moreland parking overlays€¦ · 2014 – 23 july 2014 and also 1 february 2016 and 6 may 2016....
TRANSCRIPT
Mr Chris Coath
Prepared for Moreland City Council
Instructed by Mr Alexander Sheko, Moreland City Council
Hearing Date: 24-25 February 2020 Report Date: 17 February 2020 Moreland City Council
on 14/02/20
Reference: V132702
Issue #: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183
Car Parking Evidence Report
© GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd [ABN 34 137 610 381] 2019
The information contained in this document is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it
has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied
as being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in
whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants
constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property
contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.
GT
A R
ep
ort
(V
IC)
Melbourne | Sydney |
Brisbane
Adelaide | Perth
Moreland Parking Overlays Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183
Car Parking Evidence Report
Client: Moreland City Council
on 14/02/20
Reference: V132702
Issue #: Final
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183
EXPERT WITNESS DETAILS
Name, Position & Business Address
Christopher Andrew Coath
Director, GTA Consultants
Level 25, 55 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000
Qualifications
Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Honours), Monash University, 2002
Memberships and Affiliations:
Engineers Australia, Chartered Professional Engineer (MIEAUST CPEng)
Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA), Member
Experience & Area of Expertise
I have over 18 years of experience in traffic engineering and transport planning in Victoria.
My experience encompasses an extensive range of car parking strategies, land use planning and
design, integrated transport plans, traffic and transport planning, masterplan development, traffic
engineering impact assessments, transport research and expert presentations at VCAT and Panel
hearings.
My work in the preparation of city and town centre parking strategies includes the management of kerb
space to ensure competing activity centre demands (parking, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport
and loading/servicing) are balanced to achieve resource efficiency, urban design, place making and
economic prosperity objectives. His strategy work further includes paid parking and enforcement
strategies and policies.
I have worked with municipalities across Australia with Council’s parking strategy examples including
Footscray (Parking Overlay), Box Hill (Parking Overlay), Broadmeadows, Brunswick, Dandenong CBD,
Doncaster Hill , Liverpool CBD, Newcastle CBD, Fyshwick, Woden, Belconnen, Parliamentary Zone
(ACT), Ipswich, Evandale / Bundall, Kwinana and Rosny Park and Bellerive.
I am a Chartered Professional Engineer with Engineers Australia.
Further details of my experience are provided in Appendix A.
V132702 // 14/02/20
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
INTRODUCTION
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 1
1. INTRODUCTION
01
INTRODUCTION
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 2
1.1. Background
Moreland City Council (“Council”) is currently seeking to incorporate Planning Scheme Amendment
C183 (“the Amendment”) into the Moreland Planning Scheme.
The amendment seeks to give effect to the objectives and strategies contained within the Moreland
Parking Implementation Plan.
More specifically, the Amendment seeks to introduce new schedules to the Parking Overlay located at
Clause 45.09 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. It also proposes to amend existing Schedules to the
Parking Overlay to address elements of the current Schedules to the Parking Overlay which are now
made redundant by the new schedules.
GTA Consultants was commissioned by Moreland City Council in 2017 to prepare an Integrated
Transport Strategy and a Parking Implementation Plan for the City of Moreland which formed the basis
for the proposed Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay.
I was commissioned by Council in January 2020 to prepare and present evidence to the Minister
appointed Planning Panel pertaining to the inclusion of the new Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking
Overlay into the Moreland Planning Scheme.
1.2. Summary of Submissions
As part of the public exhibition of the Amendment C183, a number of submissions were received with a
mix of support and opposition to the proposal. These submissions included responses related to a mix
of topics covering planning matters associated with the overarching Parking Implementation Plan,
along with responses directly relating to the proposed Parking Overlays. It is noted that submissions
were also received in regard to the general consultation process of the Moreland Integrated Transport
Strategy and the Parking Implementation Plan. These are not addressed within this evidence with
consideration only provided to parking specific matters.
The submissions in opposition to the proposal relating to parking matters are summarised as follows:
• The proposed changes to minimum parking requirements in Activity Centres and Neighbourhood
Centres may result in the potential for new developments to contain limited parking resulting in a
parking overspill onto residential streets.
• Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for existing residents
and their visitors.
