AMENDMENT C133 – MAXIMUM CAR PARKING RATE · AMENDMENT C133 – MAXIMUM CAR PARKING RATE Division Sustainability and Regulatory Services Presenter David Mayes, Manager Strategic

P L A N N I N G C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T Agenda Item 5.1 7 April 2009

AMENDMENT C133 – MAXIMUM CAR PARKING RATE

Division Sustainability and Regulatory Services

Presenter David Mayes, Manager Strategic Planning and Sustainability

Purpose

1. For the Planning Committee to consider the submissions to Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C133 and refer the Amendment and submissions to an Independent Panel.

Recommendation from Management

2. That the Planning Committee:

2.1. request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel to consider submissions to Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C133; and

2.2. consider the submissions and endorse the response to submissions discussed in the body of this report and in Attachment 5 as the basis for Council’s submission to the Panel.

Background

3. In adopting the “City of Melbourne Transport Strategy: Moving People and Freight” in August 2006 Council adopted a policy to:

“ … require less on-site parking for occupants from development sites with excellent access to public transport and in proximity to extensive cycling and walking routes”.

4. The Planning Committee further resolved to:

“Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment which seeks to replace the requirement for minimum provision with a maximum provision of car parking in residential developments.”

5. In 2008 the Administration engaged Ratio traffic engineering and transport planning consultants to undertake a study to assess parking rates for residential developments. The consultant study recommended extending the limitation parking policy, which currently applies to the Capital City Zone (ie maximum of one car space per dwelling), to residential developments in designated areas.

6. At the September 2008 Planning Committee meeting, the Committee resolved to:

“consider and note the review of residential car parking rates undertaken by Ratio Consultants; and

Page 1 of 91

2

request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to exhibit Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C133, which seeks to introduce a maximum rate of 1 car parking space per dwelling for Carlton, Southbank and parts of North Melbourne, West Melbourne and East Melbourne. This is to be achieved through the use of a parking precinct plan to the Schedule to Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, however if any changes occur in the Victorian Planning Provisions then this would be pursued through the use of the State Government’s proposed new mechanism, the Parking Overlay.”

7. Authorisation to exhibit Amendment C133 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme was received from the Minister for Planning on 10 October 2008.

8. Amendment C133 was placed on public exhibition between 20 November 2008 and 30 January 2009 (see Attachment 1 for copies of the documents placed on exhibition and Attachment 2 for details of the exhibition process).

Key Issues

9. This report summarises the main points of the submissions, responds to the issues raised and recommends proceeding to a Panel Hearing.

10. On receipt of the Panel Report, Amendment C133 will be reported back to the Committee for it to consider the Panel recommendations. At that time the Council may adopt, modify or abandon the Amendment (refer to Attachment 4 for the Planning Scheme Amendment Process).

Summary of Submissions

11. To date 43 submissions have been received. A summary of these submissions and proposed responses can be found at Attachment 5.

12. The Department of Sustainability and Environment on behalf of the Minister for Environment, VicRoads on behalf of the Minister for Roads and Ports and South East Water have no objection to the Amendment.

13. Five submissions are supportive of the Amendment. Some advocate future amendments that extend the area to which the maximum car parking rate applies and that reduce the maximum rate even further.

14. A number of submitters mistakenly assumed the Amendment relates to the number of resident on-street car parking permits they are eligible to apply for, and their submissions were made on that basis. These submissions are therefore not relevant to this Planning Scheme Amendment.

15. The following sections discuss the principal issues from the submissions. A detailed response is found at Attachment 5.

Issue 1

Council should encourage the provision of more not less car parking as restriction on off-street parking will lead to a greater demand for on-street parking

16. On-street Resident Parking Permit Schemes currently apply to all the areas affected by Amendment C133.

Page 2 of 91

3

17. The Resident Parking Scheme that currently applies in Carlton was rolled out in North Melbourne on 27 February 2009. Under this scheme no on-street parking permits are issued to new developments that increase the density of dwellings. This scheme will be applied to West Melbourne in the second half of 2009 year, with the other areas of the municipality considered progressively.

Issue 2

One car space is not enough for families, shared households and other households who may require more than one car for a variety of reasons

18. The proposed maximum car parking rate of one car space per dwelling is discretionary. For situations where more than one space per dwelling may be appropriate, it is considered that a suitable level of discretion is provided through the proposed planning permit decision guidelines. Indeed, the decision guidelines allow for the consideration of specific circumstances, for example the size of a dwelling and its location characteristics.

Issue 3

A large area of West Melbourne was not included in the proposed amendment but should have been due to its locational attributes, close to the CBD and public transport

19. The area of West Melbourne referred to was included in the Ratio study but was found not to be suitable for the proposed maximum car parking rate because of the higher car ownership rates in the area, lack of tram network (reliance on train network only) and because residents are permitted two on-street parking permits. Taken together Ratio considered this area to be unsuitable to be covered by the Amendment.

Issue 4

Inner city parking and traffic issues stem mostly from people living outside the area, not residents; car parking should therefore be restricted for business, office and other uses

20. Council officers will investigate the introduction of a maximum car parking rate regime for other non-residential land uses and other areas outside the capital City Zone and will report back to Council on this at a later stage.

Conclusions

21. Having reviewed the submissions, it is considered that a discretionary maximum rate of one car space per dwelling as proposed under the Amendment is appropriate for the designated areas and that a suitable level of discretion is provided through the proposed decision guidelines for cases where a higher rate of parking provision may be appropriate.

22. It is recommended however that the Decision Guidelines in the Schedule to Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme be altered as follows “The availability of car parking in the locality” replaces “The proposed locations and capacities of car parking areas, both within and close to the site in meeting likely car parking demands”. This change would make this decision guideline clearer, in line with the wording used in the general decision guidelines of clause 52.06 and general enough to encompass all types of parking, including on-street and visitor parking. Refer to Attachment 3 for a copy of the proposed changes to the Schedule to Clause 52.06 to be presented to Panel.

Page 3 of 91

Attachments: 1. Amendment Documentation and Fact Sheet 2. Summary of Exhibition Process 3. Proposed Changes to the Schedule to Clause 52.06 to be Presented to Panel 4. Diagram of Planning Scheme Amendment Process 5. Summary of Submissions and Responses

4

Time Frame

23. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires Council to consider the submissions and either change the Amendment in the manner requested; refer the submissions to an Independent Panel; or abandon the Amendment.

24. As the Amendment has sound strategic basis and furthers Council’s sustainability and transport goals, it is recommended that the Committee request the Minister appoint an independent Panel to consider submissions to Amendment C133. A likely Panel Hearing date would be around July 2009.

Relation to Council Policy

25. The relevant section of the Municipal Strategic Statement in the Melbourne Planning Scheme seeks to increase the use of public transport and bicycle networks as well as reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking, particularly on residential areas and parklands. This proposed planning scheme Amendment supports these objectives.

26. This proposed Amendment is also a direct action out of the “City of Melbourne Transport Strategy: Moving People and Freight”, which was adopted by Council in August 2006 and which included a policy to:

“ … require less on-site parking for occupants from development sites with excellent access to public transport and in proximity to extensive cycling and walking routes”.

Government Relations

27. Copies of the Amendment were sent to all Ministers prescribed by the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as well as the Minister for Public Transport and the Minister for Roads and Ports.

Finance

28. Council will incur costs associated with a Panel hearing. These costs can be met from the Strategic Planning and Sustainability Branch’s Operating Budget.

29. Legal representation will be met through the Legal Services budget.

Legal

30. The recommendation and subject matter of the report are consistent with Council’s obligations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Page 4 of 91

Attachment 1 Agenda Item 5.1

Planning Committee 7 April 2009

Planning and Environment Act 1987

MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME

Notice of Preparation of Amendment

Amendment C133

Authorisation A01136

The Melbourne City Council has prepared Amendment C133 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme. In accordance with section 8A(3)) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Minister for Planning authorised the Melbourne City Council as planning authority to prepare the amendment. The land affected by the amendment is land in Carlton, Southbank and parts of North, West and East Melbourne (please refer to the amendment documentation for details of the area affected). The amendment proposes to introduce a maximum car parking rate of one space per dwelling for new residential developments in the abovementioned locations. This will be achieved through the Schedule to Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The amendment also makes changes to Clause 21.06 to include directions from the City of Melbourne’s Transport Strategy and to ensure consistency between the Municipal Strategic Statement and the concept of maximum parking rates for residential developments. You may inspect the amendment, any documents that support the amendment and the explanatory report about the amendment, free of charge, at the following locations: during office hours, at the office of the planning authority:

City of Melbourne Level 3, 240 Little Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

at the Department of Planning and Community Development web site

www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection. Any person who may be affected by the amendment may make a submission to the planning authority. The closing date for submissions is 30th of January 2009. A submission must be sent to: Robyn Hellman Coordinator Local Policy Strategic Planning and Sustainability City of Melbourne P O Box 1603 MELBOURNE VIC 3001

Page 5 of 91



AMENDMENT C133

EXPLANATORY REPORT

Who is the planning authority? This amendment has been prepared by the City of Melbourne, the planning authority for this amendment. The amendment has been made at the request of the City of Melbourne. Land affected by the amendment. The amendment applies to various inner city locations within the municipality. The land to which the amendment applies is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Land affected by the amendment (yellow areas only)

Page 6 of 91

What the amendment does. The amendment makes changes to the schedule to Clause 52.06 to apply a maximum number of car parking spaces for residential development (dwellings) rather than the minimum standard which currently applies. The amendment also makes changes to Clause 21.06 Transport and Communications Infrastructure to incorporate the directions of Council’s transport strategy relevant to the implementation of a car parking limitation policy for residential development. Strategic assessment of the amendment • Why is the amendment required?

The amendment is an outcome of the City of Melbourne Moving People and Freight Transport Strategy 2006-2020. The Transport Strategy sets out objectives for the sustainable movement of both people and freight across the city. It aims to:

• enable more people to use public transport to commute to the city;

• encourage more people to enjoy walking, cycling or public transport as a way of getting around the city;

• encourage more use of the road network for freight to service the city’s needs and for export; and

• create a more sustainable environment.

Specifically it sets out policies to encourage alternative modes of transport as well as a more efficient use of road space for the provision of parking. Some of these policies are to reduce the amount of car parking available to residents, while others are more subtle measures aimed at encouraging a shift in travel behaviour. These are listed in more detail below:

• Council will support car sharing as a viable alternative to car ownership in the City of Melbourne;

• Council will provide, wherever appropriate, on-street spaces, special permits or access to off-street spaces for car sharing activities throughout the City of Melbourne;

• Council planning policy will require new major developments to maximise public transport, cycling and walking take-up by new occupants; to limit parking where access to public transport is excellent; and to contribute towards transport infrastructure and sustainable transport linkages wherever possible; and

• Council planning policy will require less on-site parking for occupants from development sites with excellent access to public transport and in proximity to extensive cycle and walking routes.

The amendment is required to change the approach to the provision of car parking in some inner city areas through the introduction of a car parking limitation policy for residential development. The limitation policy will be pursued through the introduction of a maximum car parking rate for residential development (dwellings) in certain inner city areas where access to pubic transport is excellent. This would replace the current minimum car parking provision requirements for residential (dwelling) developments in those areas. The

Page 7 of 91

amendment seeks to discourage unnecessary reliance on the motor vehicle and encourage more sustainable forms of transport including walking, cycling and public transport. This amendment is based on a report prepared for the City of Melbourne by Ratio Consultants. The analysis by Ratio Consultants looked at demographic data, car ownership and journey to work data as well as the extent of on-street resident permit controls and accessibility to public transport, walking and cycling paths, car sharing facilities and goods and services. • How does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria? The objectives of planning in Victoria in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 relevant to this amendment are:

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

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

c) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;

d) to facilitate development in accordance with the above objectives; and

e) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. The proposed amendment implements the above objectives by encouraging more efficient use of public transport infrastructure, reducing dependence on the motor vehicle and generally encouraging the sustainable use of land. This will assist in achieving a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all. • How does the amendment address the environmental effects and any relevant social

and economic effects? The amendment is expected to have positive social, economic and environmental benefits. More specifically:

• Environmental Considerations: The amendment will reduce reliance on the motor vehicle as a form of transport and encourage the use of walking, cycling and public transport which are more sustainable forms of transport.

• Social Considerations: The proposal will assist in encouraging walking and cycling which will assist in creating a more active society. This will contribute to people’s sense of well being and quality of life.

• Economic Considerations: The amendment will potentially have positive economic effects by encouraging increased use (and viability) of public transport and by reducing traffic congestion thereby allowing existing business and freight traffic to move more efficiently.

• Does the amendment comply with the requirements of any Minister’s Direction

applicable to the amendment?

Page 8 of 91

Ministerial Direction 9: Metropolitan Strategy Ministerial Direction No. 9 requires the planning authority to consider Clause 12 / Melbourne 2030 and to address the extent to which a planning scheme amendment is consistent with any of the directions or policies in the Strategy. The core message of the Metropolitan Strategy is the need to contain the forecast population growth within the existing built up area and to protect important non-urban areas. In particular the Amendment is likely to assist in achieving:

• A More Prosperous City by increasing public transport patronage, reducing traffic congestion and encouraging housing close to public transport and activity nodes;

• A Great Place to Be through the more efficient use of land, better utilisation of services and public infrastructure, and less traffic congestion;

• A Greener City through increased reliance on more environmentally sustainable forms of transport;

• Better Transport Links by encouraging the integrated land-use and transport planning. The amendment encourages additional public transport usage which will in turn promote and enhance public transport infrastructure.

• How does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework?

