The following screen dumps and quotes all come from council’s consultant’s report – Glen Eira Transport Analysis & Forecasting. (Uploaded HERE).
The examples we’ve chosen whilst concentrating on Bentleigh apply to all centres and make it absolutely clear that:
- Council intends to flog off public land for multi-storey parking lots
- Traffic management/parking plans will see a reduction in the current regulations for both commercial and residential development in our activity centres (more on this below)
- The agenda has always been, and remains more and more development and less and less car parking and decent development levies.
Currently the State Government ‘standards’ are clear (ie 1 car space for single bedroom, 2 car spaces for 3 and more bedrooms, plus rates for commercial enterprises depending on their nature and floor size). Council has the right to introduce what is known as parking overlays and thus change these requirements. Currently Glen Eira’s handful of parking overlays only concern student accommodation. We do not have any that control the commercial areas, or our activity centres. Council is now set to introduce such overlays.
We certainly have no objections to fostering greater ‘walkability’ or increased use of public transport. Our concerns relate to what is currently proposed and the spurious arguments that accompany these proposals. The central issues are:
- Parking overlays that include MAXIMUM rates instead of the current MINIMUM rates. If a maximum rate is imposed that means that developments can supply anything up to the maximum – ie a lot less! By contrast a minimum rate sets out the standard that must be met!
- Introducing a levy on developers for car parking waivers is fine in theory. It is not ‘fine’ however when the recommendation is a ‘reduced’ waiver so as not to deter development!
When for year after year residents have complained about the lack of adequate parking provision for residential and commercial with shop-top housing, then the intention to further reduce the meagre current demands is totally unacceptable.
We urge readers to carefully consider the following and what they could mean for Glen Eira!
Here are some quotes from this ‘discussion paper’. Again, please carefully note the implications and how some of these comments even contradict what is in council’s ‘Parking Analysis’ paper for Bentleigh, Carnegie & Elsternwick!
While this analysis suggests parking is sufficiently or perhaps slightly undersupplied in Bentleigh, consideration of some additional best practice benchmarks for parking supply is instructive, and highlights the extent to which parking may in fact be oversupplied in Bentleigh (page 18)
the Bentleigh activity centre has a significant oversupply of car parking, relative to best practice guidance on appropriate parking supply for centres well-served by public transport (page 19)
The expanse of parking to the north of Centre Road, however, has a much greater negative impact on the public realm, as shown in Figure 4-8. The space allocated to parking is disproportionate to the size of the public space available on Centre Road, and significantly reduces the potential residential catchment within a walkable distance to local retail, restaurants and public transport. Additionally, the large carpark dominated environs lack quality shaded footpath links, ‘eyes on the street’ and visual variation, further reducing the safety and appeal of active travel (page 25)
Cl. 52.06 rates are designed to provide parking supply that matches demand, essentially ensuring parking does not become a scarce resource. This however removes a potential signal to encourage people to alter parking behaviour and travel choices. The unintended consequence of this is that the extent of parking supplied in adherence to minimum parking rates significantly detracts from the vibrancy and quality of the public realm, and excessive space allocated to parking can crowd out the potential for greater active travel participation. (page 28)
As intensification and redevelopment of the activity centre occurs, there is likely to be some demand for car-free housing options. Planning policy that does not cater to this demand will impose unnecessary costs on housing provision and may encourage higher car ownership and usage (Page 29)
The substantial drop in population density with a 5-minute walkable catchment in comparison to a 10-minute catchment is also of concern, and suggests some additional main street shop top housing options would be welcome, as well as some infill development of existing surface car parking sites. (page 31)
Ahead of development of multi-story parking buildings or other replacement uses, Council should improve its understanding of the current use of existing parking facilities. Replacement of parking spaces on a like-for-like basis may not be required, depending on occupancy of current facilities and the future use of management tools such as pricing that may reduce parking demands. Benchmarking of parking supply at Bentleigh against best-practice guidelines (see Section 4.3.1) suggests parking supply may be significantly higher than levels that are appropriate in locations such as Bentleigh with high levels of public transport accessibility. Review of occupancy data further suggests that like-for-like replacement of parking spaces would be unnecessary and probably inappropriate (page 45)
Glen Eira Debates 
January 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM
All made clear. Council wants apartments instead of car parks and for residents to subsidise developers even more.
January 29, 2018 at 3:58 PM
This paragraph is really one out of the box
The substantial drop in population density with a 5-minute walkable catchment in comparison to a 10-minute catchment is also of concern, and suggests some additional main street shop top housing options would be welcome, as well as some infill development of existing surface car parking sites. (page 31)
I wouldn’t think that living 10 minutes from a centre as compared to five minutes would make much difference and for sure doesn’t lead to the conclusion that selling off public land and increasing density is the answer to having less cars.
January 29, 2018 at 6:26 PM
It is not the councils job to make houses affordable….that is a State & Federal responsibility; they have the power and budget to make these changes. Councils don’t. Residents want minimum levels of parking not maximum so that developers cannot request a waiver for supplying less parking. Has Glen Eira councillors listened to anything that the ratepayers have been telling them?. All these public meetings over a long period of time and expense and yet again its all been wasted because the councillors have another agenda….getting into State politics through the back door
January 29, 2018 at 7:53 PM
Good summary, there is no indication that Council has listened to comments about car parking.