• Extended on-street parking restrictions will limit access to on-street parking for staff of existing
businesses.
• Council’s proposed parking permit policy will be too restrictive and limit residents from owning
multiple permits.
• Concerns about human rights impacts of parking changes in particular, that parking
recommendations will result in people with diverse needs (e.g. elderly, females, mobility impaired
and shift workers) losing their ability to access the community freely.
The above submission topics have been addressed throughout the following evidence report and are
specifically addressed within Section 6 of this report.
INTRODUCTION
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 3
1.3. Instructions & Scope of Report
Prior to preparing this evidence report I was briefed by Mr Alexander Sheko of Moreland City Council
who provided the following instructions:
1. Review materials provided to my office relating to Amendment C183
2. Prepare an expert evidence report which:
o summarises the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan and proposed Parking Overlay (and
associated schedules)
o addresses and responds to third party submissions relating to car parking matters .
3. Appear at the hearing of the Panel for Amendment C183 to present expert evidence.
1.4. References
In preparing this evidence, reference has been made to the following:
• Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, prepared by GTA Consultants, March 2019
• Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, prepared by GTA Consultants, March 2019
• Moreland City Council, Draft Schedule 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay and associated
amendment maps
• Victorians Planning Provisions, Practice Note PN57 – The Parking Overlay, April 2013
• Moreland Planning Scheme
• Third Party Submissions lodged in respect of Amendment C183
• Moreland Activity Centre Framework, prepared by Echelon Planning, February 2014
• Caydon Cremorne No. 1 Development Pty Ltd v Yarra City Council (VCAT Ref: P1969/2015)
• C.J. Gabbe, Gregory Pierce, Gordon Clowers “Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum
parking requirements in Seattle” 2019
• Other documents as nominated within this report
PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 4
2. PARKING OVERLAY
CONTEXT
02
PARKING OVERLAY CONTEXT
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 5
2.1. Overview
Before considering the detail of the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan and the proposed
Schedules to the Parking Overlay it is important to understand the context and relationship b etween
the Parking Implementation Plan and the Parking Overlay.
In this regard Victorian Planning Provisions Practice Note PN57 identifies:
“Clause 45.09: Parking overlay enables councils to response to local car parking issues and can be
used to outline local variations to the standard requirements in Clause 52.06. These variations can
apply to the entire municipality or a smaller precinct.”
A Parking Plan (or Parking Implementation Plan in this case) forms the first step in preparing a parking
overlay. It considers car parking needs and issues and sets out what car parking objectives a council
wishes to achieve and how it will achieve them.
Once prepared, a car parking plan can provide the basis for, and be implemented by, a Parking
Overlay.
Figure 2.1, reproduced from Practice Note 57, identifies in graphical form the relationship between a
Parking Plan and the Overlay.
Figure 2.1: Car Parking Plan and Parking Overlay Relationship
As identified in Figure 2.1, not all outcomes of the Parking Plan necessitate incorporation into the
Planning Scheme in order to be implemented. As such, this evidence focuses on the items that apply to
the parking overlay. It is however acknowledged that some other items, not requiring planning scheme
implementation (such as on-street parking time restrictions) may be required to support the parking
overlay elements and as such are discussed, as required, as part of this report.
MORELAND INTERGRATED
TRANSPORT STRATEGY
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 6
3. MORELAND INTERGRATED
TRANSPORT STRATEGY
03
MORELAND INTERGRATED
TRANSPORT STRATEGY
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 7
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.
MORELAND INTERGRATED
TRANSPORT STRATEGY
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 8
Table 3.1: MITS Mode Share Targets
Measure Current Target
Journey to Work (north) Car as driver: 65.4% Car as driver: 40%
Journey to Work (south) Car as driver: 43.4% Car as driver: 20%
Journey to Education Car as passenger: 37.8% Car as passenger: 20%
A summary of the key directions of the Strategy to assist in delivering the above targets are as follows:
Smarter Parking Management:
• Permitting less parking in new developments to allow people to choose a lower level of parking to
suit their needs
• Expanding parking restrictions to protect local streets from changes to parking requirements in
new development
• Using paid parking in some areas for all-day parking
• Expanding the number of accessible (disabled) parking bays.