The proposed amendment supports the State Planning Policy Framework. Specifically, it will:

• assist in ensuring enhanced environmental quality and liveability and improved functioning and best practice management of infrastructure, by encouraging increased reliance on transport infrastructure and reducing dependence on fossil fuel intensive form of transport(Clause 12);

• encourage energy efficient design and the consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport (Clause 15.12);

• assist in integrating land use and transport planning around existing and planned declared highways, railways, principal bus routes and tram lines (Clause 18.01);

• assist in ensuring access is provided to developments in accordance with forecast demand taking advantage of all available modes of transport (Clause 18.02); and

• encourage increased reliance and integration of bicycle travel with land use and development planning and encourage cycling as an alternative mode of travel (Clause 18.03).

• How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework?

The main policy relevant to this amendment is Clause 21.06 – Transport and Communications Infrastructure. Clause 21.06 deals with issues of transport systems and communications infrastructure under the themes of

• Public transport

• Pedestrian networks

• Bicycles

Page 9 of 91

• The road system and parking

• Freight transport

• Water transport

• Communications and utilities

Clause 21.06 seeks, amongst other things to:

1. To increase the patronage of public transport.

2. Enhance public transport networks serving the City of Melbourne.

3. To develop and maintain an integrated, safe and high quality pedestrian network throughout the municipality.

4. To develop and maintain an integrated, safe and high quality bicycle network throughout the municipality.

5. To maximise access to the City

6. To reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking, particularly on residential areas and parklands.

7. To ensure car parking is appropriate to the location and type of car trip.

The Amendment will result in increased patronage of public transport and create additional demand for improved public transport and pedestrian and bicycle networks. A reduction in the reliance on the motor vehicle should improve access to the city and reduce the economic, social and environmental impacts associated with traffic and parking.

• Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions? As the amendment relates to parking provision rates, the schedule to Clause 52.06 is the appropriate mechanism. Changes to the Local Policy Framework are also required to ensure consistency between the MSS and the concept of maximum parking rates for residential developments.

• How does the amendment address the views of any relevant agency? The views of relevant agencies can be gained through the amendment process.

• What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority?

The amendment will have minimal impacts on the administrative costs of the responsible authority.

Page 10 of 91

Where you may inspect this Amendment. The amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at the following places: City of Melbourne Level 3, 240 Little Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 The amendment can also be inspected free of charge at the Department of Planning and Community Development web site at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection.

SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 52.06-6

Name Of Incorporated Parking Precinct Plan

Requirement

Car Parking in the Capital City Zone May 2002

Outside the Retail Core 1.0 Permit Requirement

A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates in Clause 2.0 of this schedule.

This does not include the provision of additional car parking, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, which is required to serve:

on site use for dwellings or a residential hotel.

a use that generates a significant demand for short-stay parking (up to 4 hours) and the spaces are not accessible to vehicles between the hours of 5.30 am and 9.30 am Monday to Friday, or such other hours that the responsible authority is satisfied are appropriate.

__/__/20__ C133

Page 11 of 91


Requirement

2.0 Car Parking Rates Requirements

The car parking rates apply to use in connection with another activity on the site.

• Where no part of the site is used for dwellings the number of car parking spaces must not exceed the number calculated using one of the following formulas: Maximum spaces = 5 x net floor area of buildings on the site in sq m

1000 sq m or 12 x site area in sq m

1000 sq m

Where a site is used wholly for dwellings, the number of spaces for each dwelling must not exceed one (1).

Where a site is used partly for dwellings and partly for other uses, the maximum number of spaces allowed:

for that part of the site devoted to dwellings (including common areas serving the dwellings) must not exceed one (1) space per dwelling.

for that part of the site devoted to other uses, (excluding common areas serving the dwellings) must not exceed the number calculated using one of the following formulas:


Maximum spaces =

5 x net floor area of buildings on that part of the site in sq m

1000 sq m or

12 x that part of the site area in sq m

1000 sq m

3.0 Motor-cycle Parking Rates

All buildings that provide on-site car parking must provide motor-cycle parking for the use of occupants and visitors, at a minimum rate of one motor-cycle parking space for every 100 car parking spaces, unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient.

4.0 Decision Guidelines Before deciding on an application which includes the provision of car parking spaces the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

Page 12 of 91


Requirement

Any relevant Local Planning Policies.

Whether the proposal involves the making or the use of an access point across a traffic conflict frontage.

Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area.

The safety and convenience of pedestrians moving to, from and within the car parking facility, including lighting levels, surveillance systems, signage, ease of orientation and visibility.

Whether any public car park facility will be connected to the City of Melbourne Parking Guidance System.

The extent to which the proposed access point would conflict with any proposal to limit or prohibit traffic in certain roads.

Any alternative route by which access to the car park could be obtained.

The ease with which casual visitors to the central city can find, enter and leave the facility.

The size, internal design and general operation for users.

The location and context of directional and pricing signage to enable easy customer recognition before entering the car park.

The suitability for use during weekends and outside normal business hours.


Whether the development incorporates bicycle and motor

cycle parking. Whether the development incorporates other uses in the

site that will contribute to achievement of relevant policies.

The current usage patterns of any nearby public parking facilities.

Any adverse impacts on present vehicular traffic flows and in the context of any likely future changes in car parking and traffic conditions in the area.

5.0 Requirements for Specific Locations None specified

Retail Core 1.0 Permit Requirements

Except with a permit, car parking must comply with the following:

Only short-stay public car parking (up to 4 hours) or parking to serve dwellings or a residential hotel is provided

Page 13 of 91


Requirement

and the responsible authority is satisfied that the number of car parking spaces is required.

The spaces provided for short-stay car parking are not to be accessible to vehicles between the hours of 5.30 am and 9.30 am Monday to Friday.

No car parking spaces are located at the ground floor level of any building.

Above-ground car parking facilities with a street frontage must incorporate retail or other active uses on the street frontage to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Cars within, or on, a building must not be visible from streets and other pedestrian activity areas.


All buildings that provide on-site car parking must provide motor-cycle parking, for the use of occupants and visitors, at a minimum rate of one motor-cycle parking space for every 100 car parking spaces, unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient.

3.0 Other Requirements

Except for loading or unloading bays, vehicle access or egress points must not be located on a pedestrian priority frontage, or laneway leading off a pedestrian priority frontage.

Page 14 of 91


Requirement


4.0 Decision Guidelines

Before deciding on an application to use or develop land for car parking, the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:



Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area






The size, internal design and general operation for users



Whether the development incorporates bicycle and motor cycle parking.

Whether the development incorporates other uses in the site that will contribute to achievement of relevant policies.



Page 15 of 91


Requirement


5.0 Requirements for Specific Locations Lonsdale Street (Golden Square Car Park) Area, 213-237 Lonsdale Street and 222-230 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne

5.1.1 Car Parking Provision

820 spaces are to be provided on the combined sites described as 213-237 Lonsdale Street and 222-230 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne comprising 520 existing car spaces and 300 new spaces associated with the future uses and/or public parking facilities to be established on the site.

5.1.2 Existing Commercial Car park provision

The 520 car spaces currently used for the purposes of a commercial vehicle car park on the sites described as 213-237 Lonsdale Street and 222-230 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne shall continue to be accommodated on the sites described above for use as public parking facilities and located in accordance with Clause 5.1.5 together with the Building Envelope Plans accompanying the provisions included in the Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 1, to reflect the existing uses of the site.

5.1.3. Loading and Unloading

Except with a permit, loading and unloading and vehicle access to the site shall be provided via Lonsdale Street in accordance with the plan known as “Proposed Lonsdale Street Access Configuration; Ref No 98093/T/07/P2”.

5.1.4 Short Stay arrangements

Car parking shall be provided in the following way:

A total of 160 of the 820 car spaces shall be for “short stay” public parking and operated as follows and in accordance with the provisions for short stay parking at Clause 1.0 of the Parking Precinct Plan, “Car Parking in the Capital City Zone, August 2001” – Retail Core.

At least 160 spaces (short stay spaces) shall be available exclusively for casual “Short stay” public car parking on any day that the car park is open (except on a Public Holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday)

• The “short stay” spaces shall be located within those levels most accessible to the car park entry and exit points.

• The “short stay” car parking spaces shall be clearly identified and sign posted on the site as being available for short stay parking only.

Page 16 of 91


Requirement


5.1.5 Location of parking and dimensions

Except with a permit, public car parking and parking associated with the various uses on the site shall be provided below ground level and/or within the podium level of the future development as shown on the Building Envelope Plan.

The layout, dimensions and line marking of car parking spaces must be in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5.1.6 Road Works

Except with a permit, any road works in Lonsdale Street designated “Ausvest Development Proposed Road Works” required as a result of the proposed use and development of the site shall be designed and constructed generally in accordance with the drawing known as “Proposed Lonsdale Street Access Configuration; Ref No 98093/T/07/P2”.

5.1.7 Motorcycle Parking

All buildings that provide on-site car parking must provide motorcycle parking for the use of occupants and visitors, at a rate of one motor cycle parking space for every 100 car parking spaces on the site above 520 car parking spaces.

5.1.8 Bus Parking

Provision may be made in Lonsdale Street for the parking of buses to allow for the loading and unloading of passengers to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Page 17 of 91

Name of Incorporated Parking Precinct Plan

Requirement

Car Parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 - Royal Melbourne Showgrounds

Royal Melbourne Showgrounds

The purpose of the Parking Precinct Plan is to recognise the special nature of car parking space demands and supply within the Showgrounds in particular:

concurrent demands by separate uses.

the special availability of public transport services for particular events.

the location and supply of parking spaces within the precinct which varies depending upon particular types or combination of uses occurring.

the ability for multiple use of the same parking spaces at different times.

the ready availability of a large supply of parking spaces within the Showgrounds and on adjacent land.

The Parking Precinct Plan provides the framework for traffic and parking management arrangements under the Land Management Plan referred to in Clause 2.3 of Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone.

The Parking Precinct Plan applies to the whole of the area under the control of the Royal Agricultural Society of Victoria Ltd described generally as the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds, Epsom Road, Ascot Vale.

1.0 Vehicle Parking Spaces

1.1 Place of Assembly and Leisure and recreation uses

The use of land for a purpose set out in the Event Category in the table to this clause shall comply with the vehicle parking space requirements set out in that table unless exempt under Clause 2.5 of Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone. Parking spaces shall be provided within the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds or if necessary within the Flemington Racecourse, in accordance with traffic and parking management arrangements under the Land Management Plan referred to in Clause 2.3 of Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone.

Page 18 of 91


Requirement

Car Parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 – Royal Melbourne Showgrounds

Event Attendance Minimum Parking Category Numbers Spaces Available A More than 45,000 } To be determined as part of management arrangements B More than 100,000 } under the Land Management Plan

A Up to 45,000 } 8,500 – 10,000 B Up to 100,000 } A Up to 38,000 } 2,500 – 8,500 B Up to 50,000 } A Up to 10,000 } 2,500 B Up to 15,000 }

For the purpose of the table to this Clause, Event Category A means the use Place of assembly or Leisure and recreation events where patrons generally arrive and leave at similar times and all patrons are there for the event duration.

Event Category B means the use Place of assembly or Leisure and recreation events where patrons generally arrive and leave at various times and all patrons are not present simultaneously for the event duration.

1.2 Other Uses

Vehicle parking space requirements for any use of the Showgrounds site – other than Event Categories A and B must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The following rates apply to uses on the Non-Core Land that is not required for the staging of the annual Royal Melbourne Show:

Supermarket: 5.5 spaces per 100 sqm of floor area

Specialty retail: 4 spaces per 100 sqm of floor area

Office: 2.5 spaces per 100 sqm of net leasable floor area

Restaurant: 0.3 spaces per seat available to the public

Tavern: 20 spaces per 100 sqm of net leasable floor area available to the public.

2.0 Parking Provision

2.1 On-Site

The location and number of available car parking spaces within the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds is shown in the Land Management Plan.

2.2 Off-Site

The location and number of car parking spaces available at the Flemington Racecourse adjacent to the precinct is as follows:

Main Members Car Park 2,300 spaces Public Car Park 4,200 spaces Centre of Course 4,500 spaces

Page 19 of 91


Requirement



Before deciding on an application to use land within the precinct the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

Car Parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 – Royal Showgrounds

The particular use proposed with regard to the likely car parking demands generated.

The proposed locations and capacities of car parking areas, both within and adjacent to the precinct, in meeting likely car parking demands.

The likely contribution of public transport in mitigating car parking demands.

The points of ingress and egress for vehicular traffic to and from the precinct related to the particular use.

The management of car parking with regard to the Land Management Plan for the precinct, and management arrangements for particular types of events.

The safety and security of persons using car parking areas. The concurrent use of other land or buildings within the

precinct and the likely additional parking space demands generated and availability of parking spaces.

Before deciding on an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works within the precinct the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

The proposed location and capacities of car parking areas both within and adjacent to the precinct in meeting likely car parking demands to be generated by uses within the development.

The points of ingress and egress for vehicular traffic to and from the proposed buildings or works at the precinct boundary.

The adequacy of the access ways to be used for vehicular traffic to and from the proposed buildings and works.

The safety of pedestrians within the precinct. The proposed security within car parking areas.

The proposed landscaping or screening of car parking areas.

