the Punt Road/Moubray Street/Greville Street intersection (during school start and finish times) and Punt Road/Toorak Road intersection, with high pedestrian volumes causing delays to turning traffic.

Crash data included in the 2012 report for the period between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009 noted that there were 135 injury crashes reported for Punt Road and that pedestrian injuries represented 19 or 14 per cent of these crashes. The report then made the comment that a “median could reduce the number of pedestrian and head‐on crashes”.


Page 80 of 162

In relation to walking and cycling, the Background Report noted:

Any widening of Punt Road to six lanes should help facilitate enhanced bicycle and pedestrian provisions, and associated safety and amenity for these users, on the road network in the surrounding area and along Punt Road.

In their Part A submission to the Committee, VicRoads stated:

VicRoads and PTV accept that the implementation of any of the options needs to be thoroughly considered from the perspective of both pedestrian safety and amenity.

The submission acknowledged that “a widened Punt Road would increase the walking distance to cross the road; however this could be mitigated through the provision of a wide central median to protect pedestrians”.

The VicRoads submission also stated that there would be improved outcomes for pedestrians from additional elements of the road and traffic designs for the various Options including banning right hand turns and reducing traffic signal cycle times at key intersections. VicRoads do not contemplate pedestrian overpasses in the short term because it would require additional land acquisition and substantial service relocation that could only be designed when an ultimate road configuration is known.

The road widening options allow improved width of footpaths and improved pedestrian amenity through landscape enhancements.

The expert evidence statement from Mr Kinghorn and Mr Carter advised:

During any future design stages to develop a specific proposal for the corridor it is expected that the government agencies would work with the schools and the local community to improve the safety of pedestrians.

(ii) Discussion

Cycling

Cycling on Punt Road is currently severely limited by the lane widths, high levels of traffic and the physical difficulty of traversing the Punt Road hill from Domain Road to the Yarra River.

The provision for cyclists along Punt Road is unlikely to be achieved in a safe manner without the provision of a dedicated facility. This is an impractical proposition within the corridor and there was no argument for such a proposal at the Hearing.

The Committee believes that planning for cycling on Punt Road, particularly north of Domain Road, should not be a priority. Planning should provide for the bicycle priority routes crossing Punt Road at Alexandra Avenue (riverside path), Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street.


Page 81 of 162

Pedestrians

The issues of pedestrian safety and amenity were raised as concerns through a significant number of submissions and in expert evidence.

Any final design for a road, even if the PAO is removed, would need to carefully consider the range of factors that impact on pedestrian volumes and behaviours. The Committee believes that VicRoads understands the priority that must afforded to a high level of pedestrian amenity in developing any final design for Punt Road and its intersecting road network.

Pedestrian movements along Punt Road are restricted by the narrow footpath widths at some locations and the relatively ‘hostile’ environment so close to high traffic volumes. This is particularly the case at Domain Road where sub‐standard footpath widths as low as 1.2 metres create an uncomfortable environment for pedestrians. The Modified Concept 5 plan includes a minor widening in the vicinity of Domain Road to facilitate the widening of the footpaths at this location.

The Committee believes that any long term plans should provide for higher standards of pedestrian safety by providing properly proportioned pedestrian areas. More generous footpath widths that comply with contemporary standards should be planned for, with safety barriers where appropriate.

8.9 Impact on local streets

Stonnington Council submitted that the proposed turn bans at Toorak Road, Commercial Road and High Street would potentially cause intrusion of traffic into local streets and necessitate the implementation of local traffic management measures. VicRoads acknowledged that local traffic intrusion is a possible side effect, and agreed that it may be necessary for Council to address any unintended impacts.

The Committee notes however, that some of the proposed concept options provide for left and right turns at all the major intersections and therefore would not cause traffic intrusion into local streets.

The long term management of Punt Road may involve limitation to access from local streets and restrictions on future development, however these matters have not been addressed by the Committee and are left to the relevant planning authorities. Local street access issues should be carefully assessed before implementing any turn bans or other access restrictions on Punt Road or crossing roads.

8.10 Summary of parties preferred position

Table 4 below summarises the position of the submitters and traffic experts in relation to the preferred medium to long term options:


Page 82 of 162

Party Medium term Long term

VicRoads and PTV Concept 5 Concepts 6 or 7

Melbourne City Council Concept 5 Concepts 6 or 7

Stonnington City Council No widening No widening

Drop Punt and the majority of other submitters Concept 2 No widening

Mr Kinghorn and Mr Carter expert evidence Concept 5 Concepts 6 or 7 and possibly 5

Mr Higgs expert evidence Concept 5 Concept 5

Mr Tivendale expert evidence Concept 6

Mr Humphries expert evidence Concept 5 Concept 6 or 7

Table 4 Submitter’s and expert’s preferred concepts medium and long term

There seemed to be general support from all parties to the Hearing that permanent 24 hour clearways (Concept 1) are a good initiative, and there was general support for other minor improvements that could be achieved within the existing road reserve (Concept 2).

8.11 Conclusions

In relation to the traffic and transport issues, the Committee draws the following conclusions:

The short term introduction of Concepts 1 and 2 are supported. Substantial off‐peak capacity improvements and congestion relief can be achieved through clearways, turn bans and other minor lane realignments.

Concepts 3 and 4 were not considered in any detail by the Committee. Concept 3 (with a narrow central median) would appear to provide no substantial advantages over Concept 2. Concept 4 (reversible fifth lane) would have operational challenges with limited benefits, and was abandoned by VicRoads prior to the Hearings.

The Committee is generally supportive of Concept 5 (involving substantial intersection upgrades and four lanes midblock), however believes that the Modified Concept 5, substantially reducing land acquisition and not widening the Hoddle Bridge, would achieve a similar level of corridor performance.

The Committee was not convinced that the current traffic capacity constraints in Hoddle Street north of the Yarra River can be resolved and that Punt Road between the River and Swan Street will continue to be the main constraint on traffic.

The Committee was not convinced that upgrading of the Punt Road/Alexandra Avenue intersection or widening of the Hoddle Bridge is warranted. This is borne out by the traffic analysis provided to the Committee which shows that the Alexandra Avenue intersection will function satisfactorily under projected 2031 volumes.

The Committee prefers a Modified Concept 5 that provides for additional lanes and bus priority at each of the major intersections, minimises land acquisition and removal of houses, and restricts the demolition of heritage buildings to only one property.

Although some expert witnesses supported the retention of the PAO to preserve the option of increasing capacity in the future, the Committee was not convinced that there was compelling evidence that a full six lane widening of Punt Road (Concepts 6 and 7) is


Page 83 of 162

justified. Traffic projections provided to the Committee extended to 2031 and showed that Concept 5 provided an adequate level of service and substantially greater traffic throughput, thereby alleviating parallel routes and providing for more reliable traffic flow (for private vehicles and public transport) along and across the Punt Road corridor.

Based on the evidence and submissions, the Committee was not convinced that the merits of Concepts 6 or 7 (essentially marginally better traffic speeds) justified the extensive additional land acquisition.

The Modified Concept 5 is the Committee’s preferred treatment for Punt Road.

The risk of the Modified Concept 5 not adequately catering for traffic demand on the Punt Road corridor at least until 2031 is considered low.

Based on its assessment of available traffic projection data, and assumptions in relation to likely future policy influences, including demand management and improvements to the public transport system, the Committee believes that the Modified Concept 5 will adequately cater for traffic demand in the Punt Road corridor well beyond 2031.

The Committee was not convinced that an exclusive bus lane (Concept 7) is justified. Even in the future at five minute headways, there would only be 12 buses per hour in the peak in each direction.

The design of future road widening should make provision for improved pedestrian facilities, particularly at locations such as Domain Road were the current footpath widths are sub‐standard and at locations where high pedestrian volumes are experienced.

Local street access issues should be carefully assessed before implementing any turn bans or other access restrictions on Punt Road or crossing roads.


Page 84 of 162

9 Heritage issues

9.1 The issue

Whether the heritage value of properties within the PAO is an impediment to any potential widening of Punt Road; and whether the PAO is having an impact on heritage properties?

9.2 Background

There are 42 properties affected by the PAO that are also included within a Heritage Overlay (HO). Of these, three have individual HO’s and the remainder are included within a precinct based HO. A map showing the location of these properties is included in Appendix F.

Individually listed buildings

The individually listed buildings are Fawkner Mansion at 250 Punt Road, Prahran (HO448 ‐ Level A1 Significance and includes tree controls and the iron palisade fence), Bendale at 446‐448 Punt Road, South Yarra (HO449 ‐ Level A2 Significance and includes controls in relation to the front fence) and 424 Punt Road, South Yarra (HO463 ‐ Level A2 Significance).

Heritage precincts

The remainder of the heritage properties are identified for the contribution they make to six heritage precincts, but have not been identified as having individual heritage significance, including the A1 listed ‘Shan Teng’; which is Mr Allatson and Ms Warwick’s property. The level of significance for these properties (apart from those identified as vacant) is:

A1 ‐1 property

A2 ‐ 16 properties

Level B – 17 properties

Level C – 1 property

Ungraded (vacant) – 4 properties.

Note that the exact number of properties affected is open to interpretation and may vary slightly form the information tabled by VicRoads and Stonnington Council. Any variation can be explained by differences in assumptions about subdivision or consolidation of lots.

Heritage significance of buildings affected by the PAO

In order to understand the significance of these buildings, it is necessary to consider the significance classifications referred to. This explanation is found in the Stonnington Heritage Policy36 which states:

Gradings frequently applied in the City are:

A1 Buildings – are of national or state importance, irreplaceable parts of Australia’s built form heritage.

A2 Buildings – are of regional or metropolitan significance, and stand as important milestones in the architectural development of the metropolis.

B Buildings – make an architectural and historic contribution that is important within the local area.

36 Clause 22.04 Stonnington Planning Scheme


Page 85 of 162

C Buildings – are either reasonably intact representatives of particular periods or styles, or they have been substantially altered but stand in a row or street that retains much of its original character and are considered to have amenity or streetscape value.

Significant buildings be defined as A1, A2 and B graded buildings. Contributory buildings be defined as C graded buildings.

Of the 42 heritage properties within the PAO, three are considered individually significant with one of those recognised as having State significance, 39 are considered significant within the precinct with one of those being of State significance for the contribution it makes to the precinct; and the remaining being of regional or local significance.

The Committee is aware of only two trees identified as having heritage significance, and these are the two liquidambar trees located at the front of the Fawkner Mansions.

9.3 Evidence and submissions

There were many submissions37 which raised concern about the impact the PAO is having on heritage properties, submitting it is leading to the deterioration of these buildings, and ultimately the loss of significant heritage values in the area and Melbourne. The submitters also raised concern that any potential road widening would directly impact on 42 heritage properties, some which have A1 and A2 heritage significance; as well as significant trees.

The submissions emphasised that heritage properties “are an important visual reminder and record of Melbourne’s architectural history and the evolution of life in this city. The loss of these places can never be recovered38”. Mr Carrasco submitted that in the twenty first century, many cities are jealously guarding their cultural and architectural heritage primarily for its own sake, but also as a major draw card for international tourism. He submitted that “one of the reasons Melbourne is not more of a tourist destination is that the extraordinary Victorian era architecture it once had has systematically been wiped out for short sighted endeavours such as widening roads39”.

Particular reference was made to two significant properties which are considered of State Significance. These include Shan Teng40, which the Committee was advised is an A1 heritage home built in 1926 by Australian Architect Arthur Purnell, and includes a distinctive ‘temple‐style’ roof which was a tribute to his love of oriental architecture; and Fawkner Mansions41, which is the oldest residential flats in Stonnington, and one of the oldest in Victoria, built in Melbourne in 1910.

The owners of Shan Teng, Mr Allatson and Ms Warwick, acknowledged they bought the property with the full knowledge that it was included within the PAO, but did so based on advice from VicRoads that the widening was unlikely to proceed. They submitted that they have significantly renovated the property since purchasing it, however, the roof is beyond repair and maintenance and in need of specialist restoration which would cost approximately $200,000. They explained how they had sought and received in‐principle

37 Submissions 8, 10, 44, 54, 59, 63, 67, 70, 77, 86, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 105, 112, 115, 119 and 121. 38 Submission 10 ‐ Mr Bilu and Submission 59 ‐ Ms Berry 39 Submission 63 – Mr Carrasco 40 490‐492 Punt Road, South Yarra 41 250 Punt Road, Prahran


Page 86 of 162

support for a heritage grant to restore the roof, however, because of the PAO they were disqualified.

Mr Heydon submitted that his dwelling is one of five early Howard Lawson buildings along Punt Road which is significant as it was a precursor for Lawson’s future dramatic development of Alexandra Avenue. He emphasised the importance of retaining these properties.

Ms Phillips also highlighted that there are number of dwellings on the Punt Road Hill that were once previously occupied by significant Australian artists or leading Melbourne citizens, some which had already been demolished. She submitted that “bulldozing more historical homes that add value and enrichment to our society is short‐sighted and neglectful.”

A number of submissions also raised concern that any proposed road widening would result in the removal of significant vegetation; and in particular mature trees, which would result in the loss of heritage values, as well as visual amenity.

The submissions emphasised that not only would any potential widening of Punt Road have a direct impact on these properties, but so does retention of the PAO, as it acts as a disincentive for property owners to either restore or maintain their properties because they are unsure whether they will ever be acquired for road widening purposes, and if so when. They also raised concern that if they were to undertake any restoration or maintenance, whether they would be compensated for this if and when the property was acquired. They emphasised this has led many people to almost abandon their heritage properties, leaving them to fall into disrepair and almost neglect.

Mr Kelder also submitted the PAO has unintentionally preserved a unique collection of heritage buildings along Punt Road.

Melbourne City Council submitted that new Aboriginal Heritage sites had been identified since the 2010 Heritage Study, which was not reflected in the Arup Report.

Ms Forsyth stated that VicRoads acknowledges that widening of Punt Road will result in the demolition of buildings which are recognised as having heritage significance, but submitted that conflict between the retention of the heritage fabric and the provision of infrastructure is one of the natural tensions that arises in planning. She submitted that the heritage impacts are not overwhelming having regard to the fact that there is only one individually listed A1 graded building within the overlay; and even that building has not been accepted for registration on the Victorian Heritage Register.

In terms of Aboriginal cultural heritage, Ms Forsyth submitted that whilst part of the PAO is within 200 metres of a waterway and therefore of cultural heritage sensitivity, it has been significantly disturbed and is therefore not of cultural heritage significance.

In his evidence, Mr Milner acknowledged the potential road widening would affect heritage properties and accepted these are legitimate concerns, but said this is one of the many issues that needs to be considered in the choice of options and determining where the greatest community benefit lies.


Page 87 of 162

9.4 Discussion

The impact of road widening options on heritage properties

Whilst it would be the Committee’s preference that no heritage properties be impacted by any future road widening, the Committee agrees with Mr Milner’s evidence and Ms Forsyth’s submissions that one of the challenges of planning is balancing competing objectives, and two of these objectives are protecting heritage values and the need to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of both present and future generations.

Whilst the conservation and enhancement of buildings which are of architectural or historical interest is an objective of planning, so too is the need to protect public utilities and other assets; to enable the orderly provision and co‐ordination of public utilities and facilities for the benefit of the community; and ultimately, the need to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The SPPF42 clearly states that conflicting objectives should be balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

Concepts 1 – 4 would have the least impacts as they would not affect any properties; Concept 5 would affect nine heritage properties and five heritage buildings and Concepts 6 and 7 would affect 40 heritage properties and 34 heritage buildings.

The Modified Concept 5 would affect seven heritage properties and one heritage building, the Acadia Hotel.

Clearly, Concepts 6 and 7 would have the greatest impact on heritage properties and buildings, with Concept 5 and the Modified Concept 5 having a relatively minor effect by comparison. The most significant difference between Concept 5 and the Modified Concept 5 is that Concept 5 requires the demolition of the Fawkner Mansions, whereas the Modified Concept 5 does not.

If part or all of the PAO is required to facilitate road widening, the Committee is satisfied the improvements to be achieved to the overall transport system would likely outweigh the potential impacts on heritage properties, and would therefore have a net community benefit.

In terms of the Modified Concept 5, whilst the Fawkner Mansions would not require demolition, the removal of the two liquidambar trees and the front fence would be required. Whilst these are the only two trees along Punt Road with heritage significance, based on the Committee’s inspection, they appear to be significantly compromised as a result of pruning around power lines. The Committee considers that it may be an acceptable outcome to remove them; however, the Committee acknowledges this would need to be considered further in the detailed design of this option. The Committee recognises that this balance could change with the passage of time; and such an assessment would need to be undertaken at the time when a definite proposal is being considered.