Relocating Road Space:
• Reallocating space from cars and car parking to walking, cycling and public transport
• Reallocating space for greener, more pleasant streets.
Advocating for better public transport:
• Advocate for more frequent buses and trains
• Advocate for more reliable buses, trams and trains
• Advocate for public transport that is accessible for people of all abilities .
Creating safer, quieter street
• Creating more pedestrian crossings
• Continue to roll out 40km/h limits on all local roads
• Reduce speed limits on arterial roads near places like schools, hospitals and activity centres
• Conduct a 12-month trial of 30km/h limits in selected areas
• Close some local roads to through traffic.
Fostering partnerships for sustainable transport:
• Work with schools to support walking and cycling
• Work with communities to support behaviour change
• Work with traders and businesses to improve loading and deliveries.
The key directions identify that a suite of actions are proposed to both encourage sustainable and
active transport use along with discouraging private car use. It is also important to note that car
parking is identified to take an important role in achieving the transport ob jectives of the MITS.
MORELAND INTERGRATED
TRANSPORT STRATEGY
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 9
3.3. The Role of Parking
Parking plays an instrumental role in supporting broader transport and land use strategies. Parking
policies can have both a direct and indirect impact on the ability to achieve the identified transport
objectives and strategies. The supply of parking at trip origins and destinations is a strong driver of
mode choice.
An example of this self-reinforcing relationship between land use and transport is the correlation
between density and car ownership depicted below, with higher density areas of Moreland exhibiting
lower car ownership and use.
Figure 3.1: Car Ownership and Car Use Relationship
Source: Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy
It is, however, recognised that sometimes parking is required in cases where people have special
needs. For example, to provide access for young families or people with mobility impairment to access
the community. Therefore, parking should be prioritised for people who truly need it. In doing so, it is
still possible to discourage car use and contribute to a shift towards sustainable transport modes while
catering to people who most need to drive.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 10
4. MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
04
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 11
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
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 12
Figure 4.1: Moreland Activity Centres
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 13
The activity centres were also considered having regard to their accessibility to transport modes other
than the private car (specifically public transport). This provided an opportunity to understand if
significant different access conditions existed which could alter the group ing of centres from their
defined activity centre classification. This assessment is shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Activity Centre Assessment Matrix
As defined by the Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Plan Melbourne, the role of Activity Centre is to
‘provide access to a wide range of goods and services in centres that are planned and managed by
local government. The centres will have jobs and vibrant local economies. Some will serve larger sub-
regional catchments. The Moreland Activity Centre Framework2 states that the Coburg, Brunswick and
Glenroy Activity Centres fit into this classification with a majority of floorspace growth being expected
to occur in these Activity Centres (excluding bulky goods).
With respect of access, the Moreland Activity Centre Framework identifies the following:
• “All households in Moreland are located within walking distance of an activity centre of one type or
another (be it a Principal, Major, Neighbourhood or Local Activity Centre (LAC)).
• The majority of households have local access (i.e. within less than 1km) to an activity centre that
meets their weekly convenience retailing and community service needs (i .e. a neighbourhood
activity centre or a larger centre).
2 Reference: Moreland Activity Centre Framework Report 1 – February 2014
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 14
• Neighbourhood Activity Centres are accessible to residents by multiple modes - walking, cycling,
public transport and private vehicle.”
Having regard to the identified accessibility of the centres and roles of the centres both now and in the
future it was considered most appropriate to continue to group the centres by centre classification
when developing parking strategies. In doing so it is recognised that adequate flexibility may need to
be considered in parking management approaches to allow responses to local circumstances.
It is noted that the greatest variance in accessibility exists across the Local Centre category. These
centres are however expected to experience the least change over the lifespan of the Parking
Implementation Plan and as such it is considered appropriate that these centres remain as a single
grouping.
Further discussion relating to the activity centres is provided within the Parking Implementation Plan.
4.4. Recommendations Relating to the Parking Overlay
4.4.1. Setting Car Parking Provision Requirements
The setting of car parking rates for new development identifies car parking requirements for each of
the three activity centre types identified earlier; activity centre, neighbourhood centre and local centre.
As is demonstrated in Figure 3.1, the correlation between car ownership and car use highlights the
importance and alignment of parking provision policy in order to assist in achieving the mode shift
targets identified by the MITS.
