Car Park Ventilation

Festival Square - Car Park
Car Park Assessment
February 2016
Walker Corporation
Car Park Assessment Malt MCICDonuld
Issue and revision record
338869-T-ROD, -Car Park Assessment
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

E 25,022016 DRH GEH JSN For Development Approval
""""_ . C, ^It ^^;' .
Information classs Standard
This document is issued for Ihe party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this
and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party. or being used
project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission
used for any other purpose. which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by
other parties.
This document contains confidential information and

proprietary Intellectual property. it should riot be shown 10
other parties without consent from us and from the party
which commissioned it.
338869/ANZ/ADLll!E 25 February 2016

P:\Adelaide\SAN\Projects1338869\04 Working102 Documenls\02 Structural. Civil* Traffic\T-Root\3. Car Park Assessme
Report\Rev E - car park updates for DA Subntission1338869-T-ROOl-D-Car Park Assessment. docx
Car Park Assessment
Contents
Chapter Title Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Scope of Report ____________________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Beyond the Scope of this Report _______________________________________________________ 2
1.3 Site Location_______________________________________________________________________ 2
2 Proposed Car Park 3

2.1 Car Park Access ____________________________________________________________________ 3
2.2 Car Park Operation__________________________________________________________________ 3
3 Car Park Assessment 5

3.1 Stakeholder Data ___________________________________________________________________ 5
3.2 Car Park Access ____________________________________________________________________ 6
3.2.1 Car Park Service Rate _______________________________________________________________ 6
3.2.2 Peak Hour Entry and Exit Flows ________________________________________________________ 6
3.2.3 Car Park Queuing - Main Entry ________________________________________________________ 8
3.2.4 Car Park Queuing – Secure Parliament Entry _____________________________________________ 9
3.3 Compliance with Australian Standards ___________________________________________________ 9
3.3.1 Off Street Car Parking _______________________________________________________________ 9
3.3.3 Car Park Turn Paths ________________________________________________________________ 10
3.3.4 Sight Distance ____________________________________________________________________ 11
3.4 Loading Bay and Turn Paths _________________________________________________________ 11
3.5 Bicycle Parking ____________________________________________________________________ 11
3.6 Pedestrians ______________________________________________________________________ 12
4 Summary 13
Appendices 14
Appendix A. Preliminary Turn Paths ______________________________________________________________ 15
Appendix B. Proposed Car Park _________________________________________________________________ 16
338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

P:\Adelaide\SAN\Projects\338869\04 Working\02 Documents\02 Structural, Civil, Traffic\T-R001\3. Car Park Assessment Report\Rev
E - car park updates for DA Submission\338869-T-R001-D-Car Park Assessment.docx
Car Park Assessment
1 Introduction
Mott MacDonald has been engaged by Walker Corporation to provide engineering services for the
proposed Festival Square car park redevelopment.
To inform the development application (DA), Mott MacDonald has prepared a Car Park Assessment
Report.
The proposed car park has 1656 spaces and is a component of the overall Festival Square redevelopment
which includes a new pedestrian plaza and new office tower with retail and commercial uses adjacent
Parliament House. The car park spaces will be allocated to Festival Square site users as follows:
Casino (Sky City): 750 spaces.
Parliament: 100 spaces.
Adelaide Festival Centre (AFC): 300 spaces.
Walker Corporation: 506 spaces.
Preliminary turn paths are provided in Appendix A which have been based on Bates Smart Architects
th th
concept design drawings received via email correspondence on 10 and 18 December 2015.
Walker Corporation has provided further design drawings to inform this car park assessment (refer to
Appendix B).
1.1 Scope of Report
This report is limited to an assessment of the proposed car park only, and does not consider any impact to
the external road network or Festival Drive which is being undertaken by others as part of the wider
precinct redevelopment.
The scope of this report is to assess:

Car park access:
– Car park entry and exit volumes during the AM and PM peak hours.
– Location and number of entry and exit lanes.
– High level queuing analysis for entry and exit lanes.
Review of the car park design against relevant Australian Standards and the Adelaide City Council
(ACC) Development Plan.
Vehicle turn path check for the car park and shared loading dock.
The assessment relates to an AM and PM peak hour scenario based on anticipated peaks of separate site
users.
1 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

P:\Adelaide\SAN\Projects\338869\04 Working\02 Documents\02 Structural, Civil, Traffic\T-R001\3. Car Park Assessment
Report\Rev E - car park updates for DA Submission\338869-T-R001-D-Car Park Assessment.docx
Car Park Assessment
1.2 Beyond the Scope of this Report
Event traffic management scenarios associated with Festival Square and surrounds or Adelaide Oval has
not been assessed to date. Event traffic management is expected to be discussed with relevant
stakeholders at future design stages.
GTA consultants on behalf of ARM consultants and the South Australian Government have developed a
nd
Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) (dated 2 December 2015) for the entire Festival Square precinct
redevelopment.
The GTA report includes an assessment of the traffic impact to the external road network and it is
understood that it will form part of the car park DA submission.
1.3 Site Location
The subject site is bordered by Festival Drive to the north, King William Street to the east, North Terrace to
the south and Montefiore Road to the west.
The Adelaide Festival Centre car park is located on the subject site and has approximately 300 existing car
parking spaces.
The existing car park is accessed via Festival Drive which is one-way only (westbound). Access to Festival
Drive is currently via a signalised intersection with King William Street. Egress from the car park and
Festival Drive into the external road network is via either Station Road or Montefiore Road.
The indicative site location for the proposed car park is shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Festival Square Car Park – Site Location
Source: http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/

Car Park Assessment
2 Proposed Car Park
A total of 1656 car parking spaces are proposed over 5 basement levels:
Basement level 1 – 240 spaces.
The proposed car park layout is shown in Appendix B.
Based on advice from Walker Corporation and Bates Smart Architects, the current allocation of the 1656
spaces between Festival Square site users is shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Car Park Allocation

Festival Square Site Users Car Park Allocation
Casino (Skycity) General 687
Casino (Skycity) Valet 63
Adelaide Festival Centre (AFC) 300
Parliament (Secure) 46
Parliament (Non-Secure) 54
Walker (Public and Commercial) 506
Total 1656
The specific locality of car parking for separate site users across each basement level is to be determined
at future design stages.
2.1 Car Park Access
The proposed car park will be accessed from Festival Drive which is being upgraded to a two-way road as
part of the overall Festival Square redevelopment.
Access to Festival Drive will be via an upgraded signalised intersection with King William Street and via left
in / left out give-way controlled intersections at Montefiore Road. Refer to the GTA TIA for a detailed
assessment of the proposed intersection.
Station Road will be closed to through traffic between North Terrace and Festival Drive to accommodate
the proposed redevelopment. Access to Station Road will remain from North Terrace for drop-off, pick-up
and limited access to the car park associated with the Casino valet.
2.2 Car Park Operation
The main car park entry and exit is via basement level 2 and requires a minimum of 2 entry and 2 exit
lanes (refer Section 3.1).

Car Park Assessment
The car park entry and exit lanes will be controlled with a boom gates and is anticipated to include the
latest access technology for service efficiency.
Of the 100 parliament spaces, an alternate entry and exit is proposed for 46 secure, parliament spaces on
Basement Level 2. This is anticipated to be controlled by swipe card access.
A separate access to the car park is also proposed from Station Road for the Casino valet. The ramp is a
single lane which is required to facilitate two-way movement. Therefore traffic signal control will be required
to ensure safe vehicle movement and access.

Car Park Assessment
3 Car Park Assessment
This section provides an assessment of traffic generated by the car park, car park and loading bay access
and general compliance with relevant standards.
The following standards are applicable to the car parking assessment:

Australian / New Zealand Standard 2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part 1 – Off-Street Car Parking.
Australian / New Zealand Standard 2890.6:2009 Off-Street Car Parking for People with Disabilities.
Australian / New Zealand Standard 2890.2:2002 Off-Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities.
ACC Development Plan (Consolidated September 2015).
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths.
3.1 Stakeholder Data
Mott MacDonald has liaised with relevant stakeholders in regards to the likely vehicle flows in the AM and
PM peak hours generated by specific site users at the proposed car park entry and exit.
The following data has been obtained relevant to specific site user peaks, as per Table 3.1:
Table 3.1: Stakeholder Data

Data Received AM (8-9am uno.) PM (5-6pm uno.) Other Peaks
Casino From Aurecon on behalf 79 in 111 in During 8-9PM (total of 357
of Skycity via email 20 out 99 out vehicles predominately
correspondence on 17 inbound) and during12-1AM
November 2015 (total of 288 vehicles
predominantly outbound).
Volumes do not coincide
with other land use peaks
and are therefore not an
issue
Parliament From Mott MacDonald 80% of capacity in 10% of capacity in Nil
on behalf of Government 10% of capacity out 80% of capacity out
via email
correspondence on 17 Peak hour 7:00AM Peak hour 6:00PM –
November 2015 – 8:00AM 7:00PM
Adelaide From Mott MacDonald 10% of capacity in 30% of capacity in 100% during shows 6- 7PM
Festival Centre on behalf of Government 10% of capacity out 20% of capacity out and 10– 11PM
via email High entry and exit occurs
correspondence on 17 during afternoon shows
November 2015 typically 1PM or 3 PM starts
As the stated peaks from the stakeholders occur at different times, the following assumptions have been
applied to assess coincident peaks:
Stated peak hours for Parliament are 7 -8 AM and 6 - 7PM. To make an allowance for vehicles in the
network and carpark peaks, portions (40/20/10%) of their capacity has also been applied for the other
peaks, as illustrated in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.
Stated peak hour for the Adelaide Festival Centre is 6-7PM and 10-11PM. To make an allowance for
vehicles in the network and carpark peaks, portions (50/30/20/10%) of their capacity has also been
applied for the other peaks, as illustrated in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.

Car Park Assessment
3.2 Car Park Access
3.2.1 Car Park Service Rate
The service rate (the number of vehicles that a car park control point can cater for per hour) influences
both the number of entry and exit points and the car park queuing area required.
A maximum capacity of 300 vehicles/lane/hour for boom gate car park control points is specified within
AS/NZS 2890.1:2004. This is understood to be based on older technology such as paper ticket issuing
technology.
However, 400 vehicles/lane/hour is considered a more likely capacity for a newly developed car park with
recent technology that improves processing speed of boom gates offering higher throughput capacity. This
can include both vehicle number plate recognition and swipe card access.
This increased throughput is supported by information provided to Mott MacDonald by AGD Systems (car
park technology supplier). AGD Systems advised that recent technology, a higher throughput capacity can
be achieved and this would typically equate to a throughput of 450 vehicles/lane/hour.
Increased throughput is also supported by the user type of this type of facility, which will generally be day
to day users whom are familiar with the operating system.
As such a capacity of 400 vehicles/lane/hour has been adopted for this assessment.
3.2.2 Peak Hour Entry and Exit Flows
Entry and exit vehicle flows calculated for separate site users in the AM and PM peak hours is shown in
Table 3.2.
Calculated vehicle flows are based on the data presented in Section 3.1.

Car Park Assessment
Table 3.2: Car Park Vehicle Flows – AM (8-9) and PM (5-6) Peak Hour
AM PM
AM In AM In AM AM PM In PM In PM PM
Car Park Allocation Out Out
% Veh Out % Total % Veh Out % Total
Veh Veh
Casino
687 11% 79 3% 20 16% 111 14% 99
(Skycity)
Adelaide
Festival 300 10% 30 10% 30 30% 90 20% 60
Centre (AFC)
Parliament
54 40% 22 10% 6 10% 6 40% 22
(Non-Secure)
Walker
(Public and 506 90% 456 10% 51 75% 380 80% 405
Commercial)
Totals 1547 587 107 694 587 586 1173
46 spaces for Parliament have been removed from the table above as there is a separate dedicated entry
and exit lane for the proposed secure area.
63 spaces for the Casino have been removed from the table above as there is a separate dedicated entry
and exit lane for valet parking. This area is now isolated from the main body of the carpark (however,
alternate options are still being considered).
Table 3.3: Car Park Vehicle Flows – Evening peak (8-9pm)

Eve
Car Park Allocation Eve In % Eve In Veh Eve Out % Eve Out Veh
Total
Casino (Skycity) 687 52% 357 10% 69
Adelaide Festival Centre
300 30% 100 50% 150
(AFC)
Parliament (Non-Secure) 54 20% 11 20% 11
Walker (Public and
506 20% 101 20% 101
Commercial)
Totals 1547 569 331 900
As per Table 3.2 and Table 3.3, the car park is forecast to generate 694 vehicles in the AM peak and 1173
vehicles in the PM peak. Of this:
587 vehicles enter the car park in the AM.
107 vehicles exit the car park in the AM.
587 vehicles enter the car park in the PM.
586 vehicles exit the car park in the PM.
569 vehicles enter the car park 8-9PM
331 vehicles exit the car park 8-9PM
Based on a service rate of 400 vehicles/lane/hour and the vehicle flows in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3, a
minimum of 2 entry and 2 exit lanes are required for the car park.

Car Park Assessment
3.2.3 Car Park Queuing - Main Entry
A queuing analysis has been undertaken for the basement level 2 main car park entry lanes. A
spreadsheet model has been developed factoring a service rate of 400 vehicles/lane/hour and peak hour
arrival rates.
As per Table 3.4, the model indicates that inbound and outbound car park queueing will not exceed 54m at
the 95% confidence level.
Table 3.4: Queueing Model

Model Input AM In AM Out PM IN PM Out
Service rate
400 400 400 400
(vehicle/lane/hour)
Total arrival rate
566 181 423 536
(veh/hour)
No. of entry / exit
2 2 2 2
lanes
Arrival per lane
294 54 217 293
(assume 50 / 50 split)
Model Output AM In AM Out PM IN PM Out
Total no. of cars in
9 1 4 9
queue per lane
Queue length per
54m 6m 24m 54m
lane
Confidence level that
queue will not exceed 95% 98% 95% 95%
stated length
A cross check has also been undertaken for inbound queueing in the AM (worst case) considering the
proportional improvement in vehicle service rate from 300 veh/lane/hour to 400 veh/lane/hour.
As per Table 3.5, the cross check indicates that the minimum space required for vehicle queueing at each
entry lane for the car park is 42m.
Table 3.5: Queuing at Main Car Park Entry – Basement Level 2

Item AS.2890.1 (300 veh/lane/hour) New Technology (400 veh/lane/hour)
Total Car Park Capacity 1,547 1,547
Queue - 1st 100 cars 3.0 2.3
Queue - 2nd 100 cars 2.0 1.5
Queue - Remaining Cars 13.5 10.1
Total Queue (cars) 19.0 14.0
No. lanes 2 2
Queue/lane (cars) 10 7
Queue/lane (m) 60 42

Car Park Assessment
Note: It is assumed that peak hour in-flow of traffic is <75% of capacity in the AM peak (refer AS
2980.1:2004) based on vehicle flow calculations in Table 3.2.
As per Appendix B there is approximately 55m of queuing space available per entry lane, subject to the
final location of car park control points and the design of Festival Drive.
55m is considered sufficient to cater for anticipated vehicle flows during the AM peak without the queue
extending to and blocking through movements on Festival Drive.
As per Appendix B there is approximately 30m available on the western exit lane and 60m available on the
eastern exit lane, vehicle queues will not extend to and block the exit ramp during typical peak hour.
Car park boom gates will need to operate alternatively to cater for both inbound merging into the car park
and outbound merging onto Festival Drive.
3.2.4 Car Park Queuing – Secure Parliament Entry
A minimum provision for the queuing of 2 cars (12m) is also required at the 48 space secure parliament car
park entry as per AS / NZS 2890.1:2004.
This is to cater for the entry of all vehicles within a 30 minute period (worst case) and to ensure that no
vehicles block Festival Drive or the main car park entry / exit.
3.3 Compliance with Australian Standards
3.3.1 Off Street Car Parking
The proposed car parking arrangement will be designed in accordance with AS / NZS 2890.1:2004.
At high level the following provisions are relevant to the car park design:
All car parking bays are to be designed in accordance with user class 2 (long term city and town centre
parking, sports facilities and entertainment centres) which requires minimum parking bay dimensions of
o
2.5m x 5.4m, with a 5.8m aisle for 90 parking.
All car parking bays are to meet the required design envelope to be kept clear of columns walls and
obstructions.
To permit access for cars and vans the minimum height clearance from floor to overheard obstructions
will be 2.2m.
Wheelstops will be provided to limit the travel of vehicles when manoeuvring into a parking space with
placement of wheelstops to comply with relevant specifications within AS / NZ 2890.1:2004.
Ramp gradients and height clearance are to be designed and checked at the detailed design stage in
accordance with AS / NZ 2890.1:2004 for cars and AS / NZS 2890.2:2002 for commercial vehicles.
The existing internal car park circulation ramp has been designed to 1:16 (6.25%) as car parking is
provided along the ramp.

Car Park Assessment
At blind aisles, the aisle shall be extended 1m past the last parking space. If the last space is bounded
by a wall or fence it shall be widened by 300mm.
A maximum of 6 spaces shall be provided along a blind aisle for areas open to the public, unless
provision is made for vehicle turnaround.
If parallel car parking spaces are proposed they will need to be designed to min 6.6m length for a 6.0m
aisle or 6.4m for a 6.6m aisle if there are column obstructions at each end of the space. The spaces
will need to be a width of 2.1m and offset 300mm from the adjacent wall.
Based on a high level assessment of the drawings in Appendix B, the existing proposed car park layout
design generally complies with the requirements stated above.
3.3.2 Reserved Car Parking
Reserved car parking is required for persons with disabilities. As stipulated in Building Code of Australia
(BCA), 2% of total yield is required for reserved parking which equates to a minimum requirement of 31
reserved accessible spaces for the proposed car park.
10 reserved accessible car parking spaces are located on basement level 1 and 22 reserved accessible
spaces are located on basement level 2. The reserved parking is located in convenient locations, in close
proximity to lift cores.
An additional 5 reserved spaces are located in the secure parliament parking area.
The design and provision of these spaces comply with the minimum requirements as specified within
AS/NZS 2890.6:2009 which requires minimum dimensions for a reserved space of 2.4m x 5.4m with an
associated shared space (including a bollard).
It should also be ensured that the required headroom above each dedicated shared space is a minimum of
2.5m as per AS/NZS 2890.6:2009.
3.3.3 Car Park Turn Paths
Refer to Appendix A for preliminary vehicle turn paths of the proposed car park.
The design vehicle for the turn path analysis is a B99 car (5.2m length).
The following is noted in relation to the turn path analysis:
Basement level 1:
Trim kerbing to match vehicle wheel paths (300mm clearance).
Basement level 2:
Two-way vehicle flow at the main car park entry and exit is facilitated through the design by avoiding
overlap (requiring either vehicle to give-way) of vehicles travelling in opposing directions. This will

Car Park Assessment
improve vehicle flow in / out of the car park and reduce potential for vehicle / vehicle conflicts. This is
particularly important for the PM where entry / exit volumes have a 50 / 50 split.
Linemarking for inbound merging will be required at the car park entry and exit.
Trim kerbing to match vehicle wheel paths (300mm clearance).
Basement level 3, 4 and 5:

Turnaround required at end of central blind aisles due to the location of the central columns.
No kerbing is required in aisles adjacent the internal ramps with no columns (7.8m aisle sufficient).
A final compliance check of the car park layout will be undertaken at future detailed design stages.
3.3.4 Sight Distance
Sight distance is to be checked at the detailed design stage based on the concept road layout of Festival
Drive in accordance with Austroads guidelines.
3.4 Loading Bay and Turn Paths
A shared loading bay is proposed for the casino, retail loading, commercial loading and parliament loading.
The loading bay access is also via Festival Drive on basement level 2.
Walker Corporation has confirmed that the design vehicle for the shared loading bay is an 8.8m medium
rigid vehicle (MRV).
As per the turn path analysis in Appendix A, the commercial and parliament loading bay has been
designed to cater for the simultaneous loading of 8n MRV’s and 1no. 6.4m small rigid vehicle (SRV). The
service areas provide minimum dimensions of 3.5m x 6.4m for an SRV and 3.5m x 8.8m for an MRV.
Minimum manoeuvring clearances as specified within section 5.4 of AS 2890.2-2002 are achieved (300mm
clearance (600mm desirable) on either side of an MRV when entering or leaving a service bay).
A height clearance of 4.5m is required for the loading bay to cater for MRV access.
Waste collection will also be from the loading bay, with waste collection vehicles no larger than an 8.8m
MRV permitted to access the loading bay.
The Casino section of the loading bay has not been assessed as it is not within the scope of this report.
3.5 Bicycle Parking
In accordance with the ACC Development Plan, bicycle parking provision for a ‘multi-level car parking
station’ should be equivalent to 5% of the total car park yield.
Based on a total car parking provision of 1658 spaces, this equates to a minimum requirement of 83
bicycle parking spaces.

Car Park Assessment
In addition, if any there are any employees required for the proposed car park, the ACC development plan
stipulates that 1 bicycle parking space per 20 employees shall be provided.
Bicycle end of trip parking facilities are provided on basement level 1 with provision for 227 bicycles with a
further 100 bike parking spaces on basement levels 3 and 4 which meets the requirements stipulated in
the ACC development plan. Bicycle parking provision is currently being reviewed based on space
allocation.
It is noted that the requirement of 83 bicycle parking spaces does not consider other land uses associated
with other site users.
Access to the office bicycle parking is provided by a short set of steps with bike wheeling ramp followed by
ramps at less than 1:10 which meets the recommendations for cyclists based on advice in Austroads
Guide to Road Design part 6A. Alternatively the office building shuttle lift can be used. The end of trip
facilities are located adjacent to the bicycle parking.
3.6 Pedestrians
It is understood that there will be no footpath provided along Festival Drive (north or south kerb).
Pedestrians from the car park will access the plaza above via lifts or stairs provided internally.

Car Park Assessment
4 Summary
Based on the car park assessment:

The proposed car park layout complies with relevant Australian Standards. A final assessment of
internal car park and loading bay compliance with relevant Australian Standards is to be undertaken at
future detailed design stages.
The main car park entry requires two entry and two exit lanes on basement level 2 with boom gate
control based on the calculated vehicle arrival and flow rates.
The proposed car park entry and exit layout provides sufficient space to accommodate anticipated
vehicle queuing at the main car entry and exit on basement level 2 during typical peak times without
queues extending to and blocking Festival Drive.
A minimum queuing length of 12m is provided at the secure parliament car park entry to avoid regular
queueing onto Festival Drive.
The provision of 32 reserved spaces for persons with disabilities and 327 bicycle parking spaces is
sufficient for the proposed car park based on the provisions stipulated in the Building Code of Australia
and the ACC Development Plan.
Vehicle turn path modelling in Appendix A indicates that suitable access is provided in the car park for
a B99 car and in the loading bay for an 8.8m MRV.

Car Park Assessment
Appendices
Appendix A. Preliminary Turn Paths ______________________________________________________________ 15

Appendix B. Proposed Car Park _________________________________________________________________ 16

Car Park Assessment
Appendix A. Preliminary Turn Paths

Check all dimensions and site conditions prior to commencement of any work, the
purchase or ordering of any materials, fittings, plant, services or equipment and the
preparation of shop drawings and/or the fabrication of any components.
R.L. +31.45
All drawings to be read in conjunction with all architectural documents and all other
PUBLIC LIFTS
consultants documents.
AFC DROP OFF

Do not scale drawings - refer to figured dimensions only. Any discrepancies shall
immediately be referred to the architect for clarification.
FFL +30.00
All drawings may not be reproduced or distributed without prior permission from the
architect.
FFL +31.45
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
e.R.L +28.50
Turning Bay
FESTIVAL
CENTRE
LOADING
R.L. +30.00
DOCK
e.R.L +29.00
min 12m COMMS
required for Turning Bay
vehicle
queueing at
R.L. +29.50
EG
R
entry
ES
S
R
O
U
TE
RAMP TO STANDARD PUBLIC PARKING
LOWERED
ROAD RL +30.000 m
Standard parking spaces: 128

CARPARK
EGRESS
Accessible parking spaces: 22
R.L. +29.70
SWITCHROOM
CARPARK/ RETAIL/
ENTRY /
Public Realm 4
OFFICE
51sqm
Comms Rm EXIT
20 sqm
PARLIAMENT PARKING
R.L. +30.00
PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT
EXIT ENTRY
MAIN
SWITCH
CARPARK/
RETAIL Mott MacDonald T: +61 8 7325 7325
Parliament parking spaces: 43
70sqm
22 King William Street W: www.mottmac.com Accessible parking spaces: 5
R.L +29.900
RAMP Adelaide, SA 5000

Australia
STATION ENTRY UP
SAPN
SUBSTATION Project Project No 339869
150sqm
Festival Square Scale As shown
Sketch Title Drawn Checked Approved
TOTAL PARKING SPACES: 198
SECURITY
Traffic - Preliminary Assessment DH RS CH

B2 Turn Path Check - B99
UP Date 03/12/2015
Sketch Number Status Rev
RSD RSD RSD 338869-T-SK-0001 PRE P2
MAIN
SWITCH
OFFICE SECURE PARLIAMENT
70sqm RAMP
PARKING
DOWN
48 SPACES
Design Vehicle - B99 Car as
ALLOCATED PARKING
6 SPACES
per AS/NZS 2890.1:2004

SRV 6.4m
PUBLIC LIFTS
P
ACCESS ROUTE TO PARLIAMENT HOUSE

P
MRV 8.8m
CASINO LOADING
UP
RETAIL
RETAIL STORE /
LIFTS
GARBAGE G
RETAIL
LOADING
G
EXHAUST
RISER
64 sqm
01 16.10.15 PRE LODGEMENT PANEL PC MLS
PLANT
00 16.09.15 FOR COORDINATION PC MLS
COMMERCIAL STORE / Revision Date Description Initial Checked
GARBAGE
Formal shared COMMERCIAL

GREASE
ARRESTOR COMMERCIAL
SHUTTLE
Adelaide Riverbank Precinct

RETAIL
LOADING LOBBY
area required Median / kerb to be trimmed as shared area

for accessible PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT P per green wheel paths shown
PARLIAMENT HOUSE required for Walker Festival Square
HOUSE STORE / HOUSE SECURITY PASSENGER / GOODS
space GARBAGE SECURITY CHECK

(minimum 300mm clearance to
LIFT
accessible Level B2 Masterplan
PARLIAMENT
obstructions required). space
LOADING
PLANT PLANT GREASE
74 sqm 34 sqm ARRESTOR Scale
33 sqm
Refer: 1:400 @ A1 / 1:800 @ A3
Drawn Checked
Inbound Project No.

merging to be S11945
Status
controlled by Preliminary
Plot Date
alternate boom 3/12/2015 2:08 PM
gate operation Plot File
P:\Adelaide\SAN\Projects\338869\04 Working\02 Documents\02 ...
... Structural, Civil, Traffic\T-R001\4. Turn Paths\2015_12_03\A0
Drawing No. [Revision]
00
A02.B2[X]_MM_20151203
1 Nicholson Street 43 Brisbane Street
Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia
T 03 8664 6200 F 03 8664 6300 T 02 8354 5100 F 02 8354 5199
email melb@batessmart.com.au email syd@batessmart.com.au
http://www.batessmart.com.au http://www.batessmart.com.au
Pty Ltd ABN 68 094 740 986
BATE MA T TM
R.L. +31.45
PUBLIC LIFTS
AFC DROP OFF

FFL +30.00
architect.
FFL +31.45
e.R.L +28.50
FESTIVAL
CENTRE PARKING SUMMARY TOTAL
LOADING
DOCK
VOID B1 parking spaces: 225
R.L. +30.00
e.R.L +29.00
Outline of air intake over
PLANT
177 sqm
B2 parking spaces: 198

Turning Bay
R.L. +29.50
PLANT
Total Parking Spaces: 1512

VOID
RL +30.000 m
WATER FEATURE
R.L. +29.70
PLANT
VOID 196 sqm
STANDARD PUBLIC PARKING
AIR SUPPLY PLENUM
R.L. +30.00

R.L +29.900
Mott MacDonald T: +61 8 7325 7325

VOID
RAMP
22 King William Street
Adelaide, SA 5000
W: www.mottmac.com CASINO PARKING
UP Australia
Project Project No 339869 Valet parking spaces: 52

Sketch Title
Traffic - Preliminary Assessment
Drawn Checked Approved
DH RS CH
B1 Turn Path Check - B99
Date 03/12/2015
338869-T-SK-0003 PRE P1
CASINO VALET PARKING
(52 SPACES NOM.)
PUBLIC LIFTS
P
PUBLIC LIFTS
CASINO LOADING
P
BELOW
UP Turning Bay
Turning Bay
136 bikes
COMMERCIAL G
LOADING EXHAUST
RISER
BELOW END OF TRIP FACILITIES 64 sqm

263 Lockers Revision Date Description Initial Checked
1:5 RAMP
17 bikes
RETAIL
RAMP
LOADING Median / kerb to be trimmed or Formal shared Adelaide Riverbank Precinct

BELOW
chevron linemarking to be area required Walker Festival Square
provided as per green wheel
P
for accessible
UP PARLIAMENT HOUSE
UP PASSENGER / GOODS
LIFT
Level B1 Masterplan
paths shown (minimum 300mm space
PARLIAMENT
LOADING
clearance to obstructions
BELOW 98 bikes
required). Scale
1:400 @ A1 / 1:800 @ A3
Drawn Checked
BIKE
Traffic signal STORE 252 Refer: Project No.
S11945
control Status
Male Female Preliminary
Plot Date
3/12/2015 12:14 PM
Plot File
00
A02.B1[X]_MM_20151203
T 03 8664 6200 F 03 8664 6300 T 02 8354 5100 F 02 8354 5199
Pty Ltd ABN 68 094 740 986
BATE MA T TM
Turnaround space Median / kerb not
required due to required in aisle with no
obstructed end aisle columns
R.L. +31.45
PUBLIC LIFTS
AFC DROP OFF

FFL +30.00
architect.
FFL +31.45
e.R.L +28.50
Turning Bay
FESTIVAL
CENTRE
LOADING
R.L. +30.00
DOCK
e.R.L +29.00
COMMS
Turning Bay
R.L. +29.50
EG
R
ES
S
R
O
U
TE
RAMP TO STANDARD PUBLIC PARKING
LOWERED
ROAD RL +30.000 m

CARPARK
EGRESS
R.L. +29.70
SWITCHROOM
CARPARK/ RETAIL/
ENTRY /
Public Realm 4
OFFICE
51sqm
Comms Rm EXIT
20 sqm
PARLIAMENT PARKING
R.L. +30.00
PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT
EXIT ENTRY
MAIN
SWITCH
CARPARK/
RETAIL Mott MacDonald T: +61 8 7325 7325
Parliament parking spaces: 43
70sqm
22 King William Street W: www.mottmac.com Accessible parking spaces: 5
R.L +29.900
RAMP Adelaide, SA 5000

Australia
STATION ENTRY UP
SAPN
SUBSTATION Project Project No 339869
150sqm
Sketch Title Drawn Checked Approved
SECURITY
Traffic - Preliminary Assessment DH RS CH

B2 Turn Path Check - MRV
UP Date 03/12/2015
RSD RSD RSD 338869-T-SK-0002 PRE P2
MAIN
SWITCH
OFFICE SECURE PARLIAMENT
70sqm
PARKING
RAMP
DOWN
Design Vehicle - MRV as
48 SPACES
ALLOCATED PARKING
per AS 2890.2:2002
6 SPACES
SRV 6.4m
PUBLIC LIFTS
P
ACCESS ROUTE TO PARLIAMENT HOUSE

P
MRV 8.8m
CASINO LOADING
UP
RETAIL
RETAIL STORE /
LIFTS
GARBAGE G
RETAIL
LOADING
G
EXHAUST
RISER
64 sqm
PLANT
00 16.09.15 FOR COORDINATION PC MLS
COMMERCIAL STORE / Revision Date Description Initial Checked
GARBAGE
GREASE
COMMERCIAL ARRESTOR COMMERCIAL
SHUTTLE
LOADING
RETAIL
LOBBY
Design Vehicle - SRV as Walker Festival Square
PARLIAMENT P
per AS 2890.2:2002
PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE
HOUSE STORE / HOUSE SECURITY PASSENGER / GOODS
GARBAGE SECURITY CHECK LIFT
Level B2 Masterplan
PARLIAMENT
LOADING
PLANT PLANT GREASE
74 sqm 34 sqm ARRESTOR Scale
33 sqm 1:400 @ A1 / 1:800 @ A3
Drawn Checked
Project No.
S11945
Status
Preliminary
Plot Date
3/12/2015 3:54 PM
Plot File
00
A02.B2[X]_MM_20151203
T 03 8664 6200 F 03 8664 6300 T 02 8354 5100 F 02 8354 5199
Pty Ltd ABN 68 094 740 986
BATE MA T TM
Car Park Assessment
Appendix B. Proposed Car Park

Public Realm Upgrade
Transport Impact Assessment
Client // ARM Architecture
Office // SA
Reference // 15A1248000
Date // 02.12.15
Public Realm Upgrade
Transport Impact Assessment
Document No. SD-TRA-0100

Issue: D 02.12.15
Client: ARM Architecture

Reference: 15A1248000
GTA Consultants Office: SA
Quality Record
Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed
A 19.11.15 Final Sam Adams Paul Morris Paul Morris PMO
B 23.11.15 Final – amended Sam Adams Paul Morris Paul Morris PMO
Final – further
C 25.11.15 Sam Adams Paul Morris Paul Morris PMO
amendments
D 02.12.15 Final Sam Adams Paul Morris Paul Morris
© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (SA) Pty Ltd) 2015

TIA Report - SA (150630 v1.8)
The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has
been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as
being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in Melbourne | Sydney | Brisbane
whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants
constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property
Canberra | Adelaide | Perth
contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants. Gold Coast | Townsville
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose of this Report 1
1.3 References 1
2. Existing Conditions 3
2.1 Subject Site 3
2.2 Road Network 4
2.3 Transport Studies 9
2.4 Car Parking 10
2.5 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 10
3. Development Proposal 13
3.1 Proposal 13
3.2 Adjacent Developments 13
3.3 Vehicle Access 14
3.4 Bicycle Facilities 14
3.5 Pedestrian Facilities 15
3.6 Loading Areas 15
4. Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 16

4.1 Bicycle Facilities 16
4.2 Pedestrian Facilities 17
4.3 Public Transport 17
5. Loading and Refuse Collection 18

5.1 Development Plan Requirements 18
5.2 Proposed Loading Arrangements 18
5.3 Emergency Service Vehicle Access 19
5.4 Event Loading Vehicle Access 19
6. Traffic Impact Assessment 20

6.1 Traffic Generation 20
6.2 Traffic Impact 26
6.3 Mitigating Measures and Intersection Works 31
6.4 Event Traffic Management 31
6.5 Construction Traffic Impact 31
7. Conclusion 32
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Transport Impact Assessment // Issue: D
Adelaide Riverbank Precinct, Public Realm Upgrade
Appendices
A: Swept Path Assessment – Access to Loading Areas
B: Swept Path Assessment – King William Road / Festival Drive Intersection
C: Swept Path Assessment – Emergency Service Vehicle Access to Station Road
D: Swept Path Assessment – Access to SkyCity Valet
E: Swept Path Assessment – Loading Vehicle Access to Plaza
Figures
Figure 2.1: Subject Site and its Environs 3
Figure 2.2: Montefiore Road / Festival Drive Intersection – Existing Volumes 6
Figure 2.3: King William Road / Festival Drive Intersection – Existing Volumes 6
Figure 2.4: Station Road / North Terrace Intersection 6
Figure 2.5: Existing Number of Pedestrians Crossing at Festival Drive / King William Road
Intersection 8
Figure 2.6: Existing Number of Cyclists Crossing at Festival Drive / King William Road
Intersection 8
Figure 2.7: Crashes Adjacent Subject Site 9
Figure 2.8: Public Transport Map 10
Figure 4.1: River Torrens Linear Park Bicycle Channel 16
Figure 4.2: European Example of a Bicycle Channel 16
Figure 6.1: Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – King William Road / Festival Dr
Intersection 25
Figure 6.2: Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Festival Drive / Montefiore
Road Intersection 26
Figure 6.3: Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Station Road / North Terrace
Intersection 26
Figure 6.4: Proposed Future Intersection Layout – Festival Drive / King William Road
Intersection 27
Tables
Table 2.1: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – Existing Operating Conditions in
AM Peak 7
Table 2.2: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – Existing Operating Conditions in
PM Peak 7
Table 2.3: Crash Data (2010-2014) Festival Drive and Station Road 9
Table 6.1: SkyCity Friday Two-Way Traffic Generation Estimates (Festival Drive) 20
Table 6.2: SkyCity Friday Peak Hour Traffic Generation Estimates 20
Table 6.3: Adelaide Festival Centre Weekday Traffic Generation Estimates 21
Table 6.4: Parliament Weekday Traffic Generation Estimates 21
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Table 6.5: Commercial Weekday Traffic Generation Estimates 22
Table 6.6: Public Parking Weekday Traffic Estimates 22
Table 6.7: Convention Centre Car Park Weekday Traffic Estimates (Festival Drive) 23
Table 6.8: Anticipated Heavy Vehicle Movements for Each Adjoining Land Use 23
Table 6.9: Festival Drive Combined Weekday Traffic Estimates 24
Table 6.10: Festival Drive / King William Road Intersection – AM Peak – Post
Development 28
Table 6.11: Festival Drive / King William Road Intersection – PM Peak – Post
Development 28
Table 6.12: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – AM Peak – Post
Development 30
Table 6.13: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – PM Peak – Post Development 30
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
1. Introduction
1
1.1 Background
The Adelaide Riverbank Precinct is an important cultural, recreational and entertainment
precinct for Adelaide and South Australia that stretches from Gilberton in the east through to
Bonython Park and Bowden in the north-west.
In recent years there have been a number of significant projects completed or commenced
within the precinct, including the Adelaide Oval upgrade, the Convention Centre upgrade,
construction of the new SAHMRI and RAH buildings, construction of new buildings for the
University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide and the construction of the Torrens
River footbridge. These projects have assisted in reinvigorating the precinct and as a result have
triggered further private investment in the area.
To further enhance the area as a premier space for Adelaide it is proposed to upgrade the
existing plaza area between Adelaide Festival Centre and Parliament House. It is envisaged that
the plaza will be transformed into a world class destination at the heart of the Riverbank Precinct
and become Adelaide’s best public space. This space will enhance the proposed development
of a multi-storey car park, office tower and retail buildings adjacent Parliament House, revision of
the Adelaide Festival Centre buildings and surrounds, and expansion by SkyCity Casino.
An upgrade of Festival Drive and Station Road is proposed to support the surrounding
development and uses.
The proposed upgrade includes changes to the existing plaza to better provide for pedestrians
and cyclists and improve traffic circulation through the precinct on Festival Drive. On this basis,
GTA Consultants has been commissioned by ARM Architecture to undertake a transport impact
assessment of the Festival Drive and Station Road upgrades.
1.2 Purpose of this Report