Based on the limited significance of the heritage properties affected by the PAO, the Committee believes that, regardless of which road widening concept is ultimately chosen,

42 Clause 10.04 – Integrated decision making


Page 88 of 162

the balance is likely to be in favour of widening the road. In other words, the significance of the heritage properties in Punt Road is not such that it would outweigh the community benefit of widening such an important road. The Committee therefore does not consider the potential impact on the heritage properties is a determinative matter in deciding the future of the PAO at this time, and the decision should be made based on other considerations.

Impact of the PAO on heritage properties

As it is the role of this Committee to consider whether the PAO should be retained, modified or removed, the other question for this Committee is whether the PAO itself is having an adverse impact on these heritage properties, as opposed to the road widening options presented.

The Committee notes the concerns raised by submitters related to owners’ unwillingness to invest in renovating or maintaining these properties, not knowing whether they would one day be demolished to make way for a road widening. The Committee does not consider this issue, however, is exclusive to heritage properties as it was a common theme amongst submissions.

In terms of direct impacts, the Committee agrees with Mr Allatson and Ms Warwick, that for them the PAO has had a direct impact on their ability to fund the restoration of the significant roof using grant money. Whilst the Committee empathises with Mr Allatson and Ms Warwick, and accepts that this is a direct impact, it considers this to be a relatively isolated case.

The Committee also agrees with the submissions made by Mr Kelder that the PAO may have also had an unintentionally positive impact on these heritage properties by limiting new development along Punt Road, thereby preserving these heritage buildings. If it had not been for the PAO, given the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) on the land and the strategic directions in the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the Committee considers it likely there would have been more significant redevelopment along the east side of Punt Road resulting in the demolition of many of these heritage dwellings. For this reason, the Committee considers that any potential road widening is not the only potential threat to the preservation of these heritage properties; and considers potential redevelopment could have an equally significant impact and potentially a more immediate impact than any proposed road widening.

The Committee considers it important to recognise that not only are the owners of these dwellings acting as custodians of a future community asset, they also have the dual role of also acting as custodians of properties with heritage significance. For this reason, if part or all of the PAO is not intended to be used in the short or medium term, but rather is identified as a long term strategic option, the Committee considers it important to enable owners to maintain these properties to ensure they do not fall into disrepair; therefore ensuring these heritage values are not lost.

In these circumstances, the Committee considers that a more co‐operative arrangement between VicRoads and the owners of properties identified as long‐term could provide more certainty for owners and VicRoads, and ensure that these heritage values are maintained and enhanced in the meantime.


Page 89 of 162

In terms of Aboriginal Heritage, based on Ms Forsyth’s submission, the Committee is satisfied that the area within the PAO which is likely to have the greatest sensitivity has been altered to such an extent that there are unlikely to be any sites of significance.

9.5 Conclusions

The impact of road widening options on heritage properties

The Committee concludes that whether any future impacts on heritage properties associated with a widening of Punt Road would be acceptable needs to be assessed once a preferred option is selected. This would require an assessment of whether the greatest net community benefit for present and future populations is achieved by the protecting heritage properties or providing improved transport infrastructure, or a combination of both. That is a decision for a later date.

The Committee is satisfied, however, that improvements to the transport system associated with the Committee’s Modified Concept 5 are likely to have a net community benefit and justify the relatively minor impacts on the heritage properties.

If some properties are identified as required to be retained in the PAO long term (15+ years), the Committee considers that VicRoads should adopt a more flexible arrangement towards allowing restoration of heritage properties within the PAO. The Committee believes it would be helpful to develop guidelines to clearly identify the range of works that may be permitted and any conditions that would apply, to facilitate the protection and enhancement of these values in the meantime.

Impact of the PAO on heritage properties

The Committee also concludes that the PAO may be having a positive impact on heritage properties within the PAO as it is indirectly protecting these sites from further, more substantial development.


Page 90 of 162

10 Environmental issues

10.1 Impacts on the Yarra River

(i) The issue

Do the potential impacts on the Yarra River and its environs create an impediment to future road widening?


The Drop Punt submission stated that:

The Yarra River will be heavily polluted by freeways run‐off and debris, including motor oil, chemical from tyres, petrol and diesel fuel leakage from the extra freeway lanes on Hoddle and Swan Street Bridges.

A number of individual submissions picked up on the themes of pollutant run‐offs and debris as advanced in the Drop Punt submission.

The City of Stonnington submission stated that:

A key natural feature of the City of Stonnington is the Yarra River which provides opportunities for increased biodiversity, riparian habitat linkages and community interaction with a natural environment.

The submission then detailed the range of policy work and adopted strategies both at a State and local government level to protect and improve the river. The Council summarised their position in relation to the river when it stated:

Council submits that although the final and detailed layout of the various options is not decided, it can be safely assumed that any degradation or loss of native vegetation and open space or significant trees along the Yarra River and private properties in Punt Road is inconsistent with Council’s policies

The City of Melbourne raised concerns over impacts on the river and its biodiversity values through the potential widening of Alexandra Avenue. The expert evidence statement regarding open space issues by Mr Shears addressed the issue of the potential road widening impacts:

This concept proposes acquisition of public land between Alexandra Avenue and the Yarra River to facilitate a displaced right turn from Alexandra Avenue into Punt Road. I do not consider the widening of Alexandra Avenue to be appropriate because this concept would lead to a loss of open space along the natural banks of the Yarra River.

The green space of the Yarra River reserve is a significant landscape element and recreational area of the Yarra River corridor. This road treatment would negatively affect the function and amenity of the Capital City Trail, one of the city’s primary recreational walking and cycling routes. This area of river bank is also one of the few places where people can get close to the river and engage with it.


Page 91 of 162

It would also seriously degrade the general amenity and environment along the river bank and detrimentally affect the biodiversity role of the Yarra River corridor. This section is the only side of the Yarra that has a green bank, and reducing this would have serious environmental implications.

For its part, VicRoads did not make detailed submissions regarding the potential impacts on the river environment that may result from any proposed intersection treatment that widens Alexandra Avenue to the east of Punt Road, submitting the proposed intersection design is only conceptual at this stage. VicRoads’ preferred position is that the PAO remain in place to allow future road widening on Alexandra Avenue to take place on the south side, that is, the side covered by the PAO. VicRoads maintained in its submission that the Alexandra Road/Punt Road intersection treatment will need to occur irrespective of any widening of Punt Road.

VicRoads sought to address the concerns expressed by the City of Melbourne by indicating that retention of the PAO would offer greater protection from future pressure to use the river bank to accommodate a widened road; stating:

In so far as the City of Melbourne’s argument about the importance of open space is concerned, it is important to retain the PAO in the vicinity of Alexandra Avenue / Dobson Street in order to maximize the opportunity for a solution that minimises impacts on public open space. In other words, if the PAO was removed, then the cost of acquiring land to the south of Alexandra Avenue would increase, and therefore so would the pressure to utilize the river bank.

Once again, VicRoads will work with the council at the relevant to time to determine the most appropriate treatment for that intersection having regard to both transport and public space objectives. However, the impacts on public open space are not a reason to remove the PAO. The evidence points to the contrary.

There was no submission or evidence regarding how an expanded river crossing may be achieved if the PAO were exercised.

(iii) Discussion

The fact that Punt Road crosses the Yarra River over the existing Hoddle Bridge creates the potential for impacts on the river and its environs.

The Committee notes that Concepts 5, 6 and 7 propose to widen the river crossing, however, the precise nature of how this would be achieved (for example, a widening of the heritage Hoddle Bridge or a separate bridge) was not detailed. These three Concepts also include proposals for separating turning traffic between Punt Road and Alexandra Avenue, east of Punt Road, to improve intersection functionality. This is described as a ‘continuous flow intersection’. On the preliminary designs provided, these separating traffic solutions would necessitate the widening of the Alexander Avenue road east of Punt Road to potentially encroach on the immediate environs of the river and could result in vegetation removal.

A further supplementary concept to some of the Concepts initially advanced, but subsequently withdrawn by VicRoads, provided for the widening of Alexander Avenue west


Page 92 of 162

of Punt Road and the construction of a new bridge just east of the existing historic Morrell Bridge.

The Committee notes the potential intersection treatment that affects Alexandra Avenue is only broadly conceptual at this stage, however, the preliminary design clearly appears to impact on the river bank environment. Despite comments that the PAO reservation, if retained, would alleviate pressures for the river bank to be used for a future road widening it is evident that the preliminary design for the ‘continuous flow’ concept extends significantly further east along Alexandra Avenue, well past where the PAO ends. Therefore, in the view of the Committee there would be continued pressure to encroach on the river bank which the Committee considers to be highly undesirable.

The recent changes to the State Planning Policy Framework supports the stronger protection of the Yarra River and its riparian environment and any proposal to affect the river bank to accommodate a widened road would be at odds with the improved river protection and so would have to have a very high standard of justification. For this reason, the Committee would not be supportive of any Option which sought to encroach further north into the Yarra River embankment that would lead to removal of vegetation or compromise the cycling/pedestrian pathway along the river.

Further, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is not convinced that increasing traffic capacity through the Alexandra Avenue/Punt Road intersection is warranted.

The Committee notes that the main impacts regarding a widened Alexandra Avenue would be outside the PAO reservation and so does not fully form part of the Committee charter to review the Punt Road PAO. However, the interrelationship between a potentially widened Punt Road and the concept for widening Alexandra Avenue to deal with overall traffic congestion are evident.

The Committee does not consider that the additional run‐off created by an expanded Punt Road to six lanes instead of the current four lanes could not be adequately dealt with through the final design process.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee concludes that while there may some issues regarding additional run‐off from a widened road the impacts are not so significant as to be a substantive reason to remove or modify the PAO.

The Committee does not support any concept that adversely affects the banks or the riparian environment of the Yarra River.


Page 93 of 162

10.2 Air quality and noise

(i) The issue

Do the potential impacts regarding air quality, noise and vibration create an impediment to future road widening?


The Christ Church Grammar School raised concerns about “the increased pollution/noise in the area that would result as a direct consequence of an increase in traffic on Punt Road and the risks that this raises for the safety and wellbeing of our School community.” The submission referred to classrooms that face onto Punt Road and their concern for students and teachers arising from increased air pollution; and damage to school buildings that would result from air borne pollution. Mrs Jones, the Headmistress, submitted the school had measurements for air pollution that showed the levels were already close to risk levels, although these measurements were not tabled; and not subsequently received by the Committee.

Tract Consultants, on behalf of residents of 5 Northampton Place, South Yarra, made submissions in relation to noise, pollution and vibration stating:

Residential areas in proximity to Punt Road are currently subject to traffic vibration impacts, noise and pollution. The substantial increase in traffic anticipated under Concept Options 5‐7 will generate increased noise and emissions that would further impact residents of the area, particularly during the construction phases.

The counter approach is articulated in the Public Transport Guidelines for Use and Development 2008 (State Government of Victoria):

“Designing our towns and activity centres to accommodate public transport services, infrastructure and facilities will have additional benefits such as reducing air and noise pollution and road traffic congestion, so as to create more vibrant, walkable town centres”.

There is little acknowledgement in the available material of the impact on air quality associated with increased vehicle movements in this highly residential location. The expert evidence statement from Mr Milner simply puts faith in ‘future technologies’ to address this important planning consideration. The (subject properties) are each fully attached along their sides and rear boundaries. This means that the properties that face west have no alternative means of ventilation, aside from their Punt Road frontage.

The submission from Dr Lovell questioned the lack of data held by VicRoads in relation to air quality along Punt Road. Regarding the use of the Air Quality Screening Tool (AQST), Dr Lovell queried the inputs concerning traffic volumes and suggested that there would be value in having an independent expert evaluate VicRoads’ AQST modelling and the validity of the inputs assumptions and the application of the tool.

The Drop Punt submission addressed the negative health impacts for the community and the contribution to air pollution that would arise from a widened road. The submission referred


Page 94 of 162

to a 2005 World Health Organization (WHO) report into the health effects of transport‐related air pollution being similar to the death rate of the road toll in Europe. The WHO report was said to have made references to urban development in Australia and the transport impacts on public health, including exposure to particle matter which has been associated with increases in mortality and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

The City of Stonnington submission identified the significant detrimental impact on the community arising from a 65 per cent increase in traffic volumes under the Option 7 in terms of:

a) Additional noise created by more vehicles;

b) Extended periods of noise created by more vehicles utilising the road for longer periods due to the increased capacity and potential efficiency;

c) Air quality resulting from the increased traffic;

…

The City of Stonnington queried the rigour in the modelling in the Air Quality Screening Tool used by VicRoads in demonstrating that air quality in a widened Punt Road would be satisfactory, using the gradient in Dobson Street as an example.

VicRoads made substantial submissions regarding air quality and noise. It provided a detailed account of the methodology that had been used to assess air quality issues under the various Concepts, excepting the discarded Concept 4, advising:

The VicRoads Air Quality Screening Assessment Tool (AQST) has been developed in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority to assess road projects for compliance against the State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP(AQM)) using a worst case approach. The tool is used to determine whether the air quality component of the project is satisfied or alternatively whether further evaluation in the form of detailed air quality impact assessment is warranted.

VicRoads submitted that the screening tool had assessed the six Concepts, on a worst‐case basis, and after applying a range of reasonably conservative assumptions, stated:

In conclusion, the Air Quality Assessment predicts that air quality effects from the Project's operational phase will be below the intervention level criteria specified in SEPP (Air Quality Management).

In additional documents supplied to the Committee regarding air quality, VicRoads acknowledged that motor vehicle emissions are the largest contributor to air pollution in Melbourne. It stated that at the planning stage:

Each road project is required to characterise the influence of traffic generated emissions on the near‐road environment, taking into account the relationships of meteorology and traffic type, volume and speed.

VicRoads provided the single page summary report sheet from the AQST Workbook for each of the 6 assessed concepts that ranged from traffic increases of 30 per cent by 2031 (1, 2 and 3), 60 per cent (Option 5) and 65 per cent ‐ 70 per cent (Concepts 6 and 7). All sheets


Page 95 of 162

demonstrated an Assessment Status of Pass on a Fail/Pass scale for the six Concepts assessed.

VicRoads responded to the Committee’s request for information on existing conditions and trends in air quality and noise caused by traffic on Punt Road, or comparable arterial roads, by advising that the monitoring of air quality is undertaken by the EPA, but assessing trends over time “is a complex area and is beyond the scope of VicRoads’ capacity at this Committee hearing.”

In reply, VicRoads dismissed any comparison between air pollution in Francis Street, Yarraville and a widened Punt Road, identifying the low level of truck traffic in Punt Road as a major difference.

In relation to noise, a number of submissions raised concerns over the problems of increased noise levels arising from a widened Punt Road. This was often raised in association with anticipated increased levels of airborne pollution. Comments included concerns that increasing road capacity would “only achieve minor travel time improvements, but will expose nearby residents to increased noise and air pollution …”

The VicRoads submission noted that “Punt Road is already a noisy road,” however, stated that owners bought with the knowledge that the property they were buying was on a major road. VicRoads accepted that if the road is widened under Concepts 5, 6 or 7, properties on the east side would be potentially exposed to traffic noise by the removal of buildings under the PAO, but submitted that if that were the case, the VicRoads Noise Reduction Policy would apply, which states:

Where arterial roads or freeways are built on new alignments, or where existing arterial roads or freeways are widened by two or more lanes and buildings previously protected from traffic noise are exposed by removal of buildings required for widening, the traffic noise will be limited to the objectives set out below or the level that would have prevailed if the road improvements had not occurred, whichever is the greater.

VicRoads advised it has not undertaken any modelling to determine if any noise mitigation measures would be required and advised that this would done at the time of detailed design. The range of mitigation measures include acoustic walls or noise attenuation on individual buildings.

VicRoads stated that because most of the buyers have purchased their properties since the PAO was put in place they are aware of the long term strategic plan for the road. Further, there would be opportunities for redeveloped properties under a future widened road option to have a design response to the new acoustic environment.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee notes the processes utilised by VicRoads in the preliminary assessment of likely motor vehicle emissions through the VicRoads AQST under the various Concepts considered and consequent negative impacts for air quality. The Committee is satisfied that air quality issues would be properly investigated and responded to at the final design stage for any proposed road project and can be adequately resolved. While there was substantial anecdotal evidence about the increased levels of air pollution that would result from a


Page 96 of 162

widened Punt Road, even with views that the existing levels are above acceptable standards, there was no evidence before the Committee that the impacts from increased traffic flows would impair air quality to negatively affect public health.

The Committee does not believe that there was sufficient adverse evidence to suggest that the potential for increased air pollution from a widened Punt Road should result in the removal of the PAO on this ground.

The Committee accepts that Punt Road is noisy although the low level of heavy vehicle traffic does mean the noise environment is generated mainly from light motor vehicles. There has been no suggestion that the role of Punt Road will change from that of arterial road and so it will remain a heavily used thoroughfare with associated noise. The Committee notes that the evidence provided by VicRoads shows that there will be an increase in Punt Road traffic as a result of the introduction of clearways that will likely increase the ‘base level’ of noise and vehicle emission.

