• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Background 1This appeal was lodged against council's refusal of a development application for the refurbishment of an existing retail centre, including alterations and additions for a supermarket (notionally Coles), ancillary administrative offices and roof top plant rooms at 710 Military Road, Mosman. 2The issues raised by council are summarised as follows: ·Traffic impacts and pedestrian safety. ·Adequacy of parking. ·Acoustic impacts. ·Adequacy of waste disposal arrangements. ·Public interest matters raised by the objectors. The proposal 3The proposed alterations were described as: Basement level (a) Infill slab adjoining the existing lift to accommodate 1 new car space; (b) Install new lifts in the south eastern and south western corners of the basement with access to the proposed supermarket with the associated loss of 4 car parking spaces; (c) Reconfigure stairwell adjacent to the lift for 1 new car parking space ; (d) Provide an infill slab adjoining the existing lift to accommodate 2 car parking spaces; (e) The proposed changes to the basement level will result in the loss of 6 existing car parking spaces. Ground Floor (a) Remove existing internal shop partitioning and dedicate the floor area to a proposed supermarket retail area (approximately 2350sqm) with associated storage, waste, and switch rooms (b) Minor increase in the size and configuration of the existing l oading dock fronting Hornsell Lane; (c) Install a new freight hoist in the storage area to transport goods from ground floor, level one , and level two; (d) Infill slabs to the ex i sting ground floor voids ; (e) Changes to column locations and numbers on the ground floor to accommodate the new infill slab ; (f) Installation of 2 escalators providing access to and from the first floor; (g) Replacement of the existing glazing with new glazing to the street facing shop fronts ; (h) Two lifts on the eastern and western sides of the floor opening onto the proposed supermarket; and (i) New glazed sliding door entry to the supermarket floor fronting Military Road . First Floor (a) Remove existing internal partitioning; (b) Minor increase in the existing loading dock size, including the provision of a scissor lift and concrete dock area ; (c) Provide a new void to accommodate new dual escalators from the ground floor; (d) Infill slab with associated column changes to the existing void; (e) Provision for the connecting shaft for the goods hoist on the ground floor; (f) Provide a lift overrun for the 2 p r oposed lifts from the basement to the ground floor . Second floor (a) Administration areas with the capacity for a goods lift to access the second level ; (b) New freight lift to lower levels; (c) Deletion of glazed voids ; (d) Incorporation of mechanical ducting; (e) New enclosed plant room for air conditioning and condenser units; and (f) Replace the remainder of the roof material with new decking. 4The proposed hours of operation by the applicant are 7.00am to 10.00pm Monday to Saturday and 8.00am to 10.00pm Sundays and public holidays. The car park hours to be 7.00am to 10.00pm. Some 60 staff are proposed to operate the supermarket. The site 5The subject site consists of 3 parcels of land, namely lots 112, 113, and 114 in DP 52836 . It is irregular in shape with an area of 1,545sqm and fronts the northern side of Military Road, which is a classified road . The site also has a rear frontage to Horsnell Lane . The frontage to Military Road is 37 . 6m and 38m to Horsnell Lane . The eastern and western boundaries are 43.9m and 37 . 9m respectively . 6The subject site presently contains a 3 storey mixed use retail/commercial building configured as follows: (a) Basement car parking for 98 cars, (b) Ground floor - 10 retail tenancies, (c) Second floor - 6 commercial tenancies. 7The building is currently partially vacant . Immediately adjoining to the east is the Mosman Fire Station (No . 730 Military Road). Adjoining to the west is a 2 storey masonry bu i lding , which is presently used for a shop (No . 706 Military Road). Adjoining to the north beyond Horsnell Lane are 2 multi storey multiple dwellings. These buildings are known as No . 11-17 and 5-9 Clifford Street respectively . No . 11-17 Clifford Street has a vehicular driveway that enters Horsnell Lane, immediately opposite the subject site . Planning controls 8The land is subject to a raft of controls that include: ( a ) Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (b) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land ( c ) State Environmenta l Planning Policy (Infrastructure ) 2007. 