Findings - Parking and student numbers
101As required by (repealed) s 75)(2)(a) of the EPA Act, the Court, "standing in the shoes of the Minister", is required to consider the Director-General's Report and any recommendations contained in the report.
102We note the introduction to the department's consideration in the report and concur with it.
As a premise to its assessment, the department acknowledges the wider public benefits associated with the best possible utilisation of existing educational facilities in New South Wales. The department also understands that there is a need to manage the intensity of the use of the site in order to maintain a reasonable amenity for surrounding residents.
103In this matter, a balance must be struck to enable the reasonable expansion and necessary upgrading of facilities of an existing university and managing the impacts of any expansion on the surrounding residential area.
104Universities are dynamic places. It is clear from the many surveys and the expert evidence that student/ staff numbers vary throughout the day, throughout the week and throughout the year. Peak numbers on site occur from about 10.00 on Mondays to Thursdays (Fridays are less busy) at the beginning of semesters, in particular at the beginning of Semester 1. Apart from scheduled holidays, exam weeks and enrolment periods, students may be off-site for extended periods undertaking activities associated with their course of study (e.g. Practice teaching). Not everyone on campus is in a classroom/ laboratory - they may be in the grounds /canteen /offices /workshops /library. Flexible and blended delivery study programs add to variability in numbers and some students may rarely visit the campus. Not all staff teach. Other people may be on site including visitors and contractors. Therefore, determining the number of people on campus at any time is difficult.
105We agree with Mr Galasso's submission that the ACU is located in an area with available, generally unrestricted parking. People who attend, work at or visit the ACU Strathfield campus undoubtedly use some of these parking spaces. However, identifying those users and accounting for local residents and their visitors or contractors, as well as any other vehicles that may be parked in the street, is difficult.
106It is also clear from the many parking, shuttle bus use and census surveys that there is no consistency in time of year, time of day, area surveyed or method of survey. Some surveys occurred in holiday and non-teaching periods while others were undertaken in teaching weeks at the beginning of semesters. These deficiencies are recognised in the Director-General's Report.
107We agree that the surveys undertaken by ARUP, CBHK and MTE and assessed by the PB report indicate the peak attendance numbers on campus have reached approximately 1,450. However, the decision of Preston CJ in Jonah is relevant. In that matter His Honour found amongst other things: the mere unlawfulness of past use was not relevant as a predictor of future unlawful use ([34]); the lawfulness or otherwise of the use of a premises is a matter for determination in Class 4 proceedings ([36]); past use/conduct, regardless of lawfulness, might have given rise to unacceptable impacts and, the experience of the impacts of the past use could be relevant in evaluating the likely impacts of, for example, the intensification of the use, the acceptability of the likely impacts, and appropriate measures that ought to be adopted to mitigate the likely impacts to an acceptable level ([37]-[39]).
108Therefore, we propose to put aside any submissions regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of the numbers of people currently attending the ACU Strathfield campus and focus on the impacts that may arise from the expansion of the ACU.
109Perhaps the most significant impact on the residential amenity, as articulated in the many submissions from residents, is the extent of on-street parking. The residents maintain that the extent of parking makes it difficult and dangerous for them driving out of their driveways onto busy roads. Students frequently park across driveways thus causing more inconvenience. Parking by students limits access for guests, tradespeople and community workers who may be visiting or working on nearby residential properties.
110We note the statement in the Director-General's report at p. 22 that there are no specific car parking rates that apply to the redevelopment of the site. On-site parking is determined by a requirement under Council's DCP to prepare a traffic study for the proposal; the ARUP Traffic and Accessibility Study and the Green Travel Plan provides this. Therefore there is no specific assistance provided by any council controls.
111There is a difference of opinion between the traffic experts and the ARUP and PB reports as to the appropriate base level of on-street parking against which any future impacts of increased student numbers can be assessed. The differences include whether the on-street parking should be pegged against the 1994/2002 approvals or based on assessments carried out in 2012 in the preparation of the PPR and Director-General's report.
112The opinions of Mr Rogers (base level of 204), Mr Hollyoak (68-106/ 155) and Mr McLaren (0-30 in 1994 and 397/417 in 2012) are given in paragraph [77] and Tables 2 and 3. The ARUP 2012 PPR Transport and Accessibility Report relies on a March 2012 parking survey indicating 506 cars parked on the street as the starting point. (The report also notes that 40 on-site spaces were unavailable at that time because of construction work.)
113PB adopts the ARUP number but interprets the PPR figures as inclusive of all users including residents and other non-university related vehicles (p27). PB estimates 88 vehicles are not related to ACU and therefore the number reduces to about 418. PB ultimately relies on the commitment in the PPR for a target reduction in student on street parking to 230.
114In order to gain a greater appreciation of the experts' differing opinions, we have undertaken our own analysis of the numbers proposed in the earlier consents as our starting point.
