We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
The State Government has now released the next swathe of planning interventions for 25 activity centres. Whilst it may be argued that Glen Eira does slightly better than Bayside or Boroondara in terms of height limits, the overall impact of the proposed changes are catastrophic for residential amenity and urban living.
Once again there is nothing in these newly released documents which provide any information on: infrastructure costs, traffic, open space, etc. All we’re told is that developers can now build to their heart’s content and bypass resident objections in most cases. Even the government run consultation surveys are again nothing more than a tick the box exercise (see the Boroondara link for access details). We are still to see what plans are in store for Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Glen Huntly and others.
It is indeed extreme folly to believe that what will eventuate will be affordable housing. These inner suburbs basically cater for ‘luxury’ apartments selling between $2m and $3m or dog boxes that in no way suit a family.
Here’s what is proposed for Carnegie –
Whilst the council structure plan remains the same (and already includes allowance for 12 storeys) the surrounding areas are severely impacted. Please note that the light blue sections in the above image can now be built to 3 storeys and the darker blue to 4 storeys. If the land is ‘large’ (and this isn’t defined) then the limits go to 4 storeys or even 6 storeys.
When this is compared to the current zonings, then hundreds upon hundreds of sites are being earmarked for height increases and therefore a massive density rise. For example here are our current zonings:
All the areas shown as light pink in the following image are currently zoned as NRZ (neighbourhood residential zone) meaning they are either single or double storey dwellings. They can now become 3 and 4 storeys if they are on an average 500 square metre site, or if larger, the option is to go to 6 storeys.
There are very few 3 storey town houses, which means that most developments will consist of apartment blocks and not town houses. Besides, building an apartment means that more dwellings can be squeezed in compared to town houses.
What we are witnessing is the creation of unsustainable development that will become an urban wasteland that consists of apartment blocks following apartment blocks with no regard for heritage, open space, environment, and certainly no cheaper housing that suits families and downsizers. If our councillors aren’t screaming blue murder right now, then they are not doing their jobs in representing their constituents.
The select committee’s report on its investigation into the recent planning provision amendments has now been released. In many respects, the report is a damning indictment of both process and the lack of transparency by this government. It is available via this link – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/VPPamendments/reports
The report contains 12 recommendations and 20 findings most of which are highly critical of government. These findings/recommendations are significant in that they highlight many of the issues that Glen Eira’s submission basically ignored and which we commented upon in our previous post! What is disappointing is that there is no specific recommendation regarding the proposed removal of third party objection rights. The committee basically states that this element has a long and important role in the state’s planning history!
We’ve highlighted some of the major comments and conclusions below. They are quoted verbatim.
A major problem facing the Committee was the absence of requested modelling fromthe Government, to demonstrate that the amendments will achieve their objectives.Without that modelling, the Committee was reluctant to downplay the manyunintended consequences arising from the new planning provisions that were identifiedby users of the planning system.
Of the many unintended consequences identified by stakeholders, the most concerningfor me related to the new townhouse and low-rise code: the removal of considerationof flood risks from the planning process, the reduction of environmentally sustainabledevelopment standards in major local government areas, and the excessive removalof existing trees. Surely we can address Victoria’s housing challenges without alsocreating these new risks (from introduction by chair – David Ettershank)
Finding No. 5 – Little convincing evidence was advanced to the Inquiry that the StateGovernment’s announced planning changes will guarantee additional housing and nosubstantive evidence was advanced that the Government’s plan would with certaintyprovide additional affordable housing.
FINDING 6: The Victorian Government did not properly consult on these threeamendments and the Committee is of the view that the Minister has inappropriatelyexempted herself from expected consultation.
RECOMMENDATION 4: At a minimum, modification of planning schemeamendments should be undertaken after a round of genuine consultation with councilsand communities.
FINDING 9: The Committee acknowledges that the concerns expressed by manysubmitters that heritage and heritage values are at serious risk of being compromisedby these planning amendments are valid. Protections should be available to protectour city and its magnificent heritage buildings and zones.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The decision guidelines of clause 65 of the Victoria PlanningProvisions should apply to all decisions made under clause 55. This is most importantwhere risks to human life and health, and to the environment, should be identified andmanaged.
FINDING 15: Without being presented with any evidence to the contrary, theCommittee is concerned that clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions may lead tothe excessive removal of existing trees and reduce tree canopy.
RECOMMENDATION 9: That the Victorian Government publish and releasemodelling regarding the expected impact of the planning scheme amendments on treecanopy and vegetation in areas affected by the changes.
