Western Australian Local Government Association T: (08) 9213 2000 E: info@walga.asn.au

www.walga.asn.au/

Local Government Car Parking Guidel ine

Western Australia

December 2020

CURRENT PRACTICE

Local Governments generally set minimum parking ratios forindividual land uses in local planning schemes or policies toensure that development provides sufficient parking for customersand staff onsite.

This approach aims to internalise parking demand generated bydevelopment, reduce demand on public parking, provide driverswith access to businesses, and reduce the number of vehiclescruising for parking.

KEY ISSUES

This approach causes a number of key issues, including:• underused parking bays in non-peak periods• more traffic, air and noise pollution• suboptimal built form and use of land, and• inflates the cost of new development, which is passed on to

customers, tenants and home buyers.

The simplicity of calculating and enforcing minimum parking ratiosusing this conventional approach may continue to be useful in arange of situations, particularly where resources to conductparking surveys are limited.

However, alternative approaches exist and Local Governments inWestern Australia are beginning to adopt and apply theseapproaches for the benefit of local communities, businesscustomers and workers, and developers.

WHO IS THIS GUIDE FOR?

This guide is prepared for Local Governments in Western Australiawho are seeking to trial and adopt alternative approaches. Theguideline aims to help Local Government Elected Members,planners, engineers, parking inspectors, rangers and facilitymanagers when preparing and adopting parking strategies, plansand local policies.

The success of policy options provided in the guideline is highlydependent on effective parking enforcement. While enforcement isa critical element of parking management, it involves a range ofseparate challenges and solutions. Consequently, the guidelinebriefly mentions enforcement where it directly interacts with thepolicy options discussed but otherwise lies outside thescope.

WHO PREPARED THE GUIDE?

This guide was prepared by the Western Australian LocalGovernment Association (WALGA) in collaboration with officers ofthe Local Government Car Parking Reference Group, theDepartment of Transport and the Department of Planning, Landsand Heritage. WALGA sincerely thanks all contributors, withoutwhich the guideline would not have been possible. This guidelinewill be updated at regular intervals. This version is the firstiteration.

Version 1 Friday, 4 December 2020

Introduction

2

1. PARKING POLICY REVIEW

Contents

2. OFF-STREET PRIVATE PARKING

6. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

4. OFF-STREET PUBLIC PARKING

3. ON-STREET PARKING

5. COMMUNITY EDUCATION

Appendices are available from the WALGA website.

7. CASE STUDIES

3

Preparing the Guideline

WORKSHOP (2017)

Local Government Officers noted:

applied to manage the demand for parking generated by new development but may not be the best approach

is uncertain, and

built form outcomes and other community objectives.

REFERENCE GROUP (2019)

Made up of Local Government officers and representatives from key agencies, to help prepare a discussion paper and guideline.

INVESTIGATION & REPORT (2018)

Review of Local Government Car Parking Requirements in Western Australia (2018) - Examination by consultant to identify the rationale used by Local Governments to set and use parking ratios. The report found that minimum ratios are poorly related to demand generated by development and may be impeding the optimal use of land and environmental, economic and social objectives.

DISCUSSION PAPER (2019)

Local Government Car Parking Discussion Paper (2019) - Outlines issues related to the application of minimum ratios and alternative approaches. Released to Local Governments and stakeholders for input.

FINAL GUIDELINE (2020)

Prepared for Local Governments seeking to trial and adopt alternative policy approaches. Draft released to Local Governments for input.

4

1. PARKING POLICY REVIEW

5

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

Many factors (both historic and current)have contributed to a culture of cardependency in Western Australia. Thesefactors include an abundance of space;development of many neighbourhoodsfollowing widespread car ownership in themid-twentieth century; high levels of publicinvestment in road infrastructure; and, anabundant supply of off-street parking,usually costed at below-market land prices.

RAMIFICATIONS

Cars play an important role in supportingcommercial activity and providing access toemployment, education and recreation;however, incentivising high levels of car usethrough parking provision has a number oframifications, which include:

• increased parking and vehicle use, whichincreases noise, air and water pollution,and impervious surfaces that increaseurban temperatures

• increased traffic congestion and reducedpublic and active transport

• increased construction and businesscosts, which can reduce housingaffordability and business viability anddeter redevelopment of older buildings,particularly on small lots

• inactive and visually unappealing parkingspaces between buildings

• inequitable use of public space, forexample, alternative uses such asparklets, bike lanes and alfresco diningallow more people to use public space

• suboptimal use of land, limiting propertytax opportunities, and

• reduced ability of authorities to considera development application on merit inrespect to location, operating hours,

staffing, shared parking and atendency to park once and walk toseveral services.

PARKING IS NOT FREE

Additionally, assumptions that car parking isfree or provided at low-cost areuntrue; parking provision is expensive andpaid for by users and non-users. Forexample, the land and construction cost ofproviding free parking at shopping centresis recovered through commercial rents,which in turn may be passed ontoconsumers in the price of coffee, food,clothes and other goods and services.

Reconsidering the way parking is providedand managed allows communities to thinkabout using unnecessary parking space inother ways, like parklets, bioswales,alfresco dining, active transport, gardensand trees, and others, demonstrated inFigure 1 (over page).

PARKING POLICY REVIEW

1.1 Implications of Parking Policy

free or provided at low-cost is untrue; parking provision is expensive and paid for by users and non-

6

PARKING POLICY REVIEW

provided and managed allows communities to think about using unnecessary parking space in other ways

7

1.1 Implications of Car Parking Policy

Figure 1: Alternative uses of car parking space 7

1.2 Three Components of Car Parking

OFF-STREET PRIVATE PARKING

Provides exclusive use for residents, staff, customers or service vehicles and ensures that specific users are guaranteed a parking bay. Off-street private parking also helps minimise overspill into on-street parking bays and facilitates shared parking with neighbouring land uses.

ON-STREET PARKING

Includes parking on the street in a marked or unmarked bay or within the verge (if permitted). On-street parking provides easy access to destinations, helps address overspill from off-street parking, can provide buffers for pedestrians from traffic and can help reduce vehicle speeds.

OFF-STREET PUBLIC PARKING

Provided in or near town centres, either at-grade (ground level) or multi-storey and shared by different users. Local Government or commercial operators construct and operate these facilities. Off-street parking takes pressure off on-street supply, may help new development meet parking requirements, and can improve land use efficiency using multi-storey facilities.

8

It is important to recognise the inter-dependencies between each component, and the opportunities they offer for improvingparking provision and management, by influencing supply and demand. This guideline includes a separate section on eachcomponent.

Local Governments can influence eachparking component to help achievestrategic community objectives. Forinstance, changes to parkingrequirements for new apartment buildingscan reduce development costs and in-turn, improve housing affordability.

Changes to on-street parkingmanagement can help businessesimprove access to customers andimprove the vibrancy, functionality andsafety of town centres and public places.

Changes to off-street public parking canimprove the appearance and safety ofstreetscapes and provide parking thatenables and maximises new developmentand economic outcomes.

Short, medium and long term strategiescan assist Local Governments to choosethe right mix of parking policies to helpachieve strategic objectives, including:

• reducing traffic congestion in centres

• improving access to customers, forlocal businesses

• improving the appearance and safetyof streetscapes

• improving vibrancy and functionality oftown centres and public places

• improving the economic viability ofactivity centres

• encouraging walking and cycling

• improving access to public transport

• improving affordable housing options

• ensuring an adequate supply of parkingat times of peak demand, and

• promoting a healthy and activecommunity.

PARKING POLICY REVIEW

each parking component to help achieve strategic community

1.3 Strategic Community Objectives & Parking

911

Awareness of contemporary trends willassist Local Governments whenconsidering policy options. These trendsindicate that demand for parking is likely toplateau and may decrease over time,providing an opportunity for LocalGovernments to consider policyalternatives aimed at creating healthier andmore vibrant, people-friendly communities.

PEAK CAR

Declining vehicle-kilometres travelled percapita, number of driver licenses issued,and fuel use, indicate that car use mayhave peaked in many countries. Manytheories for these trends exist, includingincreased urbanisation, environmentalawareness and young people acquiring a

license at a later age. Thesechanges are likely to reduce demand forparking and increase demand foralternative transport modes.

PUBLIC & ACTIVE TRANSPORT REVIVAL

There has been a local and globalresurgence in public transport investmentwhich is related to a renewed demand formixed-use, walkable urban centres. This ispartly due to the capacity of rail and itsability to transport large numbers ofpeople. Public investment in activetransport is also growing. Shifting trips tonon-car based transport reduces demandfor parking and increases demand for otheruses of space currently occupied by cars.

LIBERALISATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS

Many cities in the United States andEurope are relaxing minimum parkingrequirements or eliminating them, inrecognition of the substantial direct andindirect costs associated with parkingminimums. Where minimums have beenremoved, they have not been reintroduced.