9The primary local control is the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 . Under this MLEP the site is zoned 3(a1) Spit Junction Town Centre and the proposal is permissible. The following objectives of the plan were identified by council as relevant: (j) to limit potential for additional traffic on the road system and to reduce car dependence through development that supports public transport, cycling and walking,... (k) to minimise the level of, with the aim of eliminating, pollution of all types, including air, land, water, visual and noise pollution, which may result from development allowed by this plan. 10Clause 16 contains the following relevant zone objectives. ·Allow a range of retail, business and entertainment opportunities which meet the needs and expectations of the local community and enhance the viability and vitality of the centre. ·Improve pedestrian and functional links between Bridgepoint and businesses on Spit and Military Roads. ·Encourage residential development as part of the use of sites at Spit Junction... 11The Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008 ) is also of some relevance. Under this control the site is within the Zone B2 Local Centre and the proposal would remain permissible. There are similar objectives to the MLEP for this zone, but also including: ·To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling ... 12The detailed controls are contained within the Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan ( MBDCP ), which includes the following objectives: (a) an enhanced image for Mosman, (b) an optimised potential for viable retail and commercial activities, (c) appropriate accessibility and adaptability, (d) a high level of amenity and distinctive character for the pedestrian environment,.. (f) an increased diversity of available housing, (g) a high standard of residential and commercial amenity, (h) best practice environmental performance and management. 13According to the MBCDCP, this plan sets out guidelines to achieve the desired future character, which is to facilitate "the promotion of the heritage and natural streetscapes within the Mosman business centre, and to enhance pedestrian activity to create vibrant and attractive retail centres". The DFC guidelines show an extended pedestrian network in the vicinity of the subject site as per the following diagram: Exten d the netwo rk of shop front promenades , laneways and rear streets to improve pedestria n accessibility, safety and amenity. This includes the provision of through-site arcades and shopfronts on Hordern Lane. 14The guidelines for the arterial business centres specify that the objectives are " to have accessible businesses and services " and " to have vehicular access to properties that are safe for both pedestrians and other vehicles". Section 6.2 contains the guidelines for accessibility whereby E14 prescribes parking areas are to provide a minimum 2% spaces for people with a disability in accordance with AS 2890.1. 15In terms of amenity guidelines, noise emissions from uses are to comply with the Noise Control Manual 1994 and Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise 1999 (NSW Environment Protection Authority). 16Other supporting controls are contained within the following: (a ) Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (MTDCP), wherein the stated objectives are: (a) to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking and maneuvering of motor vehicles and bicycles (b) facilities are designed having regard to accessibility for traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and mobility impaired persons; (c) to ensure that development is undertaken having regard to safety for traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and mobility impaired persons; (d) to ensure that adequate provision is made for the loading and unloading of vehicles; (e) to ensure that facilities are designed to maintain and enhance the environmental qualities of the area; (f) to encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling . 17This DCP contains the controls for parking and supplementary accessibility requirements and the following provisions: 2.6 Loading/Unloading Facilities Loading and unloading facilities or service vehicle parking must be provided on site for all developments that are likely to generate a need for such facilities. The applicant must demonstrate that the type of facility to be provided will be appropriate for the landuse having regard to the following factors: ·type of landuse; ·frequency of deliveries and collections; ·size and bulk of goods; ·size of trucks; and ·availability of on street loading zones Note - new developments should not have to rely on the provision of on-street loading zones . 18The other identified controls are: ( a ) Notifications Development Control Plan (b) Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan - Public Car Park i ng in the Spit Junction Town Centre (c) Public Doma i n Improvement Program for Mosman and Spit Junct i ons (d) Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan (e) Austroads Standards Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice and AS/NZS 2890 . 