It is further noted that VicRoads has a clear obligation to ensure that with the advent of a widened road that it has a responsibility to implement noise attenuation measures to respond to increased noise impacts.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee concludes that VicRoads can satisfactorily respond to additional noise and air quality issues that might arise from a widened Punt Road and so this does not represent a reason to remove the PAO.

10.3 Stormwater management

(i) The issue

Do the impacts of stormwater management create an impediment to future road widening?


Some references were made in submissions regarding increased stormwater that would result from a widened Punt Road and its effective future management. No evidence was introduced that specifically dealt with the issue of stormwater.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee does not consider stormwater management as an issue that might affect any decision regarding the future of the PAO. The Committee is confident that stormwater management would be fully and properly taken into account in the engineering assessment in any final design process for a widened road.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee concludes the stormwater management is not as an issue that might affect any decision regarding the future of the PAO.


Page 97 of 162

10.4 Tree removal

(i) The issue

Does the potential removal of trees create an impediment to future road widening?


A number of submissions from local property owners and residents, as well as the two Councils, raised concerns regarding tree removal and the loss of mature trees and established gardens that would occur as a result of the widening of Punt Road.

The Drop Punt submission stated:

Throughout the length of Punt Road east, there are many significant, mature trees, some aged 100 years or more. The trees provide:

a calming, friendly ambiance to neighbourhood;

filter air and noise from the road traffic emissions;

essential shade and shelter to pedestrians

The submission from Ms Bilu referred to “40 magnificent trees of significant age/or size along the east‐side of Punt Road and many wonderful established gardens. Uprooting trees and gardens to replace them with concrete and tar (will) adversely impact on the community spirit and have detrimental effect on the air, noise, light and temperature of the local area.”

The City of Stonnington drew the Committee’s attention to local policies in its Planning Scheme regarding ‘Biodiversity’ and ‘Significant trees and landscapes’ that identified a ‘key issue’ of “Acknowledging the importance of significant trees in both the public and private realm for their contribution to habitat and amenity” and include strategies that seek to protect significant trees on private property and opportunities to increase and replace significant trees. Council advised that a Significant Tree Register has been established as part of the implementation of the strategies and specifically identified the two Liquidambar trees in the grounds of the Fawkner Mansions heritage property. Further, Council referred to its Street Tree Strategy ‘Turning over a new leaf’ that looked at street trees within Stonnington, yet did not identify any priority street trees in Punt Road. The Council advised that the current uncertainty around the PAO has meant the Council has not invested resources in the street environment, including street tree planting, that may be removed with a future widening of Punt Road.

The City of Melbourne’s horticultural evidence from Mr Shears addressed the loss of street trees on Punt Road, and other adjoining cross streets, that would result from proposed road widening options and which may limit potential street tree planting if the already narrow footpaths are further narrowed.

In relation to street trees and landscaping opportunities for a future Punt Road, VicRoads stated that “There are some scattered trees on the eastside of Punt Road within the road reserve and limited plantings within private property boundaries. … There is little opportunity for roadside landscaping along the existing Punt Road due to the narrow width of the existing reserve and narrow shared path on either side.” It advised that as there is no road widening proposed under Concepts 1, 2 and 3 there would be “little or no landscaping opportunities” if any of these Concepts are adopted. VicRoads advised Concept 5 would only


Page 98 of 162

allow some landscaping improvements around the approaches to intersections, but no improvements are possible in the midblock areas, whereas Concepts 6 and 7 offer the best options for landscape improvements, stating:

A more substantial landscaped centre median and wider roadside width on both sides of Punt Road is potentially achievable for concepts options 6 & 7. These additional landscaping areas would create opportunities for significantly enhanced landscaping improvements from the existing conditions potentially including boulevard treatment.

In relation to trees and vegetation within the PAO, VicRoads stated “There are a number of small, medium and large trees within the public acquisition overlay, the majority of which are located on private property”. The Concepts that do not utilise the PAO would not impact on these trees, however, Option 5 would result some trees being removed as this option only upgrades major intersections, whereas Concepts 6 and 7 “would result in the majority of these trees within the PAO being removed as they would not be suitably located within the future central median or roadside verges, nor would they be likely to survive construction.”

(iii) Discussion

The Committee agrees that the current street environment along Punt Road, particularly on the east side, presents poorly and the absence of street trees contributes to this quite stark, unadorned urban environment. The narrowness of the footpaths provide limited opportunities to undertake street planting in the existing road reservation, however, certainty regarding the future of the PAO would enable Stonnington Council to undertake landscape improvements including street tree planting and enhanced public amenity facilities.

In relation to trees and other vegetation in private gardens, whilst the Committee acknowledges how strongly submitters value the direct and indirect benefit of these trees and gardens and that some of these trees have been identified on the Significant Tree Register, the Committee does not consider the future of these trees would be a determining factor when considering the future of the PAO.

The Committee acknowledges the two Liquidambars located on the Fawkner Mansions heritage property are also on the Significant Tree Register, however, considers the future of these trees is a heritage consideration and has been discussed in Chapter 9.

Whilst the loss of established and mature trees would be regrettable, the ability to undertake new plantings and landscape improvements in a widened road reservation would also provide a community benefit over time. The Committee considers that one of the significant advantages of Concepts 6 and 7 is that they provide space for the planting of street trees along the Punt Road corridor which could lead to significant streetscape improvements. The Committee is not convinced, however, that this is sufficient justification alone to adopt these concepts.

As an aside, several submissions referred to the need to retain a significant European tree on the west side of Punt Road at the intersection of Alexandra Avenue. The Committee notes that this tree is not within the PAO and is unaffected by any formal concepts placed before the Committee and therefore makes no further comment about it.


Page 99 of 162

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the future of these trees would not be a determining factor when considering the future of the PAO.

10.5 Impacts on Fawkner Park

(i) The issue

Do the potential impacts on Fawkner Park create an impediment to future road widening?


The City of Melbourne raised issues with any incursion into Fawkner Park that might be necessitated by the introduction of the proposed ‘jug handle’ turn (left turn/U turn manoeuvre) designed to remove northbound right turns from Punt Road at key intersections.

In his expert evidence statement and confirmed at the Hearing, Mr Humphreys for VicRoads stated by that “an alternative design is possible and achievable, which could result in Fawkner Park land not being required.”

In their submission, the City of Melbourne acknowledged this evidence when they stated “there may not be need for the road options which show intrusion into Fawkner Park to affect that park”.

In addition, the Council’s expert evidence by Mr Shears stated it is “clear that any proposal for works to Punt Road ought to be formulated without impacting on the City’s valued open space”. The Council submission also referred to the concession under cross examination by Mr Milner, who provided expert planning evidence for VicRoads, “that there would be a very strong justification required to support an intrusion into existing public open space”.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee notes that there would be no open space lost through any of the presented concepts as they impact on the PAO. The only potential impact on the quantum of open space was the design implications of the ‘jug handle’ turn indicatively proposed on the west side of Punt Road.

The Committee agrees with the expert traffic opinion presented that the design could be modified to eliminate the need to impact on Fawkner Park. While this matter is technically outside the consideration of the PAO, it nonetheless potentially impacts on the road design solutions that utilise the PAO, yet this will be a matter for any detailed design phase.

(iv) Conclusion

In conclusion, the Committee considers that any potential impacts on Fawkner Park are a matter for the detailed design phase of any future option and are not determinative when considering the future of the PAO.


Page 100 of 162

10.6 Summary of conclusions on environmental issues

The range of environmental issues in this section of the report associated with any proposal to widen Punt Road would need to be carefully considered in any final design solution, however, the Committee believes that these issues can be adequately resolved to meet adopted standards for noise, pollution and environmental impacts.

In assessing the environmental issues in relation to its consideration of the PAO the question for the Committee is whether there is any compelling evidence that the PAO should be removed or modified because of the environmental issues covered in this section of the report. The Committee does not believe that this is the case and that a diligent design for a widened road can effectively deal with the range of environmental issues.


Page 101 of 162

11 Social issues

11.1 Fairness and equity

(i) The issue

Is retention of the PAO is fair and equitable?


Mr Heydon, Mr Carrasco, Ms Warwick, Mr Allatson and others submitted that retention of the PAO was not fair to the existing land owners. The issues of fairness primarily related to the length of time the PAO has been in place with no firm plans to widen the road; that living with uncertainty is intolerable; they were unable to get approvals to undertake maintenance, repairs and renovations which meant they are unable to maintain homes in a liveable state; and are disinclined to invest in their properties not knowing the future and are unsure whether they would receive adequate compensation.

Mr Carrasco on behalf of Drop Punt submitted that “simply keeping the overlay in place is just maintaining the same festering state of uncertainty and limbo that the community has unfairly endured for the last sixty years.” He submitted the PAO has blighted the surrounding area, with buildings failing into disrepair and empty unkempt blocks of land; and if left unused for another sixty years, would constitute a gross misuse of a planning instrument, which is manifestly unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Mr Heydon submitted the overlay was never intended to be there so long and many residents are unable to improve or even maintain their homes because of the overlay.

Many submitters also said that as VicRoads had not acquired their properties, they are unable to access compensation and unable to sell their properties as people are unwilling to buy land within the PAO due to the uncertainty around the future of these sites, which they submit is manifestly unfair.

All submitters acknowledged they bought their properties with the full knowledge that the PAO was in place, but submitted that when making enquiries to VicRoads about the future of the PAO they had been repeatedly advised VicRoads had no immediate plans to widen Punt Road; and that it was unlikely to ever occur due to a lack of funds and political will.

For these reasons, it was submitted that retention of the PAO was unfair to the current landowners and should be removed.

Ms Forsyth submitted that a PAO is a legitimate planning instrument used to identify that land is to be acquired for a public purpose.

In response to submissions that some people did not understand the full implications of the PAO, she submitted it is incumbent upon prospective purchasers to fully research the impact of development controls on a property prior to the purchase of land and to seek advice where they are unclear of the implications; but that this is not justification to the remove the overlay.

Ms Forsyth also submitted the statutory framework for compensation puts in place a mechanism to financially compensate landowners for the impacts of the PAO and that if they


Page 102 of 162

have been compensated for loss, or bought their properties knowing that the land was affected by a PAO, how can it be said that it is unfair to those property owners to keep the reservation in place until it is needed?

She emphasised that land within the PAO is not a ‘wasteland’ as it continues to be used for legitimate beneficial purposes.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee considers the questions of fairness and equity are important issues when considering the future of the PAO.

It was clear through the presentations to the Committee that the PAO is causing significant distress to a number of land owners. The Committee does not consider, however, that the questions of fairness and equity are resolved by simply removing the PAO, they are much broader than the effect on current property owners and have community‐wide and inter‐generational implications.

In considering this issue, the Committee has referred to the TIA and the P&EA, as well as the SPPF which provide the following guidance on equity and fairness as follows:

The TIA43 identifies equity as one of the key decision making principles stating “The principle of equity means … equity between generations by not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

The P&EA44 identifies fairness as an objective of planning stating planning is “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land” and it also states that planning is to “balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.”

The SPPF45 recognises that society has various needs and expectations and that when integrating policy it is necessary to “balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.”

It is clear that both the legislation and the SPPF place greater emphasis on balancing fairness, equity and the needs of both the present and future community, than just the individual. That is not to say that fairness to an individual is not a consideration, but that it needs to be weighed against the broader net community benefit and equity for future generations. This is a fundamental challenge of planning.

The Committee also recognises that all but three of the 135 land owners bought their properties with the full knowledge of the PAO; knowing these properties may be acquired at some time in the future for road widening; and would most likely have paid a market rate that reflected the PAO. It may be that some people were advised that VicRoads had no plans to widen to the road and that there was no funding to purchase properties, however, it appears that this was a risk that purchasers were prepared to accept. That does not mean retention of the PAO is unfair.

In response to suggestions that the length of time the PAO has been in place is an abuse of this planning tool and therefore unfair, there is no suggestion in the purposes of the PAO

43 Section 17(b) 44 Section 4 45 Clause 10.04 ‐ Integrated decision making


Page 103 of 162

that the overlay is intended to be a temporary measure. Its intention is to implement policy and identify land that may be acquired for a public purpose, and if land is identified as having a long term public purpose, then it is reasonable to expect that the PAO will be in place for a long time. As was expressed by the Ministerial Advisory Committee to Plan Melbourne Refresh:

… What will be required by 2051 needs to be identified now and set out in PM Refresh. The nomination of, say, a road or rail project on the plan does not carry with it an obligation to build it now or in the near future. However, its inclusion in the plan does set out an intention and a need to protect that option. …

Overlays that restrict development, such as a Heritage Overlay, Special Building Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and the PAO are implemented to identify the location and extent of a special feature and to control development. They are not intended to be temporary overlays and do not have sunset clauses, they are applied in perpetuity or until the special feature no longer applies and they are removed.

The Committee considers that if there is a clear commitment by the Government to utilise the PAO in the long term, then retention of the PAO to the extent required is not a misuse of a planning tool and is not unfair. However, if there is no such commitment, and the PAO is being retained ‘just in case’, then the Committee agrees this would be unfair.

In relation to submitter concerns that as a consequence of the PAO they have been unable to undertake routine repairs and maintenance to their properties, Section 62.02‐2 of the VPP – ‘Buildings and works not requiring a permit unless specifically required by the planning scheme’ ‐ clearly states repairs and routine maintenance to an existing building or works are exempt from the permit requirements of the PAO. The existence of the PAO does not prevent owners from undertaking routine repairs and maintenance, and there are no internal controls. The Committee does not accept claims that the PAO is preventing people from making their homes liveable or undertaking maintenance.

Where the issue becomes more contentious is where owners wish to undertake more substantial buildings and works, including renovations. Under the provisions of the PAO, there is the scope to apply for a planning permit to undertake these works; and as a ‘Determining Referral Authority’ VicRoads has the ultimate authority to direct whether a permit should be issued or not.

Concerns were raised that VicRoads would not allow more substantial buildings and works to properties within the PAO, and where permits were granted, they were subject to Section 173 Agreements which directed that no compensation would be payable for these works and that they need to be removed before acquisition of the property. The Committee notes this approach is consistent with the PAO Decision Guidelines. The Decision Guidelines state that a permit granted may be conditional on “The demolition or removal of buildings or works constructed or carried out in accordance with a permit under this clause” and that “No compensation being payable for the demolition or removal of any buildings or works constructed under the permit.” The intention is to manage the future compensation obligations of the purchasing authority.


Page 104 of 162

As these are standard conditions for a PAO and form part of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the Committee does not consider them unreasonable conditions to be placed on any permit issued, or any Section 173 Agreement that is registered against title, particularly for properties that are to be acquired within the short to medium term. Therefore the Committee does not generally consider them unfair.

Where the Committee considers these conditions and Section 173 Agreements may become unfair, however, is where the PAO is in place for a very long time and is intended to preserve a long term option, to which there is no real commitment.

People who occupy dwellings on land which may be required for a long term public purpose are in effect the custodians of this land until such time as it is required for the public purpose. Whilst the Committee can see the need to manage development in order to manage future compensation, these residents still need to live in these properties and they need to be able to adapt. To not let them make any improvements above and beyond routine repairs and maintenance is, particularly over a 60 year period or longer is, in the Committee’s opinion, neither fair nor reasonable.

The Committee does not, however, see this as justification for the removal of the PAO, but rather the need for VicRoads to adopt a more flexible approach with regards to properties identified as a long term public asset which enables people to adapt; and at the same time manage VicRoads future compensation obligations.

The Committee notes these are not mandatory conditions, they are discretionary, therefore VicRoads has the ability to vary them. The Committee considers that for properties that may be identified for long term acquisition (15+ years) that VicRoads should enter into a more cooperative arrangement with landowners which enables them to undertake more extensive works to their properties, whilst also managing its future compensation obligations. It may be an arrangement where people can undertake more extensive works accepting they will receive no compensation, or they undertake more modest works and receive more compensation. The Committee can see a situation where both concepts could work and it may require a tailored approach, although the Committee recognises that this raises issues beyond the Punt Road PAO that need to be considered.

The Committee considers that this would require VicRoads to develop a policy position on this and prepare clear guidelines.

The Committee considers that this approach would enable landowners to make informed decisions about what investment they are prepared to make to these properties based on the an understanding of if, and when, they are likely to be acquired.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the application of the PAO is not inherently unfair.

The Committee has also concluded that, whilst it may be appropriate to limit the development of land through conditions on a permit and a Section 173 Agreement for land that is to be acquired in the short to medium term, that greater flexibility should be given to people who own land which has been identified as a long term acquisition option.