RETURN TO THE CITY

Most cities in Australia are increasing thenumber of dwellings in inner city areas.Denser urban populations lead to higherlevels of interaction and knowledgesharing, recognised as prerequisites forgrowing specialised skill sectors, alsoknown as knowledge economies. Denserurban populations can create a tension formore roads and parking, limiting other,more productive land uses if improperlymanaged.

DEVELOPMENT & ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY

Cashless transactions, mobile phone use,data collection and processing, andwireless connectivity will influencetransport behaviours. These technologieshave enabled the mass rollout of

PARKING POLICY REVIEW

1.4 Trends Influencing Car Parking

indicate that parking demand is likely to plateau and may

10

on-demand transport and deliveryservices, and will help rideshare andautonomous vehicle services grow. Thesechanges provide authorities with two keyopportunities: (1) use technology tooptimise existing parking supplies; and (2)understand travel and parking behaviour.The influence of technology on parkingdemand is discussed in Appendix 4:Autonomous Vehicles.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The proportion of Australians aged 65years and over, currently 15% (or 3.8million), is projected to grow steadily inthe coming decades, meaning that moreAustralians will have assisted mobilityneeds which may increase demand foron-demand transport. Youngergenerations, who are increasinglycomfortable using technology, will alsodemand these services, reducing theneed for parking. The growing use of on-

demand services will increase the needfor on-street infrastructure to supportthese services.

SUSTAINABILITY

The consideration of economy, societyand the environment is becomingmainstream practice in policy anddecision-making. These considerationsare likely to influence the cost to providevehicles and fuel, and associatedregulations. Transport users, providersand manufacturers will adjust the waythey build, own and operate vehicles inresponse to these evolving regulationsand costs, exemplified by the evolution ofhydrogen and electric fuelled vehicles.These alternative fuels will influenceparking practices when used incombination with autonomous andconnected technologies.

PARKING POLICY REVIEW

1.4 Trends Influencing Car Parking

-demand services will increase the need for on-street infrastructure to

11

1.5 Principles of Policymaking

FAIRNESS & EQUITY

Policies treat all landholders and residents impartially. For instance, the provision of on-street parking for car users may disadvantage others who have an interest in accessing that space for cycling, walking, alfresco dining or creating gardens and parklets.

When formulating and adopting public policy, it is important for Local Governments to considerhow well different policy options align with well-founded policymaking principles.

EFFECTIVENESS

Policies make an effective, safe and positive impact and demonstrate a net community benefit. Authorities can choose from a range of indicators for measuring effectiveness: occupancy; mode share; car-use; local business revenue; commercial and retail vacancies; pedestrian activity; crash rates; and, parking fines.

AFFORDABILITY

Policies should represent value for money both now and in the future, and use resources responsibly.

ADAPTABILITY

Policies are adaptable to change over time, to respond to changing consumer demands, technologies and community priorities.

PROCESS EFFICIENCY

Policies avoid introducing unnecessary or cumbersome controls that make regulation complex.

COMMUNITY ASPIRATION

Policies align with the shared hopes that residents and business owners have for the future of their community. These aspirations can vary across neighbourhoods.

12

Changes to parking policy can bepolitically unpopular with negativelyaffected segments of the community andare likely to be more accepted whenimplemented incrementally.

This approach allows the community timeto adjust to small changes in parkingaccess, as opposed to introducingsudden, substantial changes.

An incremental approach allows LocalGovernments time to consult, trial,measure, and evaluate if parkingobjectives are likely to be realised prior toadoption and broader rollout.

The following page provides an exampleof a phased approach to parking policyreform.

The following sections detail each policyoption.

The list of policy options outlined in thisguideline is comprehensive but notexhaustive and Local Governments areencouraged to undertake further researchwhen considering these options toachieve local strategic objectives.

PARKING POLICY REVIEW

1.6 Incremental Approach to Reform

likely to be more accepted when

1315

TOWN CENTRE GOALS

• driver centric accessibility• free parking at all times• no mode shift targets

POLICY OPTIONS

• peak-demand minimum parking ratios for each land use

• discretionary discounts• time limited on-street parking• at-grade public off-street parking • signage advises location of carparks• irregular parking surveys

POLICY OPTIONS

• location-based requirements parking maximums

• grouped land uses• paid on-street parking in peak times• multi-storey public off-street parking• digital technology advises location of

vacant bays • Elected Member involvement and

public education• regular parking surveys

TOWN CENTRE GOALS

• active and public transport access prioritised

• park once and walk district• strong mode shift targets

POLICY OPTIONS

• minimum requirements removed• dynamic or demand responsive

pricing • multi-storey off-street parking,

adaptable to changes in use• mobile phone apps advise location

of vacant bays• parking benefits district• regular Elected Member involvement

and public education• automated parking surveys

CASE STUDIES

Town of Victoria Park

1 2 3

Incremental Approach to Policy Reform

TOWN CENTRE GOALS

• multiple forms of accessibility, including active and public transport

• user-pays parking near destination• modest mode shift targets

CASE STUDIES

City of VincentCity of Rockingham

City of StirlingCity of Melville

City of Joondalup

Conventional Approach

14

2. OFF-STREET PRIVATE PARKING

15

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

Off-street private parking providesexclusive parking for residents, workers,customers or service vehicles, and aimsto limit the impact that these users mayhave on surrounding private and publicland.

MINIMUM PARKING RATIOS

Most Local Governments set minimumparking ratios (or requirements) forindividual land uses in local planningschemes or policies, to ensure thatparking demand generated bydevelopment is internalised andaccommodated on private land.

These ratios are commonly determined bypredicting peak demand for eachindividual land use. For example, a newshop may be required to provide one newparking bay for every 20m2 of net lettablearea, while a new restaurant may berequired to provide one new parking bay

for every four customers. Planningauthorities usually adopt these ratios fromother jurisdictions or industry guidelines,meaning that the ratios applied locallymay not reflect the surrounding context ofindividual development sites or thedemand generated by an individualdevelopment or differing communitybehaviours and expectations. Thisapproach to parking regulationcontributes to a number of issues, asdiscussed in Section 1.

As urban populations grow and demandfor private and public space increases,this approach to parking regulation maycompromise a Local abilityto meet environmental, economic orsocial objectives. This section outlines arange of options for modifying thisconventional approach (Section 2.1) orshifting to an alternative approach(Section 2.2).

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

2.0 Introductionthe surrounding context of individual development sites or the demand generated by an

16

2.1.1 DISCOUNTS

Discounts applied to minimum parkingrequirements can help ensure that:

• parking requirements reflect thesurrounding context of a developmentsite

• minimise the creation of unnecessaryparking

• improve built form outcomes, and

• help reduce development costs.

State Planning Policy 7.3: ResidentialDesign Codes provides an example ofdiscounts for parking applied toresidential land uses. Under the policy,proponents of residential land useslocated within: 800m of a train station; or250m of a high frequency bus or light railroute; or within the defined boundaries of

an activity centre, can propose a reducedparking requirement. This reducedparking requirement is a discount fromthe baseline requirement because cardependency, and therefore parkingdemand, is likely to be lower due to theavailability of alternative transport. Similarconcessions can apply to non-residentialuses.

Local Governments intending to usediscounts should clearly outline discountsand criteria in a local planning scheme orpolicy. Figure 2 (over page) sets out thecriteria commonly applied by planningauthorities.

A number of criterion refer to highfrequency public transport routes. LocalGovernments can use the definitionoutlined in State Planning Policy 7.3:Residential Design Codes: publictransport route with timed stops that runsa service at least every 15 minutes during

week day peak periods (7:00am to9:00am and 5:00pm to 7:00pm .Distances are preferably calculated usingthe established footpath network.

To facilitate discounts, LocalGovernments can outline in a localplanning policy that proponents seekingdiscounts need to demonstrate, whensubmitting a development application,how parking or travel demand generatedby the development will be met.Standard clausing and requirements forincluding in a local planning policy are setout in Appendix 3.

Local Governments should note thattravel behaviour change programs can beused to facilitate mode shift; however,travel plans run with the land, are usuallytailored for the original occupant, can bedifficult to enforce and may not achievemode shift if other forms of transport areunavailable.

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

2.1 Modifying Conventional Approaches

use discounts should clearly outline discounts and criteria in a

17

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

BUSThe proposed development is within 250m of a high frequency bus route or bus station.

RAILThe proposed development is within 800m of a rail station.

PUBLIC CARPARKThe proposed development is within 400m of one or more suitable, existing public car parking places.

SHAREDParking bays designated as part of the development application as shared parking.

TOWN CENTREThe proposed development is located within the defined boundaries of an Activity Centre, Town Centre or Local Centre or zone.

CYCLINGThe proposed development provides end-of-trip facilities for bicycle users, and bicycle parking, in addition to facilities required under any other provision and/or is within 400m of a suitable cycling network.

