Planning Scheme Policy - Geometric Road Design

Applica�on of Movement and Place Framework

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
_________________________________________________________________________________

About Movement and Place

The Movement and Place approach to planning and design recognises that roads facilitate the
movement of people and goods by various modes of transport, as well as provide places for people
and ac�vity.

This approach builds on the func�onal road hierarchy by incorpora�ng modal priority with modal
mobility and acknowledges that streets and roads provide public spaces that o�en do more than
facilitate movement and access. Streets also provide the space and places for recrea�on, social and
cultural exchange and o�en economic ac�vity. This approach aims to facilitate greater enjoyment of
the surrounding environment and amenity, as well as opportuni�es for economic ac�vity and vitality.

The Movement and Place approach focuses on the future aspira�ons for a street and provides a
framework to establish a shared vision that can balance both the transport and land use ac�vity
objec�ves to guide the planning and design process to get improved outcomes.

Movement and Place Design Framework

The MRC Movement and Place Design Framework has four (4) key inputs which all contribute to
determining the design outcome and final design form of the street. The four (4) key inputs which
will need to be considered to inform the design process include:

1) Place value
2) Movement value
3) Modal priority assessment
4) Design environment

Source: Design of roads and streets (NSW)

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 1
Case Study #2: Bay Road - Brownfield Development

1. PROJECT DETAILS, LAND USE & STREET LAYOUT

Bay Road is a hypothe�cal exis�ng urban distributor func�on road in the Mackay region.

The road has a reduced level of service and is experiencing extensive pavement failures as such
requires rehabilita�on. Since the road was originally built, the adjacent land use which fronts the
road has undergone significant growth and development, including a new school and a shopping
centre – which has changed the land use.

The failing pavement and recogni�on of changed land use presents an opportunity to renew the
pavement and integrate land use into the design by applying the Movement and Place framework.

The en�re road reserve is being considered for reconstruc�on.

Figure 1 – Bay Road Layout

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 2
2. Site Background Info & Design Considerations
The design of the road reserve (property boundary to property boundary) would need to consider all
transport mode demands including private vehicles, cycling & micromobility, walking, parking cars,
freight, goods and services. And consider poten�al ac�vity of associated land uses and how the
street design should engage with the land use ac�vity.

The road can be looked at in three (3) links each of which have different land uses which may
correspond to alternate road forms.

Parameter Info
AADT As shown on layout plan
Design Horizon +10 years
Road Hierarchy Traffic Distributor
Road Reserve Width 26.0m
Pedestrian movements Busy around and to/from activity centres (park, shops, sports)
Cycling movements Busy along Bay Road
Public transport Bus route mapped (see layout plan)
Private vehicles Largely contributes to AADT
Parking of bicycles & e- Possibly required, associated with demand
scooters
Goods and services Required to service associated land uses
Freight Minimal to nil %HV

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 3
The next steps will assess and iden�fy movement and place design atributes for each link as
summarised in the below table, discussed further in this guidance document.

Street PX Function MX Modal PX/MX Adopted Adopted

Priority Possible Typology Reserve
Typologies Width (m)
Link A
Link B
Link C

3. Determining the Place Value

The Place value is determined through a subjec�ve assessment of the subdivision area and the
an�cipated level of ac�vity within the street, how any use of the street interacts or is engaged with
the adjoining land uses, and the scale of which the place is an�cipated to atract.

This will primarily be based on the rela�ve catchment of users and/or ac�vity and its importance at
either a local, neighbourhood, locality/suburb or at a regional scale.

All seven (7) streets are assessed below. Refer Figure 4-8 for typical urban place value characteris�cs.

Street PX …

Link A P3 Regional park attracts activity across the region – as such nominate a P3 score, a
greater place score than Links B and C.
Link B P2 Residential use and primary and commercial use on frontages, P2 score assigned
for local area/neighbourhood activity.
Link C P1 Residential properties each side and well as a shopping centre complex with off-
street parking. A P1 score is allocated as the off-street parking doesn’t necessarily
engage with the frontage and activity of the shopping centre is largely generated
within the lot, not with the street.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 4
 Tips:
• A street with retail, restaurants, cafes along its frontage may attract people from a wider catchment and thus have a
higher strategic significance for Place. A residential street with no other uses will attract people from a much smaller
catchment and will have a lower strategic significance for Place. The Designer should also observe local themes and
existing place aesthetics that already exist in the area of the project and decide whether these existing themes should
also be integrated into the design.

