Moreland Parking Overlays Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 Car Parking Evidence Report

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

Client: Moreland City Council

on 14/02/20

Reference: V132702

Issue #: Final

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 Melbourne | Sydney |

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants. GTA Report (VIC) Brisbane Adelaide | Perth

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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

01 V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 1

INTRODUCTION

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 2

INTRODUCTION

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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 3

PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT

2. PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT

02 V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 4

PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 5

MORELAND INTERGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY

3. MORELAND INTERGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY

03 V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 6

MORELAND INTERGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 7

MORELAND INTERGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY

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 objectives of the MITS.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 8

MORELAND INTERGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 9

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

4. MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

04 V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 10

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 11

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Figure 4.1: Moreland Activity Centres

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 12

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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 grouping 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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 13

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

• 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 of 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 14

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 15

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Table 4.1: ABS Car Ownership (Based generally on suburbs where Activity Centres exist) Average Car Ownership Percentage of Dwellings that Do Suburb (vehicles per dwelling) 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 16

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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 option 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 17

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Figure 4.3: Seattle Residential Parking Response

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 18

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Table 4.2: Relationship Between Minimum Parking Required and Parking Provided Minimum % of Provided < Provided 0.5 – Provided > 1.0 parking Average building Building 0.5spaces / 1.0 spaces / unit spaces / unit requirement parking that exactly in sample unit above above above (spaces per ratio met requirement requirement requirement unit) 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 19

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

Recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan and Parking Overlay: • 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 suitable justification be available.

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 20

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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%

Vehicles per dwelling – Vehicles per dwelling – ABS Car Ownership 17% 1.40 1.69

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) Average Car Ownership Percentage of Dwellings that Do Suburb (vehicles per dwelling) 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%

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 21

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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 centres 5 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 22

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

Recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan and Parking Overlay: • 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 suitable justification be available.

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 23

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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 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.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.

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

Recommendation of the Parking Implementation Plan: • 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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 24

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

• 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 25

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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)

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 26

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

Recommendation of the Parking Implementation Plan: • 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 27

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

Recommendation of the Parking Implementation 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 28

MORELAND PARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 29

PARKING OVERLAY

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 Parking 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 30

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

6. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 31

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 32

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 33

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

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 utilised 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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 34

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

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 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 35

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

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).

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 36

SUMMARY OF OPINION AND OTHER STATEMENTS

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

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 37

APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE

A. CURRICULUM VITAE

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking EvidenceA Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 A-1

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 ‘Creating transport solutions with a 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). human-centred focus to deliver resource efficiency, urban design, 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 place-making and economic balanced to achieve human-centred outcomes which consider resource efficiency, urban design, prosperity outcomes’ 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. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE SKILLS & EXPERTISE Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy and Policy • CBD and Town Centre Strategies and Policies Role: Project Lead and Director • Campus Planning and Strategies Development and implementation of car parking strategies to manage existing and future car • Pay Parking Technology parking resources within activity centres, modelling of future car parking demands and creation of • Parking Detection and Directional Systems new planning policies. • Resident Permit Systems • Parking Management Plans • Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre Parking Strategy, Vic • Economic Impacts of Parking • Footscray Central Activities Area Parking Study, Vic • Modelling of Existing and Future Parking • Brunswick Major Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy, Vic Demands • Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Parking Schemes, Qld • Modelling of Paid Parking Systems (Revenue • Rosny Park and Bellerive Parking Asset Management Strategy, Tas and Cost) • Newcastle Parking Strategy, NSW • Establishment of Appropriate Development • Woden, Mawson and Belconnen Parking Strategies, ACT Parking Rates • Bendigo CBD Parking Precinct Plan, Vic • Parking Enforcement Operations • Car Parking Design • Car Parking Signage and Line marking (incl. Campus Planning and Strategy Electronic Variable Message Signage) 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 MEMBERSHIPS AND planning, loading and design. AFFILIATIONS • Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre and South Wharf Precinct, Vic • Melbourne Arts Precinct including Arts Centre Melbourne, Melbourne Recital Centre and Member of Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust) Melbourne Theatre Company, Vic Member of Transport Australia society (TAs) • Melbourne Park Stage 3 Logistic Hub, Vic • Monash University, Vic Member of Victorian Planning and Environmental • Deakin University, Vic Law Association (VPELA) • University of Canberra, ACT • Parliamentary Zone and Surrounds, ACT • Latrobe Regional Hospital, Vic • The Malt District, Vic

Chris Coath Resume 2019 1

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS

Paid Parking and Technology “Car Parking: Human Centred”, AITPM National Role: Project Director Conference 2018, Chris Coath & Ali Yousif Development of paid parking strategies for Local Government and private sector clients including “Activity Centre Planning – Parking Precinct consideration of pricing strategies, technology applications, demand elasticities, revenue Stations”, AITPM National Conference 2017, Chris generation and cash flow modelling. This included providing strategic direction and leadership Coath & Will Fooks including facilitation of Council Executive and Councillor workshops. “Parking Limitation Policies – The Influence of Car Locations have included: Parking Provision on Travel Modes”, AITPM National Conference 2016, Chris Coath & • Ku-ring-gai City Council, NSW Alexander Sheko • Liverpool City Centre, NSW “Traffic and Parking Assessments”, Planning • Coburg Major Activity Centre, Vic Institute of Australia, PLANET Course, 2012-2017 • University of Canberra, ACT • Evandale and Bundall, Qld “Parking Overlay – Setting a New Base”, AITPM • Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, Vic Technical Seminar, July 2012, Chris Coath • Torquay, Vic • Bangkok Intelligent Parking System Study, Thailand “Car Parking Strategy”, RMIT, Integrated Transport • Moreland City Council, Vic Planning Lecture 2014, Chris Coath • Crown Casino Car Parking Management Plan and Car Parking Automation Control, Vic “Expert Reports: What to Look For”, VPELA Young • Melbourne City Council Parking Meter and Pay Parking Policy, Vic Professionals Development Series 2015, Chris Coath Parking Policy Reviews and Research “Parking: A Basis or Burden to Liveable and Role: Project Lead Accessible Communities”, AITPM National Creation of policy and management strategies to manage specific user group needs and priorities. Conference 2011, Chris Coath

• 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

Chris Coath Resume 2019 2 APPENDIX: MORELAND PARKING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

B. MORELAND PARKING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

V132702 // 14/02/20B Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 B-2 v

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

Final – for Council A 25/2/19 Saskia Noakes Chris Coath Chris Coath endorsement

© 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 Melbourne | Sydney | Brisbane whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants Canberra | Adelaide | Perth

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

Gold Coast | Townsville contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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

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 1 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Table ES.1: Car Parking Provision Approaches Centre Category Activity Centres Neighbourhood Centres Local Centres

Remove existing minimum parking Adopt parking provision Adopt Column B parking provision provision requirements and adopt requirements 20 per cent lower than requirements as minimum Column B as maximum parking Column B requirements as minimum requirements (no change to status provision allowances. parking provisions. quo. Incorporate appropriate decision Incorporate appropriate decision Incorporate appropriate decision guidelines identifying when the guidelines identifying when the guidelines identifying when the maximum rates could be exceeded. minimum rates could be reduced. minimum requirements could be These rates would apply to the These parking provision requirements reduced. activity centres of Coburg, Brunswick would apply to the Neighbourhood These requirements would apply to and Glenroy. Centres. 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 2 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 3 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Introduction

