June 20, 2013
We’ve received an email from a resident regarding a complaint sent into the Minister. Here is the response. Please note that the final sentence of this letter should read: “It is hoped that the Trust and the MRC will continue to work with Glen Eira City Council to monitor the use, and if required, improve the community facilities provided in the centre of the track.”
June 19, 2013
The alleged comments by Hyams in this article raise major issues.
Below we feature some extracts from the agenda items for the next Kingston Council Ordinary Meeting. Not only is there a lengthy officer report on the implications of the commercial zone changes from July 1st, but actions to try and ameliorate the potential damage (uploaded here). In Glen Eira all we get is silence, inaction, and misinformation!
With a Planning Permit previously prohibited locations can be used to create multiple Supermarket(s), shop(s) or Department Store(s).
The zoning translation, if not carefully managed at residential abuttals, also has the potential to create adverse amenity impacts with the ability of incompatible land uses to establish without a planning permit.
A Supermarket under 1800m2 or shop under 500m2 associated with or adjoining a Supermarket can be constructed without a Planning Permit. The definition of Shop also includes Bottle Shop. This would mean that beyond issues of policy matters such as loading times, hours of operation or other management issues associated with facilities that may impact on amenity of adjacent residential areas would not be able to be considered.
Businesses of all sizes have made investment decision in the City of Kingston based on the Local Planning Policy Frameowrk and the application of zones. These decisions for numerous business owners have the potential to be immediately and directly undermined through the application of the Commercial 2 Zone in location where certain activities where(sic) previously prohibited.
…it has also been necessary to consider that if the Commercial 2 zone were applied what levels of amenity protection would be provided for immediately adjacent or nearby residential areas when compared with the status quo.
The work of successive council’s (sic) in developing Structure Plans, Local Planning Policies, facilitating retail investment in planned locations and assisting diversifying its employment land will be undermined if the Commercial 2 Zone is introduced to replace the large areas in Kingston zoned Business 3 and 4.
Uses that are permissible under the Commercial 2 Zone such as Supermarket(s), Shop(s) and Department Store(s) that were previously prohibited will impact on small businesses that have invested in planned locations and on community service and infrastructure investment provided in Activity Centres.
The unintended consequence of the introduction of the commercial 2 Zone, is that land uses which Council’s Local Planning Policies clearly discourage in ‘out of centre locations’, become as of right or permissible.
June 18, 2013
PS: The potential sale of the ABC studios is nothing new. In fact, it has been on the cards for at least ten years. That raises the question of what Council has been doing in the meantime? Is it another instance of too little, too late? The horse has already bolted? Below are some media reports that will interest residents. Please note one real estate agent’s comments regarding the lack of height limits set by council!
The Rippon Lea Estate point of view – http://www.nattrust.com.au/advocacy/campaigns/abc_for_rippon_lea
PLUS
ABC’s Slice of Rippon Lea Estate, Elsternwick, Expected to Sell For More than $25 Million
Written by Marc Pallisco
| Monday, 26 October 2009 23:16 |
|
Rippon Lea AN 8,000 square metre slice of Elsternwick’s historic Rippon Lea estate, compulsorily acquired by the State Government in the 1950s for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – is likely to be sold to residential developers, if the ABC vacates the property in 2012. ABC project director Ray Moore told Secret Agent it is considering selling two Elsternwick properties, currently occupied as studios and offices, including a major complex on Gordon Street abutting Rippon Lea – built on what was once the property’s southern boundary. Moneys raised from the sales will fund the development of a new $90 million studio at 102 Sturt Street in Southbank, Mr Moore said. The Sturt Street development, which would be next door to an existing ABC office at 120 Southbank Boulevard, is subject to parliamentary approval, but expected to occur. Sources estimate the value of ABC’s outgoing Gordon Street office to be about $25 million. They say the land could make way for an apartment complex, similar to that being proposed around the Stonington mansion in Malvern, or a lower density subdivision, as occurred behind Canterbury’s Frognall mansion in the early 1990s. At close to a hectare, the site could also make way for several apartment towers offering Port Phillip and CBD views, over Rippon Lea’s established gardens. ABC offices and studios were developed on part of the Rippon Lea estate, prior to the opening of the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games. Popular television shows including Countdown, The Big Gig and The Late Show were later recorded at what is known as the “Rippon Lea studio”. The land occupied by the ABC is not on the Victorian Heritage Register, but a Heritage Victoria spokeswoman said the ABC could still return the land to the estate, if it wanted. The imposing Rippon Lea property is managed by the National Trust, and open to the public.