1 :2004 The evidence 19Detailed evidence was presented by: ·Mr C McLaren; Traffic consultant for council, ·Mr G Pindar; Traffic consultant for the applicant. ·Mr N Koikas; Acoustic consultant for council. ·Dr R Tonin; Acoustic consultant for the applicant. ·Mr J Saul; Council's acting manager for environmental services. 20Reference was also made to the Transport Impact Statement prepared by ARUP in September 2009. 21In addition to this, a considerable number of objections, which are generally consistent with the issues raised by council, were lodged against the proposal and have been considered. Traffic 22The main issue concerns traffic impacts arising as a result of the introduction of the supermarket. Insofar as there is a raft of environmental traffic controls requiring consideration, the Transport DCP applies and its overall aim is to achieve a 'sustainable environment' outcome for the area, which encourages alternate transport modes in the form of public transport, walking and cycling . For the assessment of the disparate traffic evidence, I have initially considered the expert opinions within the aforementioned planning context. 23I note the primary submissions for council are that this site is not suitable for the proposed development because it represents a significant intensification of use from the existing commercial development on the site, particularly increased traffic generation. Against this, the submissions for the applicant are that the incremental changes are such that merit approval and the development can be satisfactorily managed by the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent, including requiring compliance with the provisions of a 'Management Plan'. 24The critical components concern the road network performance, traffic generation, vehicle types and pedestrian safety and residential amenity. The traffic experts jointly assessed these matters and agree that the crucial traffic issue concerns the operation of the Military Road and Field Way intersection, as shown in Attachment AA. The operation of this intersection has been assessed as having the lowest level of performance, which is designated as 'Level of Service' (LOS) "F" and described as being "over capacity". 25The critical movement is the right turn from Field Way into Military Road. In this regard, the experts agree that this issue could be addressed by the introduction of a permanent No Right Turn restriction. The other Left Turn movements can be accommodated. However there is no approval for the No Right Turn movement and the experts do not agree on the resultant traffic intensity at the intersection. 26Insofar as Mr Pindar undertook modelling, this was on the basis of the SIDRA traffic model, which assumes free flow conditions and did not include a traffic flow/gap/queuing assessment. Accordingly, he says that there will be no unacceptable impacts at this existing, poorly performing intersection arising from the development. 27Mr McClaren disagrees with this approach because he considers it more realistic to take into account the delay and reduced capacity induced by vehicle queuing/ stopped traffic/ forced flow (with little or no gaps) in Military Road traffic flows. These factors act so as to reduce the absorption capacity of the main road to accept vehicles entering from a right turn in Field Way. 28Mr Pindar subsequently arranged for a 'gap acceptance' survey to be undertaken over a 1 - hour period on a typically busy Thursday evening so that the results could be inputted into the SIDRA model. But no queues were detected on that occasion. 29Mr McClaren does not accept the adequacy of this survey and considers that reasonable surveys should extend over a 3 - 4 hour period on Thursday evenings and again on Saturdays from 11am to 2pm. This information could then be used to more realistically assess traffic impacts at the intersection. 30Notwithstanding this, Mr Pindar says that the original ARUP traffic report included surveys between 3pm to 7pm on a Thursday and 10am to 1pm on a Saturday and his additional survey was to test 'default gaps'. He maintains his conclusion that the existing intersection will result in a similar level of service to that current existing, albeit with reduced gaps that rely on other driver courtesy to allow 'right turn' vehicle entry into Military Road. 31In light of the fundamental differences on this basic issue, the following response from Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC) is of some relevance, based on the referred development application: 1 ... 2 There is currently traffic congestion on Military Road and Spit Road during the peak periods which may delay delivery vehicles as they try to enter and exit the site. In order to meet deadlines delivery vehicles may force their way into traffic possibly blocking Military Road and/or Spit Road. To ensure this situation does not arise, it is recommended that loading be restricted to outside peak traffic and shopping times of AM Peak, PM Peak and Weekends. 