How many residents’/loading bay/visitor car parking spots has this council waived in the past few years? We wouldn’t be surprised if it approaches a thousand places given the rate of development that has occurred in Glen Eira. What all this means is that local neighbourhood streets are primarily bearing the full brunt of such dispensations. Heaven help residents who just happen to be living off any of the main shopping centre strips. They represent the immediate casualties.
We’ve decided to present some of the officer decisions on major developments for the life of this current council. All of these ‘recommendations’ were approved by councillors with a little bit of tinkering via conditions. Please note the:
- Contradictions regarding stackers for visitor car parking
- The failure to provide quantifiable ‘evidence’ for recommendations
- The constant repetition – at times verbatim!
- Logic that defies belief!
1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD CARNEGIE – 12 storeys, 173 dwellings, (13th November 2012)
264 car spaces proposed and Planning Scheme requires 276 (12 shortfall)
Council’s Transport Planning Department consider the planning scheme requirement of 3 parking spaces per 100 square metres of restricted retail floor area to be greater than the likely parking demand in this area. A parking provision closer to 2 spaces per 100 square metres is considered more appropriate (therefore a minimum of 32 spaces is required compared to the provision of 35 spaces for the restricted retail use component). It needs to be noted that non-compliance with a planning scheme car parking requirement does not necessarily flag a car parking shortfall for a particular site. This is because the planning scheme requirement is general in nature and the provisions are premised on a lower number possibly being acceptable having regard to the circumstances of a particular site. There is availability of on-street parking in the area for any overflow short term parking. In addition, the existing use of the site would have generated some demand for on street parking.
127-131 Gardenvale Road,Gardenvale – 4 storey building; 2 retail 12 dwellings (2 shortfall)
No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 2 on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings) however this can be reduced or waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances. On the one hand, Council’s Transport Planning Department has requested the provision of two at-grade visitor car spaces. On the other hand, the applicant’s traffic engineering advice suggests that no visitor car parking is required given the ability to accommodate this parking demand in the surrounding streets. On balance, a dispensation is considered reasonable in this instance” (27th November 2012)
483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD ELSTERNWICK – 8 storey; 4 retail; 57 units (Shortfall 16)
In this case, a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement is justified. If sustainable transport modes are to be promoted, then a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement should be encouraged. It is considered appropriate to provide a modest level of visitor parking. However providing additional on-site parking for visitors will only encourage more vehicle traffic to an area which anecdotally has issues with traffic. It is also noted that a visitor parking rate of 1 space per 10 dwellings (as proposed in this case) has been supported previously in activity centre locations. Notwithstanding this, a shared arrangement could be incorporated with the 4 retail car spaces being made available outside normal business hours (achieving the 9 spaces suggested by Transport Planning).
(5th February, 2013)
451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH – 5 storey; a shop; 12 units (Shortfall 2)
No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 2 on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). However this can be reduced or waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances. Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the lack of any on-site visitor car spaces. On balance, a dispensation is considered reasonable in this instance/ (2nd July 2013)
674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST – 3 storey; 2 shops; 8 units (Shortfall 3)
A total of 8 car spaces have been provided on site within two car stackers. A total of 8 spaces are set aside for the residential component (as required by the Planning Scheme) and no spaces for the retail component. No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 1 on site visitor car space. Transport Planning also prefers that 2 retail spaces are provided on site (1 for each shop). However these spaces can be waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances. On balance, waiving the visitor space and the retail spaces is considered reasonable. (24th September 2013)
2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE 6 storey; 40 units; 1 shop (Shortfall 7)
The proposal generates a parking requirement of 49 car spaces. The proposed provision of 42 car spaces provides the required car parking rate for each of the dwellings (and provides an extra car space for one of the dwellings) but seeks to waive 7 visitor car spaces and the shop car space. The applicant is also seeking to waive the requirement for a loading bay for the shop. With the current permit, the waiving of 1 required visitor car space for the dwellings and the waiving of the loading bay for the shop were allowed. One car space was provided for the shop. It is considered satisfactory in this case to waive the parking and loading bay requirements for the shop given its small size, even in the enlarged form anticipated through the conditions addressing urban design issues. However, it is considered that at least 2 car spaces should be provided for visitors to the dwellings. This would necessitate the installation of a larger car stacker system.
It is noted that there is one visitor car space for the proposed 38 dwellings on the adjoining site to the east at 3 Morton Avenue. The primary justification for a reduction in the number of visitor car spaces is the availability of vacant spaces within on-street and public car park areas. Additionally, a note will be included to prohibit future residents from obtaining resident and visitor parking permits with a condition stating that the owner is to inform residents about this limitation.
(COMMENT: the argument that visitor car parking cannot be provided via stackers, has gone out the window on this application. Again, so much for consistency!) (6th November 2013)
730A CENTRE ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 5 storey; 29 units; ‘food and drink premises’ (Shortfall 6)
Car parking has been provided for the residential component only (one space per dwelling). Given all dwellings are one or two bedrooms, this complies with the Planning Scheme. However a waiver of car parking for visitors and for the food and drink premises has been proposed. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and consider at a minimum three car spaces for the visitors and nine car spaces for the food and drink premises should be provided.
A recommended condition will require minimum car parking rates as follows:
1 car space per dwelling (one or two bedroom)
9 car spaces for the food and drink premises
A minimum of 3 visitor spaces (December 17th 2013)
677-679 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storey; 10 units; 2 shops (Shortfall 2)
No visitor parking has been provided. The Planning Scheme requires 2 on site visitor car spaces as a “starting point” (1 space for every 5 dwellings). This can be reduced or waived depending upon traffic evidence and local circumstances.