Background 1

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

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 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 4 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 5 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 6 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

 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 7 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

How Parking Delivers the Vision

This Parking Implementation Plan has been developed to consider not only the current parking 2 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 Moreland is expected to grow by an extra 18,000 dwellings by 2036. If the car As discussed above, parking plays an instrumental ownership rate stays the same as it is role in supporting broader transport and land use now, such development would require strategies. Parking policies can have both a direct an additional 529,200sqm of land space and indirect impact on the ability to achieve to accommodate its car parking needs. objectives related to such strategies. The supply of This land area is equivalent to 26 playing parking at trip origins and destinations is a strong fields the size of the Melbourne Cricket driver of mode choice. This Implementation Plan Ground taken up by cars! recognises that sometimes parking is required in Based on 1.4 vehicles per dwelling, the average cases where people have special needs. For size of a car parking space and associated example, to provide access for young families or access aisles being 21sqm and an estimation of the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground playing people with mobility impairment to access the field being 20,000sqm. 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 8 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 9 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 Price saving for no Location Price without parking Price with parking 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 10 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Current Parking Policy Approach

This Chapter presents a summary of where this Parking Implementation Plan fits in within the 3 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 2013 2015 2017 Employed (n=1190) (n=1070) (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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 11 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 12 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 13 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 14 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Activity Centres in Moreland

This Chapter provides a high-level review of the existing parking and transport characteristics in 4 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

V132700 // 25/2/19 15 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A B C D E

V132700 // 25/2/19 16 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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

33, 41 1 (Coburg AC)

2 (Brunswick AC)

HIGH (3 MODES) HIGH (3

19, 25, 28, 35, 39, 42, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 3 (Glenroy AC)

44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53

MEDIUM (2 (2 MODES) MEDIUM

15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 9, 10, 11 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 48,

49, 54 LOW (1 MODE OR LESS) OR MODE (1 LOW LOCAL (LC) NEIGHBOURHOOD (NC) ACTIVITY CENTRE (AC)

V132700 // 25/2/19 17 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 18 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 20 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Delivering the Vision through Parking 5 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 21 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 22 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 23 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Managing Parking in Moreland

This Chapter explores the key parking topics summarised from the MITS policies and actions. 6

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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 24 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Table 6.2: Car Parking Rate Approaches Centre Type Activity Centre Neighbourhood Centre Local Centre

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 25 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 26 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 27 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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.

Parking Provision Response

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 28 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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.

Parking Provision Response

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 29 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

 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 30 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

 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.

Parking Provision Response

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.

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 31 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

 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.

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

V132700 // 25/2/19 32 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 33 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 34 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 35 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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/

V132700 // 25/2/19 36 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 37 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 38 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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

V132700 // 25/2/19 39 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Statutory Implementation

7 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 40 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

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 41 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A

Existing Parking and Transport Characteristics

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A1

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A2

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.

Figure A.1: Route 19 Tram on Sydney Road 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, Figure A.2: Brunswick Baths 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A3

The allocation of kerbside parking is consistent along the length of Sydney Road which provides short term Figure A.3: Activity Centre active frontage (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 Figure A.4: Off street car parking 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 Activity Centre Residential Street From To Occupancy Overspill Park Street Dawson Street 75% 150m Dawson Street Victoria Street 90% 150m Sydney Road, Brunswick Victoria Street Albion Street 90% 100m Albion Street Moreland Road 75% 150m Moreland Road Reynard Street 50% 125m Sydney Road, Coburg 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A4

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

Figure A.5: Activity Centre active frontage 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A5

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

Figure A.6: On-street parking – residential street 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A6

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

Centre and Accessibility 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A7

Most residential streets near Lygon Street have had residential parking restrictions applied, and parking Figure A.9: Parking on Lygon Street 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 Activity Centre Residential Street From To Occupancy Overspill Park Street Glenlyon Road 75% 250m

Lygon Street, Glenlyon Road Blyth Street 50% 250m Brunswick East Blyth Street Albion Street 50% 200m Albion Street Moreland Road 25% 150m Brunswick Road Glenlyon Road 10% 150m Nicholson Street, Glenlyon Road Blyth Street 25% 50m Brunswick East 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A8

Commuter Parking

Figure A.10: Trade Vehicles parked near While park-and-ride parking congestion in Activity Centre 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.

Residential Overspill 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A9

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 Figure A.13: Intersection of Glenroy Road and Centre and Accessibility Pascoe Vale Road 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A10

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 Activity Centre Residential Street From To Occupancy 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

Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A11

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%

Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017

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.

Residential Overspill 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A12

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A13

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%

Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017

A.4.2 Grantham / Union Streets, Brunswick

Centre and Accessibility The activity centre located at Union Street Figure A.18: Grantham Street active frontages 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A14

A.4.3 Melville Road / Albion Street / Victoria Street, Brunswick West

Centre and Accessibility For the purposes of determining the parking and Figure A.19: Activity Centre active frontage 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. Parking Characteristics Figure A.20: Activity Centre active frontage 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A15

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

Centre and Accessibility Figure A.21: Moreland Road frontage facing west 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. Parking Characteristics 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A16

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

Centre and Accessibility 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 Characteristics 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A17

A.4.6 Gaffney Street / Pascoe Vale Station, Pascoe Vale

Centre and Accessibility Similar to Oak Park Station activity centre and Figure A.24: Pascoe Vale Station Activity Centre 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. Parking Characteristics 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A18

A.4.7 Gaffney / Sussex Streets, Coburg North

Centre and Accessibility 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 Characteristics 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

Centre and Accessibility 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. Parking Characteristics 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A19

A.4.9 West Street, Hadfield

Centre and Accessibility 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. Parking Characteristics 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

Centre and Accessibility 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. Parking Characteristics 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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A20

A.4.11 Snell Grove, Oak Park

Centre and Accessibility Figure A.25: Snell Grove Shopping Centre 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.

Parking Characteristics 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A21

A.4.12 Merlynston Station, Merlynston Figure A.26: Merlynston Station Activity Centre Centre and Accessibility 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. Parking Characteristics 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

Figure A.27: Activity Centre active frontage Centre and Accessibility 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.

Parking Characteristics 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A22

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A23

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A24

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A25

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A26

Parking Rate Approaches B Appendix

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A27

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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A28

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)

 Maximum Rates Specific Uses  Minimum Rates Specific Uses  Other Uses Column B  Decision Guidelines  Motorcycle Rates

 Collingwood Arts Precinct (2017)

 Minimum Rates Specific Uses  Other Uses Column B

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A29

 Activity Centres (2013)

 Minimum Rates Specific Uses  Other Uses Column B

 Greensborough (2013)

 Minimum Rates Specific Uses  Other Uses Column B  Decision Guidelines (*Car Park Management Plan)

 Heidelberg Precinct Core (2017)

 Cash-in-lieu  Minimum Rates Specific Uses  Other Uses Column B  Decision Guidelines (*Green Travel Plan)  Motorcycle Rates

 Bell Street & Heidelberg West Core (2017)

 Minimum Rates Specific Uses  Other Uses Column B  Decision Guidelines (*Green Travel Plans)  Motorcycle Rates

 CCZ Fishermans Bend (2012)

 Maximum Rates Specific Uses  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 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A30

 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.