This report sets out an assessment of the anticipated transport implications of the proposed
development, including consideration of the following:
i existing traffic, pedestrian and cycling conditions within and surrounding the site;
ii proposed access arrangements for the site for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;
iii proposed circulation through the site for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;
iv traffic generation characteristics of the existing and proposed adjoining land uses;
v loading and refuse collection arrangements for the existing and proposed adjoining
land uses;
vi transport impact of the development proposal on the surrounding road network.
1.3 References
In preparing this report, reference has been made to the following:
 Adelaide (City) Development Plan – Consolidated 24 September 2015
 The City of Adelaide Smart Move Transport and Movement Strategy 2012-22
 Australian Standard/ New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 1: Off-Street Car
Parking AS/NZS 2890.1:2004
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
1 Adelaide Riverbank Precinct, Public Realm Upgrade
 Australian Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 2: Off-Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities
AS 2890.2:2002
 Australian Standard / New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 6: Off-Street Parking
for People with Disabilities AS/NZS 2890.6:2009
 Austroads Guide to Road Design
 plans for the proposed development prepared by ARM Architecture
 traffic surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants as referenced in the context of this report
 traffic generation and parking information provided by key stakeholders in the precinct
 various technical data as referenced in this report
 an inspection of the site and its surrounds
 other documents as nominated.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
2. Existing Conditions
2
2.1 Subject Site
The subject site generally consists of the public spaces and uses of the Adelaide Festival Centre
precinct including Festival Drive, Station Road and Festival Plaza which is bound by Parliament
House, King William Road and SkyCity Casino/Adelaide Railway Station.
The surrounding properties include a mix of recreational, commercial, retail and institutional land
uses. The Adelaide Festival Centre and Elder Park are located along the northern boundary of
the site, Parliament House is located along the southern boundary of the site, SkyCity Casino and
the Adelaide Railway Station are located along the western boundary of the site and King
William Road forms the eastern boundary of the site. A public car park containing approximately
300 spaces is located under Festival Plaza with access from Festival Drive.
Vehicular access to the site is currently via Station Road and Festival Drive from King William
Road, North Terrace and Montefiore Road. Access to a drop-off area for the Adelaide Festival
Centre is also available from King William Road.
The location of the subject site and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Subject Site and its Environs
(PhotoMap courtesy of NearMap Pty Ltd)
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
2.2 Road Network
2.2.1 Adjoining Roads

North Terrace
North Terrace is listed as a Primary City Access in the Adelaide (City) Development Plan and is
under the management of City of Adelaide. It is a two-way road aligned in an east-west
direction and configured with 2 lanes in each direction and a two-way centre of road tram
corridor.
Some kerbside parking is permitted along North Terrace but is generally limited to short term
loading. A Taxi Zone is located between Station Road and the entrance to the Railway Station.
A permit zone is located in front of Parliament.
North Terrace carries approximately 28,800 vehicles per day1 past the subject site and is subject
to the default built up urban area speed limit of 50km/h.
King William Road

King William Road is listed as a Primary City Access in the Adelaide (City) Development Plan and
is under the management of City of Adelaide. It is a two-way road aligned in a north-south
direction and configured with 3 lanes in each direction, including a wide kerbside lane to
accommodate buses.
Traffic signals exist at the entrance to the subject site from Festival Drive. Parking is generally
restricted along King William Road due to bus zones.
King William Road carries approximately 26,400 vehicles per day1 past the subject site and is
subject to the default built up urban area speed limit of 50km/h.
Festival Drive
Festival Drive is an access road that links between King William Road and Montefiore Road
through the Adelaide Festival Centre site. It is a one-way road (westbound) from King William
Road to Station Road, consisting of two westbound travel lanes. To the west of Station Road it is a
two-way road with a single lane in each direction.
Between King William Road and Station Road, Festival Drive is currently signed as a Shared Zone
with a 3 tonne load limit. Parking is generally restricted in this section of Festival Drive with the
exception of some disability parking and short term parking spaces along the northern side of
Festival Drive near the entrance to the Festival Centre car park.
Festival Drive provides access to the existing Festival Centre car park, the Convention Centre car
park and existing loading areas for the Intercontinental Hotel and Adelaide Festival Centre.
A Wombat Crossing exists on Festival Drive near the entrance to the Railway Station. Festival
Drive also provides access to the Adelaide Festival Centre loading area to the west of Station
Road.
Montefiore Road
Montefiore Road is listed as a Secondary City Access in the Adelaide (City) Development Plan
and is under the management of City of Adelaide. It is a two-way road aligned in a north-south
direction and configured with three lanes in each direction separated by a central median.
1 Based on the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure’s Annual Average Daily Traffic Estimates dated 14 September
2015
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Left in, left out access is provided to Festival Drive, with a link under Montefiore Road to access
the northbound carriageway. Montefiore Road is raised above North Terrace with no direct
connectivity to North Terrace.
Montefiore Road carries approximately 34,700 vehicles per day1 past the subject site and is
subject to the default built up urban area speed limit of 50km/h.
Station Road
Station Road is an access road which is aligned in an approximate north-south direction
connecting North Terrace and Festival Drive, and providing access to the Casino, Parliament and
portions of Festival Plaza. It is a two-way road, with one vehicle lane in each direction, except for
at the intersection of North Terrace where two lanes in each direction are provided.
Station Road is located within the Adelaide Festival Centre site and is not in a public road reserve.
At North Terrace level Station Road provides access to the SkyCity Casino valet and drop-
off/pickup area. A separate ramp to the east of the SkyCity drop-off/pick-up area takes Station
Road down to the level of Festival Drive within an enclosed tunnel.
Station Road is subject to a posted speed limit of 30km/h.
2.2.2 Surrounding Intersections

The following intersections currently exist in the vicinity of the site:
 Festival Drive / King William Road (signalised)
 Festival Drive / Montefiore Road (unsignalised)
 Station Road / North Terrace (signalised)
 Station Road / Festival Drive (unsignalised)
 King William Road / North Terrace (signalised).
2.2.3 Traffic Volumes

Traffic data was obtained from the Adelaide Festival Square Car Park Masterplan Design Report
prepared by C. Maragos & Associates in 2014 for Festival Drive and Station Road and also the
intersections of Station Road / North Terrace and Festival Drive / King William Road.
In addition, GTA Consultants has obtained turning movement data for the intersection of Festival
Drive / Montefiore Road during the following peak periods:
 Thursday 15 October 8:00am - 9:00am
 Thursday 15 October 5:00pm - 6:00pm.
The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 for the
intersections surveyed.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Figure 2.2: Montefiore Road / Festival Drive Figure 2.3: King William Road / Festival Drive
Intersection – Existing Volumes Intersection – Existing Volumes
Figure 2.4: Station Road / North Terrace Intersection
2.2.4 Intersection Operation

The operation of the intersection of Festival Drive and Montefiore Road has been assessed using
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.12, a computer based modelling package which calculates intersection
performance.
The commonly used measure of intersection performance is referred to as the Degree of

Saturation (DOS). The DOS represents the flow-to-capacity ratio for the most critical movement
on each leg of the intersection. For signalised intersections, a DOS of around 0.95 has been
typically considered the ‘ideal’ limit, beyond which queues and delays increase
disproportionately.
Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 present a summary of the existing operation of the intersection for the AM
and PM peak periods respectively, with full results presented in Appendix A of this report.
2 Program used under license from Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Table 2.1: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – Existing Operating Conditions in AM Peak
Degree of Average Delay 95th Percentile

Approach Direction Movement
Saturation (secs) Queue (metres)
Festival Drive (East) Left 0.092 13.4 2.1
Festival Drive (West) Left 0.012 6.3 0.3
Montefiore Road Left 0.580 4.7 0.0

(North) Through 0.580 0.1 0.0

(South) Through 0.251 0.0 0.0
Table 2.2: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – Existing Operating Conditions in PM Peak


Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 demonstrate that the existing intersection of Festival Drive / Montefiore
Road is operating at well below capacity with no notable queues or delays. The results of the
SIDRA assessment are consistent with on-site observations made by GTA.
As a result of the proposed development, the existing road connection between Station Road
and Festival Drive will be removed and only limited vehicular access to Station Road will be
permitted. The existing operation of the Station Road / North Terrace intersection has therefore
not been assessed. The anticipated future operation of this intersection is discussed later in this
report.
The existing intersection of Festival Drive / King William Road will also be modified to permit two-
way movements into Festival Drive from King William Road (currently one-way westbound).
Given this proposed change to the intersection the existing operation has not been assessed.
The anticipated future operation of the intersection is also discussed later in this report.
2.2.5 Pedestrian and Cyclist Volumes

GTA Consultants has surveyed the number of pedestrians and cyclists crossing at the existing
intersection of Festival Drive / King William Road during the following peak periods:
 Tuesday 10 November 2015 8:00am - 9:00am
 Tuesday 10 November 2015 5:00pm - 6:00pm.
The AM and PM peak hour pedestrian and cyclist volumes are shown in Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6
respectively.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Figure 2.5: Existing Number of Pedestrians Figure 2.6: Existing Number of Cyclists Crossing
Crossing at Festival Drive / King at Festival Drive / King William Road
William Road Intersection Intersection
GTA notes that the majority of pedestrians crossing King William Road on the southern side of the
intersection from east-west were accessing the bus stops to the south.
2.2.6 Crash Statistics

Crash data for the key roads and intersections within and adjoining the subject site have been
sourced from DPTI.
A summary of the crashes for the last available five year period (2010-2014) adjacent the subject
site is shown on Figure 2.7 below.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Figure 2.7: Crashes Adjacent Subject Site
GTA notes several crashes also occurred in this period on Festival Drive and Station Road and
these are summarised in Table 2.3 below. It is unclear the exact locations of the crashes listed
based on the data provided.
Table 2.3: Crash Data (2010-2014) Festival Drive and Station Road
Location Date Crash Type Severity

Festival Drive 16 July 2011 Hit Fixed Object PDO
Festival Drive 9 October 2010 Head On PDO
Festival Drive 20 May 2010 Hit Pedestrian Injury
Station Road 27 September 2013 Hit Fixed Object PDO
Station Road 7 February 2013 Hit Parked Vehicle PDO
Station Road 21 February 2011 Hit Parked Vehicle PDO
Station Road 19 September 2010 Hit Parked Vehicle Injury
Source: Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure
2.3 Transport Studies

The City of Adelaide Smart Move Transport and Movement Strategy 2012-22
The City of Adelaide Smart Move Transport and Movement Strategy 2012-22 sets the direction for
creating great streets and places for people; and making the City safer and easier to access for
all users.
The Strategy includes discussion and recommendations relating to the future role and function of
the roads adjoining the subject site and the connections for pedestrians and cyclists through the
site. These recommendations are discussed in further detail later in this report.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
2.4 Car Parking
The existing Adelaide Festival Centre car park will be demolished and replaced with a new and
expanded multi basement level car park to accommodate the future demands of the precinct.
The main access to the car park will be from Festival Drive with only limited access to the car park
being made available from Station Road for SkyCity valet vehicles.
This report has regard to the traffic generated by the proposed car park, however the car park
itself does not form part of this application and a detailed review of its design and operation has
not been included in this report. It is expected that these matters will be addressed by the
applicant for the car park.
2.5 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure
2.5.1 Public Transport

Figure 2.8 shows the subject site in relation to existing public transport routes.
Figure 2.8: Public Transport Map
As can be seen from Figure 2.8, in terms of public transport the subject site is one of the most
connected sites in metropolitan Adelaide with numerous high frequency bus services within
walking distance of the subject site. Bus stops are located on King William Road immediately
adjoining the site and further bus stops are located on North Terrace. GTA also notes that the
City Free bus service travels along King William Road past the site providing good connectivity to
the broader Adelaide CBD.
In addition to road based public transport, the site is located immediately adjacent to the
Adelaide Railway Station which is the main terminus within the Adelaide CBD for all of the major
metropolitan Adelaide passenger rail lines. The proposed development will improve connectivity
to the Adelaide Railway Station from the Riverbank to the north.
The Glenelg to Entertainment Centre tram line is also located immediately adjacent the site on
North Terrace with a tram stop located in front of the entrance to the Adelaide Railway Station.
The tram is free to use within the Adelaide CBD and through to the Entertainment Centre which
further enhances to public transport offerings to visitors to the precinct.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
2.5.2 Pedestrian Infrastructure
The existing precinct is generally well serviced by pedestrian infrastructure however the
development proposes to further enhance connections and provisions for pedestrians.
North Terrace
Pedestrian paths are located on both sides of North Terrace. In addition, signal controlled
pedestrian crossing facilities are available at the following locations near the site:
 Western side of Victoria Street intersection
 Entrance to the Adelaide Railway Station
 Western side of Station Road intersection
 North Terrace/King William Road intersection.
Station Road
Station Road currently has a footpath along its western edge only along the frontage of the
SkyCity building.
King William Road

Pedestrian paths are located on both sides of King William Road near the site. In addition, signal
controlled pedestrian crossing facilities are available at the following locations near the site:
 King William Road/North Terrace intersection
 King William Road/Festival Drive intersection
 King William Road/Victoria Drive intersection.
Festival Drive
Festival Drive is currently a shared zone at its eastern end from King William Road to Station Road.
Pedestrian paths are also generally located on either side of Festival Drive at its eastern end to
provide access to the Adelaide Festival Centre entrance.
To the west of Station Road there is limited provision for pedestrians as this section of Festival Drive
is primarily used as a service road and connection to the Convention Centre car park.
A pedestrian crossing is located on Festival Drive connecting the Adelaide Railway Station
entrance to the River Torrens Footbridge.
Riverbank Promenade
In addition to the pedestrian facilities on the adjoining road network, pedestrian paths are
located along the southern side of the River Torrens with connections provided into the subject
site.
2.5.3 Cycle Infrastructure

The River Torrens Linear Park RTLP trail is a shared use path network that generally follows the
alignment of the River Torrens and extends from the Adelaide foothills in the east to the River
Torrens coastal outlet to the west. Sections of the RTLP are located on both side of the River
Torrens near the subject site.
There are currently no formal bicycle lanes on North Terrace or King William Road adjoining the
site. However GTA understands that Adelaide City Council is proposing an off-road cycle path
along the western side of King William Road at some point in the future.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
It is noted however that cyclists are permitted to use footpaths following the recent introduction
of new regulations under the Road Traffic Act. Hence, cyclists will be able to use the footpaths
on King William Road and North Terrace unless signed otherwise by Adelaide City Council.
To the south of the site, Bank Street (and its connecting roads to the south) are identified as an
‘active’ north-south cross-city link for pedestrians and cyclists. Bank Street currently contains
contraflow bicycle lanes along its length.
There is currently no formal provision for cyclists along Station Road, with access available
through the existing tunnel on a narrow and steep carriageway. There is also no formal provision
for cyclists along Festival Drive.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
3. Development Proposal
3
3.1 Proposal
The proposed development includes:
 Upgrade and realignment of Festival drive to two-way traffic between SkyCity and King
William Road;
 Grade separation of Festival Drive under a pedestrian link between the Adelaide
Railway Station and the River Torrens footbridge, with a ramp to be located adjacent;
SkyCity northern frontage (which will be a new development separate to this
development);
 Provision of suitable manoeuvring space and access for semi-trailers to the Adelaide
Festival Centre loading dock (on its southern side);
 Relocated traffic signals on King William Road for Festival Drive;
 Closure of access by motor vehicles between Station Road and Festival Drive;
 Redevelopment of Station Road for limited vehicular access to SkyCity and access to
pedestrian areas.
Each of the components of the proposed development are discussed further in the following
sections.
3.2 Adjacent Developments
3.2.1 Car Park and Office Tower

The existing Festival Centre car park will be demolished and replaced with a new and expanded
multi basement level car park (1,538 spaces) to accommodate the future demands of the
precinct. The main access to the car park will be from Festival Drive with only limited access to
the car park being made available from Station Road for SkyCity Casino VIP guests and valet
service.
This report has regard to the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed car park, however the
car park itself does not form part of this application and a detailed review of the design and
operation of car park is not included in this report. These matters will be addressed by others as
part of the development application that contains the car park.
In addition, Walker Corporation is proposing the construction of new retail and commercial
buildings near the south-west corner of the Festival Plaza. These developments also do not form
part of this application but have been taken into consideration in preparing this report.
3.2.2 SkyCity Casino

SkyCity Casino is proposing an extension to the northern edge of the existing Casino that would
include new entertainment, gaming and hotel areas. Limited vehicular access to SkyCity will be
retained from Station Road with a new pick-up/drop-off for SkyCity to be provided at Festival
Drive level.
This report has regard to the access requirements and estimated traffic generation of SkyCity
however the extension works do not form part of this application.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
3.3 Vehicle Access
The proposed development will provide primary vehicle access points to the precinct, including
for heavy vehicles, from King William Road and Montefiore Road.
Vehicular access to the precinct will be available from Station Road however access will be
limited to authorised SkyCity vehicles and emergency service vehicles only. The ability for these
vehicles to navigate the upgraded Station Road is demonstrated in Appendix D and Appendix C
respectively.
The construction of the new plaza and car park includes the removal of the existing Station Road
connection to Festival Drive. Festival Drive will be lowered below the Plaza level with an
additional ramp provided under the entrance to the Adelaide Railway Station.
Festival Drive is to be lowered sufficiently below the proposed Plaza and Railway Station entrance
to provide adequate height clearance for truck access to the existing and proposed loading
and servicing areas to be accessed from Festival Drive. A pedestrian bridge is planned over the
lowered roadway near the Railway Station entrance to provide a connection to the River Torrens
Footbridge.
A key change to traffic access will be the provision of two-way traffic flow on Festival Drive
between King William Road and the current Station Road. This will provide two-way flow along
the entire length of Festival Drive and enable vehicles to access the Festival Plaza car park from
both King William Road and Montefiore Road.
Station Road is to be reconfigured primarily as a pedestrian space with only limited vehicular
access retained to SkyCity for VIP guests to the valet area. All access to the proposed car park is
currently proposed from Festival Drive with the exception of limited access into the car park from
Station Road by SkyCity valet vehicles via a separate entrance.
The existing passenger drop-off area for the Adelaide Festival Centre in the northeast corner of
the site is proposed to be retained and upgraded as part of the development works. It is
intended to limit the use of this drop-off to people with disabilities only to reduce the number of
movements across the King William Road footpath.
The drop-off area will be constructed at the same level as the adjacent pedestrian realm to
improve pedestrian circulation through the area. The area for vehicular travel will be defined
through the use of bollards. The Adelaide Festival Centre drop-off has been designed to
accommodate Small Rigid Vehicles if required.
Taxi drop-off and pick-up would continue to occur from the existing adjacent road network and
taxi ranks. During major events temporary taxi ranks could be installed along King William Road
to accommodate the short term increased demand.
3.4 Bicycle Facilities

It is understood that bicycle parking requirements for each of the adjoining developments will be
provided within each site. In addition, 100 publically available bicycle parking spaces will be
included in the design of the public realm near the main activity generators.
Access between Station Road and Festival Drive will be closed for motor vehicles, with the
existing ramp/tunnel to be removed. This will also remove riding access for bicycles due to the
significant level difference between North Terrace and the River Torrens Footbridge where a long
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
ramp (in the order of 100 metres) would be required based on DDA accessible design. This was
considered impracticable and unlikely to be used given long length and need for switch back
design in the constrained space available. It is proposed that a combination of lifts and stairs be
provided for access, which will avoid the intrusion of ramps into the public realm space. The
proposed lifts will be of sufficient size to accommodate bicycles and proposed stairs will include
bicycle channels for more direct and efficient connection between the levels for cyclists.
3.5 Pedestrian Facilities

3.5.1 Festival Plaza
The proposed development will include a new Plaza level pedestrian link between King William
Road and the upper level of Adelaide Festival Centre (as was provided in the original Adelaide
Festival Centre construction and removed some years ago). The proposed development aims to
provide an attractive and direct connection for pedestrians through the precinct at Plaza level
from King William Road and remove the need to pedestrians to walk along or cross Festival Drive
(as currently occurs under the existing arrangement). The proposed plaza will provide a generally
level and direct path through the precinct.
3.5.2 Festival Drive

Where required for egress from the adjoining buildings, a footpath will be provided on one side of
the realigned Festival Drive.
The realignment of Festival Drive will require the existing traffic signals to be relocated
approximately 20 metres north on King William road. The relocated traffic signals will provide
traffic access into and out of Festival drive, and pedestrian crossings on the northern leg of King
William Road and across the Festival Drive leg of the new intersection. A pedestrian crossing on
the southern side of the intersection will not be required given the new pedestrian link across
Festival Plaza into the Festival Centre and over Festival Drive.
3.5.3 Station Road

The proposed redesign of Station Road will result in significantly more space for pedestrians and
will improve the safety of this pedestrian route. The proposed upgrade of Station Road will also
provide an improved extension to the ‘active’ north-south cross-city link from Bank Street.
3.6 Loading Areas

Festival Drive will provide access for all delivery and loading vehicles to the adjacent uses. All
loading areas for the adjoining land uses will be located under the proposed Plaza level and will
be accessed from Festival Drive. The loading areas will therefore generally be screened from
public view and separated from most pedestrian activity.
The design of the King William Road / Festival Road intersection will enable vehicles up to a 19.0m
semi-trailer in size to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. GTA notes that the existing height
clearance along the section of Festival Drive connecting the east-west road to the western side
of Montefiore Road is 3.8m. Any vehicles above this height would therefore be required to enter
or exit via King William Road or the eastern side of Montefiore Road.
The balance of Festival Drive has been designed with a minimum height clearance of 4.5m
suitable for heavy vehicles up to 19.0 metre semi-trailer as currently occurs.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
4. Sustainable Transport Infrastructure
4
4.1 Bicycle Facilities
As discussed in Section 3.4, it is understood that bicycle parking requirements for each of the
adjoining developments will be provided within each site. In addition, 100 publically available
bicycle parking spaces will be included in the design of the public realm near the main activity
generators.
As previously noted, the significant level difference between North Terrace and the River Torrens
Footbridge means that it is not practical to provide ramp connections between these levels as
long switchback ramps would be required which would encroach into the public realm space
and would unlikely be attractive to cyclists.
It is proposed to use a combination of lifts and stairs to connect these levels. Although this would
require cyclists to dismount when moving through the precinct, measures will be implemented to
maintain a suitable level of connectivity for cyclists. Lifts along the main cycling desire lines will
be of sufficient size to accommodate bicycles and stairs will be fitted with bicycle channels to
enable cyclists to move easily up or down the stairs with their bicycles.
Bicycle channels are a common treatment on stairs in other cities in Australia and throughout
Europe. Given the limited use of this treatment in Adelaide it is recommended that signage be
installation to promote their function and use. Way finding signage to direct cyclists through the
precinct should also be provided.
Examples of existing bicycle channels from Adelaide and Europe are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2
below.
Figure 4.1: River Torrens Linear Park Bicycle Figure 4.2: European Example of a Bicycle
Channel Channel
The need for cyclists to dismount when moving through the Plaza will also ensure that cyclists do
not travel through the Plaza at excessively high speed where there is likely to be a large number
of pedestrians present.
The proposed design of the precinct has had regard to the desired future connections for cyclists
as described in the Adelaide City Smart Move Strategy and generally improves and/or reinforces
these connections.
GTA also understands that Adelaide City Council are considering the implementation of a
cycling path along the western side of King William Road adjacent the site. At the time of this
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
report a preferred design for the cycling path had not been developed, however based on a
review of preliminary concept options it is understood that a combination of on and off-road
facilities could be installed along the King William Road frontage of the site.
The proposed development would not impact the ability to deliver a cycling path along the
western side of King William Road adjacent the site. However, consideration would need to be
given to the final design of the Festival Drive/King William Road intersection and to the entrances
to the Adelaide Festival Centre drop-off area to ensure that cyclists are adequately catered for.
This matter could be addresses through detailed design in consultation with Adelaide City
Council once further details of the future cycling path are known.
4.2 Pedestrian Facilities

As indicated earlier in the report, the proposed development will significantly improve the
connectivity, safety and circulation for pedestrians. Lifts will be provided to connect the different
levels of the precinct and wayfinding signage will be installed to guide pedestrians to key
destinations and facilities.
Similar to the cycling connections, the proposed design of the precinct has had regard to the
desired future pedestrian connections as described in the Adelaide City Smart Move Strategy
and generally improves and/or reinforces these connections.
4.3 Public Transport

The site is accessible by public transport as discussed in Section 2.5.1.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
5. Loading and Refuse Collection
5
5.1 Development Plan Requirements
The Adelaide (City) Development Plan includes the following Objectives and Principles of
Development Control in relation to loading:
Objective 70: Adequate off-street facilities for loading and unloading of courier, delivery and
service vehicles and access for emergency service vehicles.
Principle of Development Control 241: Facilities for the loading and unloading of courier, delivery
and service vehicles and access for emergency vehicles should be provided on-site as
appropriate to the size and nature of the development. Such facilities should be screened from
public view and designed, where possible so that vehicles may enter and leave in a forward
direction.
Following completion of the proposed works, it is anticipated that all loading vehicles for the
adjoining land uses will access their respective loading facilities from Festival Drive. The proposed
upgrade to Festival Drive will generally accommodate vehicles up to a 19.0m semi-trailer in size,
which is understood to be the largest vehicle that will require access to the site, to enter and exit
the site in a forward motion. Provision has also been made for access by emergency service
vehicles.
5.2 Proposed Loading Arrangements

Loading areas for the adjoining land uses will be provided as follows:
 Adelaide Festival Centre (AFC) – Loading area for vehicles up to a 19.0m semi-trailer to
be provided on the northern side of Festival Drive in the same location as the existing
AFC loading area. Access to the loading area will be via King William Road. Details of
semi-trailer access for the Adelaide Festival Centre is discussed in detail below.
 SkyCity – Loading area for vehicles up to a typical 14m Coach in size to be provided on
the southern side of Festival Drive immediately to the east of the main SkyCity building.
This loading area will serve as a passenger set down and pick-up area and will be
accessed via King William Road or Montefiore Road.
 SkyCity – Loading area for vehicles up to a 12.5m Heavy Rigid Vehicle to be provided
on the southern side of Festival Drive opposite the AFC loading area. The access to this
loading area will also provide access to an adjoining loading area for the commercial,
retail and Parliament uses. Access to the loading area will be via King William Road or
Montefiore Road.
 Commercial/Retail/Parliament – Loading area for vehicles up to a 12.5m Heavy Rigid
Vehicle to be provided on the southern side of Festival Drive adjacent the SkyCity
loading area. As discussed above, the access to this loading area will be shared with
SkyCity with access via King William Road or Montefiore Road.
 Intercontinental Hotel – Loading area for vehicles up to a typical 10.5m long refuse
vehicle to be provided at the western end of the ramp that takes Festival Drive bellow
the entrance to the Railway Station. This loading area will replace the existing
Intercontinental loading area on Festival Drive near the Railway Station entrance.
Access to the loading area will be via King William Road or Montefiore Road.
GTA notes that the existing height clearance along the section of Festival Drive connecting the
east-west road to the western side of Montefiore Road is 3.8m. Any vehicles above this height
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
would therefore be required to enter or exit via King William Road or the eastern side of
Montefiore Road. The balance of Festival Drive has been designed with a minimum height
clearance of 4.5m suitable for heavy vehicles up to 19.0 metre semi-trailer as proposed.
GTA has assessed the ability for loading vehicles to enter and exit their respective loading areas
from Festival Drive. The results of the swept path assessment are shown in Appendix A.
The swept path assessment shown in Appendix A demonstrates that the relevant design vehicles
will be able to enter their respective loading areas via a reverse entry or forward entry
manoeuvre from Festival Drive.
GTA has also assessed the ability for the relevant design vehicles to enter and exit Festival Drive
from King William Road via the proposed new intersection. The results of this swept path
assessment are shown in Appendix B.
The swept path assessment shows that it will be possible for a 19.0m semi-trailer to enter the site
from the north or south without encroaching into the Festival Drive exit lanes.
It should be noted that GTA has only assessed the ability for the relevant design vehicles to enter
and exit the loading areas from Festival Drive and manoeuvrability within each loading area has
not been assessed. Each applicant of the adjoining land uses will need to demonstrate that the
internal loading areas have been appropriately designed to accommodate the largest vehicles
expected.
5.3 Emergency Service Vehicle Access

Discussions with the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service (MFS) has confirmed that fire truck
access to sections of the Festival Plaza will be required. In order to accommodate these vehicles
a path of travel will be defined to restrict vehicles to areas where the structure of the plaza will be
suitable. Suitable manoeuvring areas will also be provided to enable these vehicles to turn.
The proposed access route for large emergency service vehicles will be from Station Road. A
section of the plaza to the north of Station Road will also be designed to accommodate these
vehicles to provide fire truck and emergency service vehicle access to the new SkyCity building.
The ability for large emergency service vehicles to navigate this route is shown in Appendix C.
It should also be noted that Festival Drive has been designed in consultation with the MFS to
ensure that emergency service vehicle access requirements to Festival Drive have been
accommodated.
5.4 Event Loading Vehicle Access

Occasional access to the Festival Plaza will be required by larger vehicles for event setup and
pack up. An access route to the plaza will be made available from King William Road for a
19.0m semi-trailer. This access route is demonstrated in Appendix E.
GTA notes that a semi-trailer will encroach over some landscaped areas when completing this
turn. The landscaped areas will need to be relocated in detailed design to avoid the swept path
of a turning semi-trailer.
GTA also understands that occasional access to the Festival Plaza by light utility vehicles will be
required. Suitable paths will be provided through the plaza to accommodate these vehicles.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
6. Traffic Impact Assessment
6.1 Traffic Generation

6
Festival Drive
SkyCity
A traffic impact assessment report has been prepared by Aurecon (dated 14 October 2014) for
the proposed SkyCity Casino expansion. The two-way traffic generation estimates for the Casino
on Festival Drive following completion of the expansion works are summarised in Table 6.1 below.
The estimates shown are for a Friday which is the typical peak weekday for the Casino. Traffic
generated by the Casino is likely to be higher on a Saturday, however the traffic generation from
the adjacent land uses will be lower and the overall traffic impact on the adjacent road network
will be reduced.
Table 6.1: SkyCity Friday Two-Way Traffic Generation Estimates (Festival Drive)
Location Daily Trips
Festival Drive Drop-Off 1,270
Plaza Car Park 2,253
In order to estimate the likely traffic generated by SkyCity on Festival Drive during the AM and PM
peak periods, an assumption has been made on the percentage of daily trips that would occur
during the AM and PM peak periods for inbound and outbound movements.
The traffic generation estimates and assumptions are summarised in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2: SkyCity Friday Peak Hour Traffic Generation Estimates

Outbound AM Outbound PM
Inbound AM Peak Inbound PM Peak
Daily Peak Peak
Use
Trips % of daily % of daily % of daily % of daily
Trips Trips Trips Trips
trips trips trips trips
Festival Drive
1,249 5% 64 5% 64 10% 254 10% 254
Drop-Off
Plaza Car Park 2,231 5% 113 5% 113 15% 338 5% 113
SkyCity Valet 21 5% 1 5% 1 10% 2 10% 2
Totals 3,501 178 178 594 369
Based on Table 6.2, it is estimated that SkyCity would generate 356 two-way movements on
Festival Drive in the weekday AM peak and 963 two-way movements in the PM peak. A higher
number of movements could be expected during the PM peak as this is the peak operating
period for SkyCity.
A total of 280 car parking spaces have been allocated in the Festival Plaza car park for the
exclusive use of the Adelaide Festival Centre. It is understood that these spaces will
predominantly be used by staff and performers, with visitors to the Festival Centre making use of
the publically available parking spaces. The parking spaces will be accessed from Festival Drive
via the main car park access.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
In order to estimate the likely traffic generated by the Adelaide Festival Centre car parking
spaces, an assumption has been made on the number of vehicle movements that are likely to be
generated by each space during a typical weekday AM and PM peak hour period.
The traffic generation estimates are summarised in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3: Adelaide Festival Centre Weekday Traffic Generation Estimates

Outbound AM
Inbound AM Peak Inbound PM Peak Outbound PM Peak
No. Peak
Use
Spaces Movements Movements Movements Movements
per space per space per space per space
Adelaide
Festival 280 0.6 168 0.1 28 0.3 84 0.6 168
Centre
Based on Table 6.3, it is estimated that the Adelaide Festival Centre car parking spaces would
generate 196 two-way movements in the weekday AM peak and 252 two-way movements in the
PM peak. A higher number of movements could be expected during the PM peak due to
daytime staff departures and evening staff/performer arrivals coinciding.
Parliament
exclusive use of South Australian Parliament. Of these 120 spaces, it is understood that 51 spaces
will be located in a secure area with a separate access from Festival Drive. The remaining 69
spaces will be accessed from the main Festival Drive car park access.
Table 6.4 below summarises the weekday traffic generation estimates for the secure and ‘non-
secure’ Parliament spaces.
Table 6.4: Parliament Weekday Traffic Generation Estimates
Outbound AM
No. Peak
Use
Parliament
51 0.6 31 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.6 31
(secure)
Parliament
(non- 69 0.6 42 0.1 7 0.1 7 0.6 42
secure)
Based on Table 6.4, it is estimated that the secure Parliament car parking spaces would generate
36 two-way movements in the weekday AM peak and 36 two-way movements in the PM peak.
The ‘non-secure’ spaces would generate a further 49 two-way movements in the AM peak and
49 two-way movements in the PM peak.
The majority of movements would be inbound in the AM and outbound in the PM coinciding with
typical business hours.
Commercial
exclusive use of proposed commercial building. The parking spaces will be accessed from
Festival Drive via the main car park access.
Table 6.5 below summarises the weekday traffic generation estimates for the commercial spaces.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Table 6.5: Commercial Weekday Traffic Generation Estimates
Outbound AM
No. Peak
Use
Commercial 238 0.6 143 0.1 24 0.1 24 0.6 143
Based on Table 6.5, it is estimated that the Commercial car parking spaces would generate 167
two-way movements in the weekday AM peak and 167 two-way movements in the PM peak.
The majority of movements would be inbound in the AM and outbound in the PM coinciding with
typical business hours.
Public Parking
A total of 150 car parking spaces have been allocated in the Festival Plaza car park for use by
the public. These spaces are likely to be used by workers and visitors to the precinct. The parking
spaces will be accessed from Festival Drive via the main car park access.
Table 6.6 below summarises the weekday traffic generation estimates for the public parking
spaces.
Table 6.6: Public Parking Weekday Traffic Estimates

Outbound AM
No. Peak
Use
Public 150 0.6 90 0.1 15 0.4 60 0.6 90
Based on Table 6.6, it is estimated that the public car parking spaces would generate 105 two-
way movements in the weekday AM peak and 150 two-way movements in the PM peak. A
higher number of movements is expected in the evening peak due to all day parker departures
and evening visitors to the precinct coinciding.
Convention Centre Car Park
When estimating the future traffic on Festival Drive, traffic associated with the existing Convention
Centre car park which can be accessed from Festival Drive must be considered.
It is understood that the Convention Centre car park contains in the order of 700 car parking
spaces which services events at the Convention Centre and some all-day and visitor parking for
the adjacent land uses. Access to this car park is available from both Festival Drive and North
Terrace.
Based on surveys undertaken in August 2014 (by others), the existing car parks at the Convention
Centre generate approximately 0.2 movements per space during the AM peak hour and 0.3
movements per space during the PM peak hour. On this basis, Table 6.7 has been prepared to
summarise the weekday traffic generation estimates of the existing Convention Centre car park.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Table 6.7: Convention Centre Car Park Weekday Traffic Estimates (Festival Drive)
Outbound AM
No. Peak
Use
Trips3 Trips5 Trips5 Trips5
Convention
700 0.18 63 0.02 7 0.06 21 0.24 84
Centre
Based on Table 6.7, it is estimated that the existing Convention Centre car park would generate a
further 70 two-way movements on Festival Drive during the AM peak and 105 two-way
movements on Festival Drive during the PM peak.
Heavy Vehicles
As discussed in Section 5, all future heavy vehicle access to the precinct will occur from Festival
Drive. Based on the information provided to GTA by each adjoining land use and estimates of
existing heavy vehicle requirements for the existing Convention Centre, Table 6.8 has been
prepared to summarise the estimated heavy vehicle movements through the precinct.
Table 6.8: Anticipated Heavy Vehicle Movements for Each Adjoining Land Use
Use Daily Trips Inbound AM4 Outbound Inbound PM5 Outbound
(Two-way) Peak Trips AM5 Peak Peak Trips PM5 Peak
Trips Trips
SkyCity (loading) 185 9 9 9 9
SkyCity (coaches) 12 1 1 1 1
Adelaide Festival Centre 40 2 2 2 2
Commercial/Retail/Parliament 4 0* 0* 0* 0*
Intercontinental 82 10** 10** N/A** N/A**
Convention Centre 40 2 2 2 2
Totals 389 28 28 18 18
* Based on the understanding that loading and refuse collection for the commercial/retail and Parliament uses will occur outside of
peak periods.
** Based on the understanding that all loading for the Intercontinental occurs prior to the PM peak. It is assumed that 25% of daily trips
for the Intercontinental will occur in the AM peak hour period.
Table 6.8 shows that in a worst case scenario that the peak loading periods for each use were to
coincide, there could be up to 56 heavy vehicle movements anticipated on Festival Drive during
the AM peak and up to 36 heavy vehicle movements during the PM peak.
Summary of Festival Drive Traffic Generation Estimates
Table 6.9 below, has been prepared to demonstrate the combined traffic estimates for Festival
Drive as a result of each of the uses.
3 Assuming 50% of trips occur via Festival Drive

4 Assumes 10% of daily trips occur in a peak hour period except for the Intercontinental
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Table 6.9: Festival Drive Combined Weekday Traffic Estimates
Inbound AM Outbound AM Inbound PM Outbound PM