MOTORCYCLEEvery two motorcycle spaces can replace one car space, up to XX% of the minimum parking requirement.

ON-STREET PARKINGAvailability of on-street parking in the locality.

MIXED-USEThe proposed development contains a mix of uses, provided that the required provision of visitor bays for each use are made available to visitors at all times.

HERITAGEThe building/place is listed on the Heritage List, Municipal Inventory or the State Register of Heritage Places (subject to the building or place being conserved to the satisfaction of Council).

CAR-SHARE VEHICLESEach car share vehicle offsets five spaces (equates to a relaxation of four spaces).

USAGE DATAThe proposed development contains parking controls that monitor and control use through boom-gates (or similar) and ticket issuing machines.

MOST COMMON CRITERIA LESS COMMON CRITERIA

18

2.1.2 RECIPROCAL PARKING

Reciprocal parking arrangements allownon-residential uses that operate ondifferent but nearby lots at different timesto share parking. For example, reciprocalparking may occur between an office anda restaurant, where office workers useparking bays during the day andrestaurant users use the same bays in theevening.

Local Governments should require relevantparties to submit reciprocal arrangements(detailed in a legal instrument) withdevelopment applications. Detailscommonly include parking capacity, usagetimes and other relevant considerations.Where businesses operate on the samelot, such as in a small complex, LocalGovernments would not normally requireformal reciprocal arrangements.Schedule 2 cl 77G of the Planning

Regulations Amendment Regulations 2020provides for the application of conditionsrequiring shared parking arrangementsand sets out important considerations forLocal Governments.

2.1.3 UNBUNDLING INCENTIVES

Unbundling is an approach used toexclude some or all parking bays from thestrata title of a property to accommodateresidential and non-residential propertiesthat may want fewer parking bays than theminimum parking requirement or none atall.

Under this model, property owners canpurchase the exclusive right to own or rentthe number of parking bays needed whenpurchasing property from a developer or abody corporate can manage parking baysas common property.

Prior to the mid-1990s, all car bays inmultiple dwellings were commonlyunbundled and managed as commonproperty; however, the current market forbundled parking in residentialdevelopment in Western Australia isstrong, even on sites within walkingdistance to public transport and shoppingcentres. Planning authorities canincentivise unbundling, although there arefew examples of successfulimplementation.1

SOURCES

1 Gold Coast City Council City ParkingPlan (2015) adopted an unbundlingincentives policy but was recentlydiscontinued.

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

-residential uses that operate on different but nearby lots at

2.1 Modifying Conventional Approaches

19

2.2.1 GROUP LAND USES & RATIOS

Grouping land uses with similar parkingdemand into categories, helps rationalisethe number of different parking ratios inplanning schemes and policies. Thisapproach simplifies the applicationprocess for proponents and planningauthorities. Grouping land uses can alsoreduce the number of change-in-useapplications. For instance, if the existingand proposed new use falls into the samecategory, the parking requirement for thenew use would not change, meaningparking would no longer be a relevantplanning matter requiring assessment.

Below is an example of grouped land usecategories with similar parkingrequirements. Some land uses mayrequire their own ratios, e.g. servicedapartments and hotels.

A number of Local Governments inWestern Australia have implemented thisoption. Section 7 provides a case studyexplaining the City of approach.

EXAMPLE:

GROUP 1Medical Centre, Consulting Room, VetCentre

GROUP 2Amusement Parlour, Office

GROUP 3Child Care Premises, Club Premises,Cinema/Theatre, Family Day Care,Nightclub, Place of Worship, ReceptionCentre, Recreation-Private

GROUP 4Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar

GROUP 5Restaurant/cafe, Small Bar, Tavern

GROUP 6Shop, Betting Agency, ConvenienceStore, Restricted Premises

GROUP 7Civic Use, Fuel Depot, Industry, BulkyGoods, Showroom, Transport Depot,Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales,Warehouse / Storage

SOURCES

Adapted from the City ofPlanning and Building Policy Manual,Policy No: 7.8.1: Non-ResidentialDevelopment Parking Requirements

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

similar parking demand into categories, helps rationalise

2.2 Alternative Approaches

20

2.2.2 PARKING MAXIMUMS

Local Governments can set a maximumsupply limit on the number of parkingbays provided for an entire location or forindividual land uses within a location, toaccommodate the local road networkcapacity and/or encourage the use ofpublic and active transport.

The State Government encouragesplanning authorities to use parkingmaximums in activity centres2 andprecincts.3 Local Governments inWestern Australia have applied parkingmaximums for non-residential uses4 andfor residential uses as a variation to theresidential design codes.5

Effective on-street parking management iscritical for preventing parking overspillwhere authorities introduce maximums.

Parking maximums are most successful in

locations with access to frequent publictransport and planning authorities oftenremove minimum requirements wheremaximums are introduced.

Section 7 provides a case studyexplaining the City ofapproach to applying parking maximumsin local activity centres.

SOURCES

2 Parking Guidelines for Activity Centres(Department of Transport 2016)

3 Draft State Planning Policy 7.2: PrecinctDesign (Western Australian PlanningCommission 2019)

4 City of Vincent, City of Rockingham andCity of Subiaco

5 City of Fremantle

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

Australia have applied parking maximums for non-residential

2.2 Alternative Approaches

21

2.2.3 LOCATION-BASED REQUIREMENTS

Some Local Governments in WesternAustralia have shifted away from settingminimum parking requirements based onpredictions of peak demand for individualland uses and instead, set minimumrequirements according to a particular

parking demand and supply.

This approach, known as location-basedparking requirements, allows LocalGovernments to take a more nuancedapproach to setting parking requirementsto account for variations in parking supplyand demand at different locations.

The approach recognises that parkingbehaviour cannot be predicted by landuse but is influenced by a wide range offactors that are difficult to measure and

consistently determine across context.These factors include the availability ofpublic parking, lot sizes, state of the localeconomy, and the types of businesseswithin the centre.

Location-based requirements are usuallyset at a flat rate per square metre of netlettable or gross floor area, e.g. fiveparking bays per 100 square metres ofnet lettable area, and applied to all non-residential land uses.

The City of Stirling has set location-basedrequirements for each of itsneighbourhood and local centres and canadjust these requirements as supply anddemand changes in each location.Section 7 provides a case studyexplaining the approach.

The City of Vincent has taken a slightlydifferent approach. The City grouped landuses with similar parking demand into tengroups then set minimum and maximumparking requirements for each groupaccording to the different built-formareas, considering parking supply in eacharea. Each group of land uses has adifferent minimum and maximum whichchanges according to built-form area.6

SOURCES

6 City of Planning and BuildingPolicy Manual, Policy No: 7.8.1: Non-Residential Develojment ParkingRequirements

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

-based requirements, allow Local Governments to account for variations in parking supply and demand at different

2.2 Alternative Approaches

22

2.2.4 REMOVING OFF-STREET REQUIREMENTS

Authorities in some locations haveremoved parking minimums and allowdevelopers to decide how many parkingbays are required for their buildings to beleasable and meet customer needs. Thisapproach is most common in areas whereexisting parking is under-utilised. InLondon, the removal of parking minimumsreduced the amount of parking suppliedby new development to 52% of theprevious minimum requirement. The Cityretained its parking maximums.7

The New Zealand Government announcedin 2020 that planning authorities mustremove minimum parking requirementsfrom all urban areas of greater than10,000 people.8 In Australia, the City ofGreater Bendigo (Victoria) adopted a planto remove parking requirements from itscity centre zone.9

The removal of minimum requirementsmay seem like a dramatic shift inapproach; however, change is likely to begradual, as homes and businesses areslowly developed or redeveloped.Authorities who have removed minimumrequirements have not reintroduced them.

Local Governments who remove off-streetrequirements to encourage mode shiftaway from car use should be aware thatmode-shift may be limited without accessto frequent public transport or whereparking options are abundant.

SOURCES

7 Putting a Gap on Parking (Shoup 2015)

8 National Policy Statement on UrbanDevelopment 2020 (New ZealandGovernment 2020)

9 Council Minutes, City of GreaterBendigo (6 May 2020)

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

parking minimums and allow developers and businesses to decide how many parking bays

2.2 Alternative Approaches

23

2.3.1 CAR SHARING

Local Governments can support car-sharing operators to reduce parkingdemand by providing on-street or off-street bays for share cars or byencouraging the provision of share carbays in new development.10 Examples inNew South Wales demonstrate that onecar share bay can reduce individualprivate parking demand by five car bays.

Local Governments can charge car shareoperators11 but generally, these operatorsrequest the free use of parking space toachieve financial viability. Providing publicspace to private operators at no costraises issues of fairness and equity andmay favour some operators over others, ifspaces are not provided to all operators.

