Squeeze planned on car parking spaces
- John Masanauskas
- From: Herald Sun
- August 15, 2011 12:00AM
FINDING a parking place could get much worse under State Government plans to slash the number of car spaces required for new apartment blocks, shopping centres and offices.
The legal number of spaces per dwelling could be cut from two to zero in dozens of activity zones to accommodate Melbourne’s booming population.
And the carpark requirement is set to be halved in many residential, entertainment and business centres outside those zones.
The proposals are part of a Planning Department review that aims to reduce reliance on cars and encourage other ways of getting around, such as public transport and bicycles.
Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said if implemented, the changes would lead to parking chaos. “Local residents will be hemmed in in their own streets, which will overflow with cars from high-rise apartments and shops built with few if any parking spots,” he said.
Protector of Public Lands Victoria secretary Julianne Bell said fewer parking spaces would not necessarily encourage public transport use.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the review was finalised by the previous Labor government. “It beggars belief Labor would now seek to blame their own handiwork on the current Government,” he said.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 15, 2011 at 2:25 PM
What a boon this would be for developers and council. The former would now be able to cram even more cubby holes onto each site and council would pat itself on the back because it would legitimise their current practice.
August 15, 2011 at 6:46 PM
Current practice is to continually agree to waive car parking requirements at the behest of developers. I fully agree with Colin’s comments. If this comes into being then it will only condone what Glen Eira is already doing to the detriment of its ratepayers. When 3, 4, 5 storey apartment blocks are granted permits on the feeble excuse of being alongside a tram route and that this will therefore mean that car parking is unnecessary it just shows how out of touch this council is with reality. Then again, reality has nothing to do with money rolling in to council’s bank balance.
August 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM
More residents means your rates will decrease. Council gains nothing from extra homes. Zilch. Try reading the Local Gov Act.
August 15, 2011 at 11:06 PM
Really? then pray tell me why with a burgeoning population our rates have gone up just under $400 for each of the past 3 years – and it’s not only due to inflation of housing prices. More units, means more rates coming in. Pure and simple. Pack em in, don’t worry about infrastructure and you’re home and hosed. What a bonus the 1200 units for the c60 will bring. It’s a gold mine for this council.
August 16, 2011 at 7:31 AM
You are demonstrating your ignorance. I am pretty sure that most of the bloggers would agree with me. The Council frames a budget then divides the total cost by the number of ratepayers. It is a bit more complicated than that but that is the end result. My reasoning is the the more ratepayers the lower the cost. It is not about collecting all the rates then see how much we have got and then do a budget. No goldmines in there. The contractor that collects the garbage is the only winner as they get paid per bin as itemised on the rates. So it is not pure and simple. Sure glad you are not on the Council, Colin. As I said, you can look up the Local Gov. Act.
August 15, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Some days I wake up and curse the fact that politicians breed. Who needs enemies when you have State Government.
Fortunately it is just “a proposal” merely contained in “a review” by the Lack-Of-Planning Department, and which Matthew Guy attributes to the previous Government. Until it becomes Law of course.
The good news for residents is that, according to VCAT, they can park in railway carparks. The bad news for commuters is that they won’t be able to.
Carparks associated with a dwelling actually are a storage space. People *might* choose to park a car there. Where my mother lives they tend to park on the street because the storage space is otherwise occupied. Its not a scalable solution when you increase density beyond the street capacity, and not one a professional body could responsibly advocate. It is bizarre that exacerbating an existing problem and further eroding amenity is seen as a solution.
There is a very big difference between using a vehicle for most travel (which the Government claims it wishes to discourage), and owning a vehicle for occasional travel at times or to places that the Government refuses to service.
If the Government truly believes in its policies then let it start with MPs, executives in the Department of Transport, and VCAT. Heck Glen Eira, lead the way, and scrap the reserved parking for Councillors and council officers. But no, the Government has made clear, through its massive road investments at the expense of public transport, what it believes the future to be. And now we learn that investments should be base around ease of implementation rather than need, preferably to service a rich donor’s private airport.
The creation of urban ghettos and second-class citizens is reprehensible policy.
August 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM
You seems to have all the answers. You think that Lindsay Fox has given money to the Liberal party so they are putting in a rail link to the airport that he owns. In fact what it will do is create a real competitor for Tullamarine. They make Ned Kelly look like an angel. A fast train from central Melbourne would suit me any day rather than paying for long term parking miles away from the airport. Less 30 minutes would suit many people. The current State Government will not do anything without a strong business case. You could probably FOI that an bring yourself up to speed on the difference between this lot and Labor. I could start with the desal but I won’t . I look forward to the Government turning their interest to the Local Gov. ACT. Especially very complicated conflict of interest laws designed to allow the Labor councils to legitimately caucus. If you have good ideas about town planning you should make a submission before 31st August. Start with disallowing residential parking permits issued by Councils when residents have a carspace but use it for storage.
August 16, 2011 at 11:25 PM
Its great that you are passionate about matters that affect you and that you take the time and effort to get involved. That is to be encouraged. I probably won’t choose residential parking permits myself as the most important issue we face. Yes, I might put in a submission, but I have to balance that time and effort with my day job and the other demands that come from being an active member of the community.
I do think that Lindsay Fox has given money to the Liberal Party, and I do think that a rail link is being proposed to an airport he owns, and I do think it is not currently necessary, and the government itself acknowledged it was easier than tackling Melbourne International Airport at Tullamarine. Private ownership of infrastructure like airports is problematic and political. Its as stupid as having multiple rail franchises in a network. Not that many people would remember Hillside and Bayside.
I am, like about 98% of Australians, not a member of a political party, and like the majority, not aligned with a political party. It may be a dubious distinction, but I can’t recall ever being represented by a politician that I voted #1 for. #1 of course means “least distasteful” or “marginally more likely to represent me”.
Ned Kelly was responsible for the murder of several police officers while performing their duty. He was later tried, convicted, and hanged for it. One of the police officers was an ancestor of my wife and that does influence her opinion. I don’t as a rule hang around Spring St to know if there are worse around. But probably.
I do care about Town Planning, and seek significant reform to the way it is conducted. I’d like to see minimum standards of amenity protection being applied, wherever you are. When Phil de Losa said that Council would protect only 80% of the municipality I was stunned. True to his word though, Council has waived compliance with the Standards contained in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in housing diversity areas. There are a number of notorious cases that demonstrates Council’s fidelity to this principle. Several of my neighbours left the area after Council granted permits adjacent to them that failed to comply with the Standards. If Council truly believes that standards are inappropriate it had an opportunity to remove them with the last Planning Review. It didn’t do so.
VCAT has ruled that if you live within 10 minutes walk of public transport then you are suitable for higher density development of 3 storeys or more. I agree. So long as you comply with the standards and don’t require the community to subsidize your development. The entire municipality is 10 minutes or less from public transport. There would be less abuse of the planning system if the same developments occurring in my street were permitted anywhere in the municipality.
I’ll leave discussions around failures to comply with Permits or even to acquire Permits when required to another day.
August 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM
I think you will find the next 12 months very interesting in regard to town planning. It has been poorly handled for 20 years. Once the public submissions are over one would assume that the councils will be called on to have some input. All being well they should consult with residents. I am not hopeful that they will listen . You should have a go anyway.
Once