Page 20 of 91


Requirement

Car Parking in the Docklands Zone

1.0 Permit requirement A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates in Table A of this Schedule. This requirement does not apply if a specific provision or exemption is provided for land within one of the Schedules to the Docklands Zone, as described in Clauses 2.1 – 2.6 of this Schedule. Where a use is not listed in this Parking Precinct Plan, car parking should be provided at a rate of one car space per 100sqm gross floor area (GFA). Car parking rates for the Docklands Zone are based on a maximum rather than a minimum provision of car spaces for each land use category. A permit is required for a public car park facility. Table A

Use All areas covered by Docklands Zone

Dwelling 1.5 spaces/dwelling

Office 1 space per 100sqm GFA

Industry 1 space per 150sqm GFA

Place of assembly

1 space per 100sqm GFA

Retail premises


Page 21 of 91


Requirement


2.0 Requirements for specific locations 2.1 Car parking rates for Schedules to the Docklands Zone

A permit is not required for car parking if it complies with the following:

Use Yarra’s Edge (DZ1)

Victoria Harbour (DZ2)

Batman’s Hill (DZ3)

Comtech port (DZ5)

Business Park (DZ6)

Dwelling

2 spaces per dwelling



Film studios

(per 100sqm gross floor area)

3.5 spaces

Office


2 spaces 2.5 spaces 1.5 spaces 2 spaces 3 spaces

Place of assembly


2 spaces

Residential hotel

0.4 spaces per room

Retail premises


4 spaces 4 spaces (Area A in the map to this schedule)

3 spaces (Area B in the map to this schedule)

2 spaces (Area C in the map to this schedule)

1 space 4 spaces

Page 22 of 91


Requirement


2.2 Major Sports & Recreation Facility

A permit is not required for car parking associated with the Major Sports & Recreation Facility if it complies with the following:

Within the Batman’s Hill Precinct (DZ3) • The car spaces are available for use in association

with the Major Sports and Recreation Facility, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• The total number of spaces does not exceed 1,800. • Vehicular access to the car parks in the Batman’s

Hill Precinct are designed to avoid conflicts with the major pedestrian movement access routes through and within the Batman’s Hill Precinct to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Within the Stadium Precinct (DZ4) • The total number of spaces does not exceed 3,600. • The car spaces are constructed as a component of

or in association with the Major Sports and Recreation Facility.

• Vehicular access to the car parks in the Docklands Stadium Precinct are designed to avoid conflicts with the major pedestrian movement access routes for the Major Sports and Recreation Facility to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• The provision of car parking spaces in excess of 2,600 and the access arrangements of these spaces are demonstrated to be consistent with the efficient operation of the Melbourne Docklands area road network to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• On land at the north-west of the Major Sports and Recreation Facility, no more than 500 spaces.

Within Comtechport (DZ5)

• The total number of spaces within the precinct does not exceed 600.

• The car spaces are available for use in association with the Major Sports and Recreation Facility, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Page 23 of 91


Requirement


3.0 Layout and design of parking spaces and structures

• Car parking spaces should not be visible from any street frontage or the waterfront. This does not apply to a ground level car space for the use of a dwelling and which adjoins or forms part of that dwelling in accordance with a planning permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• The dimensions of car spaces and access to such car spaces, should be consistent with the provisions of AS 2890.1- 1993.

• Parking structures should be carefully designed with articulated facades containing active edges to principal streets and public spaces.

• Vehicular access to parking and service areas should be designed to minimise disruption to pedestrian movements and minimise their visual impact on architectural and streetscape qualities.

• Open lot car parks are discouraged on all principle frontages.


Before deciding on an application to use or develop land for car parking, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: • Any relevant Local Planning Policies. • Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area,

including in the context of any future changes in car parking and traffic conditions.

• The safety and convenience of pedestrians moving to and from and within the car parking facility, including lighting levels, surveillance systems, signage and visibility.

• Whether the development includes bicycle and motor cycle parking.

• The particular use proposed with regard to the likely car parking demands generated.

• The proposed locations and capacities of car parking areas, both within and close to the site in meeting likely car parking demands.

• The likely contribution of public transport in mitigating car parking demands.

Page 24 of 91


Requirement


4.0 Decision Guidelines cont.

• The points of ingress and egress for vehicular traffic. • The management of car parking and management

arrangements for events. • The proposed landscaping and screening of car parking

facilities and areas. • The extent to which the proposed access point would conflict

with any proposal to limit or prohibit traffic in certain roads. • The provisions for parking and loading of vehicles and

access of parking spaces and loading bays on land and water.

Page 25 of 91

Map to Car Parking in Docklands Zone Parking Precinct Plan

Page 26 of 91


Requirement

Car parking provision for residential development in specific inner city areas of Melbourne

1.0 Permit Requirement A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates specified in Table A of this schedule.

Car parking rates for the areas shown in the map to this schedule are based on a maximum rather than minimum provision of car spaces for each land use category.

Table A

Use All areas specified in the map to this schedule

Dwelling 1 space / dwelling

2.0 Decision Guidelines Before deciding on an application which seeks to increase the maximum number of car parking spaces, the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

• Any relevant Local Planning Policies.

• Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces that should be provided.

• The particular characteristics of the use proposed with regard to the likely car parking demands generated.



• Whether the development includes bicycle and motorcycle parking.

NB: The occupiers of any dwellings approved by permit subject to the provisions of this Schedule may not be eligible for Resident Priority Parking Permits.

Page 27 of 91

Map to Car Parking Provision for Residential Development in Specific Inner City Areas of Melbourne Precinct Plan

Page 28 of 91


21.06 TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

This section deals with issues of transport systems and communications infrastructure under the themes of: Public transport Pedestrians networks Bicycles The road system and parking Freight transport Water transport Communications and utilities

The intensive and diverse land uses within the City provide a unique set of challenges to maximise accessibility to the City. Major events, the growth in residential dwellings and the large commuter population place significant demands on the City’s transport infrastructure, including its car parking. An efficient transport system is vital for the economic and social operation of the City. The City of Melbourne is at the centre of the metropolitan area’s radial road and public transport network: The municipality contains around 315 kilometres of road. Virtually all tram routes serving the metropolitan area pass through the municipality,

particularly the Hoddle Grid. All metropolitan and rural train services can be accessed from within the City Centre. The municipality contains some 2,900 metered parking spaces and around 60,000 off

street parking spaces, of which, 20,000 are private/reserved spaces1. Well in excess of half a million people visit the City of Melbourne on a daily basis, and it is expected that by 2010, the number of trips per day will increase to around 1.2 million2. Of the existing number of trips to the Central City, 45% were made on public transport, with 48% of Central City workers using public transport for their journey to and from work. A significant number of trips to the Central City were by car or taxi (approximately 40%), however only a small proportion of people walk or cycle to the Central City (approximately 13% and 2% respectively) 3. Movement within and around the City must be possible by all transport nodes, including walking, wheelchair, cycling, bus, tram, train, taxi, car, motor-cycle, river, and skating. Around 30% of the municipality’s households do not have a car. A small number of households (around 3%) also own other modes of motorised transport such as a motorcycle, either instead of, or in addition to a car.4 Given the demographic of the municipality, with a high proportion of young people, and the increasing number of dwellings in proximity to workplaces, there are significant opportunities to further encourage cycling and walking both within and to the City for the journey to work.

Freight distribution

Manufacturing and commerce are two of Victoria’s strengths and, as the primary freight distribution point, containing the Port of Melbourne and Port Melbourne (Fishermans Bend); the City plays a key role in promoting international trade and investment. There are opportunities for the City to strengthen its position as the primary transport hub, freight distribution centre and communications centre for both Victoria and Australia.

1 Melbourne Transport Program 2003-2006 2 Melbourne Transport Program 2003-2006 3 Melbourne Transport Program 2003-2006 4 ABS Census 2001

01/07/2008 C134

Page 29 of 91


21.06-1 Public transport

Increasing patronage

Increasing use of the public transport system will improve the sustainability and liveability of the municipality and surrounding areas. Public transport is important for making the City inclusive and provides greater mobility choices and improved access for all people. A road system which is also relieved from the pressure of unnecessary private vehicle travel will better serve business throughout the City, as the road system will become more reliable and efficient.

Network connections

An extensive public transport system serves the City. In order to maximise advantages for City visitation, improvements to frequency, services and infrastructure, particularly along St Kilda Road and in the western and north-eastern parts of Melbourne, are required.

Accessibility

Transport networks and the public environment are more inclusive, more useable, safe and enjoyable if it is readily accessible to everyone. A number of people who live, visit and work in the City of Melbourne have a vision, other sensory, or mobility impairment and it is important that a range of transport options, and associated infrastructure, are provided which support diverse community needs. Public transport providers should enhance the accessibility of public transport and associated facilities, providing an accessible public environment. Accessible parking facilities are also required throughout the municipality.

Objectives and strategies

The objectives and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with Figure 11 - Transport and Access and the detailed Implementation Strategies for Local Areas set out in Clause 21.08.

--/--/20-- C133

Page 30 of 91


FIGURE 11: TRANSPORT & ACCESS

Page 31 of 91


1. To increase the patronage of public transport.

1.1 Encourage public transport as the primary mode of access to the Central City. 1.2 Support improvements to the overall convenience, quality, and accessibility,

level of service and safety of public transport. 1.3 Support changes and improvements to the public transport system that serve

the changing needs, demography, and structure of the City. 1.4 Support improvements in public transport waiting areas, to ensure a high level

of amenity, accessibility, and safety. 1.5 Ensure major entertainment, recreation, retail, education and employment

areas are accessible by public transport. 1.6 Encourage development in locations which can maximise the potential use of

public transport. 1.7 Support a public transport system that serves the City 24 hours a day. 1.8 Facilitate a range of accessible public transport options for people with a

disability. 1.9 Strengthen public transport links between the Melbourne Museum, Carlton

and the Central City. 1.10 Limit the supply of car parking in new developments where access to public

transport is excellent 2. Enhance public transport networks serving the City of Melbourne.

2.1 Support improvements to transport services and networks identified in Local Implementation Strategies.

21.06-2 Pedestrians networks

Pedestrian networks serve a variety of users, including people with physical disabilities and people using prams. It is vital that personal movement, the most sustainable and important transport mode, is maximised throughout the City. It is essential that improvements to pedestrian networks, which serve these variety of users, are prioritised.

Objective and strategies

The objectives and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with Figure 11 -Transport and Access and the detailed Implementation Strategies for Local Areas set out in Clause 21.08.

3. To develop and maintain an integrated, safe and high quality pedestrian network throughout the municipality. 3.1 Give priority to pedestrian use on high volume pedestrian routes, particularly

within the Retail Core within the Central City. 3.2 Create high-quality and safe pedestrian environments throughout the City. 3.3 Support the extension of the existing system of dedicated pedestrian routes

(including shared paths) to fully link all major parks and gardens in Melbourne.

3.4 Strengthen pedestrian links between the Melbourne Museum, Carlton and the Central City.

3.5 Ensure that pedestrian networks are accessible to a range of users, including wheelchair users and people with prams.

21.06-3 Bicycles

Cyclists commuting from home to work, school or university, constitute a large proportion of cyclists within the City on weekdays. Smaller numbers of visitors and

19/01/2006 VC37

19/01/2006 VC37

Page 32 of 91


residents of the City cycle along the Yarra River and other off-road trails for tourism, leisure and recreation.

Approximately 37% of the City’s population is aged between 15-29 years; this group includes young families and a high number of students. Given this demographic, there are opportunities to encourage further take-up of this low cost and sustainable transport mode.

There are also significant opportunities to build on the existing cycling networks in the municipality. Provision of cycling facilities and safe cycling networks will encourage greater usage of bicycles for a range of journeys, including commuting to work and shopping, as well as recreation.


The objectives and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with Figure 11 – Transport and Access, the Principal Bicycle Network identified in the City of Melbourne Bike Plan 2002- 2007, and the detailed Implementation Strategies for Local Areas set out in Clause 21.08.

4. To develop and maintain an integrated, safe and high quality bicycle network throughout the municipality. 4.1 Encourage improved connectivity of the City’s bicycle network and support

the extension of the existing system of dedicated cycle routes (including shared paths) to fully link all major parks and gardens in Melbourne.

4.2 Ensure end of trip facilities (showers, change rooms and secure bicycle lock up facilities) are provided as appropriate.

4.3 Ensure a safer cycling environment by encouraging passive surveillance of the Principal Bike Network and safe and secure end of trip facilities, where required by Council.

4.4 Ensure the impact of development, including vehicular crossings, on the Principal Bike Network identified by the City of Melbourne Bike Plan 2002-2007, is minimised.

4.5 Encourage new development to facilitate connections and extensions to the Principal Bike Network, where opportunities and gaps are identified in the Melbourne Bike Plan 2002-2007.

21.06-4 The road system and parking

City access

It is essential that good vehicular access within and to the City is provided to ensure the municipality’s social and economic health. However, this access needs to be provided in environmentally sustainable ways.

Minimising the negative impacts of traffic

Management of road based traffic is an important consideration for minimising negative impacts on the residential areas of the municipality. Many of the municipality’s neighbourhoods have experienced negative impacts, such as noise and emissions, from high levels of car and truck movements in close proximity to dwellings. Trucks can also impact on the municipality’s road infrastructure, through wear and tear.

Managing car parking

Management of car parking is an important issue throughout the City, but especially in the Central City, Business and Mixed Use Zones. Short term parking will be favoured over commuter parking in these areas. The demand for car parking in the Central City is a function of the intensity of activity and the changing variety of trip purposes that occur within it. The supply of car parking in the Central City must be more carefully managed

--/--/20-- C133

Page 33 of 91


to control traffic congestion, optimise pedestrian safety and limit adverse impacts on the environment. Parking demand in the City’s residential neighbourhoods continues to increase and must also be managed.


The objectives and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with Figure 11 – Transport and Access and the detailed Implementation Strategies for Local Areas set out in Clause 21.08.

5. To maximise access to the City 5.1 Support the provision of adequate safe car parking, public transport, pedestrian

and bicycle facilities in the City to suit 24 hour activity. 5.2 Ensure that the cumulative traffic and parking impact of developments on an

area is considered. 5.3 Ensure that any traffic and parking impacts from new development is

minimised so that it is consistent with the Amenity Principles in the land use theme, and other objectives and strategies of this MSS.