At a fundamental level the setting of car parking rates has acknowledged that adopting a status quo
approach is unlikely to assist in delivering the mode shift targets that are being sought by the MITS. A
‘step change’ is required to the way in which car parking is provided.
However, such a change must also be balanced by the differing needs of activity centres across the
municipality. As such a mixture of maximum rates and reduced minimum rate approaches have been
recommended as identified in the following.
It is noted that neither of these approaches alter the supply of existing parking serving the activity
centre. It must therefore be recognised that the setting of parking provision requirements will only act
to influence vehicle trips and parking associated with new development in the municipality. Other
parking management measures are required to be considered and adopted to influence a reduction of
car use by existing users.
Car Parking Rate Requirements for Activity Centres
Recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan and Parking Overlay:
• Minimum parking provision requirements be removed and replaced with the imposing o f a
maximum car parking provision approach.
• The maximum car parking provision requirement is recommended to be set at the point of Column
B (the current minimum requirements) for these areas, to allow for flexibility across each centre
for the market to respond accordingly and provide parking as needed.
• Adopt a series of decision guidelines to supplement the maximum provision requirements to allow
for the consideration (by way of planning permit application) of higher car parking rates, should
suitable justification be available.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 15
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.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 16
Table 4.1: ABS Car Ownership (Based generally on suburbs where Activity Centres exist)
Suburb Average Car Ownership
(vehicles per dwelling)
Percentage of Dwellings that Do
Not Own a Car
Brunswick 1.13 22%
Brunswick East 1.12 20%
Brunswick West 1.23 18%
Coburg 1.42 13%
Glenroy 1.51 11%
This data identifies that there is clearly a market across these suburbs for dwellings without car parking
spaces. Such a market is expected to be more concentrated within the Activity Centre areas and
within higher density developments which would be expected to represent the majority of future
development typology. The data does however also suggest that there is a desired level of car
ownership, which could to an extent be expected to continue in the future. Overall the average car
ownership levels would be expected to reduce with a maximum rate approach limiting the ability for
new residents in one or two-bedroom dwellings to own multiple vehicles.
Richmond Malt site, Cremorne (VCAT Ref: P1969/2015)
The Richmond Malt site in Cremorne was subject to parking controls as part of a Development Plan
Overlay identifying minimum parking requirements for residential dwellings.
The development sought to provide residential parking at a rate below the statutory requirements
(consistent with ABS Census car ownership data) and subsequently required a permit to reduce
parking below the minimum requirements:
• 0.81 spaces to each one-bedroom dwelling
• 1.15 spaces to each two-bedroom dwelling
• 1.43 spaces to each three-bedroom dwelling
• On average this equated to an average of 0.92 spaces per dwelling across the overall
development.
These rates were considered by the developer to reflect a feasible development mix of parking
provision.
The responsible authority and its consultant (and subsequently adopted by VCAT) took a differing view
requiring the provision of parking at the following rates:
• 0.5 spaces to each one-bedroom apartment
• 0.7 spaces to each two-bedroom apartment
• 1 space to each three-bedroom apartment.
This highlights that developers do not necessarily always adopt, as a matter of course, the lowest
parking provision option rather have due regard to the market needs, even when lower options are
available to them.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 17
Having regard to the similar nature of car ownership characteristics between the Cremorne area and
areas of Coburg and Glenroy, similar outcomes could reasonably be expected which seek to adopt
reduced parking provisions which are reflective of market needs.
The adoption of a maximum rate in Moreland Activity centres will however assist to limit any over
provision of parking, particularly as it relates to the provision of second car spaces in one or two -
bedroom dwellings.
Melbourne City Council
The City of Melbourne “Transport Strategy Discussion Paper – Car Parking” identifies that:
“New apartments typically include a parking space. Residential parking spaces outnumber vehicles
owned by 40 per cent. Surveys in Southbank and West Melbourne have revealed that between 26 and
41 per cent of private parking spaces are empty. Many people are paying for a space that they do not
want or need. This adds to the high cost of housing and undermines the quality of the street. ”
This highlights that while historically developers have sought to adopt reduced parking provisions they
have not necessarily sought to adopt a zero car parking provision in areas where the opt ion is available
to them and could be justified.