Council’s Transport Planning Department has not raised any concern with the lack of any on-site visitor car parking. On balance, a waiver is considered reasonable in this instance given
(17th December 2013)
Glen Eira Debates 
February 3, 2014 at 2:39 PM
I’ve always thought that it’s a pretty dumb argument that just because there is a tram line, bus, or station near someone’s place they won’t have a car. Maybe getting to work is one thing where public transport is okay, but that’s inadequate, and visiting other people or social events generally relies on using cars and not public transport.
All council is doing is moving the problem from one place to another so that people who live in the off streets have to battle shoppers, and residents. My guess is that we will soon have the situation where every second side street has a two hour parking limit on it. Instead of making developers pay for what they’re imposing, the costs of all this are passed onto residents.
February 3, 2014 at 4:42 PM
On one of these examples the traffic department gives the nod to visitor car parking but is over-ridden by whoever wrote the report and decided to give the developer everything he wants. Why have so called traffic experts if you don’t listen to what they say – even on the rare occasion.
February 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM
I totally agree with your comments. At the last Planning Conference meeting I attended with Glen Eira Council in respect of another development in the East Bentleigh Shopping Centre prescient I asked if Council kept a register of the number of times they waivered the required number of parking/visitor/delivery spaces for developments? The answer was no. Hence, they have no idea or record of how many statutory required spaces they have failed to implement in their decision making process. My records of the number of car parking spaces lost due to development just for the area of Centre Road East Bentleigh, between Tucker and East Boundary Roads for the last 2 years is 113 car parking spaces.
The other joke is that Glen Eira Council “believes that all visitors to apartments built in Shopping Centres, only visit after hours.” What they also forget is that most of these shopping strips have restaurants and take away food premises that need parking spaces for vehicles visiting these premises. The shopping strips cannot handle the volume of parked vehicles, causing them to park in the adjoining side streets. So where do the visitors to the apartments park?
If you should happen to ask Glen Eira Council for any figures in respect of developments/parking or whatever, their response is we don’t provide such information (possibly because they don’t bother to record it). However they will suggest that you rake through their “Planning Permit Application Search” site on the Council website to work it out for yourself.
February 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Your case sounds very reminiscent to keeping track of all permits that get extensions. Newton does not want figures kept. Figures can be incriminating and applied for under FOI and would show up the poor performance of this council on issues that really matter – like safeguarding the social, environmental environment.
Keeping track on all figures means the potential for real scrutiny and that’s a No-No.
The planning applications register is a joke as well. It says bugger all and is not compliant with the state legislation.
February 3, 2014 at 9:42 PM
113 places waived in this small area is amazing. Add on all of Centre Road and Glen Huntly Road and then it’s sure to be ten times this number.
February 3, 2014 at 5:42 PM
Another good one used by Council is that University students do not drive cars. Perhaps someone from Council should go down to Monash Caulfield at around 4 pm and see how wrong they are.
February 4, 2014 at 6:29 AM
As all of us know from our own tertiary education experiences students do drive, what they don’t do is pay for parking.
February 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM
Fine to ‘waiver’ carparking for developers that promise ‘rivers of gold’ to the GE coffers but our learned and knowlegable councillors need to provide some alternatives.
Seriously look at the ‘share car’ scheme that many Councils have adopted and implement it here! Companies are busting to lease a carspace but the developers here in GE don’t provide it.
Maybe a council built bike path along the Frankston rail line could also help the traffic issues.
February 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM
After a year of putting things on hold, there is an agenda item on car share up for ‘advice’ from Council. Minimalist in the extreme, the best that residents can hope for is a year trial based on a handful of spots around Caulfield & Elsternwick railway stations.
February 3, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Newton doesn’t want it so even if a trial does happen, don’t expect him to rate it as a success. 5 more years for Andrew Newton is almost as bad as 3 more years of Gary McLean.
February 3, 2014 at 11:31 PM
Speaking of waaivering heights CARNEGIE takes
THE WORLD WAIVERING TITLE
1. a Gynasium in Neerim Road near Koornang… parking WAIVERED
2 Across the road on Kokarrib Road corner 42 units… parking needs
waivered.
3. The 36th restuarant between Neerim Road and the Railway…at 96 Koornang road with 5 staff members is to have no more than 80 guests in the day and 100 or so at night.has had all parking requirements waivered.
5 Near Impossible to park anytime for simple shopping!
The five butchers have now declined to two in five years and another of the butchers wonders how long he can trade due to lack of parking.
6 Council has actually reduced car spaces in the area…. Kokarrib Road,and Jersey Parade and constructed a much larger library without providing extra parking.
THESE STRESSES ON THE PARKING ARE IN ADDITION TO TRAFFIC FLOWS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADDITIONAL UNITS IN NEERIM ROAD, KOORNANG ROAD,,SHEPPARSON AVE, AND MORTON STREET… WHERE I HEARD THE GREEN MAYOR SAY THAT THE OVERFLOW FROM THE HOUSING IN MMORTON STREET COULD USE THE RAILWAY CAR PARKL.
February 4, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Recently Council approved the building of a Gym near the intersection of Koornang Road and Neerim Road with no on-site parking provisions. For some reason Council saw the nearby busy Council car park in Kookarib Street as being the “alternative” because most likely the gym patrons would also frequent the surrounding Koornang Road shops.
Not one Councillor bothered to mention (or knew) that the already congested Kookarib Car Park and Kookarib Street itself are 2P restricted parking. Or that 2P parking is there to support the local traders and local amenity by ensuring car parking availability through turnover of parking spots (day and evening). It is not there to justify waiving car parking for residential or commercial developments.