RECOMMENDATION 10: That the Victorian Government make improvements toclause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions including the addition of a separatelandscaping objective and standards, and changes to the tree canopy cover objectiveand standards. The introduction of any improvements should be undertaken as early aspossible.
RECOMMENDATION 11: That the Victorian Government promptly review andimprove the environmentally sustainable development standards in clause 55 of theVictoria Planning Provisions with a view to ensuring the statewide standards meet thehigher standards found in 28 local government areas.
FINDING 18: The planning amendments mark a reduction in long standing thirdparty appeal rights in the planning system.
There are only two possible conclusions to be drawn from Glen Eira council’s submission into the state government’s select committee review of recent government planning amendments – either our planning officers are entirely incompetent or, they are basically on side with the proposed changes and therefore will not be as critical as they should in their dealings with government.
Yes, council in its submission addresses what most other councils point out:
The removal of third party objection rights
The lack of consultation and release of documents that justify the proposed changes
The ungodly haste of these changes
The lack of infrastructure funding information
But that’s where it stops. The failure to highlight, or even mention some of the following is inexcusable –
The increasing control of the Minister over planning permits
The reduction in private open space everywhere
The failure to ensure that tree canopies will increase
The destruction of local residential amenity
Heritage, environment, flooding, and neighbourhood character in general
Housing targets compared to Victoria in Future figures
Here was an opportunity to delve deep into the consequences of these amendments and show how they will change the face of Melbourne forever if they become ‘law’. This council failed to do. Instead all we got were largely minor criticisms of wording, their ambiguity, and the ‘risks’ this presented to council – not the community at large!!!!!
For starters, please compare the Glen Eira’s overall interpretation compared to other councils. Note the tone!
…. it is way too early to make a call on whether these amendments will result inmore housing being built and whether the type of housing that will be built will beaffordable and meet the diversity needs of home seekers. The question as to whetherthe three amendments give proper effect, to the objectives of ‘planning’ and the’planning framework’ in Victoria is, to some degree, considered premature.
BAYSIDE – The change that could occur through the Amendments should not be underestimated. It has the potential to very substantially change the face of Melbourne because of how large the affected areas are. None of this is consistent with the “fairness” objective of planning in Victoria.
STONNINGTON – Stonnington was disappointed that these amendments were largely announced through the media, representing major urban planning and public policy by stealth, which risks poor long term liveability outcomes for residents.
KNOX – Knox officers do not believe that the proposed provisions will achieve better design outcomes and as drafted, are not fit for purpose and risk a range of unintended consequences
MAROONDAH – A key assumption behind recent changes to the VPPs is that having a standardised approach to development across Victoria will deliver an increased number of dwellings. With the attempt to standardise development types in activity centres, as well as the deemed to comply approach for Rescode ……to encourage and approve development that responds to local amenity, place and neighbourhood character is now a thing of the past
The majority of other councils concentrated heavily on the impacts of the removal of their existing residential zone schedules and what this would mean in terms of reduced open space availability given the increased site coverages and its effects on tree removal and protection of tree canopy targets. For instance, Glen Eira currently has a 50% coverage in its residential NRZ1 zone. This will now be 60% with a reduction in private open space requirements, front setbacks reduced to 6 m instead of current 9 metres. There are other mooted changes that will impact horribly on local streets and neighbourhoods throughout the municipality. So what is Glen Eira’s response to these threats? Please read the following extract carefully –
No mention is made of how this might affect tree canopy targets, nor whether the increased site coverage could simply result in larger dwellings. What’s even more amusing is the continued emphases on ‘risks’ to councils. But it has always been up to council to determine the appropriateness of landscaping. This hasn’t changed..
Here are the views of some other councils –
STONNINGTON – New requirements require a minimum of 10% canopy cover for sites 1000 square metres or less, and 20% for sites over 1000 square metres. The majority of residential lots in Stonnington are less than 1000 square metres. 10 per cent canopy cover will not raise greening to reach the target identified in Plan for Victoria and is significantly lower than what is currently being provided in new developments throughout residential areas in Stonnington.
The one-size-fits-all approach of codified design standards will discourage high quality architecture in favour of cookie-cutter development that is not site responsive
Further evidence of the piecemeal approach to planning currently occurring in Victoria is thefact that none of the VC Amendments make any reference to either Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 or the belated announcement of Plan for Victoria.