Applying this logic to Moreland, if developers are willing to provide parking, which is ultimately going
un-used, as part of developments within the City of Melbourne where accessibility to alternate
transport options are greater than areas of Moreland, a level of confidence could exist that an
appropriate market driven approach is likely to occur within activity centres of Moreland.
Seattle Parking Reforms
In a similar manner to the research undertaken by the City of Melbourne, significant research has been
undertaken in Seattle, USA to understand the parking response to the removal of minimum parking
requirements. In this respect Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3 are provided below which highlight that where a
zero requirement for parking existed, only 30% (approx.) of developers provided no parking with a
majority providing parking at a higher rate.
The analysis goes on to conclude that many or most developers will respond to parking reforms, and
provide lesser amounts of parking however at a level that better match market demand, particularly if
they are focused in neighbourhoods with good walkability and transit options.
While recognising that differences between Seattle and Moreland exist the principles continue to apply
that appropriate market driven responses are likely to occur within activity centres of Moreland under
an adopted maximum parking provision requirement as proposed, that will not necessarily as a whole
result in a zero parking provision.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 18
Figure 4.3: Seattle Residential Parking Response
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 19
Table 4.2: Relationship Between Minimum Parking Required and Parking Provided
Minimum
parking
requirement
(spaces per
unit)
Building
in sample
Average
parking
ratio
% of
building
that exactly
met
requirement
Provided <
0.5spaces /
unit above
requirement
Provided 0.5 –
1.0 spaces / unit
above
requirement
Provided > 1.0
spaces / unit
above
requirement
0 570 0.49 29.5% 24.2% 39.0% 7.4%
0.5 130 0.91 11.5% 76.2% 6.9% 5.4%
1 168 1.12 67.9% 20.2% 11.9% 0.0%
All 868 0.68 34.2% 31.2% 28.9% 5.7%
Source: C.J. Gabbe, Gregory Pierce, Gordon Clowers “Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum parking requirements in Seattle” 2019
Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre
A recent review of the Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre Parking Overlay (which within the Inner
Core adopts a maximum and minimum parking provision requirement) which I have undertaken
identified that developers are seeking to provide parking provisions below the maximum rate,
highlighting the effectiveness of a maximum rate approach in achieving reduced parking provisions and
in turn contributing to mode shift away from private car travel.
Fishermans Bend
As referenced within the Parking Implementation Plan, GTA Consultants experience in working with
private development within areas of maximum requirements (in particular the Melbourne City Council
Capital City Zone and Fisherman’s Bend) is that a zero parking response is not the automatic response
or norm. Evidence from Fisherman’s Bend, suggests that the market is delivering around 0.7 spaces
per apartment. This also demonstrates that a reduced parking provision is likely to the maximum rate.
These above examples importantly demonstrate both that reduced car parking provisions can be
achieved by a maximum rate approach but also that the automatic response of development is not to
provide zero parking. As such the proposed maximum parking provision requirement is considered to
be an appropriate tool in seeking to achieve mode shift as desired by the MITS but also providing the
flexibility for the market to respond to local conditions of each of the centres.
The adoption of on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are however also important to ensure that
where lower development car parking provisions are being adopted that this is reflected in the use of
alternate modes of transport rather than the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.
Such parking restrictions could be considered on an as needs basis as development growth occurs or
introduced proactively. It would be my recommendation that a proactive approach be adopted by
Council to ensure that developers are aware of the constraints of the area and must plan and build new
developments knowing that on-street parking will not be available for future occupants. This will ensure
that developers must make an assessment of the market (residential or commercial) as to whether on-
site parking is essential in order to sell the property.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 20
This approach also highlights to residential or commercial property buyers (or renters) the constraints of
the area and therefore will buyers not be purchasing a development with an expectation that they can
park on-street for extended periods of time.
In this regard it is my understanding that Council is adopting a proactive approach to the introduction of
further parking controls around the activity centres.
This is including in general terms the role out of extended parking restrictions and altered permit parking
eligibility as identified within the Parking Implementation Plan. Further refinements have also been
adopted by Council to respond to local concerns received during consultation and exhibition periods.
These specific changes and my review of their suitability is provided within Section 4.5.2 of this report.