Use
Peak Trips Peak Trips Peak Trips Peak Trips
SkyCity Drop Off 64 64 254 254

SkyCity Car Park 113 113 338 113
SkyCity Valet 1 1 2 2
Adelaide Festival Centre 168 28 84 168
Parliament (secure) 31 5 5 31
Parliament (non-secure) 42 7 7 42
Commercial 143 24 24 143
Public 90 15 60 90
Convention Centre Car Park 63 7 21 84
Heavy Vehicles 28 28 18 18
Total 743 292 813 945
Station Road
It is proposed to remove the existing road connection between North Terrace and Festival Drive
as part of the proposed works. This change will significantly reduce the number of vehicles that
will use Station Road. GTA understands that Station Road vehicular access will be limited to
SkyCity VIP arrivals and valet only and occasional emergency service vehicle requirements only.
Based on the information provided to GTA, a total of 184 daily movements into and out of Station
Road are anticipated on a Friday with up to 200 daily movements anticipated on a Saturday.
It is further understood that SkyCity will implement appropriate measures to control unauthorised
access to Station Road by the general public. This could include signage and/or some form of
physical barrier at the entrance to Station Road.
It is noted that Station Road currently carries approximately 3,200 vehicles per day. The
significant reduction in trips as a result of the proposed changes will improve safety and amenity
for pedestrians using this area to travel through the precinct.
6.1.1 Distribution and Assignment

The distribution of traffic in the vicinity of the precinct will be influenced by a number of factors
including:
 configuration of the road network in the immediate vicinity of the site;
 existing and anticipated operation of intersections providing access to the adjacent
road network;
 distribution of households in the vicinity of the site;
 configuration of access points to the site.
As previously discussed, Festival Drive to the east of Station Road is currently one-way westbound.
All vehicles are therefore required to enter the existing Festival Centre car park from King William
Road and exit to the west via Festival Drive and/or Station Road.
However the proposed changes to Festival Drive will result in two-way access being provided at
King William Road and to the proposed new car park. This change, combined with the proposed
closure of the connection between Station Road and Festival Drive, will significantly alter the
existing distribution of traffic through the precinct.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
GTA anticipates that the provision of an upgraded and direct connection to the Festival Plaza
car park from Montefiore Road will result in a significant percentage of trips occurring to and from
the west.
Having consideration to the factors discussed above, for the purposes of estimating vehicle
movements, the following directional distributions have been assumed for the AM and PM peak
periods:
 King William Road North 25%
 King William Road South 35%
 Montefiore Road North 20%
 Montefiore Road South 20%.
Based on the above, and the breakdown of inbound and outbound movements for each of the
uses described earlier in Section 7. Figure 6.1 to 6.3 have been prepared to show the estimated
turning movements in the vicinity of the subject site following full site development.
Figure 6.1: Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – King William Road / Festival Dr Intersection
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Figure 6.2: Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection
Figure 6.3: Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Station Road / North Terrace Intersection
6.2 Traffic Impact

Station Road
The proposed removal of the existing road connection between Station Road and Festival Drive
will significantly reduce the number of vehicles in Station Road from an existing 3,100 vehicles per
day on a peak weekday to approximately 184 vehicles per day on a peak weekday. On
weekends, the number of vehicles would reduce from an existing 3,200 vehicles per day to
approximately 200 vehicles per day.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
The reduction in traffic volumes and redesign of Station Road as a slow speed driveway access to
SkyCity will improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Subject to final designs for the intersection
of Station Road and North Terrace, the reduced traffic movements into and out of Station Road
would also improve the operation of through movements along North Terrace including for
pedestrians.
Festival Drive / King William Road Intersection

The proposed removal of the existing one-way section of Festival Drive will enable vehicles to exit
out to King William Road which will result in changes to the operation of this intersection. GTA has
reviewed options for the future intersection, including the removal of the pedestrian crossing on
the southern side of the intersection. However based on preliminary liaison with Adelaide City
Council it was indicated that there was a desire to retain a pedestrian crossing on the southern
side of the intersection.
On the above basis, the intersection layout shown in Figure 6.4 has been adopted for the model.
Figure 6.4: Proposed Future Intersection Layout – Festival Drive / King William Road Intersection
As shown in Figure 6.4, GTA has modelled the intersection with a wide left/through movement
kerbside lane on the southern approach to the intersection. However it was noted on site that
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
there is enough space available for left turning vehicles to store far enough across towards the
kerb so as to not disrupt northbound through movements.
It was observed that 3 vehicles could comfortably store in this area without disrupting through
movements and allow buses to depart from the bus stop immediately to the south.
On this basis, the existing intersection is effectively operating with three northbound through lanes
and a short left turn lane into Festival Drive. Notwithstanding, GTA has modelling the intersection
as shown in Figure 6.4 as a conservative assessment of the future operation of the intersection.
Based on liaison with Adelaide City Council, GTA has also adopted the following parameters for
this model:
Phasing and Timing

 4 second yellow time
 3 second All-Red time.
Lane Data
 Basic Saturation Flow of 1,800 vehicles per hour.
Vehicle Movement Data

 40km/h approach and exit speed on Festival Drive.
The results of the SIDRA assessment for the AM and PM peak periods respectively are shown in
Table 6.10 and Table 6.11 below.
Table 6.10: Festival Drive / King William Road Intersection – AM Peak – Post Development

Saturation (DoS) (secs) Queue (metres)
King William Road Left 0.593 33.7 144.0

(South) Through 0.593 29.6 144.0
King William Road Through 0.574 29.3 144.7

(North) Right 0.580 51.4 76.0
Left 0.268 41.7 38.3
Festival Drive
Right 0.268 45.3 38.3
Table 6.11: Festival Drive / King William Road Intersection – PM Peak – Post Development

Saturation (DoS) (secs) Queue (metres)
King William Road Left 0.673 34.3 173.0

(South) Through 0.673 30.3 173.0
King William Road Through 0.395 26.1 91.7

(North) Right 0.657 52.4 87.9
Left 0.658 47.4 103.3
Festival Drive
Right 0.658 50.7 103.3
Table 6.10 and Table 6.11 demonstrate that following full site development, the intersection will
operate well below capacity with a DoS 0.673 or less on all movements. It is noted that queues
for right turns into Festival Drive could increase to approximately 88m during the PM peak period.
The existing right turn lane on King William Road will therefore need to be extended to
accommodate this anticipated demand.
It is assumed that during the AM peak period, the proposed car park entry system will be
appropriately designed to ensure any car park entry queue does not extend beyond the
boundary of the subject site and into King William Road.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Queues on King William Road could extend up to 173m towards North Terrace during the PM
peak. North Terrace is located approximately 190m south of the intersection and therefore the
queues are not anticipated to extend to North Terrace and impact the operation of the King
William Road / North Terrace intersection. However, it is assumed that these traffic signals will be
appropriately coordinated to ensure peak period queues do not extend across the North Terrace
intersection.
It is noted that queues within Festival Drive could extend up to 103m from King William Road
during the PM peak. These queues may extend beyond the main access to the proposed
Festival Plaza car park which could result in some minor delays when entering the car park from
the west. However the delays would be minor with queues on the approach to King William
Road clearing once a green phase occurs at the traffic signals.
Vehicles turning right out of the main car park access during the PM peak may also experience
some delays due to queues on the approach to King William Road. The delays would generally
be minor (approximately 51 seconds) but could result in some minor internal queuing within the
car park. GTA would expect that a higher proportion of drivers would choose to turn left out of
the car parking during the PM peak to avoid queuing and delays associated with the Festival
Drive / King William Road intersection.
Based on the distribution and assignment of traffic as discussed in Section 6.1.6, it is estimated
that there will be a greater number of right turn movements out of Festival Drive to King William
Road compared to left turn movements. On this basis, two right turn lanes out of Festival Drive to
King William Road have been provided.
It has been assumed that the proposed car park will be designed with a suitable entry and exit
capacity for managing queues of vehicles within Festival Drive and not extend onto King William
Road. This will need to be confirmed with the car park development application when prepared.
GTA also notes that raised garden beds have been proposed on either side of Festival Drive on
the approach to King William Road. The design of these garden beds and any landscaping will
need to ensure that sight distance along King William Road is not impacted. This will need to be
confirmed through detailed design of the intersection.
Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection

The removal of the one-way section of Festival Drive near King William Road will result in a direct
connection being made available to the Festival Plaza car park from Montefiore Road to the
west. As a result, it is anticipated that there will be a much higher proportion of trips to/from the
west which will impact the Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection.
To assess the impact of this change, GTA has completed a SIDRA assessment of the intersection
following full site development. The results of the SIDRA assessment for the AM and PM peak
periods respectively are shown in Table 6.12 and Table 6.13 below.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Table 6.12: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – AM Peak – Post Development



Table 6.13: Festival Drive / Montefiore Road Intersection – PM Peak – Post Development


Table 6.12 and Table 6.13 demonstrate that the intersection of Festival Drive and Montefiore Road
will continue to operate well below capacity following full site development with no notable
queues or delays anticipated.
GTA understands that the configuration of Montefiore Road will be amended slightly following
completion of the Convention Centre upgrade works. Details of the future road configuration
have been provided to GTA by Adelaide City Council and have been used in the SIDRA model
discussed above.
North Terrace / King William Road Intersection

The proposed change to Festival Drive and the removal of the connection to North Terrace via
Station Road will also result in a minor redistribution of turning movements at the North Terrace
and King William Road intersection. However the change to turning movements at this
intersection is not expected to have a notable impact on the operation of this intersection
having regard to the total volumes at the intersection.
Summary of Traffic Impacts

Based on the above analysis and discussion, GTA considers that there is sufficient capacity in the
adjacent road network to accommodate the increased traffic movements generated by the
proposed development subject to some upgrades being undertaken to the existing intersection
of Festival Drive and King William Road.
The existing intersection of Festival Drive / Montefiore Road and Station Road / North Terrace will
continue to operate with no notable queues or delays following full site development. However
subject to the detailed design of Station Road, some minor amendments may be required to the
existing traffic signals at the Station Road / North Terrace intersection to improve the alignment
and efficiency of this intersection given the anticipated significant reduction in traffic entering
and exiting Station Road.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
6.3 Mitigating Measures and Intersection Works
As discussed above, an upgrade to the intersection of Festival Drive and King William Road will be
required as a result of the proposed development. An indicative layout of the intersection has
been shown in Figure 6.4 which will be confirmed through detailed design.
In addition, some amendments may be required to the existing intersection of Station Road and
North Terrace to better align the intersection with the proposed new Station Road and to improve
the efficiency of the traffic signals given the anticipated change in traffic volumes at this
intersection.
6.4 Event Traffic Management

Traffic management of Festival Drive will need to be considered in the development of any event
management plans for the precinct, for instance football games at Adelaide Oval being a
regular event.
It is understood that public access to Festival Drive during football games at Adelaide Oval is
currently restricted due to King William Road being closed for football express bus services.
As discussed earlier in the report, the design of Festival Drive will enable vehicles to access the car
park from both King William Road and Montefiore Road by removing the existing one-way
section of road. Access to the car park could therefore be maintained should an event require
the closure of King William Road.
The design will also improve the management of pedestrians through the precinct on events days
due to the general separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
6.5 Construction Traffic Impact

A construction traffic management plan should be prepared prior to works commencing on-site
for each stage as required.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
7. Conclusion
Based on the analysis and discussions presented within this report, the following conclusions are 7
made:
i The proposed upgrade to Station Road will improve safety and connectivity for
pedestrians and cyclists while maintaining limited vehicular access to the SkyCity valet
area.
ii The proposed Plaza upgrade will improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists.
Stairs and lifts throughout the precinct will be designed to accommodate cyclists where
required.
iii The provision for loading is considered appropriate.
iv The Adelaide Festival Centre drop-off has been designed to accommodate Small Rigid
Vehicles if required.
v The design of the Festival Drive / King William Road intersection will accommodate
turning movements by 19.0m semi-trailers.
vi Emergency service vehicle access to the precinct has been accommodated.
vii The proposed development is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the safety
or operation of the Festival Drive / Montefiore Road intersection.
viii The proposed design of the Festival Drive / King William Road intersection will be
capable of accommodating the estimated future traffic volumes and maintain existing
pedestrian connections.
ix Bicycle parking will be provided in the public realms near the major activity generators.
x The proposed design of Station Road and Festival Drive is considered appropriate.
xi The design of the Festival Plaza car park entrance must ensure that there is sufficient
capacity to accommodating the AM and PM peak demands without causing
queueing on Festival Drive.
xii The design of the internal loading areas will need to accommodate the largest design
vehicles to enter each area.
xiii A construction management plan should be prepared for the development prior to
commencement of work.
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
Appendix A
Appendix A
Swept Path Assessment – Access to Loading Areas
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
LOADING
R.
U)
13 M
FESTI
20 9
(A
e. 1 er
ved
.
res
ts
h
S
g
ri
ll
A
Inc.
ions,
lut
o
S
ft
o
ns
a
Tr
S
14
0
2
)
(c
AD
M
RO
P
ST
AU
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SWI
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
VAL DR
PM S 19M
AU)
IVE
2013 (
AUSTROADS
700
24
PM S 19M
10m @ 1:
5
served.
lrg
iht e
sr
s n
,Ic.Al
u
lton
i
Transoft So
c ) 2014
275
(
AU)
S 2013 (
9.
RL 29.
AUSTROAD
10m @ 1:
2m @ 1:
225
RL 29.
CH
ON
RAMP
RL 28.
ENTRY
16
TO I
825
485
10m @ 1:
ARY
200
STATI
27.
RL 24.
under
RL 24.
70
900
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
CASI
R.
P1
H1
R.
S2
S1
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES
ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE
4M TRUCK
4.20 13.70 WITHOUT NOTIFICATION

6.
28 PM
1.40 9.50
09:
K
4M TRUC
AT 12:
NG
6.
NO
0.20
ON 02/12/2015
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
CASI
SWEPT PATH KEY www.gta.com.au
SWEPT PATH ASSESSMENT

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
1.60 5.30 VEHICLE TYRE PATH

mpong
19.0 metre SEMI TRAILER
VEHICLE BODY PATH LOADING - REVERSE ENTRY MANOEUVRE

Fri
PM S 19M metres
chard.
FROM KING WILLIAM ROAD

Tractor Width : 2.50 Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 300mm CLEARANCE
PLOTTED BY : Ri
Trailer Width : 2.50 Steering Angle : 27.8 FROM VEHICLE BODY ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT
Tractor Track : 2.50 Articulating Angle : 70.0 DATE SCALE MELWAY REF
K
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

4M TRUC
Trailer Track : 2.50 2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

DESIGNER DRAWING NO.
6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-01P16
O
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
NG
U)
13 M
LOADI
(A R.
20 9
1
FESTI
.
d
ve
ser
re
e.
ts
h
S
g
ri
ll
A
Inc.
ons,
ti
u
Sol
t
sof
ran
S
T
4
201
)
(c
AD
M
RO
P
ST
AU
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SW I
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
9M
PM S 1
VAL DR c
( ) 2014 T
AU)
ransoft Sou
lton
i s n
,Ic lr
.Al g
iht e
sr served.
S 2013 (
AUSTROAD
IVE
700
24
10m @ 1:
5
275
9.
RL 29.
8
10m @ 1:
2m @ 1:
225
RL 29.
CH
ON
RAMP
RL 28.
ENTRY
16
TO I
825
485
10m @ 1:
ARY
200
STATI
27.
RL 24.
under
RL 24.
70
900
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
CASI
R.
P1
H1
R.
S2
S1
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
K
WITHOUT NOTIFICATION
4M TRUC
4.20 13.70
6.
53 PM
1.40 9.50
09:
K
4M TRUC
AT 12:
NG
6.
NO
0.20
ON 02/12/2015
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
CASI

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE

mpong
VEHICLE BODY PATH UNLOADING - FORWARD EXIT MANOEUVRE

Fri
PM S 19M metres
chard.
TOWARDS KING WILLIAM ROAD

Tractor Width : 2.50 Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 300mm CLEARANCE
PLOTTED BY : Ri
Trailer Width : 2.50 Steering Angle : 27.8 FROM VEHICLE BODY ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT
Tractor Track : 2.50 Articulating Angle : 70.0 DATE SCALE MELWAY REF
K
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

4M TRUC
Trailer Track : 2.50 2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-02P16
O
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
LOADING
R.
FESTI
e.
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SWI
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
VAL DR
IVE
700
24
S
BU
10m @ 1:
5
275
D U)
9.
GI
RL 29.
RI A
3(
.
v ed
er
8
es
r
ts
igh
llr
.A
nc
s,I
on
10m @ 1:
uti
l
201
t So
sof
an
Tr
4
2m @ 1:
1
20
G
c)
225
(
ONSTROADS
RL 29.
L
CH
AU
ON
RAMP
D BUS
RL 28.
GI
ONG RI
ENTRY
L c
( ) 2014 Transoft Sou
lto
ins n
,Ic lr
.Al g
iht e
sr served.
16
TO I
AU)
013 ( 2
AUSTROADS
825
485
10m @ 1:
ARY
200
STATI
27.
RL 24.
under
RL 24.
70
900
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
LO NG RI2013 (AU)
LO NG RI 013 (AU)
CASI
R.
AUSTROA
P1
AUSTROADS
H1
R.
(c) 201
DS
4 Trans
oft Sol
uti
ons, I
GI nc. Al
l ri
(c) 2014
ghts
reserved
Transoft
.
Sol
uti
ons, I
GI nc. A l
S2
l ri
D BU S
ghts rese
S1
2
rved.
D BU S
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
4M TRUCK
6.
32 PM
14.50
K
10:
4M TRUC
AT 12:
NG
6.
NO
ON 02/12/2015
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
CASI

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
2.60 8.40
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
mpong
14.5 metre COACH

LONG RIGID BUS metres VEHICLE BODY PATH REVERSE ENTRY INTO BUS BAYS
Fri
chard.
Width : 2.50 FROM MONTEFIORE ROAD

300mm CLEARANCE
Track : 2.50
PLOTTED BY : Ri
FROM VEHICLE BODY ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT

Lock to Lock Time : 6.0
DATE SCALE MELWAY REF
K
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

4M TRUC
Steering Angle : 46.3

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -
6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-03P16
O
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
LOADING
R.
FESTI
e.
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SWI
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
VAL DR
IVE
700
24
GID BUS
ONG RI
10m @ 1:
5
275
L
9.
rved.
RL 29.
ht e
sr se
n
,Ic lr
.Al g
i
u
lto
ins
ransoft So
c
( ) 2014 T
AU)
13 (
20
AUSTROADS
10m @ 1:
2m @ 1:
225
RL 29.
CH
ON
RAMP
RL 28.
ENTRY
16
TO I
825
485
D BUS
10m @ 1:
ARY
GI
ONG RI
200
STATI
27.
served.
lrg
iht e
sr
ons n
,Ic.Al
ft Sou
lti
4 Transo
c
( ) 201
RL 24.
AU)
under
013 (
RL 24.
20
70
AUSTROADS
900
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
LO NG RI 13 (AU)
LO NG RI
CASI
R.
AUSTROADS
AUSTROADS
P1
H1
(c) 2014
R.
Transoft
Sol
(c) 2014
uti
ons, I
GI
Transoft
nc. Al
l ri
Sol
ghts
uti
ons, I
reserved.
20
GI nc. A l
l ri
ghts
reserved.
20
D BU S
S2
S1
D BU S
13 (AU)
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
K
4M TRUC
6.
53 PM
14.50
4M TRUCK
10:
AT 12:
NG
6.
NO
ON 02/12/2015
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
CASI

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
2.60 8.40
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
mpong
14.5 metre COACH

LONG RIGID BUS metres VEHICLE BODY PATH REVERSE ENTRY INTO BUS BAYS
Fri
chard.
Width : 2.50 FROM KING WILLIAM ROAD

300mm CLEARANCE
Track : 2.50
PLOTTED BY : Ri

4M TRUCK
Steering Angle : 46.3 ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -
6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-04P16
O
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
LOADING
R.
FESTI
e.
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SW I
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
VAL DR GI
I D BUS
LONG R 2013 (AU)
I served.
sre
ght
VE S
c
(
AUSTROA
D
) 2014 Transof
ut
t Sol
ons
i
nc
,I
lr
.Al
i
700
24
10m @ 1:
5
275
9.
RL 29.
8
10m @ 1:
2m @ 1:
225
RL 29.
CH
ON
RAMP
RL 28.
ENTRY
16
TO I
825
485
10m @ 1:
ARY
D BUS
200
GI
STATI
ONG RI
27.
L
RL 24.
under
served.
lrgh
i t e
sr
RL 24.
s n
,Ic.Al
t Sou
lton
i
Transof
c
( ) 2014
70
AU)
013 (
900
S2
AUSTROAD
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
LO NG RI2013 (AU)
LON G RI
CASI
R.
AUSTROAD
AUSTROADS
P1
H1
(c) 201
R.
4 Trans
(c) 2014
oft Sol
S
uti
ons, I
Transoft So
GI nc. A l
l ri
luti
ghts res
ons, I
GI nc. A l
erved.
l ri
ghts
reserved.
2013
D BU S
S2
S1
D BU S
(AU)
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
K
4M TRUC
6.
17 PM
14.50
4M TRUCK
11:
AT 12:
NG
6.
NO
ON 02/12/2015
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
CASI
VEHICLE CENTRE LINE SWEPT PATH ASSESSMENT

2.60 8.40
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
mpong
14.5 metre COACH

LONG RIGID BUS metres VEHICLE BODY PATH
Fri
FORWARD EXIT FROM BUS BAYS

chard.
Width : 2.50
300mm CLEARANCE ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT
Track : 2.50
PLOTTED BY : Ri
FROM VEHICLE BODY

4M TRUCK
Steering Angle : 46.3 ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -
6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-05P16
O
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
LOADING
R.
FESTI
e.
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SW I
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
VAL DR
IVE SU TRUCK
c
( ) 2014 Transoft Sou
lto
ins n
,Ic lr
.Al g
iht e
sr served.
AU)
2013 (
AUSTROADS
700
24
RUCK
10m @ 1:
5
275
SU T
9.
RL 29.
served.
lrg
iht e
sr
s n
,Ic.Al
t Sou
lton
i
Transof
c
( ) 2014
AU)
S 2013 (
8
AUSTROAD
10m @ 1:
2m @ 1:
225
RL 29.
CH
ON
RAMP
RL 28.
ENTRY
16
TO I
825
485
10m @ 1:
ARY
200
STATI
27.
RL 24.
under
RL 24.
70
900
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
CASI
R.
P1
H1
R.
S2
S1
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
4M TRUCK
6.
57 PM
12.50
4M TRUCK
11:
AT 12:
NG
AUSTROAD
6.
NO
SU TRUC
ON 02/12/2015
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
(c) 2014
(c) 201
4 Trans
Transoft
oft Sol
S 2013 (A
Soluti
uti
ons, I
ons, I
nc. Al
nc. Al
l ri
l ri
ghts reser
CASI
ghts reser
ved.
SWEPT PATH KEY
ved.
www.gta.com.au
K
U)

mpong
12.5 metre HRV

VEHICLE BODY PATH
Fri
SU TRUCK metres CASINO LOADING ENTRY

chard.

Width : 2.50
PLOTTED BY : Ri
FROM VEHICLE BODY

Track : 2.50
4M TRUCK
Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -
6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-06P16
O
THE
DARY
FES
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
TE BO UN
50
SI
L +28.
VAL
LOADING
R.
FESTI
e.
Y
R
A
D
N
U
O
B
UP
50
E
L. +29.
SH
COLUMNS
IT
DEMOLI
000
29.
S
RL
R.
TCH
L
FORMER
6x4x3m
TRANS-
RETAI
8x6x4m
SW I
775
000
RL 28.
FESTI
RL 29.
VAL DR SU TRUCK
) 2014 Trans
ut
t Sol
of
ons
i
nc
,I
lr
.Al
sr
ght
i
eserved.
AU)
c
(
(
DS 2013
IVE AUSTROA
700
24
10m @ 1:
5
275
9.
RL 29.
8
10m @ 1:
2m @ 1:
225
RL 29.
CH
ON
RAMP
RL 28.
ENTRY
16
TO I
825
485
RUCK
10m @ 1:
SU T
ARY
200
served.
lrg
iht e
sr
n
,Ic.Al
STATI
u
lto
ins
ransoft So
c
( ) 2014 T
27.
AU)
2013 (
AUSTROADS
RL 24.
under
RL 24.
70
900
RL 24.
L. +29.
TE BOUND
L +29.
810
RL 29.
ARY
R.
EBOUND
R.
T
SI
SI
CARPARK
FT
LI
00
ON
L. +30.
P3
H3
PROPOSED
900
1070
FT
EXTENSI
NO
LI
LOW ER
P2
L +29.
1070
H2
CASI
R.
P1
H1
R.
S2
S1
PROPOSED
ST2
CARPARK
ST1
Number
PRELIMINARY PLAN
4M TRUCK
6.
17 PM
12.50
4M TRUCK
12:
AT 12:
NG
6.
NO
AUSTROA
ON 02/12/2015
SU
LOADI
GTA c o nsultants
CASI
SWEPT PATH KEY TRUCK

(
(c
c)
www.gta.com.au
DS 2013
)2
201
014
4 T
Trr
aansof
nsoft
t So
Sol
lu
utt
ii
ons,
ons, I
I
nnc
c.
.AAl
l
llr
r
r
r i
ig
ght
hts
s
e
eser
serv
veed
d.
.
VEHICLE CENTRE LINE

(AU)

mpong
12.5 metre HRV

VEHICLE BODY PATH
Fri
SU TRUCK metres CASINO LOADING EXIT

chard.

Width : 2.50
PLOTTED BY : Ri
FROM VEHICLE BODY

Track : 2.50
4M TRUCK
Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -
6.
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-07P16
O
TH
FE
E
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
OVE
AN
VERBANK
PEDESTRI
BRIA
DGE
B
RI
PLANT
ATCHED
SHOWNH
CALALLOWANCE
CHANI
PRELMI
I NARYME
16
825
H
USE VE
ACCESS
NG
10m @ 1:
CE
5m RE VI
200
0.
eserved.
lri sr
ght
nc
,I .Al
1
ons
i
LANE &
ut
t Sol
Transof
) 2014
c
(
EH
RL 24.
GTA- C
E V
LOADI
US
RL 24.
7000
SERVI
REF C
FENCE &
5m -VI
EH 0. GTA
FUSE V 1
5m RE I
0.
served.
sre
lrght
i
nc
,I .Al
ons
i
1
ut
t Sol
Transof
) 2014
c
(
GATE
MESH
GTA-VC
NG
HOTEL
FT
LOADI
20
LI
10.
19000
L. +24.
5m
FT
REFU SE
GTA-VI
LI
R.
VEH
1850
2
000
0
1
850
PRELIMINARY PLAN
2320

10.46 WITHOUT NOTIFICATION
AT 6: 44 PM
40:
ON 01/12/2015
SWEPT PATH KEY GTA c o nsultants

www.gta.com.au
1.66 5.50
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
mpong
10.5 metre REFUSE VEHICLE

VEHICLE BODY PATH
10.5m REFUSEmeters ENTRY FROM MONTEFIORE ROAD
Fri
chard.
300mm CLEARANCE
Width : 2.50 EXIT TOWARDS KING WILLIAM ROAD
FROM VEHICLE BODY
PLOTTED BY : Ri
Track : 2.50 ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT PLANT

ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h
Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 DATE SCALE MELWAY REF
2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-12P16
TH
FE
E
PLAYHOUS
DUNSTAN
OVE
AN
VERBANK
PEDESTRI
BRIA
DGE
B
RI
PLANT
ATCHED
SHOWNH
CALALLOWANCE
CHANI
PRELMI
I NARYME
16
825
ACC SS
NG
10m @ 1:
CE
200
LANE &
RL 24.
LOADI
RL 24.
7000
SERVI
FENCE &
10.
5m RE
F USE VE H
H F USE VE
5m RE
GATE
MESH
GTA-V
0.
erved.
1
hts e
r s
lr
.Al g
i
c
I
o
ins n
,I
C
t Sou
lt
Transof
c ) 2014
(
C
TA-VIG
VEH
REFUSE lri s
ght
e
r served.
5m
nc.Al
ons,I
ut
l i
t So
of
rans
14 T
c
( ) 20
10. GTA-V
C
I
NG
HOTEL
FT
LOADI
20
LI
19000
L. +24.
10.
5m
FT
REFU SE
LI
GTA-VI
R.
C
VEH
1850
2
000
0
1
850
PRELIMINARY PLAN
2320

10.46 WITHOUT NOTIFICATION
AT 6: 49 PM
41:
ON 01/12/2015
SWEPT PATH KEY GTA c o nsultants

www.gta.com.au
1.66 5.50
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
mpong
10.5 metre REFUSE VEHICLE

VEHICLE BODY PATH
10.5m REFUSEmeters ENTRY FROM KING WILLIAM ROAD
Fri
chard.
300mm CLEARANCE
Width : 2.50 EXIT TOWARDS MONTEFIORE ROAD
FROM VEHICLE BODY
PLOTTED BY : Ri
Track : 2.50 ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT PLANT

ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h
Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 DATE SCALE MELWAY REF
2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-13P16
Appendix B
Swept Path Assessment – King William Road / Festival

Drive Intersection
Appendix A
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
45
+31.
L.
UP
R.
4.20 13.70
SWEPT PATH KEY

1.40 9.50
VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
VEHICLE TYRE PATH

0.20
VEHICLE BODY PATH
300mm CLEARANCE
FROM VEHICLE BODY
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

1.60 5.30
DARY
PM S 19M metres
AUSTROAD
Tractor Width : 2.50 Lock to Lock Time : 6.0
PM
Trailer Width : 2.50 Steering Angle : 27.8
(c) 201
S 19M 4 Transo
Tractor Track : 2.50 Articulating Angle : 70.0
ft Sol
TE BO UN
S 2013 (A
uti
ons, I
5
nc. A l
l ri
5
ghts res
erved.
4
Trailer Track : 2.50
1
14
.
.
U)
.+
. 3
+3
ST R
AI
L
L
.
29
R.
R
SI
THEATRE
VAL
12
FFL +36.
THEATRE
VAL
UP
FESTI
45
FFL +31.
UP
FESTI
ST R
AI
3
UP
12600
FESTIVAL DR
IVE
UP
DUCT
ESCAPE
NT
0
50
POI
10
NTAKE
R
AI
I
Y
R
FOOD VAN
S
A
UMBRELLA
CKETS
Y
N
R
A
U
TI
D
O
N
10
50
L. +36.
U
E
L. +29.
O
IT
B
S
E
R.
R.
IT
S
PRELIMINARY PLAN
FEATURE

FESTI WITHOUT NOTIFICATION
W ATER
VAL DR
IVE
06 PM
9M
PM S 1 c
( ) 2014
AU)
Transoft Sou
lton
i s n
,Ic lr
.Al g
iht e
sr served.
S 2013 (
13:
AUSTROAD
AT 12:
ON 02/12/2015
GTA c o nsultants
www.gta.com.au
R O AD
mpong

KING WILLIAM ROAD ACCESS
Fri
chard.
RIGHT TURN IN
PLOTTED BY : Ri
ADELAIDE RIVERBANK PRECINCT

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

AM
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-09P16
45
+31.
L.
UP
R.
4.20 13.70
SWEPT PATH KEY

1.40 9.50
VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
VEHICLE TYRE PATH

0.20
VEHICLE BODY PATH
300mm CLEARANCE
FROM VEHICLE BODY
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

1.60 5.30
DARY
PM S 19M metres

TE BO UN
5
45
.+
. 3
+31
14
.
.
ST R
AI
L
L
.
29
R.
R
SI
THEATRE
VAL
12
FFL +36.
THEATRE
VAL
UP
FESTI
45
FFL +31.
UP
FESTI
ST R
AI
3
UP
12600
FESTIVAL DR
IVE
UP
DUCT
ESCAPE
NT
0
50
POI
10
NTAKE
R
AI
I
Y
R
FOOD VAN
S
A
UMBRELLA
CKETS
Y
N
R
A
U
TI
D
O
N
10
AUSTROADS
50
PM
L. +36.
U
E
L. +29.
O
IT
(c) 2014
S 19M Transoft
Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. A l
l ri
ghts
B
reserved.
2013 (AU)
S
E
R.
R.
IT
S
PRELIMINARY PLAN
FEATURE

W ATER
VAL DR
IVE
44 PM
M S 19M
P c
( ) 2014 T
AU)
(
ransoft Sou
lton
i s n
,Ic lr
.Al gh
i ts e
r served.
DS 2013
AUSTROA
13:
AT 12:
ON 02/12/2015
GTA c o nsultants
www.gta.com.au
R O AD
mpong

Fri
chard.
LEFT TURN IN
PLOTTED BY : Ri

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

AM
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-10P16
45
+31.
L.
UP
R.
4.20 13.70
SWEPT PATH KEY

1.40 9.50
VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
AUSTROADS 2013 (AU)

PM
0.20
VEHICLE BODY PATH
(c) 2014 Transoft Sol
S 19M uti
ons, I
nc. Al
l ri
ghts reserved.
300mm CLEARANCE
FROM VEHICLE BODY
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

1.60 5.30
DARY
PM S 19M metres

TE BO UN
5
45
.+
. 3
+31
14
.
.
ST R
AI
L
L
.
29
R.
R
SI
THEATRE
VAL
12
FFL +36.
THEATRE
VAL
UP
FESTI
45
FFL +31.
UP
FESTI
ST R
AI
3
UP
12600
FESTI 19 U)
S on
i
s
nc
,I
.A
l
i
lr
gh
ts
es
r
v
er
ed
.
A
3(
201
ut
VAL DR M
c)
(
P OADS
20
14
an
Tr
s
t
of
So
l
IVE TR
AUS
UP
DUCT
ESCAPE
NT
0
50
POI
10
NTAKE
R
AI
I
Y
R
FOOD VAN
S
A
UMBRELLA
CKETS
Y
N
AUSTROA
PM
A
U
TI
(c) 201
D
DS 2013
S 19M 4 Transof
O
t Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. Al
l ri
ghts r
eserve
d.
N
10
50
L. +36.
(AU)
U
E
L. +29.
O
IT
B
S
E
R.
R.
IT
S
PRELIMINARY PLAN
FEATURE

W ATER
VAL DR PM S 1
c
(
9M
) 2014 Transoft Sou
lton
i s n
,Ic lr
.Al g
iht e
sr served.
IVE AUSTROAD
AU)
S 2013 (
AT 12: 05 PM
14:
ON 02/12/2015
GTA c o nsultants
www.gta.com.au
R O AD
mpong

Fri
chard.
LEFT/RIGHT TURN OUT

PLOTTED BY : Ri

2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

AM
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-11P16
Appendix C
Swept Path Assessment – Emergency Service Vehicle

Access to Station Road
Appendix B
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
L.
PLAYHOU
DUNSTA
R.
UP
20
RAMP 1:
UP
NG
STI
90
DUCT
FFL +34.
EXI
SUPPLY
R
AI
DN
FOOD VAN
S
00
UMBRELLA
L. +35.
CKETS
TI
00
R.
10
L. +35.
10
L. +36.
L. +36.
R.
R.
R.
TN
IGSA
LB
EXS
I
FEATURE
EXHAUST
W ATER
ARY
S3
S4
TE BOUND
ESCAPE
URSE
HATCH
7
RL 35.
SI
ON CONCO
P3
H3
CARPARK
P2
H2
P1
H1
UNDER
STATI
S2
S1
ST2
ST1
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SERV OADS 2013 (AU)

AUSTR
I
CE V (c) 2
014 T
ransof
t Sol
uti
ons,
I
nc. Al
T
l ri
ghts
RE EXI
reser
ved.
EH I
AN E
FI
05 PM
CLE
16:
AT 12:
CLE
SERVI
M EN T L
0
AUSTROADS 2013 (AU)
CE VEHI
20.
AUSTROA
ON 02/12/2015
GTA c o nsultants
CE VEHI)
ghts reserved.
l ri
nc. Al
(c) 201
D
ons, I
4 Tran
uti
(c) 2014 Transoft Sol
SWEPT PATH KEY

soft Sol
S 2013 (
uti
www.gta.com.au
ons, I
nc. A l
l ri
ghts res
erved.
SERVI

AU
VEHICLE CENTRE LINE

CLE
VEHICLE TYRE PATH

mpong
8.8 metre FIRE TRUCK
P A R L IA
CE VE CL
HI E
SERVI (c) 2014 Transoft
Solutions, Inc.
All rights reserved.
VEHICLE BODY PATH 20 metre TURNING CIRCLE -WALL TO WALL

Fri
AU)
(
AUSTROADS 2013
chard.
NG
$
ACCESS FROM NORTH TERRACE

SEATI
300mm CLEARANCE
PLOTTED BY : Ri

HWB
SK
OUTDOOR
$

AC C ESS
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

RTH
NG
2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

N GAM I
FLOOR NO

BAROSSA
ER
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-14P16
MAI
CASHI
L.
PLAYHOU
DUNSTA
R.
UP
20
RAMP 1:
UP
NG
STI
90
DUCT
FFL +34.
EXI
SUPPLY
R
AI
DN
FOOD VAN
S
00
UMBRELLA
L. +35.
CKETS
TI
00
R.
10
L. +35.
10
L. +36.
L. +36.
R.
R.
R.
TN
IGSA
LB
EXS
I
FEATURE
EXHAUST
W ATER
ARY
S3
S4
TE BOHUND
ESCAPE
URSE
HATCH
7
RL 35.
L
3
VI 11
A- P
C
A
I
SI
GT
N
ON CONCO
A
P3
C
H3
CARPARK
S
P2
H2
SCA
NIA P
GTA-
113HL
VI
C
P1
H1
UNDER
STATI
S2
S1
ST2
ST1
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SCAN I
T
RE EXI
AN E
GTA-VI
A
(c) 20
54 PM
FI
14 Transof
t Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. Al
l ri
ghts r
eserved.
P113H
C
16:
AT 12:
A P113HL
M EN T L
28.
ON 02/12/2015
C
GTA- VI
GTA c o nsultants
ons, I
uti
(c) 2014 Transoft Sol ghts reserved.
l ri
nc. Al
SCANI
SWEPT PATH KEY

3
www.gta.com.au
SCAN I

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
GTA-VI
A
VEHICLE TYRE PATH

(c) 2014
mpong
11.8 metre FIRE TRUCK

Transoft
Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. Al
l ri
ghts
P A R L IA
reserved.
P113H L
C
VEHICLE BODY PATH 28.3 metre TURNING CIRCLE -WALL TO WALL

Fri
chard.
NG
$
ACCESS FROM NORTH TERRACE

SEATI
SCA
NIA P 300mm CLEARANCE
PLOTTED BY : Ri
GTA- 11
(
c )2
3HL
014 T
rans
of
tS
ol
uti
ons
,I
nc.A
llr
ight
s r
e served.