115On our assessment of the numbers, if we assume the 1994 consent permitted 510 students between 8.00am and 5.00pm (peak times) and 45% drive, 230 parking spaces would be required. A total of 190 staff was approved; assuming 130 per day and 71% drive, an additional 92 parking spaces would be required. Total parking spaces required = 322. On site, 318 spaces were approved. Therefore there is a basic demand for 4 on-street spaces; however, there is no allowance in this calculation for visitors. The 2002 consent permitted an additional 240 students at any one time. Assuming no changes to staff and that these numbers apply to the peak times during the day and 45% drive, the number of additional spaces required is 108. The Edward Clancy Building provides an extra 38 spaces therefore the excess/ on street is a minimum of 74 with no allowance for visitor parking.
116The information from 1994 also reported that 20% of students elected to park on the street. Therefore there may have been another 42 - 46 spaces used on the street at that time. If 20% of students of the 108 students driving to university following the 2002 consent elected to park on the street, this would equate to another 22 spaces. Therefore the on-street parking from the earlier consents ranges from a minimum of 74 to at least 142.
117While we do not hold ourselves up to be traffic experts or mathematicians, the exercise demonstrates that depending on the method used and any underlying assumptions, a range of numbers can be generated for the same purpose.
118Our '1994' calculations appear to concur with Mr McLaren's primary assumption that the original consent envisaged a generally parking-neutral outcome however there is no allowance in that for human behaviour and a preference by some to use convenient on-street parking. While our figures are closer to Mr Hollyoak's, we have no reason to reject Mr Rogers' figure of 204 based on his extrapolation of data from the 2012 surveys. The PPR target of 230, adopted by the PB report is also within range.
119The other linked factor is the assumed mode share of people travelling to the university attributable to car drivers. As previously stated, the 1994 reports considered a mode share of 45% for students and 71% for staff. Paragraph [77] considers the range of percentages assumed by the parties' experts.
120The PB report considers a range of percentages derived from a number of surveys. PB notes the results of two on-line surveys of new students in their first semester conducted in 2011 and 2012 (p.21). These surveys indicated 47% car use in 2011 and 41% in 2012. PB calculates the results from the March 2012 ARUP give a mode share of 35% car driver (p.39). In response to submissions from residents received in November 2012 and their estimates of student/staff numbers and methods by which they arrived, PB estimates the mode share of drivers to be about 53% (pp.26-27). Based on August 2012 surveys, PB assumes a 'worst case' mode share of 57% in assessing the likely impact of an increase in student numbers to 2,000 (exhibit A2, tab 43, Table A.2 Appendix A).
121We accept that getting an accurate assessment of the mode of transport used by students and staff is difficult and given human behaviour, there is no guarantee there will ever be a fixed and definable split. For example, someone who regularly catches public transport and uses the shuttle bus may occasionally choose to drive. Changes in train and bus timetables, changes in teaching timetables, flexible learning options, and even the weather, may affect how someone travels to and from the campus.
122However, it is not unreasonable to assume that over the last 20 years, car ownership has increased and more people elect to drive, and to that end, relying on figures from 1994 is unlikely to represent the current situation, particularly when there is easily accessible on-street parking. That said, we have no reason to dispute the PB findings at point 4 [58], that the use of the shuttle bus has been very successful.
123We consider that some on-street parking is reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore for the purpose of establishing a baseline for on street parking, given the somewhat bewildering array of figures, and a realistic mode share %, we have taken a range within the middle ground based on Mr Rogers' 204 on-street spaces and the PB report / PPR target of 230 on-street spaces. Given the acknowledged spread of % of car drivers throughout the day and the time of year, we have based our determination on average of 51% at peak times, Mr McLaren's figure in the in the first joint report. We concur with the findings of Talbot J in the 1994 judgment that requiring an applicant to meet a contingency of peak demand is unreasonable.
124We have applied these figures to the scenarios presented in Table 2 (at [76]). Despite Mr Galasso's reliance on the additional benefits to be gained from the 30 spaces to be provided for the use of St Patrick's College, we agree with Ms Duggan that they should not be counted, however, we accept the opinion of the traffic experts that there is likely to be some benefit and improvement of on-street parking in the vicinity of the College.
125Table 2 shows that for 1800 people on site at any one time with an agreed conservative design level of 95% to take account of the variability of survey results, and assuming an average mode split of 51% drivers, 276 on-street spaces would be required after completion of Stage 1A and 209 on-street spaces would be required after completion of stage 1B, that is, the construction of the car park beneath the oval and the library precinct and its associated underground car park. In our opinion, based on the 2012 survey results (see [78]) this will result in an improvement in the existing level of on-street parking and, by the completion of Stage 1B should achieve the PB/PPR target overflow of 230 on-street spaces. Without any reduction in mode share, the situation will be improved by the completion of stage 4; if the percentage of car drivers declines, the benefits improve.
