Moreland Parking Overlays€¦ · 2014 – 23 July 2014 and also 1 February 2016 and 6 May 2016. During Mr Sheko’s time at GTA Consultants, ... A. Curriculum Vitae B. Moreland Parking

Mr Chris Coath

Prepared for Moreland City Council

Instructed by Mr Alexander Sheko, Moreland City Council

Hearing Date: 24-25 February 2020 Report Date: 17 February 2020 Moreland City Council

on 14/02/20

Reference: V132702

Issue #: Final

Moreland Parking Overlays Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

Car Parking Evidence Report

© GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd [ABN 34 137 610 381] 2019

The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it

has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied

as being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

GT

A R

ep

ort

(V

IC)

Melbourne | Sydney |

Brisbane

Adelaide | Perth

Moreland Parking Overlays Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

Car Parking Evidence Report

Client: Moreland City Council

on 14/02/20

Reference: V132702

Issue #: Final

V132702 // 14/02/20

Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final

Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

EXPERT WITNESS DETAILS

Name, Position & Business Address

Christopher Andrew Coath

Director, GTA Consultants

Level 25, 55 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000

Qualifications

Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Honours), Monash University, 2002

Memberships and Affiliations:

Engineers Australia, Chartered Professional Engineer (MIEAUST CPEng)

Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA), Member

Experience & Area of Expertise

I have over 18 years of experience in traffic engineering and transport planning in Victoria.

My experience encompasses an extensive range of car parking strategies, land use planning and

design, integrated transport plans, traffic and transport planning, masterplan development, traffic

engineering impact assessments, transport research and expert presentations at VCAT and Panel

hearings.

My work in the preparation of city and town centre parking strategies includes the management of kerb

space to ensure competing activity centre demands (parking, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport

and loading/servicing) are balanced to achieve resource efficiency, urban design, place making and

economic prosperity objectives. His strategy work further includes paid parking and enforcement

strategies and policies.

I have worked with municipalities across Australia with Council’s parking strategy examples including

Footscray (Parking Overlay), Box Hill (Parking Overlay), Broadmeadows, Brunswick, Dandenong CBD,

Doncaster Hill , Liverpool CBD, Newcastle CBD, Fyshwick, Woden, Belconnen, Parliamentary Zone

(ACT), Ipswich, Evandale / Bundall, Kwinana and Rosny Park and Bellerive.

I am a Chartered Professional Engineer with Engineers Australia.

Further details of my experience are provided in Appendix A.

V132702 // 14/02/20



Relationship to Client

I have no ongoing private or business relationship with the client and have been retained to provide

expert witness service at this hearing for a mutually agreed fee.

With regard to past working relationships with Moreland City Council, I note the following further

details.

GTA Consultants was commissioned by Moreland City Council in 2017 to prepare the Moreland

Integrated Transport Strategy and the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan. I was part of the team

which prepared the Moreland Implementation Plan. As part of this project I completed a Conflict of

Interest Disclosure. This disclosure was prepared to confirm that Chris Coath and other staff involved

in the development of the Parking Strategy were not involved in works relating to Nightingale being

undertaken by our office, and that the two project teams were not sharing information on their

respective projects. The disclosure applied to myself and others within GTA Consultants including

Saskia Noakes who has assisted in the preparation of this report.

GTA Consultants has previously been engaged by Council to prepare strategy documents and

assessments relating to areas of the municipality. I have been involved in the preparation of a number

of these documents including:

• Brunswick Major Activity Centre Parking Study

• Central Coburg Parking Strategy

• Central Coburg Paid Parking Review

• Moreland City Council Economic Assessment of the Introduction of Paid Parking.

It is also noted that Council’s Project Manager of the Moreland Integrated Transport, Mr Alexander

Sheko, is a former employee at GTA Consultants. Mr Sheko was employed during the period 3 March

2014 – 23 July 2014 and also 1 February 2016 and 6 May 2016. During Mr Sheko’s time at GTA

Consultants, Mr Sheko assisted me in respect of data collection and analysis inputs for a Conference

Paper ‘’Parking Limitation Policies: The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel Mode’’ for the

2016 Australian Institute of Transport Planning and Management. Mr Sheko was listed as a co-author

of the paper.

Assistance

This evidence was prepared with the assistance of Saskia Noakes (Senior Consultant, GTA).

V132702 // 14/02/20



CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1

1.1. Background 2

1.2. Summary of Submissions 2

1.3. Instructions & Scope of Report 3

1.4. References 3

2. Parking Overlay Context 4

2.1. Overview 5

3. Moreland Intergrated Transport Strategy 6

3.1. Preamble 7

3.2. Integrated Transport Strategy 7

3.3. The Role of Parking 9

4. Moreland Parking and Implementation Plan 10

4.1. Preamble 11

4.2. Purpose of the Parking Implementation Plan 11

4.3. Areas of the Plan 11

4.4. Recommendations Relating to the Parking Overlay 14

4.5. Recommendations Relating to Other Parking Matters 24

4.6. Recommendations Relating to Funding 28

5. Parking Overlay 30

5.1. Overview 30

5.2. Other Matters 30

6. Response to Submissions 31

6.1. Response to Submissions 32

7. sUMMARY OF opinion and Other Statements 37

7.1. Summary of Opinion 37

7.2. Declaration 37

V132702 // 14/02/20



Appendices

A. Curriculum Vitae

B. Moreland Parking Implementation Plan

C. Funding Mechanisms

D. Parking Overlay

Figures

Figure 2.1: Car Parking Plan and Parking Overlay Relationship 5

Figure 4.1: Moreland Activity Centres 12

Figure 4.1: Activity Centre Assessment Matrix 13

Figure C1: Moreland City Council’s revenue breakdown (2016-17 actuals)95 C-4

Tables

Table 3.1: MITS Mode Share Targets 8

Table 4.1: Percentage Comparison of Car Demand between Metropolitan Melbourne and

Moreland 21

Table C1: Comparison of sustainable transport funding options C-8

INTRODUCTION

V132702 // 14/02/20


Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 1

1. INTRODUCTION

01

INTRODUCTION

V132702 // 14/02/20



1.1. Background

Moreland City Council (“Council”) is currently seeking to incorporate Planning Scheme Amendment

C183 (“the Amendment”) into the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The amendment seeks to give effect to the objectives and strategies contained within the Moreland

Parking Implementation Plan.

More specifically, the Amendment seeks to introduce new schedules to the Parking Overlay located at

Clause 45.09 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. It also proposes to amend existing Schedules to the

Parking Overlay to address elements of the current Schedules to the Parking Overlay which are now

made redundant by the new schedules.

GTA Consultants was commissioned by Moreland City Council in 2017 to prepare an Integrated

Transport Strategy and a Parking Implementation Plan for the City of Moreland which formed the basis

for the proposed Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay.

I was commissioned by Council in January 2020 to prepare and present evidence to the Minister

appointed Planning Panel pertaining to the inclusion of the new Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking

Overlay into the Moreland Planning Scheme.

1.2. Summary of Submissions

As part of the public exhibition of the Amendment C183, a number of submissions were received with a

mix of support and opposition to the proposal. These submissions included responses related to a mix

of topics covering planning matters associated with the overarching Parking Implementation Plan,

along with responses directly relating to the proposed Parking Overlays. It is noted that submissions

were also received in regard to the general consultation process of the Moreland Integrated Transport

Strategy and the Parking Implementation Plan. These are not addressed within this evidence with

consideration only provided to parking specific matters.

The submissions in opposition to the proposal relating to parking matters are summarised as follows:

• The proposed changes to minimum parking requirements in Activity Centres and Neighbourhood

Centres may result in the potential for new developments to contain limited parking resulting in a

parking overspill onto residential streets.

• Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for existing residents

and their visitors.

• Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for staff of existing

businesses.

• Council’s proposed parking permit policy will be too restrictive and limit residents from owning

multiple permits.

• Concerns about human rights impacts of parking changes in particular, that parking

recommendations will result in people with diverse needs (e.g. elderly, females, mobility impaired

and shift workers) losing their ability to access the community freely.

The above submission topics have been addressed throughout the following evidence report and are

specifically addressed within Section 6 of this report.

INTRODUCTION

V132702 // 14/02/20



1.3. Instructions & Scope of Report

Prior to preparing this evidence report I was briefed by Mr Alexander Sheko of Moreland City Council

who provided the following instructions:

1. Review materials provided to my office relating to Amendment C183

2. Prepare an expert evidence report which:

o summarises the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan and proposed Parking Overlay (and

associated schedules)

o addresses and responds to third party submissions relating to car parking matters .

3. Appear at the hearing of the Panel for Amendment C183 to present expert evidence.

1.4. References

In preparing this evidence, reference has been made to the following:

• Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, prepared by GTA Consultants, March 2019

• Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, prepared by GTA Consultants, March 2019

• Moreland City Council, Draft Schedule 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay and associated

amendment maps

• Victorians Planning Provisions, Practice Note PN57 – The Parking Overlay, April 2013

• Moreland Planning Scheme

• Third Party Submissions lodged in respect of Amendment C183

• Moreland Activity Centre Framework, prepared by Echelon Planning, February 2014

• Caydon Cremorne No. 1 Development Pty Ltd v Yarra City Council (VCAT Ref: P1969/2015)

• C.J. Gabbe, Gregory Pierce, Gordon Clowers “Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum

parking requirements in Seattle” 2019

• Other documents as nominated within this report

PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT

V132702 // 14/02/20



2. PARKING OVERLAY

CONTEXT

02

PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT

V132702 // 14/02/20



2.1. Overview

Before considering the detail of the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan and the proposed

Schedules to the Parking Overlay it is important to understand the context and relationship b etween

the Parking Implementation Plan and the Parking Overlay.

In this regard Victorian Planning Provisions Practice Note PN57 identifies:

“Clause 45.09: Parking overlay enables councils to response to local car parking issues and can be

used to outline local variations to the standard requirements in Clause 52.06. These variations can

apply to the entire municipality or a smaller precinct.”

A Parking Plan (or Parking Implementation Plan in this case) forms the first step in preparing a parking

overlay. It considers car parking needs and issues and sets out what car parking objectives a council

wishes to achieve and how it will achieve them.

Once prepared, a car parking plan can provide the basis for, and be implemented by, a Parking

Overlay.

Figure 2.1, reproduced from Practice Note 57, identifies in graphical form the relationship between a

Parking Plan and the Overlay.

Figure 2.1: Car Parking Plan and Parking Overlay Relationship

As identified in Figure 2.1, not all outcomes of the Parking Plan necessitate incorporation into the

Planning Scheme in order to be implemented. As such, this evidence focuses on the items that apply to

the parking overlay. It is however acknowledged that some other items, not requiring planning scheme

implementation (such as on-street parking time restrictions) may be required to support the parking

overlay elements and as such are discussed, as required, as part of this report.

MORELAND INTERGRATED

TRANSPORT STRATEGY

V132702 // 14/02/20



3. MORELAND INTERGRATED

TRANSPORT STRATEGY

03


TRANSPORT STRATEGY

V132702 // 14/02/20



3.1. Preamble

The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) was adopted by the Moreland City Council in 2019

and is Council’s plan to manage the inevitable transport impacts of population growth over the coming

decade. The ‘strategies’ and ‘actions’ outlined in the MITS also seek to create a more liveable,

sustainable, healthy, equitable and prosperous city through an increased emphasis on walking, cycling

and public transport.

In summary, the MITS actions seek to:

• Combat the negative effects of growth by helping more people move around the city without their

car so those who need to drive are able to do so.

• Make better use of our public road space and prioritise public transport, walking and cycling to

make travel more reliable and reduce the impacts of congestion.

• Encourage a shift away from privately-owned fossil-fuelled vehicles and support a long-term vision

of public transport and shared mobility, as well as an uptake of active travel, to safeguard our

environmental sustainability and improve air quality.

• Provide facilities which allow people to choose to walk or cycle more often and increase their

levels of incidental and recreational exercise.

• Improve personal security and road safety, including by normalising walking and cycling to

increase awareness and put more ‘eyes on the street’.

• Continue to make improvements to the transport network to improve accessibility for users of all

abilities.

The development of strategies as identified within the MITS has been based on:

• “The key issues, objectives and our aim for MITS.

• Community consultation and stakeholder engagement.

• The strategic direction of the Moreland Planning scheme and other local and state policies,

strategies and legislation.

• Local and international experience and ‘best practice’.”

3.2. Integrated Transport Strategy

The fundamental aim of the MITS is to: “facilitate a demonstrable mode shift to more sustainable

modes of transport that also targets a long-term reduction in car use.”

To track progress as MITS is delivered, Council will measure the share of people who travel to work

and education by different modes of transport (‘mode share’). Mode share targets are suitable because

they capture the ‘big picture’ impact of our interventions and are straightforward to collect and

understand. Council will use the Moreland Household Survey to track our progress, as it is collected

regularly (every two years), including data for mode of travel to work and education.

In this regard, the MITS identifies mode shift targets for the reduction in car use. This is reproduced in

Table 3.1.


TRANSPORT STRATEGY

V132702 // 14/02/20



Table 3.1: MITS Mode Share Targets

Measure Current Target

Journey to Work (north) Car as driver: 65.4% Car as driver: 40%

Journey to Work (south) Car as driver: 43.4% Car as driver: 20%

Journey to Education Car as passenger: 37.8% Car as passenger: 20%

A summary of the key directions of the Strategy to assist in delivering the above targets are as follows:

Smarter Parking Management:

• Permitting less parking in new developments to allow people to choose a lower level of parking to

suit their needs

• Expanding parking restrictions to protect local streets from changes to parking requirements in

new development

• Using paid parking in some areas for all-day parking

• Expanding the number of accessible (disabled) parking bays.

Relocating Road Space:

• Reallocating space from cars and car parking to walking, cycling and public transport

• Reallocating space for greener, more pleasant streets.

Advocating for better public transport:

• Advocate for more frequent buses and trains

• Advocate for more reliable buses, trams and trains

• Advocate for public transport that is accessible for people of all abilities .

Creating safer, quieter street

• Creating more pedestrian crossings

• Continue to roll out 40km/h limits on all local roads

• Reduce speed limits on arterial roads near places like schools, hospitals and activity centres

• Conduct a 12-month trial of 30km/h limits in selected areas

• Close some local roads to through traffic.

Fostering partnerships for sustainable transport:

• Work with schools to support walking and cycling

• Work with communities to support behaviour change

• Work with traders and businesses to improve loading and deliveries.

The key directions identify that a suite of actions are proposed to both encourage sustainable and

active transport use along with discouraging private car use. It is also important to note that car

parking is identified to take an important role in achieving the transport ob jectives of the MITS.


TRANSPORT STRATEGY

V132702 // 14/02/20



3.3. The Role of Parking

Parking plays an instrumental role in supporting broader transport and land use strategies. Parking

policies can have both a direct and indirect impact on the ability to achieve the identified transport

objectives and strategies. The supply of parking at trip origins and destinations is a strong driver of

mode choice.

An example of this self-reinforcing relationship between land use and transport is the correlation

between density and car ownership depicted below, with higher density areas of Moreland exhibiting

lower car ownership and use.

Figure 3.1: Car Ownership and Car Use Relationship

Source: Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy

It is, however, recognised that sometimes parking is required in cases where people have special

needs. For example, to provide access for young families or people with mobility impairment to access

the community. Therefore, parking should be prioritised for people who truly need it. In doing so, it is

still possible to discourage car use and contribute to a shift towards sustainable transport modes while

catering to people who most need to drive.

MORELAND PARKING AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



4. MORELAND PARKING AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

04


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



4.1. Preamble

Within this Evidence Report I have not sought to reproduce the Parking Implementation Plan. Rather, I

have provided a summary of the key recommendations, particularly those relating to matters specific to

the Parking Overlay.

As identified earlier, recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan fall into two categories

being those which require implementation through the Parking Overlay and those that are able to be

implemented directly by Council. As such, the following recommendations of the plan are identified in

these two categories to assist the Panel in understanding these matters that are specific to this

hearing.

4.2. Purpose of the Parking Implementation Plan

The MITS policies and the Parking Implementation Plan policies were developed hand-in-hand to

ensure an integrated and holistic approach to delivering the future transport needs of Moreland.

The Moreland Parking Implementation Plan therefore provides further detail relating to car parking

related actions identified within the MITS to both provide justification for these changes and to provide

further detail to guide implementation.

4.3. Areas of the Plan

Before discussing each of the recommendations it is relevant to consider and identify the areas to

which these recommendations apply.

Moreland is made up of a number of ‘centres’, being grouped into three primary categories: Activity

Centres; Neighbourhood Centres; and Local Centres.1 The designation and identification of activity

centres has been adopted from Planning Scheme. These centres are displayed graphically and listed

in Figure 4.1.

1 Reference: Moreland Planning Scheme, Clause 21.02


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Figure 4.1: Moreland Activity Centres


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



The activity centres were also considered having regard to their accessibility to transport modes other

than the private car (specifically public transport). This provided an opportunity to understand if

significant different access conditions existed which could alter the group ing of centres from their

defined activity centre classification. This assessment is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Activity Centre Assessment Matrix

As defined by the Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Plan Melbourne, the role of Activity Centre is to

‘provide access to a wide range of goods and services in centres that are planned and managed by

local government. The centres will have jobs and vibrant local economies. Some will serve larger sub-

regional catchments. The Moreland Activity Centre Framework2 states that the Coburg, Brunswick and

Glenroy Activity Centres fit into this classification with a majority of floorspace growth being expected

to occur in these Activity Centres (excluding bulky goods).

With respect of access, the Moreland Activity Centre Framework identifies the following:

• “All households in Moreland are located within walking distance of an activity centre of one type or

another (be it a Principal, Major, Neighbourhood or Local Activity Centre (LAC)).

• The majority of households have local access (i.e. within less than 1km) to an activity centre that

meets their weekly convenience retailing and community service needs (i .e. a neighbourhood

activity centre or a larger centre).

2 Reference: Moreland Activity Centre Framework Report 1 – February 2014


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



• Neighbourhood Activity Centres are accessible to residents by multiple modes - walking, cycling,

public transport and private vehicle.”

Having regard to the identified accessibility of the centres and roles of the centres both now and in the

future it was considered most appropriate to continue to group the centres by centre classification

when developing parking strategies. In doing so it is recognised that adequate flexibility may need to

be considered in parking management approaches to allow responses to local circumstances.

It is noted that the greatest variance in accessibility exists across the Local Centre category. These

centres are however expected to experience the least change over the lifespan of the Parking

Implementation Plan and as such it is considered appropriate that these centres remain as a single

grouping.

Further discussion relating to the activity centres is provided within the Parking Implementation Plan.

4.4. Recommendations Relating to the Parking Overlay

4.4.1. Setting Car Parking Provision Requirements

The setting of car parking rates for new development identifies car parking requirements for each of

the three activity centre types identified earlier; activity centre, neighbourhood centre and local centre.

As is demonstrated in Figure 3.1, the correlation between car ownership and car use highlights the

importance and alignment of parking provision policy in order to assist in achieving the mode shift

targets identified by the MITS.

At a fundamental level the setting of car parking rates has acknowledged that adopting a status quo

approach is unlikely to assist in delivering the mode shift targets that are being sought by the MITS. A

‘step change’ is required to the way in which car parking is provided.

However, such a change must also be balanced by the differing needs of activity centres across the

municipality. As such a mixture of maximum rates and reduced minimum rate approaches have been

recommended as identified in the following.

It is noted that neither of these approaches alter the supply of existing parking serving the activity

centre. It must therefore be recognised that the setting of parking provision requirements will only act

to influence vehicle trips and parking associated with new development in the municipality. Other

parking management measures are required to be considered and adopted to influence a reduction of

car use by existing users.

Car Parking Rate Requirements for Activity Centres

Recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan and Parking Overlay:

• Minimum parking provision requirements be removed and replaced with the imposing o f a

maximum car parking provision approach.

• The maximum car parking provision requirement is recommended to be set at the point of Column

B (the current minimum requirements) for these areas, to allow for flexibility across each centre

for the market to respond accordingly and provide parking as needed.

• Adopt a series of decision guidelines to supplement the maximum provision requirements to allow

for the consideration (by way of planning permit application) of higher car parking rates, should

suitable justification be available.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Discussion

In order to achieve transport change, these centres where a majority of land use growth will occur 3,

represent the centres where the most significant change must be achieved. As such these centres

represent those that must adopt the most aggressive change to the way in which parking is provided

for new development.

These centres can also most tolerate reduced car parking provisions with greater transport

connections in order to support a mode shift to more sustainable and active transport modes.

The adoption of a maximum rate approach (with the maximum rate being Column B of Clause 52.06 of

the Moreland Planning Scheme) is considered to reflect an approach which will deliver reduced car

parking provisions, to the standard statutory parking provision requirements. However, this also

provides flexibility for the way in which each of the Activity Centres will respond to the individual market

needs, land use growth and availability of alternate transport options which serve the centre. This will

not necessarily represent an automatic adoption of a zero parking provision. This is further explored

through the following case studies.

Moreland City Council Planning Permit Information Data

Information provided by Moreland City Council of all Development Planning Applications within

Moreland Activity Centres (that required Councillor approval i.e. not approved under delegation) during

2018 identified the following characteristics:

• No. of Applications: 11

• Four applications provided a surplus to the statutory car parking requirement

• Seven applications sought a reduction in car parking which varied between 10 spaces (41 spaces

instead of 51 reflecting a 20% reduction) and 326 spaces (6 spaces instead of 332 reflecting a

98% reduction). There was one application which sought a 100% reduction (a total of 32

spaces). The other 4 cases sought reductions of 35%, 15%, 33% and 35%.

These applications demonstrate that under the current ‘minimum’ parking requirements a range of

outcomes are being sought. Under a maximum parking provision requirement, a reduction in parking

would be expected for those developments which provided parking in surplus to the statutory

requirement, while those seeking to provide parking below the current minimum parking requirement

would be enabled. In light of the above it is expected to be unlikely that these developments would

necessarily seek a zero parking provision if automatically available to them.

Existing Car Ownership

Existing Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Car Ownership Data (2016) for the suburbs of

Brunswick, Brunswick West, Brunswick East, Coburg and Glenroy is presented within Table 4.1.

3 It is noted that the Moreland Activity Centre Framework (February 2014) identified significant growth of each of these

centres.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Table 4.1: ABS Car Ownership (Based generally on suburbs where Activity Centres exist)

Suburb Average Car Ownership

(vehicles per dwelling)

Percentage of Dwellings that Do

Not Own a Car

Brunswick 1.13 22%

Brunswick East 1.12 20%

Brunswick West 1.23 18%

Coburg 1.42 13%

Glenroy 1.51 11%

This data identifies that there is clearly a market across these suburbs for dwellings without car parking

spaces. Such a market is expected to be more concentrated within the Activity Centre areas and

within higher density developments which would be expected to represent the majority of future

development typology. The data does however also suggest that there is a desired level of car

ownership, which could to an extent be expected to continue in the future. Overall the average car

ownership levels would be expected to reduce with a maximum rate approach limiting the ability for

new residents in one or two-bedroom dwellings to own multiple vehicles.

Richmond Malt site, Cremorne (VCAT Ref: P1969/2015)

The Richmond Malt site in Cremorne was subject to parking controls as part of a Development Plan

Overlay identifying minimum parking requirements for residential dwellings.

The development sought to provide residential parking at a rate below the statutory requirements

(consistent with ABS Census car ownership data) and subsequently required a permit to reduce

parking below the minimum requirements:

• 0.81 spaces to each one-bedroom dwelling

• 1.15 spaces to each two-bedroom dwelling

• 1.43 spaces to each three-bedroom dwelling

• On average this equated to an average of 0.92 spaces per dwelling across the overall

development.

These rates were considered by the developer to reflect a feasible development mix of parking

provision.

The responsible authority and its consultant (and subsequently adopted by VCAT) took a differing view

requiring the provision of parking at the following rates:

• 0.5 spaces to each one-bedroom apartment

• 0.7 spaces to each two-bedroom apartment

• 1 space to each three-bedroom apartment.

This highlights that developers do not necessarily always adopt, as a matter of course, the lowest

parking provision option rather have due regard to the market needs, even when lower options are

available to them.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Having regard to the similar nature of car ownership characteristics between the Cremorne area and

areas of Coburg and Glenroy, similar outcomes could reasonably be expected which seek to adopt

reduced parking provisions which are reflective of market needs.

The adoption of a maximum rate in Moreland Activity centres will however assist to limit any over

provision of parking, particularly as it relates to the provision of second car spaces in one or two -

bedroom dwellings.

Melbourne City Council

The City of Melbourne “Transport Strategy Discussion Paper – Car Parking” identifies that:

“New apartments typically include a parking space. Residential parking spaces outnumber vehicles

owned by 40 per cent. Surveys in Southbank and West Melbourne have revealed that between 26 and

41 per cent of private parking spaces are empty. Many people are paying for a space that they do not

want or need. This adds to the high cost of housing and undermines the quality of the street. ”

This highlights that while historically developers have sought to adopt reduced parking provisions they

have not necessarily sought to adopt a zero car parking provision in areas where the opt ion is available

to them and could be justified.

Applying this logic to Moreland, if developers are willing to provide parking, which is ultimately going

un-used, as part of developments within the City of Melbourne where accessibility to alternate

transport options are greater than areas of Moreland, a level of confidence could exist that an

appropriate market driven approach is likely to occur within activity centres of Moreland.

Seattle Parking Reforms

In a similar manner to the research undertaken by the City of Melbourne, significant research has been

undertaken in Seattle, USA to understand the parking response to the removal of minimum parking

requirements. In this respect Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3 are provided below which highlight that where a

zero requirement for parking existed, only 30% (approx.) of developers provided no parking with a

majority providing parking at a higher rate.

The analysis goes on to conclude that many or most developers will respond to parking reforms, and

provide lesser amounts of parking however at a level that better match market demand, particularly if

they are focused in neighbourhoods with good walkability and transit options.

While recognising that differences between Seattle and Moreland exist the principles continue to apply

that appropriate market driven responses are likely to occur within activity centres of Moreland under

an adopted maximum parking provision requirement as proposed, that will not necessarily as a whole

result in a zero parking provision.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Figure 4.3: Seattle Residential Parking Response


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Table 4.2: Relationship Between Minimum Parking Required and Parking Provided

Minimum

parking

requirement

(spaces per

unit)

Building

in sample

Average

parking

ratio

% of

building

that exactly

met

requirement

Provided <

0.5spaces /

unit above

requirement

Provided 0.5 –

1.0 spaces / unit

above

requirement

Provided > 1.0

spaces / unit

above

requirement

0 570 0.49 29.5% 24.2% 39.0% 7.4%

0.5 130 0.91 11.5% 76.2% 6.9% 5.4%

1 168 1.12 67.9% 20.2% 11.9% 0.0%

All 868 0.68 34.2% 31.2% 28.9% 5.7%

Source: C.J. Gabbe, Gregory Pierce, Gordon Clowers “Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum parking requirements in Seattle” 2019

Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre

A recent review of the Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre Parking Overlay (which within the Inner

Core adopts a maximum and minimum parking provision requirement) which I have undertaken

identified that developers are seeking to provide parking provisions below the maximum rate,

highlighting the effectiveness of a maximum rate approach in achieving reduced parking provisions and

in turn contributing to mode shift away from private car travel.

Fishermans Bend

As referenced within the Parking Implementation Plan, GTA Consultants experience in working with

private development within areas of maximum requirements (in particular the Melbourne City Council

Capital City Zone and Fisherman’s Bend) is that a zero parking response is not the automatic response

or norm. Evidence from Fisherman’s Bend, suggests that the market is delivering around 0.7 spaces

per apartment. This also demonstrates that a reduced parking provision is likely to the maximum rate.

These above examples importantly demonstrate both that reduced car parking provisions can be

achieved by a maximum rate approach but also that the automatic response of development is not to

provide zero parking. As such the proposed maximum parking provision requirement is considered to

be an appropriate tool in seeking to achieve mode shift as desired by the MITS but also providing the

flexibility for the market to respond to local conditions of each of the centres.

The adoption of on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are however also important to ensure that

where lower development car parking provisions are being adopted that this is reflected in the use of

alternate modes of transport rather than the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.

Such parking restrictions could be considered on an as needs basis as development growth occurs or

introduced proactively. It would be my recommendation that a proactive approach be adopted by

Council to ensure that developers are aware of the constraints of the area and must plan and build new

developments knowing that on-street parking will not be available for future occupants. This will ensure

that developers must make an assessment of the market (residential or commercial) as to whether on-

site parking is essential in order to sell the property.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



This approach also highlights to residential or commercial property buyers (or renters) the constraints of

the area and therefore will buyers not be purchasing a development with an expectation that they can

park on-street for extended periods of time.

In this regard it is my understanding that Council is adopting a proactive approach to the introduction of

further parking controls around the activity centres.

This is including in general terms the role out of extended parking restrictions and altered permit parking

eligibility as identified within the Parking Implementation Plan. Further refinements have also been

adopted by Council to respond to local concerns received during consultation and exhibition periods.

These specific changes and my review of their suitability is provided within Section 4.5.2 of this report.

Ultimately flexibility exists for Council as to how such restrictions could be implemented and the extent

of implementation (e.g. area, length of time etc.). While it is noted that the Parking Implementation

Plan provides recommendations with respect of the generic introduction of increased parking controls

to support a maximum parking provision policy the flexibility available to Council is highlighted by the

recent refinements being considered by Council to respond to local characteristics and needs.

These parking management controls while used in this instance to support a maximum parking

provision approach are implemented and managed outside of the Parking Overlay setting.

Car Parking Rate Requirements for Neighbourhood Centres


• The adoption of reduced minimum parking provision requirements (20% reduction to Column B).

• Adopt a series of decision guidelines to supplement the minimum provision requirements to allow

for the consideration (by way of planning permit application) of lower car parking rates, should


Discussion

Neighbourhood Centres will also experience land use growth across a mix of commercial and

residential uses4. Continuing to adopt the status quo standard Column B parking provision

requirements would also be expected to return the status quo in respect of vehicle modes of travel. As

such in order to continue to achieve transport change across the municipality, these centres should

also be targeted with lower parking provision requirements.

These are centres can generally tolerate a level of reduced car parking provisions with a mix of land

uses and the ability to change mode given their access to transport alternatives and walkable

catchments.

However, the surrounds of these centres are often more sensitive to parking overspill with closer

residential interfaces and lesser existing parking controls. Therefore, a more careful balancing of

parking provision has been recommended adopting a minimum parking provision requirement

approach as being appropriate at this time.

4 It is noted that the Moreland Activity Centre Framework (February 2014) identifies some 20,000sqm of retail floor space

growth across Neighbourhood Centres in Moreland between 2011 and 2026.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



The proposed reduced minimum provision (20% of Column B rates) is supported by a comparison of

Moreland and Metropolitan Melbourne data as presented within the Parking Implementation Plan

(Table 6.4) which is reproduced below, which indicates that Moreland has a 10% to 20% reduction in

car use / demand when compared to Metropolitan Melbourne.

Table 4.3: Percentage Comparison of Car Demand between Metropolitan Melbourne and Moreland

Data Source Moreland Metropolitan Melbourne Comparison

ABS Journey to Work Car driver – 55% Car driver – 70% 22%

Vista Total Trips Car drover – 46% Car driver – 52% 11%

ABS Car Ownership Vehicles per dwelling –

1.40

Vehicles per dwelling –

1.69 17%

Average difference 10% to 20%

As such given Column B provision requirements apply across Metropolitan Melbourne (where activated

by the PPTN), it could be considered reasonable that a reduction to these requirements by 10 to 20%

could be applied to better reflect travel characteristics within Moreland and set an appropriate

‘baseline’ for the consideration of parking provision in Neighbourhood Centres. Having further regard

to the aspirational targets of increasing mode shift to sustainable transport modes it would be right to

adopt the higher of the potential reductions being in the order of 20%.

Further consideration has been given to Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Car Ownership Data

(2016) across the municipality as presented within Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: ABS Car Ownership (All Moreland suburbs)

Suburb Average Car Ownership

(vehicles per dwelling)

Percentage of Dwellings that Do

Not Own a Car

Brunswick 1.13 22%

Brunswick East 1.12 20%

Brunswick West 1.23 18%

Coburg 1.42 13%

Glenroy 1.51 11%

Coburg North 1.46 12%

Fawkner 1.55 12%

Gowanbrae 1.91 2%

Hadfield 1.59 10%

Pascoe Vale 1.54 9%

Pascoe Vale South 1.71 7%


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



This data identifies that there is a ‘market’ across the suburbs for dwellings without car parking spaces.

Such a market is expected to be more concentrated within the Activity Centre and Neighbourhood

Centre areas (compared with residential hinterland areas) and within higher density developments

which would be expected to represent the majority of future development typology. Therefore, higher

levels of dwellings not owning a car could be reasonably expected within the Activity Centres and

Neighbourhood Centres than is identified by the presented data.

Again, having regard to the mode shift aspirations of the MITS, it would be reasonable to set targets at

the higher end of the presented range.

A reduction at the higher end of these ranges is also consistent with previous parking strategies for

Coburg and Brunswick which suggested a reduction to the Column B requirements in the order of 20%

could be applied in order to achieve aspirations of mode shift. While Neighbourhood Centres may not

traditionally have the same access to alternate transport and density of uses as the Activity Centres of

Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy, the adoption of lower minimum provisions is still required to create

overall transport change.