6. To reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking, particularly on residential areas and parklands. 6.1 Support traffic calming and parking management measures to improve the

safety and amenity of the City. 6.2 Manage neighbourhood parking to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for

residents in Residential and Mixed Use Zones, and parklands, consistent with the Amenity Principles.

6.3 Minimise the impact of traffic on local neighbourhoods. 7. To ensure car parking is appropriate to the location and type of car trip.

7.1 Discourage unnecessary commuter parking in all areas. 7.2 Encourage short stay parking provision (up to 4 hours) for visitors and

shoppers at public car parks and discourage long stay (commuter) parking to support commercial and retail activity and access to the Central City.

7.3 Require parking for residential uses in the Central City and other specific inner city locations at a level commensurate with the City’s excellent level of access to public transport, employment and facilities.

7.4 Require appropriate provision of off-street parking for service vehicles in all new developments, including new residential development in the Central City.

7.5 Locate only short-stay parking in and around the Retail Core, except for residential uses, ensuring that any parking provision does not adversely impact on pedestrian amenity and movement.

7.6 Require adequate on-site car parking for new uses and development in the City’s Residential, Mixed Use and Business Zones.

7.7 On sites which are of identified heritage significance, consider a variation in on site carparking provision, if any such provision is likely to adversely impact on the significant building fabric or other significant features, such as landscaping or the heritage streetscape.

7.8 Ensure car parking facilities meet a high standard of safety, vehicle manoeuvrability and pedestrian accessibility.

7.9 Utilise the City of Melbourne Access and Parking Management Framework to manage parking throughout the City.

7.10 Encourage the provision of less on-site parking for occupants from development sites with excellent access to public transport and in proximity to extensive cycle and walking routes.

7.11 Encourage the conversion of long-term commuter parking into affordable short-stay parking.

Page 34 of 91


7.12 Encourage the implementation of Planning Scheme controls which seek to replace the requirement for a minimum provision with a maximum provision of car parking in residential developments

7.13 Support the protection of existing residential access to on-street parking.

21.06-5 Freight transport

A vital hub

The City is an important business and freight centre, and transport management needs to specifically address the growing needs of freight movement. The Port of Melbourne, Port Melbourne (Fishermans Bend) and other industrial areas within the municipality are part of a total freight transport logistics system and they often rely on links to road and rail transport. Because of this, the future strategic development of transport links is a high priority for the State Government, the Port of Melbourne Corporation and the City of Melbourne.

To improve the efficiency of freight movement and reduce the impact of trucks on roads, the State Government, in Melbourne 2030, has set a goal of 30 per cent of freight to be moved by rail for the State's ports, by 2010.

Currently, around 20 per cent of all freight moved in and out of the Port of Melbourne is carried by rail.

Links to the port Improved links to the port are required to ensure its success and to reduce the adverse impacts of freight movement on Melbourne’s inner suburbs.


The objectives and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with Figure 11 – Transport and Access and the detailed Implementation Strategies for Local Areas set out in Clause 21.08.

8. To enhance Melbourne’s role as Australia’s transport hub and gateway with world class competitive transport, which supports business and tourism needs in rural, regional, national and international markets. 8.1 Support the provision of an efficient and integrated freight transport system

that reduces negative environmental impacts in residential and public areas. 8.2 To support the sustainable development and efficient 24 hour operation of

Melbourne’s deep-water port and the enhancement of transport links to the Port.

9. To improve freight links to Port Melbourne. 9.1 Support development of a freight distribution hub at Dynon Road and greater

links between the Port and Dynon Hub. 9.2 Support enhanced rail links with the Port particularly to Webb Dock and

Swanson Dock and between the Port and interstate networks. 9.3 Work with the Port of Melbourne Corporation and other stakeholders to ensure

integrated planning of the Port and its environs particularly with respect to road, rail and sea links to the Port.

9.4 Ensure that opportunities for the sustainable growth and development of the Port are maximised whilst ensuring that opportunities for environmental protection and enhancement for the Port area are pursued.

21.06-6 Water transport

Water transport adds an exciting dimension to the City, especially for tourism and the events industry, and for commuters. With the waterfront focus of Docklands, the attractiveness and opportunity for water based transport will increase. Council will

19/01/2006 VC37

19/01/2006 VC37

Page 35 of 91


encourage this form of transport to benefit the many major function centres and key attractors that are located along the rivers and waterfront, subject to such operations not affecting Port functioning.


The objectives and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with Figure 11 – Transport and Access and the detailed Implementation Strategies set out in Clauses 21.08 (Local Areas).

10. To promote water transport for recreational and commuter use as part of a larger integrated transport system, consistent with maintaining safe and efficient Port operation. 10.1 Ensure opportunities for potential future access to the rivers are maintained. 10.2 Ensure the capacity for necessary shore based infrastructure such as adequate

mooring facilities and passenger and service access. 10.3 Minimise the extent of marina encroachment into navigable waterways

especially within the Docklands.

21.06-7 Communications and utilities

Melbourne’s reputation as an innovative and vital business City will depend on its ability to deliver high bandwidth at low cost and to respond quickly to the requirements of the emerging technology. The present level of global connectivity is compromising the City’s ability to compete effectively and to gather information from sources around the world.

There is sufficient infrastructure in the Central City for digital information transfer; however, timely and cost effective connections to and within buildings needs to be improved. The high cost of using this infrastructure is a considerable barrier to use for small to medium enterprises.


The objective and strategies set out below must be read in conjunction with the detailed Implementation Strategies for Local Areas set out in Clause 21.08.

11. To ensure that Melbourne has the infrastructure and capacity to meet anticipated information, communication and technology (ICT) needs. 11.1 Encourage the incorporation of information, technology and communication

infrastructure in new developments. 11.2 Encourage co-location of communications infrastructure.

12. To minimise the visual impact of communications infrastructure and other utilities infrastructure 12.1 Ensure that the presence and visibility of communications infrastructure and

utilities within heritage areas or upon parkland does not unreasonably impact on the heritage place or precinct, or on parkland values.

Support the undergrounding of overhead powerlines and cables, particularly in heritage precincts and in avenues with significant street trees.

19/01/2006 VC37

Page 36 of 91

SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 81.01

Name of Document

Royal Melbourne Showgrounds Redevelopment Master Plan – December 2004

Car parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 – Royal Melbourne Showgrounds

Kensington Banks Development Plan (Subdivisions)

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Shrine Vista Details and St Kilda Road Preservation of Shrine Vista (Plans)

Melbourne City Link Project – Advertising Sign Locations, November 2003

Incorporated Plan Overlay No. 1 – 236-254 St Kilda Road

Building Envelope Plan – Replacement Plan No.1, DDO 20 Area 45

Sky sign - 42 Clarendon Street, South Melbourne

High wall signs - 766 Elizabeth Street, Carlton

Former Queen Victoria Hospital Site - Open Lot Car Park, Melbourne

346-376 Queen Street, 334-346 LaTrobe Street and 142-171 A'Beckett Street Open Lot Car Park, Melbourne

Car Parking in the Capital City Zone, May 2002

University of Melbourne, University Square Campus, Carlton, November 1999

Promotional Panel sign, Crown Allotment 21D, Power Street, Southbank, July 1999

Mirvac, Residential Towers, 236-254 St. Kilda Road, Southbank

Former Southern Cross Hotel site, Melbourne, March 2002

Flinders Gate car park, Melbourne, July 1999

Sports and Entertainment Precinct, Melbourne, August 2007

Young and Jackson’s Hotel, Promotional Panel Sky sign, Melbourne, July 1999

Cliveden Hill Private Hospital, 29 Simpson Street, East Melbourne, July 1999

State Netball and Hockey Centre, Brens Drive Royal Park, Parkville, May 2000

Federation Arch and Sports and Entertainment Precinct Signs, April 2002

Tram Route 109 Disability Discrimination Act compliant Platform Tram Stops, August 2007

Melbourne Aquarium Signs, July 2001

Freshwater Place, Southbank, August 2001

Simplot Australia head office, Kensington, October 2001

University of Melbourne Bio 21 Project Parkville, November 2001

The Alfred Hospital Helipad Flight Path Protection Areas Plan, Vertical View, reference No. AOS/00/015, dated 7-9-2001 and The Alfred Hospital Helipad Flight Path Protection Areas Plan, Profile View, reference No. AOS/00/016, dated 7-9-2001

--/--/20-- C133

Page 37 of 91

Name of Document

Melbourne Central redevelopment, March 2002

Former Herald and Weekly Times building, 46-74 Flinders Street, Melbourne, August 2002

Melbourne Girls Grammar – Merton Hall Campus Master Plan, June 2002

Spencer Street Station redevelopment, August 2007

Former Fishmarket Site, Flinders Street Melbourne, September 2002

Rialto South Tower Communications Facility Melbourne, November 2002

Heritage Places Inventory July 2008

The Games Village Project, Parkville, September 2006

Former Victoria Brewery site, East Melbourne – ‘Tribeca’ Redevelopment October 2003

Melbourne Grammar School Master Plan - Volume One, Senior School South Yarra Campus, Issue Date 14 October 2003.

Former Olympic Swimming Stadium, Collingwood Football Club signage, April 2004

Hilton on the Park Hotel Complex Redevelopment, December 2004

Royal Melbourne Showgrounds Redevelopment Project – December 2004

Judy Lazarus Transition Centre, March 2005

Melbourne Recital Hall and MTC Theatre project , August 2005

Big Day Out Music Festival, January 2006

Rectangular Pitch Stadium Project: Olympic Park and Gosch’s Paddock, Melbourne, August 2007

Advertising Signs - Mercedes-Benz, 135-149 KingsWay, Southbank

Melbourne Convention Centre Development, Southbank and North Wharf redevelopment, Docklands, April 2006

Dynon Port Rail Link Project

M1 Redevelopment Project, October 2006

Scots Church Site Redevelopment, Melbourne, August 2007

State Coronial Services Centre Redevelopment Project, August 2007.

Crown Casino Third Hotel, September 2007

Myer Melbourne Bourke Street store redevelopment, Melbourne, October 2007

The New Royal Children’s Hospital Project, Parkville, October 2007

Carlton Brewery Comprehensive Development Plan October 2007


David Jones Melbourne City Store Redevelopment, May 2008

Hotham Estate

North West Corner of Mark and Melrose Street, North Melbourne

Moonee Ponds Creek Concept Plan

Page 38 of 91

Name of Document Lynch’s Bridge Development Plan, June 1995. Revised December 2001

Car Parking provision for residential development in specific inner city areas of Melbourne

Page 39 of 91

Amendment C133 List of changes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme

Clause / Map

Numbers

Change

Comment

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

21.06 Include the relevant directions of the City of Melbourne’s Moving People and freight, transport strategy 2006-2020 into the Transport and Communications Infrastructure section of the Municipal Strategic Statement

Updates the MSS to reflect the directions of the Transport Strategy and to ensure consistency between the MSS and the concept of maximum parking rates for residential developments

PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Schedule to

Clause 52.06-6 Insert table and map identifying the permit requirements from the Car parking provision for residential development in specific inner city areas of Melbourne Parking Precinct Plan

Introduces a maximum car parking rate of 1 space per dwelling for certain areas of the City of Melbourne

INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS Schedule to Clause

81.01 Add Car parking provision for residential development in specific inner city areas of Melbourne Parking Precinct Plan on the list of incorporated documents

Replaces Schedule to Clause 81.01 with a new Schedule to Clause 81.01

LIST OF AMENDMENTS (Information to accompany amendment) List of

Amendments Insert: Amendment C133, in operation from DATE, introduces a maximum car parking rate of 1 car space per dwelling for Carlton, Southbank and parts of North, West and East Melbourne.

Updates the list of amendments to the Melbourne Planning Scheme

Page 40 of 91



AMENDMENT C133 The planning authority for this amendment is the Melbourne City Council.

The Melbourne Planning Scheme is amended as follows:

Planning Scheme Ordinance

The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:

1. In Local Planning Policy Framework – replace Clause 21.06 with a new Clause 21.06 in the form of the attached document. The details of the changes are as follows:

• Subclause[s] 21.06-1 has been amended. • Subclause[s] 21.06-4 has been amended.

2. In Particular Provisions – Clause 52.06, replace the schedule with a new schedule in the form of the attached document.

3. In Incorporated Documents – Clause 81.01, replace the schedule with a new schedule in the form of the attached document.

End of document

Page 41 of 91

Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C133

Maximum car parking rate for residential developments

Background Council is introducing a maximum car parking rate for residential developments in inner city areas. In order to do this the Melbourne Planning Scheme must be amended. The City of Melbourne already applies a maximum rate for car parking in the Capital City Zone (the CBD and parts of Southbank). New developments are encouraged to provide no parking or minimal number of car parking spaces. A planning permit is required to provide more than the specified rate. What does the amendment do? This amendment to the Melbourne Planning Scheme has been prepared by Council and seeks to introduce a maximum rate of one car parking space per dwelling in certain parts of the municipality. This maximum car parking rate is proposed to apply to Carlton, Southbank and parts of North, West and East Melbourne (see the map at Figure 1, which highlights the areas affected by the amendment). This requirement will apply to off-street parking for new residential developments only. Why is the amendment required? Carlton, Southbank and those parts of North, West and East Melbourne affected by the amendment are well served by public transport and have easy access to the CBD. Introducing a maximum car parking rate to inner areas of the municipality that experience high levels of accessibility is required to reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking.