To achieve profitability, car sharingoperators require high vehicle utilisationand therefore, require high populationdensities.

Allocating on-street parking bays to carsharing may lead to resident and businessowner complaints, due to the perceptionof reduced availability of parking for staffand customers.

To alleviate these concerns, LocalGovernments can allocate off-street carsharing bays adjacent to public land orrequire new development to locate thesebays on-site.

Car share operations result in less overallcar use and ownership and therefore,drivers who choose not to use a car shareservice still benefit from the reduction incompetition for road space and parking.12

SOURCES

10 City of Planning and BuildingPolicy Manual, Policy No: 7.8.1: Non-Residential Development ParkingRequirements

11 The City of Melbourne charges $5,400per space in the Hoddle grid and $3,800per space, per year outside of the Hoddlegrid.

12 For more information see The Impact ofCar Share Services in Australia (PhillipBoyle & Associates 2016)

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

sharing operators require high vehicle utilisation and therefore, require high population

2.3 Other Policy Options

24

2.3.2 CAR STACKERS

Car stackers are an emerging designresponse aimed at fitting more parkingbays into smaller spaces.

When assessing proposals that includecar stackers, Local Governments shouldconsider:

• the capacity of the stacker toaccommodate all vehicles that need toaccess the development and whetheror not the stacker causes obstruction13

• relevant safety standards14

• the Department of Fire and EmergencyServices car stacker guideline,15 and

• maintenance considerations.

SOURCES

13 The City of Newcastle (NSW) includesthe following provision in its local planningframework: parking, includingmechanical devices, occurs only where itcan be demonstrated that it will beoperationally efficient and not causeunreasonable in Traffic,Parking and Access (City of Newcastle,accessed online Aug 2020).

14 AS5124:2017 Safety of Machinery -Equipment for Power driven parking ofmotor vehicles - Safety and EMCrequirements for Design, manufacturing,erection and commissioning stages.

15 GL-14: Fire Safety in Car StackerSystems (Department of Fire andEmergency Services 2017)

OFF-STREET PRIVATE

design response aimed at fitting more parking bays into smaller

2.3 Other Policy Options

25

26

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

3. ON-STREET PARKING

Changes to private off-street parkingprovision and management will affectdemand for parking on the street and inoff-street public parking facilities.

This section looks at options forimproving the management of on-streetparking. Section 4 discusses public off-street parking facilities.

OUTCOMES

Well-designed and managed on-streetparking is inexpensive to providecompared with off-street parking andhelps Local Governments to:

• provide convenient access to localbusinesses and residences

• reduce the number of cars cruising forparking, reducing noise and airpollution and driver frustration

• reduce vehicle speeds in main streets

• provide a barrier between pedestriansand passing traffic, and

• increase parking bay turnover andactivate streets.

As Western populationincreases and development in urbanareas intensifies, effective on-streetparking management will become morecritical.

Local Governments in Western Australiahave introduced Parking Local Lawssupported by a variety of policies toimprove on-street parking management.This section discusses those policies.

It is important to note that these policieswould have no effect without firstintroducing a Parking Local Law.

ON-STREET

3.0 Introduction

-street parking provision and management will affect demand

27

3.1 KERB HIERARCHY

Once a Local Government has allocatedspace for on-street parking afterconsidering alternative uses, the first stepto effective on-street parkingmanagement is to prioritise kerb use byestablishing a user hierarchy inconsultation with the local community anda cross-section of specialisations such asurban designers and design engineers.

Depending on the location, prioritykerbside users may include delivery andservice vehicles, ACROD parking, taxis,buses and rideshare services, short-termbusiness customers and residentialvisitors. The growing uptake ofautonomous vehicles is also likely toincrease demand for kerbside space toaccommodate passenger drop-off andpick-up.

Generally, it is preferable to prioritise on-street parking for short-term users who

wish to access local businesses, inpreference to long-term users such ascommuters and staff, who may occupyparking bays all-day. Encouragingbusinesses to provide worker parking inoff-street facilities gives customersaccess to the most convenient bays andcan be achieved by offering workers lowercost parking passes.

More information is available inAustroads Guide to Traffic Management.

3.2 TIME LIMITS

Local Governments can use time limits toaccommodate prioritised kerbside users.For instance, shorter time limitsencourage parking bay turnover,increasing the number of customers ableto conveniently access local businesses.Time limits can also encourage shifts toother transport modes or to off-streetparking bays.

ON-STREET

3.1 Kerb Hierarchy3.2 Time Limits

-street parking management is to prioritise kerb use by establishing a kerb-

28

Local Governments using time limits needto consider: average occupancy data;times of the day to impose limits; and, theneed for clearways in peak times.16

SOURCES

16 For a recent example see BayswaterTown Centre: Short-term ParkingManagement Plan (City of Bayswater2019).

3.3 PRICING

In Western Australia, the Council of eachLocal Government must make decisionsabout parking fees in accordance withs.6.16 and s.6.17 of the Local GovernmentAct 1995.

The adopted parking fees must be includedin the Schedule of Fees and Charges,included in the Local budget

and made publicly available on LocalGovernment websites.

3.3.1 CONVENTIONAL PRICING

Generally, Local Governments thatintroduce paid parking may consider:

• allocating a zero dollar per hour chargein low demand periods, rather than freeparking with no ticket, to discourage asense of entitlement to free parking

• pricing on-street parking higher than off-street parking to encourage short-termusage and increase parking bay turnover

• providing access to information aboutvacant parking through signage andapps, and ensure the provision ofadequate pay machines or phoneservices, to improve customerconvenience.17

• reinvesting revenue into streetscapeimprovements and alternative transportto demonstrate the benefit of paidparking to the local community andbusinesses

• establishing a local parkingmanagement committee, including localbusinesses, to help refine the paid-parking program and educate thecommunity about thebenefits, and

• trialling the impact of fees prior topermanent introduction. Trials mayinclude public education, lenientenforcement such as warnings, controlareas to compare trial sites, andoccupancy, customer and localbusiness surveys.

ON-STREET

3.3 Pricing way of managing on-street

29

Best practice on-street parkingmanagement suggests that pricing shouldbe set at a rate that achieves 10-15%parking bay availability on any block atmost times.

Varying prices between periods of highand low demand, using Dynamic Pricing orDemand-Responsive Pricing options,discussed below, is more likely to achievethis objective than flat pricing.

Section 7 provides a case study explainingthe City of approach to paid on-street parking in activity centres.

SOURCES

17 For example, see Parking installsparking solution for mostsustainable shopping (ParkingAustralia, accessed online Aug 2020)

3.3.2 DYNAMIC PRICING

Dynamic pricing is the term used todescribe an approach where parking feesand free-parking periods are variablyapplied to accommodate parking demandchanges experienced within a day orduring a week.

For instance, in off-peak periods, freeparking periods may be longer or parkingfees lower, to increase parking demand.During peak-demand periods, free parkingperiods can be reduced or parking feesincreased, to encourage parking turnover.Dynamic pricing can be an effectiveapproach for achieving 10-15% parkingbay availability.

Section 7 provides a case study explainingthe Town of Victoria trial.

3.3.3 DEMAND-RESPONSIVE PRICING

Demand-responsive pricing is an extensionof dynamic pricing. Demand-responsivepricing requires regular review of parkingoccupancy, e.g. monthly, and decisions toadjust the schedule of fees if occupancyfor a particular area is found to be outsidethe objective range.

Demand response pricing is often relianton digital technology to identify andcommunicate real-time locations ofavailable parking bays, requiringsubstantial capital investment intechnology and maintenance. The GoldCoast City Council and the City of SanFrancisco have implemented this option.18

SOURCES

18 ParkInCentre Schemes (GoldCoast City Council) and SFpark Pilot

(San Francisco MunicipalTransportation Agency) online Aug 2020

ON-STREET

3.3 Pricing a rate that achieves 10-15%

30

3.4 PARKING BENEFITS DISTRICTS

Local Governments can establishparking benefit districts to allocaterevenue from parking fees and fines tomake public realm improvements,such as street cleaning, tree planting,lighting and crime prevention, withinthe location where the fees and fineswere collected.

This approach can help revitalise towncentres and reduce communityopposition and concerns oftenassociated with the introduction ofpaid parking.19

In Western Australia, the mechanismthat would allow this to occur is areserve fund, into which the transfer ofall or a proportion of revenue from thelocation would be directed, for laterexpenditure in that area.

The reserve fund should be supported

by a Council policy, detailing thepurpose and operation of the fund.

A committee of representatives fromthe Local Government, localbusinesses and the community couldbe established to makerecommendations to Council duringbudgeting processes, as to how thereserve fund might be spent.

Council might then make a decisionduring the annual budgeting processabout the withdrawal of funds from areserve account and the allocation ofthose funds to projects that accordwith the purpose of the reserve fund.