It is recognised that variations in the above comparisons would exist across the municipality. However,

when considering the smaller catchment of these centres5 which increases the ability for these centres

to be accessed by active transport modes along with the aspiration to achieve mode shift away from

private car use, a new baseline of a 20% reduction below Column B rates is considered appropriate for

parking provision in Neighbourhood Centres.

The reduced minimum provision still allows the market to respond and provide parking at higher rates if

considered necessary, however it would be desirable in achieving mode shift targets for parking not to

be provided at higher rates as this would be expected to induce car travel.

However, it must be recognised that in some instances unconstrained parking demands may be higher

than the proposed reduced parking provision requirement. In such instance, parking may be

generated which seeks to rely on on-street parking supplies rather than adopting alternate transport

modes.

Having regard to the increase of retail floor space across Neighbour Centres as identified within the

Moreland Activity Centre Framework, such overspill would not be expected to exceed a maximum of

12 spaces6 within each activity centre, and in many instances such a level of overspill would not be

expected at all. Such a level of parking overspill would generally be expected to be able to be

accommodated within the existing parking supplies of these centres and would not result in an

significant adverse impact the function or amenity of these areas or surrounds.

Notwithstanding, Council is in control the of setting of on-street parking restrictions which could be

refined to manage parking overspill and ensure that parking user priorities are managed in accordance

with Council’s Parking Management Policy.

5 Catchment identified by the Moreland Activity Centre Framework to be in the order of 1km, along with opportuni ty for

increased residential catchment / growth within 400m of the centre. 6 Overspill calculated based: on 20% of the Column B shop parking rate of 3.5 spaces per 100sqm multiplied by the

20,000sqm (approx.) of future retail floor space growth (assuming all forecast Neighbourhood Centre retail floor space

growth between 2011 to 2026, identified in the Moreland Activity Centre Framework, 2014, is yet to occur) divided by 12

Neighbourhood Centres.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Decision guidelines would also allow for lower parking provisions to be considered by Council through

a planning permit process.

Car Parking Rate Requirements for Local Centres


• The continued adoption of Column B as minimum parking provision requirements .

• Adopt a series of decision guidelines to supplement the minimum provision requirements to allow

for the consideration (by way of planning permit application) of lower car parking rates, should


Discussion

These centres are expected to experience limited growth in coming years, and as such their

contribution (from a provision of future parking) to achieving the objectives of the MITS is also likely to

be limited.

The relevance therefore of trying to define specific requirements for these centres is limited and could

continue to be dealt with on a case by case scenario.

Decision guidelines would also allow for lower parking provisions to be considered by Council through

a planning permit process.

4.4.2. Designing for the future

Recommendation of the Parking Implementation Plan and Parking Overlay:

• The Parking Overlay include considerations related to the future design of car parking including:

o Vehicle charging opportunities or at a minimum, provision of electrical infrastructure to allow

for the future installation of charging points.

o The design of car parks allow for the potential repurposing to other land uses in the future.

Discussion

Having regard to the likely changing nature to the way in parking could exist in the future (as described

within the Parking Implementation Plan) and the timeframes of such change being likely outside of the

current Parking Implementation Plan, these recommendations are considered to represent an

appropriate balance of future planning without being overly prescriptive of the way in which

development must design parking facilities.

4.4.3. Car Share

Recommendation of the Parking Implementation Plan and Parking Overlay:

• Council should support a greater roll-out of share cars to assist residents to reduce the number of

cars they own including:

o Repurposing general use car spaces for car share spaces in key areas (for example, activity

centres, areas with a high-density residential areas).

o Encouraging developments to provide externally accessible car share spaces on-site

o Encourage developments to fund memberships for nearby car share schemes under the

implementation of a green travel plan.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Discussion

Cars typically spend 95 per cent of their life unused, representing a very inefficient use of space and

resources. Car share provides convenient access to a car for trips where a lternative modes are not a

viable option. Some service providers estimate that one share car can replace up to 15 private

vehicles, significantly reducing the space required to store private cars and reducing the costs of

purchasing and operating a car for a number of would-be owners.7

An approach of supporting a greater roll-out of share cars can assist to further support maximum and

reduced car parking provision requirements.

4.5. Recommendations Relating to Other Parking Matters

4.5.1. Reallocating Space for Movement, Safety and Place

Recommendation of the Parking Implementation Plan:

• Parking could be considered for removal when it provides an overall benefit to :

o the sustainable movement of people

o safety

o the creation of ‘places’.

Discussion

The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy identifies that change will be required to the way that

space is allocated within Moreland to facilitate improvements to sustainable modes on the road

network, improve safety of those using the road network and creating places for people to dwell and

experience the centres and neighbourhood.

Parking is part of this mix of space and as such is may be impacted in delivering such outcomes.

While most parking across the wider Moreland area would be expected to be retained, these actions

may require some parking to be reallocated to sustainable transport, improving safety of active

transport modes and the creation of better places within Moreland.

While the conversation needs to occur with individual communities to be impacted by any such

removals of parking, as a general rule, parking demands are not constrained across the municipality

such that the removal of parking at key locations cannot be tolerated and absorbed by the surrounding

area.

4.5.2. Access to On-Street Parking (Parking Restrictions and Parking Permits)


• Council take a proactive approach to managing parking, in order to control parking overspill and

create a parking environment which supports the removal of parking minimums within Activity

Centres.

7 The Sharing Economy, Transport Matters, GTA Consultants,

http://www.gta.com.au/transportmatters/transportmatters_vol9_issue4_web.pdf , accessed 22/04/18

http://www.gta.com.au/transportmatters/transportmatters_vol9_issue4_web.pdf


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



• Council should ensure that all public parking resources in and around activity centres and key

destinations are time-restricted or provided as permit parking to ensure vehicles are not stored

on-street over the long-term except as permitted by parking permits for those residents eligible for

parking permits. This could include:

o All on-street parking being restricted within Neighbourhood Centres and within 200m of

Activity Centres.

o The use of a 2-hour restriction (2P) Monday to Friday 8:00am – 11:00pm applied initially to

currently unrestricted spaces would prevent residents of new developments from parking

long-term on street while also providing some flexibility at night and on weekends e.g. for

visitor parking.

• Council should continue to introduce parking restrictions in other areas as required, consistent

with the Parking Management Policy.

• Council should review fees for car parking permits to ensure they reflect use of space and seek to

discourage car ownership and use.

• Council should (during review of fee structures) consider the expansion of concession discounts

(on parking permits) to address social equity concerns.

Discussion

Currently significant parking restrictions are in place within Moreland to manage and fairly allocate

public parking resources. The setting of parking restrictions and eligibility for Parking Pemits is

identified by the Moreland Parking Management Policy. This policy is however typically reactive in

dealing with parking overspill issues.

The actions identified as part of the Parking Implementation Plan seek to take a proactive approach to

managing parking, in order to control parking overspill and create a parking environment which

supports the removal of parking minimums within Activity Centres.

The review of charges associated with parking permits seeks to pursue the directions of MITS to

charge more fairly for the use of road space to store private vehicles and encourage reductions in car

ownership and car use, which are required in order to achieve the earlier identified mode shift targets.

As stated earlier, the adoption of on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are an important tool to

mitigate against parking spilling over onto the local network. This will ensure that in the context of lower

development car parking provisions being adopted, alternate modes of transport are utilised rather than

the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.

Restrictions are also an important tool to protect residents and people with parking requirements from

potential parking overspill.

Parking restrictions around commercial business has the potential to result in more available parking

for customers. When setting parking restrictions, Council can assess the most appropriate time

restrictions based on local context. Short term parking (e.g. 2 hours or less) may be considered most

appropriate were local business require a higher customer turnover. In some areas, Council may

consider longer term parking restrictions (4 hours) more appropriate.

These parking management controls, while used in this instance to support a maximum parking

provision approach, are implemented and managed outside of the Parking Overlay setting.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Ultimately, flexibility exists for Council as to how such restrictions could be implemented and the extent

of implementation (e.g. area, length of time etc.).

In this regard, it is understood that throughout the initial role out of increased parking restrictions and

permit changes around activity centres Council has sought to adjust the proposed restrictions to

respond to instances of local concern as follows:

June 2019:

• Limit on number of residential permits increased by one, for households eligible for residential

permits within MITS parking restrictions (from 1-2 depending whether there is a crossover or not,

to 2-3).

• Limit on number of business permits increased to 5 (from 2) regardless of available off -street

parking, for businesses within MITS parking restrictions area.

• Introduction of $10/day daily permit which can be used where new MITS restrictions are being

introduced.

• Flexibility to introduce restrictions other than 2P 8am-11pm Mon-Fri (e.g. 4P) based on a set of

endorsed criteria.

November 2019:

• All people with disability parking permits to be eligible for residential parking permits (even if living

in housing subdivided after August 2011).

• People otherwise ineligible for visitor permits (i.e. living in housing subdivided after August 2011)

can apply for these by exemption based on age/health/disability/social isolation with supporting

letter from medical professional/social worker/case worker.

• Health care organisations, social work organisations (or similar) whose workers conduct home

visits to clients can access permits enabling them to park as long as they need for those visits .

• Business permits can be used in more areas – not just in designated permit zone business bays,

but also in areas designated by supplementary signage where new MITS restrictions are being

introduced.

February 2020:

• Revision of buffer area around Activity Centres for MITS parking restrictions to 200m walking

distance only (not 200m as the crow flies, plus end to the block, as previously approved) .

• Fast track process introduced for Council to respond to potential spill over issues as a result of

new MITS parking restrictions including issuing temporary permits as needed to minimise

disruption.

• New permit type for residents of housing subdivided after August 2011 but before January 2021

that can only be used in areas where Paystay supplementary signage exists – this will be

introduced along with any new MITS restrictions and can later be removed based on high

occupancy.

• Parking restrictions within the Glenroy Activity Centre and 200m buffer zone postponed until after

the completion of Upfield line Level Crossing Removal Project works.

• New parking restrictions near Pascoe Vale station (one of the Neighbourhood Centres

implemented in December 2019) to be removed.

• Reduce cost of daily permit (from $10 to $2.50) near certain train stations

• Introduce concession discount on business permits for non-profits, schools and early years

services.

• Modifies MITS parking restrictions to apply 8am-8pm (not 8am-11pm)


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



I am of the opinion that the proposed changes made by Council to permit eligibility and on-street

parking restrictions, while creating a more complicated permit system, will generally resolve many of

the issues raised by submitters who had concerns with the proposed time restrictions and eligibility for

parking permits.

These changes seek to further prioritise the availability of parking for those members of the community

who need it most and have a lesser ability to use active or public transport modes of travel.

These changes however still retain the messaging of seeking mode shift by applying a price to

residents and businesses to park on-street and therefore seeking to encourage the consideration of

whether car ownership or use is required.

The alterations to parking restriction times does respond to many concerns regarding the accessibility

for visitors during the evening, however it does also open the door to some use of on-street parking by

future residents of dwelling that do not provide off-street parking in the future. I expect however that

the presence of daytime restrictions may be sufficient to deter residents from owning a car and relying

on driving it to work each day.

Monitoring of parking operations and the level of development occurring (and adopted parking

provision rates) within Glenroy is recommended, given the postponing of introducing further on-street

parking restrictions. It is however noted that a reactionary approach still remains available to Council

to introduce further parking restrictions should issues begin to arise with respect of on-street parking

occupancy and new occupants of the area unfairly relying upon on-street parking.

Overall, these proposed changes however further highlight the flexibility available to Council outside of

the bounds of the Parking Overlay in refining the setting of parking restrictions and access to parking

permits in order to respond to local characteristics and needs.

4.5.3. Paid Parking


• To manage demand, Council should seek to introduce paid on-street car parking in appropriate

and strategic locations (such as activity centres and locations with access to alternative modes)

to encourage the turnover of vehicles (ensuring available spaces), more fairly price the use of

roads and encourage visitors to use other modes to access their daily needs.

• Council could advocate to extend the use of pricing to manage demand for other over -utilised

assets, such as railway station car parking.

• Council should review the cost of the space used for car share, as well as bike share and similar

privately-operated transport schemes to ensure they are cost-neutral to Council and priced to

reflect use of Council’s limited, valuable public space.

• The parking occupancy criteria defined within the Moreland Parking Management Policy for the

implementation of paid parking should not restrict the introduction of paid parking when it is being

used as a Travel Demand Management tool to encourage transport change.

• Revenue raised from paid parking, as well as from transport-related permit schemes such as

residential and business car parking permits should be returned into improvements to the local

area, or sustainable transport initiatives.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Discussion

In order to achieve the mode shift targets identified by the MITS, parking related actions must seek to

achieve transport change amongst both existing and future users of the network. Changes to parking

provision rates as discussed earlier primarily only impacts future users. As such actions must also be

considered which influence transport change within existing network users.

In this regard the use of paid parking is an effective parking demand management tool which can be

applied to influence both existing and future uses of the area.

The revenue collected from such a system can also be returned to the local area from which it is

collected in order to enhance active and sustainable transport opportunities.

Matters relating to paid parking will be investigated through a separate process to the Parking Overlay

and are currently guided by the Moreland Parking Management Policy.

4.6. Recommendations Relating to Funding

4.6.1. Development Contributions Plan


• Consideration be given to the updating of the Moreland Development Contributions Plan in order

to fund further sustainable transport infrastructure.

Discussion

The recommendation to adopt a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) approach in order to fund

sustainable transport infrastructure came following a review of a number of funding options including

the use of a cash in lieu scheme within the Parking Overlay. The full review is set out within the MITS

appendix, however is also reproduced at Appendix C of this report.

In this regard, I consider a financial contributions and value capture approach in lieu of providing

parking within a development site to contain a number of risks and challenges in its implementation

including:

• A cash-in-lieu scheme is not possible where there are maximum car parking requirements, which

is proposed within activity centres.

• It is difficult to justify the provision of public transport, or sustainable transport infrastructure can

be directly related to a reduction in car parking provision.

• There may be limited economic benefits associated with mode shift from car from the overall

community’s perspective, as people who used to drive may choose an alternative living area with

sufficient parking provision.

• Even if the approval of the cash-in-lieu scheme can be obtained, there might not be sufficient

incentives for developers to take on the cash-in-lieu scheme, as the construction cost of on-site

parking can be recovered through the property sale price. As such, a cash-in-lieu scheme is

unlikely to achieve cost savings for developers. In turn this may encourage developers to provide

more rather than less car parking.

As such, a Development Contributions Plan would appear to be the most appropriate mechanism by

which to use new developments to fund sustainable transport infrastructure.


IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



A DCP already exists within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In the short term, it is recommended that

Council could investigate the possibility of including sustainable transport improvements in the current

DCP, such as through substituting them for similar projects within the same charge areas. In the

medium term, the next DCP (planned for update in 2023 – 2024) could have a stronger focus on

funding sustainable transport improvements, including through charging higher contribution rates,

given the current rates are relatively low.

A DCP mechanism would sit outside of the Parking Overlay

PARKING OVERLAY

V132702 // 14/02/20



5. PARKING OVERLAY

5.1. Overview

The Parking Overlay has been prepared and has implemented, as appropriate, the key findings of the

Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 having regard to the Victorian Planning Provisions

Practice Note PN57 – The Parking Overlay.

The overlay specifies three schedules to the Parking Overlay relating to the areas referred to earlier

within this evidence and within the Parking Implementation Plan.

Specifically, the Parking Overlay introduces the following changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme:

• Proposed Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay: For the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity

Centres, remove minimum parking requirements for all land uses, and introduce a maximum

parking rate (above which a permit is required).

• Proposed Schedule 2 to the Parking Overlay: For the Neighbourhood Centres, reduced minimum

parking requirements (20% of Column B requirements).

• Proposed Schedule 3 to the Parking Overlay: For the Local Centres, reduced minimum parking

requirements (Column B requirements).

• For the above areas, additional decision guidelines and requirements for car parking plans.

The proposed Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay, Schedule 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay and

associated planning maps are included in Appendix D for information purposes.

5.2. Other Matters

It is also understood that administrative adjustments to Schedule 4 to the Park ing Overlay (currently

Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay within the Moreland Planning Scheme) are being proposed by

Council to ensure that areas previously identified within the municipal wide Parking Overlay (applying

to the Mixed Use Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 2 Zone and Activity

Centre Zone) which do not strictly fall within the designated Activity Centres, Neighbourhood Centres

or Local Centre boundaries remain to reference the Column B rate of the Table to Clause 52.06 of the

Moreland Planning Scheme.

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

V132702 // 14/02/20



6. RESPONSE TO

SUBMISSIONS


V132702 // 14/02/20



6.1. Response to Submissions

As identified within Section 1.2, as part of the public exhibition of the Amendment C183, a number of

submissions were received with a mix of support and opposition to the proposal. These submissions

included responses related to a mix of topics covering planning matters associated with the

overarching Parking Implementation Plan, along with responses directly relating to the proposed

Parking Overlays.

The submissions in opposition to the proposal relating to parking matters are summarised as follows:

• The proposed changes to minimum parking requirements in Activity Centres and Neighbourhood

Centre may result in the potential for new developments to contain limited parking resulting in a

parking overspill onto residential streets.

• Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for existing residents

and their visitors.

• Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for staff of existing

businesses.

• Council’s proposed parking permit policy will be too restrictive and limit residents from owning

multiple permits.

• Concerns about human rights impacts of parking changes in particular, that parking

recommendations will result in people with diverse needs (e.g. elderly, females, mobility impaired

and shift workers) losing their ability to access the community freely.

The above submission topics are specifically addressed in the following.

Topic 1: The proposed changes to minimum parking requirements in Activity Centres and

Neighbourhood Centre may result in the potential for new developments to contain limited parking

resulting in a parking overspill onto residential streets.

Discussion regarding the suitability of proposed parking provision requirements is set out within

Section 4.4.1. of this report. Key aspects of this discussion are summarised below in order to

specifically respond to this issue:

• A ‘step change’ is required to the way in which car parking is provided. However, such a change

must also be balanced by the differing needs of activity centres across the municipality. As such

a mixture of maximum rates and reduced minimum rate approaches have been recommended.

• Neither of these approaches alter the supply of existing parking serving the activity centre.

• The adoption of a maximum rate approach (with the maximum rate being Column B of Clause

52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme) provides flexibility for the way in which each of the

Activity Centres will respond to the individual market needs, land use growth and availability of

alternate transport options which serve the centre, which does not necessarily represent an

automatic adoption of a zero parking provision.

• The reduced minimum provision within Neighbourhood Centres still allows the market to respond

and provide parking at higher rates if considered necessary, however it would be desirable in

achieving mode shift targets for parking not to be provided at higher rates as this would be

expected to induce car travel.

• Council is in control of setting of on-street parking restrictions which could be refined to manage

parking overspill and ensure that parking user priorities are managed in accordance with

Council’s Parking Management Policy.


V132702 // 14/02/20



Topic 2: Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for existing

residents and their visitors.

Discussion regarding the extended on-street parking restrictions and their impact on residents and

their visitor is set out within Section 4.5.2 of this report. Key aspects of this discussion are summarised

below in order to specifically respond to this issue:

• On-street parking restrictions are an important tool to protect existing residents and people with

parking requirements from potential parking overspill.

• The adoption of tighter on-street parking controls is important to ensure that where lower

development car parking provisions are being adopted that this is reflected in the use of alternate

modes of transport rather than the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.

• Ultimately, flexibility exists for Council as to how such restrictions could be implemented and the

extent of implementation (e.g. area, length of time etc.).

• When setting parking restrictions, Council can assess the most appropriate restrictions based on

the local context.

• Parking restrictions while used in this instance to support a maximum parking provision approach

are implemented and managed outside of the Parking Overlay setting.

• Recent modifications to the proposed parking restrictions and permit eligibility will be

advantageous to existing residents with respect of access to on-street parking, while continuing to

protect the area from future parking intrusion.

Topic 3: Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for staff of

existing businesses.

Discussion regarding the extended on-street parking restrictions and their impact on staff and existing

businesses is set out within Section 4.5.2 of this report. Key aspects of this discussion are

summarised below in order to specifically respond to this issue:

• Parking restrictions around commercial business has the potential to result in more available

parking for customers.

• The adoption of tighter on-street parking controls is important to ensure that where lower

development car parking provisions are being adopted that this is reflected in the use of alternate

modes of transport rather than the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.

• Ultimately flexibility exists for Council as to how such restrictions could be implemented and the

extent of implementation (e.g. area, length of time etc.).

• When setting parking restrictions, Council can assess the most appropriate restrictions based on

the local context.

• Parking restrictions while used in this instance to support a maximum parking provision approach

are implemented and managed outside of the Parking Overlay setting.

• Recent modifications to the proposed parking restrictions and permit eligibility will be

advantageous to existing workers with respect of access to on-street parking, while continuing to

protect the area from future parking intrusion.


V132702 // 14/02/20



Topic 4: Council’s proposed parking permit policy will be too restrictive and limit residents from owning

multiple permits.

Discussion regarding the limitation and altered access to parking permits is set out within Section 4.5.2

of this report. Key aspects of this discussion are summarised below in order to specifically respond to

this issue:

• The review of charges associated with parking permits seeks to pursue the directions of the MITS

to charge more fairly for the use of road space to store private vehicles and encourage reductions

in car ownership and car use, which are required in order to achieve the earlier identified mode

shift targets.

• The adoption of tighter on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are an important tool to

mitigate against parking spilling over onto the local network. This will ensure that in the context of

lower development car parking provisions being adopted, alternate modes of transport are uti lised

rather than the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.

• Recent modifications to the proposed parking permit eligibility will be advantageous to existing

residents and workers with respect of access to on-street parking, while continuing to protect the

area from future parking intrusion noting the following:

o Changes made by Council to permit eligibility will generally resolve many of the issues raised

by submitters who had concerns with the proposed eligibility for parking permits.

o These changes seek to further prioritise the availability of parking for those members of the

community who need it most and have a lesser ability to use active or public transport modes

of travel.

o These changes however still retain the messaging of seeking mode shift by applying a price

to residents and businesses to park on-street and therefore seeking to encourage the

consideration of whether car ownership or use is required.

Topic 5: Concerns about human rights impacts of parking changes in particular, that parking

recommendations will result in people with diverse needs (e.g. elderly, females, mobility impaired and

shift workers) losing their ability to access the community freely.

A number of submissions raised concerns that the proposed Amendment and the actions contained

within the Parking Implementation Plan are contrary to the following Human Rights policies:

• Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)

• Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth)

• Equal Opportunities Act 2010 (Vic)

Generally, the submissions raised were regarding the potential barriers the Amendment or proposed

adjustments to parking restrictions could have to the life opportunities of people with a disability,

elderly as well as their family members, carers and friends.

To clarify the policy context of how MITS and the Parking Implementation Plan was developed, I have

reproduced the below policy discussion from MITS.


V132702 // 14/02/20



In 2015, Council adopted the Moreland Community Vision, underpinned by extensive consultation. The

Community Vision reflects the aspirations of the community for 2025 – where “diverse, healthy and

connected people live and flourish in our neighbourhoods, which are attractive, safe, clean and

accessible. As a community we share a rich history and celebrate our diversity and cultural vibrancy.”

Council’s Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan seeks outcomes which encourage Moreland residents

to be more active at all stages of life, have walkable access to everyday needs and have access to

open space close to where they live. The Plan also seeks an integrated transport system that prioritises

and encourages walking, cycling and public transport and targets a reduction in car use.

The Moreland Zero Carbon 2040 Framework identifies a number of sustainable-transport-related

actions, including promotion of walking and cycling as preferred transport options, increased car share

(and electric vehicle car share) instead of continued private vehicle ownership, and reallocation of road

space for alternative transport modes (such as cycling) and land uses (such as new open space).

At the fundamental core, both the MITS and the Moreland Parking Implementation Plans seek to realise

the following objectives:

• A liveable Moreland where the transport network caters for all ages and where we consciously

reduce local vehicle traffic and safeguard the wellbeing of our community.

• A sustainable Moreland which achieves a city-leading shift toward sustainable modes of travel,

supporting the transition to active and zero-emissions transport by 2040 and addressing the

climate emergency.

• A Moreland that is safe and healthy where transport safety is a key focus, we improve personal

security and safety and promote a healthy community with cleaner air.

• A Moreland that is accessible and equitable for all where we reduce barriers to community

movement and strongly commit to making Moreland accessible to all.

• A prosperous Moreland which connects people to local jobs and services, encourages people to

visit shopping strips and activity centres, focuses on the reliability of the transport system for

people and goods and caters for population and employment growth.

The above objectives have a strong human rights ethos that directly align with the Human Rights

policies listed earlier.

With regard to the specific parking recommendations within the Parking Implementation Plan, the

below outlines how the Amendment is beneficial to people with diverse needs within Moreland and

therefore meets the human rights requirements set out within the broader policy context.

Noting that concerns raised within the submissions were generally directed at the setting of parking

rates, parking permits and the adjustment to parking restrictions. My response focuses on these three

recommendations.

The setting of car parking provisions has been developed with the direct intention of delivering mode

share targets sought within the MITS. The recommendations towards setting car parking provisions will

not alter the supply of existing parking serving Moreland. The setting of car parking rates is about

encouraging the future supply of additional parking to be more consistent with the demands of the

community. As an over-supply of parking directly encourages travel by private car and reduces the

amenity of alternative modes.


V132702 // 14/02/20



As stated earlier, the adoption of tighter on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are an

important tool to mitigate against parking spilling over onto the local network and protect parking

availability for those who need it (i.e. people with disabilities and elderly).

In addition, when setting parking restrictions, it remains within Council’s control to be able to adopt

variations to parking restrictions to reflect specific local context needs.

As discussed in Section 4.5.2, recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan include

adjustments to Parking Permits to ensure parking is available for people who need it (i.e. people with

disabilities, elderly, carers etc.). The intent of the reviewed fee structures expand on the concession

discounts (relating to parking permits) to address social equity concerns.

In summary I am of the opinion that the recommendations within the Parking Implementation Plan have

been developed to support an equitable Moreland. The recommendations also seek to protect parking

for people who genuinely need it to access their community (i.e. people with disabilities, the elderly and

carers).

SUMMARY OF OPINION AND

OTHER STATEMENTS

V132702 // 14/02/20



7. SUMMARY OF OPINION AND

OTHER STATEMENTS

7.1. Summary of Opinion

Given the analysis and discussions contained within this evidence and the supporting documentation, it

is recommended that Schedule 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay, be supported and incorporated into

the Moreland Planning Scheme.

It is recommended that amendments to Schedule 4 to the Parking Overlay also be supported as

discussed in Section 5.2 of this evidence.

7.2. Declaration

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of

significance that I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

____________________

Chris Coath

Director

14 February 2020

APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE

V132702 // 14/02/20


Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning

Scheme Amendment C183 A-1

A. CURRICULUM VITAE

A

1 Chris Coath Resume 2019

CHRIS COATH Director

BE (Hons), Civil, Monash University 2002 MIEAust, CPEng, NER, APEC Engineer, IntPE(Aus), Engineers Australia

MY STORY I am a Director of GTA Consultants with over 17 years ’ professional experience at GTA Consultants. My breadth of knowledge covers the transport planning spectrum and includes experience working for the public and private sector across all states of Australia (and beyond).

A focus of my work is preparing city strategies which ensure competing activity centre and precinct transport demands (parking, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and loading/servicing) are balanced to achieve human-centred outcomes which consider resource efficiency, urban design, place-making and economic prosperity objectives.

Most specifically I have developed specialist knowledge of all facets of parking systems and have a passion for the creation of best-practice parking strategies and policies which respond to and shape the needs of current and future drivers.

My contribution to the transport industry includes regular research, paper preparations, conference attendance and contributions to transport text book publications. As a leader in the field I present expert testimony on transport and parking matters before Planning Tribunals and Planning Panels.

‘Creating transport solutions with a human-centred focus to deliver resource efficiency, urban design, place-making and economic prosperity outcomes’

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE SKILLS & EXPERTISE Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy and Policy Role: Project Lead and Director Development and implementation of car parking strategies to manage existing and future car parking resources within activity centres, modelling of future car parking demands and creation of new planning policies.

• Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre Parking Strategy, Vic • Footscray Central Activities Area Parking Study, Vic • Brunswick Major Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy, Vic • Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Parking Schemes, Qld • Rosny Park and Bellerive Parking Asset Management Strategy, Tas • Newcastle Parking Strategy, NSW • Woden, Mawson and Belconnen Parking Strategies, ACT • Bendigo CBD Parking Precinct Plan, Vic

Campus Planning and Strategy Role: Project Director and Manager Development of integrated transport and parking strategies for campuses and precincts . These have included transport planning and analysis, multi modal needs, parking strategies, logistics planning, loading and design.

• Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre and South Wharf Precinct, Vic • Melbourne Arts Precinct including Arts Centre Melbourne, Melbourne Recital Centre and

Melbourne Theatre Company, Vic • Melbourne Park Stage 3 Logistic Hub, Vic • Monash University, Vic • Deakin University, Vic • University of Canberra, ACT • Parliamentary Zone and Surrounds, ACT • Latrobe Regional Hospital, Vic • The Malt District, Vic

• CBD and Town Centre Strategies and Policies • Campus Planning and Strategies • Pay Parking Technology • Parking Detection and Directional Systems • Resident Permit Systems • Parking Management Plans • Economic Impacts of Parking • Modelling of Existing and Future Parking

Demands • Modelling of Paid Parking Systems (Revenue

and Cost) • Establishment of Appropriate Development

Parking Rates • Parking Enforcement Operations • Car Parking Design • Car Parking Signage and Line marking (incl.

Electronic Variable Message Signage)

MEMBERSHIPS AND

AFFILIATIONS Member of Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust)

Member of Transport Australia society (TAs)

Member of Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA)

2 Chris Coath Resume 2019

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS “Car Parking: Human Centred”, AITPM National Conference 2018, Chris Coath & Ali Yousif

“Activity Centre Planning – Parking Precinct Stations”, AITPM National Conference 2017, Chris Coath & Will Fooks

“Parking Limitation Policies – The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel Modes”, AITPM National Conference 2016, Chris Coath & Alexander Sheko

“Traffic and Parking Assessments”, Planning Institute of Australia, PLANET Course, 2012-2017

“Parking Overlay – Setting a New Base”, AITPM Technical Seminar, July 2012, Chris Coath

“Car Parking Strategy”, RMIT, Integrated Transport Planning Lecture 2014, Chris Coath

“Expert Reports: What to Look For”, VPELA Young Professionals Development Series 2015, Chris Coath

“Parking: A Basis or Burden to Liveable and Accessible Communities”, AITPM National Conference 2011, Chris Coath

Paid Parking and Technology Role: Project Director Development of paid parking strategies for Local Government and private sector clients including consideration of pricing strategies, technology applications, demand elasticities, revenue generation and cash flow modelling. This included providing strategic direction and leadership including facilitation of Council Executive and Councillor workshops.

Locations have included:

• Ku-ring-gai City Council, NSW • Liverpool City Centre, NSW • Coburg Major Activity Centre, Vic • University of Canberra, ACT • Evandale and Bundall, Qld • Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, Vic • Torquay, Vic • Bangkok Intelligent Parking System Study, Thailand • Moreland City Council, Vic • Crown Casino Car Parking Management Plan and Car Parking Automation Control, Vic • Melbourne City Council Parking Meter and Pay Parking Policy, Vic

Parking Policy Reviews and Research Role: Project Lead Creation of policy and management strategies to manage specific user group needs and priorities.

• Gold Coast City Council Permit Parking Review, Qld • City of Yarra Permit Parking Scheme, Vic • Review of Parking Enforcement Camera Operations for the City Maribyrnong, Vic • Carlton Parking and Access Strategy, Vic

Master Planning and Structure Planning Role: Project Director Creation of transport outcomes for areas with a focus on multi -modal access, enhancing sustainable outcomes and integration with industry experts to achieve a holistic urban planning response.