3. Concerns are raised with regard to the geometry of Military Road, Close Street, Field Lane, Civic Lane and Horsnell Lane not being adequate to accommodate the swept path of a large delivery vehicle turning into and out of the streets let alone while another vehicle is simultaneously turning or waiting to turn in or out. This lack of manoeuvring space may result in unsafe driving practices. Swept path analysis showing the largest vehicle turning into and out of these streets while another vehicle is waiting or turning in and out shall be provided to the satisfaction of Council. 4. Due to traffic congestion on Milita r y and Sp i t Road, traffic generated by the proposed development would likely use local streets as indicated in the traffic report. Council should be satisfied that the increase traffic on local streets is acceptable. Should any traffic calming measures or treatments be proposed on local streets, the treatments shall not increase traffic on Spit Road and Military Road without further analysis and consultation with the RTA ... 5 ... 6 The traffic report used SIDRA Intersection to model the un-signalised intersection of Military Road/ Manda l ong Road/Field Lane. In this instance, SIDRA Intersection is not a suitable modelling tool considering t he obscure layout of the intersection and the inability of S i dra to take into account the impact of the signalised Military Road/Spit Road intersection which has queues tha t e x tend past th i s location . Should Council be concerned about the impact of development traffic on the performance of this intersection , an alternate traffic modelling tool such as micro-simulat i on should be considered to further assess this intersection . Any further modelling shall be to the satisfaction of Council.. . 32Having considered the competing evidence it is apparent to me that that there is a high degree of congestion along this section of Military Road, particularly in proximity to the Field Way intersection. The traffic flow is affected by the traffic lights at Spit Road and the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the site, which cause some interference with the free flow of traffic. This is consistent with Mr McClaren's evidence, the objectors and the submission by the Fire Brigade that it regularly experiences difficulties entering Military Road from its premises. The agreed low-level LOS - "F" also confirms this. 33Considering these circumstances and taking into account the SRDAC comments, its seems to me that the public interest would be well served by undertaking the suggested 'micro-simulation' modelling, to more realistically assess traffic impacts in the vicinity of this intersection and associated local streets. The current evidence indicates to me that the proposal is likely to negatively impact on the operation of this poorly performing intersection; further reducing it's efficiency. 34I therefore do not consider the applicant's approach to simply impose a condition of consent for a " No Right Turn " at this intersection is appropriate at this stage and furthermore, the power of this Court to impose such condition is uncertain. Taking into account that the Court was informed a typical, desirable level of service is "C", it seems that appropriate traffic modelling is warranted to assess the relative benefits and outcomes before any granting development consent, particularly in the absence of a No Right Turn at the intersection. Horsnell Lane Impacts 35Horsnell Lane is one of the associated local streets that will be impacted due to likely increased traffic intensity into and out of the basement car park. Because of its constrained width, the council and residents are concerned that the increased traffic will cause traffic inconvenience, adverse noise amenity and safety issues for both motorists, residents and pedestrians, including school children, who regularly use it. 36Insofar as both pedestrians and vehicles currently use this lane, the traffic experts agree that it would be desirable to discourage pedestrian movements along it due to its relatively narrow carriageway width of approximately 6.4m, which restricts the opportunity to provide separate footpaths. However this proposition is inconsistent with the development controls that show this as part of the future pedestrian network. 37In order to quantify this situation, Mr McClaren undertook limited pedestrian surveys between 6.30 and 9.30am on 25 October, which showed a peak volume of 28 ped/hr between 8am and 9am of which 8 were students. He notes however that at this time, some Year 11 and 12 students were not included. 38Accordingly, Mr McClaren considers that the shared use of the lane by cars and pedestrians would normally require consideration of a 10 km/h shared zone, which has a limit of 30 veh/h. Against this, Mr Pindar says that the volume of pedestrians is very moderate and reflects the current (underutilized) nature of Horsnell Lane. He considers that the pedestrian volumes would reduce with higher traffic volumes associated with either the current use or proposed supermarket. Furthermore, he does not think that the suggested limit of 30 veh/h reflects the existing character of this service lane, which is already permitted to carry 102 veh/h under current approvals. 