Ultimately flexibility exists for Council as to how such restrictions could be implemented and the extent
of implementation (e.g. area, length of time etc.). While it is noted that the Parking Implementation
Plan provides recommendations with respect of the generic introduction of increased parking controls
to support a maximum parking provision policy the flexibility available to Council is highlighted by the
recent refinements being considered by Council to respond to local characteristics and needs.
These parking management controls while used in this instance to support a maximum parking
provision approach are implemented and managed outside of the Parking Overlay setting.
Car Parking Rate Requirements for Neighbourhood Centres
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.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 21
The proposed reduced minimum provision (20% of Column B rates) is supported by a comparison of
Moreland and Metropolitan Melbourne data as presented within the Parking Implementation Plan
(Table 6.4) which is reproduced below, which indicates that Moreland has a 10% to 20% reduction in
car use / demand when compared to Metropolitan Melbourne.
Table 4.3: Percentage Comparison of Car Demand between Metropolitan Melbourne and Moreland
Data Source Moreland Metropolitan Melbourne Comparison
ABS Journey to Work Car driver – 55% Car driver – 70% 22%
Vista Total Trips Car drover – 46% Car driver – 52% 11%
ABS Car Ownership Vehicles per dwelling –
1.40
Vehicles per dwelling –
1.69 17%
Average difference 10% to 20%
As such given Column B provision requirements apply across Metropolitan Melbourne (where activated
by the PPTN), it could be considered reasonable that a reduction to these requirements by 10 to 20%
could be applied to better reflect travel characteristics within Moreland and set an appropriate
‘baseline’ for the consideration of parking provision in Neighbourhood Centres. Having further regard
to the aspirational targets of increasing mode shift to sustainable transport modes it would be right to
adopt the higher of the potential reductions being in the order of 20%.
Further consideration has been given to Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Car Ownership Data
(2016) across the municipality as presented within Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: ABS Car Ownership (All Moreland suburbs)
Suburb Average Car Ownership
(vehicles per dwelling)
Percentage of Dwellings that Do
Not Own a Car
Brunswick 1.13 22%
Brunswick East 1.12 20%
Brunswick West 1.23 18%
Coburg 1.42 13%
Glenroy 1.51 11%
Coburg North 1.46 12%
Fawkner 1.55 12%
Gowanbrae 1.91 2%
Hadfield 1.59 10%
Pascoe Vale 1.54 9%
Pascoe Vale South 1.71 7%
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 22
This data identifies that there is a ‘market’ across the suburbs for dwellings without car parking spaces.
Such a market is expected to be more concentrated within the Activity Centre and Neighbourhood
Centre areas (compared with residential hinterland areas) and within higher density developments
which would be expected to represent the majority of future development typology. Therefore, higher
levels of dwellings not owning a car could be reasonably expected within the Activity Centres and
Neighbourhood Centres than is identified by the presented data.
Again, having regard to the mode shift aspirations of the MITS, it would be reasonable to set targets at
the higher end of the presented range.
A reduction at the higher end of these ranges is also consistent with previous parking strategies for
Coburg and Brunswick which suggested a reduction to the Column B requirements in the order of 20%
could be applied in order to achieve aspirations of mode shift. While Neighbourhood Centres may not
traditionally have the same access to alternate transport and density of uses as the Activity Centres of
Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy, the adoption of lower minimum provisions is still required to create
overall transport change.
It is recognised that variations in the above comparisons would exist across the municipality. However,
when considering the smaller catchment of these centres5 which increases the ability for these centres
to be accessed by active transport modes along with the aspiration to achieve mode shift away from
private car use, a new baseline of a 20% reduction below Column B rates is considered appropriate for
parking provision in Neighbourhood Centres.
The reduced minimum provision still allows the market to respond and provide parking at higher rates if
considered necessary, however it would be desirable in achieving mode shift targets for parking not to
be provided at higher rates as this would be expected to induce car travel.
However, it must be recognised that in some instances unconstrained parking demands may be higher
than the proposed reduced parking provision requirement. In such instance, parking may be
generated which seeks to rely on on-street parking supplies rather than adopting alternate transport
modes.