• Keystone Business Park, Armstrong Creek, Vic • Victoria Street East and Doonside Street Precinct, Priority Development Panel, Vic • Bacchus Marsh Structure Plan, Vic • Swan Street Structure Plan, Vic • Woden Town Centre Transport Master Planning, ACT

APPENDIX: MORELAND PARKING

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20



Scheme Amendment C183 B-2

B. MORELAND PARKING

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

B

v

© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (Vic) Pty Ltd) 2018

The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has

been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as

being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

Melbourne | Sydney | Brisbane

Canberra | Adelaide | Perth

Gold Coast | Townsville

Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019

Issue: A 25/2/19

Client: Moreland City Council

Reference: V132700

GTA Consultants Office: Vic

Quality Record

Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed

A 25/2/19 Final – for Council

endorsement Saskia Noakes Chris Coath Chris Coath

V132700 // 25/2/19

Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

Background 4

Purpose 4

Structure 5

Car Parking Implementation Plan Approach 5

Response to Consultation 6

How Parking Delivers the Vision 8

The Role of Parking 8

The Cost of Parking 9

Current Parking Policy Approach 11

Current Transport Policy Overview 11

Parking in the Planning Scheme 11

Moreland Parking Management Policy (2018) 13

Business as usual is not an option 14

Activity Centres in Moreland 15

Accessibility 17

Areas for Focus 18

Delivering the Vision through Parking 21

Directions in MITS 21

Key Parking Topics 22

Managing Parking in Moreland 24

Establishing appropriate parking rates for new development 24

Reallocation of road space and existing car parking 33

Better manage parking resources 34

Statutory Implementation 40

Overview 40

Preparing a Parking Overlay 40

Preparing a Development Contributions Plan 41

V132700 // 25/2/19


Appendices

A: Existing Parking and Transport Characteristics

B: Parking Rate Approaches

Figures

Figure 1.1: Structure of the Parking Implementation Plan 5

Figure 1.2: Parking Overlay Context 6

Figure 2.1: Cycle of Car Dependency 9

Figure 4.1: Activity Centre Assessment Matrix 17

Figure 6.1: Mode share to walking and cycling, local shopping areas 27

Figure 6.2: Paid Parking Response Spectrums 38

Tables

Table ES.1: Car Parking Provision Approaches 2

Table 2.1: Case Study: Apartment Price, With Vs Without Parking 10

Table 3.1: Mode of transport to work 11

Table 6.1: MITS Mode Share Targets 24

Table 6.2: Car Parking Rate Approaches 25

Table 6.3: Car Ownership Characteristics 28

Table 6.4: Percentage Comparison of Car Demand between Metropolitan Melbourne

and Moreland 30

V132700 // 25/2/19

Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 1

Executive Summary

The overarching vision for the City of Moreland, as set out in the Moreland Council Plan 2017-

2021, is:

‘Moreland will be known for its proud diversity, and for being a connected, progressive and

sustainable city in which to live, work and play’.

Leading on from this, the transport vision for Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) is:

Connecting the City of Moreland through a transport system that is diverse, progressive and

sustainable’,

MITS is a comprehensive transport strategy which addresses five core objectives to achieve the

above overarching vision.

1) A Liveable Moreland

2) A Sustainable Moreland

3) A Moreland that is Safe and Healthy

4) A Moreland that is Accessible and Equitable for all

5) A Prosperous Moreland.

The MITS addresses how to achieve and supplement these objectives from an overarching

transport perspective.

The purpose of the Parking Implementation Plan is to provide further detail on car parking related

actions in the MITS, both to provide strong justification for these changes and to provide further

detail to guide implementation. Importantly, this document provides the detail required to

implement changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme envisaged by MITS.

The MITS Policies and the Parking Policies were developed hand-in-hand to ensure an integrated

and holistic approach to delivering the future of Moreland.

This Parking Implementation Plan sets out a list of polices which are consistent with MITS. In order

to achieve each policy, a list of actions have been developed. The actions identify a number of

ways by which the movement network (vehicular, active transport and public transport) impacts

car parking or is in turn impacted by car parking.

These actions can be simplified, for discussion purposes, to a number of more specific key parking

topics which are discussed within this Parking Implementation Plan. These topics are as follows:

Topic 1: Establishing appropriate parking rates for new development

Topic 2: Reallocation of road space and existing car parking

Topic 3: Effectively managing parking resources.

Topic 1: Establishing appropriate parking provision requirements for new development within

Moreland

In the context of Moreland, the adoption of status quo car parking provision requirements is

unlikely to achieve transport change and as such a “vision and validate” approach should be

considered to set maximum parking policies in key areas which would apply to new

developments.

The following car parking provision approaches have been developed to apply across Moreland

Activity Centres:

V132700 // 25/2/19


Table ES.1: Car Parking Provision Approaches

Centre Category

Activity Centres Neighbourhood Centres Local Centres

Remove existing minimum parking

provision requirements and adopt

Column B as maximum parking

provision allowances.

Incorporate appropriate decision

guidelines identifying when the

maximum rates could be exceeded.

These rates would apply to the

activity centres of Coburg, Brunswick

and Glenroy.

Adopt parking provision

requirements 20 per cent lower than

Column B requirements as minimum

parking provisions.



minimum rates could be reduced.

These parking provision requirements

would apply to the Neighbourhood

Centres.

Adopt Column B parking provision

requirements as minimum

requirements (no change to status

quo.



minimum requirements could be

reduced.

These requirements would apply to

the Local Centres.

These requirements provide a flexible approach to parking provision to allow the market to

respond accordingly while also encouraging transport change.

In designing new car parking facilities, flexibility should be incorporated within the design to allow

for future repurposing of space should parking demands reduce in the future.

Council should also support a greater roll-out of share cars to help residents choose to reduce the

number of cars they own.

Topic 2: Reallocation of road space and existing car parking

Moreland is growing. To cater for this demand sustainably, change will be required to the way

that space is allocated. To achieve this change investment will be required.

The reallocation of parking space to support improvements to movement networks, road safety

and creation of great places should be supported and could include:

Reallocating Space for Movement

Parking could be considered for removal when it provides an overall benefit to the sustainable

movement of people in circumstances such as:

Improves pedestrian linkages, pathways and connections

Improves the operation and capacity of public transport routes

Improves cycling corridors and connectivity.

Reallocating Space for Safety

Parking must ensure that it does not impose on the safety of people using other modes. This is

particularly relevant along cycling routes and around schools.

To improve road safety, parked vehicles must not hinder the safety of other modes. Similar to

above, parking should be given less priority where required to improve safety.

Reallocating Space for Place

Parking should be considered for removal when it is demonstrated to provide an overall benefit

to the creation of ‘places’ in Moreland. This could include circumstances such as, but not limited

to:

Creating new green spaces and street tree planting opportunities to improve

pedestrian amenity

Creating places for sustainable transport end of trip facilities

Creating improved outdoor dining

Creating improved places for storage of vehicles for those with reduced mobility and

for sustainable vehicles.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Topic 3: Effectively managing parking resources

Council should ensure that all public parking resources in and around activity centres are time-

restricted or provided as permit parking to ensure vehicles are not stored on-street over the long-

term except as permitted by parking permits for existing residents, and to encourage fair use of a

restricted resource.

Consistent with the directions of MITS to charge more fairly for the use of road space to store

private vehicles, Council should review fees for car parking permits to ensure they reflect use of

space and seek to reduce car ownership and use. The allocation and pricing of permits could

also be used to encourage zero emission vehicles.

The pricing of parking is a key demand management tool that can be used to shift the way in

which people travel away from the private car. Council should seek to introduce paid on-street

car parking in appropriate and strategic locations (such as activity centres) to encourage the

turnover of vehicles, more fairly price the use of roads (and parking) and encourage visitors to

use other modes to access their daily needs.

Statutory Implementation

This Parking Implementation Plan discusses a number of the recommendations which would

benefit from being formally included within the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The current Planning Scheme provides a specific mechanism to deal with the parking issues

arising in a precinct and the strategies to be implemented to address them. This mechanism is a

Parking Overlay.

A Parking Overlay is considered to represent the most appropriate tool under the current

Planning Scheme to provide specific guidance to developers regarding the appropriate car

parking requirements and can also consider the provisions for bicycle (including various types

such as cargo bikes), motorbike and scooter parking requirements and the manner in which

future parking should be supplied.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Introduction

Background

Moreland is changing, and the way people travel to and within Moreland will too.

The overarching vision for the City of Moreland, as set out in the Moreland Council Plan 2017-

2021, is:

‘Moreland will be known for its proud diversity, and for being a connected, progressive and

sustainable city in which to live, work and play’.

Leading on from this, the transport vision for Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019 (MITS) is:

Connecting the City of Moreland through a transport system that is diverse, progressive and

sustainable’,

The MITS is a comprehensive transport strategy which addresses five core objectives to achieve

the above overarching vision.

1) A Liveable Moreland

2) A Sustainable Moreland

3) A Moreland that is Safe and Healthy

4) A Moreland that is Accessible and Equitable for all

5) A Prosperous Moreland.

The MITS addresses how to achieve and supplement these objectives from an overarching

transport perspective.

Ultimately, change is needed to the way travel is thought about in Moreland.

Living in Moreland

Moreland is growing, its population is getting younger, townhouses and apartments are

becoming more popular, and the nature of work is changing. The way parking is approached

needs to respond and adapt to meet the needs of these changes in order to retain the liveability

of Moreland and manage transport issues associated with a denser population.

The Challenge

The challenge for Moreland will be to plan and advocate for parking measures that are not only

needed now, but also cater to the needs of tomorrow, in terms of promoting liveability, equity,

economic and sustainability.

The future of Moreland needs to be driven by an understanding of the true cost of parking and its

role in influencing the urban form, transport patterns and investment in Moreland.

Purpose

The purpose of the Parking Implementation Plan is to provide further detail on car parking related

actions in the MITS, both to provide strong justification for these changes and to provide further

detail to guide implementation. Importantly, this document provides the detail required to

implement changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme envisaged by MITS.

The MITS Policies and the Parking Policies were developed hand-in-hand to ensure an integrated

and holistic approach to delivering the future transport needs of Moreland.

1

V132700 // 25/2/19


Parking plays an instrumental role in supporting broader transport strategies within MITS. Parking

policies can have both a direct and indirect impact on the ability to achieve objectives related

to such strategies. The supply of parking at trip origins and destinations is a strong driver of mode

choice.

Parking Policy is a key lever over which Council has significant control which can influence the

mode shift towards walking, cycling and public transport. Therefore, parking is an opportunity for

Council to encourage sustainable modes of transport. This is particularly important as a tool for

Council to encourage the use of public transport given Council is ultimately not in control of

these services.

Structure

The figure below illustrates the structure of this Parking Implementation Plan. Fundamental to this

Implementation Plan is how the policies and actions deliver the overarching vision for Moreland

and support the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.

Figure 1.1: Structure of the Parking Implementation Plan

Car Parking Implementation Plan Approach

In respect of this car parking implementation plan, it is relevant to set out the statutory nature of

this document.

A car parking Implementation Plan has no particular statutory power however it does provide

essential advice and guidance to Council as to how to effectively manage existing and future

car parking resources. In this setting, the advice contained within an Implementation Plan

provides the basis for the development of statutory and non-statutory mechanisms.

For reference, the Victorian Planning Provisions Practice Note (PN57), reproduced below as Figure

1.2, shows the relationship between a parking plan and mechanisms to implement the strategic

findings.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Figure 1.2: Parking Overlay Context

Figure 1.2 highlights that the implementation of a car parking plan findings can occur in two

forms, those that can be simply implemented by Council, such as changes to parking restrictions,

while others require a statutory form to place requirements on developers or other third parties.

Response to Consultation

The Moreland Parking Implementation Plan was informed by three phases of consultation:

Phase 1: Aspirations for Transport in Moreland December 2017

Phase 2: Identification of Needs, Gaps and Priorities February to March 2018

Phase 3: Key Issues – Draft Moreland Parking Strategy (and Integrated Transport

Strategy) July to August 2018.

The full details of the most recent Phase 3 consultation activities are provided within GTA

Consultants report Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, Consultation Report Phase 3 dated 6

December 2018. This report identifies a range of responses to the identified parking strategies,

with a mixture of both positive and negative feedback.

The Draft MITS was prepared and released for community review and consultation in July 2018.

The consultation phase included workshops with stakeholders and community groups, community

pop-up events, public submissions (including a Council hearing) and an online survey. More than

40,000 letters were sent to properties directly affected by proposed changes to parking to invite

participation and feedback. In response, hundreds of residents, stakeholders and traders

provided feedback through a range of channels.

From this feedback, Council heard that there is general support for an uplift in walking and

cycling. While some initiatives were divisive (particularly related to changes to car parking), there

was a balance of views.

With regards to parking, some of the more contentious issues raised were the potential impacts of

applying parking restrictions near shopping areas and also concerns over developments

reducing the number of on-site car bays provided.

In response to the comments provided, this Implementation Plan has been updated to include

some further consideration (or reflect the need for further consideration during implementation

stages) of the following key issues:

V132700 // 25/2/19


Provided clarification of the role and definition of Parking Minimum and Parking

Maximum requirements.

Provided additional detail of parking time restriction amendments and how these can

benefit the allocation of parking to key user groups.

Provided additional consideration of social equity issues related to the pricing of

parking permits to ensure fair access is available to all.

Included the potential for consideration of the additional permit types and the

expansion of some existing permits to off-set the extension of parking time restrictions.

Included the possibility of setting a daily fee for paid parking to allow paid parking to

remain accessible to long stay users to off-set the extension of parking time restrictions.

V132700 // 25/2/19


How Parking Delivers the Vision

This Parking Implementation Plan has been developed to consider not only the current parking

system but what the future of parking could look like and how this will contribute to achieving the

vision for Moreland. It is critical that a forward-thinking approach is taken to reduce the need for

‘retrofitting’ solutions in the future.

Parking is a policy lever which can be used to implement the broader transport objectives and

unlock the vision for Moreland.

Further to this, the following realities relating to urban space have been considered in the

development of the policies and associated actions:

Road space is a finite resource

We need to cater for people’s needs.

The work across both strategies has been informed by:

Community feedback - The community had a clear voice that liveability, sustainability

and safety should be the top three objectives driving transport direction and outcomes

in MITS 2018.

Current Moreland strategies – The transport vision is informed by Moreland’s broader

strategic direction and existing policies, as discussed in detail within MITS.

Local and international best practice – Through the team’s experience, research and

expert knowledge, the best ideas from around Australia and the world have been

tailored to realise the Transport Vision for Moreland.

The Role of Parking

As discussed above, parking plays an instrumental

role in supporting broader transport and land use

strategies. Parking policies can have both a direct

and indirect impact on the ability to achieve

objectives related to such strategies. The supply of

parking at trip origins and destinations is a strong

driver of mode choice. This Implementation Plan

recognises that sometimes parking is required in

cases where people have special needs. For

example, to provide access for young families or

people with mobility impairment to access the

community. Therefore, parking should be prioritised

for people who truly need it. In doing so, it is still

possible to discourage car use and contribute to a shift towards sustainable transport modes

while catering to people who most need to drive.

Studies have shown that parking incentivises people to drive more, contributing to congestion. In

fact, much of our current parking policy was developed to encourage car use1. When, as a

response to this congestion, more road space (and parking) is provided, this can result in what is

known as a ‘cycle of car dependency’, which can compromise liveability and pose unnecessary

1 Taylor (2016) The elephant in the scheme: Planning for and around car parking in Melbourne, 1929–2016, Centre for Urban

Research, RMIT University, Australia.

Moreland is expected to grow by an

extra 18,000 dwellings by 2036. If the car

ownership rate stays the same as it is

now, such development would require

an additional 529,200sqm of land space

to accommodate its car parking needs.

This land area is equivalent to 26 playing

fields the size of the Melbourne Cricket

Ground taken up by cars!

Based on 1.4 vehicles per dwelling, the average

size of a car parking space and associated

access aisles being 21sqm and an estimation of

the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground playing

field being 20,000sqm.

2

V132700 // 25/2/19


economic costs on the whole community. This cycle of car dependency fuels the perception

that there is a “need for parking” and that we “have to drive”.

This cycle can be broken. The alternative is to shift to a multimodal lifestyle that results in a

‘positive cycle’ of transport and land use integration with more efficient land use planning to

support improved public and active transport, and vice versa.

Figure 2.1: Cycle of Car Dependency

Too much parking undermines efforts to promote the uptake of healthier and more

environmentally sustainable travel choices, such as walking and cycling, which could otherwise

contribute to more lively and liveable communities.

The type of parking made available can also affect liveability - for example, large, open parking

lots facing the street can undermine local amenity, create unsafe environments and discourage

walking.

Parking policy is a key tool for integrating land use and transport planning at a local level. Getting

the type, location and amount of parking right can, in combination with other, complementary

planning policies, significantly contribute to better transport, land use, economic and community

outcomes.

The Cost of Parking

2.2.1 Parking in new developments

A single car parking space can cost (in a basement setting) upwards of $40,000. This adds to the

cost of residential and commercial development. Minimum parking rates result in parking being

bundled with housing rather than giving people the choice to choose whether they want

parking. As the cost of the dwelling and parking is packaged, the cost of the car spot is hidden

from the buyer. Giving people a greater choice as to whether they wish to pay for residential

parking, or otherwise reduce the overall amount of residential parking, can remove the ‘built in’

costs of car use and incentivise people to explore other transport options that might be healthier

and more affordable for them, as well as better for the community overall (in terms of pollution

and improved transport system efficiency).

V132700 // 25/2/19


Case Studies: Car parking and the link to affordability

Within Moreland there are numerous examples of how car parking increases housing prices and

how providing the option of owning a car bay provides residents with transparency around how

much a parking space is costing them, in order to make a more informed decision whether they

wish to pay this amount.

The below table displays the variances in listed sales price for apartments with and without car

bays. These figures were observed in May 2018.

Table 2.1: Case Study: Apartment Price, With Vs Without Parking

Location Price without parking Price with parking Price saving for no

parking space

288 Albert Street, Brunswick $330,000 $376,000 $46,000

26 Breese Street, Brunswick $329,500 $390,000 $60,500

14-20 Nicholson Street, Coburg $285,000 to $300,000 $340,000 to $350,000 $40,000 to $65,000

The above table indicates that apartments with no car parking are cheaper for home buyers. This

demonstrates that the cost savings from not constructing parking will not entirely be captured by

the developer but these savings will also be passed onto the consumer. In addition, unbundled

car parking means that people who choose to own a car bay still have this option but have a

clear understanding of how much the car bay will cost them. These additional costs of owning

car bays are also passed onto the rental market.

In light of the above, an unbundled parking structure would result in more transparent housing

choices and a fairer housing system.

2.2.2 Parking at the shops

Evidence indicates that the provision of on-street parking spaces at shopping strips is less valued

by shoppers than some people might have otherwise assumed, particularly in dense, inner areas

where many people already walk or cycle.

Indeed, making better use of on-street parking spaces on shopping strips can have benefits for

local businesses, particularly in cases where there is further, latent demand for active transport.

This is underlined by recent research examples in Acland Street, St Kilda2,3; High Street, Northcote4;

Boundary Street, Eagle Street and Caxton Street, Brisbane5; Graz, Austria; Bristol, UK6; and

Edinburgh, UK7 where the extent of shopper spend by car drivers has been over estimated by

traders and the importance of car parking provision by shoppers does not rate as a priority.

Ultimately, increased rates of walking, cycling and public transport use can strengthen the

economic case for increased public investment in active, public and multimodal transport

infrastructure and services. Parking policy has an important role to play in supporting such a

cycle.

With regard to staff parking requirements, on-site parking may be required depending on the

type of business. As such, developers should consider on-site staff parking needs as the

availability of on-street parking cannot be guaranteed into the future to support these users.

2 Tolley R: Case study of Acland Street, in Grant J and Tolley R: Background report for the City of Stonnington Walking Policy.

Stonnington, 2010.

3 Victoria Walks, Acland Street Traders, 2011 http://www.victoriawalks.org. au/Acland_St/

4 City of Darebin, 2009, Northcote Travel Survey. , Darebin City Council

5 Yen B, Burke M, Tseng W, Ghafoor M, Mulley C, Moutou C, 2015, Do restaurant precincts need more parking? Differences in

business perceptions and customer travel behaviour in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

6 Sustrans, 2006, “Shoppers and how they travel”

7 Heart Foundation, 2011 Good for Business Discussion paper

V132700 // 25/2/19


Current Parking Policy Approach

This Chapter presents a summary of where this Parking Implementation Plan fits in within the

overarching policy context and why a ‘business as usual’ approach is not sustainable.

Current Transport Policy Overview

Current policy (local and state) is to reduce the reliance on private car travel and encouraging

walk, cycle and public transport trips.

Moreland’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) states:

[The] Strategic Framework of the MSS is predicated on developing sustainable neighbourhoods

by integrating transport and land use planning decision making which maximise people’s

opportunities to walk, cycle and use public transport.

As it relates to car parking, the current policies promote other modes of travel but also seek to

provide car parking. Over the past four years, Moreland’s household survey shows that this policy

has not seen a significant mode shift away from the car.

Table 3.1: Mode of transport to work

Base: Currently

Employed

2013

(n=1190)

2015

(n=1070)

2017

(n=1029)

Car (as driver) 63.6% 66% 63%

Current Council policies, while supporting the multimodal nature of activity-centres in Moreland,

do not specifically push further to encourage or force mode shift. Previous strategies for Coburg

and Brunswick have supported this multimodal approach to planning. However, the lack of

formal planning scheme incorporation, means that decisive planning guidance is not available

to all involved in the planning decision-making process (i.e. developer, council officers,

Councillors, third party submitters and further VCAT and the Planning Minister).

On the basis of the above, it is clear that Moreland has aspirational policies towards supporting

sustainable transport modes. Yet local policies in the planning scheme could be more direct in

pushing for a mode shift towards sustainable transport.

As such, parking policy is critical lever which must clearly work towards a demonstrable change in

mode shift towards sustainable transport.

Parking in the Planning Scheme

3.2.1 Definitions

Minimum Parking Provision Requirements

A minimum parking provision requirement represents the minimum amount of parking a new

development is required to provide to support the size of development (number of dwellings,

floor space etc.). A developer may provide a greater amount of parking if desired. A planning

permit can however typically be sought for a lesser amount of parking.

3

V132700 // 25/2/19


Maximum Parking Provision Policies

A maximum parking provision requirement represents a policy which restricts the amount of

parking that is allowed to be provided by a development. A developer can choose to provide

any amount of parking between the maximum requirement and zero (unless an alternate

minimum requirement is set). A planning permit can be sought for a greater amount of parking

than the maximum limit.

3.2.2 Clause 52.06

Clause 52.06 of the Victorian Planning Provisions sets out minimum parking provision requirements

for new and altered developments (where an increase in development scale occurs). The

default requirements are called “Column A”. These requirements are also supplemented by a set

of decision guidelines which facilitate the consideration of reductions to these minimum

provisions. These rates are the default rates that apply across Victoria, unless varied by Council

by way of a Parking Overlay8. A number of recent changes have occurred to Clause 52.06,

specifically Column B rates now apply to not just land subject to a Parking Overlay where the

Column B rates have been specified, but also all land identified as being within 400m of the

Principal Public Transport Network Area. Therefore, lower car parking rates will now automatically

apply to many activity centres.

Clause 52.06 also sets out parking provision requirements known as “Column B”. Column B

parking provisions outline a lesser requirement than the standard requirements shown in Column

A.

The Column B requirements could be considered to typically reflect an ‘Activity Centre’ setting,

which begin to account for the sharing of car parking between multiple uses during the peak

(weekday, midday) time of the activity centre. An example of the difference between Column A

and Column B requirements are that a residential development (such as the construction of a set

of apartments) must provide a space for visitors to park in for every 5 dwellings under Column A.

This is not required under Column B. This difference is not intended to highlight under Column B

that residential visitor parking is not generated, rather at the peak time of activity centre (likely to

be middle of the day) demands for residential visitor parking are likely to be low.

Column B requirements are required to be activated through the use of a Parking Overlay at

Clause 45.09 of the Planning Scheme. The car parking requirements for both Column A and B are

listed within the state-wide Clauses of the Victorian Planning Provisions.

There are many Activity Centres throughout Melbourne (including Moreland) that have these

requirements applied to them. This includes Hawthorn, Kew, Footscray and Heidelberg.

While Column B requirements are more appropriate to be applied to activity centres, they are

not tailored to the individual transport availability and land use characteristics of each specific

Activity Centre.

3.2.3 Clause 22.03

Clause 22.03 of the Moreland Planning Scheme supplements Clause 52.06 Car Parking and

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities supporting Council’s commitment to “developing sustainable

neighbourhoods by improving the quality and design of the built environment, and integrating

transport and land use planning to optimise people’s opportunity to walk, cycle and use public

transport.”

8 Alternate car parking provision requirements are sometimes prescribed in other Planning Scheme Clauses (such as within a

Schedule to a Development Plan Overlay or similar).

V132700 // 25/2/19


As it relates to car parking the policy provides support to (but limited to):

Reduced car parking provision requirements in developments within and in close

proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options

and with increased provision of bicycle parking above the requirements specified in

Clause 52.34.

Encourages shared car parking arrangements where appropriate.

Ensuring land uses frequented by people with limited mobility, such as hospitals and

medical centres, provide sufficient car parking spaces, including an appropriate

proportion of disabled car spaces.

Ensuring car parking and site access does not dominate urban design or compromise

pedestrian safety and priority.

3.2.4 Clause 45.09

Clause 45.09 of the Moreland Planning Scheme applies a Parking Overlay to land uses in the

Mixed-Use Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 2 Zone and Activity

Centre Zone within the City of Moreland. This overlay applies the Column B parking provision

requirements outlined in Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Column B parking requirements outline a lesser requirement than the standard requirements

shown in Column A.

As noted above, while these Column B requirements are more appropriate to be applied to

activity centres, they are not tailored to the individual transport availability and land use

characteristics of each specific Activity Centre.

As such there are still many circumstances in which the provision requirements advised under the

planning scheme are not applied. Each development is assessed individually, and if it is deemed

appropriate to apply a lesser requirement, then Council or VCAT will approve them. Some

developments are being approved throughout Moreland with close to no parking provided on

site, if it is deemed to be appropriate and acceptable outcome.

This is evidenced by way of example: a review of 8 significant development planning

applications lodged and approved by Council in 2017 indicated that on average a 19 per cent

reduction (from the Parking Overlay requirements) to parking was sought for the residential

components of the development and on average a 10 per cent reduction was sought for the

commercial component of the development.

In a diverse municipality such as Moreland, with accessibility levels varying across activity centres,

more specific consideration of the applied car parking provision requirements is required,

particularly if these are to inform and achieve the mode shift aims of the Moreland Integrated

Transport Strategy.

Clause 45.09 can also remove minimum parking requirements and introduce parking maximum

policies where required. Currently such maximum policies are not in place in Moreland.

The use of parking maximums may need to be complemented by additional on-street parking

restrictions. This is however dealt with through a different mechanism such as the Moreland

Parking Management Policy.

Moreland Parking Management Policy (2018)

The Moreland Parking Management Policy (2018) provides a framework for the management of

Council owned parking (on-street and off-street) in Moreland. It was originally developed in 2011

and was revised in 2018 with only minor changes.

V132700 // 25/2/19


It includes:

Setting of parking time limits and restrictions

Issuing of residential permits provides residents of properties prior to 2011 with an

advantage in accessing parking due to exemption from local restrictions.

Criteria for the establishment of paid parking. It is noted that the current criteria for the

introduction of paid parking is quite difficult to achieve and may warrant review.

In addition, the Moreland Parking Management Policy includes a car share policy.

The car share policy aims to achieve the following objectives:

Use parking more efficiently.

Reduce emissions.

Support the local economy.

Encourage more sustainable travel options.

Improve access and social inclusion.

The Parking Management Policy is a critical tool which supplements the setting of car parking

rates (in a Parking Overlay) to manage on-street parking and restrictions, in particular where

parking minimums are removed.

Business as usual is not an option

Current policies begin to reflect the activity centre nature of centres within Moreland. However,

they do not push far enough to truly encourage or force mode shift. Car parking disincentives as

well as sustainable transport incentives are required to break the negative cycle of car

dependency.

Previous strategies for Coburg and Brunswick have also supported a shift towards active travel

and have suggested lowering parking provision requirements including introducing ‘maximum’

policies. However, the lack of formal planning scheme incorporation, mean that decisive

planning guidance is not available to all involved in the planning decision making process

(developer, council officers, Councillors, third party submitters and further VCAT and the Planning

Minister).

Given both the Coburg Activity Centre and Brunswick Activity Centre are both well-established

areas, parking restrictions and allocations were implemented many years ago, to assist with the

turnover and allocation of parking spaces in high activity areas. Many of these restrictions have

not changed or been reviewed over the years. As is the case in Moreland and many other

municipalities, parking restrictions are only reviewed reactively based on community feedback or

complaint. Finally, there is very little paid parking implemented in these activity centres.

The Parking Implementation Plan, which encompasses the whole municipality, will work hand in

hand with the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy to drive real change to the way in which

parking and transport infrastructure is delivered in the future.

Both MITS and the Parking Implementation Plan recognises that Moreland is diverse and not all

suburbs contain the same types of activity or level of accessibility. The parking policies are aimed

at addressing the issues identified in the current active areas of Moreland (e.g. Coburg and

Brunswick). Applying these same policies to areas that are currently less active but are still

experiencing growth (e.g. Coburg) is an opportunity to future proof against issues associated with

the anticipated growth.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Activity Centres in Moreland

This Chapter provides a high-level review of the existing parking and transport characteristics in

Moreland.

Moreland is made up of a number activity centres, being grouped into three primary categories:

Activity Centres; Neighbourhood Centres; and Local Centres.9 These centres are shown

graphically and listed in the following page. In addition, it is noted that there are areas within

Moreland that currently have a Parking Overlay (due to zoning) and although they are not Local

Centres they are proposed to be treated the same with Column B minimum rates applied.

9 Reference: Moreland Planning Scheme, Clause 21.02

4

V132700 // 25/2/19


A B C D E

1

2

3

4

5

6

V132700 // 25/2/19


An acknowledgement of the similarities and differences of these centres is important to develop

car parking policy which relates to the nature of the centre but also provides consistency in the

approach to delivering parking across the municipality.

Accessibility

As a means of further considering the activity centres, these have been grouped by their access

to public transport.

Each centre has been categorised as to whether it is served by 1, 2 or 3 modes of public

transport.

The categorisation assumes:

a 400m radius to bus and tram routes (not stop)

an 800m radius from railway station.

These distances were selected as they represent a commonly accepted, reasonable walking

distance to public transport. The distance was measured from the bus and tram routes for ease of

calculation and due to their frequent stops.

On this basis, each activity centre has been plotted within an assessment matrix grouping activity

centres by type, access to public transport. This matrix is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Activity Centre Assessment Matrix

LO

W (

1 M

OD

E O

R L

ES

S)

LOCAL (LC) NEIGHBOURHOOD (NC) ACTIVITY CENTRE (AC)

ME

DIU

M (

2 M

OD

ES

) H

IGH

(3

MO

DE

S)

1 (Coburg AC)

2 (Brunswick AC)

3 (Glenroy AC) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14

33, 41

19, 25, 28, 35, 39, 42, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53

15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37,

38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54

9, 10, 11

V132700 // 25/2/19


Activity centres with access to 3 modes of public transport are all located within the southern half

of the municipality. A majority of centres within the southern half of the municipality (south of Bell

Street) are all served by at least 2 modes of public transport. Within the northern half of the

municipality a large portion of activity centres are served by only one mode of public transport

(bus) except for those located specifically along heavy rail lines.

In general, the Activity Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Local Centre categories correlate

with access to public transport.

Activity Centres – 2 of 3 centres have access to 3 modes of public transport

Neighbourhood Centres – Most centres have access to 2 modes of public transport

Local Centres – Most centres have access to 1 mode of transport.

Areas for Focus

From the above there are clear patterns that confirm that the current Activity Centre

classifications align with centre accessibility. The following further observations of each activity

centre category can be made:

Activity Centres: These centres represent those which have a broad land use mix allowing for

sharing of parking between uses and are supported by public transport facilities.

These centres will experience the highest level of change and growth in coming years. This

nature of change makes these centres the primary focus to achieve mode shift within the

municipality. The nature of public transport access allows these centres the best opportunity to

tolerate mode shift.

If significant mode shift is to be achieved within the municipality, proactive parking approaches

must be adopted (to control parking overspill, manage demand for parking and reallocate

space used for parking other uses as appropriate) within these centres where change can be

more easily tolerated.

Neighbourhood Centres: These centres will experience some land use change, growth and

densification. Public transport facilities are available to support mode shift opportunities.

As such parking policy needs to be used as a tool to encourage people to reduce the number of

car trips as population grows and increase the attractiveness of sustainable transport modes.

Local Centres: These centres will either not experience change or have poor access to public

transport alternatives.

The limited change will therefore mean that new developments in these centres will contribute

least to overall municipality mode shift. Further mode shift can be less tolerated due to the lesser

access alternatives. The resultant outcome will be that a more conservative parking

management approach is likely to be relevant to these areas.

Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres will therefore provide a focus for the further

consideration in the following sections of this report of existing parking and transport

characteristics across the municipality.

A review of the key areas within each category has been outlined below with further detail also

included in Appendix A. This tells the story of how Moreland currently functions from a parking

perspective.

V132700 // 25/2/19


4.2.1 Activity Centres

For the purpose of describing existing parking and transport conditions, Activity Centres have

been divided up as follows:

Sydney Road (Coburg AC and part of the Brunswick AC)

Brunswick East (part of the Brunswick AC), and

Glenroy AC.

Sydney Road

One of the most important characteristics of parking and transport along Sydney Road is the

nature of specialty retail and the long ‘strip shop’ layout of the activity centres. As the shopping

precinct is so long, considering Sydney Road as one activity centre does not cater as well for to

multi-purpose trips as a more condensed centre. This is owing to inaccessibility by efficient means

of public transport or where the visit may require the handling of bulky or delicate goods.

The allocation of kerbside parking is consistent along the length of Sydney Road which provides

short term (either 1 or 2-hour timed restrictions) parking for casual users to increase vehicle

turnover. Additionally, other special use zones have been implemented over time including

parking for people with disabilities, loading zones and drop off-pick up areas (less than 15

minutes). Parking is generally highly utilised along the strip, dependant on time and location

based on the type of businesses (e.g. office, specialty retail, entertainment, dining) located in

each precinct.

