Another item up for decision on Tuesday night is the residential parking permit scheme. Our take on the proposals are that whilst Rome is burning our glorious council keeps fiddling and fiddling rather than addressing the problem head on as countless other councils have done – some in fact have been at it for over a decade. All Glen Eira seems capable of doing is burying its head in the sand whilst pretending to protect streets in Housing Diversity. But the horse has well and truly bolted so the suggested solution is akin to putting a bandaid on a gaping and suppurating wound. What is required is radical surgery. Here’s why –
- Council totally ignores the fact that Minimal Change Areas are being reshaped by 2 and 3 unit developments – ie the ‘problem’ is not just in Housing Diversity
- Granting permits for car parking waivers only exacerbates the problem everywhere
- The consistent refusal to introduce well researched and designed Parking Precinct plans or parking overlays (except for student housing) means further adhoc and hence substandard planning.
- A policy that shunts car parking to ‘neighbouring’ streets is only transferring the issue elsewhere
The Akehurst ‘solution’ is simple – no Residential Parking permits in Housing Diversity (We’ve uploaded the report here). It does not hold up to close examination and is a tacit admission of council’s spectacular failure to protect amenity and manage the issue. We highlight the following extracts from this ‘report’:
The policy has been applied for 10 years. In this time 457 dwellings have been excluded from obtaining a RPP (Residential Parking Permit).
COMMENT: From 2002 to roughly 2007/8 Council approved 600 dwellings per year. Since then the figure has escalated to approximately 1000 dwellings per year with only about 30% being single dwellings. On such estimates we can argue conservatively that around 5,500 units have been built. To only have 457 dwellings EXCLUDED in a decade is thus a total joke.
Akehurst does briefly note that “some councils deliberately selectively choose to under provide car parking in terms of the ResCode rates” but Glen Eira has always applied the standard ResCode rates related to bedroom numbers and no change to this position is envisaged in this review.
COMMENT: That’s it! A blanket statement with no justification, no facts, no figures, no nothing. Once again, this council washes its hands of anything that involves change and might just threaten the profits of developers. The ‘excuse’ that if change is required then it is considered preferable to link this to new developments totally ignores that fact that ‘new developments’ are also rampant in Minimal Change! What’s even more damning is that Akehurst himself goes on to define ‘medium density’ as ‘two dwellings or more’!
Councillors and residents have to ask:
- Why is this policy only applicable to Housing Diversity given that 2 or more dwellings are also mushrooming in Minimal Change and will continue to do so given that the infill in diversity areas is running out?
- Why the failure to plan strategically, holistically, and appropriately?
- Why can other councils (listed below) introduce a variety of options and Glen Eira is totally incapable or unwilling?
Moreland – Council issues up to two residential parking permits depending on whether or not there is a driveway crossover to your property. If you have a crossover, then you are eligible for one permit only. AND Properties are not eligible for parking permits where approval of a planning permit for subdivision was issued after 31 August 2011 and this results in an increase in the number of separate occupancies on that site. (http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/parking-roads-and-transport/parking-permits-moreland/residential-parking-permits.html)
Bayside – – 3 permits AND Multi Unit Development Properties are not eligible to participate in the scheme. (http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/parking_residential_parking_permits.htm)
Port Phillip – One action pursued by the City of Port Phillip since 1997 has been not to issue resident or visitor parking permits to owners or occupiers of properties in instances where the developer / applicant for Planning Permit had not provided sufficient off street (on-site) car parking in accordance with the Planning Scheme or other council policies. Foreshore Parking Permits are still permitted at No Parking Permit Note properties.
As of the 1 October 2002, this policy was extended to include all new residential developments* where the number of households increased on a property, irrespective of the level of off street parking provided. (http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/resident-visitor-foreshore-parking-permits.htm)
Darebin – Each household can have a maximum of two permits. Households with off-street parking (eg driveway), right of way (laneway between house blocks) or with a garage are entitled to one permit only. (http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=6215)
Monash – single dwelling 2 permits; 2-4 dwellings 1 permit; 5 or more dwellings no permit
Whitehorse – 1 dwelling 3 permits; 2-5 dwellings 1 permit; more than 5 dwellings no permit.
It’s also worth noting that Frankston has a visitor car parking scheme based on the WIDTH OF THE RESIDENTIAL ROAD/STREET. The narrower the street, no parking! (http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/library/scripts/objectifyMedia.aspx?file=pdf/309/09.pdf&..)
Boroondara – multi unit development prior to 2001 receive one permit. Post 2001 don’t get a permit. (http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/~/media/Files/Your%20Council/Parking%20and%20traffic/ResidentialParkingPermitPolicy2011pdf.pdf)
June 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM
How sensible of all these other councils to look at all the areas in their borders and the numbers of units. Glen Eira hasn’t got a clue.
June 10, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Actually Glen Eira has more than a clue – it’s a deliberated sacrifice of residents amenity, the sustainable transport policy and the interests of local traders so that developers can make more money.
June 9, 2013 at 9:23 PM
467 dwellings in ten years is a horrible indictment on Newton and councillors. Everyone is screaming about traffic and parking and if this is the best they can come up with then they are getting paid for doing bugger all.
June 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Each time council agrees to a car parking waiver the impact on residents and streets grows. The Alma club application that suggests only 4 visitor car spots in a dead end street are “adequate” is the latest illustration of this. Even if the tally were to rise to 10 that would still remain insufficient.
The proactive stances of the other listed councils shows what can be done. They are not sitting back on their laurels and creating the illusion that all is well in their municipality. They see the problem, acknowledge it, and then do something about it. The total opposite happens again and again in Glen Eira. When every application is handled in a piecemeal and isolated fashion this is the result and when every application means that council bends over backwards to accommodate the applicant then it is the community that ends up paying with reduced amenity and increased traffic, flooding, and highly paid council staff.
June 10, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Quite staggering that the current policy dates back to May 2003. So in ten years it hasn’t been updated, looked at or amended in any shape or form. Meanwhile development everywhere has burgeoned. Looking at the 2003 version and the recommended 2013 I can’t say it’s an improvement in any shape for form. Instead I see it as a watering down. The 2003 did not specify any area. It was a blanket statement covering all of Glen Eira. Now we get a policy that will only look at the alleged 20% of the council area. That’s going backwards at a great rate.
June 10, 2013 at 6:33 PM
When are we going to ‘storm the Bastille’??
June 10, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Ya go for the head. Sack Newton and the revolution is won.