V132700 // 25/2/19 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A A31

Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide

A Level 25, 55 Collins Street A Ground Floor, 283 Elizabeth Street A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade PO Box 24055 BRISBANE QLD 4000 PO Box 3421 MELBOURNE VIC 3000 GPO Box 115 NORWOOD SA 5067 P +613 9851 9600 BRISBANE QLD 4001 P +618 8334 3600 E [email protected] P +617 3113 5000 E [email protected] E [email protected] Sydney Canberra Perth

A Level 16, 207 Kent Street A Level 4, 15 Moore Street A Level 2, 5 Mill Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 CANBERRA ACT 2600 PERTH WA 6000 P +612 8448 1800 P +612 6243 4826 PO Box 7025, Cloisters Square E [email protected] E [email protected] PERTH WA 6850 P +618 6169 1000 E [email protected]

www.gta.com.au

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

C. FUNDING MECHANISMS

V132702 // 14/02/20C Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-3

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

C.1. Funding Mechanisms

Aside from Council’s capital and operational funding, the planning 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)

Contributions – Other income, 3% non-monetary, 1% Contributions – cash, 8%

Grants - Capital, 1%

Grants – operating, 10%

User fees, 4%

Statutory fees Rates and and fines, 6% charges, 67%

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-4

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-5

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-6

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

• 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-7

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

Table C1: Comparison of sustainable transport funding options Mechanism / Nexus Advantages Disadvantages Risk Description

Already exists within Moreland. Established process (Local Government Development Act) Limited to new Contributions New development to No financial impact development be levied is likely to Payments or works-in- on existing residents Underestimation of kind towards the benefit from the Enables collection of whole-of-life provision of sustainable transport funding where infrastructure cost infrastructure made by infrastructure to be Requires parking limitation the proponent of a new provided. planning scheme policies are in place development amendment Relative certainty of contribution should development be realised

Extensive public Objection from the Special Rates consultation community Levying special rates for Financial contribution Established process process Inflexibility in re- upgrading sustainable to sustainable (Local Government Requires buy in purposing transport infrastructure transport infrastructure Act) from community infrastructure to a particular group of from beneficiaries to be funded by special property owners implemented rates

Lack of incentives from developers Such mechanism compared to has not been building on-site established with parking There is a need to previous lack of Cash in Lieu demonstrate that the Reduced likelihood success by Taking a financial provision of of obtaining others contribution from sustainable transport approval prospective developers infrastructure will Less financial burden Approach is not Funding certainty rather than requiring the achieve mode shift to community possible when limited as not only on-site provision of from car, whilst parking minimum reliant on parking spaces to fund ensuring the existing requirements development sustainable transport parking provision will have been occurring but also infrastructure. be able to meet future removed parking not being demand. Challenge to provided justify nexus Encourages supply of parking which is contrary to MITS directions

Existing budget may not be sufficient Suboptimal Council Funding Council rates collected infrastructure No additional are supposed to help standard due to Council fund the financial contribution fund local Rates redirected budget constraints sustainable transport from residents/ infrastructure and to infrastructure, may not meet the infrastructure through businesses existing budget. services. impacting other mode shift services given objective rate-capped environment

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-8

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

Mechanism / Nexus Advantages Disadvantages Risk Description

Collects funds from Traditionally Other Parking those using the transport system. parking revenue Management Sources No requirement for goes back into The level of Use funds collected from nexus demonstration, Reinvests funds back consolidated revenue capture is the introduction of Paid however represents into creating revenue thus unknown at this Parking to fund good policy to reinvest transport choice. losing the stage. sustainable transport paid parking funds Creates a clear effectiveness of back into improving message that paid the reinvestment transport choice. parking is not simply message.

a revenue raising tool.

Ad-hoc funding Government Funding The sustainable requests unable No financial transport infrastructure to providing Requesting funding from would generate contribution required sustainable Uncertainty of the State or Federal broader benefits to the from residents or funding funding availability Government for the community which developers provision of sustainable Reliance on the warrant government transport infrastructure funding. State or Federal Government

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 dwelling 8 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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-9

APPENDIX: FUNDING MECHANISMS

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.

V132702 // 14/02/20 Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 C-10

APPENDIX: PARKING OVERLAY

D. PARKING OVERLAY

V132702 // 14/02/20D Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 D-11

MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

--/--/20— C183 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

--/--/20— To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in the Brunswick, Coburg C183 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

--/--/20— C183 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

--/--/20— C183 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

--/--/20— C183 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.

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 1 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

. 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

--/--/20— C183 None specified.

6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan

--/--/20— C183 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

--/--/20— C183 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

--/--/20— C183 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.

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 2 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

. The extent to which car parking facilities (crossovers, accessways,garages and carports) are visible from the streetscape.

9.0 Reference document

--/--/20— C183 Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 3 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

--/--/20— C183 SCHEDULE 2 TO CLAUSE 45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as PO2.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES

1.0 Parking objectives to be achieved

--/--/20— To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in Moreland’s C183 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.

2.0 Permit requirement

--/--/20— C183 A permit is required to reduce the minimum number of car parking spaces as specified in this schedule.

3.0 Number of car parking spaces required

--/--/20— C183 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.

4.0 Application requirements and decision guidelines for permit applications

--/--/20— C183 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:

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 1 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

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. . The impact on safety and convenience of pedestrians moving around the car parking facility. . 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.

5.0 Financial contribution requirement

--/--/20— C183 None specified.

6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 2 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

7.0 Design standards for car parking

--/--/20— The following design standards for car parking and other requirements for the design and C183 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: 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:

8.0 Decision guidelines for car parking plans

--/--/20— C183

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. . The extent to which car parking facilities (Crossovers, accessways, garages and carports) are visible from the streetscape.

9.0 Reference document

--/--/20— C183 Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 3 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

--/--/20— C183 SCHEDULE 3 TO CLAUSE 45.09 PARKING OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as PO3.

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.

1.0 Parking objectives to be achieved

--/--/20— C183 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.

2.0 Permit requirement

--/--/20— C183 A permit is required to reduce the minimum number of car parking spaces as specified in this schedule.

3.0 Number of car parking spaces required

--/--/20— C183 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.

4.0 Application requirements and decision guidelines for permit applications

--/--/20— C183 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:

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

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. . The impact on safety and convenience of pedestrians moving around the car parking facility. . 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.

5.0 Financial contribution requirement

--/--/20— C183 None specified.

6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan

7.0 Design standards for car parking

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME

. Vehicle accessways, crossovers and car park entries should be provided from rear laneways where possible. . 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.