HWB
SK
VI
C
OUTDOOR
$

AC C ESS
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

RTH
NG
2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -

N GAMI
FLOOR NO

BAROSSA
ER
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-16P16
MAI
CASHI
Appendix D
Swept Path Assessment – Access to SkyCity Valet
Appendix C
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
PLOTTED BY : Ri
chard.
Fri
mpong ON 02/12/2015 AT 12:
20:
19 PM
B99
Width
Track
AC C ESS
0.95
P U B LIC
Steering Angle
3.05
5.20
Lock to Lock Time

ON C
STATI
: 6.0
: 1.84
: 1.94
: 33.6
metres
UNDER
T
RE EXI
FI
FTS
LI
240LT FFL
700
ER
CASHI
240LT
LETS
TOI
T
RE EXI
FI
TERRACE
NG
N GAMI
T
EXI MAI
RTH ST1
FLOOR NO
T
EXI
IER BAR 2 x820
02
PS-
CHANDEL C
ST2
LETS
TOI
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

SWEPT PATH KEY
300mm CLEARANCE
FROM VEHICLE BODY
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
RAMPUP
VEHICLE BODY PATH

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
N GAMING
MAI
UTH
FLOOR SO
LL
MARBLE HA
NO
CASI
1070
VS
COOLROOM
BAR
TV
TV
LETS
TOI
HOST &
CLUB DESK S1
TCHEN S2
KI
BY OTHERS
240LT
T
RE EXI
FI 240LT
BY OTHERS
A
ENTRY MVH 1006
WITH BH76
N
BI
E
CAFE
BAROSSA
BULE
VESTI BAR
FTS
LI FTS
LI
SK $
T
RE EXI
FI
FTS
LI $
HWB
TV
6 5 STAFF
TCHEN
SEANS KI35.770
FFL
ENTRY
T
RE EXI
FI
FHR
NT NG
SEATI
RESTAURA OUTDOOR
ENTRY BAROSSA
OPY N RD
NE OFCAN
LI S T A T IO W ATER
FEATURE
10
L. +36.
R.
STANDARDS
2004 (AU_N
Z)
(c) 2014
Transoft
Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. A l
l ri
ghts res
erved.
B99
STAND
ARDS
2004
(c) 2
014
Transof
(AU_N
t Sol
uti
ons,
I
nc. Al
l ri
ghts
reser
ved.
B9 Z)
9
STANDARDS
2004 (AU_N
Z)
(c) 2014
Transoft
Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. Al
l ri
reserved. ghts
B99
STANDA
(
c ) 201
Tr 4
ansof
t Sol
uti
ons,I
nc.Al
lri
ght
sreserved.
RDS 200
B99
4(
50
L. +35.
R.
AU_NZ)
RETAIL
& LOBBY
AMENT
DATE
OLD PARLI
DESIGNER
FENCE
R. FRIMPONG
2 DECEMBER '15
OLD
PARLIMENT AN E
M EN T L
SCALE
COUR TYARD P A R L IA
00
L. +36.
R.
STATION ROAD
DRAWING NO.
www.gta.com.au
CIRCULATION 01
GTA c o nsultants
5.2 metre B99 VEHICLE
1:400 @ A3

MELWAY REF
-
PRELIMINARY PLAN
15A1248000-AT01-22P16
PLOTTED BY : Ri
chard.
Fri
mpong ON 02/12/2015 AT 12:
21:
16 PM
B99
Width
Track
AC C ESS
0.95
P U B LIC
Steering Angle
3.05
5.20
Lock to Lock Time

ON C
STATI
: 6.0
: 1.84
: 1.94
: 33.6
metres
UNDER
T
RE EXI
FI
FTS
LI
240LT FFL
700
ER
CASHI
240LT
LETS
TOI
T
RE EXI
FI
TERRACE
NG
N GAMI
T
EXI MAI
RTH ST1
FLOOR NO
T
EXI
IER BAR 2 x820
02
PS-
CHANDEL C
ST2
LETS
TOI
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

SWEPT PATH KEY
300mm CLEARANCE
FROM VEHICLE BODY
VEHICLE TYRE PATH
RAMPUP
VEHICLE BODY PATH

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
N GAMING
MAI
UTH
FLOOR SO
LL
MARBLE HA
NO
CASI
1070
VS
COOLROOM
BAR
TV
TV
LETS
TOI
HOST &
CLUB DESK S1
TCHEN S2
KI
BY OTHERS
240LT
T
RE EXI
FI 240LT
BY OTHERS
A
ENTRY MVH 1006
WITH BH76
N
BI
E
CAFE
BAROSSA
BULE
VESTI BAR
FTS
LI FTS
LI
SK $
T
RE EXI
FI
FTS
LI $
HWB
TV
6 5 STAFF
TCHEN
SEANS KI35.770
FFL
ENTRY
T
RE EXI
FI
FHR
NT NG
SEATI
RESTAURA OUTDOOR
ENTRY BAROSSA
OPY N RD
NE OFCAN
LI S T A T IO W ATER
FEATURE
10
L. +36.
R.
STANDARDS 2
004 (AU_NZ)
(c) 2014 Tr
ansoft Sol
uti
ons, I
nc. Al
l ri
ghts reser
ved.
B99
STANDAR
DS 2004
((
cc) 20
) 2011
Tr
Tr ans
ans 44
(AU_NZ)
of
ofttSSol
ol ut
utii
ons
ons
,,II
nc.
nc . All
Allrr
ii
ghght eser
tss rr
eservved
ed..
B99
STANDARD
(
c ) 201
Tr 4
ansof
t Sol
uti
ons,I
nc.Al
lr
r
e i
ght
s
served.
B99
S 2004 (
AU_NZ)
50
L. +35.
R.
RETAIL
& LOBBY
AMENT
DATE
OLD PARLI
DESIGNER
FENCE
R. FRIMPONG
2 DECEMBER '15
OLD
PARLIMENT AN E
M EN T L
SCALE
COUR TYARD P A R L IA
00
L. +36.
R.
STATION ROAD
DRAWING NO.
www.gta.com.au
CIRCULATION 02
GTA c o nsultants
5.2 metre B99 VEHICLE
1:400 @ A3

MELWAY REF
-
PRELIMINARY PLAN
15A1248000-AT01-23P16
Appendix E
Swept Path Assessment – Loading Vehicle Access to

Plaza
Appendix D
15A1248000 // 02.12.15
12600
FESTIVAL DR
IVE
UP
ESCAPE
NT
0
50
POI
10
NTAKE
R
AI
I
FOOD VAN
S
UMBRELLA
10
L. +36.
R.
AUSTROADS 2013 (AU)

S 19M
PM (c) 2014 Transoft S
ol ons, I
uti ghts reserved.
l ri
nc. Al
FEATURE
W ATER
R O AD M
W IL L IA
265
.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
K IN G
32 PM
23:
AT 12:
PM S 19M
(c) 2014 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
AUSTROADS 2013 (AU)

ON 02/12/2015
GTA c o nsultants

VEHICLE CENTRE LINE
VEHICLE TYRE PATH

mpong
AUSTROADS
PM
VEHICLE BODY PATH 26.5 metre TURNING CIRCLE -WALL TO WALL
Fri
chard.
(c) 2014
S 19M Transoft
Sol
uti
ons, I
LOADING ON PLAZA
nc. Al
l ri
ghts
reserved
2013 (AU)
300mm CLEARANCE
.
PLOTTED BY : Ri
ARY DATE SCALE MELWAY REF
EBOUND
PM S 19M
(c) 2014 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
ASSUMED SPEED 5km/h

AUSTROADS 2013 (AU)
KERST
I 2 DECEMBER '15 1:400 @ A3 -
WAL
BOOSTERS
CARPARK

C
PUBLI
REALM
R. FRIMPONG 15A1248000-AT01-26P16
FIRE
-
-
Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Townsville
A Level 25, 55 Collins Street A Level 4, 283 Elizabeth Street A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade A Level 1, 25 Sturt Street
PO Box 24055 BRISBANE QLD 4000 PO Box 3421 PO Box 1064
MELBOURNE VIC 3000 GPO Box 115 NORWOOD SA 5067 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
P +613 9851 9600 BRISBANE QLD 4001 P +618 8334 3600 P +617 4722 2765
E melbourne@gta.com.au P +617 3113 5000 E adelaide@gta.com.au E townsville@gta.com.au
E brisbane@gta.com.au
Sydney Canberra Gold Coast Perth
A Level 6, 15 Help Street A Tower A, Level 5, A Level 9, Corporate Centre 2 A Level 27, 44 St Georges Terrace
CHATSWOOD NSW 2067 7 London Circuit Box 37, 1 Corporate Court PERTH WA 6000
PO Box 5254 Canberra ACT 2600 BUNDALL QLD 4217 P +618 6361 4634
WEST CHATSWOOD NSW 1515 P +612 6243 4826 P +617 5510 4800 E perth@gta.com.au
P +612 8448 1800 E canberra@gta.com.au F +617 5510 4814
E sydney@gta.com.au E goldcoast@gta.com.au
www.gta.com.au
Ade
A elaid
de River
R rbannk Preci
P inct
Pedes
P trian Modelli
M ng Asssessm
ment – DRAFT
T
SD-PED
S D-0100
Departm
D ment of Planning
P g, Transport & In
nfrastruc
cture
2 th Novem
20 mber 2015
Pedestrian Modelling Assessment
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely DPTI’s information and use in
relation to the Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Public Realm Concept Design.
Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this
document and/or its contents.
This document has 28 pages including the cover.
Document history
Job number: DocJobNumber Document ref: DocReference
Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date
Rev 1.0 Draft for review CF CMacD AH CMacD 20/11/15
Client signoff
Client ClientName
Project DocProjectTitle
Document title DocName
Job no. DocJobNumber
Copy no.
Document DocReference
reference
Private and confidential

Atkins Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling i
Table of contents
Chapter Pages
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Overview 1
1.2. This Report 1
2. Pedestrian Planning Actions 2
2.1. Establish Demand Scenario 2
2.2. Assumptions Update 2
2.3. Static Sizing Assessment 3
2.4. Re-calibration of Dynamic Model 4
3. Outcomes 8
3.1. Dynamic Simulation 8
3.2. Level of Service Analysis 9
3.3. Stress Testing 11
4. Confirmations and Recommendations 13
4.1. Circulation Widths 13
4.2. Level of Service 13
Tables
Table 1 Level of Service Definition
Figures
Figure 1 Original Model Extent – as per 2013 Plan
Figure 2 Observed Hourly Demands at Key Links
Figure 3 Modelled Access Dimensions – RL 36.10
Figure 4 Modelled Access Dimensions – RL 30.0
Figure 5 Overview Simulation Screenshot at 30 minutes into the peak hour
Figure 6 Mean Walkway Density LOS – Overview
Figure 7 Mean Walkway Density LOS – Station Entry
Figure 8 Mean Walkway Density LOS – Station Entry – Double Demand Stress Test
Figure 9 Figure 9 - Mean Walkway Density LOS – Station Entry – Station Diversion Stress Test
Appendices
Appendix A Pedestrian Counts – Showdown, 3 May 2015

Atkins Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling ii

Atkins Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling iii
Executive summary
The Adelaide Riverbank Festival Plaza Precinct is set to become a prominent destination with the public
realm highly integrated with a range of new and existing developments. This rejuvenation will ensure high
volumes of pedestrian traffic in addition to movements already enhanced by the redeveloped Adelaide Oval
and footbridge.
The Public Realm Concept Design has been subjected to a static analysis in order to prepare a layout to be
tested by means of pedestrian simulation modelling and subsequent analysis. A post Adelaide Oval event
was selected as a critical sizing scenario and observed pedestrian counts within the Precinct coinciding with
Showdown 38 on May 3rd 2015 were used to calibrate the pedestrian model.
The model analysis shows that even with a large event taking place in the Plaza’s inner square there is
sufficient circulation width available at key movement corridors to accommodate forecast pedestrian traffic at
acceptable levels of comfort. In terms of fine-tuning at the next stage of design, a westward shift of the
wheelchair ramp and adjacent stair will improve flow conditions as would further consideration of the internal
station entry width at its eastern edge.
In addition, some sensitivity analyses were undertaken that focused on the critical junction of pedestrian
movement between the southern footbridge landing and the new station entry bearing in mind that existing
patterns in this area may not necessarily be reflected in the future. Firstly, total pedestrian demand was
increased by a factor of 2 to stress test the various circulation element capacities, and even under this
extreme loading case the layout accommodates the demand satisfactorily, although the issues related to the
ramp and station entry are exacerbated.
Secondly, a scenario whereby all non-rail pedestrian movement was diverted to the Playhouse stairs rather
than the station concourse revealed that the Playhouse stairs can reasonably withstand a demand of over
10,000 pedestrians during the simulated scenario.

Atkins Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling iv
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
The proposed public realm plan improves significantly on existing connectivity within and to and from the
Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Festival Plaza by reinstating significant movement axes and reconnecting
landmarks with the means to access them from surrounding areas. These improvements will have the effect
of inducing movements that are not facilitated currently and, with the injection of pedestrian traffic generated
by the new bridge linking to Adelaide Oval, careful consideration of pedestrian movement, routes and
capacity is required to ensure that the public realm serves its purpose as not just a conduit for movement but
also as an alluring space that engages with this movement.
1.2. This Report

This report sets out the work undertaken to test the capacity of the public realm plan to withstand a
significant pedestrian demand scenario whilst providing an appropriate level of service for pedestrians that
enhances the experience of navigating through Festival Plaza.
Section 2 describes the actions undertaken in terms of both static and dynamic analysis and Section 3
explains the outcomes of the analysis. Finally, Section 4 summarises the validation of proposed circulatory
space within the plan and makes recommendations for consideration at the next design stage.

Atkins Adelaide Riverbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling 1
Adelaide Riverbank Preecinct
Pedestrian Modelling Asssessment
2. Pede
estrian Pla
anning Acttions
s
2.1. Establis
sh Dema
and Scenario
The first acttion was to establish
e the
e most appro opriate dema and scenario for the testinng of the capacity of the
e
circulation sspaces within the public realm plan. In this rega ard a post Adelaide Ovaal event will generate
g the
e
largest pedestrian trafficc within a shhort space o of time. With h the likeliho
ood that the Riverbank Precinct
P mayy
also be stag ging a concu urrent event, an additiona al overlay of a fenced event taking pllace in the ‘in
nner square’’
of the plaza a is also asssumed. The e impact of such an eve ent is not soo much one of generatin ng additionall
pedestrian ttraffic but ratther a reduction in availab
ble circulatio
on space in th
he square.
This combination of evvents provideed the base scenario with w the adde ed assumptioon that fair weather willl
facilitate good patronage
e of the F&B
B outlets with in the Precin
nct post even
nt.
2.2. Assump
ptions Update
U
The basis fo
or dynamic modelling
m is an extensive e Legion sim
mulation moddel originally developed to
t inform thee
detailed dessign of the footbridge.
f The extent of this model (shown on a 2013 pllan), shown in Figure 1,,
encapsulatees the signifiicant elemen cinct, which makes it apppropriate forr re-use as a
nts of the Rivverbank Prec
forecasting tool for the public
p realm concept dessign. This model focused primarily on a post Ad delaide Ovall
event and tthe impacts on the River Torrens crrossing pointts, the Railw way Station eentrance and d movementt
through the Precinct to areas
a south of North Terrrace and onwward transpoort nodes.
ure 1: Origin
Figu nal Model Ex
xtent (2013 Plan)
P
To bring the e model up to t date, not only does th

he new publiic realm layo
out plan needd to be incorporated butt
also a range of demand d assumptionns are requirred to be up
pdated now that the footbbridge is ope
erational andd
we have the e benefit of observed peedestrian co unts and actual public trransport usaage data to fine-tune
f the
e
model para ameters and demand as ssumptions. An extens sive pedestrian count suurvey underrtaken at 17 7
M 3rd of tthis year on the occasion
different loccations over 7 hours on May n of Showdoown 38 provide the basiss
for an updatte of the mod del demand assumptionss.

Atkins Adelaide Riverban nk Precinct Pe
edestrian Mod
delling 2
Also, the original model presented a ‘Day One’ forecast – a 2014 scenario – before any redevelopment of
the Riverbank Precinct itself as a rejuvenated destination. For this reason an update of not only the
movement patterns but also the utilisation of the Precinct is required to reflect a realistic design scenario.
In this regard, the first actions were to interrogate the original model assumptions and outputs with respect
to:
 Total river crossing demand vs observed counts;

 Adelaide Railway station entry demand vs observed counts;
 Demand for Playhouse steps vs observed counts;
 Rail demand vs observed counts;
 ‘Capture’ by the Riverbank Precinct of Adelaide Oval patrons post event; and
 Onward transport nodes including Footy Express stop locations.
The results of this comparison for the observed peak hour post event were:
 Footbridge crossing vs observed counts: 17418 vs 17654 (+1%) – ie a very good match;
 King William Road demand vs observed counts: 15790 vs 8374 (-47%) – this reflects a much lower
use of the King William Road crossing and, fundamentally, a lower southbound movement from
Adelaide Oval than originally forecasted. This is presumably due to a greater number of homebound
travel options – private car and Footy Express – available north of the river;
 Adelaide Railway station entry demand vs observed counts: 12008 vs 14765 (+23%) – rail has
proven to be even more popular than originally forecasted, as well as the route to North Terrace
facilitated by the station concourse;
 Rail demand vs observed counts: 6370 vs 7737 (+21%) (see above)
 Tram demand vs observed counts: 1273 vs 2097 (+65%)
The key movements observed on the river crossing points and at the station entry provide essential
constraints as input to the model re-calibration exercise described below in Section 2.4.
2.3. Static Sizing Assessment

Prior to running of the dynamic model for the established demand scenario, a high level review of study area
circulation widths was undertaken that considered the sizing of elements not on the basis of demand but
rather on a holistic basis of consistency of circulation capacity for specific routes through the system. The
outcomes of this analysis informed an update of the public realm plan in the following regard:
 At RL31.00, the path along the north edge of Theatre and Playhouse is generally around 5m wide,
except at the sloped lawn between the shells where it narrowed to 3.5m. The plan was updated to
reflect a 5m width to maintain consistency of width along the path’s length.
 For the RL36.10, the stepped ramp width (4.739m) linking RL35.0 to RL36.10 was increased to be
equivalent to the width of the playhouse stairs as these elements will largely accommodate the same
traffic flow. The width was updated to 6.824m in response to comment.
The updated plan reflected in Figures 2 and 3 formed the basis for the model ‘supply’ in the re-calibrated
model described below.

2.4. Re-calib
bration of
o Dynam
mic Mod
del
2.4.1. Demand matrix ad
djustmen
nt
In order forr the re-calibrated mode el to more aaccurately re eflect the ob
bserved dem mands at key circulation n
elements, thhe demand matrix
m was ‘ffurnessed’ w
with particularr demands constrained aat the river crrossings, the
e
station entryy so to create a new demmand matrix tthat closely reflected
r the observed deemand for thhe Riverbankk
Precinct durring the occaasion of a po
ost Adelaide O
Oval event (w with 49,735 in attendancce).
Figure 2:
2 Observed
d Hourly Dem
mands at Ke
ey Links
Furthermore e, the profile

es of pedestrian movem ent at each of these key locations, determined from the 15 5
minute interrval record from the surv
vey, were alsso replicated
d in the simu
ulation modeel to ensure realistic flow
w
rates at thesse key locations.
2.4.2. Origins and

a destin
nations
In addition tto link dema
and adjustmeent, some ch hanges to entity destinations were reqquired to refflect the new
w
destinationss within the masterplan including ne ew retail adja
acent to Parrliament Houuse, various F&B outletss
and updated d Footy Exprress bus stop
p locations.
2.4.3. Demand scenario

o
The re-calib
brated modell demand sce
enario refleccts:
 a posst Adelaide Oval

O after eve
ent (50,000 sspectators) with
w an Festiv val Plaza eveent (in spacee terms)
overlaaid
 Split of southbounnd cross rive
er traffic, foottbridge: King William Roa
ad = 17654:88374 (basically 2/3 and
1/3)
 12% of cross riveer stadium eg gress traffic m
makes use of Precinct faccilities split aas below:

edestrian Mod
delling 4
F&B: 1593 (50%)
Retail: 501 (16%)
Casino: 716 (23%)
Riverbank Precinct: 3174 (12%)
Festival Theatre / Dunstan Playhouse: 49 (2%)
Plaza Event: 75 (2%)
Convention Centre / West Riverbank: 240 (7%)
 The remaining 88% that transit through the Precinct are split as below:
Rail:
7737 (49%)
Public Transport: Tram:
15722 (69%) 2097 (13%)
Transit through
Private Cars: Bus:
Precinct:
6455 people (28%) 5888 (38%)
22855 (88%)
Other (Walk mainly):
677 people (3%)
2.4.4. Supply Scenario – Public Realm Dimensions

The masterplan CAD drawings (ref: ARM-0088[01] and ARM-0089[01], issued on 16/11/15), informed by the
static sizing assessment described above, form the basis for the supply elements of the re-calibrated model.
RL 36.1 and RL 30 are shown below in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. Overlaid on the RL 36.1 plan is a
temporary event space covering the inner square (see Figure 5).

Adelaide Riverbank P
Precinct
Pede
estrian Modelling Assessment
Figure 3: Modelle
ed Access Dimen
nsions – RL 36.10
Priva
ate and confidentia
al
Atkin
ns Adelaide Riverbbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling 6
Adelaide Riverbank P
Precinct
Pede
estrian Modelling Assessment
Figure 4: Modellled Access Dime

ensions – RL 30.0
0
Priva
ate and confidentia
al
Atkin
ns Adelaide Riverbbank Precinct Pedestrian Modelling 7
3. Outc
comes
s
3.1. Dynamic Simulation
The simulattion model was
w develope ed using the llatest versionn of Legion Spaceworks
S software. Legion micro--
simulation ssoftware is one
o of the mo ostly widely aadopted ped destrian simuulation tools. Using empirrically based
d
research an nd observations, the sofftware is abl e to simulatte the movem ment behaviiour of pede estrians on a
footstep-by footstep bassis, which allows for the detailed ana alysis of how
w pedestrianss interact with both theirr
spatial envirronment andd each other in a highly v isual and quantifiable ma
anner.
The simulattion model ru

uns for the du
uration of the
e observed peak
p hour witthin the Preccinct.
Figure 5 be elow shows a screensho ot 30 minute

es into the simulation
s with entities m
making use of
o both riverr
crossings, FF&B outlets filling up, a fenced even
nt taking plac ce in the Pla
aza and entitties making their way to
o
North Terra ace destinatio
ons and bey yond. Note tthat it is ass
sumed for thiis temporaryy event scenario that the
e
ticketing kio
osk and umb brellas area at
a the southeern edge of the
t Festival Theatre is aassumed to beb trafficable
e
to enable circulation aro
ound the fencced event sp
pace.
Figure 5: Overview Simulation

S Screenshot at 30 minute
S es into the p
peak hour

edestrian Mod
delling 8
3.2. Level off Service

e Analys
sis
The most coommon wayy to interpret simulation o
output data is
s using Fruin
n level of serrvice plots, which
w displayy
graphically a cumulativve metric off density exp
perienced. These anallyses are baased on spatial densityy
measured in persons per
p square metre
m and a ccording to a particular LoS definitiion for walkw ways shown n
below in Table 1.
For infrastru
ucture designs subjected adings, a de
d to peak loa esign LOS of D (yellow) is typically applied
a as itt
represents a sensible ba een space prrovision and experienced
alance betwe d comfort durring busy events.
Table 1: Le
evel of Serviice Definitio
on
Average area module
Fruin's Level of Service Walkway
[ped
d/m²]
A < 0.308
B 0.308 ‐ 0.431
C 0.431 ‐ 0.718
D 0.718 ‐ 1.076
E 1.076 ‐ 2.153
F > 2.153
This ‘heat m
map’ form of analysis is also
a useful in identifying where
w any bo
ottlenecks exxist within a system.
s
Figure 6 beelow applies the mean waalkway denssity definition

n LOS to the simulated m
movement off pedestrianss
through the e Precinct. This overvview shows only isolate ed patches of LOD D experienced d along thee
e which on the whole rrepresents a Plan that is doing a good job off processing
footbridge-sstation spine g
pedestrian mmovement efficiently.
Figure 7 zo ooms in on the station entry area wh here the exissting wheelchair ramp annd adjacent stair intrude e
slightly into the line of movement
m be
etween the ffootbridge annd the station
n entry caussing some dis sturbance to
o
the moveme ents and pattches of high
her mean den nsity. This ra
amp/stair maay be out of sscope for this project butt
its impact aat this locatio
on should be borne in min nd. The other patch of LOS
L D occurrs at the eas stern edge off
the station eentry opening where therre is a confluuence of flow
ws from the fo
ootbridge, thee Playhouse e promenade e
and the we estern prome enade and where
w pedesstrians are headed mainly for either the Playhou use stairs orr
continuing a at grade to th
he Casino enntrance/statio
on concourse e.

edestrian Mod
delling 9
Figure 6:
6 Mean Wa
alkway Dens
sity LOS – Overview
O
Figure 7 - Mean Walk

kway Density LOS – Sta
ation Entry

edestrian Mod
delling 10
0
3.3. Stress Testing

T
Although a capacity Ade elaide Oval event
e is bein
ng tested, wh hich results in full utilisatiion of the foo
otbridge and
d
King William
m Street crosssings of the River Torren ns, it is prudent to test fo
or different traavel patterns s beyond the
e
river crossin
ng that mightt be influence
ed by differe
ent event sce enarios.
Firstly, total pedestrian demand

d wass increased b by a factor off 2 to stress test
t the varioous circulatio
on element
capacities w with the LOS result shown in Figure 8 below (Dou uble Demand d Stress Testt). What we see is an
exacerbatio on of the distu
urbances ide
entified in the
e peak hour analyses
a with LOS E preevalent. These are not
an indication of system failure, but do
d suggest so ome ‘smooth hing out’ during detailed ddesign would d be
beneficial, aas well as a reconsiderat
r ion of the sta
ation entry width.
w
Figure 8 - Mea
an Walkway
y Density LO
OS – Station
n Entry – Do
ouble Deman
nd Stress Te
est
The second d stress test is an assummption that o only rail-based demand enters the R Railway Station from thee
footbridge landing – ie that all otheer footbridgee traffic mak
kes use of the Playhousse stairs to access theirr
onward desstination. Thhis Station Diversion
D sceenario (Figuree 9) is rather artificial annd places the
e Playhouse e
stairs underr much greaater pressuree, with over 10,000 move ements. But even undeer this loadin ng, the stairss
hold up we ell, remembe ering that th
hey would p perform at a ‘cooler’ colour/better LLOS under a stair LOS S
assessmentt, which wou uld apply att this locatio
on, and whic ch is less onnerous than a walkway assessmentt
because peedestrians aree more prepa ared to “buncch up” when negotiating stairs.

edestrian Mod
delling 11
Fig
gure 9 - Mea
an Walkway Density LO
OS – Station Entry – Station Diversiion Stress Test
T

edestrian Mod
delling 12
2
4. Confirmations and
Recommendations
4.1. Critical Circulation Widths
The maximum modelled flows from the peak hour scenario model at each of the critical links along with their
calculated LOS are shown in Table 2. As these reflect a maximum flow calculation of LOS rather than a
simulated average the LOS band may be higher than that showing up on the density maps but nonetheless
the circulation widths meet standard static design requirements in each case.
Table 2: Critical Circulation Widths and LOS
Provided Modelled Peak Hour

Calculated Static
Pedestrian Link Minimum Width Maximum Flow
Level of Service
(metres) (people per minute)
Footbridge 8.130 525 D
Station Entry 9.000 505 D
Playhouse stairs 6.131 150 B
Ramp/stair width linking RL35.0 to
6.824 140 A
RL36.10
Promenade Path along the north edge of
5.000 120 B
Theatre and Playhouse
4.2. Dynamic Level of Service

The dynamic level of service assessment for the peak hour model reveals that under the post Adelaide Oval
scenario modelled all circulation areas display a good level of service, with only patches of LOS D showing
up at the station entry location.
4.3. Next Steps

The LOS analyses point to a couple of areas for refinement at detailed design stage:
 Although perhaps out of scope for this project, a westward shift of the wheelchair ramp and stair to
the western promenade will benefit pedestrian flow at the bridge landing;
 The current station entry width would ideally widen at its eastern edge to better accommodate the
merging flows from the footbridge and the Playhouse promenade.

Appe
endice
es
Appendix A Pedestrian Counts – Showdown, 3 May, 2015

Riverbank Footbridge
NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND TWO WAY MOVEMENTS

15 Min Cyclists Cyclists Total Cyclists Cyclists Total Cyclists Cyclists Total
Ending Pedestrians Riding Walking Cyclists Pedestrians Riding Walking Cyclists Pedestrians Riding Walking Cyclists
13:15 215 0 51 0 266 0 0 0
13:30 420 4 4 64 2 2 484 6 0 6
13:45 609 2 2 50 5 5 659 7 0 7
14:00 787 3 3 61 1 1 848 4 0 4
14:15 1240 4 4 50 0 1290 4 0 4
14:30 1563 0 105 0 1668 0 0 0
14:45 1630 1 1 57 0 1687 1 0 1
15:00 2231 0 78 0 2309 0 0 0
15:15 2796 0 55 0 2851 0 0 0
15:30 3529 0 43 0 3572 0 0 0
15:45 3556 0 42 1 1 3598 1 0 1
16:00 2285 0 22 0 2307 0 0 0
16:15 827 2 2 60 0 887 2 0 2
16:30 280 3 3 60 4 4 340 7 0 7
16:45 52 0 34 2 2 86 2 0 2
17:00 37 3 3 68 0 105 3 0 3
17:15 64 1 1 44 0 108 1 0 1
17:30 52 1 1 130 0 182 1 0 1
17:45 49 0 99 0 148 0 0 0
18:00 41 0 78 0 119 0 0 0
18:15 33 1 1 71 0 104 1 0 1
18:30 31 3 3 242 0 273 3 0 3
18:45 13 0 598 4 4 611 4 0 4
19:00 12 0 5250 0 5262 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 6100 0 6100 0 0 0
19:30 9 0 5370 0 5379 0 0 0
19:45 8 0 934 0 942 0 0 0
20:00 10 0 622 0 632 0 0 0
20:15 15 0 311 1 1 326 1 0 1
20:30 5 0 178 1 1 183 1 0 1
TOTAL
22399 28 0 28 20927 21 0 21 43326 49 0 49
Best estimate
Riverbank Footbridge peak hour demand = 5250 + 6100 + 5370 + 934 = 17654 people

King William Street Bridge

13:15 62 0 19 1 1 81 1 0 1
13:30 102 0 13 3 3 115 3 0 3
13:45 163 4 4 29 1 1 192 5 0 5
14:00 180 5 5 19 1 1 199 6 0 6
14:15 568 2 2 23 1 1 591 3 0 3
14:30 843 3 3 22 1 1 865 4 0 4
14:45 1195 1 1 14 1 1 1209 2 0 2
15:00 1243 10 10 31 2 2 1274 12 0 12
15:15 1758 1 1 24 1 1 1782 2 0 2
15:30 1640 6 6 25 1 1 1665 7 0 7
15:45 1319 14 14 21 0 1340 14 0 14
16:00 1009 11 11 20 1 1 1029 12 0 12
16:15 206 9 9 21 0 227 9 0 9
16:30 81 13 13 17 1 1 98 14 0 14
16:45 55 7 7 21 0 76 7 0 7
17:00 28 1 1 14 0 42 1 0 1
17:15 50 5 5 28 0 78 5 0 5
17:30 15 2 2 18 0 33 2 0 2
17:45 13 0 14 0 27 0 0 0
18:00 3 0 39 2 2 42 2 0 2
18:15 14 0 148 3 3 162 3 0 3
18:30 12 0 707 0 719 0 0 0
18:45 6 0 1890 0 1896 0 0 0
19:00 24 0 3572 2 2 3596 2 0 2
19:15 56 0 2205 9 9 2261 9 0 9
19:30 62 0 215 0 277 0 0 0
19:45 12 2 2 161 2 2 173 4 0 4
20:00 11 2 2 93 2 2 104 4 0 4
20:15 9 0 60 1 1 69 1 0 1
20:30 3 0 7 0 10 0 0 0
TOTAL
10742 98 0 98 9490 36 0 36 20232 134 0 134
King William Street Bridge peak hour demand = 707 + 1890 + 3572 + 2205 = 8374 people

Railway Station

13:15 106 0 10 0 116 0 0 0
13:30 285 1 1 35 0 320 1 0 1
13:45 365 0 8 3 3 373 3 0 3
14:00 440 1 1 10 0 450 1 0 1
14:15 760 2 2 11 0 771 2 0 2
14:30 790 0 55 0 845 0 0 0
14:45 732 1 1 30 0 762 1 0 1
15:00 1185 1 1 25 0 1210 1 0 1
15:15 1710 1 1 45 0 1755 1 0 1
15:30 1985 0 21 0 2006 0 0 0
15:45 2106 0 20 1 1 2126 1 0 1
16:00 1384 2 2 18 0 1402 2 0 2
16:15 480 3 3 40 0 520 3 0 3
16:30 215 0 45 0 260 0 0 0
16:45 10 2 2 20 2 2 30 4 0 4
17:00 20 0 35 0 55 0 0 0
17:15 40 1 1 42 0 82 1 0 1
17:30 35 0 110 0 145 0 0 0
17:45 39 0 94 0 133 0 0 0
18:00 42 1 1 70 0 112 1 0 1
18:15 21 0 65 0 86 0 0 0
18:30 15 0 210 1 1 225 1 0 1
18:45 6 0 485 0 491 0 0 0
19:00 10 0 4520 0 4530 0 0 0
19:15 30 0 4950 0 4980 0 0 0
19:30 20 0 4530 0 4550 0 0 0
19:45 10 0 765 0 775 0 0 0
20:00 15 0 543 0 558 0 0 0
20:15 8 0 296 1 1 304 1 0 1
20:30 6 0 144 0 150 0 0 0
TOTAL
12870 16 0 16 17252 8 0 8 30122 24 0 24
Estimated
Railway Station Entry peak hour demand = 4520 + 4950 + 4530 + 765 = 14765 people

Railway Demand
time 03/08/2014 10/08/2014 17/08/2014 24/08/2014 26/04/2015 3/05/2015

09:00 22 27 21 23 18 29
09:15 16 21 25 31 21 24
09:30 35 42 40 38 35 20
09:45 22 39 32 39 31 19
10:00 34 39 48 35 36 35
10:15 33 44 36 21 43 39
10:30 28 53 32 41 42 36
10:45 51 28 31 46 28 32
11:00 39 55 37 35 40 51
11:15 34 42 64 22 38 29
11:30 33 30 51 61 31 34
11:45 50 39 56 56 35 48
12:00 37 54 57 42 46 39
12:15 33 45 63 53 41 47
12:30 53 49 67 65 46 39
12:45 46 46 67 47 70 45
13:00 58 54 141 90 74 56
13:15 67 50 105 45 69 58
13:30 47 58 125 60 66 90
13:45 50 51 128 65 53 84
14:00 86 81 152 77 101 63
14:15 68 90 141 105 92 95
14:30 71 87 150 76 91 118
14:45 102 58 155 92 87 144
15:00 104 106 222 123 83 139
15:15 125 96 205 114 120 148
15:30 124 150 284 141 81 144
15:45 103 92 215 128 85 157
16:00 140 119 263 135 105 124
16:15 108 100 210 168 121 121
16:30 136 86 190 122 112 135
16:45 93 117 152 135 116 117
17:00 145 137 190 142 140 103
17:15 97 122 123 114 149 149
17:30 127 88 97 98 100 140
17:45 47 57 71 63 57 131
18:00 72 82 50 64 64 92
18:15 36 46 64 51 43 87
18:30 56 37 35 37 42 115
18:45 38 44 56 58 43 230
19:00 35 28 28 30 24 1870
19:15 17 16 16 12 23 3161
19:30 43 36 52 31 47 2151
19:45 34 60 29 45 58 555
20:00 27 19 25 13 21 390
20:15 11 7 17 19 13 185
20:30
2267 2174 3691 2453 2280 11152
Railway Station peak hour demand = 1870 + 3161 + 2151 + 555 = 7737 people

Tram Demand
15 Min TOTAL BOARDING

Ending TO GLENELG DIRECTION TO A.E.C. DIRECTION
13:15 15 5
13:30 10 12
13:45 21 1
14:00 14 3
14:15 13 11
14:30 9 38
14:45 33 37
15:00 30 19
15:15 36 22
15:30 24 13
15:45 41 5
16:00 14 8
16:15 24 17
16:30 15 7
16:45 18 4
17:00 27 15
17:15 17 13
17:30 17 2
17:45 22 12
18:00 18 9
18:15 20 7
18:30 29 14
18:45 45 10
19:00 200 224
19:15 418 479
19:30 331 171
19:45 229 45
20:00 39 21
20:15 109 47
20:30 39 22
TOTAL 1877 1293
Tram peak hour demand = 200 + 224 + 418 + 479 + 331 + 171 + 229 + 45 = 2097 people

Playhouse Steps
NORTH WEST BOUND (DOWN) SOUTH EAST BOUND (UP) TWO WAY MOVEMENTS
13:15 61 0 18 0 79 0 0 0
13:30 75 0 11 0 86 0 0 0
13:45 123 0 23 0 146 0 0 0
14:00 229 0 18 0 247 0 0 0
14:15 284 0 60 0 344 0 0 0
14:30 505 0 19 0 524 0 0 0
14:45 605 0 20 0 625 0 0 0
15:00 653 0 11 0 664 0 0 0
15:15 719 0 8 0 727 0 0 0
15:30 953 0 11 0 964 0 0 0
15:45 1004 0 6 0 1010 0 0 0
16:00 556 0 2 0 558 0 0 0
16:15 230 0 10 0 240 0 0 0
16:30 68 0 14 0 82 0 0 0
16:45 39 0 17 0 56 0 0 0
17:00 8 0 23 0 31 0 0 0
17:15 16 0 4 0 20 0 0 0
17:30 4 0 9 0 13 0 0 0
17:45 9 0 9 0 18 0 0 0
18:00 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0
18:15 5 0 7 0 12 0 0 0
18:30 9 2 2 13 0 22 0 2 2
18:45 8 0 75 0 83 0 0 0
19:00 8 0 370 0 378 0 0 0
19:15 56 0 677 0 733 0 0 0
19:30 23 0 473 0 496 0 0 0
19:45 5 0 84 0 89 0 0 0
20:00 8 0 12 0 20 0 0 0
20:15 4 0 9 0 13 0 0 0
20:30 2 0 7 0 9 0 0 0
TOTAL
6272 0 2 2 2021 0 0 0 8293 0 2 2
Playhouse Steps peak hour demand = 370 +677 + 473 + 84 = 1604 people