39My assessment of this component is that whilst the survey indicated a relatively low pedestrian use of the laneway, nevertheless the future planning is that this is to be an integral link in the business centre pedestrian network. Then taking into consideration the existing shopping centres vehicle usage potential under its approval i.e. 88 - 100vph, I do not consider the incremental change by at least doubling the traffic from the proposed by the development is consistent with the direction of the development controls. Furthermore, I consider the mixed pedestrian and vehicle, including increased truck usage of the lane would result in a poor environmental outcome, which is a negative aspect of the proposal. 40Another contentious component concerns the peak hour traffic generation for the proposed type of development. This particularly influences the resultant amenity impacts at the adjacent residences. Insofar as the experts agreed that the appropriate way to assess this issue was to survey comparable developments, they nevertheless substantially disagreed on the appropriate traffic generation rate to apply. 41The traffic experts surveyed similar supermarket parking at Grosvenor Street Neutral Bay, Rangers Road and Rose Bay and reviewed this in light of the original ARUP findings. Accordingly, Mr Pindar's survey result at Grosvenor Street equated to 1.85 trips/space/hr. Insofar as he considered this the most comparable site, he ultimately decided that a conservative value would be to adopt the 2.02 trips/space/hr rate found at Rangers Road and increase it by 5% to allow for other variable factors. Consequently his resultant rate is 2.12 trips/space/hr, which equates to 184 veh/hr. 42Mr McClaren's surveys indicated results of 2.56/2.80 trips/space/hr on Thursdays and 2.58 trips/space/hr on Saturdays. He then noted that a number of factors influence traffic behaviour, including seasonal conditions, which could lead to a variation of up to 28%. I note Mr Pindar agreed that seasonal variation adjustment is appropriate. Considering that the original surveys were undertaken in the low season, Mr McClaren concluded that an appropriate rate would be 3.0 trips/space/hr. 43Mr McClaren also observed that there was a degree of permanent parking that affected the trip rate with some 29 vehicles being classified as "permanent" i.e. > 3hrs at Grosvenor Street . He also thought that with the clarification during the hearing that it was now proposed to have 60 staff, there would be some additional trip movements as a result of staff change - overs. 44The summary position of the respective parties in respect of the available 87 spaces is: ·RTA; 3.69 trips/space/hr, resulting in 321 trips/hr. ·ARUP; 3.0 trips/space/hr, resulting in 261 trips/hr. ·CMcC; 2.94 trips/space/hr, resulting in 256 trips/hr. ·GPind; 2.12 trips/space/hr, resulting in 184 trips/hr. 45By comparison with the existing 88 trips/hr under the current consent, the net increases are calculated as follows: ·RTA; 233 trips/hr. ·ARUP; 173 trips/hr. ·CMcC; 168 trips/hr. ·GPind; 96 trips/hr. 46In addition to these trips, service vehicles and delivery trucks are anticipated to make further trips, which comprises some 7 x 7.8 - 8m delivery trucks and 10 smaller trucks i.e. 17 deliveries plus waste collection. This results in some (6 - 8) plus more deliveries/day. 47My assessment of this disparate evidence is that due consideration should be given to the constrained context of the proposed entry/exit to the revised supermarket via Horsnell Lane and a cautious approach adopted. On this basis, and taking into account the subjective nature of the traffic forecasting, I consider an appropriate trip rate would be in the order as expressed by Mr McClaren i.e. 3 trips/space/hr, which is consistent with the ARUP findings, rather than the lower 2.12 figure opined by Mr Pindar. Under these circumstances, the application of this rate to the "short-term" parking spaces would be in the order of 230 trips/hr. I note this would increase with the service and delivery vehicles, longer term parkers movements and staff turnovers. Environmental road capacity 48This issue relates to whether the predicted traffic movements will exceed acceptable environmental capacity criterion, as stated in Amcord and RTA guidelines, which both experts referenced. The factors that influence this were identified as follows: i.Function of Horsnell Lane. ii.Carriageway width and pedestrian footpath provision (pedestrian volumes). iii.Proximity of dwelling facades. iv.Proportion of truck traffic (heavy Rigid Vehicles). v.Traffic speed. vi.Pedestrian safety. 