Page 105 of 162

11.2 Certainty

(i) The issue

The need to provide property owners with certainty about the future of the Punt Road PAO.


A majority of the written submissions and presentations to the Committee raised concern that the PAO has been in place for sixty years and there are still no plans to either widen the road or acquire any of the properties and that this has led to significant uncertainty for land owners in terms of whether the widening will ever occur, and if it is to occur, when and what properties will be affected. Submitters asked if it is not to be widened for some time what works they can undertake to their properties and what compensation is likely to be payable to them and for what? The bulk of submitters state this uncertainty is untenable and not only causing significant stress to people, but it also leading to properties being neglected and even abandoned, which is leading to planning blight. It was submitted that removing the PAO would resolve this uncertainty, giving residents an opportunity to get on with their lives and improve their properties.

Mr Allatson submitted that 60 years is an unconscionable period of time for the owners of properties to live with uncertainty of the overlay being retained ‘just in case’. He said he needed to be able to invest in his home to make it safe and liveable.

Mr Allatson submitted that VicRoads had, in the past, advised landowners that it would be highly unlikely that Punt Road would ever be widened. He provided in his submission (Document 41) a copy of minutes of a meeting with VicRoads officers dated 19 October 2006 which indicated that VicRoads officers said “no one wants to widen Punt Road. The Government doesn’t want to widen Punt Road. We want to make the public transport system work effectively. Our priorities are facilitating public transport and maximising safety.”

Mr Carrasco on behalf of Drop Punt submitted that “simply keeping the overlay in place is just maintaining the same festering state of uncertainty and limbo that community has unfairly endured for the last sixty years.” He submitted the only actions consistent with providing certainty is either to lift the PAO or to action it in its entirety, or a modified version, and to acquire the affected properties.

Mr Wilson submitted that maintaining the overlay will simply perpetuate the uncertainty and confusion for property owners and residents in these areas, emphasising that overlays such as this are not intended to, and should not, remain in place indefinitely.

Ms Sender made submissions about the adverse effects of chronic uncertainty, stating people need certainty in their lives so that they can make plans for themselves and their families going forward. She submitted that people living on or near Punt Road for many years have feared the compulsory acquisition of their properties and this can also lead to trauma associated with battling to obtain fair compensation and the struggle to relocate themselves to somewhere affordable. She submitted the state of the houses along Punt Road seems to reflect the despair of owners, who are unwilling to repair and beautify their homes if they are uncertain whether they can stay in them.


Page 106 of 162

In response to concerns about a lack of certainty, Ms Forsyth submitted the PAO is the instrument to enable the identification of land which is “proposed to be acquired by a Minister, public authority or municipal council”, and therefore whilst the PAO remains in the planning scheme, there is certainty the land has been earmarked for acquisition, and property owners ought to proceed on that basis. She submitted that a natural consequence of buying land within the PAO is that there will be uncertainty about the timing of acquisition stating that is the nature of the instrument, but she submitted if owners feel the property is no longer of value to them, or saleable, they are able to make submissions to VicRoads to purchase their properties.

In conclusion, Ms Forsyth submitted that whilst many people said 60 years is too long for the PAO to be in place, the TIA and P&EA require decision makers to take account for future generations and whilst 60 years may seem long to an individual, “it is a relatively small period of time in the context of a city.”

(iii) Discussion

The Committee can understand an owners’ desire to have certainty about the future of their property, however, when purchasing a property affected by a PAO, there will always be a level of uncertainty.

The Committee agrees with Ms Forsyth’s submissions that the PAO itself provides certainty in that it clearly identifies there is an intention to acquire land that has been identified for a future public purpose. Having the PAO in place is a clear statement to anyone who seeks to purchase these properties that part of this land may be acquired in the future for a public purpose. The issue of certainty, particularly when the PAO has been in place for a long time, is whether it is still required, and if so, when is it likely to be purchased and what can they do to the property until then.

Regardless of the extent of the Overlay ultimately retained, the Committee considers there is still a need to improve certainty for residents and considers there are a number of ways in which this can be achieved, as discussed below.

A clear statement of intent supported by policy

If it is accepted that Punt Road is to play a significant long‐term role in the transport network, then the Committee considers this should be reflected in the Victorian Infrastructure Strategy and Plan Melbourne 2016.

An indication of future timing

The timing associated with the potential acquisition of land was identified as a significant issue.

The Committee considers the identification of Punt Road PAO in terms of short, medium and long term acquisition priorities would assist both owners and VicRoads to gain a better understanding of timing and what compensation rights/obligations they have.

This will not only assist owners and prospective purchasers with a better understanding of when the land is likely to be acquired to enable them to make informed decisions about whether to buy or sell property, but it will also enable them to make decisions about what


Page 107 of 162

investment they are prepared to make to these properties based on the an understanding of when they are likely to be acquired.

It will also assist VicRoads to make appropriate funding arrangements for the acquisition of these properties.

The Committee recognises these should be indicative timeframes, but considers this would go a long way towards providing some certainty for all parties.

The Committee also considers that this approach would enable to sequenced acquisition of land with greater priority given to the acquisition of medium priority properties over longer term priorities.

Indication of works that can be undertaken under the PAO

As discussed in Section 11.1, the Committee considers there is scope for VicRoads to adopt a more flexible arrangement with regards to works owners could undertake to their properties, particularly properties identified as longer term acquisition priorities.

The Committee can see benefit in VicRoads developing guidelines about the type of works it will allow and under what conditions, such as: what can be done?; will it need to be removed at the owners expense when the property is acquired?; what works will compensated?; and what will not?

The Committee considers guidelines would provide owners and prospective purchasers with greater certainty to assist in making informed decisions about what investment they are prepared to make in their properties; and whether to buy or sell them.

The Committee considers the use of section 173 agreements is both important and appropriate as it ensures the conditions of the permit are reflected on the property title so that any prospective purchaser is aware of the obligations associated with owning these properties. The section 173 agreement itself is a means of providing certainty, particularly to prospective property owners.

Compensation process and the amount payable

In relation to the compensation likely be paid, the Committee notes that compensation payable is based on the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. It also notes that VicRoads provides a brochure on the VicRoads website entitled ‘Land acquisition and compensation. General Information for Property Owners’ which outlines the general acquisition process.

The Committee is satisfied there is clear process in place to deal with compensation and that if residents are unsure, they can contact VicRoads to examine this further. The issue of compensation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13.

Consistent advice from VicRoads about the future of the PAO

Many submitters stated that VicRoads has provided inconsistent advice to both existing landowners and prospective purchasers about future of the PAO, and that has been both misleading and further fuelled uncertainty surrounding the future of Punt Road.

Given the age of the PAO, the Committee considers that people may well have received differing verbal advice from VicRoads as to the future of the PAO.


Page 108 of 162

In situations like this, clear and consistent messages are essential to ensure all parties receive the same information.

The Committee considers the PAO itself is the first clear indication that land is intended to be acquired for a public purpose. That is the purpose of the PAO. The Committee is satisfied the PAO adequately alerts people to the fact that there is an intention to acquire either part or all of these properties for future public purposes and that this is then reflected in a Section 32 Statement prepared as part of any property sale.

The Committee considers the VicRoads website would benefit from a Punt Road PAO Fact Sheet which simply and concisely outlines the strategic context of Punt Road, the purpose of the PAO, the proposed stages of work and the owner’s rights and obligations.

The Committee considers this would be a relatively simple task to complete and ensure consistent advice is provided to all parties.

(iv) Conclusions

The Committee concludes there is a need to provide both owners and prospective purchasers with greater certainty in relation to the Punt Road PAO, but does not consider the removal of the PAO is necessarily required to provide that certainty.

The Committee concludes that greater certainty would be provided to owners and prospective purchasers by the following actions:

Identify the future role of Punt Road and the priority for any upgrade of Punt Road in the Victorian Infrastructure Strategy and Plan Melbourne 2016.

Define the PAO required for the future widening of Punt Road according to its priority, that being short (0‐5 years), medium (5‐15 years) and long term (15+ years).

VicRoads to adopt a more flexible arrangement with regards to works owners could undertake to their properties, particularly properties identified as long term priorities and develop guidelines to clearly identify the range of works that may be permitted and the conditions that would apply.

VicRoads should continue to apply section 173 Agreements to ensure prospective purchasers clearly understand the rights and obligations associated with an individual property within the PAO.

VicRoads should give priority to acquiring properties that are identified as required in the short and medium term, or at least give these property owners the option of acquisition.

VicRoads should prepare a Punt Road PAO Fact Sheet which simply and concisely outlines the strategic context of Punt Road, the purpose of the PAO, the proposed stages of work and the owner’s rights and obligations.


Page 109 of 162

11.3 Impacts on the community

(i) The issue

Whether the potential widening of Punt Road would have a detrimental impact on the local community?


There were many submissions which raised concern that the potential widening of Punt Road would lead to community dislocation.

These concerns generally related to an impression that the future widening of Punt Road would be in the form of a ‘six lane freeway’ that would create a hard and tangible barrier between east and west of Punt Road, making pedestrian access across Punt Road extremely difficult. The impacts identified related to the difficulties that would be experienced by local residents to cross a widened road to access open space, schools, shops and other community services.

Mr Heydon submitted “The social impacts would be negative and lasting. A six lane road in this neighbourhood would rip the heart from Melbourne’s finest region and would divide the locale in two, creating an ugly, noisy, dangerous barrier between the Royal Botanical Gardens, Fawkner Park and the CBD and the residents east of Punt Road.”

Mr Carrasco submitted a Hoddle Highway would destroy the amenity of an extremely integrated area of Melbourne, including South Yarra, which is known as one of the most liveable suburbs in Melbourne.

Ms Allatson submitted that widening of Punt Road would divide the community, leaving those on the east side separated from the significant open space to the west. She submitted that a freeway in this location, would mean people no longer feel connected to the Botanical Gardens, The Shrine of Remembrance, the Sidney Myer Music Bowl, the Tan and the Yarra River.

Mr Allatson and Ms Warwick submitted that the threat to desecrate these suburbs has devastated local residents and are united them in their resolve to protect and preserve their vibrant, warm spirited community. They submitted that these suburbs are the model of sustainable community living, not only for the services and amenities that are available, but also because of the strong sense of inclusiveness. They submitted that crisscrossing Punt Road is part of their daily life to share and utilise local amenities, however, crossing a ‘freeway’ will become a mental obstacle to crossing Punt Road.

Ms Widmer submitted that the brutalising effect of road widening and increased traffic damages the quality of community life and disconnects people from their place in a community which ultimately decreases social cohesiveness as citizens feel threatened by the scale of the road which could lead to withdrawal and social isolation. Road widening creates a physical and psychological division and both sides of the road become a non‐liveable community and neighbourhood.

Ms Forsyth emphasised that VicRoads is not proposing to construct a freeway through inner Melbourne, but rather seeking to preserve the long term option to widen Punt Road to accommodate not only cars, but also public transport and other more sustainable transport


Page 110 of 162

options. She also emphasised the concepts presented are not final concepts, but rather an illustration of what can be achieved, and as such the final design details have not been resolved at this stage. She acknowledged there would be a need to refine the final option and issues such as the interface with adjoining properties and appropriate crossing points would be issues considered at that stage.

Ms Forsyth also submitted that Punt Road is a four lane, busy congested road which already exists. She submitted that the redesign of Punt Road could improve the situation, particularly if an option such as Concept 7 were developed which makes provision for landscaping along street edges and medians strips.

(iii) Discussion

Much of the community’s concern relates to the assumption that any future widening of Punt Road would be in the form of a freeway.

Whilst Punt Road may have been identified as a ‘future freeway’ in 1969, and one of the concepts prepared by VicRoads as part of this exercise is for a 6 lane road, it is important to recognise that none of the proposals are for a freeway or a highway. Similarly, the Committee does not consider a freeway would be an appropriate traffic solution in this location for many reasons, one of which would be the impact on the community.

The Committee agrees that Punt Road is already a major arterial road which carries significant traffic and that crossing it at peak times already presents challenges to pedestrians accessing facilities and services on either side of Punt Road. In the Committee’s view, however, a widened Punt Road would not act as an impenetrable barrier denying access to open space or other community services to the west for residents who live on the east side.

The Committee is satisfied that, as the concepts presented are not final concepts and any future road widening will need to undergo a detailed design phase, there is the opportunity to design the road and intersection treatments to ensure that pedestrian movements are adequately addressed and to ensure people have reasonable access to the range of services and facilities in the area. The Committee is confident these issues could be adequately addressed through the future design process.

Committee therefore does not consider that community impacts are determinative in relation to whether the PAO should be retained, modified or removed.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee considers that community access arrangements can be adequately addressed in detailed design.


Page 111 of 162

12 Impacts on strategic growth objectives

(i) The issue

How does a decision to retain, modify or remove the PAO on Punt Road impact on the future strategic growth objectives at both a State and local level?


A number of submissions raised concerns that the future of Punt Road should not be considered in isolation, but rather as part of a strategic exercise that considers this location in the context of the broader land use planning for the local area and Melbourne.

Ms Sharp submitted that the PAO is impacting on Stonnington Council’s ability to meet its strategic growth targets as some of the land which fronts onto Punt Road which is affected by this PAO, is also included within the Residential Growth Zone and the General Residential Zone.

Melbourne City Council submitted that if the PAO is retained, the rear of dwellings and buildings that currently back onto the properties directly facing Punt Road would then directly interface with Punt Road. He submitted this is a replication of what has happened on the Nepean Highway and Alexander Parade where the buildings do not front the street, creating a poorly designed street interface and having a significant detrimental effect on the corridor. This interface treatment should be considered in design concepts and any future built form guidelines for the corridor.

Glossop Town Planning, on behalf of a number of submitters, similarly submitted that some land on the eastern side of Punt Road is currently in the Residential Growth Zone, which is a relatively scarce resource in the City of Stonnington, and that the PAO makes the development of this land unlikely, leading to broader implications for housing diversity and affordability within Stonnington. Glossop Town Planning submitted that there needs to be a clear plan for Punt Road and that it is unacceptable to continue to reserve land without a clear, funded and sustainable solution for the future of Punt Road.

Alfred Health supported the retention of the overlay because it preserves an opportunity to enhance traffic flow through a very congested area. Alfred Health emphasised the overlay needs to be considered in a broader strategic context to determine how Victorians can access areas such as the Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct, which is identified in Plan Melbourne as a State significant health and education precinct.

Alfred Health submitted that a planning strategy should be prepared that identifies how this precinct could attract other health services to co‐locate in this precinct. It emphasised that any consideration about what to do with Punt Road, that does not consider how to maximise the benefits that the Alfred precinct brings, may result in lost opportunity that will be difficult to re‐capture. It submitted that any decisions about the future of Punt Road should only be considered in the context of a broader strategy for the area.

Mr Kelder submitted that if the PAO was lifted this would open land up for redevelopment and urban renewal, and that a levy should be implemented so that developers can fund and make improvements to the streetscape, wider footpaths, underground infrastructure and


Page 112 of 162

planting. He submitted removal of the PAO should be seen as an opportunity to enhance the area for local residents and the established community.

Mr Woodford submitted demolition of homes on the east side of Punt Road would expose the sides of houses currently in side streets to the new Punt Road creating an ugly streetscape when viewed from Punt Road.

Ms Forsyth submitted that VicRoads has not explored the possibility of a planning strategy for land along the Punt Road corridor as it does not consider that is the role of VicRoads, however, she submitted VicRoads would not be opposed working with the Councils and other relevant government agencies on such strategies, if and when appropriate.

In his evidence, Mr Milner stated that whilst the original proposal to acquire land along Punt Road was a significant strategic planning decision demonstrating a well founded appreciation of the land and transport issues to be faced by a growing city; and provided leadership and vision regarding the structure and form of the future urban, what is missing is a clearly articulated longer‐term vision for the form and composition of the road space and its integration with the land uses and development that adjoins it.

Mr Milner accepted that if the PAO was taken up in its entirety, the residual land would present a significant range of difficulties for how it could be developed and accessed. He identified some of the issues that would need to be addressed include marginal slivers of residual land with no evident capacity for beneficial use, leaving land with no alternative means of access except via Punt Road, properties that leave a building or dwelling at the new interface with Punt Road and buildings bisected but not entirely included within the reservation and exposing the rear boundary of properties as the new street frontage to Punt Road. He highlighted the widening of Brighton Road provides a useful insight about the issues that need to be addressed as part of any road widening.

He emphasised that transport and strategic land use planning need to be integrated to provide guidance on the preferred future boundaries of land uses, development and conceptual urban design outcomes. He gave evidence that this would contribute to an enhanced public domain amenity in Punt Road and an overall improvement in the functionality and appearance of the road.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee agrees with submissions that the PAO raises significant issues beyond transport implications alone, and raises significant land use planning considerations as well, both at a State and local level.