Festival Drive
WEST BOUND EAST BOUND TWO WAY MOVEMENTS

13:15 17 0 4 0 21 0 0 0
13:30 8 1 1 5 2 2 13 3 0 3
13:45 19 0 9 2 2 28 2 0 2
14:00 17 0 2 0 19 0 0 0
14:15 45 1 1 7 1 1 52 2 0 2
14:30 28 0 9 0 37 0 0 0
14:45 28 0 2 0 30 0 0 0
15:00 33 4 4 6 0 39 4 0 4
15:15 23 1 1 5 0 28 1 0 1
15:30 43 0 8 0 51 0 0 0
15:45 11 0 3 0 14 0 0 0
16:00 12 0 3 0 15 0 0 0
16:15 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0
16:30 1 0 4 4 1 4 0 4
16:45 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0
17:00 2 0 4 0 6 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 3 0 5 0 8 0 0 0
17:45 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
18:15 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 0
18:30 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
18:45 2 0 6 1 1 8 1 0 1
19:00 6 0 59 0 65 0 0 0
19:15 2 0 131 0 133 0 0 0
19:30 6 0 106 0 112 0 0 0
19:45 1 0 23 0 24 0 0 0
20:00 2 0 10 0 12 0 0 0
20:15 1 0 9 0 10 0 0 0
20:30 0 3 2 2 3 2 0 2
TOTAL
317 7 0 7 428 12 0 12 745 19 0 19
Best estimate
Festival Drive peak hour demand = 59 + 131 + 106 + 23 = 319 people

Riverbank Promenade West (towards Morphett Street and Regatta's Bistro)
EAST BOUND (to the Footbridge) WEST BOUND (from the Footbridge) TWO WAY MOVEMENTS
13:15 32 0 19 0 51 0 0 0
13:30 29 0 9 0 38 0 0 0
13:45 49 0 6 0 55 0 0 0
14:00 79 1 1 4 1 1 83 1 1 2
14:15 102 0 9 0 111 0 0 0
14:30 107 0 13 0 120 0 0 0
14:45 127 0 6 0 133 0 0 0
15:00 174 0 6 0 180 0 0 0
15:15 232 0 7 0 239 0 0 0
15:30 388 0 7 0 395 0 0 0
15:45 382 0 3 0 385 0 0 0
16:00 280 0 2 0 282 0 0 0
16:15 75 0 4 0 79 0 0 0
16:30 10 0 3 0 13 0 0 0
16:45 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
17:00 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
17:15 10 1 1 1 0 11 1 0 1
17:30 4 0 0 4 0 0 0
17:45 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
18:00 0 4 0 4 0 0 0
18:15 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 0
18:30 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0
18:45 0 17 0 17 0 0 0
19:00 3 0 304 0 307 0 0 0
19:15 6 0 414 0 420 0 0 0
19:30 0 254 0 254 0 0 0
19:45 2 0 62 0 64 0 0 0
20:00 0 28 0 28 0 0 0
20:15 2 0 3 0 5 0 0 0
20:30 0 5 0 5 0 0 0
TOTAL
2098 2 1 3 1204 1 0 1 3302 3 1 4
Riverbank Promenade West peak hour demand = 304 + 414 + 254 + 62 = 1034 people

Contact naame
Atkins comppany name
Office addre
ess
Email
Telephone
phone
Direct telep
Fax
© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherw

wise.
The Atkins lo
ogo, ‘Carbon Critical
C Design’ and the strap
pline
‘Plan Design Enable’ are trrademarks of Atkins Ltd.
Arboricultural Report
SD-ARB-0100 – V2
Internal Reference Number: ATS3356 – V2

Page 2 of 17
Contents
Brief ................................................................................................................... 3
Documents and Information Provided ............................................................................ 3
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4
Site Location ...................................................................................................... 4
Findings .............................................................................................................. 5
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 10
Glossary ............................................................................................................. 11
References.......................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A – King William Street, Plane Trees ................................................................ 12

Appendix B – King William Street, Plane Trees Plan .......................................................... 16
Report Number: SD-ARB-0100

Internal Reference: ATS3356 – V2
Report prepared for

Kate Cullity, TCL
Author
Marcus Lodge, Senior Consulting Arborist
Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd
Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd – Professionals in Arboriculture Phone: (08) 8240 5555
23 Aberdeen Street ATS3356-AFCKinWilStConceptPlan V2 – 1 December 2015 Fax: (08) 8240 4525
Port Adelaide SA 5015 Email: arborman@arborman.com.au
Page 3 of 17
Brief
Arborman Tree Solutions was employed by TCL to provide information in relation the existing and
proposed trees within and adjacent Adelaide Festival Centre Precinct and provide guidance in regard to
the management the existing tree population and proposed plantings. Specifically Arborman Tree
Solutions was asked to consider the following areas.
Part 1 King William Road Plane Trees
• Undertake an assessment of the plane trees along King William Road to determine
their overall condition, useful life expectancy and potential root zone impacts
associated with the proposed redevelopment.
Part 2 The Square and Station Road
• Look at the species suitability and consider any other potential species that would
achieve the required visual and amenity outcomes.
• Calculate the required soil volumes for mature specimens of the selected species and
any potential alternative species.
• Determine and comment on the maintenance requirements for the selected species
and any potential alternative species.
• The above includes commentary in relation to the Vines and Bougainvillea being
considered for the shade structures within The Square.
Part 3 Elder Park
• Undertake an assessment of approximately 20 trees within Elder Park to determine
their overall condition, useful life expectancy and inform the redevelopment in relation
to future works and potential tree impacts.
Part 4 Parliament Garden
• Look at the species suitability and consider any other potential species that would
achieve the required visual and amenity outcomes.
• Calculate the required soil volumes for mature specimens of the selected species and
any potential alternative species.
• Determine and comment on the maintenance requirements for the selected species
and any potential alternative species.
This report deals specifically with Parts 1, 2 and 4.
Documents and Information Provided

The following information was provided for the preparation of this assessment:-
 Concept Plan: 150904_Cabinet Meeting_Draft2
Page 4 of 17
Introduction
Trees within the site are valuable aesthetic and environmental assets to the community fostering a
pleasing environment and aims encourage public participation in this area. The concept proposal seeks
to increase the number of trees and plants within the area and improve the overall condition of the tree
population.
Recommendations have been made as appropriate achieve the best outcome for the tree resource and
ensure their long-term viability within the landscape.
Site Location
The site is located at King William Street, Adelaide and includes the Festival Centre Precinct and Elder
Park.
Figure 1 Site Location
Page 5 of 17
Findings
1. King William Street – London Plane Tree
A total of 44 Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane Trees) are located on the western side of King William
Street between North Terrace and the River Torrens. This line of trees is part of three linear planting
along King William Street with the remaining trees being in the centre median strip and the eastern
footpath area adjacent to Government House. Given the scale, number and aesthetic contribution of the
trees in this area of King William Street it is important that they are maintained and protected through
any adjacent development.
Within the 44 surveyed trees 10 are identified as Regulated Trees as identified by the Development Act
1993, the remaining trees are unregulated; no trees were identified as Significant Trees. The trees all
show Fair health and structure with no significant history of health decline or structural failure. The risk
associated with these trees to users of the area is considered to be low.
The proposed development involves the excavation for an underground car park and the associated
infrastructure and the installation of suspended garden beds above the car park adjacent to the existing
footpath. There is only one Regulated Tree, Tree 5434, in the area of the proposed works; this tree is
located within the proposed crossover. The location Tree 5434 is such that it will require removal and as
such the removal of this tree needs to be included within the development application.
The findings of the assessment of the trees is appended in Appendix A – King William Street, Plane
Trees. The tree numbering is consistent with the numbers recorded for the Adelaide City Council Street
Tree Survey of December 2013.
Page 6 of 17
2. The Square and Station Road

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if there is suitable soil volume within the garden beds to
ensure the proposed tree species achieve their mature size in the Adelaide environment and to consider
the species suitability. Additionally consideration has been given to alternative species that may be more
suited and still achieve the required aesthetic impact.
The species within the concept documents are generally well suited to the environment and are proven
performers in confined and/or poor soil environments.
Celtis species (Southern Hackberry) is a proven street tree in the greater Adelaide environment with
1693 specimens growing within the Adelaide City Council streets alone; approximately 27% of their street
tree population. The two most common species are C. australis (Southern Hackberry) and C.
occidentalis (Common Hackberry); the most obvious difference between these species is the texture of
the bark with C. australis being smooth and C. occidentalis being obviously more ridged. This genera is
part of the Elm Family and appears to have similar resilience to poor growing conditions without the
prevalence for decay and wood rot of its larger cousin. The silver brown bark, colourful small berries and
relatively light coloured leaves of this species make it an attractive specimen throughout the seasons.
The of Platanus ‘Autumn Gold’ (Autumn Gold Plane) in Station Road works well aesthetically and
provides a traditional link with the buildings on either side however it appears the trees are spaced too
close together to allow for the required root and crown development and therefore consideration should
be given to the actual spacing.
There has been some concern raised in relation to the depth of planting bed and the subsequent stability
of the trees. The depth of the proposed planting beds is between one and 1.45 metres which is adequate
for root growth given that the majority of roots located within top 0.3 to 0.7 metres of soil in normal growing
conditions. The concern with the depth of the proposed planting beds relates to the stability of the root
plate as most trees have some structural roots, which anchor the tree, that often grow to greater depths.
If these were single plantings this lack of potential deep structural roots could be of concern. This
proposal has multiple trees growing in the same area which has the dual benefit of wind protection from
the adjacent crowns and the roots of each tree intertwining with its neighbours to form a large combined
root mass.
As indicated above the selected species are generally well suited to the environment and have the
potential to provide long-term aesthetic value to this area. There are few species that can withstand the
rigours of urban planting and thrive to the point where they are providing an actual benefit to the
community and the selected species are proven in this environment.
Page 7 of 17
The following table details compares the required soil volumes for the selected species and compares them with the estimated available soil
volume to determine their long-term viability in the proposed landscape.
Expected
Required Soil Available Soil
Common Trunk
Botanic Name Volume Volume Suitability Location Comments
Name Diameter
(cubic metres) (cubic metres)
(metres)
Jacaranda or
The Hardy species well suited to
Jacaranda mimosifolia Brazilian 0.35 25 21-25 High
Square Adelaide environs.
Rosewood
Ornamental The Able to grown in restricted and

Pyrus calleryana 0.3 21 25-35 High
Pear Square poor quality soils.
Medium to large tree that has
Southern The been very successful as a street
Celtis australis >0.6 >45 25-35 Moderate
Hackberry Square tree in the Adelaide
environment.
Exceptionally hardy species will
Platanus 'Autumn Autumn Glory Station need additional soil volume and
0.35 25 21-25 High
Glory' Plane Street greater spacing to accommodate
the mature crown size.
Small to medium tree that
provides year round interest.
Station Ensure selected cultivar is
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle 0.2 12 16 High
Street resistant to Powdery Mildew as
this can spoil the summer foliage
in non-resistant cultivars.
Note 1: The above Available Soil Volumes are estimated from the concept plan identified as 150904_Cabinet Meeting_Draft2 and are not taken from scaled plans and as such
there may be some variation in the actual soil volume available although it unlikely to be significant.
Note 2: The Expected Trunk Diameter is typical of the species when grown in streets within the greater Adelaide area it does not include open grown trees which can have a
substantially greater size. In the case of Platanus ‘Autumn Glory’, which is a relatively new cultivar, the Expected Trunk Diameter has been estimated on the size of
the parent species.
23 Aberdeen Street ATS3356-AFCKinWilStConceptPlan – 26 November 2015 Fax: (08) 8240 4525
Page 8 of 17
3. Elder Park
To be completed
Page 9 of 17
4. Parliamentary Gardens
The information provided on the Parliamentary Gardens indicates an upper canopy of eucalypts with an
understorey of native shrubs. The provided pictures within the concept plan identified as
150904_Cabinet Meeting_Draft2 indicate the large trees as a smooth barked eucalypt potentially one of
the Corymbia species, i.e. C. citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) or C. maculata (Spotted Gum), or
Angophora costata (Smooth Barked Apple or Sydney Red Gum); these are species that are suited to
poor growing conditions if they are able to source adequate water. The concept plan does not show the
available root growth area for these trees in the same format as The Square and Station Road nor does
it positively identify the species and as such it is not possible to compare the available soil volume with
the required soil volume.
The concept plan indicates the Parliamentary Garden is a relatively narrow area with high walls on both
the southern and northern sides. This may restrict light entering the garden area and as a result cause
the trees to grow with a different form i.e. thin, elongated and tall searching for light before forming a
broader crown above the wall; this may result in overall stability issues associated with tall high crowned
trees in a relatively shallow planting space only exposed to wind in their upper crowns and specific branch
overextension issues resulting an increased likelihood of branch failure.
The style of the Parliamentary Garden will require shade, at least in summer, to prevent it becoming an
uninviting hot spot however the use of tall forest trees in a relatively confined space does not seem
appropriate. Equally in winter the area will only be inviting if the winter sun can fill the area with warming
natural light and therefore a deciduous tree may be more appropriate.
The Parliamentary Garden is a relatively confined space and any canopy tree cover has to be considered
carefully as the environment will affect the habit and form of the trees and understorey plantings.
Page 10 of 17
Conclusion
The choice of species within the Adelaide Festival Centre Precinct appears to be appropriate and
consistent with and complimentary to the adjacent street plantings. With one potential exception the
available soil volume is such that the chosen trees should be able to thrive and provide the required
aesthetic and environmental value to the area.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the above information should you have any queries or require
further information please contact me at your convenience.
Yours sincerely
MARCUS LODGE
Director and Consulting Arboriculturist
Diploma in Arboriculture
Page 11 of 17
Glossary
Size: approximate height and width of tree in metres.
Age: identification of the maturity of the subject tree.
Useful Life Expectancy: expected number of the years that the subject specimen will
remain alive and sound in its current location and/or continues
to achieve the relevant Principles of Development Control.
Health: visual assessment of tree health.
Structure: visual assessment of tree structure.
Circumference: trunk circumference measured at one metre above ground
level. This measurement is used to determine the status of the
tree in relation to the Development Act 1993.
Tree Damaging Activity Tree damaging activity includes those activities described
within the Development Act 1993 such as removal, killing,
lopping, ringbarking or topping or any other substantial damage
such as mechanical or chemical damage, filling or cutting of soil
within the TPZ. Can also include forms of pruning above and
below the ground.
Root Buttressing: area of root development as it joins to the trunk base.
Bifurcation: a stem union supporting ascending stems and potentially
containing included bark.
Included Bark Union: a poorly formed stem or branch union where bark becomes
trapped between the structural fibres causing a weakness in the
supporting structure.
Epicormic Growth: regrowth developing from dormant buds located beneath the
bark. Often developing as a result of inappropriate pruning or
tree related stress. Such growth can be associated with poor
attachment and therefore an increased potential for failure.
References
Australian Standards Risk Management AS/NZS 4360:1999 Standards Australia, Standards New
Zealand
Dunster J.A., Smiley E.T., Metheny N. and Lilly S. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign,
Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture.
Draper, D & Richards P, A Dictionary for Managing Trees in Urban Environments. CSIRO Publishing,
Institute of Australian Consulting Arborists.
Australian Standard AS4373–2007 Pruning of amenity trees: Standards Australia.
Keane P.J. Kile G.D. Podger F.D. Brown B.N. 2000: Diseases and Pathogens of Eucalypts: CSIRO
Publishing, 150 Oxford Street, Collingwood, Victoria 3066 Australia
Page 12 of 17
Appendix A – King William Street, Plane Trees
Page 13 of 17
Tree Botanic Legislative Suitable for Tree Potential

Size Condition Age TPZ Action
Number Name Status Retention Importance Impact
Platanus x Semi
5403 8(H) x 9(W) Unregulated Fair Yes High Very Low 7.6 No Action
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x 12(H) x Semi
5412 Unregulated Fair Yes High Very Low 7.6 No Action
acerfolius 12(W) Mature
Platanus x 14(H) x
5414 Regulated Fair Mature Yes High Very Low 11.5 No Action
acerfolius 14(W)
Platanus x 14(H) x
acerfolius 14(W)
Platanus x
5416 10(H) x 9(W) Regulated Fair Mature Yes High Very Low 11.5 No Action
acerfolius
Platanus x 15(H) x
acerfolius 14(W)
Page 14 of 17

Platanus x 12(H) x
acerfolius 10(W)
Platanus x 12(H) x
acerfolius 14(W)
Platanus x 16(H) x
acerfolius 14(W)
Platanus x 16(H) x
acerfolius 14(W)
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x 13(H) x Semi Protect Root
5433 Unregulated Fair Yes High Moderate 7.6
acerfolius 13(W) Mature Zone
Platanus x
5434 13(H) x 9(W) Regulated Fair Mature Yes High High 11.5 Remove
acerfolius
Platanus x Semi Protect Root
5435 8(H) x 6(W) Unregulated Fair Yes High Moderate 7.6
acerfolius Mature Zone
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Page 15 of 17

Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x
5438 4(H) x 2(W) Unregulated Fair Juvenile Yes High Very Low 3.8 No Action
acerfolius
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x Semi
acerfolius Mature
Platanus x 15(H) x
acerfolius 15(W)
Page 16 of 17
Appendix B – King William Street, Plane Trees Plan
Page 17 of 17
Tree 5403
Key
Unregulated
Regulated
Tree 5434
Tree 5446
Location and Legislative Status

ATS3356-
AFCKinWilStConceptPlan
Map 1 of 1 - 1 December 2015 Adelaide Festival Centre
Precinct
ABN 59 127 176 569
PO Box 1159,
Glenelg South SA 5045
Ph: +61 8 8294 5571
rawtec.com.au
Walker Corporation
Festival Square Project
Waste Management Plan
December 2015
- IMPORTANT NOTES-
This document has been prepared by Rawtec Pty Ltd (Rawtec) for a specific purpose and client (as named in this
document) and is intended to be used solely for that purpose by that client.
The information contained within this document is based upon sources, experimentation and methodology which
at the time of preparing this document were believed to be reasonably reliable and the accuracy of this information
subsequent to this date may not necessarily be valid. This information is not to be relied upon or extrapolated
beyond its intended purpose by the client or a third party unless it is confirmed in writing by Rawtec that it is
permissible and appropriate to do so.
Unless expressly provided in this document, no part of this document may be reproduced or copied in any form or
by any means without the prior written consent of Rawtec or the client.
The information in this document may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of
this document (or parts thereof), or do not have permission from Rawtec or the client for access to it, please
immediately notify Rawtec or the client and destroy the document (or parts thereof).
This document, parts thereof or the information contained therein must not be used in a misleading, deceptive,
defamatory or inaccurate manner or in any way that may otherwise be prejudicial to Rawtec, including without
limitation, in order to imply that Rawtec has endorsed a particular product or service.
Document verification
Date Version Title Prepared by Approved by
Walker Festival Square Project

09/12/2015 Draft Jarvis Webb & Kat Heinrich Mark Rawson
WMP
Walker Festival Square Project

10/12/2015 Final Jarvis Webb & Kat Heinrich Mark Rawson
WMP
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 What this WMP contains ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 WMP Status ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Important Note......................................................................................................................... 2
Description of the Development ...................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Land Uses & Occupancy Data ................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Site Requirements ................................................................................................................... 3
Design Approach & Assumptions.................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Overarching Approach ............................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Estimating Waste & Recycling Services, Volumes and Sizing Storage Areas ....................... 5
Waste and Recycling Services, Volumes, Estimated Collection Frequency, and Storage Areas .. 6
4.1 Waste and Recycling Services................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Estimated Volumes ................................................................................................................. 7
4.3 Waste Storage Areas .............................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Bin Wash Area ........................................................................................................................ 7
Waste Management System ........................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Overview of System ................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Offices ..................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Retail/Café/Restaurant .......................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Waste Collection WMS (All Land Uses) ................................................................................ 11
Collection Requirements and Vehicle Movements ....................................................................... 12
6.1 Estimated number of waste vehicle movements per week. .................................................. 12
Supporting Documentation & Design Details ................................................................................ 13
Appendix 1: Indicative Size of Waste Rooms ....................................................................................... 14
Appendix 2: Estimated Waste Generation Volumes by Land Use & Waste Stream ............................ 15
Walker Corporation: Festival Square Project – Waste Management Plan

List of Tables
Table 1-1: Development details .............................................................................................................. 1
Table 1-2: WMP overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2-1: Land use and occupancy overview........................................................................................ 3
Table 2-2: Site requirements summary ................................................................................................... 3
Table 4-1: Recommended waste & recycling services for the development .......................................... 6
Table 4-2: Preliminary estimates of waste & recycling volumes (litres/week) across all land uses with
proposed services and collection frequency ........................................................................................... 7
Table 5-1: Waste Management Systems and Waste Streams ............................................................... 8
Table 6-1: Likely dimensions and turning radius of waste collection vehicles that would be required to
access to the Basement Loading Dock................................................................................................. 12
Walker Corporation: Festival Square Project – Waste Management Plan

Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This document provides a waste management plan (WMP), for the proposed development
identified in Table 1-1 below. This WMP will be included with building plans for the
development lodged with the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) to obtain
Development Approval. The WMP outlines the proposed waste management system (WMS)
for the development at high-level, which demonstrate that successful management of waste
can be achieved at the site.
Table 1-1: Development details
Site Location Adelaide Riverbank Precinct – Festival Square

Development Project Walker Festival Square Project
Client and Project Manager Walker Corporation
Project Architect Bates Smart
Traffic Engineer Mott Macdonald
1.2 What this WMP contains

This WMP contains the information summarised in the Table 1-2 below.
Table 1-2: WMP overview
Section 2 – Description Provides details of the development relevant to the WMP

of Development preparation
Section 3 – Design
Sets out the design approach and assumptions that have been
Approach &
used in preparing this WMP.
Assumptions
Section 4 – Waste Indicates the waste and recycling collection services proposed
Services, Volumes and for the development, and provides estimates of the waste and
Estimated Collection recycling volumes likely to be generated at the site which will
Frequency require collection and disposal.
Provides an overview of the proposed WMS for the
development, including the main elements and important
Section 5 – Waste
design requirements, and how these systems should operate.
Management System
The WMS outlines how waste will be stored, transferred and
collected at the site.
This section includes relevant information on collection
Section 6 – Collection
requirements, including provision for access and
Requirements
manoeuvrability for waste collection vehicles.
Walker Corporation: Festival Square Project – Waste Management Plan 1

Section 7 – Supporting This section outlines the required supporting documentation &
Documentation & design details that need to be confirmed in addition to the WMS
Design Details outlined in this WMP.
This appendix provides an indicative drawing of the minimum
Appendix 1 – Indicative
size for the proposed waste rooms, which shows one potential
Size of Waste Room(s)
bin configuration example.
Appendix 2 – Estimated
This appendix shows the estimated waste and recycling
Waste Generation
volumes generated by individual land uses and waste streams
Volumes by Land Use &
across the development, used in the preparation of the WMP.
Waste Stream
1.3 WMP Status

1.1.1 Currently proposed WMS & WMP
This WMP has been developed for the planning stage of this development. It provides a
preliminary design for the WMS for this site and is intended to demonstrate that successful
management of waste can be achieved at the site. To support this WMP, the Client will need
to provide the additional documentation or details on their plans as listed in Section 7.
1.1.2 Further development of WMS & finalisation of WMP

The suggested arrangements in this WMP are preliminary and reflect one possible
configuration for the WMS at this site. These arrangements could evolve and be refined
before detailed design/construction takes place. This may affect the WMP for the site, which
should be updated accordingly.
1.4 Important Note

This WMP has been developed in conjunction with the Client, Project Architects, and Traffic
Consultant, who have indicated the intended site uses of the development, occupancy data,
and requirements for how waste should be managed. If future proposed uses and waste
management arrangements for the development are altered, the WMP may need to be
reconsidered.

Description of the Development
2.1 Land Uses & Occupancy Data
Walker Corporation has provided Rawtec with a preliminary description of the development,
and plans showing the proposed layout of the site, buildings, and land uses, which can be
found in Table 2-1 below.
It is also understood that Parliament House (adjacent existing building), will have waste and
recycling stored and collected from the Basement Loading Dock of the development.
Provisions have been made for the storage and collection of these waste and recyclables,
which are based on the buildings’ existing waste and recycling services, bin sizes, volumes,
provided by the Client.
Table 2-1: Land use and occupancy overview

Land Use Land Use Type Occupancy Data
Offices Approx. 40,000m2 of NLA (Estimated)
Commercial Retail (assumed 50% of 4,145m2) Approx. 2,072m2 of UFA (Estimated)
Café/Restaurant (assumed 50% of 4,145m2) Approx. 2,072m2 of UFA (Estimated)
2.2 Site Requirements

The following waste management & operational requirements (Table 2-2 below), were
indicated for the site by the Client. These arrangements have been considered when
developing the design of the proposed WMS, and the information contained in the WMP.
Table 2-2: Site requirements summary

Waste Management
Description
Requirement
 Bin stations would be provided within each commercial land use.

Waste disposal points  Common waste rooms will be provided in the Level 2 Basement
adjacent to the Loading Docks (Basement Loading Dock).
 Cleaners would collect, transfer, and dispose of waste and

recycling from the offices.
 Tenancy staff would collect, transfer, and dispose of waste and
Building services recyclables from the retail/café/restaurant land uses.
 Building services would regularly manage waste across the site,
such as organising waste collections, presenting bins,
maintenance etc.
 Collection service types are to align with the services

recommended/required within the applicable local council or state
Collection service types government guidelines and policies
 Collection would be undertaken via Commercial Collection
services.

 All Waste Collection would occur from the Basement Loading
Collection point
Dock, which is accessible via the carpark entrance ramp.
 The waste management systems and storage rooms/areas, need

to include provisions for the source separation, storage, and
Green Star Operational collection for the following required waste and recycling streams:
Waste Requirement 8.1B -
o General waste
Prescriptive waste
o Paper and cardboard
management practices are
o Glass
implemented
o Plastic
o At least one other waste stream
Waste and recycling A waste and recycling storage room is required in the Basement
storage and collection Loading Dock, to store the following the following waste and
requirements of Parliament recycling bins utilised by Parliament House (adjacent building):
House (adjacent building),  5 x 1100litre bins
which will be utilising the
 3 x 240 litre bins.
development’s Basement
Loading Dock for storage
and collection of the This room would need to be a minimum area of 6.5m x 1.5 m for
buildings waste and 1100litre bins and a minimum of 2m x 1m for the 240 litre bins based
recyclables on the requirements specified by the client.

Design Approach & Assumptions
3.1 Overarching Approach
The proposed WMS for this development has been prepared with the following policy,
design, and/or operational requirements for waste management in mind.
 The South Australian Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010

(W2REPP) (Government of South Australia, 2011)
o This policy requires that waste is subject to resource recovery processes,
which can include source separation, before disposal to landfill.
 Adelaide (City) Development Plan (Department of Planning, Transport &
Infrastructure, 2014)
o Identifies need (among others) for areas to store waste and recyclable
materials (three streams), appropriate to the size and type of development,
screened from public, which minimises disturbance to surrounding residents
and provides for service vehicle access.
 South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste Management in Residential or Mixed
Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014)
o Similar to the ACC Design Guide above, but with some slightly different
design requirements.
3.2 Estimating Waste & Recycling Services, Volumes and Sizing

Storage Areas
This WMP includes an estimate of waste & recycling volumes likely to be generated by the
development, which can be found in Section 4 below.
The estimation of waste and recycling volumes is based on:
 The proposed land use data;
 Client, regulatory, and/or Council expected services for different land uses in the
development; and
 Waste generation metrics found in:

o The South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste Management in
Residential or Mixed Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014).
o Waste and recycling metrics developed by Rawtec, which are based on
industry knowledge and experience.

Waste and Recycling Services, Volumes,
Estimated Collection Frequency, and Storage
Areas
4.1 Waste and Recycling Services
In order to achieve effective waste and recycling management at the site, Table 4-1 below
outlines the recommended waste and recycling services that should be collected from the
development. These recommended services include the waste and recycling services that
were indicated as preferred by the Client, as well as additional services that are
required/desired in the policy, design guidelines, and/or operational requirements found in
Section 3 above.
Table 4-1: Recommended waste & recycling services for the development
Required/Desired Waste and Recycling Collection Services
Land Use Commercial Commercial Commercial
Land Use Type Offices Retail Café/Restaurant
Service type Offices or Consulting Retail (less than
Waste and Recycling Service Café/Restaurant
Rooms 100m2)
General Waste X X X
Co-mingled Recycling NS X X
Organics (Food) Recycling X X X
Routine collection Cardboard Recycling X X X

(i.e rear-lift collection) Paper Recycling X X NS
Glass Recycling X NS NS
Plastic Recycling X NS NS
Confidential Paper Recycling X NS NS
*On-call collection Hard Waste X X X

(pick-up by contractor) E-waste X X X
or
CFL/Lighting X X X
External drop-off
(by staff/building Printer Cartridges X X X
services) Batteries X X X
NS = Not Serviced
Notes: ‘X’ indicates required or desired as per The South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste
Management in Residential or Mixed Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014).
Due to the commercial nature of the building, the following waste streams will not be
included within the WMS:
○ Hard Waste/E-waste – We have assumed that building services would manage hard
waste/E-waste through an external contractor via an on-call collection service. These
waste streams would be collected directly from tenancies during fitout or refurbishing.
○ Batteries, Printer Cartridges and CFL/Lighting – These waste streams would be
either be temporarily stored within the land use area/room where they are generated
(i.e. within designated bin station in the offices) and dropped off at an appropriate
external location (e.g. local recycling depot or office supply store) by tenants/building
services when required, or managed through an external contractor (e.g. for carpark
lighting replacement).

4.2 Estimated Volumes
Table 4-2 overleaf identifies preliminary estimates for the total waste and recycling stream
volumes generated by each land uses. This table also includes the nominated bin sizes for
each waste stream, proposed collection frequency, number of bins required, proposed waste
collection service provider, and the location where bins are presented for collection. A table
showing estimated waste and recycling volumes generated by individual land uses can be
found in Appendix 2.
Table 4-2: Preliminary estimates of waste & recycling volumes (litres/week) across all
land uses with proposed services and collection frequency
Commercial Premises
 Offices
 Retail/Café/Restaurant
Proposed Services Proposed
Estimated
Proposed Location
Waste Estimated
Bin Waste Where
Waste Stream Volume Collection No. Of
Size(s) Collection Bins/Waste Is
(Litres Per Frequency Bins
(Litres) Service Presented For
Week) Required
Provider Collection
General Waste 121,200 1100 5 x per week 23
Comingled Recycling 22,600 1100 5 x per week 4

On-property
Organics (Food) Recycling 78,400 1100 5 x per week 25 presentation
Commercial
within the waste
Cardboard Recycling 23,600 1100 5 x per week 6 Contractor
rooms or within
(Regular
Paper Recycling 42,100 240 5 x per week 36 tenancies
Collection)
(managed by
Glass Recycling 6,400 660 3 x per week 4 building
services)
Plastic Recycling 6,400 1100 3 x per week 2
Confidential Paper Recycling 3,200 240 1 x per week 14

Commercial
Hard Waste 7,500 - On-Call - On-property
Contractor
presentation
(Pull-in/Pull-
E- waste 2,900 - On-Call - within tenancies
Out)
114
Total (Whole Development) 314,300 - - - -
+ Spares
*Note: Totals have been rounded to better reflect estimation of the volumes and may not
equate
4.3 Waste Storage Areas

An indicative drawing of the development’s waste rooms containing the required number of
bins, which includes one example of bin configuration, can be found in Appendix 1.
4.1 Bin Wash Area

Due to the high number of bins required at the development, the site would benefit from
having access to with a bin wash area, which will need to be drained to the sewer, and have
installed a faucet with mains supply and a hose. An example of a bin wash area has been
drawn into the Offices Waste Room, to indicate the likely area required.
Alternatively, it may also be possible for the waste contractor to be contracted to provide this
service (either on-site or off-site).
Waste Management System
5.1 Overview of System
The sections below give an overview of the main elements of the proposed WMS for the
development based on the required services, the estimated waste and recycling volumes
generated for each land use, and the required/desired services found in Table 4-1 above.
Table 5-1 below gives a breakdown waste management systems for the individual land uses
that form the development’s WMS. Also indicated below, are the waste streams managed by
the waste management systems.
Table 5-1: Waste Management Systems and Waste Streams
Sub Section WMS Waste Streams

○ General Waste
○ Organics (Food) Recycling
○ Cardboard Recycling
5.2 Offices ○ Paper Recycling
○ Glass Recycling
○ Plastic Recycling
○ Confidential Paper Recycling
○ General Waste
○ Co-mingled Recycling
5.3 Retail (Retail/Café/Restaurant) ○ Organics (Food) Recycling
○ Paper Recycling
○ Confidential Paper Recycling
5.4 Waste/Bin Collection ○ All Waste Streams
Please note: Waste/bin collection for all waste management systems would take place in the
manner shown in Sub Section 5.5.
Some of the waste streams managed in the proposed WMS have been broken into a series
of steps to better describe the waste management requirements and transfer pathways from
user storage to collection. These steps have been adapted for this particular development
from the waste management steps recommended in the South Australian Better Practice
Guide – Waste Management in Residential or Mixed Use Developments (Zero Waste SA,
2014).

5.2 Offices
WMS Step WMS Notes*
Each office tenancy would have a bin-station within their

office occupancy to sort, dispose, and temporarily store
waste. For example:
Step 1 –
○ 1 x 40-60 litre general waste bin (with bin bags);
User
○ 1 x 6-10 litre organics bench-top/under-desk caddy
storage
Waste storage (with a compostable bin bag);
and transfer ○ 1 x 40-60 litre glass recycling bin; and
pathways for: ○ 1 x 40-60 litre plastic recycling bin.
 General Waste
Step 2 –
 Organics (Food) Transfer Using trolleys, waste (in bags) and recyclables (in suitable
Recycling pathway to containers), would be taken by cleaners to the Offices
 Glass Recycling common Waste Room in the Basement Level 2, via goods lifts,
 Plastic Recycling disposal pathways, and corridors.

area
Step 3 – Waste and recyclables, would then be aggregated and

Aggregation emptied into the larger bins by cleaners in the Offices
and Storage Waste Room.
 Each office tenancy would provisions to sort, dispose, and

temporarily store cardboard, paper, and confidential paper
recycling within individual tenancy bin stations, within
Waste storage and transfer medium sized bins (i.e. in 140-240 litre bins).
pathways for:
 These bins would then be exchanged with empty bins from
 Cardboard Recycling the Offices Waste Room when full, by cleaners or building
 Paper Recycling services.
 Confidential Paper Recycling  Alternatively, these streams (e.g. confidential paper

recycling), could be manage via a pull-in pull-out collection
contractor, who would collect the bins directly from the
office tenancies.

5.1 Retail/Café/Restaurant
WMS Step WMS Notes
Each retail/café/restaurant tenancy would have bins within

their occupancy to sort, dispose and temporarily store waste.
For example:
Step 1 –
○ 1 x 40-80 litre general waste bin (with bin bags);
User storage
○ 1 x 40-80 litre comingled recycling bin; and
○ 1 x 40-80 litre organics recycling bin (with compostable
bin bags).
Waste storage
and transfer
pathways for: Step 2 –
 General Waste Transfer Utilising trolleys, waste (in bags) and recyclables (in suitable
pathway to containers), would be taken by staff to the Retail Waste
 Co-mingled
common Room in the Basement Level 2, via pathways, goods lifts,
Recycling
disposal and corridors
 Organics (Food)
area
Recycling
Step 3 – Waste and recyclables, would then be aggregated and

Aggregation emptied into the larger bins by retail/café/restaurant staff in
and Storage the Retail Waste Room.
Bulky or excessive quantities of cardboard are to be taken

directly to the Retail Waste Room and disposed of within
Waste storage and transfer
the 1100L cardboard recycling bins.
pathways for:
Note: smaller quantities of cardboard/paper waste are to be
 Cardboard Recycling
placed within the comingled recycling bins within or near the
room/area where it is generated.

5.2 Waste Collection WMS (All Land Uses)
WMS Step WMS Notes
Step 4 – Bin  Prior to collection, Building Services would organise and

presentation present the bins within the Waste Rooms for collection
 Collection would take place on-property, from the

Waste collection
Basement Loading Dock.
for:
 All Waste  Collection contractors would:
Streams 1. Drive into the basement via the carpark entrance.
Step 5 – Bin 2. Reverse their collection vehicle in the designated
collection Waste Room Loading Zones.
3. Collect the bins from the Waste Rooms.
4. Empty the bins into their collection vehicle.
5. Return the empty bins to the Waste Rooms.
6. Exit in a forward direction up the carpark ramp.

Collection Requirements and Vehicle
Movements
The collection vehicles expected for waste collection at this development would generally be:
 Rear-lift trucks – for collection of routine waste & recycling streams; and
 Pan-tech or flat-bed trucks – for collection of at-call waste and recycling streams.
Examples of the likely truck dimensions are provided in the Table 6-1 below to assist the
Traffic Engineer/Consultant in ensuring that the Basement Loading Dock can
accommodate the waste and recycling collection vehicles, and that vehicles can enter and
exit the area safely.
In addition to the truck length, the parking area will need to accommodate at least 2m
behind collection vehicles for waste bin loading. Please note that the Better Practice
Guide specifies that waste collection vehicles should enter and exit the property in a forward
gear.
Collection vehicle dimensions and operating requirements vary between waste collection
contractors and the client would be required to ensure that the collection vehicle used by the
waste collection contractor selected to service the development, would be able to be
accommodated for, before collection can begin.
Table 6-1: Likely dimensions and turning radius of waste collection vehicles that
would be required to access to the Basement Loading Dock.
Likely dimensions and turning circles of waste collection trucks
Rear-lift truck Pan-tech/flat-bed

(to collect bins up to 1100L)* (to collect hard waste/E-waste)*
Dimensions 4.5m (h) x 2.5m (w) x 8.8m (l) 4.5m (h) x 2.5m (w) x 8.8m (l)
Vehicle height in operation Up to 4.5m Up to 4.5m
Vehicle turning radius 10m 10m

*Note: All vehicle dimensions are based on Australian MRV standard specifications - AS
2890.2-2002
6.1 Estimated number of waste vehicle movements per week.

We have estimated that there would be approximately 32 round-trip commercial waste
and recycling collection vehicle movements per week at the site. This is based on the
estimated waste and recycling volumes and service frequency described in Section 4 above,
and if collection for the individual commercial land uses were to be scheduled for collection
by the same vehicle.
The estimated vehicle movements do not include an on-call of infrequent services such as
hard waste/E-waste collection etc.