• In greenfield and other situations where no design palette exists, the purpose of a place making approach is to build on
the existing character and values of an area rather than contrive it. Accordingly, there will be instances where
conditions of development approval will specifically require that design of infrastructure be consistent with Council’s
adopted place making approach for the particular locality.

• If the road or street corridor is likely to have varying characteristics along its length, split into sections with like
characteristics.

4. Determining the Movement Value

The Movement value is one of the key inputs into the determina�on of the MRC Movement and
Place class. Movement value is scored between M1, though to M4 and is determined through a
subjec�ve assessment of the func�on of the link.

This assessment will need to consider all transport modes and their modal priority. This is based
around its strategic importance in the network such as hierarchical func�on (Figure 3-2), the size or
scale of the service catchment and the level of demand.

Figure 3-2 – MRC Road Hierarchy Classification - Urban

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 5
All three (3) links of Bay Road are ini�ally assessed below. Refer Figure 4-10 for the typical movement
value characteris�cs.

Street PX Function MX …

Link A P3 Access / Local residential access M2 Low-medium strategic

Collector mainly, however, significance. AADTs suggest
provide regional access lower traffic volumes
to District Park compared to Links B and C.
Link B P2 Collector / Predominately M2 Low-medium strategic
Distributor neighbourhood access significance. AADTs suggest
to primary school and greater volume of traffic
shops than Link A, but less than
Link C
Link C P1 Distributor Predominately suburb M3 Medium-high strategic
wide catchment with significance. AADTs are
shopping centre highest of the three links.
The form of Link C is closely
related to Link B

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 6
Tips:
• MRC’s functional road hierarchy will be a useful starting point as the Road hierarchy classification will provide an indication
of the importance of the link from a mobility and access perspective. Where Arterial roads have a high strategic
significance, and Access streets have lower strategic significance. However, it is important to note that the alignment to the
MRC functional road hierarchy will not strictly define the movement value as all modes and their priorities/ demands also
need to be considered.

• Movement significance should be assessed for all modes such as people travelling on foot, by bike, by micro-transport
(e.g., e-scooter), by bus, and movement of freight and services. Avoid basing movement values solely on traffic volumes –
consider the criticality of the route within the network.

• Roads and streets perform an important access function, including access to residential properties, local services, public
transport services, and distribution of freight. Regardless of the mode of travel, the priority for the Movement function is
about moving people, goods and/or services safely, efficiently, and reliably.

• A road with a high pedestrian, cyclist or public transport use will have a higher movement significance than a road with local
or less frequent movement.

• Movement assessment must consider all modes and their respective strategic modal networks. If a road or street is a high-
level strategic route for any mode, that should be reflected in the movement significance.

5. Determining Modal Priorities

Modal priority is about understanding who uses the road link, for what purpose and by which
transport mode and then having some rela�vity between modes. This enables planners, designers
and decision makers to consider and develop op�ons through the design process that will respond
appropriately to each mode and beter understand how certain design outcomes will benefit or
impact specific modes.

In simple terms, when constrained for space – which transport mode is priori�sed over another
when alloca�ng limited space for infrastructure or services?

A mode with a higher level of priority is considered more important than another with lower priority
and therefore is afforded greater weight in the design process.

The modes defined in the MRC Movement and Place Design Framework that are required to be
considered in the assessment include:
a) People walking
b) People cycling and using micro-mobility
c) People using public transport
d) Goods by road freight
e) People in private vehicles
f) Goods loading and servicing
g) People parking private vehicles
h) People parking bicycles and other micromobility.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 7
The three (3) links are assessed and the MPFT is used to help illustrate and understand the adopted
modal priori�es.