BOROONDARA – The 10% canopy cover target is also inconsistent with the 30% canopy cover target contained in Plan for Victoria and significantly lower than Boroondara’s owntarget of 27%. In established areas the 10% canopy cover will often be less thancurrently exists so development will result in a reduction. This places too muchonus on public land to make up the shortfall and achieve the tree canopy target.
Removal of environmental considerations is highly concerning. The deemed tocomply nature of the Code means that local planning policies designed to achievebetter environmental outcomes (i.e. Environmental Sustainable Design and treeprotection) will be removed from consideration. Where a development is deemed to -comply only the minimal environmental considerations within the Code can beconsidered. This is highly problematic and not consistent with the delivery offuture housing which is sustainable and reduces energy use for future residents
MAROONDAH – Removing the locally varied Clause 55 standards in the schedule to the zones as well as reducing the number of standards that could be varied in future, is more about the State s intent to maximise building footprints which often equates to larger homes, and not additional dwelling numbers, as opposed to achieving well designed dwellings that are site responsive designs that respond to the local amenity and conditions. There has been no evidence published by the State as to why theremoval of local variations or how the new Code standards are necessary to meet housing targets..
Finally a summation of what these changes will mean for residents.
KNOX – Removing neighbourhood character consideration means that a development in Boronia or Ferntree Gully is assessed in the same way as a development in Elsternwick or Richmond.
New residential development in Knox, along with the rest of Victoria,will become a homogenous cookie‐cutter outcome that bears little relationship to its surrounding neighbourhood MAROONDAH – This flawed approach will result in all dwellingsin Victoria being constructed to the same standards and design outcomes with no consideration of local context and character.
It has not been adequately evidenced by the Victorian Government as to how the revised Code will provide the capacity to deliver more housing. Expanding the building footprint permitted, reducing open space requirements and allowing dwellings to be larger, taller and of cheaper quality buildingmaterials, does not necessarily result in more or better housing.
There is much, much more that could be said in regards to council’s submission. Overall, it fails dismally by almost completely ignoring the impacts on local neighbourhoods. Heritage does not even rate a mention, and neither does decreasing open space. Why other councils can focus on these issues and Glen Eira chooses to basically ignore them is the crucial question.
Over the past week or so we have had announcement after announcement regarding the proposed changes to our activity centres. All bereft of strategic justification and lacking essential detail as to eventual heights, open space provision or infrastructure and its appropriate funding. We await the gazetting of other plans.
This tsunami of proposed changes will undoubtedly impact Glen Eira more than other councils and most will be without third party objection rights.
We itemise below each of these proposals –
Moorabbin
The changes to the Moorabbin major activity centre will affect Glen Eira in many ways. The latest version is depicted in the image below. Please note that Glen Eira sites feature north of South Road and north/east of Nepean Highway. The other areas included are within the Kingston and Bayside areas.
A summary of the most important changes are:
Catchment areas increased all the way from South Road to Patterson Road. Highly questionable whether this range is really 800m or simply as the crow flies.
The areas marked light blue are currently zoned as NRZ (ie two storey height limit). They will now be rezoned as suitable for up to three storeys and some four storeys depending on land size.
Most of the green coloured sites now have a three storey height limit which will be increased to six storeys.
Car parking requirements remain unknown
Thus hundreds of Glen Eira sites are impacted.
Railway Stations/Activity Centres
Yesterday’s announcement of another list of activity centres about to be changed forever has Glen Eira featuring prominently. We will now have 5 areas designated for major high density development – Bentleigh, Ormond, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick, and Caulfield. No other details as to heights, setbacks, parking, infrastructure, etc. has been released, nor most importantly what size their respective ‘catchment areas’ will be. We have no idea as to whether we are looking at 10 or 12 storeys (even though North Road has already been granted the ‘right’ for 10 storeys as this stage).
The only other council to have 5 areas nominated is Stonnington. What’s important to bear in mind is that Glen Eira is only 38.9 square km in size compared to most other councils. We also lack the commercial areas that Stonnington and other councils have – ie we are basically a residential municipality compared with the size of the commercial areas in other councils. (ie Glen Eira has 3.8% of land zoned commercial compared to Stonnington nearing 9%). With the prospect of all these areas suddenly becoming high density, this could mean that close to half of our municipality will now be a developer’s paradise. Glen Huntly currently has, according to profile.id data, a population density of 5,824 persons per square km – the highest in Glen Eira as well as being one of the smallest suburbs. Parts of our drainage system feature pipes that are 100 years old; our roads are often narrow, and congestion is already a major headache.