8.0 Decision guidelines for car parking plans

9.0 Reference document

--/--/20— C183 Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019

OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 3 OF 3 MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

HUME CITY

D H R OLLY CT G H S N S W I U E

R B

N ORCHID R E CT T S E W PERTH CT

ALDER CT

LAUDER CT MARIGOLD MARIGOLD CR

RUTHERGLEN CR

P R IM R O K CT S A E O

T C S A W

E VANDERLOO RD I L M E CT OS R

B IR K

C T IRIS CT T C

BLUEBELL CR L

S T I C C A RIE LO P R VER CT BALDE

GOWANBRAE GOWANBRAE DR LANARK WAY T IL C OD R F D F A

D E T O E C C LM S S A P PRIMULA BVD

R I H

C A N

ULMRN FWYTULLAMARINE N A H

PO3 N

E D V S B

E CAROLINE ID A L RISE E D W A A R W

M IC E K L R O S B E P A L L E R

D V N R A O R RN CI MALVE C O V E N T R Y

ST BRIMBANK CITY MOONEE VALLEY CITY

LEGEND INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPS Disclaimer 0 225 450 PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3 Municipal Boundary This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its Meters 1 2 3 4 5 employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind Australian Map Grid Zone 55 or is wholly appropriate for your particular 6 7 8 9 purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence N which may arise from you relying on any 10 11 12 information in this publication. Planning Group © The State of Victoria Department of 13 14 15 Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018 Printed: 4/04/2019

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 1PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

HUME CITY

WESTERN RING RD

R ELECTRIC ST

N VIEW ST I

DALEY ST

MAPLE ST

CT GERVASE AV N IA M A D MITCHELL ST MITCHELL CT

ST N BVD O NEE T OO G M N HEATHER CT A L

PECHAM ST

P ROWAN ST

RIDGEWAY AV BECKET ST NORTH PO3 N CROSS TCE

AUGUSTINE TCE A MUNTZ AV M

TREVANNION ST ARUNDEL AV HILTON ST

LUPIN CT KING ST

L NENE AV

EKT T SOUTH ST BECKET

HOLLY CT RD VALE PASCOE A

L E M VALLEY CR CORRIGAN ST

HPED ST SHEPHERD E CHERWELL AV ST HARTINGTON MARIGOLD CR V R CT E S E R

D SALISBURY ST

CHURCHILL ST

GRANVILLE ST A MCDONALD PL T CROMWELL ST N A R U D ANSELM GR

GLEN PAR K AV MELBOURNE AV GORRIE PL

FINCHLEY AV

NELSON ST PRIMULA BVD PL

BLENHEIM ST A G D N O O W GH ST W U D RO FRAN ST MURRELL ST LBO BELAIR AV MAR

POST OFFICE P L B T PL R H O IS O T L K E C T YORK ST PO1 OGN CT MORGAN

GLENROY RD

R D O V B WNS WHEATSHEAF RD LAN OUTLOOK DR E T C

D I

L N

E O ACACIA ST D CLOVELLY AV R A LINDSAY ST Y

B WARANA CT

C BLUCHER ST A

M LYTTON ST A

A P TUDOR ST WILLIAM ST BARWON ST

GLADSTONE PDE RDWATERLOO CHAPMAN AV

LMTN AVPLUMPTON

TTO RD STATION LEWIS ST V A CORIO ST A N A G GRANDVIEW ST N PALANA ST O O L

ILLAWARRA ST

MENANA RDPO3 PROSPECT ST KALANG RD PENGANA AV

CURRAJONG ST DROMANA ST KENNEDY ST ELECTRIC AV

A TARANA AV N

A T STANLEY ST KIAMA ST

D S

A MACKINNON

K GR

LEGEND INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPS Disclaimer 0 225 450 PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1 Municipal Boundary This publication may be of assistance PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3 to you but the State of Victoria and its Meters 1 2 3 4 5 employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind Australian Map Grid Zone 55 or is wholly appropriate for your particular 6 7 8 9 purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence N which may arise from you relying on any 10 11 12 information in this publication. Planning Group © The State of Victoria Department of 13 14 15 Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018 Printed: 4/04/2019

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 2PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

HUME CITY

RD RING RN WESTE

HOWARD CT JOHN ST ANDREW ST BINDI ST

ROY ST WARD ST

VIEW ST

SUNBEAM ST PO3

A L DALEY ST GOWRIE ST SH E

CT N

S T

PO3 EVELL ST GORDON CT HILDA ST

MORLEY ST

PAGET AV DELHI ST MORELL ST BEATTY AV

MOSS CT

LYONS ST EVERARD ST DANAE ST SADIE ST

WIDFORD ST

JUSTIN AV

BOURCHIER ST

HILTON ST

MAY ST

CONNELL ST

ISLA AV

LEONARD AV

HUBERT AV

MAUDE AV

VALENCIA ST

BARUNAH ST COSMOS ST

T PO1 LOCKLEY ST C LARLAC ST

EUCRA ST S T

E S

N REGENT ST

A NORTH ST MELBOURNE AV PO3

LOGAN ST

MIKADO ST

REX PL

GLENROY RD PATIENCE ST

WEST ST

MARIA CT HAROLD ST

VOLGA ST

CARDINAL RD GEUM ST JESSIE HUNTER

C H

PO2 A R

PO1 L

APSLEY ST E

STELLA ST S

EILEEN ST ST MURRAY ST

AC AC IA ST ILA ST

ANGUS ST CHIFLEY AV

WHEATSHEAF RD S MIDDLE ST L R A E P CALDWELL ST

GOLF LINKS RD

FARVIEW ST ST

NEIL ST TASSELL ST TRUSCOTT ST E E

HALSBURY ST

M BARBARA ST

LAWRENCE ST

BAYVIEW RD DICKINSON ST -

PLUMPTON

NEWTON ST N I

W AV

R T WALTER ST

E S

LEGEND INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPS Disclaimer 0 225 450 PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1 Municipal Boundary This publication may be of assistance PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2 to you but the State of Victoria and its Meters 1 2 3 4 5 PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3 employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind Australian Map Grid Zone 55 or is wholly appropriate for your particular 6 7 8 9 purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence N which may arise from you relying on any 10 11 12 information in this publication. Planning Group © The State of Victoria Department of 13 14 15 Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018 Printed: 4/04/2019

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 3PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

HUME CITY M A H O N EY RD S RING METROPOLITAN RD Y

T INA U

C T

C G L C

WESTERN RING RD R

E R Y S Y T EVA CT HEDLE

ALVA CT

DOROTHY ST IRVIN CT

PALMER ST

LEIGHTON CR

SHAW ST

BIRCHWOOD ST BRIAN ST

ALEC CR

ANDERSON RD

C SANDRA AV NORTH

WEALD WAY D PO3

S WILLS REBECCA CL L L AN E J C SELOLA CT E

G N

N I I N PARK PL

D E FINUCANE PL CR OW

A PATRICIA DR WAY

MANSTON S S A B LOWSON ST

MITCHELL CCT LORD ST AV MAY ST E DISNEY ST M U H PRESTON ST

DENYS ST

L S LAN WELCH ST E S R

BOSTON ST E CT D DR GLYNDA ST N I LOVELY ST L

D F Y

N R

A U HUDSON ST L

B T

K M

R A M A PEP ER P M P L INT P L A CT RD SAGES E

M LAVENDER CT JUKES RD

EVELL ST E C

AMN WAY JASMINE N E

L MEADOWBANK ST MARGARET ST P O

YNYRD SYDNEY C

- W PO2 B IL VICTORIA BVD E O MORELL ST E L

N C O C

N H W E

T P OGDEN ST R

E D

HILTON ST LISTON RD SHIRLEY ST

WILLIAM ST

L T

A C

N E

FAIRLEIGH ST BASIL ST BOX FOREST RD

MAHER ST

NORTHBOX CT

BONWICK ST

MCDOUGALL ST EPPING ST

THAMES ST

HYDE ST

RICHMOND ST MURRAY ST

SOUTH BOX CT NORTH ST

ALLAN ST

STAPLES CT STAR CT OSULLIVANCT MAJOR RD

RICHARD ST ST JAMES ST

DAVID ST

EDGAR ST SAMSON ST

JESSIE HUNTER ST

V LEO ST A

E E T AVSEVENTH

WINN GR G KATOOMBA ST EDWARD ST D

E DOMAIN ST L

EAST ST

RODINGS ST MORAY ST

STRATFORD ST PIPER ST CURTIN AV

SUTHERLAND ST

GISH CT FITZROY ST

MIDDLE ST SEACOMBE ST CLARA ST PO3

LYNCH RD PO3 LOCK ST

BEDFORD ST SIXTH AV

PIMBIAL CT FOURTH CR BATTERSEA ST

DAVIES ST

R EXETER ST C THIRD CR

T WYMLET ST S SHERWOOD ST IR FAIRMOUNT ST F

LEGEND INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPS Disclaimer 0 225 450 PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2 Municipal Boundary This publication may be of assistance PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3 to you but the State of Victoria and its Meters 1 2 3 4 5 employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind Australian Map Grid Zone 55 or is wholly appropriate for your particular 6 7 8 9 purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence N which may arise from you relying on any 10 11 12 information in this publication. Planning Group © The State of Victoria Department of 13 14 15 Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018 Printed: 4/04/2019