PLUS
ABC set to leave home Phillip Hudson and Nathan Mawby 3 May 2013 Herald-Sun THE ABC will be leaving its historic TV studios at Ripponlea and the valuable property may be sold for high-rise residential development under plans to build a new headquarters for the national broadcaster in Southbank. Famous ABC programs such as Countdown were produced at the Gordon St studios, which opened in 1956 with the introduction of television. In recent years, it has been home to programs such as Adam Hills chat show In Gordon Street Tonight and filming for the series Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries. Under the plan, the ABC will build a five-storey headquarters next to its existing Southbank offices, where its TV news moved in 2001. It will include new TV studios and a major TV production centre. The overhaul is aimed at guaranteeing jobs and production in Victoria. The Federal Government will loan the ABC $90 million, which it has to repay by 2020. ABC managing director Mark Scott said the new building would be designed to put the ABC’s many services on show. “All the plans for this area are to make it more visible, more highly trafficked by pedestrians, make it more of a centrepoint of the centre,” he said. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the new building would be home to the ABC’s radio, television and digital production operations as well as its broadcasting and support services. Senator Conroy said consolidating operations would allow the ABC to achieve operational savings and productivity benefits. Local architect Robert Mills said the Ripponlea site’s proximity to the CBD, transport, schools and shopping meant that while a feasibility study would be done, it would likely become a residential site. “It will be controversial, but I predict the final outcome will be a high-rise,” he said. Mr Mills said that while the building had no council height restrictions, its height would likely be limited by shading. The former Channel 9 studios in Bendigo St, Richmond, are being transformed into apartments and townhouses, selling for up to $1.2 million. |
June 16, 2013
As we predicted the 80 – 100 foot gum that had its roots ripped out to make way for a $600,000 car park has now gone into the dustbin of history. Below we feature some of our earlier photos and the carnage that has (unnecessarily we believe) been wrought. Another huge gum along this stretch of redevelopment will, we believe, go the same way. Questions must be asked and answered about what is utter and total negligence and incompetence:
HERE’S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW
June 16, 2013
No submissions were received on the ‘Community/Council Plan’ or the Strategic Resource Plan. Here’s what the councillors said.
LIPSHUTZ: noted that no submissions were received on the Council Plan and Strategic Resource plan so the ‘motion’ stands.
DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that in Glen Eira the terms Council Plan and Community Plan were interchangeable and that she ‘disagrees with this practice’. Said that the ‘community plan is the community plan’ and the council plan is a ‘separate document to that’. The council plan ‘outlines’ what council ‘intends to do’ but it’s based on community ideas of ‘what we should be doing’. Went on to say that if they had done it like other councils then maybe there would have been some submissions. Thought that ‘it is confusing’ the way it is presented ‘at the moment’ and ‘not in step with any other council’ and that ‘we are underselling ourselves’ if council doesn’t believe it can ‘strategically plan out our term in office’. Supported the motion because it is ‘true’ that there were no submissions but she doesn’t support the process that lead to the motion.
HYAMS: Said that he liked calling what was going to be done for the community the ‘community plan’ rather than ‘council plan’. Said that what council does is ‘put them both together and incorporate’ what the community wants into the council plan. Didn’t think that ‘having this delineation’ stopped people from putting in submissions and that people weren’t that ‘pedantic’. Whilst ‘disappointing’ that no submissions were forwarded that this could be seen as ‘a vote of confidence from the public’ and that ‘people tend to be more involved in things they’re not happy with’. Said that council would ‘continue to consult with the community’ and that they would ‘take on board anything they tell us’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
June 14, 2013
Source: Australian Jewish News, 12th June 2013, Page 21
Time to Throw out Conservative councillors
A few weekends ago nearly 1500 locals gathered to support AJAX Senior Football Club when it recently played away at Princes Park in South Caulfield. Yet this club has been barred from home games at the ground by an unfair and unknown decision-making process wielded by the seemingly all powerful bureaucrats hidden in the halls of Glen Eira Town Hall.
Over a decade in politics I have observed with increasing bemusement the relative weakness of most elected councillors compared to the officials who seem to dominate Glen Eira Council. It must be said that the chief executive Andrew Newton of Glen Eira Council is polite and highly professional.
Many of the Glen Eira councillors are well-intentioned people but their conservative values dictated by the Liberal party have put them at odds with their community, have made them weak and they have not sought to bring much needed transparency to decision-making. New Councillor Mary Delahunty will make a difference.
Residents of Caulfield are fed up by the popular local footy club being barred from its local ground or by its over-development by a rapacious racing club fawned over by conservative councillors.
Sorry to say, however, the answer for Glen Eira residents fed up with overweening power of unelected professionals is more politics, not less.