How are stakeholders and affected parties being informed about this amendment? Stakeholders, property owners and government agencies affected by this amendment will all be sent letters advising of the proposed amendment. Council will also place an advertisement in The Age and in the local papers. A full copy of the amendment and explanatory report will also be available for viewing at the City of Melbourne, Level 3, 240 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. The amendment will also be available to view from the Department of Planning & Community Development website www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection. For further information about the amendment, please visit the City of Melbourne website at www.melbourne.vic.gov.au What happens next? Anyone may lodge a submission in relation to the amendment. Council will formally consider all submissions and resolve how to proceed with Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C133. Those who have made a submission will have an opportunity to be heard by an independent panel. Council will then consider the report of the panel and decide whether or not to adopt the amendment and will then forward it to the Minister for Planning who will make the final decision on the amendment.

Page 42 of 91

How to make a submission? To make a submission on the amendment, please write to: Robyn Hellman Team Leader – Local Policy PO Box 1603 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 Fax: 9650 3572 Email: [email protected] The closing date for submissions is Friday the 30th of January 2009.

Figure 1: Land affected by the amendment (yellow areas only)

Page 43 of 91



1

Amendment C133 – Maximum Residential Car Parking Rate Exhibition process Following receipt of authorisation from the Planning Minister, Amendment C133 was placed on exhibition from the 20th of November 2008 to the 30th of January 2009.

1. The amendment notice and fact sheet were sent to owners and occupiers of properties in the affected areas, residents groups, chambers of commerce, property/housing industry associations, service authorities and prescribed ministers.

2. The notice was placed in the following papers:

• the Age on the 13th of November 2008;

• the City Weekly on the 13th of November 2008,

• the Melbourne Times on the 12th of November 2008; and,

• the Melbourne Leader on the 12th of November 2008.

3. The notice featured in the Government Gazette on the 20th of November 2008.

4. Information was posted on the City of Melbourne website.

Page 44 of 91


PARTICULAR PROVISIONS - CLAUSE 52.06-6 – SCHEDULE PAGE 1 OF 17

SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 52.06-6


Requirement


Outside the Retail Core

1.0 Permit Requirement

A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates in Clause 2.0 of this schedule.

This does not include the provision of additional car parking, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, which is required to serve:

on site use for dwellings or a residential hotel.

a use that generates a significant demand for short-stay parking (up to 4 hours) and the spaces are not accessible to vehicles between the hours of 5.30 am and 9.30 am Monday to Friday, or such other hours that the responsible authority is satisfied are appropriate.

2.0 Car Parking Rates

Requirements

The car parking rates apply to use in connection with another activity on the site.

• Where no part of the site is used for dwellings the number of car parking spaces must not exceed the number calculated using one of the following formulas:

Maximum spaces =

5 x net floor area of buildings on the site in sq m 1000 sq m

or

12 x site area in sq m

1000 sq m

Where a site is used wholly for dwellings, the number of spaces for each dwelling must not exceed one (1).

Where a site is used partly for dwellings and partly for other uses, the maximum number of spaces allowed:

for that part of the site devoted to dwellings (including common areas serving the dwellings) must not exceed one (1) space per dwelling.

for that part of the site devoted to other uses, (excluding common areas serving the dwellings) must not exceed the number calculated using one of the following formulas:

__/__/20__ C133

Attachment 3Agenda Item 5.1

Planning Committee7 April 2009

Page 45 of 91




Requirement


Maximum spaces =

5 x net floor area of buildings on that part of the site in sq m

1000 sq m or

12 x that part of the site area in sq m

1000 sq m


All buildings that provide on-site car parking must provide motor-cycle parking for the use of occupants and visitors, at a minimum rate of one motor-cycle parking space for every 100 car parking spaces, unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient.

4.0 Decision Guidelines Before deciding on an application which includes the provision of car parking spaces the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:



Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area.






The size, internal design and general operation for users.



Page 46 of 91




Requirement






5.0 Requirements for Specific Locations

None specified

Retail Core

1.0 Permit Requirements

Except with a permit, car parking must comply with the following:

Only short-stay public car parking (up to 4 hours) or parking to serve dwellings or a residential hotel is provided and the responsible authority is satisfied that the number of car parking spaces is required.

The spaces provided for short-stay car parking are not to be accessible to vehicles between the hours of 5.30 am and 9.30 am Monday to Friday.

No car parking spaces are located at the ground floor level of any building.

Above-ground car parking facilities with a street frontage must incorporate retail or other active uses on the street frontage to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Cars within, or on, a building must not be visible from streets and other pedestrian activity areas.


All buildings that provide on-site car parking must provide motor-cycle parking, for the use of occupants and visitors, at a minimum rate of one motor-cycle parking space for every 100 car parking spaces, unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient.

3.0 Other Requirements

Except for loading or unloading bays, vehicle access or egress points must not be located on a pedestrian priority frontage, or laneway leading off a pedestrian priority frontage.

Page 47 of 91




Requirement



Before deciding on an application to use or develop land for car parking, the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:



Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area






The size, internal design and general operation for users







Page 48 of 91




Requirement


5.0 Requirements for Specific Locations Lonsdale Street (Golden Square Car Park) Area, 213-237 Lonsdale Street and 222-230 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne

5.1.1 Car Parking Provision

820 spaces are to be provided on the combined sites described as 213-237 Lonsdale Street and 222-230 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne comprising 520 existing car spaces and 300 new spaces associated with the future uses and/or public parking facilities to be established on the site.

5.1.2 Existing Commercial Car park provision

The 520 car spaces currently used for the purposes of a commercial vehicle car park on the sites described as 213-237 Lonsdale Street and 222-230 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne shall continue to be accommodated on the sites described above for use as public parking facilities and located in accordance with Clause 5.1.5 together with the Building Envelope Plans accompanying the provisions included in the Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 1, to reflect the existing uses of the site.

5.1.3. Loading and Unloading

Except with a permit, loading and unloading and vehicle access to the site shall be provided via Lonsdale Street in accordance with the plan known as “Proposed Lonsdale Street Access Configuration; Ref No 98093/T/07/P2”.

5.1.4 Short Stay arrangements

Car parking shall be provided in the following way:

A total of 160 of the 820 car spaces shall be for “short stay” public parking and operated as follows and in accordance with the provisions for short stay parking at Clause 1.0 of the Parking Precinct Plan, “Car Parking in the Capital City Zone, August 2001” – Retail Core.

At least 160 spaces (short stay spaces) shall be available exclusively for casual “Short stay” public car parking on any day that the car park is open (except on a Public Holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday)

• The “short stay” spaces shall be located within those levels most accessible to the car park entry and exit points.

• The “short stay” car parking spaces shall be clearly identified and sign posted on the site as being available

Page 49 of 91




Requirement

for short stay parking only.


5.1.5 Location of parking and dimensions

Except with a permit, public car parking and parking associated with the various uses on the site shall be provided below ground level and/or within the podium level of the future development as shown on the Building Envelope Plan.

The layout, dimensions and line marking of car parking spaces must be in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5.1.6 Road Works

Except with a permit, any road works in Lonsdale Street designated “Ausvest Development Proposed Road Works” required as a result of the proposed use and development of the site shall be designed and constructed generally in accordance with the drawing known as “Proposed Lonsdale Street Access Configuration; Ref No 98093/T/07/P2”.

5.1.7 Motorcycle Parking

All buildings that provide on-site car parking must provide motorcycle parking for the use of occupants and visitors, at a rate of one motor cycle parking space for every 100 car parking spaces on the site above 520 car parking spaces.

5.1.8 Bus Parking

Provision may be made in Lonsdale Street for the parking of buses to allow for the loading and unloading of passengers to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Page 50 of 91




Requirement

Car Parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 - Royal Melbourne Showgrounds

Royal Melbourne Showgrounds

The purpose of the Parking Precinct Plan is to recognise the special nature of car parking space demands and supply within the Showgrounds in particular:

concurrent demands by separate uses.

the special availability of public transport services for particular events.

the location and supply of parking spaces within the precinct which varies depending upon particular types or combination of uses occurring.

the ability for multiple use of the same parking spaces at different times.

the ready availability of a large supply of parking spaces within the Showgrounds and on adjacent land.

The Parking Precinct Plan provides the framework for traffic and parking management arrangements under the Land Management Plan referred to in Clause 2.3 of Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone.

The Parking Precinct Plan applies to the whole of the area under the control of the Royal Agricultural Society of Victoria Ltd described generally as the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds, Epsom Road, Ascot Vale.

1.0 Vehicle Parking Spaces

1.1 Place of Assembly and Leisure and recreation uses

The use of land for a purpose set out in the Event Category in the table to this clause shall comply with the vehicle parking space requirements set out in that table unless exempt under Clause 2.5 of Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone. Parking spaces shall be provided within the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds or if necessary within the Flemington Racecourse, in accordance with traffic and parking management arrangements under the Land Management Plan referred to in Clause 2.3 of Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone.

Page 51 of 91




Requirement


Event Attendance Minimum Parking Category Numbers Spaces Available A More than 45,000 } To be determined as part of management arrangements B More than 100,000 } under the Land Management Plan

A Up to 45,000 } 8,500 – 10,000 B Up to 100,000 } A Up to 38,000 } 2,500 – 8,500 B Up to 50,000 } A Up to 10,000 } 2,500 B Up to 15,000 }

For the purpose of the table to this Clause, Event Category A means the use Place of assembly or Leisure and recreation events where patrons generally arrive and leave at similar times and all patrons are there for the event duration.

Event Category B means the use Place of assembly or Leisure and recreation events where patrons generally arrive and leave at various times and all patrons are not present simultaneously for the event duration.

1.2 Other Uses

Vehicle parking space requirements for any use of the Showgrounds site – other than Event Categories A and B must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The following rates apply to uses on the Non-Core Land that is not required for the staging of the annual Royal Melbourne Show:

Supermarket: 5.5 spaces per 100 sqm of floor area

Specialty retail: 4 spaces per 100 sqm of floor area

Office: 2.5 spaces per 100 sqm of net leasable floor area

Restaurant: 0.3 spaces per seat available to the public

Tavern: 20 spaces per 100 sqm of net leasable floor area available to the public.

2.0 Parking Provision

2.1 On-Site

The location and number of available car parking spaces within the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds is shown in the Land Management Plan.

2.2 Off-Site

The location and number of car parking spaces available at the Flemington Racecourse adjacent to the precinct is as follows:

Main Members Car Park 2,300 spaces Public Car Park 4,200 spaces Centre of Course 4,500 spaces

Page 52 of 91




Requirement



Before deciding on an application to use land within the precinct the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

Car Parking in the Special Use Zone Schedule 2 – Royal Showgrounds

The particular use proposed with regard to the likely car parking demands generated.

The proposed locations and capacities of car parking areas, both within and adjacent to the precinct, in meeting likely car parking demands.

The likely contribution of public transport in mitigating car parking demands.

The points of ingress and egress for vehicular traffic to and from the precinct related to the particular use.

The management of car parking with regard to the Land Management Plan for the precinct, and management arrangements for particular types of events.

The safety and security of persons using car parking areas.

The concurrent use of other land or buildings within the precinct and the likely additional parking space demands generated and availability of parking spaces.

Before deciding on an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works within the precinct the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

The proposed location and capacities of car parking areas both within and adjacent to the precinct in meeting likely car parking demands to be generated by uses within the development.

The points of ingress and egress for vehicular traffic to and from the proposed buildings or works at the precinct boundary.

The adequacy of the access ways to be used for vehicular traffic to and from the proposed buildings and works.

The safety of pedestrians within the precinct.

The proposed security within car parking areas.

The proposed landscaping or screening of car parking areas.

Car Parking in 1.0 Permit requirement

Page 53 of 91




Requirement

the Docklands Zone

Car Parking in

A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates in Table A of this Schedule. This requirement does not apply if a specific provision or exemption is provided for land within one of the Schedules to the Docklands Zone, as described in Clauses 2.1 – 2.6 of this Schedule.

Where a use is not listed in this Parking Precinct Plan, car parking should be provided at a rate of one car space per 100sqm gross floor area (GFA).

Car parking rates for the Docklands Zone are based on a maximum rather than a minimum provision of car spaces for each land use category.

A permit is required for a public car park facility.

Table A

Use All areas covered by Docklands Zone

Dwelling 1.5 spaces/dwelling

Office 1 space per 100sqm GFA

Industry 1 space per 150sqm GFA

Place of assembly


Retail premises


Page 54 of 91




Requirement

the Docklands Zone

Car Parking in

2.0 Requirements for specific locations 2.1 Car parking rates for Schedules to the Docklands Zone

A permit is not required for car parking if it complies with the following:

Use Yarra’s Edge (DZ1)

Victoria Harbour (DZ2)

Batman’s Hill (DZ3)

Comtech port (DZ5)

Business Park (DZ6)

Dwelling




Film studios


3.5 spaces

Office


2 spaces 2.5 spaces 1.5 spaces 2 spaces 3 spaces

Place of assembly


2 spaces

Residential hotel

0.4 spaces per room

Retail premises


4 spaces 4 spaces (Area A in the map to this schedule)

3 spaces (Area B in the map to this schedule)

2 spaces (Area C in the map to this schedule)

1 space 4 spaces

Page 55 of 91




Requirement

the Docklands Zone

Car Parking in

2.2 Major Sports & Recreation Facility

A permit is not required for car parking associated with the Major Sports & Recreation Facility if it complies with the following:

Within the Batman’s Hill Precinct (DZ3)


• The total number of spaces does not exceed 1,800.

• Vehicular access to the car parks in the Batman’s Hill Precinct are designed to avoid conflicts with the major pedestrian movement access routes through and within the Batman’s Hill Precinct to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Within the Stadium Precinct (DZ4)

• The total number of spaces does not exceed 3,600.

• The car spaces are constructed as a component of or in association with the Major Sports and Recreation Facility.