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 4PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183 HUME CITY WHITTLESEA CITY

MA HONEYS RD

SOMERLAYTON CR

HOGAN ST

ALEC CR

HUGO CT

PO3 CT

ROHAN

JENNIFER ST

BUNGAY ST

OULTON ST

BECCLES ST

TWYFORD ST

CLAREMONT ST

WATKINS ST EPSOM CT LOWSON ST DAREBIN CITY

PRESTON ST

PO3 JUNE ST MCBRYDE ST

DENYS ST

MINONA ST

TYSON ST HUDSON ST

LANIGAN ST

FAY ST

JUKES RD

ELSA ST

ELIZABETH ST EMMA ST

MARJORY ST

LEONARD ST VICTORY ST

LINK PDE HARE ST

DOWLING ST

MILLER ST BAIRD ST

BROOKS ST PO3

HOOD CR

MAJOR RD

LOCK ST T S T OMARA ST S

I K

P C

R TUCKER ST

BRUCE ST E

D JAMES ST

PERCY ST

LYNCH RD

WURRUK ST

TYRRELL CR AV VERVALE

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 5PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

ST WILLIAM ST T

C S

DY L S Y MACKINNON GR LOONGANA AV E ST MILTON N I EN M D K E A STANLEY ST

A C

PALANA ST GEORGE ST R C A T K VICTORIA ST

PATRICK ST NEW RD AELO RDWATERLOO

CARTWRIGHT ST T

GRANDISON GR JACARANDA ST C

A IG RD RIDGE

K S BARINA RD A

R DEVEREAUX ST D

H RD STATION O K R CHARLOTTE ST E ELPIS CT T R AV R WILLETT

A CHRIS CT PERCIVAL ST V A

V FOTIS CT FLANNERY CT VALDOONE CT JESSIE ST V PINES GR A R

A G N

S O

U B M STRACHAN ST

H M

S I A T

A CURIE AV V ST Y PH UR M X A V V I I E RD VALEPASCOE N R C PO2 E N T RK K PA S OA T MEAKER AV S CT ST MARIE T

JO S E PO3 P H IN FRANCIS ST E ST PO3

W I N B ST PARK IF A R I E L D E Y C R ST

SYLVESTER ST DEVON RD

JOHN ST

EDGECOMBE ST

GREGORY ST ETHEL ST

MARGARET ST

MAIN ST

T BER HER ST

MOONEE VALLEY ADELAIDE ST CITY

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 6PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

BAYV IEW GLENFERN PL RD

HILLCREST RD NITA ST

AN PER T S CO T E FARV IEW S LMTN AVPLUMPTON T

TASSELL ST FRANCIS ST

JENSEN ST DONALD ST

EVERITT ST HALSBURY ST

S C SOUTH ST H LIZA CT CARDINAL RD O

O T

L HELEN VIEW KALLIS DR FREEMAN DR C CT WEST ST

Y BAR E IN H A R DONNELLY CT D C

A BARAK CT VIRGINIA ST E

RHODES PDE

BRISTOL RD C ASUARINA

EMOE AVHERMIONE PRINCESS ST CT B JESSIE ST ROSE ST I R CH CT G PASCOE ST A R AMBER CT D CURIE AV E

N ASH CT PO3 CEDAR

CT D BOUNDARY RD R

PERKIN AV CRO WLEY CT LAKE AV PO3 SNELL

G ALEXANDRA ST

R MALCOLM ST PO2

LEX GR CALLANDER RD WICKLOW ST

KITCHENER RD JOFFRE RD BR YAN CT

I S SHANLEY ST

S MAGNOLIA ST WATT AV A H EARLS CT GREVILLIA RD A RRA CT COLORADO ST G R PO3

KENT RD

ALBERT ST T

CORNWALL RD S FORBES GR ARNDT RD K

C EDITH ST I PO2 U

VALERIE ST

PENZANCE ST

LILLIAN ST

DEVON RD PLYMOUTH AV PO3 T ARNOLD C MARTIN ST

OAK ST ST WARWICK RD

I SEFTON ST N E

BENDIGO ST

SIMS ST WINDSOR ST

T S

ALPINE GR

DANIN ST DALEY ST NORTHUMBERLAND RD W RAILWAY PDE IE V G N DOUGLAS ST PARK ST O L

VIEW ST AUSTIN CR

ALWYN ST

LANDELLS RD COANE ST KAUMPLE ST

VALE ST DOWNS ST

ORMOND ST

ESSEX ST TANGYES ST

ACE AE RD VALEPASCOE BOTHWELL ST

PLEASANT ST

CUMBERLAND RD

FARRINGDON ST H

G GYLES ST KE O PO2 PO3 PO3 PROSPECT ST BASS ST RAEBURN ST

RT MCCRACKEN AV TEWA S NORTON ST OLIVE GR FAWKNER RD

HAZEL GR PO2 PEARCEY GR SYLVAN GR EDDIE ST ARCHIBALD ST

GROVER ST PO2 HEATH ST

T CAMDON ST S

DROMANA AV

T ANN ST MOONEE E

S E WILNA ST R C OAKBAN E K VALLEY T M PO3 GR

O PO2

S CITY E GAFFNEY ST

L UGNY ST BURGUNDY

B T S

AE PDE HAYES BOLINGBROKE ST L PO3 L

R T N

E S

K I

R PO3 B A P EVELYN ST

AVOCA CR BRADLEY ST PARDY ST

DALE AV

FREY ST KEVIN ST TATE ST

NORTHGATE ST

RAY ST IRVINE ST KINROSS ST

ANDERSON ST

JOHN ST

N C LE V STANLEY ST MOONEE ST E S T R OHEA ST D

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 7PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