SOURCES

19 For more information seeBenefit (LA Metro 2020). Foran Australian example see,ParkInCentre Schemes (Gold

Coast City Council 2020).

ON-STREET

3.4 Parking Benefits Districts

help reduce community

31

3.5 RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS

Changes to parking management in mainstreet areas will create parking overspill innearby residential areas. In these areas, itis common for authorities to implement afree or paid permit system, enabledthrough Parking Local Laws, to exemptresidents from having to pay higher on-street parking fees.20

Permits are commonly allocated byaddress, as opposed to a particularresident, have an expiry date after whichtime an address would need to reapply,are not applicable in non-permit areas, donot guarantee parking availability, areconsiderate of existing on-site parkingspace, and are often limited to a certainnumber per address.

When setting the fee, Local Governmentsshould consider the value of the publicasset used, any administration andenforcement costs, and choosing an

amount that discourages people fromapplying for unnecessary permits.21

A transition approach might involveproviding free permits to an address untilthat address changes ownership.

SOURCES

20 For example, see(Town of Claremont, accessed online Aug2020)

21 For more information see s 8.10 ofGuide to Traffic Management Part 11:Parking (Austroads 2017)

3.6 ENFORCING OFF-STREETPARKING LAWS

Communities often attribute increaseddemand for on-street parking to residentsof new and higher density housing;however, studies show that on-street

parking demand is often attributable toresidents of detached housing. Theseresidents often have sufficient access tooff-street parking in garages anddriveways; however, these areas arecommonly used for storage or other uses.

Authorities who approve the constructionof a new dwelling with a garagetechnically approve the use of the garagefor storing motor vehicles. Where agarage is used for other purposes,landholders may be in breach of healthand building approvals.

In situations where garage use conflictswith the original approval and vehiclesassociated with the dwelling are parkingoff-site and causing issues, LocalGovernments should educate residentsabout the effects of misuse and that themisuse may breach an approval, prior toconsidering the enforcement of anapproval.

ON-STREET

3.5 Residential Permits3.6 Enforcement

residential permits might involve providing free permits to an address until a change in

32

4. OFF-STREET PUBLIC PARKING

33

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

Public off-street parking can be providedat-grade (ground level) or as multi-storeybuildings and is usually operated by apublic authority or commercial operator.Operators may fund and reserve thesefacilities for the exclusive use of nearbybusinesses or make them available to thebroader public. Multi-storey parking oftenincludes other uses such as hotels orground floor commercial. 22

FUNCTIONS

These facilities provide four mainfunctions:

• Take pressure off on-street parkingsupply and management

• Improve streetscape amenity whereappropriately located

• Improve land use efficiency throughaggregation of parking at a particularsite, and

• Provide an alternative for businessesunable to provide on-site parking.

CHALLENGES

These facilities can encourage car use,concentrate foot traffic in certain areas tothe detriment of other areas, and oftenrequire land in high-demand locations,which could be used for other purposes.

The most significant challenges for LocalGovernments looking to construct multi-storey carparks are the substantialconstruction and maintenance costs, andthe risk of redundancy caused by theuptake of rideshare services andautonomous vehicles.

The allocation of land for off-streetparking should be identified in strategicplanning documents, such as integratedtransport strategies, so that suitable landcan be allocated and infrastructuredevelopment funding secured.

LARGE ACTIVITY CENTRES

Local Governments seeking guidance onparking for large shopping centres andtertiary institutions should refer toguidelines prepared by the WADepartment of Transport. 23

SOURCES

22 Prahran Square in the City ofStonnington (Victoria) is a $60+ millioncarpark that includes 10,000 squaremetres of multi-functional urban parkland,sitting above 500 parking bays.

23 Parking Guidelines for Large ShoppingCentres (Department of Transport 2018)and Parking Guidelines for TertiaryEducational Institutions (Department ofTransport 2017).

OFF-STREET PUBLIC

4.0 Introduction-storey parking can

improve land use efficiency through aggregation of parking

34

Construction and maintenance costsdepend on a number of factors: designfees, land and construction costs, loanservicing, maintenance costs, enforcement,opportunity costs of land use and finance,and induced traffic demand and roadmaintenance.

Given these potentially substantial costs,Local Governments looking to constructpublic off-street facilities should firstoptimise the use of existing parking and putstrategies in place to reduce parkingdemand. Reducing parking demand can beachieved by implementing on-street parkingpolicies and encouraging the use ofalternative transport modes throughinvestment and education.

Local Governments contemplating off-streetparking facilities may need to comply withs.3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995depending on the value of the proposal.

Aside from general revenue, LocalGovernments have two main fundingoptions: cash in lieu and hypothecation.

4.1.1 HYPOTHECATION OF REVENUE

Local Governments can hypothecate fundsfrom alternative revenue streams into off-street public parking using an appropriatelegislative and policy framework. Forexample, Local Governments may apply aspecified area rate under s.6.37 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995, to raise funds in aparticular locality to provide or increaseparking in that locality.

Alternatively, Local Governments canallocate revenue received from on-streetparking to a reserve account established forthe purpose of funding off-street parking.Section 7 provides a case study explainingthe City of approach tofunding, designing and constructing the

Reid Promenade Multi-Storey parkingfacility using revenue hypothecated fromon-street parking.

The central Perth parking control area isanother example, governed by the PerthParking Management Act 1999 (PPMA). ThePPMA requires that all non-residentialparking bays are licensed and a licensed feepaid to the Office of State Revenue. Feesare used to finance free bus services and toconstruct bus, cycle and pedestrianinfrastructure.

Funds from cash-in-lieu payments aregenerally hypothecated to constructadditional parking, or public transport andactive transport infrastructure.

OFF-STREET PUBLIC

4.1 Funding Local Governments have two main funding options:

35

4.1.2 CASH-IN-LIEU

Cash-in-lieu is an important approach forensuring that development proponentshelp to meet parking and transport needswhere new development generatesparking demand that cannot be met onsite.

Including cash-in-lieu provisions in localplanning schemes allows LocalGovernments to require a payment fromdevelopment proponents in return formodifying the parking requirement, tocompensate for parking shortfalls. LocalGovernments direct the received revenueto constructing off-street parking facilitiesor parking demand reduction measuressuch as active and public transportsystems.

Criticism of cash-in-lieu schemes iscommon and usually directed at the rangeof different methods applied by authorities

to calculate cash-in-lieu; pooraccountability of funds; and, the absenceof a clear strategy for how funds are to beused.

Local policies can help limit exposure tocriticism by outlining calculation methods,criteria for allowing discounts andindicating how funds will be spent in thelocal area. Contributions from a particulararea should be spent within the samelocality. Fixing the cash-in-lieu amount fora particular area, with indexed increases,can provide certainty to proponents andmay be more efficient to administer.

Local Governments usually calculatecash-in-lieu contributions by adding thecost of land for a parking space with theadditional cost of construction andmultiplying the sum by the number ofrequired parking bays.

Some Local Governments also apply a

community-benefit reduction factor toreduce the contribution amount where thedevelopment or expenditure of thecontribution creates a substantialcommunity benefit.24

Regardless of the funding option chosen,it is important that funds are administeredwithin a transparent planning framework.

SOURCES

24 City of Melville and City of Canning

Note: The Planning RegulationsAmendment Regulations 2020 proposeda number of exemptions to cash-in-lieuand requirements for authorities toprepare a cash-in-lieu expenditure plan.These changes were not gazetted at thetime of publishing this guideline.

OFF-STREET PUBLIC

4.1 Fundingoption chosen, it is important that funds are administered within a transparent planning framework

36

Local Governments who construct publicoff-street facilities need to consider thepotential for decreases in parking demanddue to the uptake of rideshare servicesand in time, autonomous vehicles.

When designing multi-storey structures toaccommodate potential decreases indemand, it is important to consider usingincreased floor to ceiling heights andremovable ramps to allow parkingfacilities, or portions of these facilities, tobe repurposed.25

Local Governments can also require newdevelopments to provide parking spacethat is adaptable and easily repurposedusing similar design considerations. LocalGovernments can also prohibit stand-alone car parks in certain zones or requirethat car-parking developments sleeveparking with other uses such ascommercial or retail.26

Other options include adopting localpolicies that allow parking bays on privateland to be used for alternate purposessuch as parklets and alfrescolets .

SOURCES

25 Multi-storey carparks and parking floorsin commercial buildings have beenrepurposed to accommodate residentialand other uses. car parkin inUS transformed into designer micro-

(The Guardian, accessedAug 2020) and business addressstretches former (101 Collins,accessed Aug 2020).26 The City of CentralMelbourne Design Guide (2018) includesprovisions that require new podiumparking structures to be designed withfloor heights of at least 3.5 metres, withinthe lower 20 metres of a building, toenable future adaptation.