Glen Eira voters must turf out the conservative councillors afraid to take on the bureaucrats.
Their replacements must run on an explicit program of asserting themselves over the civil servants of Glen Eira.
I am afraid that is the only way AJAX Senior Football will get to Princes Park, where so many of their boisterous local family and friends celebrated the opportunity for them to play in an “away” game.
MICHAEL DANBY
+++++++++++++++++++
Challenging council on ground allocation
Regarding Council allocation Mayor Hyams has not quite got it right/ Ajax could have got the Princes Park allocation and Old Haileybury could have stayed at McKinnon Reserve.
Alternatively, Old Haileybury could have been sent to GlenHuntly Oval and shared that ground with Caulfield Grammarians, where no junior Sunday games occur.
That way, no existing ground allocation would need to be cut. Glen Eira Council could have catered for the existing tenants and also catered for its real community club around Princes Park – AJAX FC where the junior play on a Sunday.
So as Councillor Hyams has advised in Council Minutes – that Old Haileybury has been moved due to the need to give the Mckinnon Reserve a rest. It is safe to assume that Old Haileybury will be moved back to its traditional home ground for 2014 opening the EOI (expression of interest) process for Princes Park?
IAN FAYMAN
June 13, 2013
There are some very interesting public questions as well as a few other events from Tuesday night’s meeting that are worthy of highlighting. First the public question on the Racecourse:
“At council meetings I note reports are frequently given by representatives who attend other bodies such as the MAV on behalf of council and reports are given. This being the case why do our three representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees never give a report, because it is absolutely impossible to find out what is going on in the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Do the Glen Eira Council Trustees realise that their residents are actually never granted permission to attend a CRT MEETING although this is advertised as being possible on The City of Glen Eira website as being the case? Is council prepared to take any action to ensure that the entrance to our reserve from Glen Eira Road is made to be more welcoming?
Or is council prepared to have the entrance pathway sealed and cleaned so that wheelchairs and prams do not collect horse excreta over the tyres and what action can be taken to remove the barrier at the eastern end of the pathway. A person in a wheelchair would have to reverse all the way to get out if unable to remove the barrier when in their wheelchair. This barrier has been in place for quite some time.
Could our representatives on CRT walk on this path and into the park and assess the situation in detail rather than speed through by car? Council came to a decision with the Melbourne Racing Club regarding this entrance issue and once again it seems the non-racing public has come off with a very bad result as it is being currently administered. Can our three trustees move to improve the situation for all residents of Glen Eira even those travelling in wheel chairs and pushing prams?”
The Mayor read the response on behalf of the Councillors who are appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. He said:
“Thank you for your questions.
1. The premise in your first question however is not correct. Whereas there are Council representatives on various committees and bodies representing the views and interests of the Council – hence reports are made to and received by Council – that is not the case with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.
Council is requested by the State Government to nominate Councillors to be appointed as Trustees. Council nominated 6 Councillors and it was the State Government that then appointed the Trustees. The three Councillors who are Trustees do not sit on the Trust as Council representatives per se but as Trustees. Any enquiries about the deliberations of the Trust should be directed to the Trust or to its chairperson, Mr Greg Sword.
2. We are aware that to date residents have not been granted permission to address the Trust. The decision as to whether a non-Trustee may address the Trust is determined by a majority of the Trustees. Council has advocated for the Trust to be more open and transparent, and will continue to do so.
3. Council has advocated for some time and continues to advocate that the tunnel entrance from Glen Eira Road be more welcoming and accessible to the public. It is for the Trust however to ensure that the entrance is clean and not for Council.
4. As Trustees we will certainly be raising with the Trust the issues to which you refer.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
The in camera report contains the following:
Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty
That Council
i) Rescind its 18 December 2012 resolution to appoint Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd, ACN 137 823 360 as the contractor under EOI number 2013.030
Two points bear making here:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, there is this Request for a Report regarding the ABC Studios in Elsternwick. We have no doubt that since this has reared its head and has come up at a council meeting that plenty of ‘negotiations’ have already occurred and that the potential token ‘open space’ that Council might be granted will be offset by another huge, multi-storey development! Watch this space!
Crs Pilling/Delahunty
That a report be prepared on the ABC site at Elsternwick. This report should detail past history, current usage and outline the present future plans for the site. It should also identify types of community uses and benefits for at least part of the site and set out strategies and steps Council can take to achieve this.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) declared a Conflict of Interest as he lives in close proximity to the site.
9.06PM the CEO left the Chamber.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
June 12, 2013
PS: Esakoff was absent and Magee arrived late – just in time for public questions!