A CT YUROKE STPRUE TAN TRIS H CT T

I TALBOT ST F

FOURTH AV WYMLET ST

A IKST TABILK

F I R DAVIES ST YUNGERA ST BOND ST S T GLOUCESTER ST

EAST ST V C A R D IR MUTTON RD TH WYUNA ST V TH A LORNE ST

I SOUTH ST R S RD SYDNEY KNOLE ST D E C T

O S F N R D I FAIRMOUNT ST OU D

R C F D R

R SECOND AV R T C LEE ST H R

Y L

E C K L ESTHER CT R C B

CARINGA ST R E B DAHLIA CT W

FUCHSIA CT ARGYLE ST MERBEIN ST

TULIP CL PL

ROSE

MARLBOROUGH ST

RNES ST PRINCESS BO UNDA RY RD

SAGE ST QUEENS PDE DOROTHY ST PO2 BRAESIDE ST SHAW CT DIXON ST

KARADOC AV ALBERT ST COL LINGS NOVIAN ST CT

ST SUNBEAM ST

E WONGA AV ST KRITHIA ST RISING ST BUSH ST N ADLER GR I

BAWDEN CT MATHIESON ST

H AN AV BAIN

S R

N TONKIN AV O

U G ORVIETO ST PO3 S E MERLYN ST

M R

KENT RD O PO2 SUVLA GR

LLO RODNEY AV

LINCOLN AV DELTA AV

MASHOOBRA ST S PO2 T PO3 AV LORENSEN PO3 ASHKANASY AV ANZAC AV

HEATHCOTE ST B R GALEKA ST ID G E S MARTIN ST SHARP GR

ATHOL AV A HEATHER AV V

SHORTS RD GLYNDON AV

WARWICK RD PO3

DORSET RD LILY ST MCCOY ST KINGSFORD AV KEADY ST

R PO3 A R

WINDSOR ST SHEPPARD ST

MILLSON CT ULM ST A CLARKE ST

NORRIS ST

SURREY ST

PO3 TRELOAR ST

IRENE AV

FLEMING GR AUDREY AV LYON ST SPRY ST

GUILFOYLE AV

YORKSHIRE ST

WARNER ST

E GOULD ST D RYLAND ST M PALLETT ST UNDS CT GOLEEN ST TANGYES ST BAKERS RD GILMOUR CT PO3 RD SYDNEY

DERBY ST

SUSSEX ST

HOCKING ST

LESLIE AV ST SMITH ESSEX ST PO3

STURDEE ST

S STOCK CT KNIGHT ST IDA ST

MADOLINE ST

ALLENBY ST

Y E

FAME ST L

ST D

RAEB A U E

RN ST H

N ELLIOTT ST I R FRENCH ST E

ATTERCLIFFE AV T

C LYKING ST PAU ST

EON ST RENOWN T

CHARLES ST E

DAWSON ST V

C IRMA GR WILLIAMS RD

MARION ST

OAKBANK CARR ST

GR KIRBISTER ST

LENS ST PO3 STENNIS ST MANTELL ST LOUVAIN ST

COAD ST MCDONALD

PO2 ROOSEVELT ST

MERCIER ST

HOSSACK AV

LEWIS ST GAFF T PO3 NEY S PO3 EVELYN GR LAKE ST SHEDDEN ST PO3

KEVIN ST WARATAH ST

BATMANAV TC ST STOCK ARMSTRONG ST AUTUMN ST BISHOP ST PO1

JERSEY ST

WEBB ST

FISCHER ST KERFERD ST

MAY ST ABECKETT ST HOLROYD ST DEANS ST

COPE ST STAWELL ST

HIGINBOTHAM ST

MOLESWORTH ST

ERICA ST DAPHNE ST RYAN ST

BORONIA ST

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 8PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

UNDERA CT

SYNDAL ST

CREEDON ST LORNE ST

MCBRYDE ST

IDE ST KIDDLE

T R C CHESTE CT LF BERRY ST JE COYNE ST

WILSON ST

LESLEIGH ST ARGYLE ST MADINA ST Y

W SAHARA PO3 DAREBIN CITY OO MARLBOROUGH ST AR IM ST BAAN CL

DERBY ST

QUEENS PDE

N O S IE

MANLY CT H EMMA CT T

BORANGA ST M

NORFOLK CT DAIRY DR

R C

N U O T MILKMAN WAY E P O H

ARTHUR ST

D JOYCE CT R

S D N A LIVINGSTONE ST TRADE PL L

W E N

PO3 ADNETTE CT

P HO T CALK ST OG RA PH Y DR

TILLEY ST TOXTETH PARK ST

SPECTRUM WAY ACHESON PL

RED BOX ST T

Y MCDONNELL RD

D FOCUS DR VIEW ST SPEEDIE ST CAMERA WALK

ELIZABETH ST CYAN WALK VELOX ST E WALK G PO3 A IM DANTHONIA ST

S MORRIS ST N MURNONG AP PO2 S ROUSE ST LANE HO KEANE ST T DR

ST B I LD G NA G RO S PIX EL C HR GR SHORE CT CARR ST S BALLA T RD AV

PORTRAIT WAY PO3

G BOYNE ST ALEXANDER AV O

DE CLA REM C ON H T E ST BLANCHE CT N MURIEL CT E NOLA ST

PDE CRBOYD

M EH

W V H A I E

T G TO J A U N N N L JACKSON PDE IU O O S S U R P A E T V T L D PE O E O S K T

PO1 PO3

CHAMP ST MURRAY RD

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 9PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

OHEA ST

CLEVE RD

T C D

R E

EUNICE CT A

D T DAVERN ST

POWER ST S

A EASTGATE ST

N E

E B

A PO3 HAYWARD ST MYERS ST

M YORK ST

WESTGATE ST

HATTER ST

ANDERSON ST R C

BELL ST MILTON ST PO2 WILLS ST

R G GEZIREH ST PO2

HELIOPOLIS ST PERONNE ST

FONTAINE ST

F THISTLE ST O M R I S T C T H H E A C E R K ET L T L BREARLEY PDE S C T T P D SOMALI ST E

WH E EL MOONEE ER ST

GALLIPOLI PDE VALLEY VAUX ST CITY REYNOLDS PDE

BALMORAL AV

WAVERLEY PDE

GRANDVIEW AV

MOASCAR ST SPRINGHALL PDE

PRINCES TCE

LE CATEAU ST

LE MN VIMY CT OS

REYNARD ST

TURNBULL DR

PO3 PARKSTONE AV ELLENVALE AV

R PO3 BRENTWOOD AV O

W PURCHES AV

E LOCHINVAR

E ST WINIFRED ST C D T MO AM R DICKENS ST KATHLEEN ST

A HILLVIEW AV N C WARREN ST R R MCKEON AV O S

C N

R V A

E A N P

O P WOODLANDS AV E O

P C E

HENLEY ST R

L R WARD GR

ACACIA

A MARSDEN AV

R LOUISVILLE AV JHONSON ST K PRENDERGAST ST

I CANTALA ST D

L E

P RAINER ST

A I LOTHAIR ST BVD R B WINONA GR DISRAELI GR

WALHALLA ST BERESFORD ST

WADHAM ST

GRAHAM ST

I G

D GRUNDY GR

O MORELAND RD H

ATS CRGALTES

SOUTHAM ST PO2

V A

MENZIES CT

O LYNE GR

T E BAKERS PDE P

FLANNERY CT

MC GREGOR

MCLEAN ST A V

L CT WALES ST L SH O EVERETT ST ET C L

C PEACOCK ST A

M GRONN N D

PL A

CULLODEN ST V

T CURTIN AV S R

N E PO4 H

I PO3 K ZEAL ST

LEGEND INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPS Disclaimer 0 225 450 PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2 Municipal Boundary This publication may be of assistance PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3 to you but the State of Victoria and its Meters 1 2 3 4 5 PO4 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 4 employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind Australian Map Grid Zone 55 or is wholly appropriate for your particular 6 7 8 9 purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence N which may arise from you relying on any 10 11 12 information in this publication. Planning Group © The State of Victoria Department of 13 14 15 Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018 Printed: 4/04/2019

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 10PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