Both public and private at-grade off street car parks are located at various locations to the rear of

buildings along Sydney Road, accessible from adjoining streets. Council managed carparks have

medium term parking restrictions (generally 2 or 3-hour) to promote longer multi-purpose trips to

businesses within the activity centres, while discouraging employee and commuter car parking.

While on-street paid parking is essentially non-existent within the municipality (with the exception

of Barkly Street near Barkly Square), there are seven fee paying Council carparks at the south end

of Sydney Road. The occupancy of these car parks is typically low due to the availability of free

parking in the area. There are also several private paid carparks, some of which have a period of

free parking for casual users, to discourage all day parking. As such, all seven carparks are

located at the southern end of Sydney Road.

Clearways have been implemented on Sydney Road to assist traffic flows during peak periods

and facilitate efficient movements of trams.

Sydney Road is well connected to public transport. However, the availability of free parking and

ease of access to car parking encourages driving and discourages the use of these sustainable

options.

Brunswick East

Both Nicholson Street and Lygon Street have almost no off-street public parking, and as such,

parking in adjoining residential streets is much more congested than is seen in Sydney Road. Paid

parking is not present in either street. However short-term parking restrictions apply on street, with

in-ground sensors, to increase compliance and turnover of parking spaces.

Clearways have been implemented on Lygon Street to assist traffic flows during peak periods

and facilitate efficient movements of trams.

Most residential streets have had some residential parking restrictions applied, and parking in the

short-term areas experience high demand as do the unrestricted areas. This is largely due to the

high occupancy of on-street resources on the main roads and people seeking to find alternative

parking near their destination.

V132700 // 25/2/19


On-site observations indicate that occupancy of short term parking on-street varies in both

Nicholson and Lygon Street with generally some availability of parking within the area, suggesting

that many people travel to the activity centre by public transport or active travel modes. This

suggests that the space currently used for parking could be better served in other ways such as

creating place or serving active transport modes.

Glenroy AC

The ease of access by car into the centre from short distances along with the availability of

secure and free off-street parking are major factors in determining the characteristics of parking

in this centre.

On street parking is not permitted on parts of Pascoe Vale Road. Parking in Glenroy AC is served

by several large at-grade off-street carparks. Some on-street parking is available on Wheatsheaf

Road and along adjoining streets to Pascoe Vale Road.

Parking restrictions vary across the centre, with a mix of both short and long-term restrictions

supplying different user groups depending on the adjacent land use.

A large off-street carpark for rail commuters is provided at the train station with additional

unrestricted carparking provided for in the car park called ‘Dowd Place’.

Another characteristic of the activity centre is that a lot of employee parking is catered for at-

grade within the property, or in one of the business permit zones.

While the activity centre is located around a train station, the ease of access by car and amount

of parking available encourages short car trips.

4.2.2 Neighbourhood Centres

Neighbourhood Centres are much smaller and generally located away from arterial roads,

making them even more susceptible to short vehicle trips. Notwithstanding surveys conducted by

Council (refer Figure 6.1 later) indicate many trips to Neighbourhood centres are made by

walking and cycling modes. Given the spacing and location of most neighbourhood and local

centres within the municipality, it could be expected that some if not most of the vehicle trips into

the activity centres could be supplemented by other modes of transport. Further to this, the

parking characteristics within Neighbourhood Centres generally have short term parking

restrictions to encourage high turnover. It has also been noted that a number of locations within

this category (e.g. Union Street / Grantham Street) contain commuter parking which often results

in spill over into the surrounding residential streets during peak times. Further discussion on each of

these centres is provided in Appendix A.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Delivering the Vision through Parking

Directions in MITS

The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy identifies core objectives and along with it a range of

policies and actions across the transport spectrum. These objectives and associated policies and

actions as they relate to car parking are reproduced below.

Further discussion on the tools required to support these actions is detailed in the subsequent

sections of this report.

MITS sets out that the vision for the future of transport in Moreland is built upon five key

foundations or objectives. These are detailed below with their relevant policies and actions.

A liveable Moreland

‘Where the transport network is family-friendly, where we consciously reduce local vehicle traffic

and safeguard the wellbeing of our community.’ (MITS)

MITS recognises that good cities are ones that are better at promoting the best interests of their

communities, in terms not just of prosperity but also of liveability – how cities and the people that

live in them combine and contribute to a sense of wellbeing within the community. Parking has

an important role to play in fostering such liveability.

Car parks rarely if at all contribute to public amenity and a sense of security and well-being – in

fact, they can do the opposite when not integrated with surrounding land uses that offer

interaction and surveillance.

Further to this, parking takes up space that could alternatively be used for either ‘moving people’

‘or creating a place for people’. Council and the community need to re-evaluate when and

where parking is needed to support a liveable Moreland into the future.

A sustainable Moreland

‘Which achieves a city-leading shift toward sustainable modes of travel, supporting the transition

to active or zero emissions transport by 2040’ (MITS)

The existing car parking policies in Moreland encourage the use of the car for most trips in

Moreland. This is demonstrated by existing minimum parking rates for new developments and free

parking in most destinations within Moreland, reinforcing a culture of using the car even for short

trips that could be walked. This culture results in congestion – which during Community

Consultation many people expressed they do not want in Moreland.

Addressing an oversupply of car parking creates a self-reinforcing ‘positive cycle’ and in turn

helps deliver a more sustainable Moreland.

A Moreland that is safe and healthy

‘Where transport safety is a key focus, we improve personal security and safety and promote a

healthy community with cleaner air.’ (MITS)

It is understood from community feedback that it is currently common for cars to be parked in

ways that jeopardise the safety of the community, for example along footpaths or near school

entrances. Parking must ensure that it does not impose on the safety of people using other

modes.

5

V132700 // 25/2/19


A Moreland that is accessible and equitable for all

‘Where we reduce barriers to community movement and strongly commit to making Moreland

accessible to all’ (MITS)

Accessibility is about making sure everyone feels they have a place in Moreland.

Some people have a high need to drive, for example young families and disabled people

sometimes must drive in order to access opportunities, including shopping and services. In the

future, alternative technologies may reduce this need (for example autonomous vehicles).

However, until future technologies are able to provide an alternative for these people to drive,

parking should be prioritised for these users.

Providing an accessible and equitable Moreland means being honest about who actually needs

parking and what it means to provide a transport system that is fair.

A prosperous Moreland

‘Which connects people to local jobs and services, focuses on the reliability of the transport

system for people and goods, caters for population and employment growth.’ (MITS)

What makes a prosperous community will look different in the future from what it looks like today.

The way people spend money is changing, with people now using apps to order food and goods

online. Further to this, the way people work is changing with ‘new’ jobs being created that

generate ‘new travel patterns’.

To ensure Moreland is both prosperous today and into in the future it needs to anticipate and

make provision for these changes.

Investing money in the right areas and modes of transport is important to make activity centres

attractive places to be and spend time, which in turn translates to improving local business

conditions.

If today’s funding for parking is prioritised over sustainable transport, that will restrict Moreland’s

opportunity to cater for future growth. It is also understood that changes to existing parking needs

to reflect the economic needs of Moreland today.

Key Parking Topics

Specifically, with respect to parking MITS identifies the following key goals and objectives.

Council does not have control over all levers relating to transport - as a result there is an emphasis

on aspects over which Council has direct control, such as car parking.

Car parking plays an instrumental role in supporting broader transport and land use strategies.

The availability of car parking where people live and at their destinations will strongly influence

the ways they choose to travel. Getting the type, location and amount of parking right can

contribute to better transport, land use, economic and community outcomes, including

improved sustainable transport uptake and flexibility in reducing the provision of car parking to

suit market needs.

MITS recognises that sometimes parking is required in cases where people have special needs -

parking should be prioritised for these users who truly need it. In doing so, it is still possible to

discourage car use and contribute to a shift towards sustainable transport modes while

accommodating people who most need to drive.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Broadly, MITS is to improve parking management by:

Permitting less parking in new developments to allow people to choose a lower level of

parking to suits their needs

Expanding parking restrictions to protect local streets from changes to parking

requirements in new developments

Using paid parking in some areas for all-day parking.

More broadly, MITS prioritises sustainable transport through the following strategies:

Reallocating of Road Space

Creating safer, quieter streets

Advocating for better public transport

Fostering partnerships for sustainable transport.

These topics and the role of parking in achieving the desired outcomes are discussed further

within the following sections of this report.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Managing Parking in Moreland

This Chapter explores the key parking topics summarised from the MITS policies and actions.

Establishing appropriate parking rates for new

development

6.1.1 Setting Car Parking Provision Requirements

Overview

The MITS sets mode share targets for car journeys within the municipality. This provides a focus on

the ‘big picture’ objective which will reflect movement away from dependency on the car for

daily needs.

Our community engagement and background research has shown that suburbs in the north of

Moreland have different travel patterns, characteristics and needs to the south of Moreland. For

mode shares, our background research told us that the southernmost suburbs (Brunswick,

Brunswick East, Brunswick West and North Fitzroy) have a lower proportion of people driving to

work (around 40 per cent), while the northern suburbs of Gowanbrae, Tullamarine and Hadfield

have the highest (between 70 and 90 per cent).

To reflect this, Council has set two different targets for the way people travel to work, and one

target for the way people travel to education.

The journey to work and education targets are reproduced in the below table.

Table 6.1: MITS Mode Share Targets

Measure10 Current Target

Journey to Work (north) Car as driver: 74.8% Car as driver: 45%

Journey to Work (south) Car as driver: 58.0% Car as driver: 30%

Journey to Education Car as Passenger: 37.8% Car as Passenger: 20%

In regard to how the setting of car parking provision requirements supports the above mode

share targets, it should be recognised that proposed car parking provision requirements are just

one tool which will influence new development, with other parking tools (as discussed in following

sections) required to influence existing travel patterns.

The following discussion highlights the need for each Activity Centre Category to be treated

differently with regards to the setting of parking provision requirements to reflect the diverse

nature of each activity centre and municipality as a whole. Broadly the following discussion

identifies:

The below table summarises the approach to be taken for setting of parking requirements within

each centre type.

10 Current based on ABS Census 2016. Progress will be based on Moreland Household Surveys.

6

V132700 // 25/2/19


Table 6.2: Car Parking Rate Approaches

Centre Type

Activity Centre Neighbourhood Centre Local Centre

Remove existing minimum parking

provision requirements and adopt

Column B as maximum parking

provision allowances.



maximum rates could be exceeded.

These rates would apply to the

activity centres of Coburg, Brunswick

and Glenroy.

Adopt parking provision

requirements 20 per cent lower than

Column B requirements as minimum

parking provisions.



minimum rates could be reduced.

These parking provision requirements

would apply to the Neighbourhood

Centres.

Adopt Column B parking provision

requirements as minimum

requirements (no change to status

quo.



minimum requirements could be

reduced.

These requirements would apply to

the Local Centres.

Rationale

The setting of car parking provision requirements is an important tool to guide the future provision

of car parking associated with new development.

Traditionally the ‘predict and provide’ model11 (as used as the default Column A and B models in

the Clause 52.06) requiring minimum parking provisions results in:

A parking supply associated with new development being provided which encourages

private vehicle travel.

Creates uncertainty (to developers) and unease (from community) when reductions to

standard car parking requirements (to that required in all the planning schemes

throughout Victoria) are sought from Council in planning permit applications.

In the context of Moreland, as a fast growing established inner/middle ring suburb, the adoption

of status quo car parking provision is unlikely to achieve transport change and as such a “vision

and validate” approach should be considered to set maximum parking rates which would apply

to new developments.

Further minimum parking requirements have been found to inefficiently impact housing markets.

With parking potentially increasing minimum housing costs, removing minimum provision

requirements is critically important.

Coupling the needs of achieving transport change and improving housing affordability,

introducing maximum parking requirements can encourage reduced car ownership and

encourage mode shift to sustainable transport.

Minimum vs Maximum Provision Approaches

Minimum Requirements

The Planning Scheme sets out the minimum number of spaces that should be provided for a

development.

A reduction (including down to zero) to the requirement can be sought through the use of

prescribed decision guidelines. Any reduction requires approval by Council.

It is relatively rare that a developer would seek to provide more than the statutory requirement.

11 The definition of minimum parking rate requirements originated in America in the 1950’s to address the issue of too many car being

parked in public areas.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Maximum Requirement

Developers can provide (as of right) any amount of parking between the maximum limit and

zero.

An increase to the requirement can be sought through the use of prescribed decision guidelines.

Any increase requires approval by Council.

Generally, it would be expected that some degree of parking would be provided by a

development (if there is no opportunity to utilise on street parking i.e. parking restrictions are in

place), as evidenced by provision of car parking in the Melbourne CBD where there is no

requirement (and a maximum rate).

This approach is required at both the origin (place of residence) and destination (work, shop,

etc.) of trips to fully capture transport change by those living within and outside of Moreland.

Such a maximum approach must also be coupled with strict parking restrictions within the

surrounding area to ensure that development does not simply seek to benefit from surrounding

parking supply while not contributing to the supply in any form. Such restrictions place the onus

on developers to provide the suitable level of parking to support their own development needs,

with the maximum provision requirement restricting an over provision of parking and hence

controlling congestion within the surrounding area. This also provides the majority of existing

residents, eligible for resident parking permits, with greater opportunity to continue to use local

on-street parking.

In Victoria, parking maximums have been implemented in the Melbourne CBD and fringe areas,

Fisherman’s Bend, Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre and are drafted but not yet

implemented for the Forest Hill precinct in South Yarra.

Experience in working with private development within areas of maximum requirements (in

particular the Melbourne City Council Capital City Zone and Fisherman’s Bend) is that a zero

parking response is not the automatic response or norm. Evidence from Fisherman’s Bend,

suggests that the market is delivering around 0.7 spaces per apartment. Removing minimum

provision requirements does not necessarily result in zero parking, but simply allows the market

greater freedom to respond to demands. The introduction of a maximum requirement then

means there is a clear line of what is considered too much parking.

With regard to the local economy there could be an assumption that parking is required to

attract people to an area and ultimately attract customers to shops.

However, reviewing a sample of activity centres within Moreland, clearly indicates a high level of

walking and cycling access to these centres, diminishing the perception of ultimate reliance on

car travel and parking.

This data is reproduced in Figure 6.1 and shows that access to local shopping strips is generally

achieved by foot, with a smaller number by bike and car.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Figure 6.1: Mode share to walking and cycling, local shopping areas12

It should be noted that the above figures were based on postal survey results from residents within

an approximate 500m radius of the centres and therefore does not capture shoppers coming

from beyond this catchment. As such, limitations may exist in relying solely on this data set if there

are a significant number of non-local shoppers attracted to Moreland. Notwithstanding this data

does provide an indication of willingness to use walking and cycling as a mode of transport to

access local shopping areas.

Further, the Department for Transport (England) undertook a review of maximum parking

provision requirements which were implemented in 200413. This study investigated the effects of

these parking standards on traffic levels and economic development. The study highlighted

several common themes including:

Parking is a very important demand management tool, albeit one of many tools.

Developers see some parking as important as they consider that it adds value to their

asset.

There is no evidence to suggest that parking standards have a significant negative

impact on economic development within urban and rural areas.

Problems of overspill parking were highlighted as particularly acute in historic towns due

to the narrow and more restrictive street layout.

12 Moreland Mail Survey of Residents living with ~500m of activity centres.

13 Department for Transport (June 2008) Research into the Use and Effectiveness of Maximum Parking Standards.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Furthermore, from studies in Camden, UK, there is no evidence to suggest that parking maximums

have had an economic impact on the financial viability of development.14

On the basis of the above there is evidence upon which to conclude that in areas of good

transport accessibility, limiting the provision of parking is parking maximisation limits are an

effective lever to promote sustainable transport and reduce congestion.

The application of a maximum provision approach must however also be considered in the

context of activity centre types across Moreland. In this regard the following provides a discussion

around the differing activity centre types and the parking rate approaches that should be

considered for each.

Activity Centres

These centres, previously called Major Activity Centres, are the key centres that must be targeted

to achieve transport change targets set by the MITS.

These centres can most tolerate reduced car parking provisions and the need to change mode

given their improved access to transport alternatives and the mix of uses available which can

allow for the sharing of parking between uses. These are also the centres that will see the most

severe increase in congestion and other traffic related issues if measures to reduce numbers of

cars are not taken.

Parking Provision Response

In order to force change in these centres (not allowing an over provision of parking) it is

recommended that minimum parking provision requirements be removed and replaced with the

imposing of a maximum car parking provision approach.

By way of example, a 1 or 2-bedroom dwelling would be able to provide a maximum of 1 car

space.


It is, recognised that across Activity Centres that some differences in Car Ownership (and Journey

to work) characteristics exist.

Table 6.3: Car Ownership Characteristics15

Location Car Ownership (veh. per dwelling) Journey to Work by Car

Coburg 1.44 59%

Brunswick 1.13 41%

Glenroy 1.54 73%

With the restriction of on-street parking and overspill into adjacent areas it could be expected,

based on the above data, to result in higher rates of off-street parking being delivered in Glenroy

in the short term.

As such the setting of maximum car parking provision requirements at the point of Column B (the

current minimum requirements set) for these areas allows for flexibility across each centre for the

market to respond accordingly and provide parking as needed.

While this approach technically allows parking to be provided as currently required, evidence

from the introduction of parking maximums indicates that the adoption of a maximum rate will

naturally encourage and create change in reducing car parking provision and private vehicle

travel patterns.

14 http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=3414526

15 2016 ABS Census Data

V132700 // 25/2/19


The adoption of a maximum starting point at Column B should, however, be monitored to ensure

that change does occur in the way in which parking is provided to meet with the overarching

aims of the strategy. Should parking provisions not be reduced as expected, it may be necessary

to set reduced maximum requirements to further force change in car parking provisions.

A review of planning applications over the coming 3 years could provide an understanding of

development trends and willingness to adopt car parking provisions below the maximum limit.

Decision Guidelines

Decision Guidelines to supplement the recommended car parking provision requirements within

a Parking Overlay should be developed with the following intent:

Decision Guidelines would reflect requirements to be satisfied to support a provision of

parking greater than the maximum car parking provisions allowed.

Allow consideration of empirical data and specific use or user requirements which may

give rise to a higher parking requirement.

Justification should be required of why the characteristics of the proposed use (with

regard to the likely car parking demands generated) can’t be accommodated by

other forms of transport than the private car.

The appropriateness of the impact of increased parking provisions on road network

capacity, pedestrian safety and urban design should be justified.

The extent demonstrated to which sustainable transport provisions are being

incorporated within the development to support and encourage trips being made by

non-car modes.

Demonstrate the ability for parking to be repurposed in future years.

Reiterate that occupiers of any dwellings approved by permit subject to the provisions

of this schedule may not be eligible for Resident Priority Parking Permits.

Neighbourhood Centres

These centres will experience growth in activity and mix of commercial and residential uses in

coming years. They are therefore centres that should also be targeted to achieve transport

change targets set by the MITS.

These are centres that can tolerate reduced car parking provisions and the need to change

mode given their improved access to transport alternatives.

The surrounds of these centres are however often more sensitive to parking overspill and therefore

a more careful balancing of parking provision should be considered.

Parking Rate Response

The adoption of reduced minimum parking provision requirements would be an appropriate

response to encourage change in these centres. This does however allow the market to respond

if higher provisions are considered necessary, however would not be encouraged.


Car parking provision requirements specified by Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme

reflect the Victorian Planning Provisions which apply across all of Metropolitan Melbourne (where

a Parking Overlay has not been put into place). As such a comparison of these statewide

requirements has been undertaken to understand how they could be tailored to better reflect

the City of Moreland and the aspirations to achieve mode shift away from private car travel.

In this regard a number of travel data sources have been considered comparing Metropolitan

Melbourne characteristics with that of the Moreland Local Government Area. These sources

included:

V132700 // 25/2/19


Australian Bureau of Statistics Journey to Work Data

Australian Bureau of Statistics Car Ownership Data

Victorian Integrated Surveys of Travel and Activity (Vista) Total Trips Data.

These sources are identified in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Percentage Comparison of Car Demand between Metropolitan Melbourne and Moreland

Data Source Moreland Metropolitan Melbourne Comparison

ABS Journey to Work Car driver – 55 per cent Car driver – 70 per cent 22 per cent

Vista Total Trips Car driver – 46 per cent Car driver – 52 per cent 11 per cent

ABS Car Ownership Vehicles per dwelling - 1.40 Vehicles per dwelling - 1.69 17 per cent

Average difference 10 to 20 per cent

Table 6.4 indicates that Moreland has a 10 to 20 per cent reduction in car use demand when

compared to Metropolitan Melbourne.

As such given Column B provision requirements apply across Metropolitan Melbourne (where

activated by the PPTN), it would be considered reasonable that a reduction to these

requirements by 10 to 20 per cent could be applied to better reflect travel characteristics within

Moreland and set an appropriate ‘baseline’ for the consideration of parking provision in

Neighbourhood Centres. Having further regard to the aspirational targets of increasing mode

shift to sustainable transport modes it would be right to adopt the higher of the potential

reductions being 20 per cent.

This reduction is also consistent with previous parking strategies for Coburg and Brunswick which

suggested a 20% reduction to Column B requirements could be applied. While Neighbourhood

centres may not traditionally have the same access to alternate transport and density of uses as

the Activity Centres of Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy, the adoption of lower minimum provisions

is required to create transport change.

The use of lower minimum provision (20 per cent reduction to Column B) therefore encourages

change, however allows the market to respond and provide higher parking if required.

The adoption of decision guidelines (to further reduce parking provisions) should also supplement

the minimum provision approach to further allow for lower provisions to be adopted and

therefore the market to respond on a case by case basis. Such decision guidelines recognise

that across Neighbourhood centres differing levels access are available which could also

influence the required level of parking.

Decision Guidelines

Further to the above, decision guidelines to supplement the recommended car parking provision

requirements within a Parking Overlay should be developed with the following intent:

Decision Guidelines would reflect requirements to be satisfied to support a provision of

parking lower than the minimum car parking provision requirements allowed.

Decision guidelines should be supportive of reducing parking requirements where

justification can be provided.

Allow consideration of empirical data and specific use or user requirements which may

give rise to a lower parking requirement.

Justification should be required of why the characteristics of the proposed use (with

regard to the likely car parking demands generated) can’t be accommodated by

other forms of transport than the private car.

The impact of reduced parking provisions must be considered in the context of the

surrounding available car parking supplies and availability.

V132700 // 25/2/19


The appropriateness of the impact of reduced parking provisions on road network

capacity, pedestrian safety and urban design should be considered.

The extent to which sustainable transport provisions are being incorporated within the

development to support and encourage trips being made by non-car modes.

Reiterate that occupiers of any dwellings approved by permit subject to the provisions

of this schedule may not be eligible for Resident Priority Parking Permits.

Local Centres

These centres are expected to experience limited growth in coming years, and as such their

contribution (from a provision of future parking) to achieving the objectives of MITS is also likely to

be limited.

The relevance therefore of trying to define specific requirements for these centres is limited and

could continue dealt with on a case by case scenario.

Parking Rate Response

The adoption of minimum parking provision requirements would be an appropriate response for

these centres. This maintains the current approach as is applicable to these centres.


The adoption of Column B requirements as currently is applicable allows for the sharing of parking

between uses to be considered but also for the market to respond if higher provisions are

considered necessary, however these would not be encouraged.

The adoption of decision guidelines (to further reduce parking provisions) should also supplement

the minimum provision approach to further allow for lower provisions to be adopted and

therefore the market to respond on a case by case basis.

Decision Guidelines

Further to the above, the intent of decision guidelines to supplement the recommended car

parking provision requirements within a Parking Overlay would generally be expected to be the

same as those specified for Neighbourhood Centres.

6.1.2 Designing for the future

It is well recognised that the nature of transport is changing, and this will impact in some way the

manner in which parking is provided in the future. However, the extent of change is not defined

at this time and is likely to occur, in the most part, outside of the timeframe of this Implementation

Plan. A number of elements however that could be predicted, at least in general terms, include

the following:

The way vehicles are powered is changing with the growing prevalence of electric

vehicles in the vehicle fleet. The cost of these vehicles is also declining making

ownership of these vehicles more accessible to more people.

The demand for parking (on a per capita basis) could be expected to decrease with

an increased accessibility to ride sharing services, car sharing services, home delivery

services etc.

In light of the above, it is recommended that the design for any new car parking within Moreland

should be designed to allow for:

Vehicle charging opportunities or at a minimum provision of electrical infrastructure to

allow for the future installation of charging points. The provision of such infrastructure

should be considered now in new buildings to avoid costly retrofitting of building

services or alternately a lack of charging provisions.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Potential alternative uses of car parking space in the future. This will provide support to

the need for places to be flexible to the communities needs and ultimately save money

in the long run. As such, minimum floor to floor heights of above ground structured

parking levels should be designed to enable future repurposing.

The considerations could be included as an encouraged design response within a Design

Standards section of a Parking Overlay.

6.1.3 Car Share

To further support maximum and reduced car parking provision requirements, car share provides

a convenient option to enable access to a car but removes the need to own a vehicle.

Cars typically spend 95 per cent of their life unused, representing a very inefficient use of space

and resources. Car share provides convenient access to a car for trips where alternative modes

are not a viable option. Some service providers estimate that one share car can replace up to 15

private vehicles, significantly reducing the space required to store private cars and reducing the

costs of purchasing and operating a car for a number of would-be owners.16

As such Council should support a greater roll-out of share cars to help residents choose to reduce

the number of cars they own. This should include:

Repurposing general use car spaces for car share spaces in key areas (for example,

activity centres, areas with a high-density residential areas).

Encouraging developments to provide externally accessible car share spaces on-site.

Encourage developments to fund memberships for nearby car share schemes under

the implementation of a green travel plan.

16 The Sharing Economy, Transport Matters, GTA Consultants,

http://www.gta.com.au/transportmatters/transportmatters_vol9_issue4_web.pdf, accessed 22/04/18

http://www.gta.com.au/transportmatters/transportmatters_vol9_issue4_web.pdf

V132700 // 25/2/19


Reallocation of road space and existing car parking

6.2.1 Reallocating Space for Movement

Moreland is growing. To cater for this demand sustainably, change will be required to the way

that space is allocated on the road network. Parking is part of this mix, as on most streets it takes

up similar space to the traffic lanes and is double the width of the footpath.

Parking, however, remains important to the community and there is some distance to travel to

achieve greater sustainability in this regard.

The actions identified create a clear line for assessing street improvement schemes, but also take

an area-wide perspective. This does not mean just listening to the loudest voices but listening to

a wide range of people, as has been done in developing MITS.

The community has been asked about what they want from a parking policy for Moreland.

Solving the issues that were consistently raised in this consultation, such as congestion, safety

and liveability, means rethinking the way the community value parking.

“If you intend to get more people on bikes, choosing active transport, healthy, lower pollution,

liveability, there is no other way to do it than provide the space on roads, with safe protected

bike lanes – NOT thin strips next to opening car doors or a bit of paint with arrows here and there.

Please start removing on-street parking and replacing it with bike lanes. Coburg has a sea of car

parking off-street behind both sides of Sydney Road, it is not needed on the street as well.”

While most parking across the wider Moreland area will be retained, these actions open the door

for some parking to be reallocated to sustainable transport, improving safety of active transport

modes and the creation of better places within Moreland. This will create a better balance

between parking and other uses of road space. It also helps Moreland transition to an area that

one day will have more people walking than driving the car.

While the conversation needs to occur with individual communities to be impacted by any such

removals of parking, as a general rule, parking demands are not constrained across the

municipality such that the removal of parking at key locations cannot be tolerated and

absorbed by the surrounding area. Indeed, the removal of parking will bring alternate benefits

that, on the whole, are likely to outweigh the removal of parking. As such, it is important to

understand the function of a street when determining if and what type of parking should be

made available on it. For example, a street might support on-street parking during off-peak times

but during peak time parking spaces would be better utilised as a bus lane which can improve

access for a significant number of people.

On this basis parking could be considered for removal when it provides an overall benefit to the

sustainable movement of people in circumstances such as:

Improves pedestrian linkages, pathways and connections

Improves the operation and capacity of public transport routes

Improves cycling corridors and connectivity.

V132700 // 25/2/19


6.2.2 Reallocating Space for Safety

A safe and healthy Moreland is one where active transport is the first and obvious choice for

many commuters and travellers, and where people have a broad range of choices available to

them.

Sustainable transport modes encourage physical exercise which benefits the body and mind.

Being stuck in traffic jams, waiting at traffic lights and breathing in fumes from vehicles is not

healthy.

It is however understood from community feedback that it is currently common for cars to be

parked in ways that jeopardise the safety of the community.

“Sadly, too much priority is given to cars. Most space in important roads such as Sydney Rd

and Lygon St is given to cars in the form of parking.” & “When biking down one of these

main streets, there is a constant high risk of being doored by careless drivers.”

Parking must ensure that it does not impose on the safety of people using other modes. This is

particularly relevant along cycling routes and around schools.

To improve road safety, parked vehicles must not hinder the safety of other modes. Similar to

above, parking should be given less priority where required to improve safety.

6.2.3 Reallocating Space for Place

In a similar manner to the above, creating great places in Moreland is also important to the

function and attractiveness of its activity centres.

The importance of places for people to dwell and experience the centres and neighbourhood

areas helps to encourage sustainable transport modes being used.

Again, conversations will be needed with individual communities. However, as a general rule,

parking demands are not constrained across the municipality such that the removal of some

parking at key locations cannot be tolerated and absorbed by the surrounding area in order to

create better ‘places’. As such, as part of any future discussions on the potential for reallocation

of parking space to other modes, how consumers currently travel should be included as part of

the conversation.

Parking should therefore be considered for removal when it is demonstrated to provide an overall

benefit to the creation of ‘places’ in Moreland. This could include circumstances such as, but not

limited to:

Creating new green spaces

Creating places for sustainable transport end of trip facilities

Creating improved outdoor dining, and

Creating improved places for storage of vehicles for those with reduced mobility and

for sustainable vehicles.

Better manage parking resources

6.3.1 Parking Restrictions

Currently significant parking restrictions are in place within Moreland to manage and fairly

allocate public parking resources. The setting of parking restrictions is identified by the Moreland

Parking Management Policy. This policy is however typically reactive in dealing with parking

overspill issues.

V132700 // 25/2/19


The actions identified as part of this Implementation Plan seek to take a proactive approach to

managing parking, in order to control parking overspill and create a parking environment which

supports the removal of parking minimums within Activity Centres.

In addition to existing controls, Council should also ensure that all public parking resources in and

around activity centres and key destinations are time-restricted or provided as permit parking to

ensure vehicles are not stored on-street over the long-term except as permitted by parking

permits for those residents eligible for parking permits, and to encourage fair use of a restricted

resource. In this regard it would be typically expected that, as a minimum, all on-street parking

would be restricted within Neighbourhood Centres and within 200m of Activity Centres.

The use of a 2-hour restriction (2P) Monday to Friday 8:00am – 11:00pm applied initially to

currently unrestricted spaces would prevent residents of new developments from parking long-

term on street while also providing some flexibility at night and on weekends e.g. for visitor

parking.

More broadly, Council should continue to introduce parking restrictions in other areas as required,

consistent with the Parking Management Policy.

These restrictions will become increasingly important to achieving demonstrable mode shift

particularly in supporting lower car parking rates for new developments.

6.3.2 Parking Permits

At present, Moreland charges only nominal fees for residential car parking and business car

parking permits. Consistent with the directions of MITS to charge more fairly for the use of road

space to store private vehicles, Council should review fees for car parking permits to ensure they

reflect use of space and seek to discourage car ownership and use.

In reviewing fee structures consideration should however also be given to the expansion of

concession discounts (on parking permits) to address social equity concerns. In this regard it is

understood that Council is proposing to expand concession discounts on annual and visitor

permits to include pensioners and Centrelink card holders.

The following permit types will also be included as part of the Parking Management Policy i:

Business Permit Zones – Review the need for expansion based on demand once new

on-street parking restrictions are in place (as described within Section 6.3.1).

Service permits – short term / daily permits for tradespeople, removalists, etc.

undertaking work within the area.

Flexible permit – A permit type that has limited or no eligibility criteria would provide an

option for people who would otherwise not be eligible but still genuinely need a permit.

This would be accompanied by a significantly higher cost than current standard permit

types which would manage the demand for the permit and reflect the value of the

privileged access to public space (without a subsidy being applied).

The cost of each of the above permits will be reviewed as part of the formation of the Parking

Management Policy and through Council’s Fees and Charges process.

The allocation and pricing of permits could also be used to encourage zero emission vehicles.

Though this has been done in many cities (Oslo17, London) its implementation in Australia is limited

and therefore needs to be explored in detail, including commercial partnership and

enforcement.

17 The Electric Vehicle Capital of the World, The City of Oslo

V132700 // 25/2/19


In reviewing the permit allocations and availabilities above, continued consideration must be

given to how changes and ultimate recommendations align and balance needs along the

spectrum including providing fair access to the parking system through to achieving

demonstrable mode shift (away from private car travel).