Commentary: The MPFT modal priority tool has a numerical scale. The scale is arbitrary and used to
aid the designer in determining modal priori�es. Assessments are subjec�ve, with the assessment
process providing the designer the opportunity to review and understand modal priori�es and form
a basis to inform design decisions throughout the project.

LINK A

Walking and parking of private vehicles is iden�fied as the highest priority in Link A, followed by
people in private vehicles. People cycling and parking of micromobility devices is the lowest priority.
Freight, goods and services and public transport do not feature and are not considered in this link.

Commentary: These assigned priori�es indicate that people walking and parking of private vehicles is
a priority for this link.

LINK B

Link B is busy across all modes. Private vehicles is iden�fied as the highest priority, followed by
parking of private vehicles, public transport and people walking. Cycling and goods loading and
servicing is then considered as the next priority, followed by freight and goods by road and
micromobility parking.

Commentary: These assigned priori�es indicate that there may be a need for on-street loading for
goods and services, and bus set down facili�es along this link – if not provided for elsewhere in the

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 8
vicinity. Similarly there is priority iden�fied for parking of private vehicles where available road space
would need to be balanced with any loading or bus set down facili�es. Above all else, people walking
is the highest priority which would indicate suitable facili�es for walking such as wide paths and
poten�ally sufficient crossing facili�es provided for. The priority for people walking could even
warrant a priority raised midblock crossing on Link B to facilitate the movement of people at this link
– an element to be considered further in detailed design.

LINK C

People in private vehicles is iden�fied as the highest priority in Link C, followed by people walking
and public transport, then people cycling and parking of private vehicles as the lowest priority.

Commentary: Private vehicles is the highest priority and suggests vehicle movements in this link
service movement to and from the area. The link caters for a bus route and may require a bus set
down area, however a bus set down area would be considered along with the adjacent links in the
area. People walking is s�ll recognised as having reasonable level of ac�vity and it is expected path
infrastructure to be appropriately design for. Parking of private vehicles is considered as low priority
which suggest that on-street parking is not required.

Street PX Function MX Modal Priority …

Link A P3 Access M2 People walking, parking private vehicles, private

vehicles, people cycling
Link B P2 Collector M2 Private vehicles, parking private vehicles, Public
/ Transport, People walking, People cycling
Distributo
r
Link C P1 Distributo M3 People walking, private vehicles, vehicle
r parking, people cycling, public transport

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 9
 Tips:
• Movement and Place value information will be useful for determining modal priority

• Modal priority can be thought of as ‘deciding the most import mode(s) to allocate the limited space available in a
transport corridor’.

• The observed modal priority in the Existing state for a road or street is the current observed prioritisation of
modes when looking at the existing form of the available infrastructure.

• The optimal modal priority assessment is to understand what modal priority should be, compared to what it
currently is.

• The future modal priority horizon outlines any anticipated change in relative priorities based on future strategic
networks and land uses. This informs the design process.

• Assigning modal priorities is designed to highlight the mode in the first instance and not delve into solving design
issues, in this step.

6. Design Environment
The final input in the process is to understand the design environment and how it can influence the
design process and project outcomes. This is achieved through iden�fica�on and apprecia�on of the
constraints within and adjacent to the road and by beter linking the project objec�ves to other
values that do not sit directly with movement or place.

Refer Table 4-5 for an overview of some the poten�al design environment measures that need to be
considered.

Addi�onally, one of the key factors in the design will be the presence of, or the provision for public
u�lity plant (PUP) or recognised assets. These different types of infrastructure and services require
provision for space, clearances, and offsets within the road corridor and are a key constraint to the
final road design. The typical PUP services to be considered within the road corridor includes:

a) Gravity sewer re�cula�on

b) Sewer rising mains
c) Electrical services (including pits, pillars, and poles, HV services)
d) Telecommunica�on services (including pits and pillars)
e) Watermains
f) Gas re�cula�on
g) Street ligh�ng
h) Street trees