49Accordingly, Mr McClaren relies on the provisions of Table 1 in Amcord, which lists a number of different street categories and their relative maximum traffic volumes (vpd). He considers that Horsnell Lane has the characteristics of an Access Street with an intended ' Low Speed / Low Traffic Volume' expectation of 300 - 1000 vpd, that equates to a maximum of 100 vph, based the commonly accepted 10% adjustment factor. This however assumes a target speed of 40km/h with verge widths each side. 50Mr Pindar however considers Horsnell Lane would have an upgraded classification as an Access Street with an indicative maximum traffic volume range of 1000 - 2000 vpd, which equates to a maximum of 200 vph. He says council staff supported this classification was but that position was not accepted by Mr McClaren, who presented the expert evidence to the Court. 51From reference to the various factors in the Amcord Table 1 (Annexure B in the joint report), I note that the overall width of Horsnell Lane appears much narrower than the 13/13.5m specified and Mr Pindar's classification would include a 1.2m wide footpath on one side. As this is not the situation, I consider the more conservative classification by Mr McClaren (i.e. 100 vph maximum) is realistic in the circumstances. 52Consequently, I consider the predicted traffic volume in the order of 230vph significantly exceeds the environmental capacity criterion, which is a further negative aspect of the proposal. 53The estimated trip intensity value can also be applied to the ECRTN noise criterion to assess acoustic amenity, which I deal with later. 54Another traffic issue in Horsnell Lane concerns the effective operation of the loading dock . However during the progress of this matter revisions were made to the configuration of the single loading dock, which I understand then permits satisfactory manoeuvring and use by delivery vehicles with a maximum length of 7.8m. Such vehicles can use the loading dock on the basis that the entry security door is closed during the unloading process, so as to minimise traffic flow interruption in the lane. The loading arrangements are to be controlled by a traffic warden, as specified within a Management Plan. However council submits this is inadequate. 55An associated issue raised by the neighbours concerns potential vehicle conflict and safety issues as they exit from their basement car park on the northern side of Horsnell Lane. Whilst the sight distances are restricted, the exit arrangement is the same as that for the existing shopping centre and there was no substantive evidence that the incremental change would materially affect this movement, except introduce some additional delays in exiting. Truck manoeuvring at the Military Road/ Field Way intersection . 56As shown on Attachment AA, this intersection configuration restricts larger truck movements both entering and leaving via Field Way. The swept path turning templates show that while a smaller 6.4m truck can make the turns, the designated 7.8 - 8m has difficulty with the likelihood of blocking traffic if other larger vehicles are at the intersection simultaneously. 57Whilst I note the applicant's submission that parking restrictions could be imposed part way along Field Way to overcome this issue, nevertheless this is a matter of concern raised by SRDAC. In my assessment, this is one of the traffic/parking components that should preferably be considered in an overall modelling exercise rather than by the imposition of ad hoc conditions. 58The further submissions for the applicant are that the provisions of the Management Plans will control this issue under the supervision of Coles, who would be able to limit the size and arrival/departure times of the delivery trucks, thereby avoiding this potential traffic problem. But as stated previously, the council submits that the MP is inadequate and in any case the deliveries are to be undertaken by contractors who will be at liberty to make decisions on the size and timing of the delivery truck. Therefore this issue is not satisfactorily resolved according to the council's submissions. Basement parking, disabled parking and car park access, bike storage 59There was a considerable amount of discussion about the appropriate calculation rates to determine the number of car parking spaces required for the proposed change of use. The resolution of this issue was however agreed by the traffic experts on the basis that: ·A total of 98 spaces would be required (Note: maximum 87 now spaces available); ·11 spaces to be designated for staff; ·75 (short term - up to 3hrs) public car spaces; ·12 spaces to covered by payment of s 94 contributions, in accordance with the s94CP. 60Notwithstanding this agreement, both Mr Pindar and Mr McClaren agreed that this parking situation could result in additional parking in the surrounding streets, which may subsequently require parking control measures. 