The existing process in the Parking Management Policy to appeal a decision by Council not to

issue a parking permit could also be temporarily expanded as a transitional measure. This could

include specifying guidelines for decisions on appeals during and after the transitional period –

currently, no guidelines are specified.

6.3.3 Paid Parking

Demand Management through Parking Price

Historically, the City of Brunswick briefly introduced parking meters along Sydney Road in the

1960s, but traders successfully campaigned to have them removed, and the meters were sold to

the City of South Melbourne, who used them to introduce fee parking into its streets. In the 1980s

and 1990s, Brunswick Council replaced period parking restrictions with fee parking in seven off-

street car parks for people who valued available, convenient parking, whether staying short or

long term.

In the 1980s, there was a high demand for the 30 minute parking spaces in Barkly Street outside

the Barkly Square doors that opened (at that time) to the highly popular deli and café area

where Woolworths is today. This high demand resulted in double parking, causing safety issues for

shoppers, cyclists and traffic. The introduction of parking meters dampened the demand just

enough to remove the double parking. The extension of these on-street parking meters into

Sydney Road was considered in the 1990s but was opposed by traders. More recently Moreland

Council considered extending the parking meters, but traders objected. Traders have expressed

concern that their customers will be driven to free parking centres such as nearby Barkly Square

or High Street, Northcote, or Moonee Ponds.

Ultimately, the pricing of parking is a key demand management tool that can be used to shift the

way in which people travel away from the private car.

This includes encouraging people to travel outside of peak times, avoid travel at all, or change to

other modes which are cheaper, but also more healthy, sustainable and efficient. It can also

provide flexibility where people need to use a parking resource and value it enough to pay for it

e.g. paid parking to access longer-term (e.g. four hours) parking where 2P would otherwise apply.

Achieving mode shift through defining different car parking rates alone (as specified above) is

unlikely to achieve such change as these rates typically only impact new development and will

not influence the way existing parking is used. Therefore, tools such as paid parking are also

required to influence existing parking users. At present, Moreland has only a small amount of paid

on-street car parking (on Barkly Street, Brunswick) and charges for some off-street car parking

areas.

https://www.oslo.kommune.no/english/politics-andadministration/green-oslo/best-practices/the-electric-vehicle-capital-of-the-

world/

https://www.oslo.kommune.no/english/politics-andadministration/green-oslo/best-practices/the-electric-vehicle-capital-of-the-world/

https://www.oslo.kommune.no/english/politics-andadministration/green-oslo/best-practices/the-electric-vehicle-capital-of-the-world/

V132700 // 25/2/19


Research undertaken on behalf of Infrastructure Victoria has found that more than eight out of

every ten people who drive to work in the weekday peak hours have access to free car parking

at their destination, with two thirds of these people having access to a space with no time

restriction. Only 17 per cent of people who drive to work in the weekday peak pay for their car

parking.18

For those that occasionally use other modes in place of driving in peak hours, the single highest

reason not to drive recognised that ‘parking is a problem at my destination’. Drivers would also

be more likely to take another form of transport if it saved them time, was more reliable or saved

them money.19

To manage demand, Council should seek to introduce paid on-street car parking in appropriate

and strategic locations (such as activity centres and locations with access to alternative modes)

to encourage the turnover of vehicles (ensuring available spaces), more fairly price the use of

roads and encourage visitors to use other modes to access their daily needs. The locations, fees

and timing of delivery should be targeted at areas with parking pressure and be assessed and

extended periodically throughout the day. This will create a higher turnover of parked vehicles

resulting in greater parking opportunities. Introducing paid parking as a demand management

measure will also support the objectives of maximum car parking provision requirements, which

together aim to reduce car ownership and dependence.

Initially paid parking should be investigated to be installed within Activity Centres of Brunswick,

Coburg and Glenroy (on-street commercial frontages and Council off-street car parks including

both short stay and long stay parking). Once established a gradual expansion of paid parking

could occur to cater for all-day parking demand. In a similar manner to the discussion on car

parking provision requirements, these centres are typically those best served by public transport

and would therefore provide the greatest opportunity for alternate transport modes to be

adopted, should drivers seek to change transport mode in response to a parking charge. In

addition, these centres would be more likely to have car parking demands that would warrant a

paid parking introduction (as per Council Parking Management Policy.

Further expansion into Neighbourhood Centres could also be considered in the longer term to

encourage and support achieving demonstrable transport change in Moreland.

More broadly, Council should also advocate to extend the use of pricing to manage demand for

other over-utilised assets, such as railway station car parking. Charging a small fee means that

people who live nearby and drive currently may choose to walk leaving car spaces for those that

have to travel from further afield.

18 Infrastructure Victoria – Managing Transport Demand Community Research – Part 2, December 2017, Quantum Market Research,

http://infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/images/Quantum%20Report%20-

%20Community%20Research%20data%20set%20Part%202.pdf, accessed 23/04/18 – refer Q30.

19 Infrastructure Victoria – Managing Transport Demand Community Research – Part 2, December 2017, Quantum Market Research,

http://infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/images/Quantum%20Report%20-

%20Community%20Research%20data%20set%20Part%202.pdf, accessed 23/04/18 – refer Q21 and Q22.

http://infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/images/Quantum%20Report%20-%20Community%20Research%20data%20set%20Part%202.pdf




V132700 // 25/2/19


The Response to Paid Parking

The response to the introduction of paid parking is likely to include a number of possible responses

as shown in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Paid Parking Response Spectrums

At the outset it is noted (as described within Figure 6.1, page 27) a significant portion of visitors to

a number of centres do not travel by car and as such would not be subject to a new parking

charge. Indeed, there are many reasons (beyond free parking) for what motivate people to

access an activity centre. However, having regard to the various possible responses identified in

the above figure, of those that currently choose to drive it would be expected that only a small

percentage of drivers that may ultimately choose to go elsewhere. As paid parking continues to

expand in surrounding municipalities, the likelihood of drivers going elsewhere would be

expected to further decline.

Consultation surveys further indicate a mixture of responses to paid parking is likely with the

community response generally evenly divided when asked to identify their level of support for two

car parking scenarios – one which provided an abundance of free car parking on-site and at

activity centres, and another which provided reduced (and paid) car parking where there was

good access by public transport, walking and cycling.

Further, in order to balance the response by staff of the area, with the compound effect of

introducing extended on-street short term parking restrictions, consideration could be given to a

daily cap on paid parking fees.

Valuing Public Space

Council should also ensure that use of its public space by private enterprises is also appropriately

valued. At present, car share companies pay a nominal fee to use on-street parking areas to

provide their services. Council should review the cost of the space used for car share, as well as

bike share and similar privately-operated transport schemes to ensure they are cost-neutral to

Council and priced to reflect use of Council’s limited, valuable public space. At the same time

the process to approving car share bays should be simplified.

Ultimately, as parking restricted areas grow within Neighbourhood Centres and the ~200m buffer

of Activity Centres, car shares will become more attractive and a higher demand could be

expected.

V132700 // 25/2/19


Satisfying Implementation Criteria

In addition to the above it is noted that the criteria for the introduction of paid parking is

identified by the Moreland Parking Management Policy. This criteria has been traditionally

developed on the basis of using paid parking as a means to more effectively manage and

prioritise the parking resource when demands increase to a level that other management tools

such as parking time limits have become less effective in controlling.

In the context of Moreland at this time, the introduction of paid parking is primarily being

recommended as a demand management tool to achieve demonstrable mode shift away from

the private motor car.

As such, while the criteria defined within the Moreland Parking Management Policy have merit to

assist in managing parking resources, these criteria should not restrict the introduction of paid

parking when it is being used as a Travel Demand Management tool to encourage transport

change.

Using Parking Revenue

Revenue raised from paid parking, as well as from transport-related permit schemes such as

residential and business car parking permits should be returned into improvements to the local

area, or sustainable transport initiatives.

Infrastructure Victoria recommends the car parking congestion levy revenue be shared with local

councils to which the levy applies, as is the case for the City of Melbourne.20

Council should advocate for levy revenue to be shared with Council, which in turn could be

invested in sustainable transport initiatives such as active travel.

6.3.4 Parking Enforcement

The enforcement of parking is critical to the functioning of any parking system to ensure that it

operates in a manner consistent with that in which it is designed.

Most specifically in respect of the desired outcomes of MITS, is the need to prioritise the

enforcement of parking which impacts safety, emergency access and pedestrian and cycle

movements (for example, across footpaths or bicycle lanes, or illegal parking in disabled parking

bays).

20 Car Parks, State Revenue Office Victoria, https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/car-parks, accessed 24/04/18

https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/car-parks

V132700 // 25/2/19


Statutory Implementation

Overview

As identified earlier within this document (Section 1.4) the implementation of recommendations

will typically fall under statutory or non-statutory actions.

Those actions that require a statutory form typically represent those that place a requirement on

developers or other third parties.

Specifically, the following recommendations contained within MITS and this Parking

Implementation Plan would warrant implementation in a statutory form:

The identification of specific car parking rates and associated decision guidelines for

activity centres within Moreland (as identified in Section 6.1).

The encouragement for new developments to incorporate increased floor to floor

heights in car parking levels to allow for potential future repurposing (as identified in

Section 6.1).

The updating of Council’s Development Contributions Plan (as identified in MITS).

On the most part the recommendations will appropriately be provided with a statutory form

through a Parking Overlay, as a Schedule to Clause 45.09 to the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The exception will be the update to the Development Contributions Plan which has its own

statutory mechanism at Clause 45.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Preparing a Parking Overlay

In preparing a Parking Overlay a number of specific matters need to be addressed including:

Definition of Objectives

Identifying the area to which the overlay will apply

Identifying car parking rates to be applied

Identifying any relevant decision guidelines

Identifying any specific design requirements.

In principle, these matters are addressed within the above and can be translated into a Schedule

to the Parking Overlay. These requirements have not been specifically reproduced again in this

section of the report.

In preparing the content of the Schedule to the Parking Overlay consideration should also be

given to the inclusion or referencing of the following elements of the Moreland Planning Scheme:

Conversion of the content currently contained within Clause 22.03 – Car and Bike

Parking and Vehicle Access into the proposed Schedule to the Parking Overlay. This

includes policy relating to the provision of car parking (superseded by this

Implementation Plan), the provision of bicycle parking and design requirements.

Conversion of bicycle parking requirements contained within Schedule 1 to the Activity

Centre Zone Clause 10.

While consolidation of the above material would be preferred to a single location in the Planning

Scheme, it may be required that bicycle parking policy also remains as part of the local policy (at

Clause 22.03) as it remains important, not only when considering reducing parking requirements.

7

V132700 // 25/2/19


Preparing a Development Contributions Plan

A Development Contributions Plan (DCP) already exists within the Moreland Planning Scheme,

with it methodology and content tested and approved through a Planning Scheme Amendment

Process. It is recommended that Council therefore should adopt the same or similar process for

the updating of the plan.

Opportunities may exist to substitute some sustainable transport projects within the same charge

area as part of the midpoint review of the DCP. This should be further investigated. Otherwise

inclusion of more significant sustainable transport projects could be included when the next plan

is developed for 2023 – 2024. It is noted that this will form a separate process to the Parking

Overlay preparation identified earlier.

More information on the potential for DCPs to play a role in funding sustainable transport can be

found in the MITS Appendix.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A1

Existing Parking and Transport Characteristics

V132700 // 25/2/19


A2

This Chapter describes in detail the existing parking and transport characteristics in Moreland and

their implications for the development of Parking Implementation Plan.

A.1 Introduction

As discussed within the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, the activity centres of Moreland

have been divided into 3 categories.

Activity Centres: Established areas of high commercial activity and high density living

Neighbourhood Centres: Growing neighbourhood centres encouraging new

commercial and residential development served well by public transport

Local Centres: Local centres / activity centres poorly serviced by public transport.

In response to these categories the following investigations of parking and transport

characteristics will focus on Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres where most significant

parking policy and management change is likely to occur.

The purpose of such assessment and analysis is to determine the key themes of each centre with

regards to parking as an effective travel demand management tool. The results then will guide

the challenges faced under each centre and appropriate solutions.

Further details of parking and centre characteristics across all activity centres within the

municipality are summarised within Appendix B.

A.2 Existing Parking Characteristics

Parking within Moreland is currently an contentious issue for both businesses and residents

throughout the municipality as the activity centres, especially south of Bell Street, continue to

experience rapid growth of higher density living.

While accessing the Melbourne CBD by private motor car is constrained, activity centres within

Moreland, including in Brunswick, remain accessible by car.

While this Implementation Plan considers Brunswick Activity Centre (AC) and Coburg Activity

Centre (AC) as two separate activity centres, the reality is that they can be seen differently.

Sydney Road between Brunswick Road and Gaffney Street encompasses the Coburg AC and

Sydney Road section of the Brunswick AC. These two activity centres are similar from a transport

and parking perspective. The remainder of the Brunswick AC, Nicholson Street and Lygon Street,

south of Moreland Road both function similarly from a parking and traffic point of view also.

As with both the above areas, many precincts or sub-centres exist at different points along these

north-south shopping strips due to the diverse nature of the community within Moreland. As such,

the community sees each of these three areas very differently.

For the purpose of describing existing parking and transport conditions, Activity Centres have

been divided up as follows:

Sydney Road

Brunswick East, and

Glenroy.

Since 2011, parking has been managed around activity centres and areas of high occupancy

using the Moreland Parking Management Policy, which was reviewed with minor changes in

2018. The parking management policy prioritises user groups based on location.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A3

The major outcome with regards to parking in activity centres from this policy was that properties

that were subdivided after 31 August 2011, are not eligible for residential parking permits to

exempt the occupants from on-street restrictions which are typically implemented to protect the

residential amenity of the area.

Given both the Coburg AC and Brunswick AC are

both well-established areas, parking restrictions

and allocations were implemented many years

ago, to assist with the turnover and allocation of

parking spaces in high activity areas. Many of

these restrictions have not changed or been

reviewed over the years. The process in Moreland

and many other municipalities is that parking

restrictions are only reviewed based on

community feedback or complaint. There is also,

as discussed later in the report, very little paid

parking implemented in these activity centres.

Within Moreland City Council, there are two main

concerns from the community with regards to parking: the protection of parking supply in activity

centres and protecting the amenity of parking for residents in areas surrounding new mixed-use

development and public transport stops.

A.3 Activity Centres

A.3.1 Sydney Road

Centre and Accessibility

Sydney Road is one of the longest ‘shopping strips’ in the southern hemisphere, denoting the

historic style of development in Melbourne’s older areas, especially the inner north. The activity

centre expands from Park Street in the south, up to Gaffney Street, approx. 300m north of Bell

Street. It incorporates the Coburg AC and part of the Brunswick AC. The change in land use south

of Park Street provides a natural border between the city and Brunswick.

Sydney Road is well served by public transport,

with the number 19 tram route and the Upfield

Rail Line providing excellent accessibility to

public transport, connecting the northern

suburbs of Moreland to the city. Tram route 6

also connects Sydney Road to Lygon Street, via

Moreland Road.

One of the most important characteristics of

parking and transport along Sydney Road is the

nature of specialty retail and the long ‘strip

shop’ layout of the activity centres. As the

shopping precinct is so long, considering

Sydney Road as one activity centre does not

cater well to multi-purpose trips.

Figure A.1: Route 19 Tram on Sydney Road

Figure A.2: Brunswick Baths

V132700 // 25/2/19


A4

The allocation of kerbside parking is consistent along

the length of Sydney Road which provides short term

(either one or two hour timed restrictions) parking for

casual users to increase vehicle turnover. Additionally,

other special use zones have been implemented over

time including parking for people with disabilities,

loading zones and drop off-pick up areas (less than 15

minutes). Parking is generally highly utilised along the

strip, dependant on time and location based on the

type of business (e.g. office, specialty retail,

entertainment, dining) located in each precinct.

Clearways implemented by VicRoads also apply

during peak times along Sydney Road, to improve traffic flow for traffic travelling into the city

during the AM peak and outbound during the PM peak. The trade-off of on-street parking along

Sydney Road is one that causes friction with other cars, cyclists and trams and leads to reduced

throughput of traffic along what is a highly congested arterial road, leading to additional

volumes of traffic on non-local streets.

Both public and private at-grade off street car parks

are located at various locations to the rear of buildings

along Sydney Road, accessible from adjoining streets.

Council managed carparks have medium term

parking restrictions (generally two or three hour) to

promote longer multi-purpose trips to businesses within

the activity centres, while discouraging employee and

commuter car parking. Generally, off-street car parks

are less utilised than on-street car parking given the

availability of alternative car parking on-street along

Sydney Road. As such, in many cases, off-street

parking in Sydney Road provides overflow parking

where on-street parking is not available.

Table A.1 shows the average on-street parking occupancies along Sydney Road (from south to

north) including details of observed residential overspill attributed to commuters and / or

employees’ vehicles.

Table A.1: Sydney Road on Street Parking, Observed Occupancies

Street From To Activity Centre

Occupancy

Residential

Overspill

Sydney Road, Brunswick

Park Street Dawson Street 75% 150m

Dawson Street Victoria Street 90% 150m

Victoria Street Albion Street 90% 100m

Albion Street Moreland Road 75% 150m

Sydney Road, Coburg

Moreland Road Reynard Street 50% 125m

Reynard Street Bell Street 50% 150m

Bell Street Gaffney Street 10% 100m

Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017

The observations show that on-street occupancies increase towards the southern end of Sydney

Road, and are nearing capacity (90 per cent) between Dawson Street and Albion Street where

there is high level of activity.

Figure A.3: Activity Centre active frontage

Figure A.4: Off street car parking

V132700 // 25/2/19


A5

Enforcement

Council has implemented in-ground sensors within many of the off-street and on-street parking

spaces within the Coburg AC and Brunswick AC. Information from these sensors can be viewed

from an app that can help locate available parking. Local and regular visitors are aware that the

technology applies throughout the activity centre. This system of enforcement encourages

compliance and improves turnover of parking spaces.

Paid Parking

While on-street paid parking is essentially non-

existent within the municipality, there are seven fee

paying Council carparks at the south end of Sydney

Road, where both housing and adjoining land use is

at a higher density, with larger trip generators such

as RMIT University and the Brunswick Baths, Barkly

Square and Brunswick Town Hall, all creating

additional vehicle trips and demand for parking.

There are also several private paid carparks, some

of which have a period of free parking for casual

users, to discourage all day parking. As such, all

seven carparks are located at the southern end of Sydney Road. As is seen with paid car parking,

some users will seek suitable alternatives to paying a fee, such as an alternative either on or off-

street car park, within a reasonable distance. As a result, several of the paid off-street car parks

are underutilised. This could be attributed to the availability of free parking nearby.

Table A.2 below shows indicative observations of overall car parking occupancy at a number of

off-street car parks along Sydney Road, noting that many car parks are partially paid, or have

spaces allocated to other user groups, including business permit zones.

Table A.2: Sydney Road Off-street Car Parks, Observed Occupancies

Location [1] Occupancy Location Occupancy

Union Street, Brunswick ($) 100% Edward Street, Brunswick ($) 90%

Breese Street, Brunswick 100% Wilkinson Street, Brunswick ($) 75%

Stewart Street, Brunswick 100% Staley Street, Brunswick ($) 75%

Dawson Street, Brunswick ($) 90% Black Street, Brunswick 50%

Tripovich Street, Brunswick 90% Frith Street, Brunswick 50%

Louisa Street, Coburg 90% Dods Street, Brunswick 50%

Waterfield Street, Coburg 90% 797 Sydney Road, Brunswick ($) 10%

Russell Street, Coburg 90% Little Jones Street, Brunswick ($) 10%

[1] ($) denotes partial or fully paid car park

Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017(Between 11.00am and 1.00pm)

The observations show that the paid car parks at 797 Sydney Road and Little Jones Street are

heavily underutilised. This could be due to the fact that they are overpriced. These car parks are

the only two on this list which have direct access from Sydney Road, so lack of access and

visibility cannot be seen as a reason for the low utilisation rates.

Furthermore, it shows that car parks at Dawson Street, Union Street, and Edward Street are under-

priced as they are near capacity. While revenue generation will be high, it does not sufficiently

manage the turnover or provide any travel demand management benefits.


V132700 // 25/2/19


A6

The characteristics of other off-street carparks, in both Brunswick and Coburg show that there is

insufficient demand management, which is a combination of free parking and lack of alternative

modes of active transport.

Commuter Parking

The Upfield train provides a quicker, though less frequent service in comparison to the tram and is

typically the preferred public transport mode for commuters. As such, parking around train

stations along the Upfield Railway Line, is well used, given the availability of kerbside parking

before the AM peak in most areas. Ease of access through east west collector roads into Sydney

Road incentivises travel by car to the train station. There is also a likely a latent demand for

parking in these areas, which is self-adjusting, with park-and-ride commuters selecting other train

stations as starting points along the Upfield Line where parking can be found within a reasonable

distance of the station.

Residential Overspill

Throughout the activity centre, there is very

limited availability of unrestricted off-street

parking (not including fee paying car parks). As

such, those seeking long term parking (e.g.

employees, rail commuters and residents without

off-street parking), park in adjoining residential

streets. Parking in some residential streets is

allocated on a 50/50 split of short term and

unrestricted under the current parking

management policy. Eligible residents 21are able

to obtain permits to exempt them from the short

term (usually two hour) parking restrictions. The

short-term restrictions are implemented in these

areas to protect residential amenity by giving residents an advantage of finding a parking space

closer to their properties, while also discouraging non-resident parking and traffic in residential

streets. As opposed to other municipalities, which enable resident permit zones in residential

streets, the allocation of two hour parking restrictions enables use of these parking spaces by

other users on a short-term basis for accessing the activity centre, therefore making best use of a

limited resource.

While overspill occurs at various levels throughout the activity centre, the observations in Table

A.2 show that there is a clear overspill of parking into residential streets from visitors to the activity

centre, towards the southern end of Sydney Road.

21 Under the current Parking Management Policy developed in 2011, residents of properties whose property was subdivided after 31

August 2011 are not eligible to obtain residential parking permits exempting them from permissive parking restrictions in their street.

Figure A.6: On-street parking – residential street

V132700 // 25/2/19


A7

Summary

Parking occupancy increases further towards the southern end of Sydney Road as residents

compete for parking with rail commuters, employees and shoppers, and the ease of access by

car into the centre

While most off-street parking nears capacity, several paid car parks are underutilised given the

availability of suitable alternative long and short-term parking in surrounding streets. Other paid

car parks are near capacity due to ineffective pricing to manage travel demand.

Sydney Road is well connected to public transport; however the availability of free parking and

ease of access creates delays and reduces the throughput of public transport along an

important transport corridor, potentially reducing its appeal. Given the limited space and the

width of the footpaths, this space is highly valuable and any reallocation would likely lead to

more pavement activity.

The current way in which retail and commercial properties operate in activity centres such as

Sydney Road require the use of vehicles to handle goods. As such, some people still need to

drive, and parking provides an end of trip facility for the car.

A.3.2 Brunswick East


Similar to Sydney Road, both Nicholson Street and Lygon Street are north-south streets and make

up the remaining part of the Brunswick AC not covered by Sydney Road.

Figure A.7: Activity Centre active frontages Figure A.8: Route 96 Tram Superstop at Nicholson

Street & Blyth Street

Both streets are well serviced by trams (route 96 on Nicholson Street and route 1 and 6 on Lygon

Street). In general, on-street parking restrictions and allocation are identical to Sydney Road

however the characteristics of demand and travel demand are different given the more local

‘village’ feel in these activity centres. Brunswick East is currently in the midst of a construction

boom which has seen many large mixed-use developments with high density housing currently

planned or under construction in existing industrial and commercial areas.

Parking Management Approach

Both Nicholson Street and Lygon Street have almost no off-street parking, and as such, parking in

adjoining residential streets is much more congested than is seen in Sydney Road. Paid parking is

not present in either street however short-term parking restrictions apply on street, with in-ground

sensors, to increase compliance and turnover of parking spaces.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A8

Most residential streets near Lygon Street have had

residential parking restrictions applied, and parking

in the short-term areas experience high demand as

do the unrestricted areas. This is largely due to the

high occupancy of on-street resources on the main

roads and people seeking alternative parking near

their destination. It also shows that people are

unlikely to change their destination based on the

supply / demand for parking.

Table A.3 shows the typical occupancies observed

throughout the activity centres in segments broken

up by major east-west roads, including details of

observed overspill of parking into adjoining

residential streets.

Table A.3: Brunswick East Activity Centre Parking, Observed Occupancies


Occupancy

Residential

Overspill

Lygon Street,

Brunswick East

Park Street Glenlyon Road 75% 250m

Glenlyon Road Blyth Street 50% 250m

Blyth Street Albion Street 50% 200m

Albion Street Moreland Road 25% 150m

Nicholson Street,

Brunswick East

Brunswick Road Glenlyon Road 10% 150m

Glenlyon Road Blyth Street 25% 50m

Blyth Street Albion Street 25% 50m

Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017 (Between 11.00am and 1.00pm)

The observations show that on-street parking occupancies fluctuate, averaging at midday

around 25 per cent for Nicholson Street, and 50 per cent in Lygon Street. The exception being the

dining precinct at the south of Lygon Street (75 per cent). However, it is acknowledged that

demand for parking may increase during the evening period due to the nature of the adjacent

land use e.g. dining. Given the level of change currently being experienced in these areas with

regards to housing and mixed-use developments, there is potential for future demands for short

term parking to be catered for.

Construction Parking

An important consideration in determining the characteristics of kerbside parking in this activity

centre is the nature of parking demand associated with construction works. Each construction

site can accommodate up to 50-100 people on any given day. Workers often travel from outside

of the municipality and due to the nature of nature and variety of locations of their work, tend to

drive rather than use public transport. However, construction works being undertaken in the city

cannot accommodate workers vehicles. Change is possible depending on the management

and allocation of parking in these areas.

Figure A.9: Parking on Lygon Street

V132700 // 25/2/19


A9

Commuter Parking

While park-and-ride parking congestion in

residential areas is not as prevalent as in Sydney

Road, many people drive to the Route 96

terminus at the intersection of Blyth Street and

Nicholson Street to access the Route 96 tram

which is one of the most utilised tram routes in

Melbourne. Brunswick East is naturally bordered

by the Merri Creek to both the north east and the

east, and as such, there is limited opportunities to

cross from Thornbury and Northcote, which is

already serviced by the St Georges Road route

11 tram and South Morang railway line. The ABS

car ownership data shows that Brunswick East has

the lowest rate within the municipality, and this is

largely attributable to its accessibility to public transport, including frequent and direct public

transport links in the east-west direction towards Sydney Road.


Figure A.11: Parking along O’Connor Street Figure A.12: Parking along Piera Street

Another characteristic of parking in residential streets in Brunswick East is the older style of housing

development which provides rear access to properties which is typically not utilised given the size

and condition of laneways (ROW) in Brunswick. As such, parking on street can generally be

attributed to resident vehicles, with overspill from the activity centre road frontages pushing

parking occupancy in residential streets to capacity. Brunswick East also has a higher perception

of group households (e.g. sharehouses) compared to the Moreland average which may

contribute to a higher number of resident cars parked on-street.

Over the whole of Brunswick East, it was observed that parking overspill into residential streets

ranged from 50-150m in Lygon Street and 150m-250m in Nicholson Street. This suggests that

parking within residential streets in Brunswick East is near capacity, and that short-term on-street

parking restrictions in these streets are well utilised, most likely by residential permit holders.

Figure A.10: Trade Vehicles parked near

Activity Centre

V132700 // 25/2/19


A10

Summary

Occupancy of short term parking on-street is low in both Nicholson Street and Lygon Street,

suggesting that most people travel to the activity centres by active transport modes.

The low occupancy of on-street parking and lack of medium term off-street parking suggests that

parking could be better managed to increase utilisation of on-street parking.

Occupancy and overspill of parking into residential streets is high and can attributed to the

availability of long-term on-street carparking and the lack of utilisation of private off-street

parking facilities.

A.3.3 Glenroy AC


Unlike activity centres in Coburg and Brunswick,

access by car to Glenroy AC is heavily relied upon

due to its geographical location, as many activity

centres in the northern suburbs of the municipality.

The ease of access by car into the centre from

short distances along with the availability of secure

and free off-street parking are major factors in

determining the characteristics of transport and

parking in this centre.

The train station which is on the Craigieburn

railway line is commuter use station rather than a

way of accessing the activity centre itself, given the location of other larger activity centres along

the same line including the Melbourne CBD, Moonee Ponds and Broadmeadows which provide

a larger and more diverse range of anchor retail stores. The commuter carpark at the railway

station is highly utilised however there is only minimal spill over of parking into residential streets

given its location central to the activity centre.

The town centre layout allows for multi-purpose trips however access by car to the activity centre

is appealing due to the good operation of both the arterial and local road network in the

northern suburbs, as well as the availability of short and long-term parking within the activity

centre. While there is currently minimal housing within the activity centre itself, mixed use

redevelopment of existing commercial properties is expected in future which will increase the

population within the activity centre.

Figure A.13: Intersection of Glenroy Road and

Pascoe Vale Road

V132700 // 25/2/19


A11

Parking Management Approach

Figure A.14: Pascoe Vale Road active frontage Figure A.15: Wheatsheaf Road active frontage

On street parking is not permitted on parts of Pascoe Vale Road to allow for two through lanes of

traffic on both approaches and within the activity centre. Parking in Glenroy AC is adequately

served by several large at-grade off-street carparks. Some on street parking is available on

Wheatsheaf Road and along active frontages in adjoining streets to Pascoe Vale Road.

Parking restrictions vary across the centre, with a mix of both short and long-term restrictions

supplying different user groups depending on the adjacent land use.

Table A.4 shows the typical occupancies observed throughout the activity centres along each

key road, including details of observed overspill of parking into adjoining residential streets.

Table A.4: Glenroy Activity Centre on Street Parking, Observed Occupancies


Occupancy

Residential

Overspill

Wheatsheaf Road Glenroy Road Blucher Street 90% 100m

Dowd Place Glenroy Road End 90% N/A

Waterloo Road Glenroy Road Blucher Street 25% N/A

Station Street Glenroy Road Barwon Street 75% N/A

Pascoe Vale Road Glenroy Road Finchley Avenue 50% N/A

Glenroy Road Pascoe Vale Road Plumpton Avenue 75% 20m


The above table indicates that short-term and long-term on-street parking is well utilised, at

around 75 per cent, within the centre and there is little impact on surrounding residential areas,

except for Wheatsheaf Road, which can be attributed to employee vehicles.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A12

Commuter Parking

Figure A.16: Glenroy station car park Figure A.17: Dowd Place commuter overspill car park

A large off-street carpark for rail commuters is provided at the train station with additional

unrestricted carparking provided for on-street in Dowd Place. While there is a bus interchange at

the train station, it appears most people using the train service are also utilising the park-and-ride

carparks given the ease of access and accessibility to unrestricted parking.

Another characteristic of the activity centre is that a lot of employee parking is catered for at-

grade within the property, or in one of the business permit zones, also contributing to lower

overspill rates in residential streets as explained below.

Table A.5 shows the parking occupancies observed in each of the major off-street carparks within

the activity centre.

Table A.5: Glenroy Activity Centre Off-street Car Parks, Observed Occupancies

Off Street Car Park Occupancy

From To

Gladstone Parade Lytton Street 75%

Belair Avenue Finchley Avenue 50%

Morgan Court Dowd Place 90%

Glenroy Station Glenroy Station 100%

Waterloo Road Blucher Street 90%


Table A.5 indicates that the parking was at or near capacity (90 to 100 per cent occupancy)

within the commuter carparks. It also shows that other short and medium-term carparks were well

utilised, noting that observations in Table A.5 showed that there was minimal overspill. As such,

there is potentially an oversupply of parking within the activity centre.


As mentioned above, spill over of vehicles from the activity centre into surrounding residential

areas is minimal. Where spill over is occurring, vehicles are generally not competing with

resident’s vehicles given the majority of existing properties in Glenroy have adequate off-street

parking, as opposed to the historic rear access type developments seen in the south of the

municipality. As such, the extent of overspill is reduced and confined to distances to which drivers

are prepared to walk. While there are several streets with residential parking restrictions, they are

limited in number and extent, which shows that overspill parking has not been a major concern

over the years.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A13

Summary

Long-term off-street parking is highly utilised by commuters and employees and there is

adequate amount for current demand levels as observations show that there is no major overspill

into residential areas.

Future mixed-use developments will increase the demand for parking, pushing the existing

resources to capacity and the transition to active transport modes, especially within the northern

suburbs must be managed to ensure the impacts are minimised during the mode shift

While the activity centre is located around a train station, the ease of access by car and amount

of parking available encourages short car trips.

A.4 Neighbourhood Centres

A.4.1 Overview

As opposed to locations identified in Activity Centres, activity centres identified as

Neighbourhood Centres are much smaller and generally located away from arterial roads,

making it easier for access by short vehicle trips. Given the spacing and location of most

neighbourhood and activity centres within the municipality, it could be expected that some if not

most of the vehicle trips into the activity centres could be supplemented by other modes of

transport.

Of the activity centres in this category, those towards the south of the municipality are

experiencing much higher growth in terms of mixed use development and population growth

than those in the north given the lack of appetite for high density development in the north.