LOCAL LAW COMMITTEE
LIPSHUTZ: said that the ‘two major issues’ were the tree register and local law 326 (organised sport). Tree register is council’s wish to identify ‘the best sort of trees in the area’ and can’t be removed without permits. They looked at ‘appeal process’ for trees on private property because they thought ‘there might be some objections’ by landowners since ‘people who nominate trees’ are generally neighbours. ‘Process won’t be nomination’ but a ‘panel of arborists’ who will ‘go around the municipality and nominate trees’. Appeals will be for damage too. Corporate counsel is ‘drawing up further provisions’. Hoped that at next meeting IN SEPTEMBER, there would be the ‘final draft’.
The other issue of organised sports had caused a lot of ‘angst’ so instead of changing the law and ‘making a mess of it’ they thought that the best option was to say ‘how we define’ and interpret. Claimed that this was the ‘common’ approach in ‘acts of parliament’ that they ‘tell you how to interpret’ the law. For people with an ‘allocation’ they can play and those that don’t have an allocation can also play on surfaces as long as they don’t damage the grounds and they can ‘play there without fear of prosecution’.
On the ‘review’ of the ‘whole local law’ there might be ‘other areas’ that people want to speak about but that was for the next meeting in September.
COMMENT: not a single word was said regarding the alcohol free zones in Bentleigh shopping strip. Thus a major council decision has been made without any public discussion, without any public comment, and without residents being privy to the evidence, the arguments, nor the circumstances which lead to this decision.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS
Lipshutz moved an amendment that in any building of 3 or more dwellings that a sign be in the foyer informing people that there are no residential parking permits available for this building and people with a ‘disability’ or those people with ‘extenuating circumstances’ could apply for a residential parking permit. Seconded by Okotel. Lipshutz explained the scheme that residents could apply because there was ‘increasing pressure’ for parking and people park in streets so that residents ‘themselves’ can’t park in their own streets. Said that ‘where we have minimal change areas’ and ‘large developments coming up’ there aren’t parking permits. Said that they ‘wanted people to know’ that if ‘you’re going to buy’ then you won’t get a permit. There are other circumstances such as people becoming injured or are ill so that they should be able to apply for a parking permit. Claimed that often people don’t know that they won’t be eligible for a permit since few look up the actual permit papers so this will make it clear in that the developer has to have signs publicising the fact. ‘That means that residents can feel happy that their streets will not be clogged’. Said that this is also a warning to developers that council won’t be helping them out by ‘allowing’ permits.
OKOTEL: supported the amendment and said that every level of government needs to ‘take into account’ the needs of people with disability. Council needs to address the issues of parking but also to recognise that these measures mightn’t suit those people with ailments. At local level very important ‘that we do take into account’ those people with disability.
LOBO: said that ‘personally I don’t have any problems’ with the ‘exclusion’. ResCode was ‘hypothetical’ and ‘definitely not practical’. Outlined ResCode provisions (ie one car space for 1 & 2 bedrooms, etc.) Called these ‘nothing but a joke’ since today most couple both work and therefore have 2 cars. ‘Applying this code does not decrease parking demand’. Talked about alternate transport and who was ‘monitoring this’ and ‘complying’. Said that this all leads to the ‘destruction’ of people’s ‘facilities’. Claimed that Glen Eira had been given the ‘pill’ to solve the problem. On the one hand there is the claim that Glen Eira ‘is compact’ and on the other hand keep building. Mentioned the Alma Club and 75 unit application with only 4 visitor car parking spots – ‘the government can tell it to the swans’ that this is ‘sufficient’. At ‘this rate our suburbs are on the verge of being destroyed’. Reminded people that two years ago he claimed that we’re heading toward Calcutta and that one councillor disagreed and they had a bet. Said that the parking in Glen Eira is a ‘sheer schemozzle’ and the government lets trailers and boats to park in streets that only makes the situation a lot worse. Said that in January the issue was put to the local MP who was asked to take the issue up with the State Government. He is still waiting for a response.
HYAMS: Lobo is right on ResCode and that everyone knows that people who live in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments have more than one car. When they have applications they always hear about parking and traffic from objectors so this policy says if you want to live here then if you’ve got cars then you won’t get a parking spot. So this ‘encourages people to limit themselves to the number of cars’ they have and ‘can fit in the building’ so that it doesn’t impact on the streets. This is a ‘good policy’ and also solves one of the issues about people knowing this via the signs.
MOTION PUT: in favour – Lipshutz, Hyams, Sounness, Pilling, Delahunty, Okotel. Against – Lobo.