61The next parking component concerns the inability to provide uncompromised access to disabled parking spaces in the basement. This occurs because of the structural entry constraints to the existing basement car park, which has a minimum available height of 1950mm near the gatic drain position. 62The council submits that this does not comply with Objective 07 of the MBDCP, which is to "have accessible businesses and services". Furthermore. The available headroom entry height does not meet the minimum specification of 2300mm in cl 5.3.2 of AS 2890.1:2004. Whilst the available height will allow access for some higher vehicles, those carrying rooftop appliances will be denied access. 63Insofar as the existing driveway gradient is non - compliant with the AS provisions, the applicant now proposes alterations to the entry levels, whereby the entry arrangement from Horsnell Lane is improved. 64Accordingly, Mr Pindar says that council has apparently accepted the operation of this existing driveway gradient for the commercial uses in the past and this demonstrates that it operates with a satisfactory utility and level of safety. He also says that this confirms council's acceptance of restricted disabled access in some situations. On the basis of this past performance and with the provision of signage, the patrons will become aware of the accessibility limitations and therefore he considers the limitations on access satisfactory. 65However Mr McClaren acknowledges that while the existing development access is non - compliant, he considers it reasonable for a redevelopment of this scale to fully cater for disabled parking needs. He is also dissatisfied with the non - complying access gradient and transition and considers that this will increase risks to motorists and pedestrians using Horsnell Lane as a result of the increased traffic associated with the supermarket. 66An associated parking/amenity issue raised by council concerns the consideration of bicycle provisions . The MBDCP shows a defined pedestrian network system through the commercial area and the associated Transport DCP in cl 2.4 refers to cycling representing "a sustainable form of transport that should be encouraged through the provision of appropriate facilities ". The DCP then specifies the relative number of bike spaces that should be provided. 67The ARUP Transport Impact Statement acknowledged the DCP requirements that approximately 13 bicycles parking spaces should be provided and indicated such spaces would be provided on site in secure locations. However on review of the car parking space demand, the provision of bike spaces is now deleted from the redevelopment to optimise car parking spaces. Noise impacts 68The noise issue was raised by the residents and council on the basis that the proposal fails to satisfy the following Objective 2(k) of the MLEP: (k) to minimise the level of, with the aim of eliminating, pollution of all types, including air, land, water, visual and noise pollution, which may result from development allowed by this plan. 69The particular noise impacts were categorised by the acoustic experts as follows: i.Noise emitted from the loading dock usage, including reversing alarms, air brakes and roller shutter door operation. ii.Noise from traffic generated by development on local roads, particularly Horsnell Lane and Field Way. iii.Noise from air-conditioning and refrigeration plant installed within the premises and particularly condenser plant on the roof. 70They identified the relevant assessment criteria as that contained in the DECCW Industrial Noise Policy (INP). It defines the following 2 criteria: i. Intrusive Noise Criterion; The intrusiveness of an industrial noise is generally considered acceptable if the equivalent Laeq, 15 min does not exceed the background noise level by more than 5dB. ii. Amenity Noise Criterion (ECRTN) ; This refers to noise from additional traffic on local roads associated with the development and concerns: (a)that the total traffic noise level (i.e. existing plus original) should not exceed the limit applicable in the situation; and (b)where that limit is already exceeded, the increase in traffic noise level resulting from the alterations to the existing land use development should where feasible and reasonable not exceed 2dB. 71In regard to the assessment of the ECRTN, the relevant criterion presented to the Court is shown in the following table: Table 1 ECRTN Road Traffic Noise Criteria Type of Development Criteria Day Night Where Criteria are Already Exceeded Where feasible and reasonable, existing noise levels should be mitigated to meet the noise criteria. 13. Land use developments with potential to create additional traffic on local roads LAeq(lhr) 55 LAeq(lhr) 50 Examples of applicable strategies include appropriate location of private access roads; regulating time of use; using clustering; using 'quiet' vehicles; and using barriers and acoustic treatments. In all cases, traffic arising from the development should not lead to an increase in existing noise levels of more than 2 dB.