OFF-STREET PUBLIC

4.2 Adaptable Parking Structures

construct public off-street facilities need to consider the potential for decreases in

37

5. COMMUNITY EDUCATION

40

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

Local Governments can use websites,videos, brochures and events todemonstrate alternative uses of carparking and communicate the followingfive key messages (from Myths

Town Team Movement 2019).

1. COST OF PARKING

Land used for parking could be used bycommunities in many other ways (seeSection 1.1 and Appendix 2 for moreinformation).

2. FREE PARKING MAY LIMIT ACCESS TO CUSTOMERS

In busy locations, free parkingencourages people to stay longer,reducing bay turnover and limiting accessto other potential customers. Effective on-street management, including time limitsand paid parking, can increase bayturnover and the number of people able toaccess local businesses.

3. PARKING PROBLEMS ARE GOOD FOR BUSINESS

Parking problems are often a sign that amain street or local centre is popular.Effective parking management can helpincrease bay turnover and reduce the timeit takes to find a bay. Paid parking canalso provide revenue to help communitiesinvest in street improvements such asseating, cleaning, lighting, trees, graffitiremoval, crime prevention and events.

4. LARGE AMOUNTS OF PARKING IS NOT GOOD FOR AMENITY

Parking can affect the amenity of a placeand the feasibility and sustainability ofdevelopment. For instance, land requiredto meet minimum parking requirements isoften similar in size to the amount of landoccupied by the building (see Figure 3).Additionally, large carparks increaseurban air temperatures and can be unsafefor pedestrians.

5. PARKING DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENCOURAGE VISITATION

The value of a destination lies in what itoffers to visitors and is not alwaysdetermined by how much parking isavailable. The most popular cities in theworld are those with interesting andpedestrian friendly streetscapes withmultiple transport options.

COMMUNITY EDUCATION

5.1 Key Messagesawareness raising is a critical element of transitioning smoothly

Figure 3: Land required to meet minimumparking requirements is often similar in size tothe amount of land occupied by the building.

39

6. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

40

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

Planning and Development Act 2005Section 69 and Schedule 7 allows LocalGovernments to include new developmentrequirements, including parking provision,in local planning schemes and localplanning policies.

Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.5allows Local Governments to make andenforce on-street parking local laws.

State Planning Policy 7.3 ResidentialDesign Codes Volume 1 Part 5 outlinesthe design principles for residentialparking and the deemed-to-complyminimum quantity of parking spaces to beprovided by new types of residentialdevelopment.

State Planning Policy 7.3 ResidentialDesign Codes Volume 2 Section 3.9provides objectives, acceptable outcomesand design guidance for parking in newapartment developments.

Planning and Development (LocalPlanning Scheme) Regulations 2015Proposed changes to these Regulationsin 2020 included a number of car parkingrelated matters. At the time of publishingthis guideline, those changes had notbeen gazette or released.

Draft State Planning Policy 7.2: PrecinctDesign Design Element 3: Movement, ofthe guidelines, emphasises theneed for precincts to supply anappropriate amount of parking, designthat facilitates amenity and access, andadaptable design to accommodateemerging technologies.

Australian Standard 2890 for ParkingFacilities Stipulates dimensions andrequirements for parking bays and designin a range of situations, including parkingfor people with disabilities, as well aspedestrian access, sign posting, linemarking, lighting and landscaping.

Austroads Guide to Traffic ManagementPart 11 (Parking) An excellent source ofinformation on parking policy, supply anddemand, data and surveys, on- and off-street parking and parking control.Austroads is a consortium of road andtraffic agencies.

Parking Guidelines for Tertiary EducationInstitutions (Department of Transport)

Parking Guidelines for Large ShoppingCentres (Department of Transport)

Guidelines for Preparation of IntegratedTransport Plans (Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage) Considers parkingin the overall transport picture.

Access and Parking Strategy of HealthCampuses in the Perth Metropolitan Area(Department of Health) Information onhow accessibility by different modesinfluences parking needs.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

6.1 Resources

Austroads Guide is an excellent source of guidance on parking policy, data and surveys,

41

CASE STUDY 1:GROUPED LAND USES

42

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

In 2017, the City of Vincent engagedparking specialists to review its parkingrequirements. The review wascommissioned in response to parkingsurveys which identified that theexisting parking requirements exceededpeak-demand requirements in its highactivity precincts. Part of this reviewrequired the specialists to group the

existing parking requirements intofewer categories, to simplify thedevelopment application process for Citystaff and development applicants.

IMPLEMENTATION

First, specialists reviewed and modifiedthe parking requirements accordingto supply and demand in differentlocations. They then grouped land useswith similar requirements, resulting in tendifferent land use groupings. For instance,parking requirements are now the samefor: restaurants/cafes, small bars andtaverns. Similarly, the same parking

requirements have been set for child carecentres, clubs, cinemas/theatres, familyday cares, nightclubs, place of worship,reception centres, and private recreationand uses. Some of the metrics were alsorevised to enable land use groupings, e.g.some land uses shifted from a grosslettable area metric to a per-personmetric.

Amalgamating parking requirements intosimilar categories had the potential tocreate land uses with a lower than optimalparking requirement, leading to parkingshortfalls. However, given that parkingwas generally oversupplied in high activityprecincts, the risk of parking shortfallswas considered low.

OUTCOMES & LESSONS

The outcome of grouped parkingrequirements on overall parking supplyacross the City is likely to be negligible;however, the intention of grouping

requirements in the local planningpolicy was to simplify the developmentapplication and assessment process forapplicants and staff. Developmentproponents and City staff generally findthe grouped requirements easier tointerpret than the previous policy.

Grouping land uses can also reduce thenumber of change in use applications. Forinstance, if the existing and proposed newuse falls into the same parkingrequirements grouping, the parkingrequirement for the new use would notchange, meaning parking may no longerbe a relevant planning matter requiringassessment.

SOURCES

City of Planning and BuildingPolicy Manual, Policy No: 7.8.1: Non-Residential Development ParkingRequirements

GROUPED LAND USES

City of VincentCity staff generally find the grouped requirements easier to

43

CASE STUDY 2:MAXIMUMS AND CASH-IN-LIEU

44

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

The City of Rockingham recognised therewas a significant risk that developer-ledparking arrangements may produce anoversupply of bays that wouldcompromise the achievement of vibrant,people friendly urban precincts in its CityCentre and Waterfront Village.

The City decided that a proactive andstrategic approach to providing andmanaging parking in these locationswould help achieve the objectives,particularly positive built form outcomes.

Consequently, through initiation andadoption of the Activity Centre Planin 1995 (reviewed in 2009), the Citysought to identify the quantum of parkingneeded, the required split between privateand public parking, and parkingmaximums to limit private parkingprovision and maximise on-site built form.

Cash-in-lieu provisions allowed the City to

establish a fund to expend on theconstruction of additional parking whenutilisation triggers were reached, whereminimums could not be achieved on site.

IMPLEMENTATION

Two of the local planning policiesclearly set out the principles for parkingmanagement in these locations: (1)Planning Policy 3.2.1 DevelopmentPolicy Plan City Centre Sector; and (2)Planning Policy 3.2.5 DevelopmentPolicy Plan Waterfront Village. Theseprinciples include:

i. Where possible provide publicparking in preference to privateparking.

ii. Maximise the amount of on-street,short-term parking, subject to trafficand pedestrian safety and otherurban design considerations.

iii. Provide off-street public parkingfacilities within easy walking distance ofcommercial, retail, entertainment andother facilities, but limit vehicle access tocarparks where such traffic would be inconflict with high levels of pedestrianmovement.

In addition to these policies, in December2017 the City adopted thePlan Rockingham Strategic CentrePublic (CPS). The CPS providesa strategic approach to the managementand provision of public parking within theCity Centre and Waterfront Village.

Private off-street parking requirements forthe City Centre and Waterfront Village ourset in the local planning scheme,which defines parking minimums, parkingmaximums and mandatory cash-in-lieuprovisions.

MAXIMUMS & CIL

City of Rockingham

The City decided a proactive and strategic approach to providing and managing parking would help achieve community

45

Non-residential maximum parking rates arebased on the following factors: theexpected ultimate yield floor space foreach centre; the likelihood for reciprocalparking (such as between night-time anddaytime uses); and, surveys from existingpublic parking areas.

Cash-in-lieu of required parking is astandard condition of developmentapproval for new development in thesecentres. For commercial development, thescheme requires that not less than 60% ofthe minimum number of required bays is tobe provided as a cash payment. Thiscondition, combined with the parkingmaximums, helps achieve a built formoutcome not dominated by at-gradeparking.

The cash-in-lieu calculation includes thecost of constructing multi-storey (not at-grade) parking. The calculation does notinclude land cost, as the City holds land inboth activity centres for building future

multi-storey public car parks. Cash-in-lieupayments are directed to a reserve accountused for the future provision of publicparking on these sites. The schemeconstrains the use of these payments forpurposes other than parking provision. Forexample, the account cannot be used tofund demand management approachessuch as alternative transport modes. Thecash-in-lieu payment must be made priorto occupation of the development.