Alfred Health raises a significant issue. The Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct located in the corner of Punt and Commercial Roads is identified in Plan Melbourne as a health and education precinct of State significance. The strategic direction contained in Plan Melbourne is “To improve access to health and/or education services and to improve job choices in these industries for Melbournians. As a significant generator of skilled employment, activity and visitation, these precincts will support ancillary health and/or education, retail, commercial, accommodation, services, housing and public transport. They may anchor activity centre development …… In established Melbourne, they may currently stand alone and there will be opportunities to diversify the uses around these precincts.” Whilst strategic work relating to the development of this precinct has not been undertaken,


Page 113 of 162

it may have implications for the Punt Road corridor and should be considered in a strategic context.

Stonnington Council and Glossop Town Planning submitted that the PAO is impacting on Council’s ability to achieve its strategic residential growth objectives. Whilst the Committee accepts this may be occurring, it does not consider the implications of that to be significant. Whilst land south of Domain Road is predominantly included within the Residential Growth Zone and identified as being a substantial change area, it only applies to allotments that have direct abuttal to Punt Road, and does not extend further east. As identified by Mr Milner in his evidence, if the PAO were to be removed, these properties would prove attractive for redevelopment and have the potential achieve higher density and yield than currently exists, however, he identified that “shallower and narrower lots, complicating or frustrating site assembly and consolidation” could limit redevelopment to two or three storey town houses, rather than the four storeys as anticipated in the RGZ. He also said that if the PAO were to be taken up in its entirety, the residual land would also present a significant range of difficulties for how this land could be effectively used and developed. The growth that could be accommodated along the Punt Road RGZ is also insignificant when compared to growth promoted within the Principal Activity Centres located along Chapel Street.

Whilst the Committee agrees the PAO does impact on the potential redevelopment of these Punt Road properties, it does not consider that removal of the PAO would enable the redevelopment of these properties to the extent that they would make a significant contribution to Stonnington’s housing supply.

The zoning of the land does, however, raise a number of issues relevant to traffic management along Punt Road that the Committee considers needs to be explored. For example, if the PAO was to be removed and land abutting the road is to be developed for more intensive residential development, the Committee considers this raises an issue in terms of car parking and direct vehicular access to Punt Road. The Committee considers that direct vehicular access to Punt Road would not be appropriate and could have significant impacts on traffic flows and safety, particularly at peak periods. Similarly, as identified by Mr Milner, if the PAO is utilised for widening purposes, there is a need to address the interface treatments and to determine what to do with remaining parcels of land.

Whilst the Committee accepts this is not a determining factor, the Committee agrees with Mr Milner’s evidence and submissions that emphasise the need to for an integrated land use and transport strategy, and sees benefit in such a strategy being prepared whether the PAO remains, is modified or is removed. The Committee considers the responsibility for preparing this should lie with the Stonnington and Melbourne City Councils in consultation with VicRoads.

The Committee considers that such a strategy would also assist in providing some certainty about the future redevelopment options associated with properties and identifying the issues that need to be addressed.


Page 114 of 162

(iv) Conclusions

The Committee concludes the PAO does not have a significant impact on the City of Stonnington’s ability to accommodate future residential growth.

The Committee concludes there is a need to prepare an integrated land use and transport strategy which examines the development, access and interface issues associated with development along Punt Road, irrespective of which widening concept is adopted and whether the PAO remains or is removed.


Page 115 of 162

13 Other issues raised in submissions

A wide range of other issues were raised in submissions. In this Chapter the Committee assesses some of the more major ‘other’ issues and provides commentary and conclusions on the considerations relevant to a decisions to remove or retain the PAO.

13.1 The cost of property acquisition and property values

(i) The issue

Has the cost of property acquisition been fairly and accurately assessed?


There were several submissions concerning the effect of the PAO on local property values.

In relation to the effect of the PAO, Ms Forsyth made the point in her opening submission that:

Applying a PAO can be a disbenefit to owners of property directly affected by the PAO (eg because they are restricted in the manner in which they can deal with their properties). However, individual property owners affected by a PAO are compensated for their losses under the provision of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Part 5) (eg loss on sale compensation) and under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1998 (upon acquisition).

Ms Forsyth relied upon the evidence of Mr Kinnaird, a Certified Practising Valuer, in relation valuation and economics issues.

Mr Kinnaird undertook an indicative desktop valuation estimate of each affected property as at the 20 January 2016. In his evidence statement, Mr Kinnaird advised that if the PAO is retained and VicRoads acts on purchasing the properties:

The cost of acquiring the market value of the properties not owned by VicRoads as at 2016 is $160,197,000 based on the assumption that the compensation paid for the loss on sale properties equates to 70% of the compensation entitlement. The cost based on 50% and 90% P&EA reduction is $176,500,000 and $143,900,000 respectively.

(As previously mentioned the ‘P&EA reduction’ relates to the Loss on Sale compensation i.e. The amount of compensation paid for the loss on sale of properties as a percentage of the total compensation entitlement.)

In response to a request from the Committee, Mr Kinnaird provided supplementary advice which stated that if the rate of prior compensation was in fact 20 per cent, this 2016 figure would have been $200,940,000 creating a higher level of overall compensation payable by VicRoads.

Mr Kinnaird also provided estimates of the future cost of compulsory acquisition in 35 years time based on a 5.5 per cent annual real annual growth rate after adjusting for inflation. These estimates were $1,150,000,000 (at 50 per cent P&EA reduction), $1,040,000,000 (at 70 per cent P&EA reduction) and $940,000,000 (at 90 per cent P&EA reduction). If a 20 per cent P&EA reduction level was applied then the figure would be $1,310,000,000.


Page 116 of 162

Several submitters contested VicRoads’ economic analysis.

The submission from Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson maintained that the 2016 figures were not relevant as VicRoads will not purchase properties now and so the figure for 2051 of $1.31 billion (using the 20 per cent prior compensation level) is more likely. Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson also believed that, in addition to the compensation payable for properties within the PAO, voluntary acquisitions would be offered to other affected properties and substantially increase the total compensation figure. Therefore it would be misleading to use the 2016 figures as indicating “affordability to the taxpayer” as the actual real cost of acquisition would be much higher. The submission from Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson also stated that the current value ascribed to VicRoads properties of $50.56 million, rising in value to $329.34 million at a projected annual increase of 5.5 per cent, represents a significant public asset that sits dormant.

The submission from Dr Lovell and Ms Gartland held that Mr Kinnaird had misrepresented the economic cost of retaining or removing the PAO, claiming that the value of VicRoads owned land should not be factored in. Dr Lovell and Ms Gartland further submitted that, for the 75 properties where no compensation has been paid, these properties should not be taken into account because “They would have to pay full compensation for these 75 properties should they compulsorily acquire them in 2016, 2051 or at some other date. Therefore the retention or removal of the PAO is irrelevant”. In relation to the cost of removing and then reinstating the PAO, the submission stated “Removing the PAO immediately presents a potential opportunity cost to the Government of approximately $22M only and not $267.8M as presented by Mr. Kinnaird in his evidence.”

Ms Hocking’s submission claimed that regarding the cost of removing the PAO “This is not a $650m decision, based on Urbis figures it is: $55m for full PAO removal, less than $30m (for) a midblock removal.”

The Drop Punt presentation stated that “Investigations show most compensations are between 20% and 25%. Not 90%, grossly underestimating the payout required.” The presentation used a simplified example to demonstrate how the percentage level of prior compensation can be ascertained. At the Hearing, Mr Carrasco for Drop Punt stated he had undertaken title searches for 12 of the 41 properties that have had prior compensation paid and that these showed that compensation at the time of purchase was between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.

In their reply submission, VicRoads rejected the assertion by Drop Punt that it is a “relatively simple process to arrive a precise value of compensation as a proportion of the unaffected value of properties today.” VicRoads maintained that the equation used in the Drop Punt presentation does not apply unless the whole of the property is affected by the PAO; and it does not take into account the values placed on the land as compared to any building on the land. As VicRoads submitted, title information does not reveal the sale price of the property at the relevant time. To support the complexity of understanding the percentage level of prior compensation for Loss on Sale, VicRoads referred to the supplementary information provided by Mr Kinnaird where he demonstrated in the worked example that the Loss on Sale would have been only 16 per cent if it applied to the entire property, but 78 per cent if considered against only that part of the land affected by the PAO. In this case, the balance of 22 per cent would be paid as compensation when the property is compulsorily acquired.


Page 117 of 162

VicRoads held that the Drop Punt analysis of the percentage levels of prior compensation was not substantiated as the 12 titles that Drop Punt referred to in their presentation were not tabled, and neither the percentage of the land affected by the PAO nor the sale price could in any event be determined from the title, and therefore concluded:

Accordingly, the submission is unsubstantiated and runs counter to both the example given by Mr Kinnaird and Mr Kinnaird’s evidence about his experience with more recent loss on sale cases with which he is familiar.

In her submission to the Committee, Ms Bilu provided the background to the purchase of a property in Punt Road covered by the PAO that indicated that the previous owners had spent $300,000 renovating the property but after having the property on the market for a year they had dropped the price by some $200,000 to enable a sale. The drop in price brought the property within an acceptable price range for Ms Bilu but after purchasing the property she became aware of the uncertainty associated with the PAO “with other residents living in fear for 30 years or more, not being able to renovate or repair their houses, for fear of losing their money.”

Ms Gartland referred to the difficulty associated with a sudden need to sell a property covered by the PAO “if that had happened to be at a time when media attention was focussed on the Punt Road corridor, I would have struggled to realise an adequate sale price.”

In relation to the effect on property values, the Drop Punt presentation to the Committee stated that “two identical properties (were) recently transferred before and after media speculation about PAO review process.” It was asserted that the prices obtained for the two properties varied by over $500,000.

In response to the Drop Punt example, Ms Forsyth responded in her reply submissions that:

350 Punt Road sold for $1.5m in 16 May 2015 and 344 Punt Road was sold for $950m on December 2015. But of course there is more to any sale that whether the properties look broadly comparable from the public realm. The real estate brochures from those sales clearly show that the higher value property has been recently renovated to a high level, and has on site car parking.

and

The brochure for 350 Punt provides an interesting example of a property where there has been recent investment in the maintenance of the property.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee did not receive information that definitively calculated the cost to VicRoads of acquiring land under the PAO because to do so would require a detailed property by property analysis of each property’s market value, a knowledge of what part of each property would be required for the road widening (which can only be fully known when a final design is completed) and what level of prior compensation has been paid on each of the 41 properties where Loss on Sale has been paid. The costs of land acquisition in 2016 figures has been estimated by Mr Kinnaird, using a number of assumptions, to be in the range of $143,900,000 to $176,500,000. This range is based on the assumptions that the


Page 118 of 162

compensation paid for the loss on sale properties equates to 90 per cent and 50 per cent respectively under the P&EA reduction. If the reduction is 70 per cent of the compensation entitlement then the cost to VicRoads would be $160,197,000. While submissions from property owners asserted that lower prior compensation levels of 20 per cent to 30 per cent reflect local experience, the Committee is unable to reach any firm conclusion as no documentary evidence was provided. The Committee therefore has no firm basis to question Mr Kinnaird’s assumptions.

It was apparent to the Committee through statements by property owners and others that property prices are adversely affected by the existence of the PAO, as would be expected. Equally, it is clear that the existence of the PAO was known or this information was readily available to prospective buyers.

The Committee was presented with information that indicates that properties covered by the PAO have continued to be sold over the years, demonstrating that a market does exist for such properties. At the same time, the Committee also accepts that the market for properties covered by the PAO will be affected from time to time by express knowledge or speculation about how imminent and how far reaching the implementation of the PAO may be. However, in the Committee’s view this is not materially different from a number of other market factors that may influence potential purchasers about whether to buy property.

Several submitters raised an expectation that in addition to the cost of compulsory acquisition of properties covered by the PAO, if a widened road project proceeds there would also be voluntary acquisitions offered for other properties indirectly affected and that this would increase the overall cost of the project. The Committee received no evidence that this would occur so cannot comment on this matter. Even if there are additional costs the Committee has no basis to conclude that this would influence any decision to retain, remove or modify the PAO.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee acknowledges there is no certainty about the value of prior compensation paid and this will affect the ultimate compensation payments that VicRoads would incur in exercising its rights in relation to the PAO and the economic benefits held by VicRoads in the PAO. The Committee relies on Mr Kinnaird’s expertise and knowledge of the land acquisition compensation system and that the prior compensation levels under Loss on Sale payments are at the higher levels he modelled.

13.2 Compensation

(i) The issue

Are adequate compensation provisions in place for land owners subject to acquisition?

(ii) Submissions and evidence

Ms Forsyth made submissions regarding the compulsory land acquisition process and also referred the Committee to information that VicRoads makes available to affected parties to their assist understanding of the process. Compensation for land covered by the PAO that is compulsorily acquired is determined by the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986


Page 119 of 162

(LACA) and the P&EA; and that the compensation legislation under the P&EA also makes provision for Loss on Sale compensation for those whose properties are affected by a PAO; but that it is limited to those who were owners prior to it being reserved under the PAO. In certain situations where a property is sold, before ultimate acquisition occurs, a claim for Loss On Sale can be made which provides for a level of compensation if the owner sells land at a lower price than he or she might reasonably have expected to get if the land or part of the land was not reserved by the PAO.

Ms Forsyth advised that:

Approximately 41 properties within the Punt Road PAO have been paid ‘Loss on Sale’ compensation. The most recent payment being made this year (2015) with another claim for ‘Loss on Sale’ currently being assessed.

In his expert evidence, Mr Kinnaird advised that some $2,418,155 compensation has been paid under the P&EA for these 41 properties, including $960,000 for a claim that has still not been finalised. He advised VicRoads owns 19 properties and the balance of 75 properties have not had compensation paid and, notably, all but three properties of the 75 properties are not eligible for Loss of Sale compensation because they were purchased after the PAO was in place.

Regarding the impacts on owners of property within the PAO, Ms Forsyth advised in her opening submission:

It is important to recognise that landowners who have been compensated, or have purchased the property with notice of the overlay, may gain significant economic advantages if the overlay is removed. While they may have to pay back loss of sale compensation, that amount is usually much less than the compensation that was paid when one takes account of the time value of money. It is common, therefore, that not only is there opposition to such instruments being applied in the first place, but also that there is subsequent pressure to remove them from the land over time.

Further, in relation to the issue of fairness of the compensation system she submitted:

In respect of the fairness argument, the statutory framework for compensation puts in place a mechanism to financially compensate landowners from the impacts of the PAO. If people have already been compensated for loss, or bought their properties with notice of the PAO, how can it be said that it is unfair to those property owners to keep the reservation in place until it is needed?

The submission from Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson raised concerns over the time effects on the compensation system because of the extended period of time of 62 years that the PAO has been in place. They maintained that the fairness of the compensation:

In the short to medium term ... may well provide adequate recompense for loss or for limiting development opportunity. However, clearly, this diminishes over time and there must be a point arrived at when compensation ceases to have the effect intended.


Page 120 of 162

The example is cited of $14,000 paid as compensation in 1970 equates to a present value of $155,772 (RBA FVM) or $156,454 (ABS CPI) in 2015 ie 45 years after compensation was paid. $156,000 would be considered inadequate compensation for inner‐city Melbourne real estate in 2016.

Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson concluded that:

It cannot be considered reasonable, or realistic, to expect that the architects of Victoria’s compensation legislation would have envisaged over 60 years ago that a fair and reasonable compensation arrangement entered into in the previous century between the Government of the day and the then property owner would remain in place, retain relevance and still satisfy the tests of fairness or reasonableness 45 years later (in the above example) or longer.

The Drop Punt presentation at the Hearing acknowledged that Loss on Sale compensation does provide some mitigating effect on the impact on properties however:

Over time, original compensation amount, even with indexation holds no relationship to the compensation percentage claimed by the authority. (Drop Punt emphasis)

The Drop Punt presentation maintained that VicRoads does not contribute to maintenance or improvements yet still retains its ‘cut’ and that the introduction of a depreciation element into the compensation regime would ensure that authorities do not simply sit on properties for unreasonable periods. Drop Punt believed that the prior compensation value should begin to depreciate after 5 years and be fully extinguished after 10 years.

(iii) Discussion

The compensation for properties acquired, or the prior compensation on Loss on Sale, is governed by well tested legislation and it is not the role of this Committee to comment in depth about the compensation system. However, in the case of the Punt Road PAO that was first put in place some 62 years ago and, when adding the additional planning horizon of 35 years to 2051 used by VicRoads in this matter, this then takes the potential period to 97 years that the PAO may be in place before it is acted on. A question then arises as to whether this creates issues of fairness regarding the adequacy of the compensation system.