• Vehicular access to the car parks in the Docklands Stadium Precinct are designed to avoid conflicts with the major pedestrian movement access routes for the Major Sports and Recreation Facility to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• The provision of car parking spaces in excess of 2,600 and the access arrangements of these spaces are demonstrated to be consistent with the efficient operation of the Melbourne Docklands area road network to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• On land at the north-west of the Major Sports and Recreation Facility, no more than 500 spaces.

Within Comtechport (DZ5)

• The total number of spaces within the precinct does not exceed 600.


Page 56 of 91




Requirement

the Docklands Zone

Car Parking in

3.0 Layout and design of parking spaces and structures

• Car parking spaces should not be visible from any street frontage or the waterfront. This does not apply to a ground level car space for the use of a dwelling and which adjoins or forms part of that dwelling in accordance with a planning permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• The dimensions of car spaces and access to such car spaces, should be consistent with the provisions of AS 2890.1- 1993.

• Parking structures should be carefully designed with articulated facades containing active edges to principal streets and public spaces.

• Vehicular access to parking and service areas should be designed to minimise disruption to pedestrian movements and minimise their visual impact on architectural and streetscape qualities.

• Open lot car parks are discouraged on all principle frontages.


Before deciding on an application to use or develop land for car parking, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: • Any relevant Local Planning Policies.

• Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area, including in the context of any future changes in car parking and traffic conditions.

• The safety and convenience of pedestrians moving to and from and within the car parking facility, including lighting levels, surveillance systems, signage and visibility.

• Whether the development includes bicycle and motor cycle parking.

• The particular use proposed with regard to the likely car parking demands generated.



Page 57 of 91




Requirement

the Docklands Zone

4.0 Decision Guidelines cont.

• The points of ingress and egress for vehicular traffic.

• The management of car parking and management arrangements for events.

• The proposed landscaping and screening of car parking facilities and areas.

• The extent to which the proposed access point would conflict with any proposal to limit or prohibit traffic in certain roads.

• The provisions for parking and loading of vehicles and access of parking spaces and loading bays on land and water.

Page 58 of 91



Map to Car Parking in Docklands Zone Parking Precinct Plan

Page 59 of 91




Requirement

Car parking provision for residential development in specific inner city areas of Melbourne

1.0 Permit Requirement

A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the car parking rates specified in Table A of this schedule.

Car parking rates for the areas shown in the map to this schedule are based on a maximum rather than minimum provision of car spaces for each land use category.

Table A

Use All areas specified in the map to this schedule

Dwelling 1 space / dwelling


Before deciding on an application which seeks to increase the maximum number of car parking spaces, the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

• Any relevant Local Planning Policies.

• Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces that should be provided.

• The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car parking demands generated.

• The availability of car parking in the locality.


• Whether the development includes bicycle and motorcycle parking.

NB: The occupiers of any dwellings approved by permit subject to the provisions of this Schedule may not be eligible for Resident Priority Parking Permits.

Page 60 of 91



Map to Car Parking Provision for Residential Development in Specific Inner City Areas of Melbourne Precinct Plan

Page 61 of 91



1

Amendment C133 – Maximum Residential Car Parking Rate Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment Process

Minister’s Authorisation to Prepare

10 October 2008

Report submissions to Council 7 April 2009

Amendment exhibited 20 November 2008 to 31 January 2009

Submissions received

Panel Hearing

Panel Report

Amendment adopted by

Council

We are here

Decision to exhibit Amendment

8 July 2008

Amendment approved by

Minister for Planning

Council can change the amendment in the manner suggested, refer the amendment to a panel or abandon the amendment or part of the amendment.

Council reviews the Panel’s recommendations. Can adopt, change or abandon the amendment.

Panel makes recommendations to Council.

Page 62 of 91



1

Amendment C133 – Maximum car parking rate for residential developments in certain parts of the municipality Summary of Submissions (received by 30th January 2009) No. Submitter Issues Proposed response

1 Dr Bruce Campbell (Carlton)

The submitter agrees with the statement that public transport is excellent in the inner city and that most people who live in the inner city probably do walk, cycle or catch public transport if they work in the CBD. However, the submitter believes that what this proposal ignores is that public transport outside the CBD is far less developed and people require vehicles for that purpose. It is submitted that this proposal is very unlikely to reduce CBD traffic congestion as there are already sufficient disincentives to driving into the CBD given the cost of parking, traffic congestion and easy alternatives. It creates unnecessary inconvenience for those people who do need to travel away from the inner city.

The areas included in the Amendment have been selected based on car ownership rates, journey to work data, accessibility to a range of alternative modes of transport and to supermarkets and the presence of on-street resident parking schemes.

As well as the proposed maximum rate for on-site car parking, Council is implementing tighter management of on-street parking.

The resident parking scheme that currently applies in Carlton, the area the submitter is concerned with, includes a restriction on parking permits issued to new developments (post 1 June 2005) that increase the density of dwellings.

There are a number of other initiatives being undertaken or supported by the City of Melbourne. For example, the City of Melbourne supports car sharing as a way of reducing the demand for on-street parking, using cars more efficiently and providing access to a car as needed by residents and workers without the cost of owning a car.

No changes to the Amendment are recommended in response to this submission.

Page 63 of 91

2

2 Leanne Barsby The submitter believes that the amendment discriminates against families as these often require two separate vehicles, one for the care-giver and one for the bread winner. It is also submitted that Australia is unlike places such as Europe, Japan or Vietnam where motor bikes are used for short trips. The submitter also explains that due to their particular circumstance (two parents and six children), one car park for their family is not sufficient. The submitter believes that Council is sending out the message that families are not welcome in the CBD and that it is exclusively for single people and childless couples. Furthermore, the submitter believes that a superior transportation system is required in Melbourne, such as that in Japan.

It is not totally clear whether the submitter fully understands the intent of the amendment as the submitter’s current parking arrangements won’t be affected by this amendment – the amendment will only apply to off-street parking for new developments. The submitter also refers to the CBD which this amendment does not affect as maximum rates already apply there.

The proposed maximum car parking rate is discretionary not mandatory and it is considered that a suitable level of discretion is provided through the proposed decision guidelines for cases where a higher rate of parking provision may be appropriate.


3 Service Authority - South East Water

No objection to the proposed amendment No changes to the Amendment are

recommended in response to this submission.

4 James Guest (Jolimont)

The submitter believes that the documentation presented to the September 2008 Planning Committee is too lengthy and may have discouraged Councillors to read through it and get a good grasp on the proposal put before them. It is submitted that it is not inner city residents who clog the streets. It is also submitted that visitor parking has not been taken into account.

This amendment is a direct action out of the Transport Strategy adopted by the Planning Committee in august 2006 and an analysis was undertaken by external consultants to evaluate the appropriate maximum rate and the areas to which it should apply. The consultants’ report was presented to the Planning Committee at its September 2008 meeting.

The proposed maximum rate is discretionary not mandatory. The proposed decision guidelines provide sufficient flexibility and allow for the

Page 64 of 91

3

The submitter does not believe sufficient evidence has been presented to support this 180 degree reversal of the current policy to require developers to provide a minimum number of off-street car parking spaces. The submitter believes that traffic congestion and parking problems would be better resolved through well designed congestion charges.

consideration of a variety of factors when assessing application to provide more than the maximum rate specified.


5 Dr Daniel Paez (Soutbank)

Fully support Amendment C133 No changes to the Amendment are recommended in response to this submission.

6 Andrew Townley (Carlton)

The submitter opposes the reduction in the number of car parking spaces per dwelling. The submitter owns a five bedroom property in Carlton, where five people reside and each requires a car for transport to work or studies away from the CBD. The submitter claims that public transport is not a viable option for any of them. At present they are allowed 2 parking permits which they consider insufficient for their needs. The submitter puts forward that a further reduction in the number of car parking spaces will make the already congested area even worse for parking. The submitter believes that a reduction in the number of car spaces per dwelling will not result in increased use of public transport but increased inconvenience to property owners and rate payers. It is submitted that in Torquay, where the submitter works, the Surfcoast Shire is investigating ways to increase the number of car parking spaces available because of demand from local residents. The submitter strongly suggests this Council also consider this option.




7 Matthew Ford The submitter is a property owner in the affected areas and also owns three other properties in the City of Melbourne and This submission is supportive of Amendment

Page 65 of 91

4

lives in the CBD. The submitter believes that this type of amendment is excellent. Traffic congestion has reached unacceptable levels in and around the city and additional car traffic cannot be accommodated without severely curtailing the amenity of the inner city for all users - residents, workers and visitors. If anything, the proposed amendment should be more stringent, with a maximum rate of 0.5 cars per dwelling or even lower. There are so many car parks already that a rate of one car park per dwelling will continue to add more car parks in the inner city than are required. Most new dwellings in the City of Melbourne in the affected area are studios, one bedroom or two bedroom apartments; most new households are one or two person only. In the 2006 census, only about half the households in the affected areas had cars. The submitter has lived in the CBD for six years and in the block where he is now, with multilevel car parking, he estimates that about 1/3 of the car parks are always empty because households do not have cars. This low demand means that developments with fewer car parks will still be profitable for developers. Car parks are a big waste of resources and contributes to the expense of housing, when central Melbourne has so little affordable housing. Public transport is excellent in inner Melbourne, while walking and cycling are also good options. Most trips for inner city residents are to and from the inner city. The City of Melbourne's support for car sharing should be extended to integrate car sharing arrangements with new developments, to even further reduce the demand for privately owned cars and reduce congestion, while providing access to a car when needed for all residents and workers.

C133.

The suggestion to extend the area to which the maximum car parking rate applies to and to lower the rate even further is noted. Council officers will investigate this.


Page 66 of 91

5

The submitter hopes to see future amendments that extend the area of a maximum car parking rate and a reduction in the maximum rate.

8 Roger Pond (Southbank)

The submitter believes that such a restriction on car parking spaces built within apartment towers will not discourage residents from taking up car ownership but will simply increase pressure on the availability of on-street spaces available, which is already problematic. The submitter believes developers should be encouraged to provide as many off-street parking spaces in residential dwellings as possible. The submitter also believes Kavanagh Street should be changed to a one-way street south->north to reduce traffic down Southbank Blvd.

On-street Resident Parking Permit Schemes apply to the areas that will be affected by Amendment C133 and Council is working on the implementation of tighter and more efficient management of on-street parking.

The submitter’s request for Kavanagh Street to be changed to a one-way street for travel from south to north is not something that can be dealt with through this Amendment and it has been sent to the appropriate department.


9 Phil Ridgeway (Carlton)

The submitter’s concern is that the proposed amendment will increase congestion and parking problems in the future let alone attempt to remedy the current situation. The submitter believes Council should encourage the provision of a greater number of car parking spaces to reduce the current congestion and parking problems.

Inner city population growth and the supporting services required for this population (services, trades, health, deliveries, visitors etc) will increase the pressure on traffic congestion and parking problems.




10 Christopher Lawrence

It is submitted that the only possible traffic caused by residential parking restrictions is the outbound traffic leaving

The proposed maximum rate is discretionary not mandatory. The proposed decision guidelines

Page 67 of 91

6

the area – something to be encouraged.

Why is it that “off-street parking for new residential developments” is the only areas being considered? Surely, the best form of vehicular congestion reduction is by reducing “on-street” parking.

It is submitted that the proposal restricts those who live and work in the area and do not own a car to get to work but rather to get out of the city on week-ends.

Furthermore, it is submitted that the family based population will be driven out of the area.

It is therefore submitted that the amount of “off-street” parking ought to be increased rather than decreased to allow families back into the area; bring about an increase in community living; reduce problems of lawlessness in the CBD and make Melbourne truly the “world’s most liveable city”.

The submitter calls for the proposal to be withdrawn until a full community impact report can be compiled.

provide sufficient flexibility and allow for the consideration of a variety of factors when assessing application to provide more than the maximum rate specified.

There are a number of other initiatives being undertaken or supported by the City of Melbourne. For example, the City of Melbourne is supportive of car sharing initiatives as a way of reducing the demand for privately owned cars, while providing access to a car when needed by residents and workers.


11 Mark Roberts (North Melbourne)

The submitter supports this proposal on the basis that it will reduce local parking congestion and will promote greater efficiency in private vehicle usage and purchasing.

The submitter also encourages the Council to consider the introduction of a traffic congestion charge for private and commercial vehicles entering the Capital City Zone.

This submission is supportive of Amendment C133.

It is not the purpose of Amendment C133 to deal with traffic congestion charges.


12 Russell and Janet Mansfield (Southbank)

The submitters understand why Council is trying to reduce the number of cars coming into the CBD. However they believe that there is little point enforcing restrictions on the number of cars which have to leave the CBD each morning. It is submitted that Council will drive families out of the CBD.

There are a number of other initiatives being undertaken or supported by the City of Melbourne. For example, the City of Melbourne is supportive of car sharing initiatives as a way of reducing the demand for privately owned cars, while providing access to a car when needed by

Page 68 of 91

7

A better suggestion: Certainly restrict parking spaces for future developments but only for commercial and business buildings, not residential buildings.

residents and workers.

The suggestion to apply maximum rates of parking to other uses (commercial and business buildings), not just dwellings, is noted and will be investigated by Council officers.


13 Lindsay Doig (Southbank)

It is submitted that urban dwellers require private vehicles for trips that cannot be undertaken by public transport or on foot. It is submitted that the sensible approach would be to increase the requirement for onsite parking in apartment blocks to avoid kerbside parking becoming even more congested. The requirement for the provision of onsite parking should be increased rather than reduced.


On-street Resident Parking Permit Schemes apply to the areas that will be affected by Amendment C133 and Council is working on the implementation of tighter and more efficient management of on-street parking.