Supporting Documentation & Design Details
This report should be read and assessed in conjunction with:
 The Architectural Plans – Confirming the size and layout of the Waste Rooms and
Goods Circulation Pathways; and
 A Traffic Impact Assessment/Report – Confirming parking, loading/unloading, and
manoeuvring for waste and recycling collection vehicles utilising the Basement
Loading Dock.

Appendix 1: Indicative Size of Waste Rooms
The figure below is an indicative drawing of the development’s waste room/areas along with
examples of bin configurations and the estimated minimum calculated areas required.
19000mm
<<<< Retail Loading Link Access >>>>

Retail Waste
Room Access
ORG 660L
CAR 1100L
CAR 1100L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
REC 1100L ORG 660L ORG 660L ORG 660L ORG 660L
CAR 1100L
CAR 1100L
ORG 660L ORG 660L ORG 660L ORG 660L

SPARE
Access
REC 1100L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
SPARE
CARD 1100L
REC 1100L
SPARE
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
13900mm
REC 1100L
REC 1100L
SPARE
Access
GOODS LIFT
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
Access
7350mm
PLAS 1100L
GLAS 660L
GLAS 660L GLAS 660L GLAS 660L GLAS 660L

SPARE
SPARE
PLAS 1100L PLAS 1100L

GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
Access
ORG 660L
ORG 660L
SPARE
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
6200mm
SPARE
Offices GEN 1100L

ORG 660L
Access
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
SPARE
Waste
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
ORG 660L
Access
Room GEN 1100L

ORG 660L
COP COP COP COP COP COP COP

240L 240L 240L 240L 240L 240L 240L Bin Wash GEN 1100L
Area
Grade to
Access
COP COP COP COP COP COP COP
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
GEN 1100L
240L 240L 240L 240L 240L 240L 240L

drain GEN 1100L
SPARE
Access
2100mm
CAR 1100L GEN 1100L GEN 1100L GEN 1100L
CARD 1100L GEN 1100L

CAR 1100L GEN 1100L GEN 1100L
240L
240L
240L
SPARE
PAP
PAP
PAP
SPARE
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
LEGEND
240L
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
PAP
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
GEN = General Waste

7250mm REC = Co-mingled Recycling
240L
240L
240L
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
ORG = Organics (Food) Recycling

Access
CAR = Cardboard Recycling

240L
240L
240L
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
GLAS = Glass Recycling

PLAS = Plastics Recycling
240L
240L
240L
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
5900mm
5900mm
PAP = Paper Recycling

16350mm
CO/P = Confidential Paper Recycling

240L
240L
240L
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
PAP
240L
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
PAP
240L
240L
PAP
PAP
Access
7250mm Note: These bin sizes are for
illustration purpose only and are
REC REC REC
based on the standard MASTEC
GEN 1100L GEN 1100L GEN 1100L 240L 240L 240L CAR 1100L CAR 1100L
Australia bin sizes (http://
www.mastec.com.au). Bin sizes and
shapes may differ depending on
5600mm
5600mm
Parliament manufacturer, collection contractor or

local waste authority. Please allow
extra room (e.g. >10%) for differences
Access House Waste in bin sizes, bin access, opening and
closing and manoeuvring etc.
Room
14000mm

Appendix 2: Estimated Waste Generation Volumes by Land Use & Waste
Stream
Table A2-1: Estimated waste and recycling volumes by collection service and land use (litres per week)
Estimated Waste Generation Volumes (Litres Per Week) by Land Use & Waste
Development Land Use Totals
Offices Retail Café/Restaurant
(Litres Per
Offices or Consulting Retail (less than Week)
Classification Café/Restaurant
Rooms 100m2)
General Waste 64,300 6,400 50,500 121,200
Co-mingled Recycling NE 1,000 21,600 22,600
Organics (Food) Recycling 10,700 300 67,400 78,400
Waste Stream
Cardboard Recycling 6,400 5,100 12,100 23,600

Paper Recycling 41,800 300 NE 42,100
Glass Recycling 6,400 NE NE 6,400
Plastic Recycling 6,400 NE NE 6,400
Confidential Paper Recycling 3,200 NE NE 3,200
Hard Waste 6,300 600 600 7,500
E-waste 2,700 100 70 2,900
Total Site Volume (Litres per Week) 148,200 13,800 152,300 314,300
*Note: Totals have been rounded to better reflect estimates and may not equate
NE = Not Estimated

Festival Square -
Commercial Development
Stormwater Management Plan
December 2015
Walker Corporation
Festival Square - Commercial Development
Stormwater Management Plan Mott MacDon. Id
Issue and revision record
338869-C-ROO, -Stormwater Management Plan
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Decorlp*10n

A 09/12/20,5 JM CEO CEH Draft for comment
'41/2/20,5 JM JSN For development approval

^"I ,
" j^^i. ', ^^22. .
,"formation class= Standard
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this
and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used
project only. It should riot be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission
used for any other purpose which is due 10 an error or omission in data supplied to us by
other parties.
This document contains confidential information and

proprietary intellectual property. It should riot be showi to
other parties without consent from us and from the party
which commissioned it.
338869/ANZ/SAN/C. ROOI B 14 December 2015

P:\Adelaide\SAN\Prqects1338869to4 Working\02 Documents\02 Siruclural. Civil. Traffic\C-R001\338869-C-ROOTB-Stormwaier
Management Plan. docx
Contents
Chapter Title Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Description of Project ________________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Scope ____________________________________________________________________________ 1
1.3 Stormwater Policy and Guidelines ______________________________________________________ 1
2 Stormwater Drainage 2
2.1 Development Catchment _____________________________________________________________ 2
2.1.1 Existing ___________________________________________________________________________ 2
2.1.2 Proposed _________________________________________________________________________ 3
2.2 Stormwater Hydrology _______________________________________________________________ 4
2.3 Stormwater Detention ________________________________________________________________ 4
2.4 Stormwater Quality __________________________________________________________________ 4
2.5 Underground Car Park _______________________________________________________________ 4
2.6 Relocation of Existing Council Infrastructure ______________________________________________ 5
2.7 Removal of Existing State Drainage Infrastructure __________________________________________ 6
Appendix A – Drainage Calculations 7
338869/ANZ/SAN/C-R001/B 14 December 2015

P:\Adelaide\SAN\Projects\338869\04 Working\02 Documents\02 Structural, Civil, Traffic\C-R001\338869-C-R001-B-Stormwater
Management Plan.docx
1 Introduction
1.1 Description of Project
The redevelopment of the Festival Plaza precinct sited on the corner of North Terrace and King William
Road involves multiple stakeholders including the South Australian Government, Adelaide Festival Centre,
Sky City and the Walker Corporation.
Walker Corporation are proposing to develop a section of the precinct with a new 26 storey commercial
office tower, retail building and a 5 level underground car park.
1.2 Scope
The scope of this report is on the stormwater management for the office tower and the retail buildings
proposed by Walker Corporation.
Stormwater landing on the plaza directly or via overflow is outside Walker Corporation scope and the
scope of this report. Such stormwater is included in the Government scope work with a design team lead
by ARM Architecture.
1.3 Stormwater Policy and Guidelines
The stormwater drainage for the proposed development will be designed to comply with the following
guidelines:
• AS/NZS 3500.3:2015 – Plumbing and drainage – Part 3: Stormwater drainage
• Adelaide City Council – City Works Guidelines
• Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2001
Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Manual – Greater Adelaide Region, December 2010
1 338869/ANZ/SAN/C-R001/B 14 December 2015

P:\Adelaide\SAN\Projects\338869\04 Working\02 Documents\02 Structural, Civil, Traffic\C-R001\338869-C-R001-B-
Stormwater Management Plan.docx
2 Stormwater Drainage
2.1 Development Catchment
2.1.1 Existing
The existing Festival Plaza site is shown in the Figure 1 below. The area outlined in orange indicates the
extent of the construction boundary of the Walker Corporation, with proposed office tower and retail
building shaded in pink, outlining the scope for this report.
Illustrated in blue below is the approximate location of the existing Adelaide City Council infrastructure
along King William Road, with the existing State Government infrastructure around the Festival Plaza area
shown in green.
Figure 1 - Existing Site Plan

2.1.2 Proposed
The proposed development catchment area for the Walker development is shaded in pink in Figure 2
below. The roofs of the proposed tower and retail building are Walker Corporation’s responsibility to
manage the stormwater run-off, with the surrounding plaza to be the responsibility of Government
(designed by their consultant team lead by ARM). The office tower and retail building will have an
equivalent impervious area to the existing site and therefore the amount of runoff generated will remain
unchanged, hence the post-development and pre-development stormwater peak flows will be equal.
Figure 2 - Proposed Development Stormwater Catchment

2.2 Stormwater Hydrology
The stormwater drainage for the proposed development will be designed in accordance with AS/NZS
3500.3:2015. The site peak flows have been calculated based on a 20 year average recurrence interval
(ARI) and a 100 year ARI event, as per the Adelaide City Council’s requirements, specified in their City
Works Guidelines.
2
The estimated site peak flows for the catchment with area approximately = 4112m are:
2
Office Tower - 2280m (Catchment A)
• 55L/s for a 20 year ARI,

• 87L/s for a 100 year ARI.
2
Retail Buildings – 1832m (Catchment B)
• 43L/s for a 20 year ARI,

• 69L/s for a 100 year ARI.
The proposed solution for the stormwater drainage of the planned development is:
For storm events up to a 1 in 20 year ARI event, the stormwater collected from the roofs of the office tower
and retail building will discharge through pipe networks (underslung from Walker plaza slab and run along
the car park walls) directly into the existing Council drainage network on King William Street. This is
illustrated indicatively in yellow in Figure 3, with the exact location of the discharge points to be determined
during the detailed design phase.
For storm events greater than a 1 in 20 year ARI event, the excess flow not captured through the gutters
and downpipes will become overflows and fall onto the plaza level. Once at the plaza level, the runoff is
then considered to be the responsibility of the Government (ARM lead design team) and will be dealt with
in accordance with their stormwater management plan.
2.3 Stormwater Detention
As the post development and predevelopment stormwater peaks are equal, there is no requirement for
stormwater detention for this development. However, rainwater tanks may be incorporated into the
development in some form to enable reuse of stormwater and will exhibit detention characteristics
beneficial to the community and council.
2.4 Stormwater Quality
The stormwater collected from this development is from building roofs and therefore is considered to be
clean water. This means that there are no water quality targets that are required to be met before
discharging into the Council’s stormwater network.
2.5 Underground Car Park
The proposed development includes a 5 level underground car park. Ramps will be designed in such a
way to prevent entry of external 100yr surface water from entering into the undercroft car park.

Figure 3 - Proposed Stormwater Drainage System
2.6 Relocation of Existing Council Infrastructure
Another component of the Walker development is the 5 level underground carpark. The carpark’s extent is
outlined in orange in Figure 3 above. Currently there is an existing stormwater pipe that runs diagonally
through the northern end of the proposed car park site from King William Street. Therefore for this
development, this pipe will be required to be relocated to deviate around the car park. At this stage the
proposed relocation (shown in black in Figure 3) is indicative only and further investigation into this matter
will have to be undertaken.

2.7 Relocation of Existing State Drainage Infrastructure
The construction of the proposed 5 level basement car park will encorach on the exisitng drainage
infrastructure servicing other users in the precinct. This is illustrated indicatively in Figure 4 below, with the
extent of the carpark demolition shown in orange, and existing stormwater infrastructure in green.
Three broad areas of exisitng drainage which need to be mantained exist, namely
Plaza and ground level areas that surround the theatres,
Old Parliament House and
Parlaiment House.
These are illustrated in green in Figure 4 and described further below:
The drainage infrastructure surrounding the theatres comprises of a series of pits collecting runoff which is
directed into a pipe network that currently runs below the existing plaza level.
The pipe running from the rear of Old Parliament House picks up runoff from Parliament House downpipes
and the existing lower level car park. These flows are piped on the underside of the existing carpark slab
which then connects into the existing State Governemnt network around the theatres, before discharging
into The River Torrens.
Another stormwater pipe located in the upper car park level also collect runoff from Parliament House
downpipes/plaza, and then discharges out towards King William Street.
Consequently measures will be required to maintain a connection to all these areas not being demolished
during the works. The solutions could be temporary systems to be replaced with permanent solution during
construction, or a permanent route could be found initially. Further investigation into this matter will be
undertaken during the detail design phases of the various projects in the precinct and solutions developed
to suit technical, commercial and ownership issues.
Figure 4 - Existing Plaza

Drainage Infrastructure

Appendix A – Drainage Calculations
Figure 5 - Intensity Frequency Table

Figure 6 - Catchment Areas – Shown in Pink
Table 1: Calculated Peak Flows

Catchment C10 C5 C100 tc (mins) I5 (mm/hr) I100 (mm/hr) A (ha) Q5 (L/s) Q100 (L/s)
A - Tower 0.9 0.95 1 10 89.3 135 0.23 55 87
B - Retail 0.9 0.95 1 10 89.3 135 0.183 43 69

Festival Plaza Redevelopment–
Carpark, Retail and Commercial
Development
State Heritage Impact Assessment
DA122760 : Revision – : 11.12.15
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 2
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Scope of Assessment ........................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project Scope....................................................................................................................... 3
2 Heritage Places ........................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Adelaide Festival Centre ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Parliament House ............................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Old Parliament House ......................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Adelaide Railway Station..................................................................................................... 15
3 Background Discussion ............................................................................................. 19

3.1 Policy Framework ............................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Cultural Values of the Precinct / Cultural Context ................................................................ 22
4 Heritage Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 24

4.1 Proposed Carpark .............................................................................................................. 24
4.1.1 Scope of works .......................................................................................................... 24
4.1.2 Significance and Policy ............................................................................................... 28
4.1.3 Heritage Impact Assessment ...................................................................................... 35
4.1.3.1 Direct Physical Heritage Impacts ............................................................................................ 35
4.1.3.2 Potential Heritage Impacts to the Context and Setting of the Place ........................................ 41
4.1.4 Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................. 44
4.2 Proposed Northern Retail ................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Scope of works .......................................................................................................... 45
4.3 Proposed Commercial Office Tower ................................................................................... 61
4.3.1 Scope of works .......................................................................................................... 61
4.3.3.2.1 Broader Impacts to the Setting of Parliament House ..................................................... 75
4.3.3.2.2 Broader impacts to the setting of Old Parliament House, the Adelaide Railway Station
and the Adelaide Festival Centre ............................................................................................................ 81
4.3.3.2.3 Local impacts to the setting of Parliament House and Old Parliament House arising from
changes to the interfacing ground plane. ............................................................................................... 83
4.4 Proposed Connection to Parliament House ........................................................................ 84
4.4.1 Scope of works .......................................................................................................... 84
4.4.2
4.4.3
Significance and Policy ............................................................................................... 85
Heritage Impact Assessment ...................................................................................... 88 2
State Heritage Impact Assmt : DA122760 : 11.12.15
Festival Plaza Carpark, Retail and Comm : Rev –
4.5 Potential Heritage Impacts Associated with Construction ................................................... 90

4.5.1 Scope of works .......................................................................................................... 90
4.5.3 Recommendations...................................................................................................... 91
5 Summary .................................................................................................................. 92
Proposed Carpark Recommendations ........................................................................................ 95
Proposed Commercial Office Tower Recommendations ............................................................. 95
Proposed Connection to Parliament House Recommendations .................................................. 96
Proposed Construction Recommendations ................................................................................ 97
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope of Assessment
DASH Architects has been engaged by The Walker Corporation to undertake a
State Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed Carpark, Retail and
Commercial components of the Adelaide Festival Plaza Redevelopment.
The precinct affected by this project is a complex one, containing several State
and National Heritage places. The scope of this assessment is limited, however, to
the potential State Heritage impacts on the following nearby places:
• South Australian Parliament House;
• South Australian Old Parliament House;
• The Adelaide Festival Centre; and
• The Adelaide Railway Station.
South Australian Old and New Parliament Houses are also recognised as a
National Heritage place. Potential impacts to the relevant National Heritage values
of this place will be assessed separately, and do not form part of this assessment.
There are also several projects of a relatively substantial nature being undertaken
within the precinct. These projects include:
• upgrades to the Adelaide Festival Centre (State Heritage Place);
• expansion of the Adelaide Casino;
• public realm upgrades, including those to the plaza level of the carpark
assessed by this report; and
• realignment and grade separation of Festival Drive.
Each of these projects will undertake their own separate Heritage Impact
Assessments, which do not form part of the scope of this report.
This report also does not consider Aboriginal cultural heritage or historic
archaeological potential.
1.2 Project Scope

The Festival Plaza Carpark, Retail and Commercial works involve (in summary):
• the demolition of a large portion of the existing State Heritage listed
Adelaide Festival Centre plaza and construction of a new 5 storey below
ground carpark with 1560 parking spaces. This carpark structure will form
3
the substructure for the new Festival Plaza, with the associated Public
Realm works to be undertake as part of a separate project (and

application) by others.
• new two - three storey retail building with food and beverage outlets to the
north of Parliament House;
• new 26 storey office tower (including roof top plant), comprising 40,000
sqm NLA with retail on ground floor fronting Station Road and a new
public plaza;
• the creation of a new laneway around the proposed commercial tower:
Parliament Lane. The public realm works associated with this laneway are
similarly to be undertake as part of a separate project (and application) by
others;
• provision of a connection from the proposed new carpark into the north-
west corner of Parliament House; and
• provision of a new lift within Parliament House connecting the proposed
carpark link to ground floor.
This assessment is based on the following documentation (all noted as
“Preliminary’:
Drawing Rev Title
A01.000 03 Site Plan
A02.B5 03 Level 85 Masterplan
A03.000 03 Level 00 Plan
A03.005 03 Level 05 Plan [Plant]
A03.010 03 Level 06 Terrace Plan
A03.006 03 Typical Low Rise Plan Level 07-08, 10
A03.009 03 Level 09 Plan [Typical Low Rise with Terrace]
A03.011 03 Level 11 Plan [Transfer]
A03.012 03 Level 12 Plan [Lift Overrun]
A03.013 03 Level 13 Plan [Lift Machine Room]
A03.014 03 Level 14- 17 Plan [Typical Mid-Rise]
A03.018 03 Level 18 Plan [Transfer]
A03.019 03 Level 19 Plan [Lift Overrun]
A03.020 03 Level 20 Plan [Lift Machine Room]
A03.021 03 Level 21 Plan [Typical High-Rise with Terrace]
A03.022 03 Level 22 - 25 Plan [Typical High-Rise] 4
A03.026 03 Level 26 Plan [Rooftop Plant]
A07.000 03 North Elevation

A07.001 03 West Elevation
A08.000 03 Section AA -West - East [Parliament Gardens]
A08.001 03 Section BB - East - West [Parliament House]
A08.002 03 Section CC - North - South [Festival Plaza]
A08.003 03 Section DD - North - South [Festival Plaza]
A08.004 02 Section EE - North - South [Festival Plaza]
While some of these drawings illustrate public realm upgrades to the Festival Plaza
and laneways created by the proposed works, these upgrades do not form part of
this assessment.
Disclaimer
This HIA has been based on the drawings noted above. Any changes to these
drawings may result in differing heritage impacts to those considered and
assessed in the below report. It is recommended that the above issue dates and
revision numbers be confirmed to those lodged for Development Plan Consent.
2 Heritage Places
The following State and Local Heritage places are located within and surrounding
the immediate area affected by the proposed works:
Image 1. Locality Plan. Base Image Source: Location.sa.gov.au (annotated by author)

5
State Heritage Places

1. Adelaide Festival Centre, ID 13200
2. Parliament House, ID 10845
3. Old Parliament House, ID 10874
4. Adelaide Railway Station, ID 10844
2.1 Adelaide Festival Centre
The following details were sourced from the Department of Planning, Transport
and Infrastructure’s (DPTI) Heritage Places Database website (as of 3 December
2015):
Details: Adelaide Festival Centre (Festival Theatre, Playhouse,
Space and Amphitheatre, the Southern Plaza, and
Carparking, Restaurant and Convention Facilities)
Heritage Listing: State Heritage Place
State Heritage ID: 13200
Statement of Significance:
The construction of the Adelaide Festival Centre was a milestone in South
Australian history. The Adelaide Festival of Arts had been the first of its kind
in Australia, a bold vision which became an enduring event, marking South
Australia as the 'Festival State'. The erection of the Adelaide Festival Centre
was an equally bold move. Innovative in style, the achievement of both
Liberal and Labour governments, the Adelaide City Council and notable
individuals, the complex is a home for the Festival, and a cultural centre for
the people of South Australia. The Centre has received much critical acclaim
as an extremely functional performing arts complex. The Centre is an
unashamedly modern complex notable for its bold structuralist approach to
form. The multi-purpose Festival Theatre, the more intimate drama theatre
(Playhouse), the experimental theatre (Space) and the Amphitheatre are
integrated successfully by roof form and the formality of the dominant
octagonal module. The individual components of the complex are noted for
their versatility, the appeal of internal spaces, the quality of finishes, the
good acoustics and the planning of seating and facilities which are held in
high regard by artists and patrons alike. The complex has been criticised as
'strident' in colour and finish. Concern has also been expressed that the
Festival Theatre and Playhouse Theatre express themselves as concrete
buildings whereas they are in fact steel framed. There are also some serious
structural faults. Yet the complex as a whole is genuinely historic and the
architecture may be regarded as progressive while reflecting the period in
which the concept was first mooted. The Hajek sculpture plaza and recent
additions such as the larger restaurant and conference centre are not as
6
happily related, the plaza in particular butting uncomfortably against the

exposed northern wall of Parliament House. (SHB).
Section 16 Information:
(f) it has strong cultural or spiritual associations for the community or a
group within it
(g) it has a special association with the life or work of a person or
organisation or an event of historical importance
In 2014 DASH Architects were engaged by DPTI (Project Services) to undertake a
comprehensive update of the 1999 Conservation Management Plan for the site (by
Woodhead). This CMP will be referenced in the below assessment.
Image 2. Adelaide Festival Centre, c1977. Source: AFC CMP, DASH Architects
7
Image 3. Adelaide Festival Centre, 2015

Image 4. Adelaide Festival Centre, showing Festival Drive modifications, 2013
Image 5. Adelaide Festival Centre northern plaza, terrace level, ‘umbrella’ columns and beams, 2015
8
Image 6. Adelaide Festival Centre northern plaza, 2015

Image 7. Adelaide Festival Centre Festival Drive, dissecting the original expansive plaza, 2015
9
Image 8. Adelaide Festival Centre southern plaza, 2015

2.2 Parliament House
Original South Australian Government Gazetted description for the State Heritage
listing of Government House is as follows:
Date: 24 July 1980
Name: Parliament House
Address: Corner North Terrace and King William Street, Adelaide
5000 Hundred of Adelaide
2015):
Details: Parliament House
Statement of Significance: none available
Section 16 Information: none available
In 2011 Swanbury Penglase Architects were engaged by DPTI (Project Services) to
undertake a comprehensive update of the 1987 Conservation Management Plan
for the place (by DASH Architects, then Danvers Architects). This CMP will be
referenced in the below assessment.
While no Statement of Significance was provided on the DPTI Heritage Places
Database, the 2011 CMP assessed the significance of the place as follows:
Statement of Cultural Significance
Parliament House represents the political and economical development of
South Australia and is embolic of her political entity and self governing rights.
The place is intrinsically linked to the social history and physical pattern of
development of the State through the development and enacting of legislation
since 1889. This included important measures in the development of
democratic rights, such as the provision of female suffrage in 1894, which 10
granted not only women the right to vote but also to stand for Parliament. This
was the first time this level of equality had been granted throughout the world,
and directly led to its adoption as part of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Australia. Its importance to the public of South Australia
remains evident through its ongoing use as a place of protest and
demonstration.
Parliament House is an important landmark building at the intersection of the
two major streets of the city. It is an Italian Renaissance inspired classical
design which is amongst the finest examples of the style and one of the
greatest civic buildings in South Australia. Its use and display of local materials,
particularly the marble used through the building, was widely supported, and is
both a rare and symbolises of the importance of the building as a symbol of
South Australian resources and workmanship. The interior of the building,
particularly the two legislative chambers, has at each construction phase
integrated advanced principles of ventilation and air conditioning which were at
the forefront of design at the time.
The building is also intrinsically linked with the important individual Sir John
Langdon Bonython through his donation of £100,000 to the completion of the
building in 1934.
Image 9. Parliament House, 2015
11

12

2.3 Old Parliament House
Original South Australian Government Gazetted description for the State Heritage
listing of Government House is as follows:
Date: 28 May 1981
Name: Former Legislative Council Building Complex
Address: North Terrace, Adelaide 5000 Hundred of Adelaide
2015):
Details: Old Parliament House
Statement of Significance:
Constructed in stages between 1843 and 1875, Adelaide's Old Parliament
House is of major historical significance both at the state and national level.
The complex includes two walls of the original Council Chamber, dating
from 1843, which was the first permanent home of South Australia's
Legislative Council, along with the first House of Assembly Chamber and the
second Council Chamber. For almost a century, until the completion of the
present Parliament House in 1939 allowed the Legislative Council to vacate
it, Old Parliament House was the scene of political debates that shaped the
history of the State, while its piecemeal enlargement reflects the
development of the Colony's democratic institutions. It is strongly
associated with the introduction of important democratic reforms in which
South Australia led the other Australian colonies, including full adult male
suffrage, the secret ballot, and the rights of women to vote and hold political
office. The building incorporates examples of the work of three significant
colonial architects: E A Hamilton, W Bennet Hays and E J Woods. It is one
of only a handful of important government buildings constructed prior to
1860 now remaining in Adelaide. [Adapted from Danvers Architects Pty Ltd 13
'Old Parliament House Adelaide Conservation Management Plan' (1989)]

In 2010 Swanbury Penglase Architects were engaged by DPTI (Project Services) to
undertake a comprehensive update the 1989 Conservation Management Plan for
the place (by DASH Architects, then Danvers Architects). This CMP will be
referenced in the below assessment.
Image 14. Old Parliament House, 2015
14

2.4 Adelaide Railway Station 15


2015):
Details: Adelaide Railway Station / Adelaide Casino
Statement of Significance: none available
In 2001 DASH Architects (then Danvers Architects) prepared a Conservation
Management Plan for the site. This CMP will be referenced in the below
assessment.
While no Statement of Significance was provided on the DPTI Heritage Places
Database, the 2001 CMP assessed the significance of the place as follows:
Statement of Cultural Significance
The Adelaide Railway Station is of cultural significance because:
• it is symbolic of the development of the Railways in South Australia.
South Australia played an important role in the development of the
railways in Australia. The construction of a building of such immense
scale is representative of the importance placed upon the railways,
both in terms of necessary infrastructure for a developing state, but
also in terms of its importance to support an ailing South Australian
economy.
• it is an outstanding representation of city railway station architecture in
South Australia and Australia. Its grand scale and styling, and features
such as the main concourse, waiting hall, and entrance ramp are
unique to this type of culturally significant building. It is the only
example of such architecture in the State, and one of few in Australia.
• it is a significant example of the work of Garlick and Jackman
architects, who remain South Australia’s oldest surviving practice.
Garlick and Jackman have been responsible for many significant
buildings in the State, and have origins traced back to some of South
Australia’s’ most significant colonial architects, such as Daniel Garlick,
Thomas English and Rowland Rees.
• it is an excellent example of the “Free Classical - Beaux-Arts” style. Its
styling, grand size, and prominence on South Australia’s most
important boulevard, North Terrace, make it a highly significant
element of the State’s architecture.
• it has strong cultural and social associations with the community. The
building acted as a central gathering location for the people visiting
and leaving the City of Adelaide, and provided a valuable connection
for them to the metropolitan area and country regions. Additional
facilities provided within the building further enhanced this role. In 16
addition to this, it has strong cultural and social connections with
former employees of the Railways.

• it is a permanent reminder of both William Alfred Webb, and the
rehabilitation of the South Australian Railways in the 1920’s. During
Webb’s rein as Railways Commissioner (1922-1930) his rehabilitation
of the South Australian Railways was unparalleled in Australia’s
history. Webb was brought out from the United States of America by
the Barwell Government and attained the highest of public profiles
during his term. The legacy of Webb’s commissionership is still
evident today in the reforms that he instigated. The Adelaide Railway
Station building was the most prominent of Webb’s reforms and is
symbolic of his approach to the railways rehabilitation.
Image 19. Primary view of Adelaide Railway Station (south east corner), 2015
Image 20. Adelaide Railway Station, viewed from Festival Plaza, looking south, 2015
17
Image 21. Adelaide Railway Station, viewed from Festival Plaza, looking south, 2015
The Adelaide Railway Station is also subject to a current application for a major
expansion of Casino accommodation immediately to the north of the heritage
place. This development (assessment of which does not form part of this HIA)
involves the construction of a multi-storey hotel, hospitality and gaming facility
between the station building, and the adjacent Dunstan Playhouse (part of the
State Heritage listed Adelaide Festival Centre Complex).
Image 22. Adelaide Casino Expansion Project. Source: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-

australia/skycity-releases-new-designs-for-300-million-redevelopment-of-adelaide-
casino/story-fni6uo1m-1227607326191
18
Image 23. Adelaide Casino Expansion Project. Source: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-

australia/skycity-releases-new-designs-for-300-million-redevelopment-of-adelaide-
casino/story-fni6uo1m-1227607326191
3 Background Discussion
3.1 Policy Framework
The Adelaide (City) Development Plan and the Adelaide Riverbank Precinct
Masterplan have guided the fundamentals of the proposed development. These
documents (and in particular the Riverbank Masterplan) frame a renewed ‘vision’
for the substantial redevelopment of the precinct around the Adelaide Festival
Centre (AFC) plaza. The Masterplan includes:
• the long term vision for the precinct that will see the Adelaide Festival
Centre plaza replaced and reconfigured; and
• the location, setout and scale of additional development around the new
Festival plaza, including the proposed Casino Expansion and works
associated with this application.
In addition to this, it is our understanding that the applicant has entered into an
agreement with the South Australian Government to establish Key Commercial
Terms for these proposed works. While we have not been privy to the details of
this document, we understand it establishes (amongst other things) agreed floor
areas for the proposal, which in turn we understand have been complied with in
the current application.
This background forms important context to the assessment of this application,
and the associated heritage impacts, as it establishes a clear agenda to transform
the precinct within which the Subject Site is located. This transformation will result
in fundamental changes to the context and setting of surrounding heritage places,
including:
• The Adelaide Festival Centre;
• Parliament House;
• Old Parliament House; and
• The Adelaide Railway Station.
By way of illustration, the 17 October 2013 Riverbank Health and Entertainment
Areas DPA of the Adelaide (City) Development Plan saw (amongst other things)
fundamental changes to the Policy Area within which this site is located. Relevant
changes include:
Adelaide (City) Development Plan, 18 July 17 October 2013 Riverbank Health and 19
2013 Entertainment Areas DPA
Zone Desired Character extract: Zone Desired Character extract:

The Zone will continue as the centre of both The Zone will accommodate a range of land uses
Parliamentary and cultural activities within the City including parliamentary and administrative
and will accommodate increasing levels of activities, cultural facilities, entertainment venues,
entertainment, tourism, convention and leisure conference facilities, offices, shops, hotels,
activities. serviced apartments, tourist accommodation,
consulting rooms, public transport hubs, public
open spaces, reserves and pedestrian and cycling
networks.
Adelaide (City) Development Plan, 18 July 17 October 2013 Riverbank Health and
2013 Entertainment Areas DPA
Zone Desired Character extract: Zone Desired Character extract:

The intensity of development will vary across the Buildings will contribute significantly and positively
Zone from medium height and scale close to to the City skyline through contemporary and
North Terrace, to a significantly lower height and innovative design… There will be a general
scale at the northern edge of the Zone to avoid transition in height through the Zone with taller
the introduction of further visually intrusive buildings closer to North Terrace and along
buildings north of North Terrace. Montefiore Road (between North Terrace and the
central pathway shown in Figures Rb/2 and 3 )
and lower buildings at the interface with the River
Torrens
No Policy Areas Policy Area Desired Character extract:

The architectural expression of the built form will
respond to the rich character of the local setting
with contemporary juxtapositions providing new
settings for heritage places…
The regeneration of the existing Festival Plaza

(Southern Plaza) and car park to address
structural and functional deficiencies will help
reinforce and enhance this area as the primary
cultural and entertainment hub and provide high
quality spaces for public use, including significant
public events.
Zone PDC 16: Policy Area PDC 4:

Buildings should not: Development in the Policy Area should generally
be up to 20 storeys in height to the south of the
(a) exceed 6 building levels; or
central pathway.
(b) locate a ceiling more than 21 metres above
Policy Area PDC 5:
the median natural or finished ground level
Buildings taller than 20 storeys may be
at any point or any part of a building.
contemplated to the south of the central pathway
where design excellence can be demonstrated
and the Commonwealth Airports (Protection of
Airspace) Regulations can be met.
Of particular note is:

• the inclusion of office accommodation in the designed character;
• the use of the term ‘contemporary juxtapositions’ when describing
evolving settings to heritage places; and 20
• change in height limits from 6 storeys to 20 storeys (with provision for
additional height where design excellence can be demonstrated).
The 17 October 2013 Riverbank DPA included the following Figure to assist in the
transformation of the precinct:
Image 24. 13 October 2013 Adelaide (City) Development Plan extract.
21
It is within this context that the current proposal has been developed, and should
be considered. Fundamental transformations of precincts will have impacts on the

setting and context of heritage places. This occurred with the development
Adelaide Festival Centre in the 1970s, which in turn was later identified as a State
Heritage place.
3.2 Cultural Values of the Precinct / Cultural Context
The following discussion was included in DASH Architects’ Heritage Impact
Assessment for the Adelaide Casino Expansion project. It remains relevant
background context for this project:
While I note that the CMP’s for both Parliament House and Old Parliament
House have recommended an assessment of this precinct be undertaken
in regards to potential National Heritage listing, I have not had specific
regard to this, as at present the precinct is not National Heritage listed.
That said, the precinct within which the individual heritage places noted
above are located does provide a physical and cultural context to their
respective heritage values, which influences and informs the interpretation
and appreciation of the individual significance.
Each of the heritage places within the precinct have their own respective
heritage values, as identified by their individual listings, including:
• Notable Events: Old and New parliament houses have been
Nationally heritage listed due to their role and association with the
enfranchisement of men and women in the nineteenth century;
• Built form: Old Parliament House, Parliament House, The Adelaide
Railway Station and the Adelaide Festival Centre are all
outstanding representations of their respective built forms;
• Historical: The Adelaide Park Lands as representative of Surveyor
Colonel William Light’s 1837 plan for the City of Adelaide;
• Social / Cultural: the social / cultural associations the people of
South Australia have with the respective heritage listed places,
including the Adelaide Railway Station, Houses of Parliament, and
the Adelaide Festival Centre; and
• Politics and Government: the past and present roles of Old
Parliament House and Parliament House in the governance of the
State of South Australia.
Collectively, the heritage places within the locality create a unique, rich and
diverse heritage overlay to the Policy Area, which could be best described
as one of the State’s most important Institutional Precincts.
The south-east corner of the Policy Area is characterised by the Old and
new Parliament Houses. The new Parliament House, on the corner of 22
North Terrace and King William Road stands prominent as the State’s
current house of Parliament. Its size and grandeur is reflective of the

growth and ambition of the State at the time of its design (and staged
construction). Its relationship to, and with, Old Parliament House again
representative of the growth and ambition of the early years of the Colony.
Both buildings have been central to social and cultural reform and growth
in the State throughout its life.
The Adelaide Railway Station, constructed in 1929, ‘anchors’ the centre of
the Policy Area, standing as both a monument to the growing ambition of
the State, and its increasing (and envisaged future) reliance on rail
transportation, even though the later failed to eventuate.
The Adelaide Festival Centre is a relative new-comer to the precinct, being
constructed in 1973/1977. Its cultural and social impact, however, has
been significant, extending beyond the boundaries of its site, and the
wider precinct itself. While the State’s embracement of the Arts has
connections back to the very earliest colonial settlement patterns, the
Adelaide Festival Centre stands today as a significant contemporary
manifestation of this.
Finally, these highly culturally significant institutions form a backdrop to the
banks of the River Torrens, the organic flow of which starkly contrasting
the regimented grid layout of the City plan, and central to Colonel William
Light’s layout for the State’s Capital. The River Torrens precinct has
accommodated a wide range of primarily recreational uses, which
continues today to varying extents.
Light’s original layout for the City of Adelaide provided limited north-south
roadways, while the connection of North and South Adelaide across the
River Torrens was similarly limited to one primary roadway (to Montefiore
Hill) and a secondary roadway (near Pulteney Street). This, and the
historic development patterns of the City, has contributed to the limited
interface of the City’s square mile grid to the River Torrens.
The most notable example of a change to this pattern of development was
the Adelaide Festival Centre. Set atypically at 45 degrees to the City’s
grid, the theatre complex and surrounding plaza opens through to the
banks of the River Torrens. This plaza forms an important gateway from
the City’s primary North-south boulevard, King William Street, to the banks
of the River Torrens, albeit to varying degrees of success.
Notwithstanding its relatively young age, the Adelaide Festival Centre has
had a significant and important impact on the precinct, not only in terms of
its cultural heritage value, but also for the role it plays in connecting the
City to the River Torrens.
While the Adelaide Festival Centre stands today as a well utilised venue for
the performing the arts, the use of the open plaza to the south, however,
as a civic space of cultural importance has been less successful. Lacking
activation, connectivity, amenity and function, the plaza has historically
been underutilized, and has fallen short of achieving its full potential to
provide civic activation to its surrounds. 23
The Adelaide Festival Centre has however demonstrated that that age is
no barrier to cultural heritage value. Its construction saw several of the

State’s early historic buildings demolished, however its embracement of
the river bank, and the resulting cultural and social values derived from its
use, have transformed the precinct from what was formerly a somewhat
disparate collection of buildings and uses, into a cultural arts hub, which
was immediately embraced, entrenching its cultural heritage value for
South Australians.
Some of the intent and purpose behind the Adelaide Festival Centre
development is not dissimilar to that currently being sought by the River
Bank Masterplan: connectivity, activation, cultural relevance, and amenity.
Accordingly, further works to the Riverbank Precinct, including the
proposed expansion of the Adelaide Casino, provide the opportunity to
both redress some of the Festival Plaza’s existing shortcomings, but also
further reinforce the positive values beyond the boundaries of its site.
Such opportunities, if undertaken appropriately, may well form our future
heritage. [underlining by author of this HIA]
As noted, the development Adelaide Festival Centre saw the demolition of several
buildings that, if remaining today, would likely be recognised as State Heritage
places. Further, the AFC fundamentally changed the setting and context of the
heritage places with which it interfaced. Such impacts are often a product of
precinct transformations.
This is not to say, however, that such impacts are acceptable simply because a
precinct is sought to be transformed. Rather, the nature of such impacts, and their
acceptability (or otherwise) needs to be carefully understood, and balanced,
against the revised vision and potential long term cultural gains derived from the
project.
Much of this broader consideration falls outside of the remit of this HIA, which is
limited to the assessment of heritage impacts only. It is, however, relevant
background context to any assessment of the acceptability (or otherwise) of
heritage impacts considered in this report.
4 Heritage Impact Assessment