The Committee agrees with Ms Forsyth’s submission regarding the compensation system when she stated “If people have already been compensated for loss, or bought their properties with notice of the PAO, how can it be said that it is unfair to those property owners to keep the reservation in place until it is needed?”

Further, the Committee notes that hardship provisions exist under the compensation regime to allow VicRoads to purchase land if the seller can demonstrate an inability to sell is a direct result of the PAO; and this inability to sell will cause significant hardship.

The Committee considered whether there needs to be some mechanism for VicRoads to periodically review and ‘refresh’ a PAO after the passage of an extended period of time. Ms Forsyth considered that “it is appropriate that there is a periodic review when the PAO has been in place for an extensive period of time, to ensure the PAO retains its relevance.” While the Committee agrees with this proposition what constitutes “an extensive period of time” becomes potentially difficult to determine when one considers the wide range of situations


Page 121 of 162

and purposes where PAOs are in place and the clear need for government to sometimes take the very long term view of ensuring proper provision is made for nominated infrastructure to be developed at an indeterminate date in the future. However, this is a matter for VicRoads to give further consideration to.

The Committee has no information to base an opinion about the correct level of prior compensation actually paid under the P&EA by VicRoads in respect of various properties. While Mr Kinnaird modelled 50 per cent, 70 per cent and 90 per cent, local property owners maintained the figure to be closer to 20 per cent. It was put to the Committee by VicRoads' counsel that the lower figure as advanced by local property owners represented a misunderstanding of the way the LACA prescribed formula worked. The Committee notes Mr Kinnaird’s expertise and experience regarding the compulsory land acquisition compensation system and so has confidence in his written evidence that the higher levels of 50 per cent, 70 per cent and 90 per cent that were modelled are realistic.

There was no evidence presented that disputed or raised substantive issues about the principle of compulsory acquisition of property to enable major infrastructure projects. Equally, the provisions of the legislation for compensation that compensated property owners at market values were not disputed, however as outlined above, the effects of the extended time period that the PAO has been in place was raised as having potential impact on the value of compensation.

(iv) Conclusion

In the Committee’s view the compensation system for compulsory land acquisition appears adequate and well tested and provides no basis to call into question the removal or modification of the PAO.

The Committee agrees that VicRoads would be well served to consider a mechanism to undertake a periodic review when a PAO has been in place for an extensive time. While the period of 62 years that the Punt Road PAO has been in place does appear to be long or even excessive, when taking the very long term view about city shaping infrastructure, such a timeframe may well not be unreasonable.

13.3 Streetscape design

(i) The issue

What impact would a potential road widening have on the Punt Road Streetscape?


There were multiple submissions that raised concerns about the impact that road widening would have on the Punt Road streetscape.

Mr Carrasco, on behalf of Drop Punt, raised concern that the ‘Hoddle Highway’ would leave an ugly scar through the middle of Melbourne’s most liveable suburb and would run contrary to what many cities with a global profile are doing; which is to focus on sustainable streetscapes to improve amenity for locals and visitors alike and to reclaim areas dedicated to the car for landscaping purposes. He also said that removal of the PAO would enable the restoration of the original tree lined boulevard.


Page 122 of 162

Similarly Mr Heydon submitted the widening of Punt Road could create a ‘big ugly road’. He submitted that “South Yarra is one of the most liveable, attractive and finest suburbs in the world. To take Hoddle Street, one of the Melbourne’s ugliest and most congested roads, and duplicate it through South Yarra and Prahran is poor planning.”

Mr Allatson and Ms Warwick submitted that bulldozing 140 properties on the east side of Punt Road, 40 of which have heritage significance, will not only wipe out an important part of Melbourne architectural history, but will also replace the friendly neighbourhood landscape with boundary and cyclone fences and freeway sound barriers. He submitted that retaining the PAO will result in many of the historical homes becoming derelict and beyond preservation, with many of the VicRoads properties already demonstrating how the entire area will deteriorate becoming graffiti covered and rubbish dumps. They submitted that a ‘freeway’ will become unsightly.

Mr Tivendale, who was called to give evidence by Melbourne City Council, said that Victorians have come to expect a high level of urban amenity from public spaces including roads, and the desire to see more grand boulevards created has been supported by successive metropolitan strategies. When asked by the Committee whether he thought Punt Road could or should be a significant metropolitan boulevard, he agreed and said the PAO should be retained to achieve that purpose.

Ms Forsyth emphasised that VicRoads is not proposing to construct a freeway through inner Melbourne, but rather seeking to preserve the long term option to widen Punt Road to accommodate not only cars, but also public transport and other more sustainable transport options.

She also submitted that whilst there is some vegetation along Punt Road, there is limited opportunity for roadside landscaping along Punt Road due to the narrow width of the existing reserve and narrow shared path on either side, however, this is not due to the PAO. Similarly, she said the dominance of high front fences, which detracts from the visual appeal of the corridor, is also not a function of the PAO, but rather as a result of the existing function of Punt Road as an arterial road.

Ms Forsyth submitted that whilst Concepts 3 and 5 provide some opportunity for planting, Concepts 6 and 7 provide for a more substantial landscape centre median and wider roadside widths on both sides which she submitted would create opportunities for significantly enhanced landscaping improvements, including boulevard treatments.

(iii) Discussion

The Committee finds submissions which consistently refer to the PAO being retained to enable the construction of a freeway to not only be exaggerated, but also misleading. The Committee accepts that none of the concepts presented by VicRoads proposes to construct a freeway along Punt Road.

Whilst submitters have raised concerns that a road widening could significantly impact on the streetscape, the Committee considers the Punt Road streetscape is already seriously compromised, not only because of the high front fences, condition of the buildings on the eastern side of Punt Road and unmaintained vacant VicRoads sites, but also because of the narrowness of the footpaths which provide no scope for streetscape planting, as well as the


Page 123 of 162

significant amount of service infrastructure that exists such as power poles, bus stops and street signs.

The Committee considers there is a clear need and scope for significant streetscape improvements along Punt Road, both now and as part of any future road widening.

Whilst Punt Road is not identified as a boulevard in Plan Melbourne, the Committee agrees with Mr Tivendale’s evidence that any option which seeks to widen Punt Road should incorporate streetscape improvements including extensive tree planting, improved footpaths and a rationalisation of infrastructure and signage that will ensure that any future road design contributes to the liveability of this area.

(iv) Conclusions

The Committee concludes there is a need to make significant streetscape improvements to Punt Road and considers that provision should be made for this in any future widening plans.

13.4 Implications of emerging technologies

(i) The issue

What impact will emerging technologies have on the future transport planning for Punt Road?


Ms Allatson and Mr Cleaver both submitted that transport technology is changing, including the introduction of autonomous vehicles, and questioned what impact this would have on the future transport planning. Mr Cleaver suggested that it could reduce the need for the private motor vehicles and that services such as Uber could provide a cheap and affordable alternative to public transport.

Ms Forsyth provided the Committee with information on Intelligent Transport System solutions as examples that could assist with the safe and efficient operation of Punt Road and the surrounding network, which included CCTV monitoring, TRANSnet, Smart Bus Lane enforcement, Tram Security Cameras, etc. She also provided a copy of a conference paper prepared by Peter Davidson and Anabelle Spinoulas entitled, ‘AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES – WHAT COULD THIS MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORT?’ to assist the Committee to understand what implications autonomous vehicles could have on the future of transport and transport planning. She emphasised this paper does not represent the opinions of VicRoads/PTV, but was provided as information only.

(iii) Discussion

Whilst it could be questioned what relevance autonomous vehicles have to the future of the Punt Road PAO, as an emerging technology it is important to understand the potential impacts they may have on both the way we live and operate as a society, as well as how we get around and what infrastructure may be required to support this new technology.

In addition to the information provided by VicRoads, the Committee notes that Infrastructure Victoria has specifically identified the potential impact of emerging vehicle


Page 124 of 162

technology as a significant issue that needs to be considered. The Laying the Foundations report prepared states:

Even when we know the nature of an emerging technology, the implications of its use may not be immediately clear. There is a range of emerging vehicle technologies that could fundamentally affect the way people use Victoria’s transport networks. In particular, driverless vehicles and ride sharing are two interrelated technologies that may change the way people get around. Driverless vehicles could offer an opportunity for more efficient and safer roads, while ride sharing could provide more flexible transport options. In combination, they could enable people to avoid the major cost of owning their own vehicle, while having the convenience of an automatic transport option to take them from point A to point B. … But in planning for the future, we must be cognisant of what new technologies might mean in the Victorian context, how they can contribute to better outcomes and what challenges they might present. There are still a lot of unknowns about what these technologies might mean for Victoria (see figure 1), but this is not cause for inaction.

Some of the questions it identifies emerging transport technologies may have are:

When? Gradual adoption or big bang?

More efficient use of road network? Road design implications?

More/lengthier trips by vehicles? Knock‐on implications for congestion?

Competition with public transport and other non‐car modes?

Role in delivery of goods?

Both Plan Melbourne and Infrastructure Victoria recognise that whilst we can plan for the things that we know, there are many things that we do not know and that we must maintain flexibility to be able to respond.

Similarly, the information provided by VicRoads states that whilst autonomous vehicles have long been in the realm of science fiction, recent progress means that driverless cars will be on our streets in the relatively near future stating. The information states that whilst there are still many issues to be considered, in terms of transport planning into the future, autonomous vehicles should be considered as they are likely to have significant impacts on travel behaviour and road network operations with some car companies having fully operation models within the next 5‐10 years and predict that vehicles without a legal driver will be possible by 2050.

The paper prepared by Mr Davidson and Ms Spinoulas says:

Autonomous vehicles are an emerging technology that is likely to have significant impacts on travel behaviour and road network operations in the medium to long term. Autonomous vehicles will improve safety on roads as they more closely observe their surroundings using technologies such as radar, lidar, GPS, and computer vision; these driver‐less cars will be able to travel closer together and operate at higher speeds, thus increasing capacity on roads. However, the improved comfort; ability to better use the time while travelling; and reduced complexity of parking will make road based travel more attractive. This is likely to increase trip making and increase average trip lengths. The extra demand pressures could be exacerbated by the use of cars


Page 125 of 162

to auto‐chauffeur people, reducing parking requirements but increasing counter peak traffic flows. The relative attractiveness of public transport will also be altered; on the one hand the improvements to car travel will make PT relatively less attractive; on the other hand autonomous vehicles could make PT more responsive and affordable …

The paper concluded that:

The big gains in autonomous vehicles will come in later stages – when they can operate without occupants, allowing automatic chauffeuring and shared vehicles; and when they can rely on instant communications with a fully autonomous vehicle fleet to increase speeds and reduce vehicle spacing. …. it is likely that the long term picture for a shared, fully autonomous fleet, is very good – with very low congestion, minimal new infrastructure and high productivity. A fully shared fleet could completely transform our cities, allowing higher densities and improved mobility, and freeing up a huge amount of space in our houses, our yards, our streets, and in our urban centres. …

The difficulty with this is that things will get much worse before they get better. There will be strong demand for new infrastructure to deal with the large growth in travel demand, and likely increased mode share to car. However the economic lifetime of much of the new infrastructure will be limited, as the new world of shared autonomous vehicles will not require it. This is an important planning challenge, and clear insight into the likely trajectory of change is crucial.

The potential impacts of emerging technologies are an illustration of the need to ensure that as a city we have the flexibility to respond to changes such as this.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee is unable to draw any conclusions in relation to the impact of emerging technologies, other than to recommend that the likely implications be considered when deciding the future of the PAO.

13.5 The suggested tunnel option

(i) The issue

A number of submissions raised the option of a tunnel as an alternative to widening Punt Road. A tunnel option was not advanced by VicRoads as one of their potential concepts and so the Committee did not consider this matter in any detail. VicRoads provided a general response to the tunnel option.


Ms Bilu’s submission stated:

A tunnel is the overwhelmingly preferred long‐term option for Punt Road (the outcome of the VicRoads public forums, both in person and online, in August


Page 126 of 162

2015). Yet, VicRoads has chosen to ignore the people of Melbourne and has not scoped or costed a tunnel for this review.

The submission from Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson advised:

At the community drop‐in forums, predominately attended on the south‐side of the Yarra by residents from our community group, the tunnel was again the most favoured long‐term solution. It was however, quickly dismissed by VicRoads as being too expensive.

At the Hearing Ms Warwick and Mr Allatson presented their view:

It is disappointing that a number of experts addressing the Panel have dismissed tunnels as a reasonable and viable option. They have relied on some form of VicRoads assessment, which VicRoads has refused to release, of the cost of construction, being allegedly ten times the cost of road widening. No evidence has been presented by either VicRoads or its experts to confirm this ‘costing’ or to indicate the cost‐benefit of tunnels within a Melbourne context.

This submission disputed the opinion offered by Mr Tivendale in his traffic evidence that tunnels have not been economically viable because a narrow cost‐benefit analysis does not take broader benefits such “reduced delay and improved productivity, or the benefits of improved amenity and streetscape above ground. These benefits are consistently referenced in the international literature, as is how cities are improving the economics of tunnel construction and operation”. The submission supplied a detailed overview of international cities that have used or are building tunnels to alleviate traffic congestion.

The Committee notes that VicRoads consultation involved online engagement, community drop‐in sessions and council workshops. In relation to what the report describes as Out of scope feedback, the following feedback was provided in relation to a tunnel or grade separation:

There was support for a tunnel underneath the existing Punt Road alignment. Participants suggested that this solution would ease congestion and cause fewer disruptions to residents and properties on Punt Hill

Many participants suggested that grade separations at major multi‐nodal intersections would improve traffic flows for public transport and private vehicles and reduce waiting times.

In the 2012 Punt Road Study, the economic assessment referred to the broad costing of $450 million to $500 million plus a $50 million contingency to construct a 6 lane road option that uses the full PAO and made the comment in relation to a tunnel:

Although the cost of Option 1 (the 6 lane road option in that report) is relatively high, it is far less than a new tunnel which appears to be the only other option for increasing north‐south capacity within the sub region.

In their Part A Submission, VicRoads stated:

There were a number of comments received regarding either tunnelling under the existing Punt Road alignment or lowering/raising of Punt Road (grade separation).


Page 127 of 162

However it is noted that with only 15‐20% vehicles travelling the majority length of the Hoddle‐Punt Corridor, it is expected there would still be a significant traffic demand on the surface road network. Therefore, the problem still needs to be addressed: ‘how do we get the most out of the existing network’. Though no investigations have been undertaken looking at these suggestions of a tunnel, land may still be required within the existing PAO and beyond to facilitate such a tunnel, for example: construction (cut and cover), interchanges and ventilation stacks.

Furthermore, road tunnelling is far more costly than surface road works, and would be likely to result in such a proposal being less economically justified than a surface improvement.

The written expert traffic evidence for VicRoads did not address the tunnel option.

(iii) Discussion

The tunnel option has not been put forward by VicRoads as an option for consideration in the Committee’s assessment of the future role of the PAO. It has not been investigated in any detail for the Committee to offer any informed response. A range of community responses to the range of consultation opportunities considered it as an option.

For completeness, even if VicRoads dismissed a tunnel option at the outset because of an unacceptably high cost, it may have assisted the community’s broader understanding of the issues to have received some order of magnitude of cost for a tunnel, possibly as a multiple of the highest cost surface option, even at a desktop level.

(iv) Conclusion

The Committee considers that detailed consideration of a tunnel option is outside the scope of the Committee’s terms of reference, and therefore makes no further comment.


Page 128 of 162

14 Findings and recommendations

14.1 Findings

The Committee has weighed the evidence and submissions received; and makes the following findings:

Strategic context

1. The Punt Road PAO was put in place in 1954 to provide for a future major arterial road along the corridor. The PAO was retained through the 1970s and 1980s with the long term intent of providing the future F2 Freeway. The full freeway network plan has long since been abandoned, and there are no current plans in any Melbourne transport plans to widen Punt Road.

2. Punt Road is, and will continue to be, an important north‐south arterial link in Melbourne’s road network and its efficient operation contributes to the economic and social wellbeing of the city.

3. In relation to the strategic role of Punt Road, the Committee concludes that: - Punt Road is likely to continue to play an important strategic role in Melbourne’s

road network, although there are some unknowns about that role in the longer term.

- The greatest net community benefit will balance fulfilling this long term role against minimising the impacts on landowners.

- The existing PAO should be retained to the extent required to guarantee that Punt Road can continue to fulfil its role in the short, medium and long term.

Fairness and certainty

4. The existence of the PAO has created uncertainty for property owners over a long period of time, particularly in terms of their ability to confidently invest in maintaining or developing their properties. The Committee accepts that the ongoing uncertainty and lack of a clear plan for the future of Punt Road is causing distress for property owners.

5. The retention of the PAO is not unfair or inequitable where it is intended to protect land to be acquired for a committed public infrastructure project, even over a long period of time, however, if there is no commitment to a defined project, then the Committee considers the PAO should be removed.