14 Ek Meng Liew (West Melbourne)

The submitter believes amendment C133 is both unfair and counter-productive. The reasons stated are as follow: 1. The amendment does not take into account the number of person(s) actually living in the dwelling. Thus, a 4-bedroom apartment with potentially 4 persons living in there will receive the same amount of car space as a 1-bedroom apartment. 2. There is already a shortage of parking in the areas proposed; any further limitation to car space attached to new

The proposed maximum car parking rate is discretionary not mandatory and it is considered that a suitable level of discretion is provided through the proposed decision guidelines for cases where a higher rate of parking provision may be appropriate (such as larger dwellings).

On-street Resident Parking Permit Schemes apply to the areas that will be affected by Amendment C133 and Council is working on the

Page 69 of 91

8

development will only exacerbate the problem. 3. Not all residents living in the area actually work in the city, thus the argument that all inner city residents can use public transport is flawed. 4. Limiting the car park will adversely affect the local economy. By limiting the car-spaces, customers will shy away from local businesses and the local economy will suffer. 5. Limiting the number of off-street parking in new dwellings will drive up the price of existing properties with car parking. The submitter believes that the way to solve the problem of moving people in our city lies in providing multiple ways of getting to our destination. Until such time as public transport is faster, more reliable and cheaper than private vehicle travel, people will continue to drive.

implementation of tighter and more efficient management of on-street parking.


15 Peter Wearne for the Melbourne Cricket Ground (Jolimont)

The submitter notes from the Fact Sheet received that the planning amendment “will apply to off-street parking for new developments only”.

In the fact sheet, highlighted in yellow is the land affected by the amendment. Included in the yellow highlighted area is Yarra Park which includes the Melbourne Cricket Ground. As these areas are not zoned residential and not be the subject of residential development it is submitted that they be removed from the area subject to Planning Scheme Amendment C133.

The proposed car parking requirement will apply to residential developments, whether zoned residential or not. Yarra Park is in a Public Park and Recreational Zone, where dwelling/accommodation is an allowable use.

The proposed maximum car parking rate does not affect the current use and operation of Yarra Park/Melbourne Cricket Ground.


16 Dr Vladimir Bosanac (North Melbourne)

As a North Melbourne resident, the submitter strongly opposes the suggested amendment of 1 car park space per dwelling, which they see as an extension of Council’s decisions to waive parking requirements for both residential and business developments over the last few years.

The areas included in the Amendment have been selected based on car ownership rates, journey to work data, accessibility to a range of alternative modes of transport and accessibility to supermarkets.

Page 70 of 91

9

The submitter also suggests Melbourne City Council look into better use of available road space (especially around North Melbourne) to increase on-street parking spaces (likely by hundreds) using for example middle of the roads parking space available or use perpendicular parking in wide roads to the footpath, or shortening of the space towards intersection where possible and appropriate. Only when such strategies are exhausted, restriction of residents’ current benefits should occur.


The resident parking scheme that currently applies in Carlton is being rolled out on the 27th of February 2009 to North Melbourne, the area the submitter is concerned with. This scheme includes a restriction on parking permits issued to new developments (post 1 July 2008) that increase the density of dwellings.



17 Mike Vallis (Southbank)

The submitter strongly opposes the amendment for socio-economic reasons. The submitter is of the opinion that the ones to benefit from this will be the property developers who will build blocks of flats with rental parking space. Consequently the traffic decongesting argument will not work.

New housing developments should provide for adequate on-site parking facility (minimum 1 car space per residence).

In relation to the socio-economic argument put forward by the submitter, although not the only rational for this planning scheme amendment, one of the rational is housing affordability. Indeed, parking contributes a significant cost to a residence in terms of construction, which is then passed on to the buyer. Minimum car parking rates (as is currently the case across all of Victoria except for the Melbourne CBB, parts of Southbank and Docklands) effectively impose a cost onto developers and property owners for something they may not necessarily want or use (as evidenced by the relatively low car ownership rate amongst inner city residents as well as the

Page 71 of 91

10

number of planning applications requesting a waiving or reduction of the current minimum car parking rates).


18 GM & MC Cottrell (Southbank)

The submitter considers the proposed amendment to be inappropriate and ill conceived and that the reasons given in support of the amendment are flawed.

It is submitted that the reason for having cars when living in the areas concerned is not to have access to the CBD but rather to go out of the central areas. Many of these outlying areas are not well served by public transport and require a motor vehicle.

The submitter believes that the amendment discriminates against people who live in these close-in suburbs while people who live outside the close-in suburbs are able to have 2 car spaces and drive to the CBD.

It is the submitter’s view that it would be better to require dwellings to have at least 2 car spaces and reduce the amount of street parking.

The average vehicle ownership rates for the City of Melbourne in 2006 were 0.61 for one-bedroom dwellings, 0.92 for two-bedroom dwellings and 1.32 for three-bedroom or larger dwellings. The ownership rates for the CBD, Carlton, North Melbourne and Southbank are significantly lower than these average rates.




19 Nick Jones It is submitted that the main people to benefit from this would be the developers of the new dwellings, and in particular, blocks of units as they would not have the expense of including car parking, and would be able to use the extra space to provide more units, thus increasing their profit at the

The areas included in the Amendment have been selected based on car ownership rates, journey to work data, accessibility to a range of alternative modes of transport and to supermarkets and the presence of on-street

Page 72 of 91

11

expense of both new and existing residents. It is submitted that reducing off-road parking will not encourage new residents to not own cars but rather will force them to park on the road, thus increasing the traffic congestion problem. The submitter therefore opposes the proposal and urges Council keep (or even increase) the current minimum car-parking requirement.

parking schemes.




20 Brad Carr (North Melbourne)

Whilst the submitter understands the good intention of trying to force people into public transport (and the submitter points out that he walks to work every day), the submitter believes this proposal would have some terrible impacts for existing residents that don't seem to have been thought through. Residents' parking in permit areas is already congested and competitive, particularly at peak times. This proposal, which will likely force 2-car households and their visitors to park in the on-street permit areas, will only exacerbate this problem.

It is also submitted that for any property developer in the inner-city, space is very much at a premium in their own deliberations and economics - so if they do choose to build multiple parking paces, they do so at an economic cost to themselves. Why does Council see it as necessary to legislate over and above this?


The resident parking scheme that currently applies in Carlton was rolled out on the 27th of February 2009 to North Melbourne, the area the submitter is concerned with. This scheme includes a restriction on parking permits issued to new developments (post 1 July 2008) that increase the density of dwellings.

In relation to the submitter’s second point, although not the only rational for this planning scheme amendment, one of the rational is housing affordability. Indeed, parking contributes a significant cost to a residence in terms of construction, which is then passed on to the buyer. Minimum car parking rates (as is currently the case across all of Victoria except for the Melbourne CBB, parts of Southbank and

Page 73 of 91

12

Docklands) effectively impose a cost onto developers and property owners for something they may not necessarily want or use (as evidenced by the relatively low car ownership rate amongst inner city residents as well as the number of planning applications requesting a waiving or reduction of the current minimum car parking rates).


21 Chris Taylor (Carlton)

The submitter requests the unlimited parking situation in the road centre of Barkly Street Carlton be reviewed as it is believed by the submitter that cars are being dumped there indefinitely.

The submission is in relation to on-street parking and more specifically the lack of restriction to on-street parking in Barkly Street, which the submitter believe has lead to people dumping cars in the street. This matter was referred to Council’s Parking and Traffic Department.


22 Rhys Goodey, Hygiela Nominees Pty Ltd (North Melbourne)

It is submitted that St Andrew’s Street in North Melbourne is a private street, not owned by the City of Melbourne but by the joint registered proprietors of the houses along it.

It is further submitted that the street is so small and narrow that it could not accommodate more than one car, even if it was governed by the City of Melbourne rules and any proposed changes.

The submitter has misunderstood the purpose of this Amendment as their submission relates to on-street parking in a privately owned street.


23 Keith Brien (North Melbourne)

The submitter puts forward the following grounds for objection:

• The assumption put forward by this amendment that reducing the required off street car parking spaces will result in fewer cars being owned has not been demonstrated nor achieved anywhere in the world.


Page 74 of 91

13

• There is no corresponding plan to increase the number of public on street parking spaces, when there is clearly going to be a greater demand for this if less off-street spaces are provided by new developments. And as there is no correlation between the number of resident parking permits issued and the available number of public car spaces, there will be greater competition for on-street parking spaces and reduced amenity for existing residents.

• Many Victorian communities that rely on week-end visitation of Melbourne city dwellers for their financial survival cannot be accessed via the public transport system.

• There is no certainty that people purchasing new dwellings in these areas will find work within the CBD public transport network and they would either have to own a car or be unable to seek work elsewhere, the result may be disadvantage, crowded and lawless ghettos.

It is submitted that:

• developers of properties within the proposed boundaries are to meet the existing guidelines regarding provision for car parking OR

• Provide long term secure and centralised parking positions in stations on the outer CBD Public Transport hub, provided by the developers of inner city residential properties and inclusive within title to those dwellings. These car spaces are to remain within the ownership and authority of the Body Corporate of each development. OR

• Contribute the value of the equivalent number of car





Page 75 of 91

14

spaces toward construction of centralised parking stations close to public transport hubs to facilitate the use of public transport by suburban commuters working in office and mixed use developments.

24 Panorama Owners Corporation (Carlton)

It is submitted by the submitter that the current off-street and on-street parking provisions for residents of the development are insufficient and that the amendment will only make the situation worse. Providing fewer spaces on site will only result in more cars being parked in the fewer spaces available in the street.




25 Department of Sustainability and Environment – on behalf of the Minister for Environment

No objection No change to the amendment is recommended in response to this submission.

26 VicRoads – on behalf of the Minister for Roads and Ports

No objection No changes to the Amendment are recommended in response to this submission.

27 East Melbourne Group Inc.

(East Melbourne)

The submitters support measures to improve public transport in inner-Melbourne and incentives for its use, as well as the reduction of parking on inner-Melbourne streets.

However, it is submitted that Amendment C133 fails to address the following issues:

- The reduction of parking within residences to a


Page 76 of 91

15

maximum of one car will push cars onto residential streets.

- Service, maintenance and social visitors extend car parking requirements and it is better that these be accommodated where possible within residential premises rather than being pushed onto the streets.

- Owners’ additional vehicles are better parked within their premises rather than by use of ‘floating’ permits.

It is submitted that it is imperative that developers provide adequate parking for all future residences rather than reducing their number.




28 Suzannah & Chris Andrews (North Melbourne)

The submitters believe that it is a laudable goal for the Melbourne City Council to seek to make the city greener and more liveable. However, the current proposal is an excessively blunt instrument. As such it will have a number of unintended consequences (inefficient and environmentally unsound living practices by discouraging house-sharing as only one person in each dwelling will have access to a vehicle; exclusion of diversity in the inner city due to an influx of single adult households; and, the exclusion of inner city dwellers from public services) that will produce the very opposite result.




There are a number of other initiatives being undertaken or supported by the City of Melbourne. For example, the City of Melbourne is supportive of car sharing initiatives as a way of

Page 77 of 91

16

reducing the demand for privately owned cars, while providing access to a car when needed by residents and workers.


29 Brian & Nina Corney

(Carlton)

It is submitted that the Amendment is too blunt a template to apply to the affected area and it ignores the needs of individual residents.

The submitters outline their plan to redevelop a site they own in Carlton and use it as their family home. They explain that due to their circumstances a restriction of one car space on site would not be suitable.

Although the submitters understand the policy parameters behind the Amendment and believe that in respect of large-scale commercial residential developments this is a laudable and preferred solution, they believe that it does not take into account the housing requirements of what they call bona-fide residents.

The submitters suggest balancing the proposal in the following manner:

- For private owner/occupier residences allowance should be two vehicle spaces either as of right OR presumption that it will be given, only able to be displaced in exceptional circumstances

- This right not extend to commercial developments or properties developed for sale or use other then by the owner of the site (as an individual or other entity controlled directly by the individual owner).

The submitters believe that the benefits of the suggestion they have put forward include:

- Broad intent of council’s policy can still be implemented

The proposed maximum car parking rate is discretionary, not mandatory, and it is considered that a suitable level of discretion is provided through the proposed decision guidelines for cases where a higher rate of parking provision may be appropriate.


Page 78 of 91

17

in the overwhelming number of cases

- Protects residents who wish to remain in the relevant area adding to its vitality

- Minimal numbers involved so that there is no impact on the thrust of Council’s policy.

30 Elspeth Strong

(Carlton)

The submitter has put together arguments in relation to the Transport Strategy, which was approved by Council in 2006, and provides details of their and their neighbour’s circumstance as examples.

In relation to the Amendment, it is submitted that it assumes that those who come to live in the new developments are young, fit, unburdened by children or elderly relatives, work normal hours (on weekdays only) in the city and have sufficient time and mobility to walk, ride a bike or take public transport for work and leisure purposes. It also assume that those who visit them will be the same type of people and come from a short distance by foot, bicycle or public transport.

It is submitted that lowering the number of off-street parking spaces will not increase the use of public transport if public transport system is not improved or becomes more convenient or practical for the needs of the residents.

It is submitted that the likely outcome of a maximum of 1 car space per dwelling is that occupants will put their second car (and their visitors’ cars) in the street thus increasing the pressure on car parking for existing residents and lowering the amenity of the area for them.





31 Allan Rodger for the Owner Corporation No.23393 for

The submitter, Owner Corporation for Station Mews, states that in time there will be redevelopment either of the whole complex or of individual units (the complex currently includes 6 residential units with 10 off-street parking spaces). In light of

The proposed maximum car parking rate is discretionary, not mandatory, and it is considered that a suitable level of discretion is provided through the proposed decision guidelines for

Page 79 of 91

18

Station Mews (Carlton)

this:

The Owners Corporation submits that Amendment C133 should, if necessary, be modified to include a proviso that any future limit on off-street car parking should be not less than the present provision (of ten spaces) and further that any limit on the redevelopment of one or more units should be no less than their combined pre-existing provision.

cases where a higher rate of parking provision may be appropriate.