Equitable distribution of increased population planning does not seem to exist for this government. As long as there are railway stations, then the myth continues to be propagated that this is suitable for high density regardless of the fact that:
People living in one or two bedroom apartments still own cars as we’ve recently illustrated
More dwellings does not mean more affordable housing. When three bedroom apartments can sell for over $3m and two bedroom apartments for $1.4m then affordable housing is truly a myth in most of Glen Eira.
The tsunami of recent media releases by this government appears to mirror the Trump techniques – inundate readers with a deluge so that the ability to clearly focus, question, and assess becomes limited. Secondly resort to spin and more spin that simply makes no sense except to push a political agenda creating the impression that government is actually doing something.
Unless our council is prepared to become far more proactive and critical, as other councils have, then Glen Eira is basically doomed. It will, in our opinion, become the ghettos of either high priced luxury apartments, or our future slums with no real advance on affordable homes or protecting existing residential amenity.
The most relevant and crucial point made at last night’s council meeting on the Woolies’ application came from Cr Daniel when she asked the following question. The audio also includes the response she received from the officer in charge:
How on earth it is possible to claim that the current application will not have any further ‘detriment’ on surrounding areas when:
A six storey building will now be ‘acceptable’ as a nine storey building with many changes to setbacks, balconies, reconfiguration of apartments, etc.
How is it possible to basically ignore almost completely the findings of the last VCAT hearing and claim that ‘on balance’ the crucial conditions imposed by VCAT can be ignored in favour of Woolworths?
What makes last night’s events even more unacceptable is the actual council submission itself. The last 3 pages of the submission list council’s recommendations. The final sentence states: Council does not object to the granting of a planning permit for application PA2403410, subject to the above recommendations being implemented. So what do these recommendations actually state? There is not a single word in these recommendations that have anything to do with the increased heights of both proposed towers nor the detailed findings of VCAT!!!!! The 3 pages of the recommendation consist entirely of commentary on such things as glazing, construction management plans etc. No recommendation is to be found in terms of heights, apartment reconfigurations, the impact on the proposed cultural centre and traffic movement etc.
Council does admittedly refer to the increase of heights in its first few pages. But these increases are largely seen in relation to council’s proposed structure plan via amendment C256 and how this new amendment reduced the existing 10 storey height to 8 storeys. Thus instead of objecting strongly to the woollies proposed heights as having a detrimental impact based on what VCAT found, the submission only refers to the newly proposed amendment and how the application exceeds the 8 storey limit. Given that both the 10 storey and now proposed 8 storey limit is ‘discretionary’, it will not be hard for Woolworths to argue that an increase in one or two storeys is okay if not ‘negligible’!!!!!!
Last night’s offerings especially by Karslake were indicative of what we consider to be the pro development agenda of this council. It is deliberately misleading for Karslake in her summation to present the issues against ‘rejection’ as a simple black and white dichotomy – ie we have to be in the game so rejection is not feasible! This does not mean that council’s submission could not have included some strong commentary urging the minister to reject the application based on previous findings and that if a permit was to be granted that the issues determined by VCAT be given serious consideration. This would not exclude the other recommendations made by council – but it would at least show strong support for community!
We’ve uploaded the full discussion on this item. Please listen carefully.
We have repeatedly sought strong council opposition as to how the state government has been riding rough shod over councils. Glen Eira has largely been officially silent apart from a belated media release by McKenzie (who has now resigned!!!!) and some mealy mouthed submissions to various state run ‘consultations’. When compared to how Boroondara and others have acted recently we find Glen Eira’s responses woeful and a real desertion of their duty to residents. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Boroondara’s reactions last year to the imposed dwelling quotas for councils –
What Council is not supportive of is the additional ‘catchment area’ that extends a further 800m from the boundary of the centre and will allow for development height up to 6 storeys in heritage areas and low scale single dwelling leafy neighbourhoods. Neither Council nor the community have been consulted on this alarming new catchment area, which is illogical and representative of poor planning.
This vast catchment area encompasses 4,500 heritage listed properties. It is estimated that approximately 48% of this catchment area is land currently protected by the Heritage Overlay (refer to map provided). Council does not support this catchment area in any way and condemns the state government’s disregard for local heritage and amenity. This catchment area has been imposed with no evidence of any strategic analysis, assessment of local infrastructure capacity or consideration of the impact on local services and community facilities.