For the purposes of this HIA, DASH Architects will consider the potential heritage
impacts of the proposed works as follows:
• Proposed Carpark;
• Proposed Northern Retail;
• Commercial Office Tower;
• Connection to Parliament House; and
• Potential heritage impacts associated with construction
The following heritage impacts will be considered for each of these components of
the works:
• Direct physical heritage impacts
• Potential heritage impacts to the context / setting of the place
24
4.1 Proposed Carpark
4.1.1 Scope of works

The carpark component of the proposed works will see the demolition of the
existing 2 storey (400 space) AFC carpark (located under the southern Festival
Plaza) and construction of a new 5 storey (1560 space) carpark extending from the
southern plaza around to the northern plaza. This carpark will be contained fully
below plaza level, and will form the sub-structure of the new plaza. The plaza will
be redeveloped as part of the separate Public Realm upgrade project (which, as
noted, does not form part of this application or assessment).
As also noted, removal of artworks from the affected area, including the Hajek,
does not form part of this project.
The footprint of the proposed carpark is illustrated on the below significance plans
as sourced from the 2014 AFC CMP. Included in these illustrations is the Overall
Significance Legend and general conservation policy for the respective significance
classifications.
Image 25. AFC Significance Legend. Source: Adelaide Festival Centre CMP, DASH Architects.
25
Image 26. AFC Significance Plan, Level 2, with new carpark overlay. Source: Adelaide Festival Centre
CMP, DASH Architects (annotated in red by author)
Image 27. AFC Significance Plan, Level 3, with new carpark overlay. Source: Adelaide Festival Centre
CMP, DASH Architects (annotated in red by author)
26
Image 28. AFC Significance Plan, Plaza Level, with new carpark overlay. Source: Adelaide Festival
Centre CMP, DASH Architects (annotated in red by author)
The ARM Masterplan identified the general location of the proposed carpark as
illustrated in the below images. Whilst the general location of the carpark remains
consistent with this, the subsequent relocation of the Festival Drive entrance (and
other commercial considerations) has resulted in the carpark now extending
northward into the ‘northern plaza’ area. As identified in the above plans, this area
remains in generally high integrity, and of Considerable Significance.
Image 29. Adelaide Festival Centre Masterplan Stage 2, June 2014 extract, by ARM Architecture
27
Image 30. Adelaide Festival Centre Masterplan Stage 2, June 2014 extract, by ARM Architecture
4.1.2 Significance and Policy
The 2012 AFC CMP provides the following policy and discussion with regard to the
affected areas of the proposed new carpark:
Setting / Context
The expansive setting of the AFC complex is intrinsic to its architectural
concept and reflective of its importance with the precinct…
Much of this expansive setting is integrally associated with the original
plaza design, which was intended as a vibrant civic space for external
cultural activities. The expansive nature of its layout however was ironically
at odds with it achieving these objectives. For this reason, and in the
context of the rapid growth and expansion of the City’s Riverbank
precinct, it is reasonable to envisage a ‘revisit’ to the design of the plaza in
the future.
This presents several challenges to the management of the heritage
significance to the place. On the one hand the expansive setting of the
plaza is intrinsic to its architectural and heritage significance. On the other,
it has directly contributed towards a space, which has not achieved its full
cultural potential, which is also intrinsic to the heritage significance of the
place. Accordingly, any redevelopment of this area will need to establish
an appropriate balance between the tangible (fabric based), and intangible
(cultural) heritage significance of the place…
The AFC complex also has a spatial and contextual relationship to King
William Road, which is a major gateway to and from the northern side of
the City. Views and vistas to King William Road have assessed as being of
Considerable Heritage Significance, and should be managed in
accordance with the General Conservation Policies established in this
report. It is via the King William Road interface that the AFC complex
provides its greatest connectivity of the city grid through to the River
Torrens, even if realistically much of this connectivity is visual, rather than
physical.
Views from the AFC complex are similarly significant, and integral to its
architectural concept… The strength of these views and vistas have been
compromised and diminished over time, however, by:
• The development of Festival Drive, which has both removed large
sections of the original elevated plaza, and disconnected the 28
original southern plaza from the theatre complexes.
• The brick ‘ventilation stack’ on the south eastern boundary is a

physical and visual barrier;
• The raised garden beds of the Southern Plaza that abut the King
William Road footpath contain only sparse plantings that are not
compatible with the character, quality and significance of the AFC;
• The later angled concrete garden beds with steps/ handrails up to
the King William Road forecourt area are visually and physically
obtrusive;
• Display boards fixed to these angled concrete garden beds, are
again visually and physically conspicuous;
• The vehicle entry to Festival Drive crossing the King William Road
footpath is incompatible with pedestrian movement and visually
and physically impacts on the presentation of the AFC;
• Trees and landscaping to original concrete garden beds north of
the Festival Drive entry restrict views to the Festival Theatre lower
terrace (although this may have been the original intention given
the maturity of the existing trees). The condition of the concrete
garden beds is also poor in areas;
• Display boards have been fixed to the top capping of these
garden beds. These display boards again restrict views to the
Terrace and are not consistent with the character, quality and
significance of the AFC;
• Lighting along the King William Road boundary is inconsistent and
existing light poles are dated, dilapidated and unlikely to perform
to current standards;
• The one way vehicle drop off in front of the convention centre
again is incompatible with pedestrian movement; and
It is recommended that consideration be given to addressing these
shortcomings of the King William Road interface with the AFC as part
of any future master planning works. [underlining by author of this HIA]
Terrace Level, Festival Drive and Car Park

Detailed Conservation Policy: Remnant original fabric should be retained
and conserved. The relationship of the Terrace and upper Northern Plaza
should also be retained and conserved.
Discussion: The Terrace Level of the AFC including the Festival Drive
vehicle entry and car park entry were modified as part of the 2003
redevelopment. This work resulted in the partial removal of the Southern
Plaza, new stairs/ access from the Southern Plaza down to Terrace Level,
and opening up Festival Drive to the sky.
This work significantly diminished the integrity of the plaza level. Original
fabric of significance, however, remains including:
•
•
Concrete umbrella columns and beams;
Concrete underside of slab;
29
• Dark brown ceramic pavers; and

• Planter beds and boxes with tall trees growing through the Plaza
penetrations.
The redevelopment of the Plaza also resulted in some negative outcomes
including:
• Reduced interaction and physical separation of the Northern and
Southern Plazas;
• Loss of original fabric;
• Poor interface between vehicles and pedestrians; and
• Signs, speed bumps and maximum height devices that
compromise the character of the Centre.1
The Plaza
Detailed Conservation Policy: The AFC Plaza is intrinsically linked to the
architectural concept, and in turn the heritage significance of the place. It
“grounds” the two theatre buildings, establishing their setting within the
localised context, while also being part of the overall architectural concept
and expression. It was also intended to be a civic space for cultural
activities. It has fallen short of achieving this objective. Future works to the
plaza should seek to address these cultural shortcomings while mitigating
as much as reasonably possible detrimental impacts to the integrity of the
original architectural concept.
Discussion: As outlined in Policies 10.2.1 - Setting / Context of this report,

the expansive, unrelieved architectural response to the AFC plaza (an in
particular its southern portion) is somewhat at odds with the spatial and
urban ingredients for a successful civic space. The Hajek sculpture,
commissioned to redress some of these deficiencies, did little to remedy
this.
Since its original construction, reconfigurations, maintenance, and lack
thereof, have significantly diminished in integrity of the space, and further
limited any potential for civic activation and cultural relevance.
A tension now exists between the architectural integrity and significance of
the space, and changes required to achieve its originally intended ‘cultural
potential’, which in turn is also intrinsically associated with its heritage
significance. Accordingly, any redevelopment of this area will need to
establish an appropriate balance between the tangible (fabric based), and
intangible (cultural) heritage significance of the place. [underlining by author of
this HIA]
30
The Plaza includes a number of design elements that contribute to its
architectural significance including (but not limited to):

• Its relationship to the theatre buildings, being a “grounding” base
element…;
• Octagonal patterning to the paving slabs…
• Planter boxes that abut the drama complex theatre building;
• Original penetrations through the Plaza to the Terrace level below,
including penetrating trees;
• Concrete balustrade to the Plaza edge;
1
Adelaide Festival Centre Conservation Management Plan, 2014, DASH Architects, p243-245.
• Original concrete stairs;
• Precast spandrel/ fascia panels; and
• The fixed sculptural artworks…2
The footprint of the proposed new carpark encompasses a large area of varying
levels of significance and integrity. These can be summarised as follows:
The AFC Carpark
2014 AFC CMP Level of Significance: Slight
Whilst the carpark remains in relatively high integrity, it is considered to be of
‘Slight’ significance only as it does not specifically embody the identified heritage
values of the place.
Image 31. AFC carpark entrance, 2015
31
Image 32. AFC carpark, 2015
2
Adelaide Festival Centre Conservation Management Plan, 2014, DASH Architects, pp256-257
Festival Drive
2014 AFC CMP Level of Significance: Negative
As noted in the above CMP extracts, the current Festival Drive vehicle entry (and
the changes undertaken to the original plaza to accommodate it) significantly
diminish the integrity of the plaza level, and created a reduction in interaction and
physical separation of the Northern and Southern Plazas. Festival Drive has also
significantly impacted on the primary axis of the main theatre. This axis was
identified by the 2014 AFC CMP as being of Exceptional Significance.
Image 33. AFC Festival Drive, impacting on axis of Exceptional Significance, 2015
32
Image 34. AFC Festival Drive, segregating the northern and southern plazas, 2015
Southern Plaza
2014 AFC CMP Level of Significance: Moderate
This plaza forms that basis of the Hajek Sculpture (that is being removed as part of
a separate project by others). As noted in the above CMP extracts, this plaza
stands in a poor state of integrity and condition and falls well short of achieving its
potential for civic activation and cultural relevance.
Image 35. AFC Festival Drive, impacting on axis of Exceptional Significance, 2015
Northern Plaza
2014 AFC CMP Level of Significance: Considerable / Exceptional
Of all of the of remaining plaza area, the northern plaza (north of Festival Drive)
presently retains the highest levels of integrity, and in turn significance, particularly
at the lower terrace level where remaining original features include the noted:
• Its relationship to the theatre buildings, being a “grounding” base element;
• Planter boxes that abut the drama complex theatre building;
• Original penetrations through the Plaza to the Terrace level below,
including penetrating trees;
• Concrete balustrade to the Plaza edge; 33
Original concrete stairs;
•
• Precast spandrel/ fascia panels;
• Concrete umbrella columns and beams;
• Concrete underside of slab;
• Dark brown planter bricks; and
• Planter beds and boxes with tall trees growing through the Plaza
penetrations.
Of these elements, the original insitu concrete ‘umbrella’ columns, beams and
soffits to the underside of the plaza are considered to be of Exceptional
significance.
Image 36. AFC northern plaza, showing penetrations for landscaping, 2015
34
Image 37. AFC northern plaza, terrace level, showing original insitu ‘umbrella’ columns and beams, and
octagonal insitu soffits, 2015
Image 38. AFC northern plaza, terraced planting to King William Road, 2015
4.1.3 Heritage Impact Assessment

4.1.3.1 Direct Physical Heritage Impacts
The area affected by the carpark component of the proposed development
contains both tangible and intangible heritage values. The extensive demolition
and excavation required to accommodated the carpark proposal will result in the
removal of large areas of existing fabric. This fabric ranges in significance from
‘Negative’ though to ‘Considerable’.
The removal of elements of ‘Negative’ Significance, such as those associated with
Festival Drive, will have positive impacts on the heritage values of the place. The
re-connection of the northern and southern plaza achieved by this project is highly
desirable and strongly encouraged by the 2014 AFC CMP. In addition to this, the
project creates the opportunity for the later Public Realm works to redress other
negative aspects of the current plaza configuration, including the re-establishment
of key sight lines and vistas (ranging from Considerable to Exceptional significance)
which are presently impeded by later planter boxes, ventilation stacks, balustrading
and display boards.
The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following policy for areas of Negative
35
Significance:
The proposed works are consistent with this policy.

The removal of the original carpark (classified as being of ‘Slight’ significance) is not
considered to have notable heritage impacts. The carpark is an ancillary structure
to the Festival Centre complex, and for the most part does not embody the
heritage values of the place.
The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following policy for areas of Slight Significance:
The proposed works are consistent with this policy.

The Southern Plaza is considered to be of Moderate Significance. This
significance, however, is primarily embodied in:
• the open space characteristic of the plaza;
• the manner by which it provided an open and expansive setting the
Festival Theatre and Playhouse structures
• its role in the overall architectural response to the site, and its surrounds;
and
• its role in the overall architectural expression.
With the exception of the Hajek Sculpture (which is being removed by others) very
little fabric of notable significance remains. Many of the original planters and most
of the original pavement have been removed, while the carpark sub-structure (as
noted above) is of limited heritage value. This compromised integrity is evident
when comparing the below images.
While the proposed works will see the removal of some remaining original plaza
fabric (such as some planters) the overall benefits to the intangible heritage values
of the place will be considerable, albeit primarily realised under the Public Realm
works application. These gains to the intangible heritage values of the place
36
(which will be discussed in more detail later in this HIA) are in accord with the 2014
CMP policies and commentary which envisaged a ‘revisit’ to the design of the
plaza.
Image 39. Adelaide Festival Centre, c1977. Source: AFC CMP, DASH Architects
37
Image 40. Adelaide Festival Centre, 2015. Source: Google Maps

The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following policy for areas of Moderate
Significance:
On the basis of the above analysis with regard to he heritage value of the affected
fabric, the proposed works are generally consistent with this policy.
The highest heritage impacts arising from the carpark component of this project
will occur to the northern plaza, which presently retains a high level of integrity and
is considered to be of Considerable significance. The insitu concrete ‘umbrella’
columns, beams and soffit linings to the underside Terrace level are considered to
be of Exceptional Significance.
The carpark footprint in this location will result in the irreversible loss of a large area
of the fabric, including the current open terraced garden to King William Road, and
a sizable portion of the original plaza and lower terraced area. While other insitu
concrete ‘umbrella’ columns, beams and soffits will remain, this area presently
represents the most intact original expression of the plaza, including openings in
the plaza deck to allow trees to grow through (refer below images). While the
carpark in this area will not extend above terrace level, enabling Public Realm
upgrade work to ‘re-establish’ this area, it remains unclear if this will extend to the
reconstruction of the upper plaza deck. Opportunities for the dismantling and
reconstruction the original plaza decking and support structure are limited due to
the insitu nature of its concrete construction.
38
Image 41. AFC northern plaza, terrace level, showing original insitu deck penetrations for landscaping,
2015
Image 42. AFC northern plaza, terrace level, showing original insitu ‘umbrella’ columns and beams, and
octagonal insitu soffits with terraced landscaping to King William Road, 2015
The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following policy for areas of Considerable and
Exceptional Significance:
39
The proposed works to the Northern Plaza are not consistent with this policy, and
are considered undesirable with respect to their heritage impacts. It would be
highly preferable if the project parameters (which include both economic
considerations and the Key Commercial Terms agreement with the State
Government) enabled the carpark to be ‘pulled back’ from this area, and be limited
to the identified Lease Boundary land south of the proposed Festival Drive
realignment.
If, notwithstanding the above noted heritage impacts, the works are to proceed as
lodged, it is then highly desirable that a clearly establish line of demolition is defined
to ensure retention of remaining ‘umbrella’ columns to their full extent, and that all
efforts are made to protect and retain these structures for integration into Public
Realm concept.
Image 43. Desired demolition line around ‘umbrella’ columns and beams, northern plaza (annotated by
author)
The affected area of the northern plaza also accommodates a series of brass
plaques commemorating and identifying a range of important issues / events,
including:
• Royal Australian Institute of Architects Award of Merit, 1974
• Plaque commemorating the link between the Adelaide Festival of Arts and
the Adelaide Festival Centre;
• Plaque recognising the demolition of several buildings of “historic interest”
to enable the construction of the Adelaide Festival Centre;
40
• Plaque marking the resting place of the ashes of Dame Judith Andreson;
• Plaque noting the opening of the Adelaide Festival Centre in 1973, and key
participants in the project;
• Recognition plaque for George Edward Pullen (Theatres Manager 1973-
1989).
Image 44. Brass plaques within northern plaza (terrace level)
The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following policy with regards to these plaques:
If required, relocation of these plaques is considered to be appropriate.
Further investigation into ashes would be required.
According, any plaques removed by this project should be stored and made
available for reinstatement into Public Realm works. The Public Ream project 41
should give due consideration to the location of their reinstatement.
As noted, further investigation is recommended into the issues associated with the
disturbance of ground known to be the resting place for cremation ashes. Such
matters are not of a heritage nature, and therefore not within the remit of this HIA.
4.1.3.2 Potential Heritage Impacts to the Context and Setting of the Place
In its original design configuration, the Plaza played an intrinsic part of the overall
architectural expression of the Adelaide Festival Centre. Its expansive and open
characteristics provided a dramatic ‘grounding’ and setting to the theatre shells,
whilst extending the geometric architectural expression beyond the building
structures, into the public realm. The plaza also played an integral role in
rationalising this complex site, providing a rare connection of the City to the River
Torrens.
The plaza also afforded expansive views of the theatre complexes, which in turn
now form an important aspect to the heritage significance of the place.
It is these attributes that formed the primary design intent for the Plaza. The
Sketch Plan Report prepared in 1971 by the project architects noted:
The Plaza be developed to blend in closely with the surrounding areas and
emphasise the diagonal axis of approach to the Theatres stepping down
with the natural fall in the land.
The Plaza will link with the footpath of King William Road and extend
westwards to the line of the… elevated road for the Railways. It will reach
to Parliament House on the south and flow in to the Plazas surrounding
the Festival Theatre and the Drama Theatres…
Because of the extent of the [plaza] area it will divided into a variety of
more intimate spaces separated by lawns and shrubs and trees to provide
a quiet garden setting.3
The potential for the plaza to accommodate art installations quickly evolved,
however its potential as a vibrant civic space never eventuated. Its expansive
nature (in part a response to the need to accommodate an underground carpark)
lacked the necessary amenity and physical activation to become a vibrant civic
space.
As noted by the 2014 AFC CMP:
This present several challenges to the management of the heritage
(cultural) heritage significance of the place.
Since its construction, however, the integrity of the original design expression of
the Festival Plaza has gradually been eroded. Changes that have had a significant
impact on its integrity have included:
• The development of Festival Drive, and the resulting ‘disconnection’ of the
42
of the once continuous plaza into (now) a northern and southern plaza;
• modification to planter boxes and paving;
• new ventilation stacks;
• new balustrading across key axis / sightlines; and
• display boards.
These changes have had a serious and negative impact to the setting and context
of the Adelaide Festival Centre.
3
Adelaide Festival Centre Conservation Management Plan, 2014, DASH Architects, p49
The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following polices with regards to the setting and
broader contextual relationship of the Adelaide Festival Centre
Siting, Views, Vistas and Relationship (Immediate) Policy
Distinct and expansive views and vistas exist to and from the AFC. They
are integral to the setting of the complex, its importance within the
precinct, architectural expression, and overall heritage significance. Any
changes to this setting should not diminish the overall significance of the
place.4
Setting – Broader Contextual Relationship
The AFC complex is set both within a locality characterised by surrounding
buildings / places of individual heritage significance, and within a precinct
of broader cultural value to the City of Adelaide, and State of South
Australia, namely the River Bank precinct. The AFC complex is an
important component of this broader precinct, and plays a significant role
in its cultural activation. Any redevelopment of the AFC complex should
seek to reinforce this role within the broader precinct.5 [underlining by author of
this HIA]
Cultural Significance and Integrity

The AFC’s heritage significance is embodied both in the tangible (physical
fabric) and the intangible (special cultural associations). Its establishment
has transformed the historic precinct into one of broader social and
cultural associations, beyond the boundaries of its site, and the physical
fabric of the place itself.
Future development of the place should seek to preserve, reinforce, and
expand the cultural significance and maintain the integrity of the place.
[underlining by author of this HIA]
The carpark component of the proposed development is consistent with these

Conservation Management Plan polices with regard to the setting and context of
the heritage place. Whilst the final impacts to the setting and context of the place
will be largely informed by the subsequent Public Realm project, the carpark works
will form an appropriate substructure that will enable the existing shortcomings of
the plaza to be addressed. Importantly, the project will enable a connected and
continuous plaza to be re-established, providing a renewed expansive ‘grounding’
of the theatre complexes and re-connection of the public realm connection of the
City to the River Torrens. 43
Further, the overall project will play an important role in providing essential cultural
activation of the plaza, reinforcing its role within the broader precinct.
The final design resolution of the Public Realm works will be critical to the
successful and appropriate reinstatement of the setting of the Adelaide Festival
Centre. Such designs should have close regard to the 2014 AFC CMP policies,
which specifically provide policy and guidance to such matters.
4
5
4.1.4 Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 4.1(a)
Options be explored to reconfigure the carpark to avoid construction north of
Festival Drive to avoid impacts to fabric of Considerable and Exceptional
Significance. In the event that the works proceed as lodged, a clear demarcation
line be established to retain and protect remaining ‘umbrella’ columns and beams
for later integration into Public Ream Concept.
Recommendation 4.1(b)
Any removal of plaques should be stored and made available for reinstatement by
Public Ream project. The Public Realm Project should give due consideration for
their appropriate reinstatement.
Recommendation 4.1(c)
Recommended Condition of Approval
Should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the
application in its present configuration, consideration should be given to the
following Condition of Approval:
A clear demarcation line of demolition is to be established around the
remaining ‘umbrella’ columns and beams of the northern plaza (north of
current Festival Drive), informed by the octagonal pattern of the soffit line
to ensure the retention and protection of remaining fabric. A work method
statement is to be prepared detailing protective measures, and
construction techniques to ensure demolition of connected insitu concrete
does not cause damage or structural instability to remaining fabric of
heritage significance. Details of demolition alignment, and noted work
method statement, are to be detailed to the satisfaction of the
Development Assessment Commission in consultation with the
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources prior to final
Development Approval being granted. Works are to be informed by a
suitably qualified heritage architect.
44
All plaques within the zone of proposed demolition are to be removed,
with original location recorded. Plaques are to be stored and made
available for later reinstatement (by others).
4.2 Proposed Northern Retail
The northern retail component of the proposed works consists of the construction
of a new 2-3 storey retail building with food and beverage outlets north of
Parliament House. The location of this retail component has again been heavily
guided by the ARM Masterplan.
Image 45. Adelaide Festival Centre Masterplan Stage 2, June 2014 extract, by ARM Architecture. Red
arrow added by author.
45
Image 46. Adelaide Festival Centre Masterplan Stage 2, June 2014 extract, by ARM Architecture. Red
arrow added by author.
The detailed design process for the application has seen some minor amendments
to the Masterplan configuration. In order to provide improved activation of the
plaza level, the concept has evolved to include the provision of a laneway around
the commercial tower, providing pedestrian access and visual separation between
the tower and northern retail built forms.
A substantial Courtyard Garden has been provided to the interface with Parliament
House, while the northern retail component itself has been designed as a series of
connected pavilions, the footprint of which has been informed by the rhythm and
articulation of the Parliament House’s northern façade.
In addition to this, the height of the pavilions is modulated to establish a clearly
visible deference to northern balcony of Parliament House, maintaining sightlines to
and from the balcony structure.
Image 47. Ground Plane Design Concept (extract), Bates Smart, 03.12.15
46
47
Image 51. Retail / Square (extract), Bates Smart, 03.12.15
These changes are all sound design responses to creating an improved public
realm, and contextual relationship to the setting of Parliament House. We
understand that when combined with the floor area schedules of Key Commercial
Terms agreement, these design responses require some components of the new
northern retail to be 3 storeys in height, with others remaining at 2 storeys.
Notwithstanding these design parameters, the project architects have sought to
mitigate the visual bulk and scale of the northern retail through:
• the use of a pavilion architectural typology;
• setbacks from King William Road;
• setting back of the third storey; and
• articulating the overall form into a series of connected pavilions, rather
than a single continuous built form.
48
Image 52. Retail / Square (extract), Bates Smart, 10.12.15 (noting arbor public realm structures not part
of this project, and may be subject to further design resolution)
Image 53. Retail / Square (extract), Bates Smart, 03.12.15 (noting arbor public realm structures not part
of this project, and may be subject to further design resolution)

The 2014 AFC CMP provides the following policy and discussion with regard to the
affected areas of the proposed new northern retail:
The AFC complex also has a spatial and contextual relationship to King
William Road, which is a major gateway to and from the northern side of
the City. Views and vistas to King William Road have assessed as being of
Considerable Heritage Significance, and should be managed in
accordance with the General Conservation Policies established in this
report. It is via the King William Road interface that the AFC complex
provides its greatest connectivity of the city grid through to the River
Torrens, even if realistically much of this connectivity is visual, rather than
physical…
The interface of the AFC complex with Parliament House is considered to
be of moderate significance. While originally the rear façade of Parliament
House essentially only defined the boundaries of the site, and was
concealed by the earlier Government Printing Office, it has gone on to now
form part of the setting of the site.
Old Parliament House to the south, and the Adelaide Railway Station
complex to the west are considered to be of lesser specific relevance to
the heritage significance of the place.
49
All of these building, however, have their own specific heritage

significance, which may include aspects relating to their setting.6
6
Adelaide Festival Centre Conservation Management Plan, 2014, DASH Architects, p243-245
Image 54. Overview Significance Assessment: Views (extract), Adelaide Festival Centre CMP Drawing
24, DASH Architects
The 2014 AFC CMP noted that DEWNR heritage file (City of Adelaide Nomination
for the Adelaide Festival Centre) criticised the design of the southern edge of the
plaza for its ‘uncomfortable’ interface with Parliament House, separated only by a
raised garden bed and steel railing fence. The CMP agreed that this edge
treatment lacked consideration of the adjacent State Heritage place.7 The CMP
went on to classify this significance level of this immediate interface as being of
‘Negative’ Significance.
50
Image 55. Southern Plaza interface with Parliament House, 2015
7
Image 56. Southern Plaza interface with Parliament House, 2015
The 2011 Parliament House CMP provides the following policy and discussion with
regard to the affected areas of the proposed new northern retail:
Significant Views
Traditionally the most important views of the building have been from
North Terrace and King William Street (refer Fig 6.2, View 1, View 2 and
View 3). This is reflected by the original design intent of the building in that
it was designed to address North Terrace and this hierarchy in importance
is visible in the elevations, with south being the most important followed by
the east which faces King William Road…
51
Distance views of the north elevation, including from King William Road
when approaching from the north (refer Fig 6.2 View 4) and from the 52
Festival Centre and associated Festival Centre Plaza (refer Fig 6.2 View 5),
have historically been limited by development in the immediate area, and

was traditionally considered to be the ‘back’ of the building. When the
west wing of Parliament House was completed in 1889, the view from the
north was already obstructed by buildings and structures associated with
the railway yards and the Government Printing Office… Hence the north
elevation was traditionally neither prominently viewed or of high
importance, as reflected by its lower level of architectural detail in
comparison to the south and east elevations and the use of artificial
granite to the lower ground level of this elevation in the 1939 works… The
north elevation as a whole is currently a prominent elevation as a result,
despite the view of the lower level being partly obstructed by the height of
the plaza which is higher than the original ground level on this side of the
building. This view is therefore considered to be of some significance…
While there are a number of important views of the building which have
been generated since 1970, it is not considered that these represent the
historically significant views which were important during design and
development of the building. The most significant views of the building are
those from North Terrace and King William Street (ie. Views 1, 2 and 3) but
Views 1 & 3 has been negatively impacted by the street trees planted in
the vicinity of these elevations…
Although views of the north elevation are currently more prominent due to
the relatively recent creation of the plaza associated with the Festival
Centre, as these are of less significance it is considered that some future
development in the areas immediate adjacent to these elevations should
not be discounted if deemed necessary in order to maintain the current
Parliamentary use of the building and work is done in accordance with the
conditions outlined within this report (refer Section 6.3 – Use). Any new
development to the north should still maintain the legibility of the building
which should remain evident from the north, both to King William Road
and the Riverbank precinct. A possible scenario which would achieve this
would be to redevelop the multilevel underground carpark underneath the
Festival Centre plaza which would allow a low rise building to be added in
the immediate vicinity which would preserve the view of the upper portion
of the building...8 [underlining by author of this HIA]
53
Image 57. View of Parliament House north elevation from King William Road footpath.
8
Parliament House Conservation Management Plan, pp670-674
Direct physical Impacts associated with proposed retail are considered under
Section 4.1.3.1 above.
The below image of the proposed northern retail setout includes annotations of the
key views and axis as established by the 2014 AFC CMP. As illustrated, the
northern retail has been set clear of the primary 45 degree axis of the Festival
Theatre, however encroaches into the southern most extremity of the view corridor
to and from King William Road (that the CMP classified as being of Considerable
Significance). While the below image also illustrates the current concept for the
plaza Public Realm works, these works do not form part of this application, and
may be subject to further design resolution.
54
Image 58. Northern retail view corridor encroachment.
On balance, the below encroachment into the King William Road view corridor is
not considered excessive. This view corridor extends from Elder Park (to the north)
to the corner of Parliament House. Accordingly, the extent to which these overall
views are impacted upon is negligible.
The proposed northern retail will affect the unveiling views of the AFC complex
when travelling north down King William Road past Parliament House. This
approach is an important aspect to the setting of the AFC complex, as it is
associated with the visual and pedestrian connection of the City Grid to the AFC,
and River Torrens beyond.
Notwithstanding this, the impact of the noted encroachment is considered
negligible. While views of the Festival Theatre will be initially blocked when
travelling north down King William Road, this will be for a short moment only.
Views of the key 45 degree axis remain preserved, as does the sense of
connection to the city grid through to the Rover Torrens.
It should also be noted that the setout of the proposed northern retail is also
generally consistent with the ARM Masterplan, and City of Adelaide Development
Plan (refer Figure Rb/3, image 24 above). It is notable that the King William Road
view corridor discussed above is not identified in either of these documents.
Image 59. Unveiling views of AFC traveling north down King William Road.
55
The proposed new northern retail will impact on the sense of space, and general
size and proportion of the AFC Plaza. This issue was not specifically envisaged or
addressed by the 2014 AFC CMP, with the exception of commentary regarding
the setting that the current expansive plaza provided the two theatres, and its
associated shortcomings as a civic space for cultural activities (refer Section 4.1.2).
As also noted by the CMP:
Much of this expansive setting is integrally associated with the original
plaza design, which was intended as a vibrant civic space for external
cultural activities. The expansive nature of its layout however was ironically
at odds with it achieving these objectives. For this reason, and in the
context of the rapid growth and expansion of the City’s Riverbank
precinct, it is reasonable to envisage a ‘revisit’ to the design of the plaza in
the future.
This present several challenges to the management of the heritage
place…9
The effect of the proposed northern retail will be to redefine the southern boundary
of the Festival Plaza from that currently defined by Parliament House. This will
56
have the effect of reducing the sense of space of the Plaza from being expansive
to something slightly less so, and in turn alter its general size and proportion.
These changes will alter the setting and context of the remainder of the Adelaide
Festival Centre. Such changes, however, were envisaged by the 2014 AFC CMP
when it foreshadowed a ‘revisit’ to the design of the plaza in the future.
Whilst acknowledging that the CMP was aware of potential plans to redevelop the
plaza (ref AFC CMP Section 3.19) such changes to the setting of the place also
need to be considered in the context the generational transformation sought for
the precinct (refer Section 3 of this HIA).
9
Adelaide Festival Centre Conservation Management Plan, 2014, DASH Architects, p243-244
The City of Adelaide Development Figure Rb/3 (Image 24) identifies visual links and
connections sought with the development of this locality. The proposed northern
retail is consistent with this policy. As noted in Section 3 of this HIA, there is
currently a clear policy intent to fundamentally transform this precinct, and this
locality specifically. Such transformation will often have impacts on the setting and
context of heritage places, as was the case with the development of the Adelaide
Festival Centre in the 1970s.
The revised configuration of the Festival Plaza arising from the proposed northern
retail is also consistent with the ARM Riverbank Masterplan, that specifically seeks
both a retail building in this location, and a reduced and reconfigured Festival
Plaza.
Image 62. ARM Riverbank Masterplan extract.
As noted, this is not to say that such impacts are acceptable simply because
transformation is being sought. Rather, the nature of such impacts needs to be
carefully understood, and balanced, against the revised vision and potential long
term cultural gains derived from the project. This approach is not inconsistent with
the 2014 AFC CMP Conservation Policy that seeks any redevelopment of the AFC
complex should seek to reinforce this role within the broader precinct. 57
While many of the broader merits of these gains fall outside of the remit of this HIA,
the physical and cultural activation sought by the proposed development is highly
desirable, and both consistent with the heritage values of the Adelaide Festival
Centre, and policies of the 2014 AFC CMP, the latter of which noted:
Any redevelopment of the AFC complex should seek to reinforce this role
within the broader precinct…
The AFC’s heritage significance is embodied both in the tangible (physical
fabric) and the intangible (special cultural associations). Its establishment
has transformed the historic precinct into one of broader social and
cultural associations, beyond the boundaries of its site, and the physical
fabric of the place itself.
Future development of the place should seek to preserve, reinforce, and
expand the cultural significance and maintain the integrity of the place.
The northern retail will also impact on the setting of Parliament House. As noted,
Parliament House currently defines the southern edge of Festival Plaza, and
accordingly is afforded relatively expansive views from the north.
The role in defining the edge to the plaza is not, however, associated with the
established significance of the place. As noted by the 2011 Parliament House
CMP:
Distance views of the north elevation, including from King William Road
when approaching from the north (refer Fig 6.2 View 4) and from the
Festival Centre and associated Festival Centre Plaza (refer Fig 6.2 View 5),
have historically been limited by development in the immediate area, and
was traditionally considered to be the ‘back’ of the building. . When the
west wing of Parliament House was completed in 1889, the view from the
north was already obstructed by buildings and structures associated with
the railway yards and the Government Printing Office… Hence the north
elevation was traditionally neither prominently viewed or of high
importance, as reflected by its lower level of architectural detail in
comparison to the south and east elevations and the use of artificial
granite to the lower ground level of this elevation in the 1939 works… The
north elevation as a whole is currently a prominent elevation as a result,
despite the view of the lower level being partly obstructed by the height of
the plaza which is higher than the original ground level on this side of the
building. This view is therefore considered to be of some significance…
[underlining by author of this HIA]
58
Image 63. View of Government Printing Office, 17 June 1974, prior to demolition, with north elevation of
Parliament House to left of frame. Source: SLSA, B29214
The 2011 Parliament House CMP goes on to note:
Although views of the north elevation are currently more prominent due to
the relatively recent creation of the plaza associated with the Festival
Centre, as these are of less significance it is considered that some future
development in the areas immediate adjacent to these elevations should
not be discounted if deemed necessary in order to maintain the current
Parliamentary use of the building and work is done in accordance with the
conditions outlined within this report… Any new development to the north
should still maintain the legibility of the building which should remain
evident from the north, both to King William Road and the Riverbank
precinct.
With some sections three stories in height, some views of the northern elevation of
Parliament House will likely be obscured by the proposed northern retail. The
extent to which these views are obscured from the “Riverbank precinct” is difficult
to determine, due to the generic description of the precinct, (ie where are the views
to remain evident from), the complex topography, existing structures, and
extensive proposed new structures.
The design of the northern retail has had specific regard to the setting and
contextual relationship with Parliament house, in that:
• a substantial courtyard has been provided to the interface between the
two buildings (11m wide as prescribed by the ARM Masterplan);
• the retail building has been designed as a series of connected pavilions,
the footprint of which has been informed by the rhythm and articulation of
the Parliament House’s northern façade; and
• the height of the pavilions is modulated to establish a clearly visible
deference to the northern balcony of Parliament House, maintaining
sightlines to and from the balcony structure.
59
Image 64. Design Studies (extract), Bates Smart, 10.12.15

These views and sightlines are also consistent with the Adelaide (City)
Development Plan Figure Rb/3 (image 24) and the ARM Riverbank Masterplan 60
(refer below image).
While the proposed northern retail will impact on the setting of Parliament House,
and views to its northern façade, such impacts are not inconsistent with the
heritage values of the place, the historic context and setting of Parliament House,
nor the 2011 Parliament House Conservation Management Plan policies and
recommendations.
4.3 Proposed Commercial Office Tower

The commercial tower component of the proposed works consists of the
construction of new 26 storey office tower (including rooftop plant), comprising
40,000sqm NLA with retail on ground floor fronting Station Road and a new public
plaza. Once again, the location and general configuration of this commercial tower
has been heavily guided by both the ARM Masterplan, which identifies a 105m
high ‘mixed used development’ in the location of the proposal, and the City of
Adelaide Development Plan.
61
Image 68. ARM Riverbank Masterplan extract. Outcome 2 – Built Form Location
62
The tower itself consists of several elements:

‘Podium’ level
The project’s designers have explored at great lengths the design of the lower
‘podium’ level in order to establish:
• an intimate scale public realm interface;
• a contextual relationship with adjacent State Heritage places (in particular
Old Parliament House, Parliament House and the Adelaide Railway
Station); and
• an overall cohesive design relationship between the commercial tower and
northern retail component of the project.
These objectives are achieved in the proposal through:
• the use of lower level architectural treatments (such as awnings) and a
higher order of architectural detailing to the lower portions of the tower;
• establishing a clear ‘base’ to the building derived from multiple elements of
differing scale and materiality (as is presently the case in its immediate
interface with the Old Parliament House and the Adelaide Railway Station);
• establishing a compatible scale relationship between the lower levels of the
tower, and the adjacent State Heritage places;
• The increased use of ‘monolithic’ materials and articulation at lower level.
Image 70. Station Road Podium Design Study, Bates Smart, 10.12.15
63
Image 71. Station Road Podium Design Study, Bates Smart, 10.12.15
Image 72. Design study relationship of podium to Adelaide Railway Station, Bates Smart, 10.12.15
Image 73. Design study relationship of podium to Adelaide Railway Station, Bates Smart, 10.12.15
Upper Tower
The upper component of the tower has been designed to be deliberately simple
64
and elegantly articulated, so as to:

• ‘manage’ the overall visual bulk and scale of the proposal;
• provide a simple backdrop to the setting of the surrounding heritage
places (in particular Parliament House), whilst still establishing an identity
of its own for the proposed development; and
• create a ‘contemporary and innovative’ design solution that ‘responds to
the rich character of the local setting with contemporary juxtapositions
providing new settings for heritage places’ (as sought by Council’s
Development Plan policies for this locality).
These objectives are achieved in the proposal through:
• deliberate yet subtle articulation of the overall form into a series of smaller
elements which break down the visual bulk and scale of the proposal;
• an overall articulated ‘grain’ to the building façade that emphasises the
vertical though glazing framing; and
• The provision of a subtle ‘depth’ to the façade system though the use of
vertical fins.
There is also some adjustment of these techniques between components of the
overall tower form to create slight differences and assist in creating a unified, yet
articulated overall architectural identify.
Image 74. Upper Tower design study, Bates Smart, 10.12.15
65

The topography around the site of the proposed commercial tower is also relatively
complex, with the Festival Plaza, Parliament House, Old Parliament House and
Station Road all differing in levels.
The Commercial Tower seeks to reconcile these levels, and associated interfaces
with surrounding structures / public realm, though the provision of a laneway
(Parliament Lane) that provides both the required Masterplan setbacks to the
adjacent heritage places, and connectivity between Station Road and the renewed
Festival Plaza.
66
Image 77. Parliament Lane interface with heritage places, Bates Smart, 10.12.15

In addition to the commentary provided in in Section 4.2.2 above, the 2011
Parliament House CMP also notes with regard to Significant Views:
The current view of the building from the pedestrian bridge which
connects the Casino to the Festival Centre complex (refer Fig 6.2, View 6)
resulted from the construction of the Festival Centre in 1972 and is now a
prominent view of the building when approaching from the River Torrens.
Both the west and north elevations of the building are clearly viewed from
this location, however it is important to note that this view was previously
inaccessible to the general public and hence is only a relatively recent
67
creation.
Distance views from the west have historically been limited by the close
proximity of Old Parliament House and the buildings and lands associated
with the adjoining Railway Station located immediately on the west side of
Station Road. This is again reflected in the hierarchy of elevations with the
west elevation being of less importance in its architectural detail than the
south and east. There are more intimate views of the facade from the entry
to the Casino and northern end of Station Road over the relatively clear
area of the driveway and car-parking area north side of Old Parliament
House however (refer Fig 6.2, View 7) and also from various points on the
upper levels within Old Parliament House itself (refer Fig 6.2, View 8) and
the courtyard between the two buildings…
Policy 8.1 The significant views of Parliament House should be maintained.
In addition to this, the 2010 Old Parliament House CMP provides the following
policy and discussion with regard to the affected areas of the proposed new
commercial Tower:
Traditionally the most important view of the building has been that from
North Terrace (refer Figure 6.2, View 1)…
The current most prominent view of Old Parliament House is of the
southwest corner when travelling west along North Terrace (refer Fig 6.2,
View 2) or viewed from the Railway Station tram station, due primarily to
the break in the street trees created by the intersection of Station Road…
68
The views from the north were historically limited by development in the
immediate area and the building was only visible once the former railway
workshops were cleared in 1900, and from 1926 the views of the building
from this orientation were largely for the service area associated with the
Adelaide Railway Station… the view of the building from the north was
dominated by the old quarry face and the service area of the Parliamentary
buildings including washing lines, the washhouse and privies at the rear of
the building. The current views of the building from the north resulted from
the creation of the Festival Centre after 1972 and were created by the
demolition of the Caterer’s Quarters in 1972 and the service buildings in
1978…
While there are a number of important views which have been generated
of the building since 1970, it is considered that these do not represent the
historically significant views which were important during the buildings
69
period of significance. The most significant views of the building are those
from North Terrace (ie. View 1 & View 2) but these have been significantly
compromised by the street trees and those planted on the site adjacent to
the south boundary…[underlining by author of this HIA]
Policy 8.1 The significant views of the Old Parliament House should be
maintained.
Commentary on views, vistas and setting of the Adelaide Railway Station in the
2001 CMP was relatively limited (reflecting the age of the document). It noted,
however:
Exterior Significance
…Upon completion of construction in 1928, the building held a dominant
position in the city landscape, with striking views from the surrounding
parklands and city streets. While the Adelaide Festival Centre had a
moderate impact on these views when constructed in the early 1970’s
(though the previous City Baths buildings still obscured some vistas from
King William Street), the most major impact came as a result of the 1980s
ASER development. The removal of the original platforms, and the
construction of a new plaza at ground floor level permanently concealed
the platform level of the western facade. Further to this, the construction of
a multi storey hotel, office building and exhibition centre created a visual
barrier almost totally obscuring the views of the station from the west.
General Conservation Policy
All future work encompassing the conservation of the Adelaide Railway
Station should be undertaken on the following principles, and as outlined
in the recommendations of this report, seeking to:
• preserve the cultural significance of the place;
• prevent damage to or deterioration of the building;
• preserve or enhance views of the building from surrounding areas;
• preserve the integrity of the buildings;
• allow for the future maintenance of the buildings;
• permit future adaptation of the place.
External Conservation Policy
…surrounding development has had a significant impact on the setting of
the building, creating visual barriers from many of the early dominant
views. Any future development within the immediate precinct should not
further reduce the surrounding views of the building. Such development
includes new buildings, siteworks and landscaping (including street tree
planting). 10

70
Direct impacts to surrounding heritage places are limited to those associated with
the proposed new Parliament Lane interface.
As noted, the topography around the site of the proposed commercial tower is
complex, with the Festival Plaza, Parliament House, Old Parliament House and
Station Road all differing in levels.
10
Adelaide Railway Station Conservation Management Plan, Danvers Architects, pp41, 245-246
Image 78. Existing levels to north-west corner of Parliament House, 2015.
71
Image 79. Existing levels to rear (northern end) of Old Parliament House, 2015.
Image 80. Existing levels Old Parliament House and Parliament House, 2015.
We have been advised the new Parliament Lane will be set at the level of the
proposed Festival Plaza (nominally RL37), which in turn aligns with the existing
plaza deck level. The below photographs have been annotated by the project
architects to indicate the new levels around the heritage places (in red).
72
Image 81. Commercial Tower ground plane interface (indicated in red)

Potential impacts from the change in ground plane to the setting of the heritage
places, and from undertaking construction works in close proximity to them, will be
73
assessed later in this HIA.
These potential impacts aside, the change in ground plane will need to be
appropriately detailed to ensure that any existing damp proof courses (DPC), floor
vents or similar are not breached such as to cause long term degradation of the
heritage fabric.
The above images indicate that proposed Parliament Lane levels closely aligned
with the existing carpark interface level with Parliament House. It is assumed from
the carpark level plans that the existing raised landing along the western side of
Parliament House will either be partly, or completely removed (described in the
2011 Parliament House CMP as the West Terrace). The extent of such demolition
remain unclear.
The provenance of the raised west terrace appears mixed, with substructure
appearing to date from the building’s original construction, while some handrailing
and slates have been recently replaced.
Image 84. Western deck, Parliament House, 2015
74

The 2011 Parliament House CMP notes with regard to this area:
Policy 9.22: The pre-1940 paving configuration, comprising steps,

thresholds and slate and marble flagging, should be retained and
conserved.
Whilst the required removal of this fabric is counter to this policy recommendation,
the associated heritage impacts are considered to be generally minor. It is
acknowledged that the fabric in this location is of some heritage value. The
western yard of Parliament House is a service and loading area, however, and not
specifically intrinsic to the heritage significance of the place.
The extent of proposed demolition of the west terrace (raised landing to western
loading bay of Parliament House) should be confirmed prior to Development
Approval being granted. Demolition should be generally limited to that necessary
to undertake the works and provide a cohesive design resolution of this location.
Further design and construction detailing of the Parliament House façade
treatment where the west terrace is removed should also be undertaken as part of
the design development phase of the project.
The proposed commercial tower will be a notable inclusion within the city skyline in
75
this location. Its impacts on the settings of the surrounding places will be
assessed as follows:
• Broader impacts to the setting of Parliament House;
• Broader impacts to the setting of Old Parliament House, the Adelaide
Railway Station and the Adelaide Festival Centre; and
• Local impacts to the setting of Parliament House and Old Parliament
House arising from changes to the interfacing ground plane.
4.3.3.2.1 Broader Impacts to the Setting of Parliament House

The 2011 Parliament House CMP Statement of Significance notes (amongst other
heritage attributes) that:
Parliament House is an important landmark building at the intersection of
the two major streets of the city. It is an Italian Renaissance inspired
classical design which is amongst the finest examples of the style and one
of the greatest civic buildings in South Australia.
These specific attributes are embodied in the quality of materials and workmanship
of the place, its high architectural order, and general ‘civic presence’ within the
cityscape. Located on the corner of the City’s two most important boulevards,
North Terrace and King William Street, Parliament House stands as a monument to
the political and economic development of South Australia.
The impact of the proposed commercial tower on western and northern views of
Parliament House will be discussed in more detail below. These views are,
however, considered to be of a secondary nature to the primary south elevation
south-east corner, and east elevation views.
While the proposed tower will not impede on these important views, it will
nonetheless be a new dominant visual element in the skyline and backdrop to
Parliament House, as indicated from the below studies.
76
Image 87. View of Parliament House from King William Street looking north
Image 88. South-east view of Parliament House from the corner of King William Street and North
Terrace
Image 89. South-east view of Parliament House from the corner of King William Street and North
Terrace, looking west
77
Image 90. South elevation view of Parliament House

Image 91. Modelled view from intersection of King William Street and North Terrace looking north
Image 92. Modelled view of south-east corner from intersection of King William Street and North
Terrace
78
Image 93. Modelled view from intersection of King William Road looking south
Image 94. Modelled view from intersection of King William Street and North Terrace looking west
Image 95. Modelled view from North Terrace looking west
As noted in the discussion of the Scope of Works above, the size and location of
the proposed tower has been heavily guided by the ARM Masterplan and the City
of Adelaide Development Plan, both of which specifically seek development of this
scale and nature in this specific location.
The construction of a substantial new commercial tower immediately adjacent
Parliament House will have impacts on the setting and context of the place, 79
particularly from certain views, such as those from the important south-east
corner.
For the building’s entire existence it has remained the dominant built element in
this locality. This dominance is intrinsic to its heritage values as a landmark
building with a strong ‘civic presence’. Whilst the City has grown in scale since its
construction, such growth has been generally limited to the City Grid south of
North Terrace. Land to the north (within the original ‘Government Domain’) has
generally been limited in scale (as noted in the Policy Framework discussion in
Section 3.1 above).
The notable exception to this is the construction of the (now) Intercontinental Hotel
in the mid 1980s. At approximately 24 storeys tall (RL115.4 to top of roof plant) it
currently stands as a very prominent visual element within the cityscape. Whilst
the Intercontinental Hotel is notable more separated from Parliament House than
the proposed commercial tower, it nonetheless remains a backdrop to its setting
from some views, including those from the important south east corner.
In addition to this, the proposed new Adelaide Casino Expansion project (if
approved and proceeds) will see the construction of an additional tall building
within this locality. Located to the western end of the Adelaide Railway Station
building, the Casino Expansion stands at 9 storeys above plaza level (RL86.86).
While it remains unclear the extent to which the Casino Expansion will be visible
behind Parliament House when viewed from North Terrace, it nonetheless forms
part of the built form transformation sought for the locality by the ARM Masterplan
and City of Adelaide Development Plan.
Image 96. Adelaide Casino Expansion Project (block massing to left indicative tower indicated in Casino
application, and not specifically representative of current proposal). Source:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/skycity-releases-new-designs-for-
300-million-redevelopment-of-adelaide-casino/story-fni6uo1m-1227607326191
The proposed new commercial tower (with an overall RL141.00) will impact on the 80
landmark characteristics of Parliament House from some views. Being of such a
dominant size and scale, the commercial tower will at times, and from some views,
reduce the ‘civic presence’ of Parliament House within the locality.
When considering such impacts it is important to recognise that buildings are
viewed ‘in the round’, rather than as static two dimensional images as presented in
this report. Buildings (such as the proposed tower) will ‘move’ behind structures in
the foreground with the changing vantage point of the viewer. They will not, by
way of illustrating the point, appear simply as if they were constructed within the
foreground structures themselves.
Further it should also be noted that Parliament House would nonetheless still
remain a very dominant visual presence within the locality and cityscape. Much of
the building’s ‘monumental’ characteristics are observed in relatively close
proximity, or from views where the foreground takes visual dominance over the
background.
The project architects have been highly cognisant of the setting of the proposed
new tower as a backdrop to important views of Parliament House. This contextual
relationship has strongly influenced the design response that has deliberately
maintained a simplicity of form and detail so as to not visually or architecturally
compete with the high architectural order or visual presence of Parliament House.
The architectural intent is that the proposed new tower reads as a simple and
elegant backdrop to the robust and monumental characteristics of the adjacent
heritage place.
In the context of a policy framework seeking generational transformation of the
locality and substantial development of the size and nature on this specific site, this
design approach is entirely appropriate. As noted in earlier assessments and
discussion, fundamental transformation such as those sought for this locality will
often result in changes to the setting and context of heritage places.
Notwithstanding this, however, Parliament House will remain an important
landmark building at the intersection of the two major streets of the city and one of
the greatest civic buildings in South Australia, as presently recognised by the
CMP’s Statement of Significance.
Being located to the western side of Parliament House, the proposed commercial
tower will directly impact on views of the heritage place from the west. These
views (identified as views 6, 7 and 8 by the 2011 CMP).
As noted by the CMP, these views have historically been limited by the proximity of
other buildings within the precinct. Their ‘lesser’ significance is in turn reflected by
the reduced architectural order of the western (and northern) elevations.
Whilst the CMP acknowledges views 6, 7 and 8 to be of ‘”less importance” it
nonetheless notes that more intimate views of the façade presently available from
locations within the Station Road environs.
The proposed provision of Parliament Lane is, in part, a response to the retention
ofthese intimate views of both Parliament House, and Old Parliament House. The
additional activation proposed for this Laneway (in the form of the proposed retail
and hospitality tenancies) will likely significantly increase the public exposure to
these vantage points, which have for the most part remained inaccessible from 81
public access.
4.3.3.2.2 Broader impacts to the setting of Old Parliament House, the Adelaide Railway
Station and the Adelaide Festival Centre
The 2010 Old Parliament House CMP noted that while there are a number of
important views which have been generated of the building since 1970, it is
considered that these do not represent the historically significant views which were
important during the building’s period of significance. The most significant views of
the building are those from North Terrace (ie. View 1 & View 2).
The commercial tower will be visible from North Terrace and will again form a
notable visual presence in the backdrop to the setting of these views.
Unlike Parliament House, however, Old Parliament House was not designed and
built as a significant work of civic architecture, with landmark qualities
representative of the renewed political and economic aspirations of the Colony.
Rather, Old Parliament House was a product of numerous alterations and
additions to the building first constructed in 1843, and was representative of the
early growth (and at times political and economic instability) of the Colony during its
formative years. The 2010 Old Parliament House CMP went on to note:
…the piecemeal and dysfunctional building is probably an appropriate
expression of the turbulent nature of the politics during this period. This
concern contributed to the desire for a new and permanent Parliament
House to more appropriately reflect the status of the Colony.11
Whilst in its early years Old Parliament House would have formed a prominent
feature on the North Terrace, surrounding development subsequently reduced this
presence, including the construction of the Adelaide Railway Station, and more
notably the adjacent new Parliament House.
This contrast in scale of Old Parliament House to its now more established
surrounds is reflective of the growth in the Colony since the building’s construction.
The CMP went on to note:
The building was also visible from the Parklands to the north due to its
elevated position perched at the top edge of the old quarry face and the
associated fall of the ground towards the River Torrens, although the form
and nature of the elevations to this side with its collection of small
outbuildings reinforce that this was very much the rear of the building.
On this basis, impacts the on setting of Old Parliament House arising from the
commercial tower are considered to have negligible impacts to the heritage values
of the place. In many respects, it continues the historic pattern of development of
the site, which saw the original building expanded, and ultimately vacated in
response to economic and political growth.
Commentary on views, vistas and the setting of the Adelaide Railway Station in the
2001 CMP was relatively limited. It noted that, like the other heritage places
assessed above, the setting of the Station complex has evolved over time with the
subsequent development within the precinct. The CMP seeks, however, that any
future development within the immediate precinct should not further reduce the
surrounding views of the building. 82
The extent to which the proposed commercial tower will reduce views of the
Adelaide Railway Station is limited. Rather, any potential heritage impacts are
associated with the construction of a building of notable size within relatively close
proximity to the place.
Issues associated with the immediate interface of the proposed development with
the Station Complex were assessed in the discussion of the building’s podium
above.
The CMP notes some of the significance of the Station Complex to be derived
from its immense scale as being representative of the importance placed upon the
11
Old Parliament House Conservation Management Plan, Swanbury Penglase, p247
railways, both in terms of necessary infrastructure for the developing state, but also
in terms of its importance to support an ailing South Australian economy12.
Whilst the new commercial tower will be a notable visual presence within the
setting of the Adelaide Railway Station, it will not significant impact on the legibility
of the scale (and associated heritage values) of the complex.
Being located to the eastern side of Station Road, the proposed commercial tower
will limit some views of the Adelaide Festival Centre from this vantage. While the
Adelaide Oval redevelopment has recently increased the urban design importance
of this view corridor such matters are not of heritage significance. The 2014 AFC
CMP did not identify the Station Road views as being of particular significance, and
accordingly any (albeit minor) impacts on the views of the Festival Centre from this
location are not considered to have any resulting impacts to the heritage
significance of the place.
4.3.3.2.3 Local impacts to the setting of Parliament House and Old Parliament House
arising from changes to the interfacing ground plane.
As noted in Section 4.3.3.1 above, the proposal new Parliament Lane will result in
the current disparate levels around Parliament House and Old Parliament House
being rationalised, as illustrated in the architect’s annotated photographs provided 83
in this section of the report. These adjustments in ground plane will impact on the
setting (or ‘grounding’) of the respective heritage places.

As illustrated in the noted photographs, however, the proposed adjustments to the
ground levels are relatively minor. The most notable change is to the northern end
of Old Parliament House, however even in this instance the levels are adjusted to
the top of the existing plinth. This change does not fundamentally alter the existing
proportion and presentation of the building in this location, and accordingly is
considered to have negligible heritage impacts.
12
Adelaide Railway Station Conservation Management Plan, Danvers Architects, p34
Changes in ground plane will need to be appropriately detailed to ensure that any
existing damp proof courses (DPC), floor vents or similar are not breached such as
to cause long term degradation of the heritage fabric.
loading bay of Parliament House) is to be confirmed. Demolition should be
generally limited to that necessary to undertake the works and provide a cohesive
design resolution of this location. Further design and construction detailing of
Parliament House façade treatment where west terrace removed is to be provided.
application, consideration should be given to the following Condition of Approval:
Details of the proposed interface of Parliament Lane with Parliament
House and Old Parliament House are to be further detailed and
documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment
Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment, Water
and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted.
Works are to be informed by a suitably qualified heritage architect.
Particular consideration should be given to the following in preparing this
work:
• ensuring that any existing damp proof courses (DPC), floor vents
or similar are not breached such as to cause long term
degradation of the heritage fabric;
• confirmation of the extent of demolition of the west terrace (raised
landing) to the loading area of Parliament House. Demolition
should be generally limited to that necessary to undertake the
works and provide a cohesive design resolution of this location;
• design and construction detailing of Parliament House façade
treatment where west terrace removed.
4.4 Proposed Connection to Parliament House

The proposed works include a connection of underground carpark (basement
84
Levels 1 and 2) into the north west corner of Parliament House. This connection
will occur below ground level, and accordingly should not physically impact on the
facades of the heritage place.
Image 98. proposed lift connection to Parliament House, Basement Level 1 (extract), annotated by
author
85
Image 99. Proposed lift connection to Parliament House, Basement Level 2 (extract), annotated by
author

The proposed new lift is located within Parliament House in rooms numbered by
the 2011 CMP as follows:
• Lower Ground Floor rooms: 175, 175A, 176A, 109; and
• Ground Floor rooms: 253, 210A, 410.
These rooms are identified in the below plan extracts from the 2011 CMP.
Image 100. Parliament House Lower Ground Floor affected areas (in red). Base plan source:
Parliament House Conservation Management Plan, Swanbury Penglase
Image 101. Parliament House Lower Ground Floor affected areas (in red). Base plan source:
Parliament House Conservation Management Plan, Swanbury Penglase
The CMP provides the following commentary (in summary) with regards to the
integrity and heritage significance of these affected areas.
Area 109
86
1889 fabric:
• masonry floor and wall substrate;
• Door DL06 including timber frame with transom and painted fanlight, and
painted timber architraves; and
• Window WL40
Later Modifications:
• 1970s opening between rooms
• new doors within space;
• ceilings; and
• services, including ductwork.
Area 175, 175A, 175B
1889 fabric:
• masonry floor and wall substrate; and
• Window WL39.
• bathroom fitout and associated services.
Area 210A / 410

1889 fabric:
• masonry floor and wall substrate;
• Door DG92 painted timber architraves;
• Window WG43;
• painted underside of marble spandrel step; and
• Kapunda Marble interlocking staircase;
• recessed render mouldings;
• doors and opening between spaces; and
• services, including ductwork.
87
Image 102. Area 201A, Parliament House, 2015

Image 103. Area 175A, Parliament House, 2015
The 2011 CMP considers all internal fabric of the extant 1883-9 and 1936-9 period
of development to be of Considerable Significance.
It goes on to note:
This includes the remnant spatial division of rooms, circulation patterns,
location of door and window openings, remnant internal elements and
finishes. The retention of this fabric and its spatial characteristics is of
importance to the retention of the cultural significance of the place and are
all of importance to the character of the spaces.13

Details of works (and in turn heritage impacts) associated with the proposed lift
installation within Parliament House are limited. The below images are enlarged
extracts of the documentation provided to date.
88
13
Parliament House Conservation Management Plan, Swanbury Penglase, p652
Image 104. enlargement of proposed lift connection to Parliament House, Basement Level 1
(extract), annotated by author
89
Image 105. enlargement of proposed lift connection to Parliament House, Basement Level 2
(extract), annotated by author
A detailed assessment of the heritage impacts associated with the work is unable
to be undertaken until further detail is provided.
Whilst the proposed works will impact on fabric of significance, this locality
generally stands in modest integrity, with most extant fabric being of a relatively
basic nature only (ie walls, floors, doors). The exception to this is the noted
Kapunda Marble staircase.
Whilst an assessment of heritage impacts will be subject to the final design
resolution, the proposed lift location appears appropriate provided works avoid any
physical alteration to the original Kapunda Marble staircase, and external façade
fabric.

Recommendation 4.4A
Further detailed design resolution is required for the proposed new lift to
Parliament House, having regard to minimising the physical impacts to fabric of
heritage value. Any alteration to the adjacent Kapunda Marble staircase and
façade fabric is to be avoided.
Details of the proposed new lift to Parliament House are to be further
detaiedl and documented to the satisfaction of the Development
Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development
Approval being granted. Works are to be informed by a suitably qualified
heritage architect. Particular consideration should be given to the following
in preparing this work:
• minimising physical impacts to original extant 1883-9 fabric
• careful removal and storage of any original fixtures and fittings,
such as architraves, door joinery; and
• avoidance of any physical impacts to adjacent Kapunda Marble
Staircase and façade fabric.
4.5 Potential Heritage Impacts Associated with

Construction 90

The proposed development will involve the extensive excavation of land within
close proximity to several State Heritage places, including:
• Excavation of underground carpark in close proximity to Adelaide Festival
Centre, Parliament House and Old Parliament House;
• Excavation under the north west corner of Parliament House to
accommodate the basement carpark lift connection.

Construction works of this nature can result in potential damage to the adjacent
heritage place though either:
• excessive ground vibrations;
• undermining of ground support or footings of heritage places, or
• accidental impact damage.
Construction works of this nature in the proximity of heritage places are not
uncommon, with well established building techniques, protective measures and
monitoring protocols available to provide the necessary protection of fabric to
places of significance.
4.5.3 Recommendations
Prior to proceeding with any works, a detailed dilapidation survey should be
prepared for affected heritage places, including the identification and measurement
of any existing cracking.
A detailed Work Method Statement is to be prepared prior to the commencement
of any construction works clearly outlining techniques and mitigation measures to
be employed to provide protection to the heritage places for the duration of the
project.
A dilapidation survey recording the condition of the surrounding State
heritage places shall be prepared prior to the commencement of site
works, to the satisfaction of the Council/ Development Assessment
Commission. As well as recording fabric in good condition, the survey
shall also record the location, type and dimensional extent of any existing
physical damage to the place that might be affected by the proposed
excavation and construction works.
A Construction Management Plan outlining measures to minimise
undermining of heritage structures and ground vibrations in the proximity
of the heritage buildings is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Development Approval being granted. The Management Plan should
include: 91
- proposals for the ongoing monitoring of the condition of the

heritage place during the works;
- proposals for protective measures against accidental damage
(both internal and external heritage fabric); and
- procedures to be taken if any structural distress or accidental
damage is identified in the heritage fabric.
5 Summary
The precinct affected by this project was historically designated as ‘Government
Domain’, and was subject to a range of generally disparate developments. The
development of the Adelaide Festival Centre (AFC) in the mid 1970s saw the
demolition, and rationalisation of many early buildings of historic interest,
transforming the precinct into the cultural arts hub of the State. The social,
cultural, political and architectural significance of the AFC development was
subsequently recognised through its State Heritage listing in 1997.
While the AFC stands today as a well utilised venue for the performing arts, the use
of the once expansive open plaza as a civic space of cultural importance has been
less successful. Lacking activation, connectivity, amenity and function, the plaza
has historically been underutilised, and fallen short of achieving its full potential to
provide civic activation to its surrounds.
In addition to this, the integrity of the plaza has been severely compromised in
recent years, most notably by the opening of Festival Drive that saw the plaza
dissected into two discrete sections. This work effectively isolated the southern
plaza from its relationship with the theatre complex, and had a significantly
detrimental impact on its context and setting.
For these reasons, a ‘revisit’ of the AFC plaza has warranted merit for some time,
as acknowledged by the 2014 AFC Conservation Management Plan (CMP).
Notwithstanding the significant rationalisation of the precinct that took place under
the original AFC development, the precinct remains a complex locality, with a
range of differing buildings (many of State and National Heritage significance),
varying levels, and interfaces. To assist in addressing its present shortcomings, the
precinct has been subject to several major policy and design framework studies
and reform, including several Cabinet endorsed masterplans (prepared by ARM
Architecture), and a Development Plan Amendment to the Adelaide (City)
Development Plan. This relatively prescriptive framework provides notably different
guidance to the development of the precinct than its proceeding policy, including:
• a focus on higher scale development of a substantial nature (with height
limits revised from 6 storeys to over 20);
• the desire to achieve contemporary juxtapositions providing new settings
for heritage places when describing the impact of development to the
context of heritage places; 92
• the identification of sites, setbacks, and view corridors for specific
development sites;
• broadened permissible uses, including office accommodation within the
precinct.
This framework demonstrates clear policy intent to undertake a substantial
transformation of the precinct. Such transformations are not uncommon within the
locality, and have included both the noted AFC development, and more recently
the renewed Adelaide Oval and River Torrens footbridge. Such transformations,
however, are not without impact or consequence, particularly with regard to the
setting and context of heritage places. This is not to say, however, that such
impacts are acceptable (or otherwise) simply because a precinct is sought to be
transformed. Rather, the nature of such impacts, and their acceptability (or
otherwise) needs to be carefully understood, and balanced, against the revised
vision and potential long term cultural gains derived from the project.
This policy framework will result in several projects of a substantial nature
potentially being undertaken within the precinct, including upgrades to the
Adelaide Festival Centre, expansion of the Adelaide Casino, realignment and grade
separation of Festival Drive, and a Public Realm upgrade of the new plaza and
surrounding environs. Each of these projects will be subject to their own separate
approvals (and in turn heritage assessments), however both individually and
collectively they form important context to the assessment of the heritage impacts
associate with the Walker Corporation application.
The Walker Corporation project consists of the provision of a new 5 level below
grade carpark (with connection to Parliament House), 2-3 storey retail building to
the north of Parliament House, and a 26 storey office tower located immediately to
the north (and behind) Old Parliament House. The project is of a substantial nature
and in many respects forms the ‘backbone’ of the sought precinct transformation
noted above. As a result it will, in turn, have associated impacts and
consequences.
The majority of the footprint of the proposed development is located over an
existing State Heritage place (the Adelaide Festival Centre plaza) while all
surrounding buildings are similarly State (and at times also National) Heritage
places. Unsurprisingly therefore the project will also have complex heritage
impacts and consequences to consider and balance as part of an overall
assessment of the merits of the application.
As outlined in this Heritage Impact Assessment, the proposed development (and
subsequent Public Realm works) will facilitate a renewed setting, context and
cultural activation of the AFC environs, and in turn address many of the plaza’s
existing shortcomings. This ‘renewal’ of the setting of the AFC complex is
consistent with the intent and framework provided by the ARM Masterplan, and
Adelaide (City) Development Plan, however is not without heritage impacts (both
positive and negative). The rationalisation and re-activation of the plaza will have
notable benefits to the cultural values of the AFC and surrounding environs.
Conversely it will result in a significantly revised setting to the theatre complex, and
(if proceeding in its present configuration) loss of plaza fabric identified as being of
Considerable and Exceptional significance. This ‘tension’ between tangible and 93
intangible heritage values was noted in the 2014 AFC CMP:
A tension now exists between the architectural integrity and significance of

the space, and changes required to achieve its originally intended ‘cultural
potential’, which in turn is also intrinsically associated with its heritage
significance. Accordingly, any redevelopment of this area will need to
establish an appropriate balance between the tangible (fabric based), and
intangible (cultural) heritage significance of the place.
The proposed new office tower will similarly have a range of heritage impacts.
Being of a substantial scale, it will clearly create a dominant new built form element
within the locality, and skyline setting of the surrounding heritage places. Of most
consequence will be its relationship to the context and setting of Parliament
House.
Parliament House’s heritage significance is, in part, embodied by its general ‘civic
presence’ and landmark qualities on the intersection of two major streets in the
City. The proposed new commercial tower will be a notable new inclusion to the
backdrop of the setting of Parliament House when viewed from some locations,
including the important south-east corner, and in turn will impact on its setting.
The location of the tower, and its size, is however entirely consistent with the ARM
Masterplan, and City (Adelaide) Development Plan policy for the location, which
includes the policy seeking contemporary juxtapositions providing new settings for
heritage places.
Notwithstanding the impacts noted in this HIA, however, Parliament House will
nonetheless remain an important landmark building at the intersection of the two
major streets of the city and one of the greatest civic buildings in South Australia,
as presently recognised by its CMP’s Statement of Significance.
In summary, the proposed application has directly responded to a fundamental
shift in policy and framework for the precinct, that specifically seeks a generational
transformation of the locality. Such transformations have associated impacts and
consequences (positive and negative), and this application is no different. It is
within this context that the heritage impacts identified within this report need to be
considered and balanced by the Development Assessment Commission. Such
considerations were foreshadowed in the 2014 AFC CMP, which noted:
This presents several challenges to the management of the heritage
(cultural) heritage significance of the place…
In addition to this, while it is appreciated that the Development Assessment
Commission can only assess the application before it, the cultural success and 94
associated heritage impacts of the proposal need also to be considered in the
context of overall Masterplan objectives and collective outcomes of other major

developments within the immediate locality, in particular the proposed Public
Realm upgrades.
Finally, and as a result of the complexities of this application, this HIA has
presented the recommendations and suggested Conditions for consideration in
any potential approval and subsequent development of the proposal:
Proposed Carpark Recommendations
Options be explored to reconfigure carpark to avoid construction north of Festival
Drive to avoid impacts to fabric of Considerable and Exceptional Significance. In
the event that the works proceed as lodged, a clear demarcation line be
established to retain and protect remaining ‘umbrella’ columns and beams for later
integration into Public Ream Concept.
Any removal of plaques should be stored and made available for reinstatement by
Public Ream project. The Public Realm Project should give due consideration for
their appropriate reinstatement.
Recommendation 4.1(c)
application in its present configuration, consideration should be given to the
following Condition of Approval:
A clear demarcation line of demolition is to be established around the
remaining ‘umbrella’ columns and beams of the northern plaza (north of
current Festival Drive), informed by the octagonal pattern of the soffit line
to ensure the retention and protection of remaining fabric. A work method
statement is to be prepared detailing protective measures, and
construction techniques to ensure demolition of connected insitu concrete
does not cause damage or structural instability to remaining fabric of
heritage significance. Details of demolition alignment, and noted work
method statement, are to be detailed to the satisfaction of the
Development Approval being granted. Works are to be informed by a
suitably qualified heritage architect.
95
All plaques within the zone of proposed demolition are to be removed,
with original location recorded. Plaques are to be stored and made

available for later reinstatement (by others).
Proposed Commercial Office Tower Recommendations

Changes in ground plane will need to be appropriately detailed to ensure that any
existing damp proof courses (DPC), floor vents or similar are not breached such as
to cause long term degradation of the heritage fabric.
loading bay of Parliament House) is to be confirmed. Demolition should be
generally limited to that necessary to undertake the works and provide a cohesive
design resolution of this location. Further design and construction detailing of
Parliament House façade treatment where west terrace removed is to be provided.
Details of the proposed interface of Parliament Lane with Parliament
House and Old Parliament House are to be further detailed and
documented to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment
Commission in consultation with the Department of Environment, Water
and Natural Resources prior to final Development Approval being granted.
Works are to be informed by a suitably qualified heritage architect.
Particular consideration should be given to the following in preparing this
work:
• ensuring that any existing damp proof courses (DPC), floor vents
or similar are not breached such as to cause long term
degradation of the heritage fabric;
• confirmation of the extent of demolition of the west terrace (raised
landing) to the loading area of Parliament House. Demolition
should be generally limited to that necessary to undertake the
works and provide a cohesive design resolution of this location;
• design and construction detailing of Parliament House façade
treatment where west terrace removed.
Proposed Connection to Parliament House Recommendations

Recommendation 4.4A
Further detailed design resolution is required for the proposed new lift to
Parliament House, having regard to minimising the physical impacts to fabric of
heritage value. Any alteration to the adjacent Kapunda Marble staircase and
façade fabric is to be avoided.
Should the Development Assessment Commission determine support for the 96
Details of the proposed new lift to Parliament House are to be further

detailed and documented to the satisfaction of the Development
Assessment Commission in consultation with the Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources prior to final Development
Approval being granted. Works are to be informed by a suitably qualified
heritage architect. Particular consideration should be given to the following
in preparing this work:
• minimising physical impacts to original extant 1883-9 fabric
• careful removal and storage of any original fixtures and fittings,
such as architraves, door joinery; and
• avoidance of any physical impacts to adjacent Kapunda Marble
Staircase and façade fabric.
Proposed Construction Recommendations

Prior to proceeding with any works, a detailed dilapidation survey should be
prepared for affected heritage places, including the identification and measurement
of any existing cracking.
A detailed Work Method Statement is to be prepared prior to the commencement
of any construction works clearly outlining techniques and mitigation measures to
be employed to provide protection to the heritage places for the duration of the
project.
A dilapidation survey recording the condition of the surrounding State
heritage places shall be prepared prior to the commencement of site
works, to the satisfaction of the Council/ Development Assessment
Commission. As well as recording fabric in good condition, the survey
shall also record the location, type and dimensional extent of any existing
physical damage to the place that might be affected by the proposed
excavation and construction works.
A Construction Management Plan outlining measures to minimise
undermining of heritage structures and ground vibrations in the proximity
of the heritage buildings is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Development Approval being granted. The Management Plan should
include:
- proposals for the ongoing monitoring of the condition of the
heritage place during the works;
- proposals for protective measures against accidental damage
(both internal and external heritage fabric); and
97
- procedures to be taken if any structural distress or accidental

damage is identified in the heritage fabric.
Prepared for
Walker Corporation
The Lantern Building
Level 4, 707 Collins Street
MELBOURNE VIC 30088
By
BESTEC
Building Engineering Services
Technologies Consultants
144 Gawler Place
ADELAIDE SA 5000
ADELAIDE FESTIVAL PLAZA – WALKER FESTIVAL SQUARE

CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT
ACOUSTIC SERVICES
November 2015

Car Park Ventilation

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Car Park Ventilation

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Festival Square - Car Park

Car Park Assessment

Issue and revision record

338869-T-ROD, -Car Park Assessment

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

""""_ . C, ^It ^^;' .

Information classs Standard

This document contains confidential information and

338869/ANZ/ADLll!E 25 February 2016

Chapter Title Page

2 Proposed Car Park 3

3 Car Park Assessment 5

338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

1.1 Scope of Report

The scope of this report is to assess:

1 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

1.2 Beyond the Scope of this Report

1.3 Site Location

Figure 1.1: Festival Square Car Park – Site Location

2 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

2 Proposed Car Park

The proposed car park layout is shown in Appendix B.

Table 2.1: Car Park Allocation

2.1 Car Park Access

2.2 Car Park Operation

3 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

4 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

3 Car Park Assessment

The following standards are applicable to the car parking assessment:

3.1 Stakeholder Data

Table 3.1: Stakeholder Data

5 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

3.2 Car Park Access

3.2.1 Car Park Service Rate

3.2.2 Peak Hour Entry and Exit Flows

6 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

Table 3.3: Car Park Vehicle Flows – Evening peak (8-9pm)

7 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

3.2.3 Car Park Queuing - Main Entry

Table 3.4: Queueing Model

Table 3.5: Queuing at Main Car Park Entry – Basement Level 2

8 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

3.2.4 Car Park Queuing – Secure Parliament Entry

3.3 Compliance with Australian Standards

3.3.1 Off Street Car Parking

9 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

3.3.2 Reserved Car Parking

3.3.3 Car Park Turn Paths

The following is noted in relation to the turn path analysis:

10 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

Basement level 3, 4 and 5:

3.3.4 Sight Distance

3.4 Loading Bay and Turn Paths

3.5 Bicycle Parking

11 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

12 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

Based on the car park assessment:

13 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

Appendix A. Preliminary Turn Paths ______________________________________________________________ 15

14 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

Appendix A. Preliminary Turn Paths

15 338869/ANZ/ADL/1/E 25 February 2016

AFC DROP OFF

required for Turning Bay