DAPHNE ROGERS ST

BISHOP ST PO1 JERSEY ST

WEBB ST FISCHER ST KERFERD ST

OHEA ST N MAY ST ABECKETT ST HOLROYD ST

COPE ST STAWELL ST T L

HIGINBOTHAM ST C

MOLESWORTH ST

STOCK ST CHAMP ST

Y FRANCIS ST R A

R K PO3 A

B PO3 SUSSEX ST PO3

FLINDERS ST

COLLINS ST

MONTIFORE ST

MURRAY ST T LONSDALE ST S

BOURKE ST

TURNER ST

FRASER ST LANSDOWNE ST RATHDOWN ST ROLLAND ST GREENWOOD ST GEAKE ST S S

GILMOUR ST

BECKWITH ST

HIGH ST

SOUDAN ST CLIFTON GR WILSON ST BRUNSWICK ST

CRAMER ST BALLOAN ST PO2 MAIN ST

SUFFOLK AV

SERVICE ST BELL ST PO3

SUTHERLAND ST

MCKAY ST

LOBB ST

MARY ST

BREARLEY PDE DAVIS ST ST RANGWAY C T T S SHACKELL ST VICTORIA ST

WATERFIELD ST

L KELSON ST

ALICE ST

VINCENT ST E

U NELSON ST

KENDALL ST

WELLINGTON ST

MAYFIELD ST

HUDSON ST MUNRO ST BELLEVUE ST PO1

ROYAL PDE ROSE ST

BRUCE ST PAGE ST

LOUISA ST PRINCES TCE

OBERON ST

YOUNG ST ANKETELL ST KING ST

FRANK ST

WALKER ST

GORDON ST INCA WAY

MCCRORY ST PORTLAND ST

LASCELLES ST STATTERS ST

JAMIESON ST

PRESTON ST LIVERPOOL ST BAXTER ST HUNT ST

PHILLIPS ST BERRY ST SHEFFIELD ST

PO3 GRAFTON ST HATTON GR

RAILWAY PL

DEAKIN ST

BROWN ST

GILBERT ST EWEN ST

PO3 METHVEN ST

ELGIN ST LOCH ST MCPHERSON ST CHANDOS ST

W REYNARD ST I L BENSON ST N L E O E W D DRISHANE ST

ABER

LOCHINVAR ST SOMERVILLE ST G R MARKS ST WOOLACOTT ST MAVIS ST T

S PO3

SHAFTSBURY ST

C LEVER ST WHITE ST T

S T BEN S OLGA ST NY NORMAN ST ALFRED ST L CLARENDON ST S ANE

AUDLEY ST D LINDA ST OR

T A PO1 S W

IRRELACH LANE H WATTLE GR CARRON ST

FLORENCE ST C R A IG PO3 M R CARRINGTON ST O MELVILLE RD S A SIE DEVON AV SELBOURNE ST A R V A DONNE ST N QUEEN ST O A

CR HALL ST HAIG AV

GLENCAIRN AV CAMPBELL ST PO3

CAMERON ST

STATION ST DE CARLE ST FOCH AV WOLSELEY ST MOORE ST JESSIE ST

BAKERS PDE PO2 T

STRATHEARN AV ALLEN ST BLAIR ST

T CR E IRVINE R PO3 R

COOPER ST P

BONAR AV CORAL ST MORELAND RD

FIRST AV

MAT TING SYDNEY RD LEY CR COZENS ST

T SECOND AV

S GARNET ST CORNWALL ST DENMAN ST DAVIES ST APPLE DOWNS ST BY CR

FOURTH AV

C FIFTH AV PEVERIL ST

MURDOCK ST O CASSELS RD

M THIRD AV COLEBROOK ST A CULLODEN JOLLEY ST H

THISTLE ST ST S PO1 DONALD ST CANBERRA ST

PO3 CADMAN ST

TRENOWETH ST

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 11PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

MURRAY RD

QUARRY C C WOIWURUNG CR PO3 T

YOULL SPRING ST CT

M BATEMAN CT

T A R N D C N A M C U O R G N E A I U N F D J M V O A N ORILEY RD A A R A L T B CULLITY WALK M L GREY CT INDUSTRY LANE B Y

C A CT KEWARREN MEA B T DO E W

D R S A H T A D J V IK U K A L

T C P ST C O BA H T SAL T I S LA S NE RD ON WHATMORE DR

S L

R Y

O N N R N P E E V N T O G S R T ID G E WATCHTOWER RD GOFF ST GRASSLAND AV

ADN WALKWARDENS B V D

PO1 BOOTH ST

URQUHART ST PARKLANE MEWS

ELM GR

ELIZABETH ST

ALVA GR BELL ST PO3 KEITH ST

ARMSTEAD AV

BUDDS ST

RODDA ST

YOUNGER ST M ERRIBELL RICHARDS ST AV

LDTN ST GLADSTONE

SALISBURY ST

BELGRAVE ST

EDNA GR HUTCHINSON ST PO3 PO3 PO3 HARDING ST PO3

PARK ST

SHEFFIELD ST

BARROW ST

HATTON GR DAREBIN CITY

CHAMBERS ST FOWLER ST

WALSH ST CARLISLE ST COLE CR PATTERSON ST

COBURG ST

GLENORA AV

BECKLEY ST

HUNTINGTON GR HARDWICK ST

A CROZIER ST

DARLINGTON GR

ROLLS ST

NICHOLSON ST

MILLER ST

FRANKLIN ST

RENNIE ST CATON AV

MUCHELL GR Y

BUTLER GR

CAMPBELL ST GLENGYLE ST

BEAUMONDE KIRKBY ST ST MOORE ST

MILL PL

BLAIR ST

EAST ST

LYGON ST

MORELAND RD PO2

DAVIES ST ST CLARA

GRANT ST

AVOCA ST

DUNSTAN AV

HOLMES ST

PAYNE ST LANARK ST

LINCOLN ST STURROCK ST

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 12PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

T T

T S ALBIO E PO3 N ST R E PO4 V E

L I V

WYALL ST

A Y

X O

M R

A K YARRABIN ST N PO3

L MURRAY ST

L W U PDE

A PO2

NB Y T CT R S U

E G

G G

G U

I D

T CUMMING ST

T BENT ST

HOPE ST

HARRY ST V A

RYECROFT ST R

HENDERSON ST

DALGETY ST

JAMES ST WHITBY ST

VICTORIA ST

PO2

NAPPERBY ST HUNTER ST

COLLINGS ST

TEMPLE ST HOFFMAN ST V

WALKER ST E

M MOONEE OWEN ST VALLEY SMITH ST CITY PASSFIELD ST

MCNAIR LANE

L F E

ALLARD ST C R

DAWSON ST W A R TT R C L C E

VA K L L O L L E O Y E R W B E L RD J O R R H C C

R R

E U M P B O A ONEE O E O

R MOULE ST H

SOUTH DALY ST

JORDAN ST

UNION ST HUDSON GR

WYUNA ST MANICA ST

COHUNA ST ORMOND MINCHA ST RD

GUTHRIE ST

A BRUNSWICK RD

PARK ST

MELBOURNE CITY

LEGEND INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPS Disclaimer 0 225 450 PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2 Municipal Boundary This publication may be of assistance PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3 to you but the State of Victoria and its Meters 1 2 3 4 5 PO4 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 4 employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind Australian Map Grid Zone 55 or is wholly appropriate for your particular 6 7 8 9 purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence N which may arise from you relying on any 10 11 12 information in this publication. Planning Group © The State of Victoria Department of 13 14 15 Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018 Printed: 4/04/2019