Traffic and road network capacity

6. The 2013 VAGO report, Managing Traffic Congestion found that increasing road capacity will not on its own address the high cost of congestion without a range of demand management measures. The Committee agrees that a range of traffic management measures should be applied in the Punt Road corridor, not just road widening.

7. The capacity of Punt Road needs to be upgraded in the short term to relieve existing congestion issues, and further upgraded to some degree in the medium and long term to fulfil its role in the network, relieve other parallel north‐south routes and improve


Page 129 of 162

public transport operation along and across the Punt Road corridor. A key question for the Committee is the extent of upgrade required in the longer term.

8. The Committee was not provided with any definitive evidence about whether traffic volumes would increase in the Punt Road corridor beyond 2031. The argument of VicRoads was that additional capacity may be required so therefore the PAO should be retained. Evidence and submissions were presented in relation to the likelihood of future demand management measures such as a congestion tax, CBD parking restrictions etc. and the expectation that this would reduce traffic on Punt Road. Counter to this, the Committee received information on overall projected population increases in Melbourne and the likely localised development and population increase in the vicinity of the Punt Road corridor. The Committee believes that while there may be growth in local traffic demand, it is most likely that growth in corridor traffic demand would be limited given the demand management policies expected to continue and the capacity constraints elsewhere in the corridor.

Heritage

9. While there are two ‘highly significant’ and a small number of ‘locally significant’ properties affected by the PAO, the Committee is not convinced that the heritage significance of buildings along Punt Road is a determining factor. If there were a compelling case for widening Punt Road, the Committee is of the view that the properties affected could be acquired in the broader community interest. That said, if there are workable long term options that avoid heritage properties then it is desirable to follow that path.

Environment

10. Impacts on open space and vegetation, along with noise and air pollution impacts are important considerations for the more detailed design and construction phase of any project, but are not determinative at the broad planning stage and decisions regarding the future of the PAO should be made on other grounds.

Assessment of concept options

11. In relation to the Concept Options presented, the Committee draws the following conclusions:

- The short term introduction of Concepts 1 and 2 are supported. Substantial off‐peak capacity improvements and congestion relief can be achieved through clearways, turn bans and other minor lane realignments.

- Concepts 3 and 4 are not supported. Concept 3 provides no real advantages over Concept 2. Concept 4 (reversible fifth lane) would have operational challenges with limited benefits, and was abandoned by VicRoads prior to the Hearings.

- The Committee is generally supportive of Concept 5 (involving substantial intersection upgrades but four lanes midblock), however, believes that the Modified Concept 5, substantially reducing land acquisition and not widening the Hoddle Bridge, would achieve a similar level of corridor performance.

- The Committee notes the improvements proposed to the Swan Street intersection, but is not convinced that the current traffic capacity constraints in


Page 130 of 162

Punt Road ‐ Hoddle Street north of the Yarra River can be fully resolved and believes that Punt Road between the Yarra River and Swan Street will continue to be the main constraint on traffic.

- The Committee was not convinced that the upgrading of the Punt Road/Alexandra Avenue intersection or the widening of the Hoddle Bridge is warranted. This is borne out by the traffic analysis provided to the Committee which shows that the Alexandra Avenue intersection will function satisfactorily under projected 2031 volumes.

- The Committee was not provided with compelling evidence to support the need for a full six lane widening of Punt Road (Concepts 6 and 7) in the medium or long term future. Traffic projections provided to the Committee extended to 2031 and showed that Concept 5 provided an adequate level of service and substantially greater traffic throughput, thereby alleviating parallel routes and providing for more reliable traffic flow (for private vehicles and public transport) along and across the Punt Road corridor.

- Based on the evidence presented, the Committee was not convinced that the merits of Concepts 6 or 7 (essentially marginally better traffic speeds) justified the extensive additional land acquisition and impact on heritage properties that would result.

- The Committee was not convinced of the merits of providing a dedicated bus lane (Concept 7), for such a small number of buses on the route. (6 per hour currently, expected to increase to 12 per hour in the peak).

The Committee’s preferred response

12. The Committee has shown a Modified Concept 5 for consideration that provides for additional turn lanes and bus priority at each of the major intersections, minimises land acquisition and removal of houses, and restricts the demolition of heritage buildings to only one property. The Modified Concept 5 would require acquisition of part or all of 54 properties (subject to final design). Of these, 38 are relatively small acquisitions not affecting buildings and 16 buildings would be affected. If Concept 5 were modified in the manner shown, the Committee anticipates that the PAO could be removed from 81 properties (subject to final design) as listed in Section 8.4 of this report.

13. The Committee is firmly of the view that the Modified Concept 5 (which needs to be refined through more detailed design) would provide for adequate corridor capacity in the medium term and well beyond 2031. The Committee’s believes that the Modified Concept 5 will achieve good levels of service and more than adequately cater for 2031 Base Case traffic projections, and more so if permanent clearways and signal linking are implemented.

14. The Committee has suggested Modified Concept 5 in order to show how some of the issues raised in submissions might be addressed. The Committee is conscious that the modified layout was not produced until after the Hearing, and so has not yet been fully ‘tested’. However, the issues that have prompted the modified layout were well canvassed in submissions and at the Hearing. The Committee believes that modifying Concept 5 in the way shown would resolve the vast majority of concerns raised with the Committee, whilst still providing adequate future traffic capacity. The Committee


Page 131 of 162

acknowledges that further design work will be required whichever future concept is adopted, and any change to the PAO will require a planning scheme amendment.

15. The Committee’s findings are based on the following assumptions about the future strategic role of Punt Road between the Yarra River and Union Street:

- Punt Road will continue to act as an urban arterial road and will not become a freeway

- A primary function will be as a key north‐south bypass of the Melbourne CBD - It will also continue to function as an access route to the Melbourne CBD and the

Yarra Park sporting precinct, and as a local access road - It will continue to provide regionally important access to hospitals, schools,

recreation, employment and business - Government policies will continue to attempt to manage traffic demand in the

corridor and encourage mode shift from private vehicles to public transport - The capacity to increase capacity north of the Yarra River is limited, and this

section of Punt Road and the Swan Street/Punt Road intersection will continue to act as the capacity constraints in this part of the corridor

- Bus services will continue to operate along Punt Road, but there will be limited demand for new services along the route other than increasing the frequency of the existing service.

16. The above assumptions are based on what is known or can be reasonably predicted by the Committee at the time of preparing this report. In the event that these assumptions change substantially, and this may be informed by the work of Infrastructure Victoria, then the future configuration options for Punt Road should be reviewed and the PAO should also be further reviewed.

The future of the Public Acquisition Overlay

17. The TIA and Plan Melbourne both make it clear that land should be preserved for the implementation of future transport projects. If the widening of Punt Road appeared as a clear priority in strategic planning documents or a Metropolitan Transport Plan then the advice of the Committee would be clear. It would be to retain land required for the project in the form identified. The fact that no such reference exists makes the Committee’s task more difficult.

18. The Committee could have taken the conservative view proposed by VicRoads and recommend that the PAO should be retained on the basis that it may be required. On the other hand, it could be argued that the need for the PAO has not been clearly demonstrated and therefore the PAO should, at least in part, be relinquished. The fact is that the PAO already exists, and as such represents a substantial community asset that should not be relinquished lightly. The Committee is of the view that if the PAO were relinquished now it would most likely never be recovered due to the high likelihood that the land would be further developed and become prohibitively expensive to buy back. The consequence of any decision to remove the PAO is therefore, in the Committee’s view, likely to be final.

19. The Committee has concluded that if the role of Punt Road remains as it is today, there is no need to upgrade the capacity to a six lane road. Demand management measures, improvements in public transport services and new technologies can reasonably be


Page 132 of 162

expected to limit traffic growth on Punt Road. If the role of Punt Road changes considerably so that it acts as a more substantial private vehicle, freight or public transport route, then there is an argument to retain the PAO to provide for such an upgrade. The Committee thinks this is highly unlikely.

20. The Committee is aware, however, that Infrastructure Victoria is currently preparing a 30 year infrastructure strategy for Victoria that will review infrastructure priorities. It may be that the strategy will provide more guidance on the future role of Punt Road. The Strategy is due for release by the end of 2016 and it may be prudent to wait for its release before making final decisions on the Punt Road PAO.

21. The Committee finds that any widening of Punt Road (and use of the PAO) should be limited to be consistent with the assumed constraints that exist, notably:

Hoddle Street and Punt Road north of the Yarra River will continue to be the capacity constraints on the corridor

The widening of the Hoddle Bridge is unnecessary and unlikely to be supported in the foreseeable future

It is desirable to limit impacts on heritage buildings

It is desirable to limit the extent of the PAO and the degree of land acquisition for reasons of cost, impact on properties and improving certainty for landowners.

22. On balance, the Committee therefore recommends that the PAO be modified to provide only the land required for a road layout design based on a modified form of Concept 5. The Modified Concept 5 as shown in Appendix E has substantial advantages in terms of reduced impact on heritage properties (as shown in Appendix F), and requires less overall land acquisition than other concepts reviewed.

Implementation

23. The Committee acknowledges that the Modified Concept 5 as shown in Appendix E is a preliminary functional layout only. It is envisaged that VicRoads would further develop and refine a design, more accurately define the revised PAO required, and seek a planning scheme amendment to formally revise the PAO. The PAO should not be removed from the remaining properties until this more detailed design and formal planning process is carried out.

24. Irrespective of the final extent of the PAO, the Committee believes that there are a range of measures that VicRoads should adopt to provide landowners with more certainty. These include to:

Define the PAO required for the future widening of Punt Road according to its priority, that being short (0 to 5 years), medium (5 to 15 years) and long term (15+ years).

Adopt a more flexible arrangement with regards to works owners may undertake to their properties, particularly properties identified as long term priorities, and develop guidelines to clearly identify what may be permitted and the conditions that would apply.



Page 133 of 162

Prepare a Punt Road PAO Fact Sheet which simply and concisely outlines the strategic context of Punt Road, the purpose of the PAO, the proposed stages of work and the owner’s rights and obligations.

25. Once the future of the Punt Road PAO is resolved there will be a need to bring urban planning in the corridor into step. The Committee recommends that the Cities of Stonnington and Melbourne, in consultation with VicRoads and other agencies as required, should develop an integrated land use and transport strategy for the Punt Road corridor that addresses:

The impact of future road widening on the development potential of land abutting Punt Road

Restrictions on direct property access to Punt Road for future development in favour of access via other roads


14.2 Recommendations

Based on these findings, and in response to the Terms of Reference, the Committee makes the following recommendations:

The Public Acquisition Overlay

A Public Acquisition Overlay should be retained to the extent required to ensure 1.that Punt Road can continue to fulfil its role in the short, medium and long term.

On the basis of the evidence and submissions provided to the Committee in 2.relation to traffic demand and the future role of Punt Road in the road network, the Committee recommends: a) VicRoads develop a more detailed design layout that generally accords with

the Modified Concept 5 as shown in Appendix E, minimising impacts on heritage properties and minimising overall land acquisition whilst providing for a safe and functional design

b) The Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay should be modified to provide for a road layout generally in accordance with the design based on Modified Concept 5.

The Committee notes that Infrastructure Victoria is currently preparing a 30 year 3.Infrastructure Plan for Victoria, and recommends that the Committee’s assumptions regarding the future strategic role of Punt Road are confirmed before a final decision to remove the balance of the Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay.

If the Committee’s assumptions are confirmed, then the Committee recommends 4.removal of the balance of the Public Acquisition Overlay not required to implement the final approved road configuration.

Other actions recommended for Stonnington and Melbourne Councils

The Cities of Stonnington and Melbourne, in consultation with VicRoads, develop 5.an integrated land use and transport strategy for the Punt Road corridor that addresses:


Page 134 of 162

The impact of future road widening on development potential of land abutting Punt Road;

Restrictions on direct property access to Punt Road for future development in favour of access via other roads; and


Other actions recommended for VicRoads

In order to improve certainty for landowners, VicRoads should: 6.

Define the Public Acquisition Overlay required for the future widening of Punt Road according to its priority, that being short (0‐5 years), medium (5‐15 years) and long term (15+ years).

Adopt a more flexible arrangement with regards to works owners could undertake to their properties, particularly properties identified as long term priorities and develop guidelines to clearly identify the range of works that may be permitted and the conditions that would apply.


Prepare a Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Fact Sheet which simply and concisely outlines the strategic context of Punt Road, the purpose of the Public Acquisition Overlay, the proposed stages of work and the owner’s rights and obligations.


Page 135 of 162

15 Response to Terms of Reference

Paragraph 28 of the Terms of Reference set out the outcomes required of the Committee’s report:

a summary and an analysis of the submissions received and a list of those consulted

an analysis of the issues identified by the Committee

recommendations to retain, modify or remove the overlay

any other related matters that the Advisory Committee sees fit.

The following table provides a summary of where these matters are addressed in the report:

ToR Requirement How addressed Reference

Summary of submissions and those consulted

List of submitters

List of parties to the Hearing

Summary of issues raised

Appendix A

Appendix B

Section 2.1

Analysis of issues identified

Legislative and strategic context

The strategic importance of Punt Road

Economic issues

Traffic and transport issues

Heritage issues

Environment issues

Social issues

Impacts on strategic growth objectives

Other issues raised in submissions

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Recommendations on whether to retain, modify or remove the overlay

Findings

Recommendations

Summary

Chapter 14

Chapter 14

Executive Summary

Other matters The Committee has made comment on a range of other matters throughout the report and in the Findings. Of particular note are:

Fairness and equity

Certainty

Impacts on the community

The cost of property acquisition

Compensation

Recommendations have been made in relation to improving certainty for landowners

Chapter 11

Chapter 11

Chapter 11

Chapter 13

Chapter 13

Recommendation 6

Table 5 Response to Terms of Reference


Page 136 of 162

Appendix A Submitters to the Advisory Committee

No. Submitter

1 Marcelle Damicoucas

2 George Damicoucas

3 Daniel Lehrer

4 Deborah Claydon

5 Luyi Chen

6 Kay Elizabeth Martin

7 Linley O'Neill

8 Ursula Anne O'Connor

9 Yos Bilu

10 Vivian Bilu

11 Jay Wilson

12 Ondine Childs

13 Ann Oldfield

14 Laurel Kanost

15 Rebecca Cleaver

16 Fiona Chin

17 Warrick Paddon

18 Harrison Cleaver

19 Rita Price

20 Ursula Wertheim

21 Effie Tsarprias

22 Spiros Polimenakis

23 Maria Polimenakis

24 Thomas Price

25 Simone Heydon

26 Marc Corley

27 Alfred Health

28 David Howell Williams

29 Melvyn Soo

30 Terence Bartels

31 Michael Wall


Page 137 of 162

No. Submitter

32 Linda Wilson

33 Barbara Chia

34 David Brockway

35 Sarah Overliese

36 Naomi Eros

37 Grant Edhouse

38 Abi O'Neill

39 Richard William Wortley Lovell

40 Nick Heydon

41 Bernard Corr

42 Krassin Pty Ltd

43 Wani Wall

44 Christine Sender

45 Clare Kelder

46 Mike Gould

47 Felicity Gould

48 William Bateman

49 Carmel Bateman

50 Shem Kelder

51 Lisa Godinho

52 Zebe Haupt

53 Zane Haupt

54 Jule Langhammer

55 Lily Feiner

56 Michelle McClurg

57 Arthur Rabavilas

58 Angela Bromilow

59 Jennifer Berry

60 Jennifer Berry

61 Jennifer Berry

62 Jennifer Berry

63 Drop Punt


Page 138 of 162

No. Submitter

64 Bernadette Peace

65 Rosie Currell‐Paynting

66 David Graham

67 Zoe Nicole Allatson

68 Martin Karpowicz

69 Hayley Margaret Patricia Guest

70 Simon Allatson and Susie Warwick

71 Brian Stanley Hauser

72 Natalie Doherty

73 Jeremy Wright

74 James McDonald

75 Fatima Hussein

76 Ahmed Hussein

77 Jenny K Phillips

78 Margaret Perkins

79 Pearl Perkins

80 Ellen Creswell

81 Suzanne Keogh

82 Di Nash

83 Debra Mathias

84 Catherine Buckmaster

85 David Sargentson

86 Carl Hamilton on behalf of No 4 Gordon Grove Pty Ltd

87 Annette Pearse

88 Tom Cooper

89 Trent Schmidt

90 Mardi Doherty

91 Helen Doherty

92 Brian Doherty

93 Ross Doherty

94 Liz Doherty

95 Wendy Widmer


Page 139 of 162

No. Submitter

96 Sophie Cooper

97 City of Stonnington

98 Alexandra Ashton

99 Alexandra Ashton on behalf of Body corporate of 1 Greville Street

100 City of Melbourne

101 Steven Woodford

102 Angela Katrina Bexon

103 Christ Church Grammar School

104 Lynne Davies

105 Glossop Town Planning on behalf of 484‐486 Punt Road, South Yarra; 262A Domain Road, South Yarra; 1A Gordon Grove, South Yarra; 255 Domain Road, South Yarra