However, this is acknowledged to change as upward pressure continues to be placed on

property prices in the northern suburbs of the municipality.

As per Brunswick and Coburg activity centres, both on-street and off-street controls as managed

similarly from a restriction and allocation perspective where demand is high, provide a consistent

approach for parking management across the municipality. On-street spaces are generally short-

term to encourage turnover while discouraging employee and public transport commuter

parking, enabling access to businesses by customers.

More commonly seen in these activity centres is congestion created both within the activity

centre and in adjoining residential streets by park-and-ride commuters where inadequate supply

is provided for within rail commuter car parks. This is seen mostly in Melville Road, along the route

58 tram and at Oak Park and Pascoe Vale Stations along the Craigieburn Railway Line.

Table A.6 shown below outlines the parking occupancies22 for each of the Neighbourhood

Centres. Further descriptions of each activity centre from a parking and travel demand

management perspective are also provided in the following sections.

22 Parking occupancies were recorded using observations of Nearmap aerial imagery based on a spot count of parked vehicles

along the active frontages within the activity centre and do not account for overspill parking within residential streets. Spot count

observations were undertaken on images taken between 11am-2pm during a standard weekday, not within school or vacation

periods to ensure accuracy.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A14

Table A.6: Neighbourhood Centres, Parking Characteristics

ID Activity Centre Parking Occupancy

4 Grantham / Union Streets, Brunswick 50%

5 Melville Road / Albion Street / Victoria Street, Brunswick West 50%

6 Nicholson Street / Holmes Street/ Moreland Road, Coburg / Brunswick 75%

7 Bell Street / Melville Road, Pascoe Vale South 50%

8 Gaffney Street / Pascoe Vale Station, Pascoe Vale 90%

9 Gaffney / Sussex Streets, Coburg North 75%

10 Elizabeth Street, Coburg North 90%

11 West Street, Hadfield 90%

12 Bonwick Street, Fawkner 90%

13 Snell Grove, Oak Park 75%

14 Merlynston Station, Merlynston 90%

15 Moreland / Mellville Roads, West Brunswick 50%


A.4.2 Grantham / Union Streets, Brunswick


The activity centre located at Union Street

along Grantham Street incorporates a small strip

shopping centre, as well as a medium size off-

street shopping centre. The route 58 tram runs

along Grantham Street and a tram stop is

located within the activity centre.

Parking Characteristics

The shopping centre has an off-street carpark

with medium term restrictions, supporting multi-

purpose trips to the activity centre. However

observations shown in Table A.6 indicate that

the carpark including on-street short-term

parking had an average occupancy of 50 per cent. Parking on-street is limited however it is short-

term to encourage turnover and discourage tram commuter parking within the centre.

Spill over of parking associated with park-and-ride commuters is observed to be 200-300m

however this is compounded by residents parking on street who do not have off-street parking

accessible from street frontages, which is seen in many of the Neighbourhood Centres in the

south of the municipality. Included in the spill over is parking along Grantham Street in front of

residential properties, which is unrestricted.

Figure A.18: Grantham Street active frontages

V132700 // 25/2/19


A15

A.4.3 Melville Road / Albion Street / Victoria Street, Brunswick West


For the purposes of determining the parking and

transport characteristics of the individual activity

centres in the neighbourhood category, the

three neighbourhood activity centres along

Melville Road at Hope Street, Victoria Street and

Albion Street are considered as one due to their

proximity to each other. All are served by the

route 58 tram, connecting Pascoe Vale and

Brunswick to the city via Dawson Street and

Grantham Street. Both Victoria Street and Albion

Street are Council collector roads, which provide

crossings over the Moonee Ponds Creek and

continue through to Brunswick East.

Each of the three activity centres have small specialty retail offerings however multi-purpose trips

are not supported due to their distance from each other. There is currently limited medium and

high-density housing located across the three centres however the presence of commercial

premises on larger blocks provides the opportunity for future development within this centre.


Short term parking is provided along the active

retail frontages within the centre to improve

turnover and discourage park-and-ride

commuters. Most businesses have off-street

parking available for employees and as such,

there is an element of spill over parking from tram

commuters in residential streets.

To manage the impact of commuter parking in

residential streets, some streets have residential

parking restrictions to reduce the impact on

residents and improve access to on-street parking

for residents near their properties. While many

properties have off-street parking, this area sees the beginning of older style developments where

some do not have vehicle access from the street frontage, rather from laneways at the rear of

properties. Parking from the ROW is generally underutilised given the condition and size of

laneways, as well as the availability of convenient parking on-street. Narrower streets such as

Albion Street and Hope Street also have sections of No Stopping restrictions to improve traffic

flow.

From a traffic flow and capacity perspective, Melville Road operates better than other north

south arterial / collector roads such as Sydney Road and Lygon Street given the ability for

vehicles to pass trams in the wider section north of Moreland Road, and because it doesn’t offer

a direct path to the CBD. As such, access via Melville Road is quite efficient however access from

adjoining collector roads can at times become congested due to the narrow nature of these

roads as well as Melville Road having signal priority given to trams. Overall, the activity centres

are easily accessible, and this does not discourage short distance car trips.



V132700 // 25/2/19


A16

Observations as described in Table A.6, show that the parking across the three activity centres

indicated an average occupancy of 50 per cent. This is largely due to the short-term nature of

office and retail visits along Melville Road. As such, there is no overspill which can be attributed to

the business use, apart from employee parking which cannot be accommodated on site. Several

automotive repair and maintenance businesses also reside in the area, which in inner city

Melbourne often result in cars waiting to be repaired being located on street however this is

occurring away from the main activity centre retail and office frontages.

A.4.4 Nicholson Street / Holmes Street / Moreland Road, Coburg / Brunswick


The activity centre at the intersection of

Moreland Road and Nicholson Street is located

several hundred metres north of the Lygon

Street section of the Brunswick AC which

finishes at Albion Street. As such, many of the

characteristics are similar, however there is a

lapse in continuous commercial and high-

density land uses between the two activity

centres and are therefore considered

differently for the purposes of this assessment of

the parking characteristics.

The activity centre still has a large amount of

semi-industrial and bulky good retail land uses which provide opportunity for future large high-

density housing developments. There is also a number of retail and commercial businesses which

provide for mostly single purpose trips to the centre. A small supermarket within a newly

constructed mixed-use development, does not have off-street parking however is supported by

current and future high density living which will be situated in the activity centre.

The activity centre is serviced by both the route 1 and 6 trams which connect the city from Bell

Street and Sydney Road respectively, giving good access travelling to and from the activity

centre from the surrounding areas by public transport.

Being situated at the intersection of two arterial roads which are both public transport routes, the

intersection and surrounding road network is heavily congested. Moreland Road also provides a

crossing of the Merri Creek from Thornbury.


Given its proximity to the South Morang line, commuter parking is not a major issue, given parking

occupancy is already high in the area due to employees from the industrial businesses. While

there is no off-street car park, which is consistent with activity centres in Brunswick East, there is

limited on-street parking available. Observations shown in Table A.6 indicate that parking

occupancy within the activity centre is approximately 75 per cent. There is no noticeable overspill

into the surrounding residential streets however parking occupancy is generally high in these

streets due small land parcels and rear access issues which have been previously addressed.

Figure A.21: Moreland Road frontage facing west

V132700 // 25/2/19


A17

A.4.5 Bell Street / Melville Road, Pascoe Vale South

Figure A.22: IGA off street car park Figure A.23: Melville Road active frontage,

facing west


The activity centre is located at the terminus of the route 58 tram which connects Melville Road

and the city via Dawson Street and Grantham Street. As the centre is located centrally between

Craigieburn and Upfield railway lines, the tram route is 58 well utilised. There is limited new

development, however as per all Neighbourhood centres increased mixed use and high density

living developments are encourage within the activity centre.


Parking is not permitted on Bell Street during daytime hours, however there is some short-term

parking provided along Melville Road. There is also an off-street carpark which has both short-

term and staff allocated parking spaces managed by the supermarket at the rear. Observations

within the activity centre taken from Table A.6 indicated that that parking occupancy in the

activity centre including the off-street car park is approximately 50 per cent.

Most surrounding residential streets have short term parking restriction on one side of the road

(usually 2-hour) to protect the amenity of residents by discouraging tram commuters and

employees. This has likely come about due to the fact there is a level of parking overspill into

surrounding residential areas, from both the activity centre retail customers and tram commuters.

The location of the tram terminus being in the centre of the activity centre, and given the ease of

access by car, results in a high number of park-and-ride commuters, and this is consistently seen

down Melville Road, in residential streets between Moreland Road and Bell Street. The provision of

2-hour restrictions still allow visitors to the centre to park for a limited time, ensuring turnover and

availability of parking spaces for residents and their visitors. However, given the nature of

development in this area, which is similar to most development north of Moreland Road,

properties all have access to adequate off-street parking.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A18

A.4.6 Gaffney Street / Pascoe Vale Station, Pascoe Vale


Similar to Oak Park Station activity centre and

Snell Grove, the Pascoe Vale Station activity

centre is located at a railway station along the

Craigieburn railway line. The activity centre

operates similarly from a parking and transport

perspective, however unlike Oak Park Station, it

is located on an arterial road (Gaffney Street)

creating higher visibility, and has several anchor

retail and entertainment business being a

supermarket and a hotel / pub.

This area of Pascoe Vale has relatively large

blocks, supporting medium density housing

developments. In addition to the anchor businesses, there is a mix of specialty retail and

commercial / industrial uses, which support multi-purpose trips into the centre.

A large area in the Pascoe Vale Station activity centre has also been designated as a

Neighbourhood Centre. This will result in a change to the current conditions with employment

and possibly residential development occurring in the area.


Again, similar to Oak Park Station, there is no formal off-street rail commuter parking however

parking is provided along the rail corridor and observations indicate that parking is fully occupied

for approximately 250-300m from the railway station platforms including in adjoining residential

streets. Not all surrounding residential streets have parking restrictions however many of the block

sizes here are very large and hence have adequate off-street car parking to accommodate

multiple vehicles. Furthermore, the nature of commuter parking is during the day usually between

8am and 6pm, and working residents who commute by car can expect to locate a parking

space when the return from work in centres such as Oak Park and Pascoe Vale.

Parking restrictions on-street along the active frontages of the centre are short term to encourage

turnover and discourage commuter parking, and observations shown in Table A.6, indicate that

occupancy of these spaces is around 90 per cent however noting that there is only limited supply

of on-street parking, with no separate off-street facility within the activity centre to service

facilities such as the supermarket.

Figure A.24: Pascoe Vale Station Activity Centre

V132700 // 25/2/19


A19

A.4.7 Gaffney / Sussex Streets, Coburg North


The Gaffney / Sussex Street Activity Centre consists of a shopping plaza containing a Coles

shopping centre and other assorted small-scale retail. It has a large parking lot to service the

supermarket accessible via both Gaffney Street and Sussex Street. The south-west corner of the

activity centre is occupied by a skewed roundabout.

Development is occurring adjacent to the site on Sussex street in a residential growth zone. This

predominantly consists of residential subdivisions of the larger scale lots that are present


Parking in the activity centre is predominantly taken up by the off-street car park servicing the

retail shopping. This car park is approximately 8,500 sqm and has a three hour parking restriction.

On street parking is unrestricted in the surrounding area around the activity centre, however due

to the abundance of car parking present, and the three hour restrictions enforced it is not

expected that parking will overflow into the surrounding residential streets.

A.4.8 Elizabeth Street, Coburg North


Similar to the Gaffney / Sussex Street activity centre, the Elizabeth street activity centre

predominantly consists of an off-street carpark servicing a major supermarket, with minor retail

located nearby. This activity centre is enclosed by Elizabeth Street, Snapshot Drive and Focus

Drive.

The activity centre is located in the Coburg Hill development area. The development area is

currently completed, with many medium density lots constructed as a part of the subdivision.


The car park for this activity centre is split into an off-street car park accessible via Elizabeth Street

and Focus Drive, with further parking located down a ramp to a basement.

On-street car parking around the activity centre is generally unrestricted, and it appears that spill

over into the surrounding streets is occurring. In its current format, this spill over does appear to be

minor, predominantly occurring on the frontages of the shopping area.

A minor supply of strip shopping is present on the eastern side of Elizabeth Street. Frontage on-

street car parking is restricted and appears to be well utilised.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A20

A.4.9 West Street, Hadfield


The West Street activity centre consists of strip shopping tenancies along West Street, accessible

via a service road along its frontage. The service road is accessible via a number of points and

travels in the southern direction.

A Woolworths shopping centre is present to the north of the site with a dedicated off-street car

park. This is accessible via Geum Street.

The areas surrounding the commercial precinct are zoned for residential growth. Whilst a number

of properties have been subdivided in the area, this growth is yet to significantly impact the

surrounding residents.


As stated above, the majority of the car parking facilities for the site are accessed via a one-way

service road along the frontage of the strip shops. These car parking spaces are generally time

restricted to two hours. A large, off-street carpark also exists to the north of the activity centre,

primarily servicing the Woolworths. This car park has 1.5 hour parking restrictions which are

enforced by Council under a parking agreement.

Parking restrictions exist in the surrounding residential streets, preventing long stay car parking. This

is likely to protect the amenity of the residents, as the parking along the shop frontages is limited.

Table A.6 indicates that the parking area is nearing its capacity and the residential restrictions

have been put in place to control the retail car parking that the activity centre is attracting.

A.4.10 Bonwick Street, Fawkner


The Bonwick Street activity centre is primarily grouped around the intersection of Jukes Road and

Bonwick Street in Fawkner. It is a short walk from Gowrie Station on the Craigieburn line. The

surrounding residential areas of the activity centre are located in a residential growth zone, and

some subdivision has accordingly occurred, however this is yet to significantly impact the area.


The Bonwick Street activity centre has a variety of parking types. The main commercial frontage

of the site is occupied by angled on-street car parking. The parking along these frontages is time

restricted and heavily utilised.

Other off-street parking areas exist on the east and west of the centre which are not time

restricted. These car parks are accessible via Jukes Road, McDougall Street and Co-Op Lane.

Despite the high occupancy of the activity centre indicated in Table A.6, there are little on-street

car parking restrictions enforced on the surrounding residential streets. Inspections of this area

indicate that while the car parking in the activity centre itself is highly utilised, it has yet to spill

over into the residential streets. Residential parking to the west of the site, between the centre

and Gowrie Station is also generally at a low occupancy, indicating that commuter car parking is

unlikely to be impacting the activity centre.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A21

A.4.11 Snell Grove, Oak Park


Snell Grove is a small strip shopping centre

situated at the Oak Park railway station located

on the Craigieburn railway line. The centre

provides a mix of office, specialty retail and

dining uses which support multi-purpose trips into

the activity centre, despite the lack of an

anchor store such as a supermarket.


Angled parking is provided within the activity

centre which has short term parking restrictions

to increase turnover, however due to the range

of retail offerings, occupancy is high. Observations from Table A.6 indicate that the parking

occupancy is around 75 per cent.

Oak Park Station does not have any formal park-and-ride facilities and unrestricted parking along

Waterloo Road is usually at capacity, with vehicle parking up to 300-400m away, including in

adjoining streets. A small commuter car park also exists along Station Street. As per other

examples of activity centres located at railway stations, parking by rail commuters also expands

into residential streets. These streets have residential parking restrictions, allowing rail commuters

to park on one side of the road, while the other side is available during the day for eligible permit

holders and their guests. This is occurring to the east and west of Oak Park Station, with commuter

vehicles parking along Waterloo Road and Station Street, along with the surrounding adjoining

street network.

Parking along the restricted side of residential streets is generally unoccupied however given the

large block sizes and access to off-street parking, residents do not park on the street in front of

their properties.

Given the location of other railway stations nearby (Glenroy and Pascoe Vale) and the adjacent

Upfield line, trips made by commuters by cars are likely from the local area within 1-1.5km away.

Given the availability of unrestricted parking and no requirement to travel long distances on the

arterial road network, there is no disincentive for commuters to drive short distances to the railway

station.

Figure A.25: Snell Grove Shopping Centre

V132700 // 25/2/19


A22

A.4.12 Merlynston Station, Merlynston


Merlynston Station is a small strip shop with a

recently constructed medical centre, and is

located near the railway station situated along

the Upfield railway line. The station and activity

centre are also located within a short distance

of commercial and industrial land uses along

Sydney Road, providing good public transport

access to employees.


There is only a small number of short-term

spaces located along the frontage of the strip

shops and observations indicated that the occupancy of parking was 90 per cents. Spill over

from park-and-ride commuters was observed to be 200-300m despite the provision of an off-

street carpark at the railway station which is located adjacent to the rail corridor. As previously

identified, many of these trips are made by locals travelling short distances, due to the

convenience of locating long-term parking within the vicinity of the railway station, and the

satisfactory operation of the road network.

A characteristic worth noting in this activity centre is the poor connectivity for cars in the east-

west direction, with motorists required to use the Boundary Road level crossing to access the

carpark on the east side of the rail tracks if coming from the west side, which has the majority of

the population.

A.4.13 Moreland / Melville Roads, West Brunswick


Both Moreland Road and Melville Road are part of

the arterial road network and Moreland Road

provides access to Citylink approx. 1km to the

west of Melville Road. As such, the area is very

highly trafficable both before and after the peaks

and during the day. Due to limited existing disused

commercial properties and large block sizes, there

has been an increase in high and medium density

mixed use development recently. The activity

centre is serviced by the route 58 tram which has

tram stops at the intersection.


As opposed to further north on Melville Road, there are less park-and-ride commuters parked in

residential streets surrounding the activity centre. Parking on-street is short term and observations

shown in Table A.6, show that parking occupancy is around 50 per cent. Of the retail and

commercial businesses located at this activity centre, there is no anchor store such as a

supermarket, and while the centre provides opportunity for multi-purpose trips, the nature of the

most trips would be short term, and as such, parking turnover is very high.


Figure A.26: Merlynston Station Activity Centre

V132700 // 25/2/19


A23

Summary

Neighbourhood Centres are well served by public transport and observations of parking around

activity centres by park-and-ride commuters, suggesting that many travel short distances by car

due to the abundance of available long-term parking and location of other public transport

nodes.

Residential parking restrictions apply to many adjoining streets, as residents perceive the

ownership of the parking resources in their street, despite in many locations, adequate off-street

parking supply.

Most of the activity centres in this category do not support long term multi-purpose trips, as such,

turnover is generally high in on-street parking around the immediate area, reducing the amount

of overspill attributable to visitors.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A24

A.5 Car Ownership Characteristics

The City of Moreland contains a highly variable level of car ownership. Figure A.28 presents the

car ownership rates for Moreland, as indicated in the 2016 Census. It displays the lower level of

car ownership in the densifying inner-city suburbs of Moreland’s south in contrast to the

noticeably higher levels of car ownership to the north.

As discussed above, the southern suburbs (such as Brunswick, Brunswick East and Brunswick West)

have the most available access to public transport and are experiencing a transition to higher

density living. This has resulted in a lesser reliance on car ownership. This is distinctly different to

what is experienced further to the north. As the tram network dissipates, and distance to the

Melbourne CBD increases, a higher car ownership is experienced.

Figure A.28: ABS Car Ownership - 2016

V132700 // 25/2/19


A25

A.6 Travel Characteristics

The 2016 Census also provides valuable data on the journey to work habits of Moreland’s

residents. Figure A.29 similarly displays the contrast in private car use as above, when comparing

the northern and southern suburbs. The suburbs of Brunswick, Brunswick East, Brunswick West and

Coburg can all be seen to have less than 60 per cent of their population travelling via a private

vehicle every day. This is clearly in distinction to the northern suburbs, where a rate of

approximately 70 per cent and above is observed.

Due to the similarities between Figure A.28 and Figure A.29, it could be concluded that a lower

rate in car ownership will result in less people travelling to work via private motor car. To further

emphasise this point, Figure A.30 shows car ownership and journeys to work by car.

Figure A.29: ABS Journey to Work – Mode Split by Car (by Moreland residents) – 2016

V132700 // 25/2/19


A26

Figure A.30: Car Ownership and Journey to Work (Car Mode Share) - 2016

Note: Only small parts of Tullamarine and Fitzroy North are in Moreland and suburb averages may

not be representative of Moreland sections.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A27

Parking Rate Approaches

Ap

pe

nd

ix B

V132700 // 25/2/19


A28

This Appendix reviews the existing planning scheme in relation to car parking and provides a

summary of car parking approaches adopted by surrounding municipalities.

B.1 Existing Policy

Clause 45.09 of the Moreland Planning Scheme applies parking overlays to land uses in the

Mixed-Use Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 2 Zone and Activity

Centre Zone within the City of Moreland. This overlay applies the Column B parking rates outlined

in Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Column B parking rates outline a lesser requirement than the standard rates shown in Column A.

The rates that are outlined in Column A are the standard which is applied to the whole

municipality.

The Column B rates could be considered to typically reflect ‘Activity Centre’ type rates, which

begin to account for the sharing of car parking between multiple uses during the peak

(weekday, midday) time of the activity centre. An example of the difference between Column A

and Column B rates are that a residential development (such as the construction of a set of

apartments) must provide a space for visitors to park in for every 5 dwellings under the Column A

rates. This is not required under Column B.

The car parking rates for both Column A and B are listed within the state-wide Clauses of the

Victorian Planning Provisions.

While these Column B rates are more appropriate to be applied to activity centres, they are not

tailored to the individual transport availability and land use characteristics of each specific

Activity Centre. There are many Activity Centres throughout Melbourne that have these rates

applied to them, such as in Hawthorn, Kew, Footscray and Heidelberg.

They do not reflect the specific transport availability in the area, such as the amount of public

transport, quality of active travel facilities, amount of existing parking etc.

It should be noted that there are many circumstances in which the rates advised under the

planning scheme are not applied. Each development is assessed individually, and if it is deemed

appropriate to apply a lesser rate, then Council will approve them. Some developments are

being approved throughout Melbourne with close to no parking provided on site, if it is deemed

to be appropriate and acceptable outcome.

In a diverse municipality such as Moreland, with accessibility levels varying across activity centres

more specific consideration of the applied car parking rates is required, particularly if these are to

inform and achieve the mode shift aims of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.

B.2 Car Parking Benchmarking

B.2.1 Parking Overlays

As a means to inform how parking associated with new development within Moreland could be

managed, it is relevant to observe approaches adopted by other similar municipalities within

Metropolitan Melbourne.

This provides some guidance on the appetite of other similar areas to use parking as a tool to

seek mode shift and influence overall transport outcomes.

However, by no means does this limit the approach that could be adopted by Moreland in

managing car parking and potentially may point to the need for other municipalities to further

V132700 // 25/2/19


A29

review parking management approaches to ensure that parking is an integrated component of

the transport systems rather than driving many of our end transport outcomes due to its rigid

minimum provision requirements.

In this regard the surrounding and similar inner Melbourne municipalities and the extent to which

specific formal statutory parking management approaches have been adopted are as follows:

Darebin: No adopted parking overlay

Moonee Valley: No adopted parking overlay

Maribyrnong:

Footscray – Inner (2015)

Footscray – Outer (2015

Yarra:

Collingwood Arts Precinct (2017)

Stonnington: No adopted parking overlay

Boroondara:

Activity Centres (2013)

Banyule

Greensborough (2013)

Heidelberg Precinct Core (2017)

Bell St & Heidelberg West Core (2017)

Port Phillip

CCZ Fishermans Bend (2012)

The City of Melbourne was not chosen for this assessment, as it has unique characteristics due to it

being the central city; and has therefore applied unique and strict car parking rates. It would not

be a useful comparison point for this assessment.

To further elaborate on those locations where Parking Overlays have been incorporated within

Clause 45.09 of the Planning Scheme the following Parking Overlay approaches and content

summary have been reproduced as follows:

Footscray – Inner (2015)

Maximum Rates Specific Uses

Minimum Rates Specific Uses

Other Uses Column B

Decision Guidelines

Motorcycle Rates

Footscray – Outer (2015)



Other Uses Column B

Decision Guidelines

Motorcycle Rates

Collingwood Arts Precinct (2017)


Other Uses Column B

V132700 // 25/2/19


A30

Activity Centres (2013)


Other Uses Column B

Greensborough (2013)


Other Uses Column B

Decision Guidelines (*Car Park Management Plan)

Heidelberg Precinct Core (2017)

Cash-in-lieu


Other Uses Column B

Decision Guidelines (*Green Travel Plan)

Motorcycle Rates

Bell Street & Heidelberg West Core (2017)


Other Uses Column B

Decision Guidelines (*Green Travel Plans)

Motorcycle Rates

CCZ Fishermans Bend (2012)


Decision Guidelines

Motorcycle Rates

From this review a number of specific observations can be drawn.

Of the nominated neighbouring Municipalities to Moreland, five features in Scheme Car

Parking Overlays. This includes Banyule, Maribyrnong, Boroondara, Yarra and Port Phillip.

From these Municipalities there a total of eight Car Parking Overlays, including three

within Banyule, two within Maribyrnong and one each within Boroondara, Yarra and

Port Phillip.

The Car Parking Overlays were introduced into their respective Planning Schemes

between the years of 2012 to 2017.

Only one Car Parking Overlay for the ‘Heidelberg Precinct Core’ features a Financial

Contribution Requirement (Cash-In-Lieu – noting this excludes residential dwellings).

Only three Car Parking Overlays (Footscray-Inner, Footscray-Outer and Fishermans

Bend) feature maximum car parking rates for specified land uses, and permit is required

to provide more than the maximum number of car spaces required by the rates.

A total of seven Car Parking Overlays (including Footscray-Inner and Footscray-Outer

which feature a rate range), provide car parking rate minimums for specific land uses,

and a permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the minimum number of

car spaces required by the rates. It is noted that some further restrictions do apply within

particular Car Parking Overlays.

With the exception of ‘Fishermans Bend’, all other Car Parking Overlays provide Column

B car parking rates for unspecified land uses.

V132700 // 25/2/19


A31

Decision Guidelines are provided within all identified Car Parking Overlays with the

exception of ‘Collingwood Arts Precinct (Yarra)’ and ‘Activity Centres (Boroondara)’. It

is noted that all Car Parking Overlays within Banyule require either a Car Parking

Management Plan (for where parking is provided elsewhere than on the site) or the

preparation of a Green Travel Plan.

All Car Parking Overlays provide guidance regarding minimum motorcycle parking rate

requirements.

Advice provided by Councils indicates that due to a number of the Car Parking

Overlays being relatively new, it is difficult at this stage to judge their effectiveness.

In addition to the above, many of the nominated neighbouring Municipalities feature

out-of-Scheme Car Parking Management Strategies. These generally seek a reduction

in the use of private motor vehicles and promote travel by sustainable transport modes.

B.2.2 Other Approaches

As part of this car parking benchmarking review, other key sources have been considered.

The RTANSW ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ (2002) provides a range of car parking

rates for various land uses based on surveys and research. These rates are typically differentiated

by location (e.g. sub-regional city centre), however are not easily categorised by the type of

activity area which they may be applicable to.

In comparing the RTA rates to those set down within Clause 52.06 of the Victorian Planning

Provisions, it is noted that they are generally lower than both the Column A and Column B

requirements for key land uses.

GTA Consultants also has a database of surveys that have been compiled over many years of

surveying car parking. These surveys have been conducted at varying locations around

Melbourne and Australia for many different land uses, locations and times. The rates that GTA

have found in their database are generally comparable with those in the RTANSW guide.

B.2.3 Previous Moreland Parking Strategy Approaches

Both the Brunswick and Coburg Car Parking Strategies developed by GTA generally seek to

provide a “balanced” approach to managing transport impacts. This being to maintain the

future viability of the Centres whilst also addressing current road network congestion issues by

providing a level of restriction around the provisions of additional car parking required for

development land use proposals. Specifically, the Coburg Car Parking Strategy provided

minimum car parking rates but dependant on precinct and location, whilst the Brunswick Car

Parking Strategy provided both minimum and maximum car parking rates as a range for the

entire study area. These rates were typically lower than the Column B rates adopted municipal

wide.

Melbourne

A Level 25, 55 Collins Street

PO Box 24055

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

P +613 9851 9600

E [email protected]

Brisbane

A Ground Floor, 283 Elizabeth Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000

GPO Box 115

BRISBANE QLD 4001

P +617 3113 5000

E [email protected]

Adelaide

A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade

PO Box 3421

NORWOOD SA 5067

P +618 8334 3600

E [email protected]

Sydney

A Level 16, 207 Kent Street

SYDNEY NSW 2000

P +612 8448 1800

E [email protected]

Canberra

A Level 4, 15 Moore Street

CANBERRA ACT 2600

P +612 6243 4826

E [email protected]

Perth

A Level 2, 5 Mill Street

PERTH WA 6000

PO Box 7025, Cloisters Square

PERTH WA 6850

P +618 6169 1000

E [email protected]

www.gta.com.au www.gta.com.au

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20



Scheme Amendment C183 C-3

C. FUNDING MECHANISMS

C

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




C.1. Funding Mechanisms

Aside from Council’s capital and operational funding, the p lanning and delivery of sustainable transport

infrastructure on an ongoing basis will require funding provisions. According to the Council’s 2016-17

Annual Report, the amount of infrastructure spending was around $15.5 million in 2016-17, of which

footpaths and cycleways accounted for around $2.6 million or 17 per cent of the total. The spending on

footpaths and cycleways included dedicated bike lanes and wider footpaths on Dawson Street in

Brunswick as well as an upgrade to the pedestrian crossing at the Upfield bike path. The previous

infrastructure spending provides a broad indication of the annual funding requirements, while noting the

implementation of the bike strategy may require additional funding into the future.

In terms of the Council’s revenue, in 2016-17 the Council received a total revenue of $205 million.

Council’s rates and charges represent the most significant revenue source accounting for 67 per cent

of the total revenue, followed by grant funding at around 10 per cent and development contributions at

around 9 per cent.95

Figure C1: Moreland City Council’s revenue breakdown (2016-17 actuals)

Source: Moreland City Council 2016-17 Annual Report95

The revenue breakdown suggests that while rates and charges are the main revenue source,

development contributions are an established mechanism in Moreland which contributed around $1 5.5

million revenue to the Council in 2016-17. There might also be opportunities to seek additional funding

through alternative means. The following sections describe a number of funding options currently used

by Council that could be considered to support the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure.

Further discussion is also provided on alternate funding options not currently used by Council.

It is noted that Council has a current Development Contributions Plan in and place and has in the past

used Special Rates as funding mechanisms (both discussed further below) however neither have been

specifically used for the funding of sustainable transport infrastructure.

Rates and

charges, 67%

Statutory fees

and fines, 6%

User fees, 4%

Grants –

operating, 10%

Grants - Capital,

1%

Contributions –

cash, 8%

Contributions –

non-monetary, 1%Other income, 3%

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




C.1.1. Suite of Funding Options

Development Contributions

A Development Contributions Plan (DCP) is a way by which Council can charge new development in a

given area for contributions towards planned infrastructure projects. It is a certain and transparent means

by which Council can recover some of the costs towards the on-going provision of adequate development

and community infrastructure.

Money received through the DCP can go towards a varied range of projects such as, but not limited to:

• Road and drainage upgrades

• Landscaping and streetscaping works

• Bike paths.

The DCP outlines why and how Council will charge new development for a financial contribution towards

planned infrastructure projects from which that development will benefit.

A DCP currently exists within the City of Moreland at Clause 45.06 of the Planning Scheme with funds

being collected to support drainage, road, planning and community facility infrastructure.

Contribution amounts range between $323.64 and $1,459.98 per dwelling. Contribution amounts are

also identified for industrial and commercial developments.

The process of preparing a DCP requires the integration of the provision of infrastructure with the

strategic planning framework for the municipality and provides a number of benefits including, but not

limited to:

• A DCP enables infrastructure costs to be shared fairly amongst multiple contributors.

• A DCP can enable the earlier delivery of infrastructure than if its provision is dependent upon general

taxes or rates. It also provides certainty about the delivery of infrastructure for the community and

developers, because a DCP must satisfy accountability and transparency principles.

• A DCP provides developers with certainty that the money that they contribute will be accounted for

separately and spent on the infrastructure it was collected to provide.

Special Rates Schemes

Councils are able to levy a special rate or charge on existing property owners to help pay for any council

service or activity that will be of special or unique benefit to those particular property owners.

Examples include schemes for constructing carparks, footpaths, roads or drains in a particular area, and

schemes for promoting and marketing local businesses.

Council must comply with the Local Government Act 1989 when proposing and establishing special rates

or charges. Council must give public notice of any proposal to levy special rates and charges and must

undertake public consultation.

Before proposing a special rate or charge, Council must evaluate the benefits of the proposed works or

services to the people who are liable to pay and must also levy the rate or charge in proportion to the

benefit to be received. Special rates schemes have been historically used by Council to fund the

construction of carparks in both Brunswick and Coburg.

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




As a means calculating contributions for Special Rates Schemes a concept of ‘value capture’ could also

be used. The concept of value capture essentially involves capturing land or property value uplift from

the improved infrastructure and attributing the cost of providing such infrastructure to the beneficiaries.

Value capture has been increasingly applied in Australia for major transport projects such as Sydney

Metro.