MEASURES

The City undertakes occupancy andduration of stay surveys in the City Centreand Waterfront Village. It uses theproportion of occupied parking to monitorthe effectiveness of its parkingmanagement. The triggers for managementaction are illustrated on the following page.

When occupancy regularly breaches 85%of parking supply, the City will review itsmanagement actions. In the first instance,

this review will consider parking controlssuch as modified time limits and fees orinvestment in public and active transportnetworks. The City will consider investing inadditional public parking where thesemeasures are unlikely to be effective.

The City has proactively encouraged modeshift away from private cars. The City hasimproved its cycle path network, includingto the train station, and has improved end-of-trip facilities for staff and visitors at itspremises. Parking management andimproved provision of alternative transportseem to be having a positive effect oncontrolling parking demand.

The City has also experimented with dronesurveys, which revealed that parkingclosest to the urban centres are oftenheavily used while bays further awaygenerally have availability.

MAXIMUMS & CIL

encouraged mode shift away

46

City of Rockingham

OUTCOMES

The approach to parking within the CityCentre and Waterfront Village balances on-siteprivate parking and public parking provision,founded on projections of city centredevelopment.

The City considers that customer and visitorparking is more likely to occur on-street andwithin public parking stations rather than withindevelopment sites.

Parking minimums ensure a base on-site parkingsupply. Parking maximums, standard cash-in-lieuconditions and active public parking managementcombine to avoid creating an oversupply ofparking that can compromise built form.

At present, this approach is achieving the supplyof on-street parking and public parking areaswithin a well-connected transport network thatincludes a bus shuttle link to the RockinghamStation.

MAXIMUMS & CIL

-in-lieu conditions and active public parking management combine to avoid

Figure 4: The City uses occupancy triggers to identify management actions.

47

City of Rockingham

The City has evolved its parking rates andother controls over time in response toplanning requirements. It has also refinedits cash-in-lieu calculations, to removeambiguity.

For example, the scheme makes clear thatcash-in-lieu is based on the cost toconstruct multi-storey parking and that theRawlinson Handbook will be the source forestimating construction costs.

This approach has reduced ambiguity incash-in-lieu calculation; however,proponents regularly attempt to negotiateand challenge these requirements, largelywithout success.

LESSONS

Quality activity centre plans help justifyparking policy settings. These plansprovide an important framework fordecision-making to achieve city centreobjectives. The intended built form should

be identified in an activity centre plan,along with public parking objectives.Together, these measures help decision-makers justify the range of parking ratesand parking management techniquesapplied an activity centre.

Clearly outline the benefits of cash-in-lieu,how it is calculated and have supportingdocumentation for how and when it will bespent. Developers often consider cash-in-lieu an unnecessary impost. LocalGovernments should be aware of, and ableto explain, its benefits, such as maximisinglot yield. A local planning policy cansupport cash-in-lieu provisions in ascheme. The policy should include cash-in-lieu calculations, preferably allowing formulti-storey parking costs and using areputable pricing source such asRawlinson Handbook. The policy shouldalso include details on how cash-in-lieu willbe spent and triggers for expenditure, suchas timeframes or occupancy rates.

Be cautious about removing parking ratesfrom a local planning scheme. Some LocalGovernments have removed parking ratesfrom local planning schemes and includedthese rates in local planning policies.While this approach provides flexibility toLocal Governments, the experienceis that parking rates in local planningpolicies may be more difficult to defend ifchallenged by proponents.

Maximums can help to complement builtform objectives. The City is an example ofa Local Government who has beenproactive in taking a andapproach, rather than and

. The City has a vision for the builtform it wants to achieve and it does notwant amenity compromised by an over-supply of at-grade parking. Maximumshave helped to limit the amount of spaceused for parking and allowed a greaterportion of each lot to maximisedevelopment and attain desired built form.

MAXIMUMS & CIL

-in-lieu is based on the cost to construct multi-storey parking and the Rawlinson

48

City of Rockingham

CASE STUDY 3:LOCATION-BASED REQUIREMENTS

49

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

51

The City of Stirling has a large number ofdifferent sized neighbourhoods and localshopping centres, resulting from post-wardevelopment patterns. The City noticedthat many of these centres experienced ahigh level of customer activity and lowcommercial vacancies; however, manyhad low or decreasing activity levels andappeared to be struggling to attractcustomers.

The City identified parking as a potentialbarrier to small business development andreactivation in local centres. Parking inmany centres seemed to be fully utilisedwhile others seemed to have a largeoversupply. In 2017, the City engagedspecialised consultants to: (1) conductparking occupancy surveys at all localand neighbourhood centres; and, (2)recommend options for resolving anyidentified parking issues.

The occupancy surveys indicated thatsetting parking requirements for individual

land uses, through the planningframework, was likely to be causing aparking oversupply while addingsignificant costs to new development andconstraining new business activity inmany centres.

The consultants proposed location-basedratios as an alternative approach, toaccommodate different factors affectingparking activity at each neighbourhoodand local centre. The City ultimatelygrouped all neighbourhood and localcentres into five tiers, based on parkingdemand and supply at each centre, andadopted a flat, location-based, minimumparking rate for each tier, irrespective ofthe land use mix.

IMPLEMENTATION

Council adopted this new policy directionas an amendment to the parkingand access local planning policy in 2019.Three years of survey data gave Council

confidence in the parking rates proposedby the administration.

The City grouped all neighbourhood andlocal centres into three categories, basedon each current level of parkingsupply, as follows:

1. High level of supply (5.5 bays per100m² and above)

2. Medium level of supply (3.5 - 5.4 baysper 100m²), and

3. Low level of supply (0 - 3.4 bays per100m²).

The City then divided each category intohigh-utilisation and low-utilisation centres,based on peak parking utilisation ratesderived from the occupation surveys. Thisprocess ultimately resulted in five differenttiers of neighbourhood and local centresbased on the parking supply and demand(or utilisation) at each centre.

LOCATION-BASED

parking requirements for individual land uses was likely to be causing a City of Stirling

50

The City applied a minimum parking ratioper 100 m2 of gross floor area for each ofthe five tiers, ranging from two bays per100 m2 to eight bays per 100 m2. Theseparking requirements apply to all landuses within the centre equally, effectivelymaking a location-based parkingrequirement rather than a conventionalland-use-based requirement. Outside ofthe centres, conventional parkingrequirements based on land use are stillapplied. The highest location-basedrequirement, eight bays per 100 m2, is nohigher than the parking requirementapplied for the land use outside ofthese centres.

Prior to implementation, thestrategic planning team worked withother staff, such as statutory planners, todemonstrate the benefits associated withthis unconventional approach andresolve potential implementationchallenges.

MEASURES

Three years of parking utilisation surveysundertaken at each centre informed thelocal planning policy revision. The Citycontinues to survey parking utilisation onan annual basis, at each centre, with theintention to monitor whether or notparking conditions have changed sincethe City started applying the location-based requirements.

An average occupancy of 75% or morewithin any given centre is a trigger forreviewing the parking requirement forthat centre and whether or not the centreshould change tiers to a higher or lowerrequirement.

The City plans to modify the surveymethodology in order to monitor parkingbehaviour, to include occupancy timeand purpose of visit.

OUTCOMES

Applying a location-based parkingrequirement for all land uses in a centrehas simplified the developmentassessment process for proponents andthe City. Furthermore, a special provisionin the policy effectively waives therequirement to provide additional parkingfor change of use applications thatpropose to increase the non-residentialfloor area by no more than 50%. Whereparking is the only relevant planningconsideration of such proposals, thisprovision effectively removes therequirement for these proposals to seekdevelopment approval.

Consequently, the location-basedparking requirements and the specialprovision have simplified the planningassessment process, reduced thenumber of applications processed, and inmany cases substantially reduceddevelopment costs for small business.

LOCATION-BASED

City of Stirlingor more within any given centre is a trigger for reviewing the parking

51

The surveys have not identified anysignificant change to parking occupancyat any of the centres since theadoption. Given that there has been newdevelopment in some centres, this resultindicates that the parking requirementsare appropriate for current conditions,which may be due to the three years ofdata collected to identify the parkingrequirements and / or the recentadoption.

In time, the City expects parkingutilisation rates to increase in lower tieractivity centres, which require lower ratesof parking provision, as new developmententers these centres.

LESSONS

Investing resources in regular occupancysurveys is critical for identifying andanalysing location-based parkingrequirements. Three years of survey data

gave officers confidence in the parkingrates recommended to Council foradoption. Continued annual surveys helpthe City assess the appropriateness ofcurrent parking requirements and provideevidence for modifying the requirements ifnecessary. These surveys can becompleted by external consultants or in-house.