32 Diana & Vladimir Bosanac (North Melbourne)

The submitters strongly object to the proposed amendment and believe that the possible shortage of car spaces in these areas resulting in the suggested changes were created by the unreasonable and long-standing policy of the City of Melbourne to allow the development of new dwellings with allowances of wavering the parking requirements. The submitter listed a number of such planning applications.

The submitter believes Council should stop such generosity to new developments, force the required car parking spaces per newly developed dwelling and retain the rights of current residents.

The areas included in the Amendment have been selected based on car ownership rates, journey to work data, accessibility to a range of alternative modes of transport and to supermarkets and presence of on-street resident parking schemes.




33 Elysha Cummins The submitter requests an exemption in order for her and those she shares a house with to be able to continue parking their cars.

The submitter has misunderstood the purpose of this Amendment as the amendment will only affect off-street parking for new developments, not the on-street resident parking permits they currently have or are eligible to apply for.

No changes to the Amendment are

Page 80 of 91

19

recommended in response to this submission.

34 Warren Green, John Reginald McLean, Jennifer Coppens, Anne Clay, Warwick Clay, Lyn Cracknell, Wayne Fitzgerald, Mark Risicato (Carlton)

It is submitted that this proposed amendment discriminates against those with a genuine need for two cars by assuming that all households can be equally serviced by the same set of inflexible transport options.

The submitters make the following points:

• The travel patterns of local residents are substantially different to those of commuters. Many local residents have little need for commuting transport within the subject area but there are others who travel to places beyond and it is these who have a need for a residence based vehicle.

• As households forgo one of their two vehicles and are more likely to forgo the second small car as opposed to the primary large vehicle, there could be an increase in large vehicle mileage and a reduction in that travelled by small cars.

• The adoption of this amendment will artificially manipulate property values by causing existing dwellings where multiple car parking is available to attract a premium.

• The submitter believes that a similar exercise undertaken in Holland was judged “unsuccessful” in the mitigation of the woes that this amendment is aiming to eliminate.

The submitters are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment but while evidence may suggest that such policy may be appropriate for the CBD, it is not applicable in the surrounding areas which are subject to different parameters.



35 Dr Wayne Fitzgerald

It is submitted that residents do regularly move further a-field rather than just in and around the CBD and that they need a

The areas included in the Amendment have been selected based on car ownership rates, journey

Page 81 of 91

20

(Carlton) motor vehicle to do so because no other transport is available or convenient. Furthermore, not all households are single adult households and these often own and require more than one vehicle to be parked and accessed.

It is also submitted that on-street parking should be available to visitors to these areas who come to partake in the area’s amenities such as shopping, museums and theatres, rather than residents whose vehicles should be parked off-street.

The submitter also believes that garages are often used for other purposes such as storage, workshop, gym and to make it ‘illegal’ to have this space is unreasonable and may have ‘antisocial’ connotations detrimentally affecting the mental well being of some residents.

Finally, the submitter believes that student type accommodation which little on-site parking has little regard to possible future use of these developments and may be future time-bombs in regard to putting pressure on on-street parking.

to work data, accessibility to a range of alternative modes of transport and to supermarkets and presence of on-street resident parking schemes.


36 Fulcrum Town Planners on behalf of Banco Group of Companies

The submission is in respect to a large area of West Melbourne including 350-550 Spencer Street, West Melbourne, which is not included on the map of the proposed schedule to Clause 52.06-6.

The submitter believes that within a metropolitan context these areas are exceptionally well located in terms of their proximity to:

- Fixed rail travel, in particular Flagstaff Station, Southern Cross Station and the Spencer Street and Latrobe Street Trams.

- Multiple bus routes along Spencer Street.

- Convenient walking and cycling access to the

The submission appears to be supportive of the amendment as it in fact suggests introducing the maximum car parking rate to an additional area of North Melbourne. Parts of North Melbourne and West Melbourne were not identified by Ratio in their report as suitable for the proposed maximum car parking rate due to the following:

Higher car ownership rates Lack of tram network (reliance on train

network only) Residents are permitted two parking

permits.

When all of the contributing factors were overlaid, these areas were at a disadvantage compared to

Page 82 of 91

21

Melbourne CBD.

- A full line Coles Supermarket and other specialty shops at Southern Cross Station.

- The Queen Victoria Market on the east side of Flagstaff Gardens.

- Passive and active recreation opportunities within Flagstaff Gardens.

The submitter considers that given their locational advantages, such areas should be included within the car parking ‘limitation’ policy area. Indeed, the submitter states that application of the car parking limitation policy to these areas would support sustainability objectives of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and would contribute to the efficient use of land and delivery of well located and affordable housing – outcomes encouraged by the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

the areas affected by the amendment.


37 Lorraine Levy (North Melbourne)

It is submitted that by limiting parking availability to residents there will be a resulting reluctance for people to live in the area, which will create a greater overall use of transport to get to work.

It is submitted that the increasing residential use of the affected areas has improved the growth and creation of communities in which there is a balance between commerce, entertainment and homes.

Limiting parking availability to residents will not necessarily deter people from living in these areas as evidenced by the CBD, where maximum rates already apply, and which has seen a substantial increase in population. Furthermore, the areas subject to the amendment have been selected because of the level of accessibility to alternative modes of transport and to goods and services and because they already display relatively low rates of car ownership.


38 Janet Cocks (East Melbourne)

The submitter agrees that we need to work to develop an effective plan to reduce traffic and parking problems in the City of Melbourne but the submitter is concerned that this

The areas included in the Amendment have been selected based on car ownership rates, journey

Page 83 of 91

22

amendment to reduce the number of on site parking spaces in new developments to a maximum of 1 will actually force new residents with multiple vehicles to now park on the streets.

As a current resident, the submitter feels that this proposal will adversely affect her opportunity to park on the street.

to work data, accessibility to a range of alternative modes of transport and to supermarkets and presence of on-street resident parking schemes.



39 Graeme Cocks (East Melbourne)

The submitter objects to this proposal because in his view it fails to address the potential negative impact on on-street parking. While the intent to reduce traffic volume is admirable it is also imperative that this is not done in isolation from other major factors.




40 Victoria Hamer (Carlton)

The following comments are made by the submitter: 1. The Proposed Amendment does not adequately reflect the diversity of development in The City of Melbourne.

In particular it fails to distinguish between the High Density of the Capital City zone and the medium density residential zones which surround it. The proposed amendment will only increase pressures within Carlton for the sort of high density developments which are fatally destructive to the amenity and Heritage values of the Suburb.

2. The Proposed Amendment is also inconstant in the areas to



The resident parking scheme that currently

Page 84 of 91

23

which it applies. It is difficult to see why East Melbourne or Parkville - areas of substantial similarity to Carlton - should be exempt whilst Carlton is included.

3 The Proposed Amendment is incorrectly justified on the grounds that “Carlton is well-supplied with public transport.” Except in the most superficial sense this is not in fact the case.

Although there are plentiful public transport links between Carlton and the CBD, apart from this, journeys between Carlton and any other part of the City remain difficult or impossible on public transport. Nor is this situation likely to change in the foreseeable future due to the ongoing failure (of the State Government) to adequately maintain and expand the public transport system. Consequently to assume that residents of Carlton will not need cars in daily life is a gross misreading of the state & distribution of public transport in Melbourne as a whole.

4 The Proposed Amendment will have adverse social consequences for the City.

The Proposed Amendment is likely to contribute significantly to further economic stratification of the City, as residents on lower incomes and tradesmen – who are more likely to be dependent on cars for work or to travel to work – are forced to move away from the Inner City.

5 The Proposed Amendment will adversely affect the amenity of future residents in the City.

The Amendment also assumes that residents will not need to travel to, or receive visitors from anywhere outside Melbourne. On the contrary it is likely that most residents will continue to value the flexibility that individual car ownership affords and continue to require parking spaces. Experience large cities in Europe & North America in particular bears this out.

applies in Carlton, the area the submitter is concerned with, includes a restriction on parking permits issued to new developments (post 1 June 2005) that increase the density of dwellings.


Page 85 of 91

24

6. Finally the Amendment fails to place sufficient value on the public amenity asset of plentiful car parking.

There is after all, no reason to suppose that car parking provided in residential developments now need be permanently dedicated for the use of residents. The potential exists to convert residential parking facilities to public use – and thus over time further reduce on-street parking.

In summary, the submitter believes that the proposed amendment:

1. Fails to adequately consider the likely impacts on the amenity and heritage character of Carlton.

2. Fails to treat Carlton in consistent way with other comparable Inner City areas of the Municipality, specifically East Melbourne and Parkville.

3. Relies on a lamentably superficial appraisal of the quality and availability of public transport in Greater Melbourne

4. Will considerably reduce the diversity of the residential population of the Inner City by making residence more difficult for any but those on high incomes

5. Makes unrealistic assumptions as to the continued demand for car ownership amongst City residents, and

6. fails to take into account the long-term value of off-street parking by means of increasing the amenity of the suburb

41 Francesca Mutton

(East Melbourne)

The submitter considers the amendment unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. This planned change is discriminatory to those in the inner city and CBD. Either it should apply to ALL new

Limiting parking availability to residents will not necessarily deter people from living in these areas as evidenced by the CBD, where maximum rates already apply, and which has

Page 86 of 91

25

residential developments in all councils in Melbourne, or it should be dropped. It is unfair to discriminate in order to "reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking".

2. The City of Melbourne should be taxing people from the outer suburbs driving into the city, if its objective is to "reduce the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of traffic and parking". The City of Melbourne should not be penalising those residents in the inner city/CBD by limiting car parking to only 1 carspace per new residential development. The traffic generated in the CBD/inner city is not from the inner city/CBD residents but from those living in outer suburbs driving into the city.

3. This planned change would not encourage further development in the inner city/CBD dwelling. Instead it would discourage it. Property developers would be hard pressed to sell developments with such limited parking. We are not yet at the stage of being 'car-less'.

4. The proposed change implies there is only1 person per dwelling if 1 car space per dwelling is all that is allowed. However, often there are 2 persons per dwelling and both require a carspace for their cars. Not all dual occupanies are husband/wife where they may be able to share a car. Often dual occupancies are flatmates that cannot share a car.

5. The proposed change assumes only 1 car park per dwelling is necessary in the CBD and surrounds. Many that live in the CBD/inner city do not work in the CBD, but work in distant outer suburbs. Many are provided a car as part of their salary because they need to travel for their work to distant sites that are not serviced by public transport. Many companies require that those with a car provided as part of their salary park their car securely, and not in a public car parking station overnight.

seen a substantial increase in population.




Page 87 of 91

26

6. It prevents a 2nd person in a dual occupancy of a residential dwelling from parking their car under their dwelling, forcing them to park their car permanently in public car parks. This is not a desirable option for most people. It is unsafe.

42 Fulcrum Town Planners on behalf of Central Equity Ltd

The submission is in relation to a large area of West Melbourne, including Batman and Jeffcott Streets, which are not included on the map of the proposed schedule to Clause 52.06-6.

The submitter believes that within a metropolitan context these areas are exceptionally well located in terms of their proximity to:

- Fixed rail travel, in particular Flagstaff Station, Southern Cross Station and the Spencer Street and Latrobe Street Trams.

- Multiple bus routes along Spencer Street.

- Convenient walking and cycling access to the Melbourne CBD.

- A full line Coles Supermarket and other specialty shops at Southern Cross Station.

- The Queen Victoria Market on the east side of Flagstaff Gardens.

- Passive and active recreation opportunities within Flagstaff Gardens.

The submitter considers that given their locational advantages, such areas should be included within the car parking ‘limitation’ policy area. Indeed, the submitter states that application of the car parking limitation policy to these areas

The submission appears to be supportive of the amendment as it in fact suggests introducing the maximum car parking rate to an additional area of North Melbourne. Part of West Melbourne was not identified by Ratio in their report as suitable for the proposed maximum car parking rate due to the following:

Higher car ownership rates Lack of tram network (reliance on train

network only) Residents are permitted two parking

permits. When all of the contributing factors were overlaid, ratio considered that this area was at a disadvantage compared to the areas affected by the amendment.


Page 88 of 91

27

would support sustainability objectives of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and would contribute to the efficient use of land and delivery of well located and affordable housing – outcomes encouraged by the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

43 Gaye Pearson (Docklands)

The submitter has recently purchased an apartment at Victoria Harbour off the plans, which is due for completion at the end of this year. The submitter agrees with Council’s proposal but believes it should only affect new properties and not be retrospective or back-dated.

The Amendment is not retrospective; it will only affect new developments being assessed against the planning regulations after approval of this Amendment. The Amendment also doesn’t affect Docklands, which already has maximum car parking rates. No changes are recommended in response to this submission.

Page 89 of 91

Agenda Item 5.1 Planning Committee

7 April 2009

FINANCE ATTACHMENT


There are no significant financial implications associated with the recommendations contained in this report.

Joe Groher Manager Financial Services

Page 90 of 91

Agenda Item 5.1 Planning Committee

7 April 2009

LEGAL ATTACHMENT


Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 3 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”) set out the process for amending a planning scheme. This includes exhibition, giving notice of the proposed amendment, receiving public submissions and the appointment of a panel to hear submission in relation to the proposed amendment.

Section 22(1) of the Act provides that Council must consider all submissions made on or before the date set out in the notice. Further, pursuant to section 23(1) of the Act after considering a submission which requests a change to the amendment, Council must:

“(a) change the amendment in the manner requested; or

(b) refer the submission to a panel appointed under Part 8; or

(c) abandon the amendment or part of the amendment.

Kim Wood Manager Legal Services

Page 91 of 91