Any claims by the Minister for Planning that they have undertaken consultation with Council on the latest version of their plans are completely false
Social media has been busy with the Woolworths’ new plans for Selwyn Street, Elsternwick. As pointed out repeatedly, they have gone directly to the planning minister with a new application that seeks to undermine previous VCAT decisions and restore heights that had been knocked on the head years ago. In other words, if you don’t get what you want, then simply ignore the umpire’s previous decision and have another go via one single individual – the planning minister. Even worse is that such an action effectively sidelines objectors and even council.
This is hypocrisy of the highest level – especially when we consider the Woolworths’ arguments at the second VCAT hearing, which they now clearly have forgotten. At this hearing, their argument was:
The Applicant’s closing submission highlights examples of this and points out a second VCAT hearing should not be about forum shopping and relitigating previously determined matters in the hope of securing a different outcome. The Applicant also highlights that the previous Tribunal comprised experienced legal and planning members and their reasoning was considerable in explaining why particular issues were acceptable.
So these ‘experienced legal and planning members’ of VCAT, cannot now be ‘trusted’ to endorse Woolworths’ ambitions. They must be sidestepped and appealed to the planning minister in the hope of a fast tracked permit that is all for seeking a ‘different outcome’.
The only conclusions that can be drawn from these events is that our planning system is an entire mess that invariably favours developers. Council itself has been complicit in these events as its lousy planning over the years and unwillingness to take on major developments have shown – ie with the MRC, with the Virginia Estate, and now with Woolworths. It is residents who literally pay the costs of such folly and craven inaction.
A dormant high-rise housing project – derisively dubbed the “Ormond Sky Tower” when plans for it emerged eight years ago – has been revived as the latest in a string of build-to-rent projects for Melbourne.
The tower was first planned to reach 13 storeys above largely low-rise Ormond, rising from a concrete platform the Andrews government built over the Frankston line train tracks when it removed the North Road level crossing in 2016.
The revised plans for the Ormond station development would rise to 10 storeys at North Road and six storeys elsewhere.
It was to have been the first example of value capture from the government’s multibillion-dollar level crossing removal program and one of the tallest residential buildings in Melbourne’s south-east.
But it was later shaved to 10 storeys after the Coalition and the Greens joined forces to block the development in a rare parliamentary revocation of a state government planning approval.
The proposal includes 288 build-to-rent homes and a supermarket.
The purpose-built concrete platform above and next to Ormond station remains empty despite a new planning permit being granted to developer DealCorp in 2021.
But DealCorp now hopes to revive the project as a mixed-use development with almost 300 rental apartments, office spaces, a ground floor supermarket and several smaller stores.
Amended plans lodged with the Department of Planning last year and obtained by The Age reveal DealCorp wants to build a 288-unit building which would rise to 10 storeys above Ormond station on busy North Road and to six storeys where it extends into quieter residential parts behind the station. The development would have 514 parking spaces and 289 bicycle parking spaces.
DealCorp director David Kobritz said construction cost increases of about 50 per cent over the past few years had rendered the original build-to-sell project financially unviable. Trying to sell the apartments to investors or owner-occupiers could take years in the current market, increase costs and jeopardise the project’s viability yet again, Kobritz said.
“So we think build-to-rent is the correct option,” he said.He hoped construction on the project, which would cost more than $200 million, would begin this year and be completed by 2027.
Melbourne’s apartment market is unique among Australian cities in that the number of new build-to-rent developments in the pipeline has overtaken traditional build-to-sell developments. Kobritz said this was due to rising costs and flat sales.
The City of Glen Eira opposed the original “sky tower” in 2016 and the scaled-down 10-storey version approved in 2018. But current mayor Simone Zmood said it made sense to support population growth where there was easy access to public transport, shops and services.
“We think it’s important to get the balance right between the inevitability of population growth – and with it, higher density housing – and the neighbourhood character our residents know and love. This is what we’ve done through our structure plans, created through conversations with our community,” Zmood said.
She said the Ormond station proposal was being led by the Victorian government, with minimal council involvement.
Ormond was not included among the first 25 train and tram zone activity centres where the state government is poised to seize planning controls to encourage greater housing density.
Liton Kamruzzaman, an associate professor of transport at Monash University, has studied how the government’s level crossing removal program has changed land use around each site.
Kamruzzaman said the program had not led to a housing boom so far and was a “missed opportunity in terms of urban regeneration”.
Analysis of land use changes at 13 level crossing removal sites found a significant increase in commercial activity within 100 metres of each site, a significant increase in open space and a rise in car parking availability. But the proportion of residential land had fallen almost 30 per cent.