Given ‘Hypothe�cal Bay’ is a greenfield development, and it is assumed that there is litle exis�ng
infrastructure, most services, environment or heritage measures are not applied. However, we can
assume that there is exis�ng vegeta�on of significance that should be retained, as such the
masterplan layout has established parkland to preserve the exis�ng vegeta�on.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 10
Table 4-5: Design environment measures

Measure Informa�on Source

Service Identify key service corridors to understand Service providers
corridors priority service corridors MRC MiMaps

Service Identify design constraints and inform Dial Before You Dig
Services locations options development MRC MiMaps
Feature survey
Access Driveways and recognised lot access DTMs
locations

Significant There may be trees that are established Biodiversity –

trees within an area that provides value to the Environmentally
movement or place values. This could be significant
through their habitat value, shading, rarity, vegetation overlay
historical associations or contribution to the MRC Significant
landscape. Tree Register
Feature survey DTM
Site photographs
Environment
State Vegetation
al
Mapping

Landscapes Some places will provide amenity, social, MRPS

economic or environmental value as a
result of their geographic features and Surveys
amenity values which need to be
incorporated or enhanced as part of the
design.
Heritage Some places may have significant heritage MRC Local Heritage
register value that need to be protected and/or Places
enhanced through planning and design.
MRPS

Queensland
Heritage Register
Heritage
Cultural Some places have significant cultural Cultural heritage
heritage heritage significance to Traditional Owners database and
and need to be protected through planning register
and design.
Recognised
Traditional Owner
groups

7. Movement and Place Classification

The assignment of a Movement and Place classifica�on provides guidance on the road form, either
directly associated with the MX/PX matrix, or similar, which aligns to the movement and place values
iden�fied for the road link.

Concept typologies are no�onally arranged as per Figure 4-14.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 11
Figure 4-14: Movement and Place mapped matrix of acceptable concept typologies – Urban

As MX and PX have been determined for each street, the associated concept typology drawing is
iden�fied.

Each concept typology is considered an ‘acceptable solu�on', where the typology road form
represents five (5) different elements;

a) Movement and Place classifica�on – MX/PX

b) Modal atributes –modes the typology caters for (or not)
c) Plan view – technical plan view details
d) Typical cross sec�on – technical cross sec�on details
e) Technical notes – technical design details associated with detailed design

Commentary: The ini�al MX/PX determina�on is subjec�ve but guides the designer on possible
suitable typologies through the design process. The designer, now informed with an understanding
of design movement and place aspects rela�ve to the street as well as modal priori�es and any
design environment considera�ons, can view the concept typology for its suitability for the given
project.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 12
The concept typology associated with each streets MX/PX classifica�on is shown below.

Street PX Function MX Modal Priority PX/MX & Possible …

Typologies
Link A P3 Access M2 People walking, parking private Activity Street |
vehicles, private vehicles, people Urban Fringe Street
cycling
Link B P2 Collector M2 Private vehicles, parking private Local Street |
/ vehicles, Public Transport, People Urban Access
Distributo walking, People cycling Type 06
r
Link C P1 Distributo M3 People walking, private vehicles, Urban Connector |
r vehicle parking, people cycling, Distributor
public transport Type 04

8. Concept Typology Evaluation Decision Tree

Each street now has recognised aspects for movement, place, modal priority, and design
environment.

Each street now has an associated MX/PX classifica�on and an associated concept typology.

The suitability of the concept typology for the given project is then evaluated. The following flow-
chart illustrates an itera�ve design process the designer may undertake.

If the concept typology is aligning to the project design aspects iden�fied, then the concept typology
would be suitable to adopt.

If the concept typology is not suitable, then an alterna�ve typology could be reviewed and assessed
for suitability, or, the designer may opt to amend an exis�ng typology or design an alterna�ve
typology for use.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 13
 Evaluate PX/MX
Classification, Design Modal
Priority & Environment

Is the associated concept

typology suitable for my
design?

No - Consider another
Yes - adopt this typology
concept typology

Is this concept typology

suitable?

Yes - adopt concept typology

No - amend or design an
alternative typology

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 14
9. Alternate Concept Typology Design Framework
Where any of the suite of concept typologies are not suitable for the project, the Designer may
propose an alterna�ve street typology design.