126Therefore, we propose to allow an increase in the total number of people on site at any one time to 1800 once stages 1A and 1B have been completed. It was agreed that during construction, some disruption will be inevitable however in Mr Rogers' opinion this could be managed by timing activities during vacation periods and staging the works.
127In regards to whether the number should eventually be increased to 2200 once the targets in the Green Travel Plan have been established, we have considered the data in Table 3, the opinions of the experts, calculations carried out by Parsons Brinkerhoff in Appendix A of their report to the Department, the Department's consideration in the Director-General's report and the findings of the PAC.
128It is common ground between the experts that the mode share of 30% car drivers in the Green Travel Plan is unrealistic. Mr Hollyoak and Mr McLaren consider a 3% decrease possible, Mr Rogers takes a more optimistic view of a 5% reduction. Using Mr McLaren's starting point of 51% and reducing it to 48%, there is a net increase in on street parking spaces required after all stages. Taking Mr Hollyoak's 46% and reducing it to 43%, no net benefits are achieved until Stage 4. Applying Mr Rogers' 46% and reducing it to 41% sees an improvement after Stage 1B.
129While the PB report at point 6 [58] and at [59] ultimately support the increase in student numbers to 2,000, they make it clear that this is heavily dependent on the success of the Green Travel Plan and at the very least, the maintenance of the peak levels of use of the shuttle bus, as well as extensive monitoring and surveys of other elements of the plan.
130Notwithstanding the findings in the PB report in regards to the disparities between student numbers and shuttle bus patronage, the Department considered the Green Travel Plan provides three key measures that are likely to mitigate the current and predicted impacts associated with the operation of the university: a 107% increase in on-site parking spaces, a new timetable to reduce student trips, and strict compliance with the mode share targets. The Department notes that achieving the mode share targets is critical to any student number increases.
131We agree with the experts that there is no disincentive to driving to the site. The experts suggested a range of measures that could be introduced should Council so wish. Whilst we note the ineligibility of the area for a resident parking scheme, some type of time-limited parking appears to be the most effective method of limiting the impact of overspill parking on residential streets; we agree it is not something the Court can impose.
132Similarly, we note that the PAC's determination includes the following comments:
As noted above, the Commission is not convinced that the Green Travel Plan can be successful without a concomitant introduction of parking restrictions in surrounding streets. While it is acknowledged that the introduction of parking restrictions may result in students parking in other residential areas where restrictions are not in place the Commission considers that with an effective Green Travel plan in place this impact can be contained. The university should make its best endeavours to work with Council and the community regarding the introduction of parking restrictions, whether this involves a resident parking scheme or some other form of restrictions, it should also explore other initiatives which help reduce on street parking e.g. financial incentives for students to catch public transport.
133While we acknowledge the findings in the Director-General's report, we agree with the experts that the 30% mode share for drivers appears overly optimistic, unrealistic, and unachievable at this stage or in the foreseeable future, especially given the current availability of on-street parking. We consider a more realistic target would be closer to 45% mode share for drivers. Based on extrapolated data in Table 3, a mode share in this range would maintain the excess/ on-street parking to around 230 vehicles after completion of all four stages. This would result in fewer university-related cars on the nearby streets than current numbers indicate. Clearly, any further reduction in the number of people driving to the campus would be a bonus.
134Given that parking on nearby streets is a critical issue in these proceedings, it is our view that a key goal of the Green Travel Plan should be to limit university-related parking on nearby streets to around 230 vehicles. To this end the submitted Green Travel Plan dated 17 October 2012 should be updated to set more realistic mode share targets that provide for a reasonable level of on-street parking outlined above. The review of the Green Travel Plan could also consider some of the incentives outlined by the experts in [84] of this judgment.
135On the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that thus far, the applicant's surveys of student travel behaviour and numbers of people on campus are sufficiently robust in their methodology to provide the basis for the Student Travel and Campus Monitoring Plan (STCMP) recommended on p. 25 of the Director-General's report. We agree with the experts that future expansion cannot be contemplated unless there is credible, independent data proving achievement of the targets in the modified Green Travel Plan. We agree with Mr Galasso's submission that the increase in numbers to 2,200 at any one time is contingent on consistent achievement of the mode splits in the Green Travel Plan and therefore is not guaranteed.
136In our view, and based on Figure 3, an increase to 2200 people on site at any one time, with an overflow of about 230 vehicles or thereabouts onto the surrounding streets could only be achieved after completion of all four stages. A Campus Travel and Monitoring Plan (CTMP) is to be prepared for the Strathfield campus, to monitor and report on the travel behaviour of staff and students and the achievement or otherwise of the targets in the updated Green Travel Plan. We agree with the experts that an appropriate period of demonstrated achievement of the mode share targets and reduced on-street parking is a period of at least 48 consecutive months. We also agree with the Director-General that timetabling of educational activities should include consideration of impacts on traffic and parking.