Location-based parking requirements mayhelp reduce development costs andrevitalise struggling neighbourhoodcentres. It is too early to state if theapproach has encouraged activity inunderperforming centres; however, it isclear that local businesses now havegreater flexibility to adapt to the changingneeds of communities serviced by thesecentres, due to simplified assessmentprocesses and, in most cases, lowerdevelopment costs.

Local Governments can use location-based parking data to design parkingrequirements that suit local context.Conventional minimum parking ratios,commonly determined for individual landuses by predicting peak demand oradopted from other jurisdictions, cancause parking oversupply, constraindevelopment and lead to suboptimal builtform outcomes.

The approach applied by the City useslocation-based parking supply anddemand data to identify evidence basedparking requirements, which reflect localcontext.

This alternative policy approach hashelped the City work toward achieving abalance between encouraging andsupporting small business while ensuringadequate parking supply at each centre.

LOCATION-BASED

City of Stirling-

based parking supply and demand data to identify evidence based

52

CASE STUDY 4:PAID PARKING IN ACTIVITY CENTRES

53

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

53

The Riseley Activity Centre is a mixed-usecentre located in the City of Melville. In2015, the City resolved to prepare aparking management plan for the centre.Businesses surveyed during the earlystages of plan preparation expressedconcern over a parking shortfall forcustomers and staff; however, parkingsurveys indicated an occupancy rate of77% during peak times and that publicparking within a short walk wasunderutilised.

The parking management plan alsoidentified that 70% of centre parking wasprivately owned and managed, creating apatchwork of management approachesand confusion for users. Anecdotalevidence also suggested that commuterswere using the parking to parkand ride to city centre.

The plan identified that parking supplywas not being used optimally and the key

issue to resolve was management ofexisting supply.

IMPLEMENTATION

In 2016, the Council adopted the ParkingManagement Plan. A short-term action ofthe plan (within two years) included theintroduction of paid parking in certainareas. This decision was made to detercommuter parking, increase turnover andavailability of prime parking bays, andencourage active and public transportchoices.

Fifty percent of the income receivedthrough paid parking within the centrewas to be allocated to local public realmimprovements, in consultation with localbusinesses and landholders. Requiringthat users of parking pay for someparking costs aligned with theparking strategy, adopted in 2014, whichsupported the principle of user pays.

In conjunction with the resolution tointroduce paid parking, the Citycommenced an education program.Brochures were delivered to localbusinesses and residents, as well aspavement stickers, to encouragemembers of the community to makesmarter parking choices.

However, due to City staff changes andthe time required to procure and installpaid parking meters, the rollout of paidparking was delayed until 2019. By thistime, support for paid parking garnered bycommunity engagement in 2016 hadwaned. This delay had consequences forimplementation.

Landowners and residents were notifiedthat new parking arrangements wouldsoon be introduced for City owned baysand updated educational brochures wereprovided to all businesses.

PAID PARKING

education program in conjunction with the resolution to City of Melville

54

PAID PARKING

-month amnesty period was adopted, where no fines

Initially, the City introduced a free first hourperiod. Previously, these bays were freewith two-hour time restrictions. Parkingmeters required license plate details toprevent users from parking once andmoving bays to extend their free parkingperiod. A three-month amnesty period wasadopted, where no fines were issued forinfringement.

Shortly after commencing, a selection oflocal businesses submitted a number ofpetitions. These petitions complained thatthe parking changes did not accommodatestaff needs. Petitioning businessesrequested the removal of all paid parkingand other restrictions on City bays.Interestingly the City received minimalcomplaints from customers. Businessesreported some initial disquiet among theircustomers; however, customers quicklybecame accustomed to ticketed parking.

In response to these petitions, in February2020 the City adopted free parking for the

first three hours for all City bays. All dayparking fees for City bays were also halved.

MEASURES

The objective for City owned bays is85% occupancy during peak parkingdemand. City staff conduct regularoccupancy surveys. Overall occupancy inthe centre is below 85%; however, centrallylocated parking is often at capacity whileparking within a short walk is mostly under-utilised.

OUTCOMES

Anecdotal evidence suggests there hasbeen a short-term increase in the use ofpublic transport by local employees andreduced commuter parking in prime bays,freeing the most convenient bays for centreusers. Complaints from local businessesalso reduced following the introduction offirst 3hr free parking. Long-term outcomesare as yet unknown.

LESSONS

Parking management in city centres can bechallenging, particularly where there is amix of publicly and privately owned bays.Ideally, parking should be managedconsistently across a centre, regardless ofparking bay ownership.

Communicate the benefits of paid parkingto local businesses prior to and throughoutimplementation, potentially throughTravelsmart officers. Benefits may includeinvolving local businesses in decisions onhow and when parking fees are used toimprove public areas.

Use parking fees to make streetscapeimprovements as soon as possible, todemonstrate the benefits of charging forparking, e.g. improved seating andsignage.

55

City of Melville

Projects could be funded before parkingrevenue is received, to immediatelydemonstrate value.

The timeframe between adoption andimplementation is critical. Support forparking management can diminishbetween the time a new approach issupported and implementation.

Identify local champions who support newapproaches. These champions can helpcommunicate benefits throughout thelocal business community.

Survey data that informs managementneeds to be comprehensive. Surveysshould include a mix of peak and non-peak periods, weekends and weekdays.Business surveys should remainanonymous to other businesses, toensure forthright responses andrepresentation of the entire centre.

PAID PARKING

Timing is critical. Support for parking management can diminish between the time a new approach is supported and

56

City of Melville

CASE STUDY 5:DYNAMIC PRICING

57

Local Government Car Parking GuidelineDecember 2020

The Town of Victoria Park has a vision tobe a vibrant, healthy and sustainableurban community and recognises thattransport planning, and in particularparking, will be a significant factor inachieving this vision.

In 2012, the Town adopted a ParkingManagement Plan (PMP) whichemphasises the positive influence thatdemand management practices, such aspaid parking, can have on creating vibrantand active town centres and ensuringequitable access to on-street parking.

During the preparation, theadministration held workshops to explainthe benefits of parking managementpractices to Elected Members.Consequently, the PMP enjoyed strongCouncil support. Further workshops withElected Members helped maintainsupport for demand managementapproaches.

The PMP sets out four escalating actionsfor implementing parking demandmanagement.

Level 1 Unmanaged Parking

This requires Officers to respond to publiccomplaints of illegal or unsafe parkingonly, but parking is otherwiseunmanaged. This level of managementcosts the Town to provide enforcement,but equitable access to thelimited parking spaces is not managed.

Level 2 Formalisation of Parking Bays

If parking data such as customer, safetyand traffic flow concerns demonstratethat intervention is required, formalisedparking controls are implemented. Thisconsists of minimal management such asmarked bays and identified nostopping/parking areas (signs and lines).Minimal enforcement is required withdrive-by inspections by Officers.

Level 3 Restrictions on parking by timeor customer group

If parking data such as customer, safety,traffic flow and length of stay concernsdemonstrate that further intervention isrequired, the third level of parkingmanagement, restricted parking, isimplemented. These restrictions consist oftime restricted and/or permit bays whichrequire regular timed inspection andtechnology such as the LicencePlate Recognition (LPR) vehicle.

Level 4 User Paid Parking

If parking data such as parking reviewcounts demonstrate that furtherintervention is required, for example ifthere are perceived parking shortages inthe subject area, the final level of userpays parking is implemented. This issubject to Council endorsement andinvestment is made into user pays parkinginfrastructure.

DYNAMIC PRICING

Town of Victoria Parkescalating actions for implementing parking demand

58

Transitioning between these managementactions is triggered by occupancy data,safety and traffic engineeringconsiderations, feedback from the publicand businesses, and observations fromparking officers. The ultimate objective isto achieve 10% parking bay availability atall times, even in peak periods.

In 2018, occupancy data collected fromseveral parking hotspots along AlbanyHighway indicated that level fourmanagement, or paid parking, was nolonger consistently achieving a 10%occupancy target. This finding led torequests by Elected Members to test theeffectiveness of existing controls andconsider the potential of new controls.The Council resolved to conduct a trial totest the effect of a dynamic pricing model.This model would vary parking fees andfree-parking periods at different times ofthe day to reflect changes in demand. Forinstance, in off-peak periods the Townwould trial longer free parking periods or

lower parking fees to increase demand.Conversely, during high demand periodsthe Town would trial reduced free parkingor higher parking fees to encourage areduction in demand.

The trials would help the Town assess theeffectiveness of introducing changes tofree parking periods and pricing alongAlbany Highway, to improve access toparking and local businesses. Thefindings would also inform future PMPupdates.

IMPLEMENTATION

In April 2019, the Town commenced a sixmonth trial at a number of locations alongAlbany Highway. This is understood to bethe first trial informing dynamic pricing