Alterna�ve typology designs shall be cer�fied by an RPEQ and address the minimum requirements
defined in sec�on 4.7 of the Geometric Road Design PSP, as follows:

a) Defined movement value

b) Defined place value
c) Defined modal priori�es

By applying the Build-a-Street concept (IPWEA SDM), the Designer can develop a unique cross-
sec�on for the project that addresses the specific project scenario. The cross-sec�on can then be
used to guide the overall design of the project. This approach will allow for innova�on in the design
process to achieve an op�mal transport corridor width and design that will meet the project
objec�ves.

The design of the cross-sec�on can be done in two parts; the Transport corridor which includes the
On-street corridor (kerb to kerb) and the Verge, see Figure 4-15. Guidance on the performance
outcomes for the design of the Transport corridor is provided in Table 4-8.

Figure 4-15: ‘Build a street’ typology design elements

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 15
Table 4-8: Transport Corridor Design Elements

Element Description Performance Outcomes

The total transport Road designers should maintain a constant transport

corridor width (‘road corridor width for con�nuous road links and avoid
reserve’) is the sum of having dis�nct varia�ons to accommodate specific
Transport
Corridor the on-street corridor elements within the corridor. Where there is a need to
width and verge widths. accommodate varying the widths, these should be
achieved through appropriate transi�ons.

The on-street corridor is The on-street corridor design should consider various
principally about the road design elements associated with iden�fied modal
movement func�on and priori�es and movement and place characteris�cs.
caters for modal Design elements such as lane widths, number of
On-Street throughputs. carriageways, shoulder widths (if any), or medians (if
Corridor
any) are to be considered, as well as any modal specific
requirements such as on-street cycles lanes, physical
separa�on or on-street parking. The arrangement of
these elements forms the ‘on-street corridor’.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 16
 The verge is the public The verge typically caters for pedestrian and cyclist
off-street corridor movement on shared pathways and supports place
between the on-street func�ons that relate to the use of the verge rela�ng to
corridor and adjacent surrounding land use or within the verge itself.
road-property boundary.
The verge may also cater for specific place ac�vi�es
which support the adjacent land use such as driveway
crossings or full-width hard paved surfacing for
pedestrians’ typical adjacent ac�ve frontages.

The verge also provides a cri�cal role for loca�on of PUP,

such as water re�cula�on, communica�ons, power, gas
as well as above ground infrastructure such as street
ligh�ng and overhead powerlines. These services are
assigned designated service corridors within the road
reserve.
Verge
The verge design shall also consider iden�fied modal
priori�es, and movement and place characteris�cs. The
verge design shall consider modal priority such as cycling
and walking and how these modes are to be catered for
within the verge while integra�ng with other func�ons.

For the purposes of the verge cross sec�on design and

modal priority, this generally relates to walking and
cycling modes only. On-street parking, bus set-downs
areas (and shelters), good and servicing loading, private
vehicles and freight movement requirements are
considered as part of the on-street corridor design
process above. Notwithstanding, there may be other
design elements not listed which may influence the
verge width and are to be considered.

10. Concept Typology Evaluation & Cross Section Design

Each street typical cross sec�on is now defined. The movement and place design process suggests
that the Designer review each streets Movement and Place classifica�on previously determined to
determine if the cross sec�on is suitable for:

• Function & Movement (MX)

• Modal priority
• Place (PX) &
• Design Environment

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 17
Each street is reviewed and assessed in the below table.