COMMENT: Lipshutz obviously has no qualms in fudging the facts. The policy DOES NOT MENTION MINIMAL CHANGE. Secondly, minimal change areas are the major recipients of parking permits. Thirdly, council’s sudden concern for those residents with disability is quite touching considering that in the past there have been applications where disability parking has been removed and converted into ‘visitor parking’ – hence council has given permission for the REMOVAL of designated disability parking spots.
Lobo’s arguments are quite amazing we believe. As objectors pointed out at the Alma Club planning conference, RESCODE is a guideline. Councils can do as they wish in terms of residential parking permits – as we illustrated in a previous post. It is mind boggling that these councillors always manage to find convenient scapegoats for their own reluctance, and failure to address such issues head on.
June 11, 2013
Here are some extracts from public submissions on the Budget & Community/Council Plan –
Centenary Park Car Park
#1 – The plan will have little effect on the number of cars which park on the roadside. The proposal to turn the northern car park into a garden area will to a degree isolate the childrens playground and the barbecue area. The removal of mature eucalypts which are an integral part of the park is an unattractive and environmentally unfriendly proposition. In conclusion I put it to you that the expense ($600,000) cannot be justified and it is in everyones interest to leave things as they are.
#2 – currently it is only during. the football season that there is insufficient parking space. This is on Sunday between 9am and 5pm when up to fifty or more cars are parked at any one time in brady road and leonie avenue. this amounts to about 25 days in the year. the cricket activity does not attract as many cars. the increased parking capacity in the proposed development of 63 to 75 (12 cars} will have little effect relative to the current situation,…. currently having two separate car parks – each with two exitientry points and separated by the wooded area, the traffic flow is better managed…..i agree that pedestrian safety is paramount however to date i am unaware 0 f any incident involving injury. with this background i put it to you that there is no perceived benefit in spending $600,000- to accomodate twelve more cars (which equates to $50,000 per car space.)
Caulfield Park
sports Ground Tolerant Grasses- by far the largest sum is allocated for this item which is purely to serve the purposes of active sport. An equivalent sum should be allocated to serve the needs of the many thousands of non-active sport users of the park. However. by our reckoning the sum of all the other budget items for Caulfield Park is at best $291.500.
Park Pathway lighting. We assume that this is to light the perimeter path. We also assume it includes the removal of the now redundant lights which used to light the central pedestrian pathway until it was relocated. These lights are still illumined every night and serve no useful purpose. The unsightly poles should be removed and the area planted with more trees to enhance vistas, provide more shade and increase habitat for birds across the centre of the park.
6. Playground Shade Sails Oval Number 2. This is another puzzling item as there is no playground near Oval No.2. so more explanation is required about this item. If money is to be spent on playgrounds it would be preferable to install some more play equipment at the main Park Crescent playground. on the large area recently created adjacent to Park Crescent and covered with unsightly wood chips. This area could be greatly improved by the addition of some play equipment to suit the 5-10 year age group. which is generally lacking in the park. This would be a better use of the $30.000 than installing shade sails at a non existent playground
A proper study to identify and secure an altemative location for the depot. Unless a specific study is carried out nothing is going to happen and the relocation of the depot is crucial step to providing more open space in this area of North Caulfield.
An in-depth study into the impact of climate change upon the trees in the west end of the park. Studies undertaken by the Melbourne Cify Council (Urban Forest strategy) indicate that within in the next decade 27 per cent of the current tree population in the cify’s parks are expected to die and 44 per cent in the next 20 years
Biodiversity/Sustainability
Biodiversity protection is an important part of Glen Eira’s Sustainable Living Plan, and it should be acknowledged with an accountable budget allocation. All decisions and measures taken by council should include an assessment of impacts on our local biodiversity and its sustainability.
Child Care
Year after year, we are presented with child care fee rises as a fait accompli. It would be respectful-and an act of good public relations- to present parents with the reasons for the increases. I would like to see a justification for not being be/ow average of the 38 centres in Glen Eira. As a community-based and notfor-profit service, I would not expect to see these fees on par with the plethora of privately run child care services in Glen Eira. Being average amongst profit-driven businesses is not a good thing.
Is the staff at Glen Eira’s centres any better qualified? Is more money put into their professional development? Do our children have better equipment or grounds? • How are these fees justified when other services provide meals and nappies and Glen Eira does not?
I believe that price increases and indeed, any fees at or above average, needs to be explained and justified: we are entitled to know where the fees are spent and to either rest assured that this service has an advantage over others- as perhaps an explanation might show- or to choose an alternate service that supplies nappies and meals for the same fee.
June 9, 2013
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 –
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:
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)