January 29, 2018 at 8:09 PM
Council is once again putting the cart before the horse. Logic tells me that the first step would be to get a good ball park figure on how much multi-level car parks are likely to cost and whether they are worth the money and if residents can afford them. That’s the first step. Next would be whether they are fit for purpose and would solve parking problems or sit there like a huge eyesore. Anyone out there seen one single dollar sign on any of the thousands of pages released?
January 29, 2018 at 10:59 PM
I have noticed the lack of bicycle locking points throughout Glen Eira shopping centres they are far a few between, council doesn’t try to encourage any other alternatives to the car. Which is a shame as it could be a viable and a cost effective way of decreasing car journeys to shopping centres.
January 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM
Would be curious to know if Council has spoken to Coles and Woolworths about their plans as part of the Bentleigh structure plan process. I have not seen any reference to consultation with them throughout the planning process. This is important as it would appear that these two businesses are a major source of car traffic to the Bentleigh Activity Centre due to actual customer numbers and the need for residents to transport heavier shopping loads. Would be interesting to know what percentage of Bentleigh retail sales are attributed to these businesses and hence how important they are to the planning process. While the Glen Eira Traffic Analysis and Forecasting Report provides commentary on the “mode of transport” to Bentleigh it doesn’t appear to assess this by business type which may be an important consideration.
The contemporary trend in supermarket design is to put car parking underground directly underneath the retail area. An example of this is Coles in Bay Street Brighton which I understand has 3 levels of underground car parking and three levels of apartments (about 94 quality apartments). This approach creates many benefits including: increasing available ground level space, increasing separation of cars from other transport modes (e.g. walking and cycling), reduced residential amenity impact (e.g. multi-level car parking currently proposed for Bleazby Street across the road from residential area), a more environmentally friendly design etc.
The current situation of at grade (ground level) car parking for supermarkets in Bentleigh is a legacy from a previous era that would not be replicated today in a higher density area. This situation is a significant obstruction to a best practice outcome for maximising community benefit. Why not resolve this now in collaboration with two very large national companies (that have resources and long-term plans) as opposed to a approach of building multi-storey car parks, selling off Council land and increasing (totally inappropriate) development opportunities to achieve this.
As background, the FIRST principle of the structure plan process, as outlined in the Planning Scheme Review, was “For our activity centres, the community feedback strongly indicated that there was a sense of overdevelopment, loss of character, and subsequent impacts on surrounding residential areas”. The under-grounding of car parking for major supermarkets that service the region would appear to be a significant “anchor” project to deliver a broad range of community benefits without the complexities of the current Council plan. The current proposed Council structure plan could be totally counter-productive by having a huge impact on local businesses and residents during a long implementation period.
I hope that Council has spoken to Coles and Woolworths about their strategic and long-term objectives and how these could align with the priorities of residents. These priorities, as outlined in the Glen Eira Community Plan include “We will strive for a City that is: Liveable and Well Designed, Accessible and Well Connected, Safe Healthy and Inclusive, Clean and Sustainable”. Council should work with major stakeholders including large retailers, in an innovative manner, to deliver these community outcomes as the major focus of this structure plan process. These are significant long-term planning decisions that we must get right.
January 30, 2018 at 9:34 AM
Of course the big players have been sitting at council having discussions for months and months if not years with planners. That is how the system works. You don’t suddenly say yes to twelve stories in Carnegie and Bentleigh unless someone has come knocking on your door with a bucket full of money. Not when everyone was crying about some vcat decisions that had got through before.
January 30, 2018 at 9:37 AM
That’s probably why the original question is posed. Transparency?
January 30, 2018 at 8:55 AM
Had had a very quick look through the report. One point, I am surprised with is that the Wheatley and Centre Road intersection does not get a mention for an “intervention”. This intersection is chaotic with increased traffic levels and is not pedestrian friendly. There is an opportunity to established this intersection as the western point of the Bentleigh retail precinct.
January 30, 2018 at 10:46 AM
Camberwell junction has got a level car park. It’s smack in the middle of the shopping centre surrounded by shops and restaurants. Not houses like what this council is planning to do.
February 1, 2018 at 1:23 PM
Many people were compulsorily acquired to create that at-grade car park in Camberwell. One elderly lady had to resort to the courts to be permitted to remain until she died.
Currently the economics are that commercial land is more valuable for apartments than commercial activity, putting pressure on Council to expand commercial activity further into the surrounding residential area.
January 30, 2018 at 12:39 PM
I’ve gone back and had another look at the Bentleigh structure plan proposals. One thing worries me. I forecast that the car park will be much much higher than the stated 3 or 4 storey that’s suggested now. The plan says -“Analysis of contemporary parking demand at the time of project implementation, to ensure the appropriate car parking is provided”. The construction won’t start for years yet. How many apartments will be built in the meantime? For sure parking demands will increase instead of decreasing. That means higher and more parking is needed.
The other bit that is ridiculous is the drawings only show one entrance and exit from Horsely street. Traffic will go through the roof in a residential street then. Horsely is narrow and with a 5 or 6 story building across the road overshadowing will be another problem.