“There is a missed opportunity because huge investment is going on there on the transport side; with a little bit of impetus from the government on the land use side you would see much more integrated development,” Kamruzzaman said.
The Monash University study found that level crossing removals in which the tracks were lowered, such as at Ormond station, produced the least change in land use, while elevated tracks spurred more.
“Overall, the [removal program] resulted in more open spaces, parking and commercial land, while the relative proportion of residential areas showed a pattern of reduction,” the study said.
“In addition, the [program] achieved an increase in pedestrian and cycling lanes to replace railroads on the ground. These changes are expected to enhance the living environment for residents around the case sites.”
Whilst this has been a long time coming, we note the following:
No mention of social housing in a 288 apartment development
No mention of rental period, nor the concessions provided to these tenants – ie as with the Caulfield Village development, only a ten year lease and only 20% reduction on current rental costs.
No mention of the fact that abutting properties on the western side are under a heritage overlay and have an SBO running right through the area.
The vast majority of properties along the neighbouring streets are single storey which would now be confronted with heights of 6 to 10 storeys.
Below we show the current zonings and the flooding overlay –
Whilst Glen Eira basically sits back and does practically nothing, apart from a very belated media release by the CEO, Bayside City Council has been working flat out to ensure that the community knows what the State Gov is planning for their council. They have:
Held a community forum on December 18th with expert commentators where over 200 residents attended
Published summaries of what is proposed and its impact on their municipality
In contrast, residents of Glen Eira would be hard pressed to locate any specific information on council’s website, and there certainly has been no information sessions/forums held by our council.
One activity centre of concern to Glen Eira is Moorabbin where the west side of South Road is in Glen Eira and the East covers Kingston and south Bayside. Here is what Bayside has said about the proposals for this area and its views on the proposed housing targets –
With the end of the year fast approaching, we are still waiting for the State Gov to release the information on the 50 activity centres that will be earmarked for developments ranging from 3 to 20 storeys. If past history is any guide, then we suspect the publication of these centres will appear Christmas Eve or possibly New Year’s Eve!
If by some miracle they come earlier, we can be sure they will again be bereft of detail, strategic justification, or accompanied by any important data such as traffic analyses, overshadowning data, etc. We anticipate that several of our activity centres will be added to the list following the recent inclusion of Moorabbin as one activity centre.
It’s perfect timing for the State Gov, with the festive season in full swing and holidays to occupy people’s minds.
Our previous post featured car ownership data across all of Glen Eira. The following table has broken down the stats to show what is happening across individual suburbs. The vast majority of these areas are within our major activity centres, or our neighbourhood centres, plus featuring major roads.
(CLICK THE ABOVE TO ENLARGE)
What the data reveals is that assigning a one onsite car parking spot for dwellings that contain either one or two bedrooms is doing nothing to reduce car ownership – which is purportedly the aim. And parking issues are even further exacerbated when we have council or vcat waiving spots. We have not included this variable in the above analysis.
What we can conclude is that:
Over 6,141 cars do not have onsite parking spots – and probably more given car parking waivers. That can only mean that they are parking outside on the street. This number is based on the following calculation – 432 second cars in one bedroom places, plus 70 spots for 3 cars per such dwellings. Added to this we have 4,761 two car households in two bedroom homes, plus 439 three car households. The latter figure means that 2 cars won’t have onsite parking, which makes it another 878 cars likely to park in the street. The total becomes 432+70+4,761+878=6,141!
There are of course certain assumptions made in the above calculation. For example: whether two bedroom places are townhouses with driveways and a one car garage, so that the second and third car might perhaps park in the driveway. However, the number of two bedroom town houses/units is quite small, (just over 5000) so should not over-ride the conclusion that there is a huge shortfall of required onsite parking in our municipality.
For council and VCAT to frequently waive onsite car parking and to even consider further reducing the ratio can only worsen the situation. It also shoots down in flames the argument that people living near transport areas will not own cars. Furthermore, if the major criterion is how people get to work, then this tells us nothing about how people use their cars apart from getting to work – ie. shopping, picking kids up from school, visiting places and friends. It also assumes that public transport is great at all hours of the day. What is indisputable is that the number of cars is increasing based on the past census data and they are outstripping the number of new dwellings. To assume that people living in one bedroom apartments in particular and who live close to transport will not own and use cars, is to ignore the facts.
Glen Eira Debates 