There has been a well-established legislation and process to facilitate the implementation of development

contribution for funding local infrastructure. However, the key challenges associated with implementing

value capture would include:

• Demonstrating that people value the proposed sustainable transport infrastructure and are willing

to pay more for housing and commercial development with access to such infrastructure.

• Quantifying the benefits of sustainable transport infrastructure and attributing the cost to specific

beneficiaries.

The Value Capture concept could also be used as a means to calculate contributions applied through

the Developer Contributions mechanism above.

Cash in Lieu of Parking

There have been discussions around using the developers’ cash-in-lieu of parking to fund sustainable

transport. It involves taking financial contributions from prospective developers rather than requiring the

on-site provision of parking spaces.

The cash-in-lieu scheme would require the Council to address the core principles of need, nexus,

accountability and equity in the strategic assessment of the proposal before it is introduced. It is

important to justify that there is a direct link between the types of proposals affected by the scheme and

the infrastructure provision.

If the cash-in-lieu of parking were to be used to fund sustainable transport infrastructure, there would be

a need to demonstrate that the provision of the sustainable transport will encourage a mode shift from

car to the extent that the existing parking provision will meet future demand.

A cash-in-lieu of parking scheme to fund parking and sustainable transport improvements was proposed

by the Moonee Valley City Council for the Moonee Ponds Activity Centre in 2017. The proposed scheme

was consequently refused by the Minister of Planning with a recommendation to the Council that the

type of infrastructure proposed would be better achieved using other means, such as special rates

charge or Development Contributions Plan Overlay.

Following a review of the supporting documentations published by the Moonee Valley City Council and

subsequent Panel report, the following issues have been identified which could exist and make it

challenging to use cash in lieu as a means to support sustainable transport infrastructure in Moreland:

• A cash-in-lieu scheme is not possible where there are maximum car parking requirements, which

will be introduced as part of MITS.

• It is difficult to justify the provision of public transport, or sustainable transport infrastructure can be

directly related to a reduction in car parking provision.

• While a cost-benefit-analysis as part of the strategic justification report was prepared, the economic

benefits (e.g. health benefits, reduced vehicle operating costs and emissions) quantified in the

report for the cash-in-lieu scheme could only be justified if the assumed mode shift target was

achieved.

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




• There may be limited economic benefits associated with mode shift from car from the overall

community’s perspective, as people who used to drive may choose an alternative living area with

sufficient parking provision.

• Even if the approval of the cash-in-lieu scheme can be obtained, there might not be sufficient

incentives for developers to take on the cash-in-lieu scheme, as the construction cost of on-site

parking can be recovered through the property sale price. As such, a cash-in-lieu is unlikely to

achieve cost savings for developers. In turn this may encourage developers to provide more rather

than less car parking.

Parking Revenue

Parking revenue could be a major source of income to the Council. In many local government areas,

paid parking has been introduced to manage parking demand. Revenue over and above the cost of

managing and enforcing parking could be spent on local area or sustainable transport improvements.

Parking revenue is an implementation of the “user pays” principle, which has been gradually accepted

by local residents over the years. The key advantage of using the parking revenue to fund local

infrastructure is that local residents can perceive the benefits when making their financial contribution

with regard to parking facilities.

However, it may require establishing a scheme or policy which enforces the dedication of parking

revenue to local sustainable transport infrastructure to ensure a consistent and sustainable source of

funding is available. It may also require an ongoing monitoring and forecasting of parking revenue to

reduce the impact of policy or travel behaviour changes on the revenue outcome.

The ability to collect revenue is also impacted by the state government parking levy which is currently

applicable to off-street paid parking in the southern portion of the municipality.

Government Funding

Government funding can be a potential source of local transport infrastructure funding. It would require

preparing a business case or relevant funding submission documentations for grant funding or i nclusion

in State Government budgets.

While the investment in sustainable transport infrastructure may be justifiable given its benefits to the

community, the process of funding application can be long and there is a greater uncertainty of the

funding availability. Therefore, government funding may be more appropriate for major infrastructure or

a sustainable transport infrastructure “program” that comprises staged investments.

This means that a long-term plan in relation to future investment will need to be developed to raise the

significance of the funding request.

Summary

A comparison of the above funding options is presented in Table 1 along with consideration of a number

of other funding opportunities.

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




Table C1: Comparison of sustainable transport funding options

Mechanism /

Description Nexus Advantages Disadvantages Risk

Development

Contributions

Payments or works-in-

kind towards the

provision of

infrastructure made by

the proponent of a new

development

New development to

be levied is likely to

benefit from the

sustainable transport

infrastructure to be

provided.

Already exists within

Moreland.

Established process

(Local Government

Act)

No financial impact

on existing residents

Enables collection of

funding where

parking limitation

policies are in place

Relative certainty of

contribution should

development be

realised

Limited to new

development

Requires

planning scheme

amendment

Underestimation of

whole-of-life

infrastructure cost

Special Rates

Levying special rates for

upgrading sustainable

transport infrastructure

to a particular group of

property owners

Financial contribution

to sustainable


from beneficiaries

Established process

(Local Government

Act)

Extensive public

consultation

process

Requires buy in

from community

to be

implemented

Objection from the

community

Inflexibility in re-

purposing

infrastructure

funded by special

rates

Cash in Lieu

Taking a financial

contribution from

prospective developers

rather than requiring the

on-site provision of

parking spaces to fund


infrastructure.

There is a need to

demonstrate that the

provision of


infrastructure will

achieve mode shift

from car, whilst

ensuring the existing

parking provision will

be able to meet future

demand.

Less financial burden

to community

Such mechanism

has not been

established with

previous lack of

success by

others

Approach is not

possible when

parking minimum

requirements

have been

removed

Challenge to

justify nexus

Lack of incentives

from developers

compared to

building on-site

parking

Reduced likelihood

of obtaining

approval

Funding certainty

limited as not only

reliant on

development

occurring but also

parking not being

provided

Encourages supply

of parking which is

contrary to MITS

directions

Council Funding

Council fund the


infrastructure through

existing budget.

Council rates collected

are supposed to help

fund local

infrastructure and

services.

No additional

financial contribution

from residents/

businesses

Existing budget

may not be

sufficient

Rates redirected

to infrastructure,

impacting other

services given

rate-capped

environment

Suboptimal

infrastructure

standard due to

budget constraints

may not meet the

mode shift

objective

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




Mechanism /

Description Nexus Advantages Disadvantages Risk

Other Parking

Management Sources

Use funds collected from

the introduction of Paid

Parking to fund


No requirement for

nexus demonstration,

however represents

good policy to reinvest

paid parking funds

back into improving

transport choice.

Collects funds from

those using the

transport system.

Reinvests funds back

into creating

transport choice.

Creates a clear

message that paid

parking is not simply

a revenue raising

tool.

Traditionally

parking revenue

goes back into

consolidated

revenue thus

losing the

effectiveness of

the reinvestment

message.

The level of

revenue capture is

unknown at this

stage.

Government Funding

Requesting funding from

the State or Federal

Government for the

provision of sustainable


The sustainable


would generate

broader benefits to the

community which

warrant government

funding.

No financial

contribution required

from residents or

developers

Ad-hoc funding

requests unable

to providing

sustainable

funding

Reliance on the

State or Federal

Government

Uncertainty of

funding availability

Based on the above assessment the following discussion is provided.

The use of a Cash in Lieu Scheme is not possible where a minimum parking requirements have been

removed, as is recommended for Major Activity Centres earlier, diminishing the effectiveness of this tool

in Moreland. In addition, there are suitable queries around the ability of a Cash in Lieu scheme to support

mode shift aims.

The use of a Development Contributions Plan represents a lower risk option (than a Cash in Lieu scheme)

to the Council to achieve funding to support the development of sustainable transport infrastructure and

achieving mode shift objectives of MITS. Such a scheme, however, commits Council to specific

prescribed investment (to be detailed through work beyond this strategy) that cannot be easily altered

in future years.

However, it must be recognised that a Development Contributions Plan places a cost on development

(albeit relatively small ranging between $323.64 and $1,459.98 per dwelling8 based on the existing DCP),

ultimately driving up the cost for new dwellings in Moreland. However, this cost in minor compared to

the cost to home buyers who are forced to purchase car bays through bundled accommodation

packages.

The use of funds from future paid parking reflects an outcome that, not only is the introduction of paid

parking being used to discourage private car use, but the funds collected from it are being used to invest

in sustainable transport infrastructure to better facilitate and encourage mode shift occurring. The use

of funds will also remain flexible to be allocated to specific projects on a needs basis. The availability of

funds however may not be immediately available as any paid parking system must be implemented and

go through a payback period before a revenue stream would be available to fund other projects. The

ability to collect revenue may also be impacted by the state government parking levy which is not shared

with Moreland or invested in the local area.

8 Contribution amounts are also identified for industrial and commercial developments.

APPENDIX: FUNDING

MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20




As such, from the options explored in the above, a Development Contributions Plan would appear to be

the most appropriate mechanism by which to use new developments to fund sustainable transport

infrastructure, but the use of funds collected from future paid parking could also represent an appropriate

and flexible funding source.

A DCP already exists within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In the short term, it is recommended that

Council investigate the possibility of including sustainable transport improvements in the current DCP,

such as through substituting them for similar projects within the same charge areas. In the medium term,

the next DCP could have a stronger focus on funding sustainable transport improvements, including

through charging higher contribution rates, given the current rates are relatively low.

In the longer term, revenue captured from paid parking could become significant revenue source and

complement a DCP as a funding mechanism for sustainable transport.

APPENDIX: PARKING OVERLAY

V132702 // 14/02/20



Scheme Amendment C183 D-11

D. PARKING OVERLAY

D

MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 1 OF 3

SCHEDULE 1 TO CLAUSE 45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as PO1.

ACTIVITY CENTRES

1.0 Parking objectives to be achieved

To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres which:

Encourage the mode shift toward walking, cycling, and public transport. Contribute to an improved built environment.

To encourage the provision of car parking facilities which allow for the future adaptation to other uses and innovations in transport technology.

2.0 Permit requirement

A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the maximum number specified in this Schedule.

3.0 Number of car parking spaces required

For all uses listed in Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5, the maximum number of car parking spaces to be provided for the use is calculated by multiplying the Rate in Column B of that Table by the accompanying Measure.

4.0 Application requirements and decision guidelines for permit applications

Application requirements

The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

A transport assessment which considers the impacts of increasing parking above the maximum limit, the purpose and need for such increase and the decision guidelines of this Schedule.

A Green Travel Plan which includes a variety of transport demand management measures that reduce peoples’ dependency on private vehicle trips.

A statement and plans that demonstrate how any car parking in excess of the maximum number of spaces could be transitioned to other uses over time.

Decision guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:

The transport assessment. Any empirical analysis of the number of car parking spaces that should be

provided. The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car

parking demands generated. The availability and access to any alternative transport, such as walking, cycling

and public transport infrastructure. The current usage patterns of any nearby public parking and car share facilities.

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183



The capacity of the street network to accommodate additional traffic generated by the car parking facilities.

The impact of increased parking and associated traffic movements on pedestrian, cycle and public transport facilities in the area.

The impact on safety and convenience of pedestrians moving around the car parking facility.

Whether the development includes provision for bicycle, electronic bicycle, cargo bicycle, motorcycle and car share parking.

The provision of bicycle and end of trip facilitites in excess of those set out under Clause 52.34 and/or other clauses of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The availability of car parking in the locality.

5.0 Financial contribution requirement

None specified.

6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan

The following requirements must be shown on a car parking plan, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-8:

Any spaces allocated to car share parking, motorcycle parking and bicycle parking.

If a Green Travel Plan is provided under any provision of the Scheme, any relevant information specified in the Green Travel plan.

How car parking could be transitioned to other uses over time. How provisions have been made to allow for future vehicle charging.

7.0 Design standards for car parking

The following design standards for car parking and other requirements for the design and management of car parking must be met, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-9:

Vehicle accessways, crossovers and car park entries should be provided from rear laneways where possible.

The design and provision of vehicle crossovers should: Be limited to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots. Avoid the removal of street trees. Maximise pedestrian safety and sight lines.

The layout and design of car parking areas should make a positive contribution to the public realm, including maximising opportunities for active frontages and casual surveillance.

8.0 Decision guidelines for car parking plans

The following decision guidelines apply to car parking plans under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:

Whether the car parking plan encourages sustainable transport patterns that preference walking, cycling and public transport use (including adopting current design standards such as Australian Standard, Parking facilities Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities (AS 2890.3-2015).

The extent to which the car parking areas are designed for future adaptation and repurposing.

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183



The extent to which car parking facilities (crossovers, accessways,garages and carports) are visible from the streetscape.

9.0 Reference document

Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019

--/--/20— C183





NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES


To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in Moreland’s Neighbourhood Centres which: Encourage the mode shift toward walking, cycling, and public transport. Contribute to an improved built environment To encourage the provision of car parking facilities which allow for the future adaptation to other uses and innovations in transport technology.


A permit is required to reduce the minimum number of car parking spaces as specified in this schedule.


For all uses listed in Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5, the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided for the use is 20 per cent below the rate specified by Column B of Table 1 in Clause 52.06-5. The minimum number of car parking spaces to be provided for the use is calculated by multiplying the Rate (20 per cent below the rate specified by Column B of Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5) by the accompanying Measure. If in calculating the number of car parking spaces the result is not a whole number, the required number of car parking spaces is to be rounded down to the nearest whole number.


Application Requirements

The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: A transport assessment which considers the impacts of reducing parking below the

minimum limit and the decision guidelines of this Schedule. A Green Travel Plan which includes a variety of transport demand management

measures that reduce peoples’ dependency on private vehicle trips.

Decision Guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: The transport assessment. Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces

that should be provided. The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car parking

demands generated. For reductions in the rate of provision of commercial uses:

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183



o the availability of car parking in the locality and its suitability to accommodate parking generated by the development.

o the likelihood of staff using active and public transport options rather than cars.

o the parking restrictions in the area which remove opportunity for long-term parking for staff.

o Ensure land uses frequented by people with limited mobility, such as hospitals and medical centres, provide sufficient car parking spaces, including an appropriate proportion of disabled car spaces.

For reductions in the rate of provision for residential uses: o the likelihood of residents using active and public transport options or car

share rather than owning cars o the parking restrictions in the area which remove opportunity for long-term

on-street parking for new residents. Any effect on pedestrian, cycle and vehicle traffic in the area The likely contribution of public transport and opportunities to walk and cycle in

mitigating car parking demands, and whether appropriate provision can be made for use of sustainable transport to encourage a mode shift from private vehicle travel.

Whether a range of sustainable transport initiatives have been adopted including, but not limited to:

o Provision of bicycle and ‘end of trip’ facilities in excess of those set out under Clause 52.34 and / or other clauses of the Moreland Planning Scheme; and

o Whether the development includes bicycle, electronic bicycle, cargo bicycle, motorcycle and car share parking

Whether site size, access, design or other constraints warrant reducing the parking requirement.


Whether a better urban design or heritage outcome would be achieved through the lesser provision of parking.

Whether the overall benefits of the development would outweigh the need to provide the full number of on-site parking spaces and make a more efficient use of the land.

Whether historic contributions have been made towards the provision of car parking facilities.


None specified.


The following requirements must be shown on a car parking plan, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-8: Any spaces allocated to car share parking, motorcycle parking and bicycle

parking. If a Green Travel Plan is provided under any provision of the Scheme, any

relevant information specified in the Green Travel plan. How car parking could be transitioned to other uses over time. How provisions have been made to allow for future vehicle charging.

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183






The design and provision of vehicle crossovers should: o Be limited to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots. o Avoid the removal of street trees. o Maximise pedestrian safety and sight lines.

The layout and design of car parking areas should make a positive contribution to the public realm, including maximising opportunities for active frontages and casual surveillance:


The following decision guidelines apply to car parking plans under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: Whether the car parking plan encourages sustainable transport patterns that preference

walking, cycling and public transport use (including adopting current design standards such as Australian Standard, Parking facilities Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities (AS 2890.3-2015).


The extent to which car parking facilities (Crossovers, accessways, garages and carports) are visible from the streetscape.



--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183





LOCAL CENTRES AND OTHER LAND IDENTIFIED FOR INCREASED DENSITY

This Schedule applies to all land in the Mixed Use Zone, Residential Growth Zone, and Commercial 1 Zone, except land to which Schedules 1 or 2 of the Parking Overlay apply.


To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in Moreland’s Local Centres which: Encourage the mode shift toward walking, cycling, and public transport. Contribute to an improved built environment To encourage the provision of car parking facilities which allow for the future adaptation to other uses and innovations in transport technology.


A permit is required to reduce the minimum number of car parking spaces as specified in this schedule.


For all uses listed in Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5, the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided for the use is calculated by multiplying the rate specified by Column B of Table 1 in Clause 52.06-5 by the accompanying Measure. If in calculating the number of car parking spaces the result is not a whole number, the required number of car parking spaces is to be rounded down to the nearest whole number.


Application Requirements

The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: A transport assessment which considers the impacts of reducing parking below the

minimum limit and the decision guidelines of this Schedule. A Green Travel Plan which includes a variety of transport demand management

measures that reduce peoples’ dependency on private vehicle trips.

Decision Guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: The transport assessment. Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces

that should be provided. The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car parking

demands generated. For reductions in the rate of provision of commercial uses:

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183



o the availability of car parking in the locality and its suitability to accommodate parking generated by the development.

o the likelihood of staff using active and public transport options rather than cars o the parking restrictions in the area which remove opportunity for long-term

parking for staff. o Ensure land uses frequented by people with limited mobility, such as hospitals

and medical centres, provide sufficient car parking spaces, including an appropriate proportion of disabled car spaces.

For reductions in the rate of provision for residential uses: o the likelihood of residents using active and public transport options or car

share rather than owning cars o the parking restrictions in the area which remove opportunity for long-term

on-street parking for new residents. Any effect on pedestrian, cycle and vehicle traffic in the area The likely contribution of public transport and opportunities to walk and cycle in

mitigating car parking demands, and whether appropriate provision can be made for use of sustainable transport to encourage a mode shift from private vehicle travel.

Whether a range of sustainable transport initiatives have been adopted including, but not limited to:

o Provision of bicycle and ‘end of trip’ facilities in excess of those set out under Clause 52.34 and / or other clauses of the Moreland Planning Scheme; and

o Whether the development includes bicycle, electronic bicycle, cargo bicycle, motorcycle and car share parking

Whether site size, access, design or other constraints warrant reducing the parking requirement.


Whether a better urban design or heritage outcome would be achieved through the lesser provision of parking.

Whether the overall benefits of the development would outweigh the need to provide the full number of on-site parking spaces and make a more efficient use of the land.

Whether historic contributions have been made towards the provision of car parking facilities.


None specified.


The following requirements must be shown on a car parking plan, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-8: Any spaces allocated to car share parking, motorcycle parking and bicycle parking. If a Green Travel Plan is provided under any provision of the Scheme, any relevant

information specified in the Green Travel plan. How car parking could be transitioned to other uses over time. How provisions have been made to allow for future vehicle charging.



--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183




The design and provision of vehicle crossovers should: o Be limited to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots. o Avoid the removal of street trees. o Maximise pedestrian safety and sight lines.

The layout and design of car parking areas should make a positive contribution to the public realm, including maximising opportunities for active frontages and casual surveillance.


The following decision guidelines apply to car parking plans under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: Whether the car parking plan encourages sustainable transport patterns that preference

walking, cycling and public transport use (including adopting current design standards such as Australian Standard, Parking facilities Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities (AS 2890.3-2015).


The extent to which car parking facilities (Crossovers, accessways, garages and carports) are visible from the streetscape.



--/--/20— C183

--/--/20— C183

MAP No 1PO

MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION

PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3

N

AMENDMENT C183

Australian Map Grid Zone 55

Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary

INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND

HUMECITY

BRIMBANKCITY MOONEE

VALLEY CITY

MALVERN

AV

GO

WA

NB

RA

E

DR

SE

GG

AN

CIR

CO

VE

NTR

Y

ST

LANARK WAY

ORCHIDCT

BU

SH

MEW

S

IRIS CT

ADELA

IDE

BVD

LIL

AC

MEW

S

ELM SCT

CAROLINE

RISE

ROSE CT

BIRK

CT

CLOVER CT

O

AK CT

PERTH

CT

ALDER CT

LAUDER

CT

PA

ISLE

YC

T

VA

ND

ER

LO

O

RD

WA

RW

ICK

PL

DAFFO

DIL CT

BA

LD

E

RRIECT

MA

RIG

OLD

C

R

RUTH

ERG

LEN

CR

PRIM

ROSE

CT

BLU

EB

ELL

CR

H

OLLYCT

PR

IMU

LA

BVD

BA

LE

RN

O

CIR

HANN

AH

PA

SC

OE

DR

MELROSEDR

TULLAMARINE FWY

WESTERN

RINGRD

PO3

DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance

to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind

or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence

which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.

© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018

MAP No 2PO




N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


HUMECITY

GLEN PARK AV

HILTON ST

MELBOURNE AV

LYTTON ST

BELAIR AV

SH

EP

HE

RD

S

T

LU

PIN

CT

ACACIA ST

KIAMA ST

DO

WD

PL

KENNEDY ST

GORRIE PL

FINCHLEY AV

WA

TE

RL

OO

R

D

KA

DA

NA

ST

TR

EV

AN

NIO

N

ST

TH

ISTLE

BR

OO

KC

T

GRANDVIEW

ST

GLADSTONE PDE

WARANA CT

STA

TIO

N

RD

MUNTZ AV

PA

NO

RA

MA

CT

MACKINNON

GR

ARUNDEL AV

MCDONALD PL

ME

LIA

PL

RIDGEWAY AV

ANSELM GR

PENGANA AV

MITCHELL CT

OU

TLO

OK

DR

M

AR

RS

ON

PL

HEATHER CT

HOLLY CT

POST OFFICE

PL

CHERWELL AV

MA

PLE

S

T

GERVASE AV

BR

O

WNS LANE

DA

MIA

N

CT

CR

OM

WE

LL

ST

MO

RG

AN

C

T

MARLBOROUGH ST

BY

RO

NC

T

CORRIGAN ST

NENE AV

BARWON ST

WO

NG

A

PL

RESERVE CT

VIEW ST

MENANA RD

CORIO ST

STANLEY ST

DALEY ST

BLE

NH

EIM

S

T

KING ST

ILLAWARRA ST

NE

LS

ON

S

T

CURRAJONG ST

BLUCHER ST

ROWAN ST

MITCHELL ST

CR

OSS

TC

E

DROMANA ST

CLOVELLY AV

PROSPECT ST

MURRELL ST

TUDOR ST

ELECTRIC AV

LEWIS ST

KALANG RD

YORK ST

GR

AN

VIL

LE

S

T

CH

UR

CH

ILL

ST

SA

LIS

BU

RY

S

T

HA

RT

ING

TO

N

ST

BE

CK

ET

S

T

SO

UT

H

BE

CK

ET

S

T

NO

RT

H

AU

GU

ST

INE

T

CE

WIL

LIA

M

ST

AD

ELA

IDE

BV

D

LIN

DS

AY

S

T

ELE

CTR

IC

ST

CH

AP

MA

N

AV

MOONEE BVD

DU

RA

NTA

DR

MA

RIG

OLD

C

R

PA

LA

NA

ST

LO

ONG

A

NA

AV

PE

CH

AM

S

T

TARANA AV

FR

AN

S

T

VALLEY

CR

LAN

GTO

N

ST

KA

RIN

CR

PR

IMU

LA

BVD

GLENROY RD

PASCOE VALE

RD

PLUMPTON AV

WHEATSHEAF RD

WESTERN RING RD

PO1

PO3

PO3






MAP No 3PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


HUMECITY

MIDDLE ST

WALTER ST

GEUM ST

ACACIA

ST

NORTH ST

EILEEN ST

MO

RL

EY

S

T

CALDWELL ST

TRUSCOTT ST

EVELL

ST

JESSIEHUNTER

ST

JOHN

ST

BOURCHIER ST

STELLA ST

ILA ST

NEWTON ST

JU

ST

IN

AV

MAY

S

T

MORELL

ST

EV

ER

ITT

ST

HO

WA

RD

CT

MU

RR

AY

S

T

MA

RIA

CT

VIEW ST

ANDREW ST

DALEY ST

FA

RV

IEW

S

T

RE

X

PL

TA

SS

ELL

ST

MOSS CT

SAD

IE

ST

RO

Y

ST

ASH CT

CH

IFLE

Y

AV

VO

LG

A

ST

MELBOURNE AV

HILDA ST

SU

NB

EA

M

ST

GORDON CT

WIN

-M

ALE

E

ST

WHEATSHEAF

RD PE

AR

L

ST

BINDI ST

GOWRIE

ST

DANAE ST

DELHI ST

LYONS ST

MIKADO ST

PATIENCE ST

HAROLD ST

APSLEY ST

RE

GE

NT

S

T

BA

RB

AR

A

ST

HA

LS

BU

RY

S

T

LA

WR

EN

CE

S

T

EU

CR

A

ST

LA

RLA

C

ST

NE

IL

ST

DIC

KIN

SO

N

ST

LO

CK

LE

Y

ST

BA

RU

NA

H

ST

CO

SM

OS

S

T

VA

LE

NC

IA

ST

MA

UD

E

AV

HU

BE

RT

A

V

ISLA

A

V

LE

ON

AR

D

AV

LO

GA

N

ST

CO

NN

ELL

ST

BE

AT

TY

A

V

GOLF LINKS

RD

ST

AG

NE

SC

T

GLE

NS

T

CH

AR

LE

S

ST

EVERARD

ST

PA

GE

T

AV

AN

GU

S

ST

WARD

ST

BAYVIEW

RD

WEST

ST

PLUMPTONAV

HILTON ST

GLENROY RD

WIDF

ORD

ST

CARD

INAL

RD

WESTERN RING RD

PO2

PO3

PO1

PO1

PO3

PO3






MAP No 4PO




N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


HUMECITY

DA

VIE

S

ST

WIL

LIA

M

ST

JESSIE HUNTER ST

MA

Y

ST

ST

AN

FO

RD

CL

PIM

BIA

L C

T

EA

ST

S

T

DA

VID

S

T

ANDERSON RD

FO

UR

TH

C

R

WIL

LO

WT

RE

ELA

NE

JUKES RD

JE

AN

INE

CR

LOWSON ST

LIS

TO

N

RD

DO

WD

ING

CL

LYNCH RD

MAJOR RD

PRESTON ST

NORTH ST

VIC

TO

RIA

B

VD

SA

RA

CT

MA

LM

SB

UR

YC

T

DENYS ST

PA

TR

ICIA

D

R

MORELL ST

HUME

AV

HUDSON ST

REBECCA CL

EVELL ST

WE

LLS

CT

EV

A

CT

MIDDLE ST

PA

RK

P

L

STA

R

CT

DISNEY ST

ALV

A

CT

SO

UT

H B

OX

CT

BIR

CH

WO

OD

S

T

FIR

ST

CR

ED

GA

R

ST

OS

ULLIV

AN

CT

JA

SM

INE

WA

Y

TH

IRD

C

R

T INACL

MEADOWBANK ST

NO

RT

HW

EA

LD

WA

Y

FIN

UC

AN

E P

L

IRV

IN

CT

NO

RT

H B

OX

CT

GLY

ND

A

ST

WIN

N

GR

MURRAY ST

WE

LC

H

ST

BASIL ST

BO

ST

ON

S

T

MA

NS

TO

NW

AY

DOROTHY ST

HEDLEY ST

ALE

C

CR

LE

IGH

TO

N

CR

PEPPERMINTCT

SIXTH

AV

FA

IRM

OU

NT

S

T

FITZROY ST

STRATFORD ST

SAMSON ST

LA

VE

ND

ER

C

T

ST JAMES ST

OG

DE

N

ST

KATOOMBA ST

FA

IRLE

IGH

S

T

STAPLES CT

SEACOMBE ST

SE

LO

LA

C

T

LOVELY ST

SA

GE

SR

D

PE

NN

CT

EPPING ST

CLA

RA

S

T

FLIN

DE

RS LANE

WY

MLE

T

ST

SANDRA AV

SHERWOOD ST

BATTERSEA ST

CURTIN AV

LE

DG

ER

AV

RO

DIN

GS

S

T

LEO ST

RIC

HM

ON

D

ST

TH

AM

ES

ST

SH

AW

ST

BEDFORD ST

EXETER ST

BRIAN ST

MAHER ST

SHIRLEY ST

PALMER ST

MARGARET ST

BASS

AV

MA

PLE

TC

EB

EE

CH

WO

OD

TC

E

PA

RK

LA

ND

DR

MC

DO

UG

ALL

ST

GU

YC

T

SE

VE

NT

H

AV

CO

-O

PLA

NE

SU

TH

ER

LA

ND

S

T

WILLSLANE

DO

MA

IN

ST

SY

DN

EY

RD

BO

NW

ICK

ST

MITCHELL CCT

ED

WA

RD

S

T

ALLA

N

ST

RIC

HA

RD

S

T

GIS

H

CT

HY

DE

S

T

PIP

ER

S

T

LO

CK

ST

LO

RD

S

T

MORAY ST

BOX FOREST RD

HILTON ST

MAHONEYSRD

SYDNEYRD

WESTERN RING RD

METROPOLITAN RING RD

PO2

PO3

PO3PO3






MAP No 5PO



N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


DAREBINCITY

HUMECITY WHITTLESEA

CITY

VICTORY ST

LYNCH RD

TY

RR

ELL

CR

MAJOR RD

JUKES RD

RO

HA

NC

T

EPSOM CT

LOWSON ST

LEONARDST

HU

GO

C

T

LOCK STOMARA ST

JA

ME

S

ST

MIN

ON

A

ST

TY

SO

N

ST

DENYS ST

BA

IRD

S

T

VERVALE AV

BU

NG

AY

S

T

MARJORY ST

HARE ST

HOOD CR

HUDSON ST

PRESTON ST

TU

CK

ER

S

T

FR

ED

ER

ICK

ST

PIT

TS

T

DO

WLIN

G

ST

MIL

LE

R

ST

PE

RC

Y

ST

BR

OO

KS

S

T

WA

TK

INS

S

T

HO

GA

N

ST

JUNE ST

FAY ST

CLA

RE

MO

NT

S

T

OU

LT

ON

S

T

BE

CC

LE

S

ST

JE

NN

IFE

R

ST

ELSA ST

WURRUK ST

EMMA ST

BR

UC

E

ST

MC

BR

YD

E

ST

ELIZ

AB

ET

H

ST

LA

NIG

AN

S

T

SOMERLAYTON CR

LIN

K

PD

E

TW

YF

OR

D

ST

ALE

C

CR

MAHONEYS RD

PO3

PO3

PO3






MAP No 6PO




N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


MOONEEVALLEY

CITY

DEVON RD

PA

RK

S

T

STA

TIO

N

RD

MACKINNON GR

VICTORIA ST

DEVEREAUX ST

GEORGE ST

WIL

LIA

M

ST

WA

TE

RL

OO

R

D

SIM

CR

FOTIS CT

PATRICK ST

STANLEY ST

KA

DA

NA

ST

EDGECOMBE ST

ELPIS CT

HERBERT

ST

PA

LA

NA

S

T

OAK PARK

CT

WILLETT AV

BARINA RD

FRANCIS

ST

ADELAIDE ST

DR

AS

KA

CT

KE

RR

AV

BO

NA

AV

CLY

DE

CT

CA

RT

WR

IGH

T

ST

MURPHY

ST

JOHN

ST

LOONGANA AV

PINES GR

VIN

CEN

T

ST

WIN

IFRED

ST

MEAKER AV

CURIE AV

SH

OR

TA

V

JOSEPH

INE

ST

MA

RIE

S

T

KENNEDY

ST

JESSIE ST

STRACHAN ST

FL

AN

NE

RY

C

T

SYLV

ESTE

R

ST

NEW RD

CHARLOTTE ST

MILT

ON

S

T

AS

HG

R

MAIN ST

GR

AN

DIS

ON

G

R

ETH

EL

ST

GR

EG

OR

Y

ST

MA

RG

AR

ET

ST

SU

MM

IT

AV

XAVIE

RS

T

RID

GE

R

D

CH

RIS

C

T

VALDOONE

CT

BA

ILE

Y C R

JAC

AR

AN

DA

S

T

PERCIVAL ST

PASCOE VALE

RD

PO2

PO3

PO3






MAP No 7PO




N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


MOONEEVALLEY

CITY

SOUTH ST

OHEA ST

DEVON RDA

ND

ER

SO

N

ST

KENT RD

NO

RT

HG

AT

E

ST

BR

IST

OL

RD

NE

RIS

SA

GR

IRV

INE

S

T

LA

ND

ELLS

R

D

SNELL

GR

RA

Y

ST

NO

RT

HU

MB

ER

LA

ND

R

D

BARINA RD

EDDIE ST

ARNDT RD

ESSEX ST

WINDSOR ST

CEDARCT

PROSPECT ST

WA

TT

A

V

TATE ST

MARTIN ST

AU

ST

IN

CR

PENZANCE ST

ASH CT

KE

RN

AN

ST

NORTON ST

B

I RCH CT

KAUMPLE ST

ALP

INE

G

R

HE

LE

N

VIE

W

FREEMAN DR

GLENFERN PL

PR

INC

ES

S

ST

PEARCEYGR

COLORADO ST

FR

AN

CIS

S

T

BOLINGBROKE ST

DA

LE

A

V

KIN

RO

SS

S

T

KEVIN ST

LON

GVIE

W

ST

MOONEE ST

BA

RA

K

CT

CASUARINACT

AMBER CT

CALLANDER RD

DONNELLY CT

BIG

NE

LL

ST

KA

LLIS

D

R

EARLS CT

BRYAN CT

BAYVIEWRD

AN

N

ST

VIRGINIA ST

DOUGLAS ST

PLEASANT ST

JO

HN

S

T

FR

EY

S

TQ

UIC

KS

T

BASS ST

ROSE ST

LIZ

A

CT

EVELYN ST

NITA ST

BU

RG

UN

DY

S

T

OLIVE GR

JESSIE ST

DONALD ST

SIMS ST

PA

RK

S

T

VALE ST

H

ARRA CT

GY

LE

S

ST

AR

CH

IBA

LD

S

T

SO

ME

RS

ET

S

T

FAWKNER

RD

KE OG

HC

T

BE

LLE

VU

ET

CE

BRADLEY ST

ESPERANTO

CT

CURIE AV

CROWLEYCT

BOTHWELL ST

OA

K

ST

WARWICK RD

ALW

YN

S

T

ARNOLD

CT

FARRINGDON ST

WIL

NA

S

T

PE

RK

IN

AV

EDITH ST

STANLEY ST

HE

AT

H

ST

TANGYES ST

JE

NS

EN

S

T

LAKE AV

SC

HO

OL

CT

MALCOLM ST

LIL

LIA

N

ST

FORBES GR

HA

LS

BU

RY

S

T

AVOCA CR

ALBERT ST

VA

LE

RIE

S

T

EV

ER

ITT

S

T

RAEBURN ST

DR

OM

AN

A

AV

CA

MD

ON

S

T

OAKBANK

GR

GR

OV

ER

S

T

COANE ST

BENDIGO ST

DALEY ST

SEFTON ST

MAGNOLIA ST

MC

CR

AC

KE

N

AV S

YLV

AN

G

R

HA

ZE

L

GR

PLY

MO

UT

H

AV

HILLCREST RD

DO

WN

S

ST

OR

MO

ND

S

T

LEX GR

WICKLOW ST

SHANLEY ST

ALEXANDRA ST

KIT

CH

EN

ER

R

D

JO

FF

RE

R

D

PARDY ST

PE

AC

HE

YC

T

GA

RD

EN

DR

CO

RN

WA

LL

RD

HE

RM

ION

E

AV

PA

RK

ER

ST

RA

ILWAY

P

DE

ZE

NIT

H

ST

VIE

W

ST

CLEVE

RD

TA

SS

ELL

ST

HA

YE

S

PD

E

FARVIEW ST

DA

NIN

S

T

PASCOE VALE

RD

GREV

ILLIA

RD

GAFFNEY ST

WEST

ST

BOUNDARY RD

CARD

INAL

RD

CUMB

ERLA

ND

RD

RHODES PDE

STEWARTST

PASCOE ST

PLUMPTON AV

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3PO3

PO3

PO3






MAP No 8PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


RAEBURN ST

SOUTH ST

CHARLES ST

CAR

R

ST

TONKIN AV

PA

LL

ET

T

ST

BAKERS RD

ARGYLE ST

MARION ST

ORVIETO ST

SHORTS RD

RE

NO

WN

S

T

DIXON ST

LILY ST

MARLBOROUGH ST

EA

ST

S

T

WIL

LIA

MS

RD

RO

SE

PL

AT

HO

L

AV

LESLIE AV

FAME ST

WY

MLE

T

ST

QUEENS PDE

LORNE ST

FUCHSIA CT

TANGYES ST

DO

RO

TH

Y

ST

KENT RD

DAHLIA CT

GU

ILF

OY

LE

A

V

KEADY ST

PR

UE

CT

COLLINGSCT

ALB

ER

T

ST

CARINGA ST

PR

INC

ES

S

ST

KEVINST

IRE

NE

A

V

MATHIESON ST

MA

SH

OO

BR

A

ST

EVELYNST

WINDSOR ST

GILMOUR CT

FOURTH AV

MARTIN ST

IDA ST

BA

TM

AN

AV

ED

M

UNDS CT

OAKBANKGR

WARATAH ST

GO

ULD

S

T

CO

PE

S

T

STURDEE ST

FRENCH ST

RO

LLO

ST

DA

VIE

S

ST

WA

RN

ER

S

T

MILLSON CT

RISING ST

MC

DO

NA

LD

S

T

IRMA GR

AD

LE

R

GR

LO

RE

NS

EN

A

V

SH

EP

PA

RD

S

T

YUNGERA ST

YUROKE ST

GLY

ND

ON

A

V

SU

RR

EY

S

T

SPRY ST

ULM ST

DELTA AV

WE

MB

LE

YR

D

BOND ST

MC

CO

Y

ST

RYLAND ST

ME

RLY

N

ST

SHAW CT

LYKING ST

BRID

GES

AV

SEC

ON

D

AV

WY

UN

A

ST

ES

TH

ER

C

T

THIRD

AV

FIF

TH

AV

ELLIOTT ST

BO

RO

NIA

S

T

BU

SH

S

T

SECOND

CR

KR

ITH

IA

ST

TA

BIL

KS

T

SU

NB

EA

MS

T

KN

IGH

T

ST

PAU ST

HE

AD

LE

YS

T

CLARKE ST

BR

AE

SID

ES

T

ER

ICA

S

T

KARADOC AV

WONGA AV

NOVIAN ST

LA

KE

G

R

ARMSTRONG ST

DA

PH

NE

ST

SHARP GR

SAGE ST

MANTELL ST

MC

GR

EG

OR

ST

FA

IRM

OU

NT

S

T

KN

OLE

S

T

STOCK CT

DORSET RD

RYAN ST

ST

OC

K

ST

ESSEX ST

LYON ST

LEWIS ST

ASHKANASY AV

HEATHER AV

FLEMING GR

SM

ITH

S

T

DA

WS

ON

S

T

AU

DR

EY

A

V

DEANS ST

WARWICK RD

MA

DO

LIN

ES

T

GOLEEN ST

CA

TH

ER

INE

ST

NO

RR

IS

ST

TR

ELO

AR

S

T

HE

AT

HC

OT

E

ST

AR

AR

AT

AV

TRISTANCT

MA

Y

ST

STA

WE

LL

ST

BR

OC

KLE

YR

D

BA

WD

EN

C

T

GA

LE

KA

S

T

MO

LE

SW

OR

TH

S

T

ANZAC AV

HIG

INB

OT

HA

M

ST

HO

LR

OY

D

ST

YO

RK

SH

IRE

S

T

AB

EC

KE

TT

S

T

HOCKING ST

WE

BB

S

T

SUVLA GR

KE

RF

ER

D

ST

LIN

CO

LN

A

V

RO

DN

EY

A

V

LEE ST

TALBOT ST

GLOUCESTER ST

JE

RS

EY

S

T

ALLE

NB

Y

ST

SU

NS

HIN

E

ST

BIS

HO

P

ST

HO

SS

AC

K

AV

ME

RC

IER

S

T

LO

UV

AIN

S

T

LE

NS

ST

AU

TU

MN

S

T

ST

EN

NIS

ST

KIR

BIS

TE

R

ST

MERBEIN ST

ATTERCLIFFE AV

SHEDDEN ST

FIR

ST

CR

FIR

ST

AV

FO

UR

TH

CR

TULIP CL

BA

IN

AV

MU

TT

ON

R

D

TH

IRD

CR

CO

NV

EN

TC

T

FIS

CH

ER

S

T

RO

OS

EV

ELT

S

T

KINGSFORD AV

GAFFNEY ST

BOUNDARY RD

DERB

Y ST

SUSS

EXST

SYDNEY RD

SYDNEYRD

PO1

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3PO3

PO3

PO3PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3






MAP No 9PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


DAREBINCITY

ELIZ

AB

ET

H

ST

RO

US

E

ST

CARR ST

SPECTRUM WAY

DE

RB

Y

ST

FO

CU

S

DR

PETE

RS

ON

AV

ARGYLE ST

MURNONGLANE

MA

DIN

A

ST

NOLA ST

LORNE ST

CAMERA WALKK

IDD

LE

S

T

PORTRAIT WAY

MATHIE

SON

ST

CH

AM

P

ST

MU

RIE

L C

T

BLA

NC

HE

CT

RED BOX ST

ADNETTE CT

UNDERA CT

BA

AN

C

L

JA

CK

SO

N

PD

E

JELFCT

TILLEY ST

BOYNE ST

VELOX ST

CLAREMONTST

EM

MA

C

T

JOY

CE

C

T

LIVINGSTONE ST

CR

EE

DO

N S

T

GLA

DY

SC

T

WH

ITTO

N

PD

E

CHESTER CT

CA

LK

ST

ARTHUR ST

SP

EE

DIE

ST

MC

DO

NN

ELL R

D

VIE

WS

T

ALEXANDER AV

BO

RA

NG

ST

COYNE ST

MA

NLY

C

T

IMAROOST

PHOTOGRAPHYDR

HO

PE

TO

UN

CR

MIL

KM

AN

W

AY

MC

BR

YD

ES

T

ME

HE

GA

N

AV

SY

ND

AL

ST

TO

XT

ET

H

PA

RK

ST

LE

SLE

IGH

S

T

WIL

SO

N

ST

BE

RR

Y

ST

MO

RR

IS

ST

JULIU

S

ST

MARLBOROUGH ST

ACHESON PL

NORFOLK CT

QUEENS PDE

TRADE PL

RONALDST

SNAPSHOTDR

PIXEL CCT

DANTHONIA ST

OU

TLO

OK

RD

CYANWALK

BIG

GS

ST

SAHARA

WA

Y

DE

CH

EN

E

PDE

GO

LF

RD

DAIRY DR

IMAG

EWALK

BO

YD

C

R

BALLARD AV

KE

AN

E

ST

SH

OR

E

GR

MURRAY RD

NEWL

ANDS

RD

PO1

PO2

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3






MAP No 10PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


MOONEEVALLEY

CITY

OHEA ST

WESTGATE ST

GA

LLIP

OLI

PD

E

WA

LE

S

ST

WIN

IFR

ED

S

T

CULLODEN ST

TU

RN

BU

LL

DR

WOODLANDS AV

EASTGATE ST

WE

NT

WO

RT

HA

V

EV

ER

ET

T

ST

FONTAINE ST

BREARLEY PDE

WA

DH

AM

S

T

CLEVE

RD

VIMY CT

HIL

LV

IEW

A

V

EU

NIC

E C

T

WARD GR

BR

IAR

PL

DA

CE

CT

HO

DG

INS

CT

LOC

HIN

VAR

ST

GR

ON

N

PL

MA

GD

ALE

NS

T

FLANNERY CT

MOAMA

CR

AN

DE

RS

ON

S

T

PRINCES TCE

WA

LH

ALLA

S

T

LO

TH

AIR

S

T

SHETLA

ND

AV

ELLENVALE AV

JH

ON

SO

N

ST

HE

NLE

Y

ST

KIT

CH

EN

ER

ST

KA

TH

LE

EN

S

T

HE

LIO

PO

LIS

ST

BAKERS PDE

PE

PPE

RC

OR

NT

CE

LO

UIS

VIL

LE

AV

FOR

ST

ER

CT

MCKEON AV

PURCHES AV

YO

RK

S

T

HA

TT

ER

S

T

HA

YW

AR

D

ST

ZEAL ST

LE CATEAU ST

BRENTWOOD AV

THISTLE ST

MIL

TO

N

ST

MY

ER

S

ST

LY

NE

G

R

BERESFORD ST

MOASCAR ST

VAUX ST

MCCO

LL CT

MCGREGOR

AV

WA

RR

EN

S

T

DIC

KE

NS

S

T

LEMNOS

AV

SOMALI ST

DA

VE

RN

S

T

MARSDEN AV

PARKSTONE AV

CURTIN AV

PO

WE

R

ST

GEZIREH ST

PERONNE ST

WA

VE

RLE

Y

PD

E

BA

LM

OR

AL

AV

SP

RIN

GH

ALL

PD

E

GR

AN

DV

IEW

A

V

GRUNDY GR

WHEELER

ST

CA

NTA

LA

S

T

DISRAELI GR

GR

AH

AM

S

T

PRENDERGAST ST

PEACOCK ST

MIT

CH

ELL

PD

E

PA

RK

SID

E

BVD

SO

UT

HA

M

ST

HO

PE

TO

UN

AV

RA

INE

R

ST

HACKETT

ST

ME

NZ

IES

C

T

MC

LE

AN

S

T

ACACIA

GR

GA

LTE

S

CR

LA

NG

TR

EE

AV

GR

EE

NB

AN

KC

R

WIL

LS

S

T

WINONA GR

MORELAND RD

BELL ST

REYNARD ST

REYN

OLDS

PD

E

CUMB

ERLA

NDRD

COON

ANS

RD

PO2

PO2

PO2

PO4PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3






MAP No 11PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


STA

TIO

N

ST

REYNARD ST

RO

SS

ST

CARRON ST

LO

BB

S

T

SA

UN

DE

RS

ST

DO

NN

ES

T

GA

RN

ET

S

T

MUNRO ST

BERRY ST

LEVER ST

RU

SS

ELL

ST

OHEA ST

MURRAY ST

DA

PH

NE

ST

TH

IST

LE

S

T

PE

RR

ET

TS

T

BRUNSWICK ST

BAKERS PDE

WIL

LO

WG

R

WILSON ST

RATHDOWN ST

SH

AF

TS

BU

RY

S

T

SOUDAN ST

SU

TH

ER

LA

ND

S

T

FRANCIS ST

PRINCES TCE

BREARLEY PDE

CR

AM

ER

S

T

VICTORIA ST

SE

RV

ICE

ST

CH

AM

P

ST

SH

AM

RO

CK

ST

BENNYLANE

CORAL ST

PAGE ST

DE

C

AR

LE

S

T

MA

RY

ST

CA

ME

RO

N

ST

CAMPBELL ST

CANBERRA ST

MOORE ST

STRANGWAYCT

ANKETELL ST

MAVIS ST

ELGIN ST

LINDA ST

APPLEBY CR

WA

LK

ER

S

T

JO

LLE

Y

ST

NORMAN ST

CULLODENST

BAXTER ST

FIF

TH

A

V

GRAFTON ST

BLAIR ST

CO

RN

WA

LL

ST

RA

ILW

AY

P

L

DR

ISH

AN

E S

T

ME

TH

VE

N S

T

ST

RA

TH

EA

RN

A

V

BE

NS

ON

S

T

SO

ME

RV

ILLE

ST

CH

AN

DO

S

ST

FO

UR

TH

A

V

MC

PH

ER

SO

N

ST

GLE

NC

AIR

N

AV

ROGERS ST

MO

NT

IFO

RE

S

T

MC

CR

OR

Y

ST

KA

YE

CT

HIG

H

ST

INC

A

WA

Y

HA

IGA

VSELBOURNE ST

DAVIES ST

BIS

HO

P

ST

GEAKE ST

ALF

RE

D

ST

CO

OP

ER

S

T

RO

SE

S

T

BA

RR

YS

LA

NE

IRR

ELA

CH

LA

NE

DONALD ST

OLG

A

ST

JE

RS

EY

S

T

OB

ER

ON

S

T

YO

UN

G

ST

KIN

GS

T

FR

AN

K

ST

BO

NA

R

AV

FIS

CH

ER

S

T

LOC

HIN

VAR

ST

FIRST AV

SECOND AV

THIRD AV

LO

CH

S

T

GO

RD

ON

S

T

SHEFFIELD ST

TR

EN

OW

ET

H

ST

CA

DM

AN

S

T

WE

BB

S

T

HATTON GR

AB

EC

KE

TT

S

T

HO

LR

OY

D

ST

HIG

INB

OT

HA

M

ST

ALLEN ST

COZENS ST

PEVERIL ST

MO

LE

SW

OR

TH

S

T

FOCH AV

STA

WE

LL

ST

FL

IND

ER

SS

T

LO

NS

DA

LE

ST

BO

UR

KE

ST

CLIF

TO

N

GR

FR

AS

ER

S

T

RO

LL

AN

D

ST

CA

SH

ST

EW

EN

S

T

GIL

BE

RT

S

T

DE

AK

IN

ST

BE

CK

WIT

H

ST

MA

Y

ST

HA

WT

HO

RN

ST

ALIC

ES

T

WE

LLIN

GT

ON

S

T

NE

LS

ON

S

T

KE

ND

ALL

ST

MA

YF

IELD

S

T

HU

DS

ON

S

T

CO

PE

S

T

VIN

CE

NT

S

T

BE

LLE

VU

E

ST

MC

KA

Y

ST

SU

FF

OLK

AV

BALLOAN ST

WO

LS

ELE

Y

ST

STA

TT

ER

S

ST

DE

VO

N

AV

WOOLACOTT ST

RO

YA

L

PD

E

FLORENCE ST

WHITE ST

HALL ST

JESSIE ST

CO

LE

BR

OO

K

ST

QU

EE

N

ST

CA

SS

ELS

RD

MU

RD

OC

K

ST

DO

WN

S

ST

DE

NM

AN

S

TMATTINGLEY CR

IRVINECR

LA

NS

DO

WN

E

ST

GR

EE

NW

OO

D

ST

BR

UC

E

ST

CA

RR

ING

TO

N

ST

DA

VIS

S

T

SH

AC

KE

LL

ST

JA

MIE

SO

N

ST

LA

SC

ELLE

S

ST

MARKS ST

KE

RF

ER

D

ST

MA

RAN

O

A

CR

AU

DLE

Y

ST

HU

NT

S

T

WATTLE GR

CR

AIGROSSIE AV

ABERD

EE

NS

T

BR

OW

N

ST

CO

LL

INS

S

T

GIL

MO

UR

S

T

CLA

RE

ND

ON

S

T

LO

UIS

A

ST

WA

TE

RF

IELD

S

T

ST

OC

K

ST

MA

IN

ST

PR

ES

TO

N

ST

KE

LS

ON

S

T

PH

ILLIP

S

ST

LIV

ER

PO

OL

ST

PO

RT

LA

ND

S

T

MORELAND RD

MELV

ILLE

RD

BELL ST

SUSS

EXST

SYDN

EY

RD

TURN

ER

ST

PO1

PO1

PO2

PO2

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3






PO1

PO1

MAP No 12PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


DAREBINCITY

WH

AT

MO

RE

D

R

CLA

RA

S

T

CO

NN

OLLY

AV

HARDING ST

RENNIE ST

EA

ST

S

T

HARDWICK ST

MEADOWST

URQUHART ST

CROZIER ST

TANDERU

M

DR

YOULLCT

DAVIES ST

JIKAST

LY

NN

ST

OR

ILE

Y

RD

GO

VER

NO

RS

RD

DA

RE

ST

MIL

L P

L

BLAIR ST

MOORE ST

BASALTLANE

GR

EY

CT

PARKLANE MEWS

PA

YN

ES

T

DU

NS

TA

N

AV

EDNA GR

HATTON GR

GR

AN

T

ST

FA

RM

RD

BOOTH ST

BATEMAN CT

KE

WA

RR

EN

CT

KIR

KB

Y

ST

CH

AM

BE

RS

ST

CARLISLE ST

FO

WL

ER

S

T

PA

TT

ER

SO

N

ST

PA

RK

ST

WALSH ST

SHEFFIELD ST

IND

US

TR

Y L

AN

E

HUTCHINSON ST

BA

BB

AJIA

CT

MIL

LE

R

ST

DA

RLIN

GT

ON

G

R

AV

OC

A

ST

AR

MS

TE

AD

A

V

ALV

A

GR

KE

ITH

S

T

BU

TLE

R

GR

BA

RR

OW

ST

CO

BU

RG

S

T

LIN

CO

LN

S

T

M

ANNA

GU

MC

T

GOFF ST

LA

NA

RK

S

T

RO

LL

S

ST

WA

TC

HT

OW

ER

R

D

FR

AN

KLIN

S

T

BU

DD

S

ST

ST

UR

RO

CK

S

T

GR

AS

SL

AN

D

AV

CU

LLIT

Y

WA

LK

CA

TO

N

AV

MU

CH

EL

L

GR

HU

TC

HI S ON

PL

YO

UN

GE

R

ST

BE

CK

LE

Y

ST

HU

NT

ING

TO

N

GR

GLE

NO

RA

A

V

SPRING ST

CAMPBELL ST

BE

LG

RA

VE

S

T

GLENGYLE ST

WOIWURUNG CR

CO

LE

CR

BEAUMONDEST

ST

OC

KA

DE

AV

LY

GO

N

ST

RO

DD

A

ST

WA

RD

EN

S

WA

LK

QUARRY CC

T

DA

NN

YS

T

MERRIBELLAV

GLA

DS

TO

NE

ST

SA

LIS

BU

RY

S

T

RIC

HA

RD

SS

T

MORELAND RD

MURRAY RD

ELIZA

BETH

ST

ELM

GR

NICH

OLSO

N ST

BELL ST

HOLM

ES

ST

PENTRIDGEBVD

PO3

PO3

PO3 PO3 PO3

PO1

PO2

PO3






MAP No 13PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


MELBOURNECITY

MOONEEVALLEY

CITY

EG

GIN

TO

NS

T

UN

ION

S

T

PARK ST

HOPE ST

NA

PP

ER

BY

S

T

WA

XM

AN

PDE

WHITBY ST

HUNTER ST

HUDSONGR

WATTLE

VALLEY

RD

RY

EC

RO

FT

S

T

EV

ER

ET

TS

T

GU

TH

RIE

ST

ALLA

RD

S

T

MC

NA

IR

LA

NE

HE

ND

ER

SO

N

ST

JO

RD

AN

S

T

GIB

SO

NA

V

HARRY ST

BE

NT

S

T

MO

UL

E

ST

PASSFIELD ST

SO

UT

H

DA

LY

S

T

MURRAY ST

CUMMING ST

HO

LB

RO

OK

CR

YA

RR

AB

IN

ST

WY

ALL

ST

WA

LK

ER

S

T

COLLINGS ST

HOFFMAN ST

MA

RIO

NA

V

DA

LG

ET

Y

ST

WY

UN

A

ST

JA

ME

S

ST

MOONEE

PD

E

RE

AB

UR

N

CRJ

EW

ELL

CR

HO

OP

ER

CR

MA

NIC

A

ST

CO

HU

NA

S

T

MIN

CH

A

ST

SMITH ST

TE

MP

LE

S

T

OW

EN

S

T

DU

GG

AN

ST

TU

RNBULL

CT

BA

LFE

C

R

OLIV

EY

OR

KW

AY

DAWSON ST

ALBION ST

BRUNSWICK RD

VICTORIA ST

ORMONDRDME

LVILL

ERD

PO2PO3

PO4PO3






PO2

MAP No 14PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


YARRACITY

MELBOURNECITY

HALPIN ST

HOPE ST

NEWMAN ST

PE

RC

Y

ST

ALBERT ST

UNION ST

BELFAST RD

SA

XO

N

ST

CH

AR

LE

S

ST

AM

ELIA

S

T

LUX

WA

Y

EVANS ST

SMITH ST

BLA

IR

ST

STEWART ST

SHEFFIELD ST

GR

EG

OR

Y

ST

FERRIE

RS

T

HUDSONGR

SH

AM

RO

CK

ST

FA

Y

ST

BARKLY ST

CH

AP

EL

ST

BO

AS

ES

T

TINNING ST

HO

DG

SO

N

ST

MERRI ST

CO

LLIER

CR

PARK ST

WA

TS

ON

S

T

TR

INIT

YS

T

MUNRO ST

HUNTER

ST

CR

OO

K

ST

ROPE WALK

FR

ITH

S

T

BE

ITH

S

T

BR

EE

SE

ST

TR

IPO

VIC

H

ST

FR

ED

ER

ICK

S

T

BARNINGHAM ST

TH

IST

LE

S

T

WR

AIT

H ST

MC

KA

Y

ST

ES

SE

X

ST

WALTON ST

MITCHELL ST

WESTON ST

ST

RA

NK

S

AV

RO

SE

S

T

LOBB ST

BEZZELL ST

WHITBY ST

EV

AB

UH

LE

RT

CL

WA

LT

ER

S

ST

LA

RO

SE

ST

DA

VID

S

T

GA

RN

ET

S

T

VIN

CE

NT

ST

HENKEL ST

WILSON ST

WE

ND

EL

ST

LIL

LIA

N

ST

EDWARD ST

MICHAEL ST

PE

AR

SO

N

ST

NA

RD

ELLA

WA

Y

RUSSELL ST

BAKERY ST

DA

LY

S

T

HOWARTH ST

PR

OW

S

E ST

DE

C

AR

LE

S

T

WEST ST

FLORENCE ST

PO

TT

ER

YC

T

DUCKETT ST

WA

LLA

CE

ST

ST

RA

W

ST

HARRIS ST

LE

SLIE

S

T

SC

HO

OL LANE

FLE

MIN

GS

T

HA

RV

EY

S

T

IVY

S

T

ED

ME

ND

S

ST

GO

OD

MA

N

ST

BRYANT ST

CU

RT

IS

PL

TALBOT ST

BE

NN

IE

ST

MA

NA

LLA

CK

S

T

RA

ILW

AY

P

L

LOUISA ST

BLA

CK

S

T

NEW ST

CO

RO

NA

TIO

N

ST

MCIVER ST

HE

NN

ES

SY

ST

MIL

LWA

RD

ST

ECKERSALL ST

ALE

XA

ND

ER

S

T

MC

VE

AN

S

T

JONES ST

DO

LL

MA

N

ST

ST

RA

NG

ER

S

T

ME

AK

ER

AV

HELLER ST

WILLIAM ST

LIT

TL

E B

RE

ES

E S

T

JO

LLE

Y

ST

CLIFF ST

BR

UC

E

ST

RO

SS

ER

ST

ILH

AN

LA

NE

FA

LL

ON

S

T

OG

RA

DY

S

T

PA

TT

ER

SO

N

ST

OR

MO

ND

S

T

TR

EN

OW

ET

H

ST

LITTLE GO LD

ST

TE

AG

UE

A

V

CA

DM

AN

S

T

GO

RD

ON

S

T

CO

LE

BR

OO

K

ST

FE

RR

IMA

N

ST

CO

RN

WA

LL

ST

HO

WS

ON

S

T

GOLD ST

DODS ST

MACKENZIE ST

MACFARLAND ST

FO

RD

S

T

LAURA ST

MAYFIELD AV

OS

BO

RN

E

STS

UT

HE

RLA

ND

S

T

HA

NO

VE

R

ST

FR

AS

ER

S

T

WE

ST

BO

UR

NE

ST

LYDIA ST

HA

LL

ST

BIS

HO

P

ST

OV

EN

S

ST

GA

RD

INE

R

ST

PR

EN

TIC

ES

T

TH

OM

AS

S

T

HO

LL

OW

AY

R

D

CO

NN

ELLY

ST

FO

DE

N

ST

LA

RN

OO

AV

FE

RR

Y

CR

WARNE ST

STA

LE

YS

T

COOK ST

DE

C

AR

LE

LA

NE

SY

ME

S

T

SPURWAY LANE

LYLE ST

CENTENNIAL AV

PHOENIX ST

BU

RN

EL

L

ST

AU

STR

AL

AV

WILSON AV

BE

LL

ST

WILKINSON ST

BRICKWORKS

DR

AN

NIE

BO

RAT

CL

ORIENT

GR

BA

RR

Y

ST

GR

AY

S

T

BA

LM

ER

S

T

FIT

ZG

IBB

ON

AV

OB

RIE

NS

IST

ER

SLA

NE

GA

RD

EN

S

T

DA

VIS

ON

S

T

HA

MIL

TO

N

ST

EV

ELIN

ES

T

ALBION ST

BRUNSWICK RD

VICTORIA ST

DAWSON ST

MELV

ILLE

RD

GLENLYON RD

BLYTH ST

SYDN

EY

RD

GRAN

THAM

ST

PO1

PO2

PO2

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3






PO2

PO1

PO1

MAP No 15PO





N

AMENDMENT C183


Printed: 4/04/2019

Planning Group

0 225 450

Meters

7

4

12

15

52

10

13 14

8

11

96

31

PARKING OVERLAY

Municipal Boundary


YARRACITY

DAREBINCITY

NO

EL

ST

DONALD ST

KIN

G

ST

ALBERT STEVANS ST

MITCHELL STB

AR

RO

W

ST

STEWART ST

VICTORIA ST

ELSIE MEWS

BIL

LB

AR

RY

CL

PLEASANCE ST

NUNAN ST

GALADA WAY

DOROTHY ST

PITT ST

ELE

SB

UR

YA

V

KATAWA GR

WH

ITE

S

T

BARKLY ST

AB

ER

DE

EN

S

T

SO

UT

HA

UD

LE

YS

T

ANN ST

FU

LT

ON

CT

CO

LL

AC

E

ST

LE

INS

TE

R

GR

ST PHILLIP ST

WILLOWBANK

RD

LUSCOMBE ST

IDA

S

T

BLADEN AV

COCOA JACKSON LANE

LO

WA

N

ST

ED

DY

S

T

RU

PE

RT

S

T

LA

WR

EN

CE

ST

GR

AN

TS

T

JO

HN

S

T

EW

ING

S

T

HO

RN

ES

T

GRYLLS ST

ST

ER

LIN

G

ST

LO

MA

ND

RA

W

KW

Y

LO

YO

LA

A

V

LORD ST

ET

HE

L

ST

GE

OR

GE

S

T

LINDEN ST

SA

MU

EL

PL

HU

TC

HIN

SO

N

STM

INN

IE

ST

WESTON ST

HICKFORD ST

BA

NK

ST

HE

RB

ER

TS

T

RA

TH

DO

WN

E S

T

EDWARD ST

LEE ST

GLE

W

ST

JARVIE ST

CA

NN

ING

ST

SUMNER ST

ST

UR

RO

CK

ST

STA

TIO

N

ST

ME

TH

VE

N

ST

GA

MB

LE

S

T

PA

RE

OR

A A

V

OR

AR

I A

V

CH

AM

BE

RS

ST

TE

MU

KA

A

V

RO

BE

RT

SS

T

MY

RT

LE

S

T

TIM

AR

U

AV

AK

ER

OA

A

V

BE

LLV

UE

S

T

CA

RN

AR

VO

N

ST

WA

IHI

AV

MO

UN

TF

IELD

S

T

CU

NN

ING

TO

N A

V

CO

OR

AM

INTA

ST

TA

RA

NA

KI

AV

RY

AN

S

T

PARKVIEW AV

ELM

G

R

BO

UR

KE

ST

BR

ET

T

ST

AIN

TR

EE

S

T

LIT

TL

E M

ILLE

R S

T

MA

RK

S

ST

ELIZ

AB

ET

H

ST

AM

ES

S

ST

RIC

KA

RD

S

T

AU

ST

IN

TC

E

WE

IGA

LL

ST

LEYDEN ST

TR

US

CO

TT

S

T

GIA

NN

AR

ELLI

DR

DIA

NE

LLA

W

KW

Y

HAMER ST

GE

AR

ST

ER

RO

L

AV

ALISTER ST

PRIMROSE ST

ALS

AC

E

ST

INV

ER

NE

SS

ST

PIERA ST

OCONNOR ST

IVO

RY

W

AY

MAGHULL ST

LYDIA ST

RICHARDSON ST

DU

DLE

Y

ST

LAURA ST

ARNOLD ST

HE

NT

Y

ST

LA

TR

OB

E

ST

NO

RT

H

ST

GA

LE

S

T

SE

DG

MA

N

ST

CR

OS

S

ST

ALLA

N

ST

WA

RB

UR

TO

N

ST

PEERS ST

TA

YLO

R

ST

TRAFFORD ST

KIRKDALE ST

LE

ITH

EA

D

ST

AS

HM

OR

ES

T

VIC

TO

RIA

G

R

HO

WA

RD

S

T

GLENMORGAN ST

CLARENCE ST

NA

SH

S

T

STA

NLE

Y

ST

JENKIN ST

LY

ND

HU

RS

T

CR

DU

NS

TA

NA

V

CLA

RK

E

ST

FRENCH AV

HA

RR

ISO

NS

T

KINGFISHER GDNS

CLA

RA

S

T

CH

UR

CH

S

T

DE

AK

IN

ST

HA

RD

Y

ST

CRISPAV

QUEEN ST

DU

KE

S

TARTHURTONRD

BRUNSWICK RD

BLYTH ST

GLENLYON RD

ALBION ST

HOLM

ES

ST

NICH

OLSO

N ST

LYGO

N ST

PO1

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO3

PO1

PO1

PO2

PO3

PO3

PO3PO3 PO3

PO3






PO1

PO1

PO1

PO1

www.gta.com.au

Documents

Moreland Parking Overlays€¦ · 2014 – 23 July 2014 and also 1 February 2016 and 6 May 2016. During Mr Sheko’s time at GTA Consultants, ... A. Curriculum Vitae B. Moreland Parking