106 Stephen Langhammer

107 Peter Kamberis

108 Paola Teresa Rossetti

109 Peter Aulich and Louise Sweetland‐Aulich

110 Shirley Ellen Williamson

111 Peter Cotter

112 Angela A Wood

113 Vanessa Forrest

114 Karen Grant

115 Tract on behalf of residents of 5 Northampton Place, South Yarra

116 James Gilchrist

117 Tristan Quinn

118 Edmund Carew

119 Jermain Koh

120 Barbara Kelly


Page 140 of 162

Appendix B Parties to the Hearings

Submitter Represented by

VicRoads Ms Juliet Forsyth of Counsel instructed by Mr Rory O’Connor of Norton Rose Fulbright who called the following expert witnesses: ‐ Mr Paul Carter and Mr Jonathon Kinghorn on

Transport ‐ Mr Reece Humphreys on Traffic Engineering

and Transport ‐ Mr Rob Milner on Planning ‐ Mr Andrew Kinnaird on Economic/valuation

Melbourne City Council Ms Sarah Porritt of Counsel and calling expert evidence from ‐ Ms Knowles Tivendale on Traffic and Transport ‐ Mr Ian Shears on Open Space

Stonnington City Council Ms Jane Sharp of Counsel

Residents of 5 Northampton Place Tract Consultants

Ms Jenny Phillips

Ms Ann Oldfield

Mr Peter Aulich and Ms Louise Sweetland‐Aulich

Christ Church Grammar School

Ms Hayley Guest

Ms Linda Wilson

Mr Barbara Chia

Drop Punt Mr Andrew Carrasco and others

Ms Paula Dwyer and Mrs Georgie Hockings A number of property owners, and calling expert evidence from: ‐ Mr Jim Higgs on Traffic Engineering

Mr Jay Wilson

Ms Vivian Bilu

Mr Yos Bilu

Mr Richard Lovell and Ms Kerry Gartland

Ms Shirley Williamson

Mr Nick Heydon and Ms Simone Heydon

Ms Angela Wood

Mr Simon Allatson and Ms Susie Warwick

Ms Zoe Allatson

Mr Brian Hauser


Page 141 of 162

Appendix C Document list

No. Date Description Presented by

1 09/02/16 Stonnington City Council meeting agenda for 8 Feb 16 and relevant attachments

Stonnington City Council / Ms Porritt

2 09/02/16 VicRoads’ submission documents VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.1 09/02/16 Planning Maps and Aerials VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.2 09/02/16 Extracts from relevant legislation and Stonnington Planning Scheme:

Clause 45.01 ‐ Public Acquisition Overlay Stonnington Planning Scheme

Sections 98‐99 Planning and Environment Act 1987

Sections 6‐13 Transport Integration Act 2010

Clause 18 ‐ State Planning Policy Framework ‐ Transport, Stonnington Planning Scheme

VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.3 09/02/16 Extracts from VicRoads Part A submission:

Figure 3: Preferred Traffic Routes

Figure 4: Road Use Hierarchy Map

Extract from ARUP Options Report:

Figure 14: Network Strategy {Traffic)


2.4 09/02/16 Submission from Public Transport Victoria dated 5 Feb 16 VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.5 09/02/16 VicRoads Bicycle Network Plans and Fact Sheets VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.6 09/02/16 VicRoads Air Quality information sheet and screening tool workbook extracts for options 1‐7


2.7 09/02/16 VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy (2005) VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.8 09/02/16 Plan Melbourne and Plan Melbourne (Refresh) extracts VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.9 09/02/16 Report on Advances and Trends in Traffic and Transport VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.10 09/02/16 Department of Treasury and Finance Ministerial Briefing dated 19 Jan 15 (Extracts)


2.11 09/02/16 Punt Road clearways ‐ notice to residents and media releases dated 1 Feb 16



Page 142 of 162


2.12 09/02/16 Aboriginal and European Cultural Heritage (Maps, Citations, Reports)


2.13 09/02/16 Streamlining Hoddle Street Initiative ‐ Information & Hoddle Street Study, VicRoads (October 2015)


2.14 09/02/16 VicRoads SmartRoads brochure (July 2011) VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.15 09/02/16 VicRoads Traffic Monitor 2012 ‐ 2013 VicRoads / Ms Forsyth

2.16 09/02/16 VicRoads Memorandum ‐ modification of the PAO (February 2016)


2.17 09/02/16 Punt Road Community Engagement Report, Capire (December 2015)


3 09/02/16 Expert witness report: Milner (10 Consulting Group) VicRoads

4 09/02/16 Hard copy of Kinghorn & Carter (Arup) overheads VicRoads

5 09/02/16 Expert witness report: Kinghorn & Carter (Arup) VicRoads

6 10/02/16 VicRoads submissions VicRoads /Ms Forsyth

7 10/02/16 Hoddle Street – Punt Road Corridor Investigations Report VicRoads

8 10/02/16 Expert witness report: Humphreys (GTA) VicRoads

9 10/02/16 Table & graph of Punt Road Peak Hour traffic volumes VicRoads

10 10/02/16 SmartBus – Estimated patronage fact sheet MCC

11 11/02/16 Expert witness report: Kincaid (Urbis) VicRoads

12 11/02/16 Melbourne City Council reference documents – summary MCC

13 11/02/16 Melbourne City Council submissions and relevant attachments

MCC / Ms Porritt

14 11/02/16 Evidence statement: Shears (MCC) MCC

15 11/02/16 Shears PowerPoint presentation slides ‐ hardcopy MCC

16 11/02/16 Evidence statement: Tivendale (Phillip Boyle & Assoc.) MCC

17 11/02/16 Tivendale PowerPoint presentation slides ‐ hardcopy MCC

18 16/02/16 Supplementary submission to matters raised by Committee

VicRoads

19 16/02/16 Aerial photograph of 440 Punt Road VicRoads

20 16/02/16 Stonnington supporting documents folder SCC / Ms Sharp

21 16/02/16 Stonington City Council submissions SCC / Ms Sharp

22 16/02/16 Submission by residents of 5 Northampton Place Ms Murphy (Tract)

23 18/02/16 Submission by Jenny Phillips Jenny Phillips


Page 143 of 162


24 18/02/16 Submission by Ann Oldfield Ann Oldfield

25 18/02/16 Submission by Louise Sweetland Louise Sweetland

26 18/02/16 Drop Punt submission slides ‐ hardcopy Drop Punt, Mr Carrasco

27 18/02/16 Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance Drop Punt

28 18/02/16 Paper – The Local Community Drop Punt

29 18/02/16 Paper – Easy Access to Green Space Drop Punt

30 18/02/16 Documentation for film Drop Punt, Mr Heydon

31 19/02/16 Submissions by Paula Dwyer Dwyer, Ms Hocking

32 19/02/16 Expert witness report: Higgs (TTM) Dwyer, Ms Hocking

33 19/02/16 Australian Infrastructure Plan VicRoads

34 19/02/16 Submission by Vivian Bilu Vivian Bilu

35 19/02/16 Submission by Yos Bilu Yos Bilu

36 19/02/16 Submission by Jay Wilson Jay Wilson

37 19/02/16 Submission by Kerry Gartland Kerry Gartland

38 19/02/16 Submission by Richard Lovell Richard Lovell

39 19/02/16 Submission by Shirley Williamson Shirley Williamson

40 19/02/16 Stonnington City Council Delegates reports SCC / Ms Sharp

41 19/02/16 Submission by Simon Allatson and Susie Warwick Simon Allatson & Susie Warwick

42 19/02/16 Submission by Zoe Allatson Zoe Allatson

43 19/02/16 Submission by Nick and Simone Heydon Nick & Simone Heydon

44 19/02/16 VicRoads closing submission VicRoads/ Ms Forsyth

45 19/02/16 Government data: boardings and alightings for Bus 246 VicRoads

46 19/02/16 Real estate brochures VicRoads


Page 144 of 162

Appendix D Terms of Reference


1 of 7 Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference

Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Advisory Committee Advisory Committee appointed pursuant to Part 7, Section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to report and recommend on whether to retain, modify or remove the Public Acquisition Overlays affecting Punt Road within the City of Stonnington.

Version: Revised 11 August 2015

Name

1. The Advisory Committee is to be known as the “Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay Advisory Committee’

2. The Advisory Committee is to comprise three members with strategic planning, road and transport planning, traffic engineering and land use economics skills.

Purpose

3. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to review the future of the Public Acquisition Overlay (overlay) affecting properties within the City of Stonnington on the east side of Punt Road along the 2.6 kilometres between Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra and Union Street, Windsor (Attachment) by seeking input from affected landowners, stakeholders and agencies and to recommend to the Minister for Planning whether to retain, modify or remove the overlay.

Background

4. Punt Road/Hoddle Street is one of Melbourne’s busiest and most congested key arterial roads. Punt Road/Hoddle Street links Clifton Hill/the Eastern Freeway in the north with St Kilda Junction/Dandenong Road in the south and provides regional road access to many State significant facilities.

5. Punt Road is a declared State arterial road and is used by around 33,000 vehicles per day1. It forms a boundary between the Cities of Melbourne and Stonnington.

6. This review relates to Punt Road south of the Yarra River within the City of Stonnington which is narrower than Punt Road/ Hoddle Street north of the Yarra River.

7. The original 1954 planning scheme identified the intention to widen the east side of Punt Road between Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra and Union Street, Windsor. A 20 metre wide overlay for proposed road widening affecting 140 properties is included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The overlay also affects 49 and 51 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra (refer attachment).

8. The purpose of a overlay is:

“To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

1 Source: VicRoads two way traffic count Punt Road (South Yarra) between Alexandra Avenue and Domain Road 2013)

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic‐and‐road‐use/road‐network‐and‐performance/road‐use‐and‐performance



To identify land which is proposed to be acquired by a Minister, public authority or municipal council.

To reserve land for a public purpose and to ensure that changes to the use or development of the land do not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired.

To designate a Minister, public authority or municipal council as an acquiring authority for land reserved for a public purpose.” 2

9. VicRoads has the power to compulsorily acquire properties within the overlay if required as it is the nominated acquisition authority. The provisions of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provide landowners with access to compensation due to the overlay being in place. This includes compensation for loss on sale and refusal of a planning permit by council if directed by VicRoads as a referral authority.

10. VicRoads has purchased a small number of affected properties and no funding has been allocated for construction of the road widening to date.

11. The Government wishes to provide certainty about this matter as some affected property owners wish to plan for the future of their properties and are concerned about whether the road widening will be going ahead.

Method

12. The Advisory Committee must undertake the review in accordance with the following four stages but may inform itself in any other way it sees fit:

Stage 1: VicRoads Background Report

13. VicRoads has been requested to prepare a background report to provide base information to assist with this review. The background report will include information about:

the history of and background to the road widening/ the overlay

detailed mapping of the overlay

the current and projected traffic volumes for all modes of transport, including pedestrian, cyclist, car, heavy and public transport along and near Punt Road

the current and projected regional road and transport network operation

the current and possible future configurations of Punt Road with and without the overlay

the current land use and built form of land subject to the overlay

the current public transport along and crossing Punt Road

the current planning controls

the benefits (advantages) and costs (disadvantages) of retaining the overlay

the benefits (advantages) and costs (disadvantages) of removing the overlay, including possible alternate road and transport network response

whether any modifications to the overlay are necessary.

14. This report must be made public and be available on the Department’s website.

2 Clause 45.01 Stonnington Planning Scheme



Stage 2: VicRoads Options Report

15. VicRoads is preparing an Options Report that will expand on the Background Report by including traffic modelling and projections for various future options along Punt Road.

16. This report must be made public and be available on the Department’s website prior to commencing Stage 3.

Stage 3: Request for Submissions

17. Following the release of the Options Report, the Advisory Committee must invite and consider submissions from:

all landowners along both sides of Punt Road between Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra and Union Street, Windsor

the Cities of Stonnington, Melbourne, Yarra and Port Phillip

relevant agencies (including VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria, the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, and Heritage Victoria)

any other persons or organisations that the Advisory Committee see fit

18. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning will assist the Advisory Committee to notify these persons and organisations by letter and through advertisements in local newspapers circulating in the area. Planning Panels Victoria will receive and store all submissions.

Stage 4: Public Hearing

19. The Advisory Committee must hold a public hearing inviting submitters to present their submissions. In holding the public hearing, the Advisory Committee is bound by the rules of natural justice but may regulate its own proceedings by:

Limiting the time for presentations by persons or organisations appearing before it

Prohibiting or regulating cross examination.

20. The conduct of the public hearing must be managed by the Chairperson. The Chairperson may regulate proceedings in a manner that he/she considers appropriate to best allow the Advisory Committee to inform itself, and may give directions as to the conduct of the public hearing.

21. In scheduling the public hearing, the Advisory Committee must provide any submitter a reasonable opportunity to make submissions on a public hearing matter, having regard to both its task and time requirements under the Act.

22. The form of the presentation of any submissions which the Advisory Committee will be provided with may be the subject of direction by the Advisory Committee.

23. Questioning of submitters and any expert witnesses must be controlled, and conducted primarily, by the Advisory Committee. At its discretion the Advisory Committee may accept questions received either verbally or in writing from participants at the public hearing. The Advisory Committee may prohibit or regulate such cross‐examination if it considers that it is necessary or appropriate to do so in order to assist it to undertake its task.

24. VicRoads must be given an opportunity to respond to submissions made during the public hearing at the conclusion of the public hearing.

Stage 5: Advisory Committee Report

25. In considering whether to recommend retaining, modifying or removing the overlay, the Advisory Committee must consider:



the VicRoads background report

the VicRoads options report

the views of submitters included in their submissions and stated at the public hearings

relevant documents including the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the Network Operating Plan for Stonnington, the Principle Bicycle Network, public transport strategic plans, and heritage reports.

the effect on the long term planning and operation of the arterial road system in the region for all users.

26. The Advisory Committee may operate with a quorum of at least two members, one of whom must be the Chairperson.

27. The Advisory Committee may ask the Minister for Planning to vary these terms of reference prior to submission of its report.

Outcomes and Timing

28. The Advisory Committee must submit a written report to the Minister for Planning, including:

a summary and an analysis of the submissions received and a list of those consulted

an analysis of the issues identified by the Committee

recommendations to retain, modify or remove the overlay

any other related matters that the Advisory Committee sees fit.

29. The indicative timelines for the review are:

Stage Indicative Timeline

1. Advisory Committee receives VicRoads Background Report for public release

Date of release Expected mid August 2015

2. Advisory Committee receives VicRoads Options Report for public release

Date of release Expected October 2015

3. Request for submissions issued + 1 month

4. Public hearing commenced + 1 months

5. Advisory Committee Report sent to Minister for Planning + 3 months3

Submissions and the Advisory Committee report will be public documents

30. The Advisory Committee must retain a library of any written submissions or other supporting documentation provided to it in electronic form.

31. Any written submissions or other supporting documentation provided to the Advisory Committee must be available for public inspection in electronic format until the submission of its report, unless the Advisory Committee specifically directs that the material is to remain ‘in camera’.

32. The full report and recommendations of the Advisory Committee will be made public along with the decision of the Minister for Planning.

3 The Advisory Committee must submit its written report with recommendations to the Minister for Planning as soon as practicable but no later

than 40 business days from the completion of its hearings.



Fees

33. Fees for the Advisory Committee will be set at the current rate for a panel appointed under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

34. The costs of the Advisory Committee and any necessary research will be met by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Project Manager

35. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Plan and Planning Panels Victoria will provide administrative and professional support to the Committee. The Advisory Committee may engage additional administrative and/or professional support if required with the prior approval of the Deputy Secretary Planning, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

36. Day to day liaison for the Advisory Committee will be through Greta Grivas of Planning Panels Victoria on telephone 03 8392 6393 and e‐mail [email protected].

37. Day to day liaison for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning will be through Andrew Widdicombe, Principal Project Manager on telephone 03 9094 8442 and e‐mail [email protected].



Attachment: Maps showing Public Acquisition Overlay along Punt Road (Stonnington Planning Scheme)


Page 152 of 162

Appendix E Modified Concept 5


Page 153 of 162


Page 154 of 162


Page 155 of 162


Page 156 of 162


Page 157 of 162

Appendix F Heritage map


Page 158 of 162


Page 159 of 162


Page 160 of 162


Page 161 of 162


Page 162 of 162

planning and environment act 1987...good urban design outcomes, enhanced public transport usage,...

Documents