Street PX Function MX Modal PX/MX & Typology Evaluation

Priority Possible
Typologies
Link A P3 Access M2 People Activity P3/M2 = Urban Fringe – potentially
walking, Street | suitable.
parking Urban Reviewing other typologies for
private Fringe suitability:
vehicles, Street Activity Street – urban activity (parking
private priority) (P3/M1) - more suitable with
vehicles, provision for parking and active
people transport modes.
cycling Outcome: Adopt Activity Street –
urban activity (parking priority)
typology.
Total formation width = 26m.
Link B P2 Collector M2 Private Local Street P2/M2 = Type 06 – not suitable, traffic
/ vehicles, | volumes warrant greater through lane
Distributo parking Urban and shoulder widths plus provisions for
r private Access linemarking and delineation.
vehicles, Type 06 Reviewing other ‘Local Street’
Public typologies:
Transport Type 07 (P1/M2) – median divided –
, People typology caters for private vehicles, on-
walking, street parking, people cycling and
People people walking. Median provides
cycling channelisation treatment.
Outcome: Adopt Urban Access Type 07
typology.
Total formation width = 26m.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 18
 Link C P1 Distributo M3 People Urban P1/M3 = Urban Connector Type 04 –
r walking, Connector provides for private vehicles, people
private | cycling, people walking, and public
vehicles, Distributor transport. Undivided. Potentially
people Type 04 suitable.
cycling, Reviewing other ‘Urban Connector’
public typologies:
transport Type 02 (undivided) (P2/M3) – similar
to Type 04 typology, with the addition
of allocating the 2.5m wide shoulder to
on-street parking. On-street parking is
not a priority, as such Type 02 is not
suitable.
Type 01 (divided) (P2/M3) – similar to
Type 04 typology, however has a 3.0m
wide median, however has a total
reserve width of 30.0m which exceeds
the existing road reserve with of 26m.
Reviewing other ‘Local Access’
typologies:
Type 07 (divided) – caters for the
design modal priorities within 26m road
reserve.
Outcome: Adopt Urban Access Type 07
(divided) typology.
Total formation width = 26m.

Typical cross-sec�ons for each street and how each design modal priority is being catered for is
shown below;

Link A

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 19
Link B & Link C

11. Summary
Each street now has a typical cross sec�on design which reflects the movement, place, mode priority
and design environment requirements of each.

This is summarised in the Movement and Place Framework Design Summary table below.

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 20
Movement & Place Framework Design Summary Table

Street PX Function MX Modal Priority PX/MX Possible Adopted Typology Adopted

Typologies Reserve
Width
Link A P3 Access M2 People walking, parking Activity Street | Activity Street – Urban Activity (Parking Priority) 26.0m
private vehicles, private Urban Fringe
vehicles, people cycling Street

Link B P2 Collector / M2 Private vehicles, parking Local Street | Urban Access Type 07 (median divided) 26.0m
Distributor private vehicles, Public Urban Access
Transport, People Type 06
walking, People cycling
Link C P1 Distributor M3 People walking, private Urban Connector
vehicles, people cycling, |
public transport Distributor
Type 04

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 21
12. Documentation
For any MCU, ROL or OW planning applica�on, or any design project, the following documenta�on is
required to demonstrate that appropriate Movement and Place design considera�ons have been
undertaken:
a) The Movement and Place Framework Design Summary (MPFDS) table shall be
completed and submitted as part of any relevant submission which involves the planning
or design of a typology or road cross section. Refer Geometric Road Design PSP Error!
Reference source not found.

b) The submission shall also include legible typical cross sections of each street showing
which modal priority is serviced within the cross section (see Figure Error! No text of
specified style in document.-4). Alternative documentation may be presented, so long as
the relevant Movement and Place design considerations have been appropriately
explored and demonstrated.

c) The submission of the MPFDS, or similar documentation, should reflect the nature and
complexity of the accompanying planning application or proposed design.

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Example typical cross section/typology
with transport mode details

The main role of the MPFDS, and suppor�ng documenta�on, is to:

d) Ensure that the design responds to the Place value and the Council’s Planning Scheme
Policies have been addressed
e) Demonstrate how the objectives of best practice design for Movement and Place have
been applied and existing and future user needs have been incorporated
f) Show how access needs have been designed and are responsive to adjacent land uses

Provide for a legible typical cross sec�on of the street and demonstrate how transport modes are
catered for.

A suitably experienced prac��oner or professional engineer (RPEQ) may endorse the applicable
MPFDS submission, and any suppor�ng documenta�on. The MPFDS is found in Error! Reference
source not found..

Geometric Road Design PSP - Movement and Place

Prac�ce Note #2 – Brownfield Development Example
Page 22