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 13PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

PO3

ROPE WALK

P MITCHELL ST

JOLLEY ST

PO3 R

TINNING ST O W

CADMAN ST S

TRENOWETH ST SHAMROCK ST CORNWALL ST COLEBROOK ST GARNET ST E PO2 T ST

THISTLE ST ROSE ST STRANKS AV WARNE ST

PATTERSON ST

ORMOND ST O

WALTERS ST ALBION ST A

GORDON ST SHEFFIELD ST DE CARLE ST ILHAN LANE H T ST I

BISHOP ST A

R HAMILTON ST

DE CARLE LANE

MELVILLE RD W NEWMAN ST MACFARLAND ST LILLIAN ST

S BURNELL ST WILLIAM ST

WALLACE ST E A CROOK ST JONES ST N FLORENCE ST R MACKENZIE ST U L O COOK ST A B R T NEW ST FRASER ST T R S S

E G U PO1 W A HANOVER ST T

T ORIE S NT S

STRAW ST WEST ST

HALL ST

SUTHERLAND ST PEARSON ST ECKERSALL ST Y

E L

L S

E E

N E FREDERICK ST

N R

BRYANT ST B O FORD ST DUCKETT ST C

DAVISON ST

V HOPE ST

OSBORNE ST A STEWART ST

R FERRY CR PO3

A L

T LITTLE BREESE ST S CLIFF ST CURTIS PL L

N Y

E E GREGORY ST WHITBY ST PO3 A L

HOLLOWAY RD W L A LOUISA ST L

Y T

Y E

A S LYLE ST A D

R W

LU N

X FERR

I E

C PO2 R

EDMENDS ST

H HENKEL ST OVENS ST O S

O T BLYTH ST L LANE BALMER ST VICTORIA ST TALBOT ST

ALEXANDER ST BARNINGHAM ST HUNTER S

T PERCY ST

BOASE ST HARRIS ST

TRIPOVICH ST PO3

BENNIE ST PO3 RUSSELL ST HOWARTH ST

DALY ST GARDINER ST

ALBERT ST ROSSER ST LESLIE ST WILKINSON ST LOBB ST SMITH ST PRENTICE ST

SYDNEY RD

FRITH ST

MCIVER ST BEITH ST

HALPIN ST

THOMAS ST

R PO1 A T D

E E T LANE BEZZELL ST E OBRIEN L I S L A

K SISTERS

R N

C L O R KW H N C C I U BR SYME ST O EVANS ST A B PHOENIX ST B

PO3 Y FALLON ST

R E

FITZGIBBON AV DAWSON ST T LAURA ST

BLAIR ST

DAVID ST

FERRIMAN ST

HOWSON ST LYDIA ST

EVELINE ST MUNRO ST SAXON ST

C FODEN ST O L L IE R GRANTHAM ST CR GLENLYON RD BARRY ST

TEAGUE AV

FAY ST CHAPEL ST UNION ST S MERRI ST MICHAEL ST

OGRADY ST S

GARDEN ST E

BRUCE ST N PO3 N BEL R E F D HUDSON DODS ST AS T H

GR T

MEAKER AV

T PO2 T S WALTON ST N

E HARVEY ST

T Y IVY ST C T GOODMAN ST CENTENNIAL AV S I CHARLES ST

N T I N G EDWARD ST I S V

N BELL ST R RAILWAY PL I

ESSEX ST T

MANALLACK ST M

E MAYFIELD AV

T L D

S F R A GOLD ST

W L LITTLE D L L HELLER ST I WILSON ST GO M

WILSON AV WESTON ST

CORONATION ST BAKERY ST

GRAY ST

SPURWAY LANE PO1 HODGSON ST

MCKAY ST BARKLY ST BRUNSWICK RD BLACK ST AMELIA ST PARK ST WATSON ST

MCVEAN ST

DOLLMAN ST

MELBOURNE STRANGER ST CITY

YARRA CITY

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 14PO MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION AMENDMENT C183

T A

S R

G ST

PO2 STURROCK

DONALD ST CLARA ST

MITCHELL ST A

S NUNAN ST CR ISP N AV U

GALADA WAY

HOLMES ST

BARROW ST

LEITHEAD ST

HENTY ST

NORTH ST LATROBE ST

AUSTIN TCE DAREBIN CITY

LYNDHURST CR

INVERNESS ST ALSACE ST

ALBION ST

HARDY ST

EDDY ST O MOUNTFIELD ST

S GLENMORGAN ST I

HOWARD ST

VICTORIA GR

STANLEY ST ASHMORE ST PARKVIEW AV CLARENCE ST PO1 BLADEN AV

KINGFISHER GDNS

T STEWART ST

GRYLLS ST TEMUKA AV

KATAWA GR TIMARU AV

TARANAKI AV

CUNNINGTONAV T DOROTHY ST PO3 PO3

R QUEEN ST

O CHURCH ST

C WAIHI AV

AKEROA AV CARNARVON ST HICKFORD ST ORARI AV

PAREORA AV ERROL AV

LEE ST

LAWRENCE ST

PO1 IVORY WAY BLYTH ST

BELLVUE ST S

T RYAN ST T D ARTH R S U U RT E R ON A D

H R

T E BOURKE ST BRETT ST U V

NASH ST HAMER ST H E A O

L S

I Z ABERDEEN ST ELSIE MEWS

A Y

COLLACE ST

B R PRIMROSE ST

MYRTLE ST E

U T

B H

E ST VICTORIA ST L E

DUKE ST ROBERTS ST

MARKS ST WEIGALL ST

GEORGE ST ANN ST RICHARDSON ST CT

FULTON TRAFFORD ST

GALE ST MAGHULL ST

PO1 SEDGMAN ST KIRKDALE ST CROSS ST

AINTREE ST

U L ALBERT ST

M P EVANS ST A S

LAURA ST FREN CH AV

PITT ST ELM GR LORD ST PEERS ST

LYDIA ST MINNIE ST

LEINSTER GR JARVIE ST PO1 SUMNER ST

LOYOLA AV

DEAKIN ST

HUTCHINSON ST

ETHEL ST

LOWAN ST KING ST METHVEN ST RUPERT ST

NOEL ST GLENLYON RD

BANK ST

GAMBLE ST

RICKARD ST

OCONNOR ST JENKIN ST

ALLAN ST

HORNE ST PO3 LINDEN ST PO3 WARBURTON ST A COC LISTER OA J S ACKSON PIERA ST T LANE LEYDEN ST ARNOLD ST

WHITE ST W PO3 ILLOWBA TAYLOR ST NK DUDLEY ST R D EDWARD ST CLARKE ST PLEASAN CE ST

JOHN ST EWING ST PO1 PO3

LITTLE MILLER ST

IDA ST PO1 WESTON ST T PO3 S LUSCOMBE ST

E ST PHILLIP ST NICHOLSON ST PO3 G

STERLING ST

LOMANDRA WKWY DIANELLA WKWY PO1 Y

L IL R

C BARKLY ST B A

GLEW ST

GIANNARELLI DR PO3 YARRA BRUNSWICK RD CITY PO3 TRUSCOTT ST PO3

CHAMBERS ST

LYGON ST

RATHDOWNE ST CANNING ST

AMESS ST

STATION ST

PARKING OVERLAY MAP No 15PO