Having regard to the increase of retail floor space across Neighbour Centres as identified within the
Moreland Activity Centre Framework, such overspill would not be expected to exceed a maximum of
12 spaces6 within each activity centre, and in many instances such a level of overspill would not be
expected at all. Such a level of parking overspill would generally be expected to be able to be
accommodated within the existing parking supplies of these centres and would not result in an
significant adverse impact the function or amenity of these areas or surrounds.
Notwithstanding, Council is in control the of setting of on-street parking restrictions which could be
refined to manage parking overspill and ensure that parking user priorities are managed in accordance
with Council’s Parking Management Policy.
5 Catchment identified by the Moreland Activity Centre Framework to be in the order of 1km, along with opportuni ty for
increased residential catchment / growth within 400m of the centre. 6 Overspill calculated based: on 20% of the Column B shop parking rate of 3.5 spaces per 100sqm multiplied by the
20,000sqm (approx.) of future retail floor space growth (assuming all forecast Neighbourhood Centre retail floor space
growth between 2011 to 2026, identified in the Moreland Activity Centre Framework, 2014, is yet to occur) divided by 12
Neighbourhood Centres.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 23
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.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 24
Discussion
Cars typically spend 95 per cent of their life unused, representing a very inefficient use of space and
resources. Car share provides convenient access to a car for trips where a lternative modes are not a
viable option. Some service providers estimate that one share car can replace up to 15 private
vehicles, significantly reducing the space required to store private cars and reducing the costs of
purchasing and operating a car for a number of would-be owners.7
An approach of supporting a greater roll-out of share cars can assist to further support maximum and
reduced car parking provision requirements.
4.5. Recommendations Relating to Other Parking Matters
4.5.1. Reallocating Space for Movement, Safety and Place
Recommendation of the Parking Implementation Plan:
• Parking could be considered for removal when it provides an overall benefit to :
o the sustainable movement of people
o safety
o the creation of ‘places’.
Discussion
The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy identifies that change will be required to the way that
space is allocated within Moreland to facilitate improvements to sustainable modes on the road
network, improve safety of those using the road network and creating places for people to dwell and
experience the centres and neighbourhood.
Parking is part of this mix of space and as such is may be impacted in delivering such outcomes.
While most parking across the wider Moreland area would be expected to be retained, these actions
may require some parking to be reallocated to sustainable transport, improving safety of active
transport modes and the creation of better places within Moreland.
While the conversation needs to occur with individual communities to be impacted by any such
removals of parking, as a general rule, parking demands are not constrained across the municipality
such that the removal of parking at key locations cannot be tolerated and absorbed by the surrounding
area.
4.5.2. Access to On-Street Parking (Parking Restrictions and Parking Permits)
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
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 25
• 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.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 26
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)
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 27
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.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 28
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.
MORELAND PARKING AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 29
A DCP already exists within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In the short term, it is recommended that
Council could investigate the possibility of including sustainable transport improvements in the current
DCP, such as through substituting them for similar projects within the same charge areas. In the
medium term, the next DCP (planned for update in 2023 – 2024) could have a stronger focus on
funding sustainable transport improvements, including through charging higher contribution rates,
given the current rates are relatively low.
A DCP mechanism would sit outside of the Parking Overlay
PARKING OVERLAY
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 30
5. PARKING OVERLAY
5.1. Overview
The Parking Overlay has been prepared and has implemented, as appropriate, the key findings of the
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 having regard to the Victorian Planning Provisions
Practice Note PN57 – The Parking Overlay.
The overlay specifies three schedules to the Parking Overlay relating to the areas referred to earlier
within this evidence and within the Parking Implementation Plan.
Specifically, the Parking Overlay introduces the following changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme:
• Proposed Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay: For the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity
Centres, remove minimum parking requirements for all land uses, and introduce a maximum
parking rate (above which a permit is required).
• Proposed Schedule 2 to the Parking Overlay: For the Neighbourhood Centres, reduced minimum
parking requirements (20% of Column B requirements).
• Proposed Schedule 3 to the Parking Overlay: For the Local Centres, reduced minimum parking
requirements (Column B requirements).
• For the above areas, additional decision guidelines and requirements for car parking plans.
The proposed Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay, Schedule 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay and
associated planning maps are included in Appendix D for information purposes.
5.2. Other Matters
It is also understood that administrative adjustments to Schedule 4 to the Park ing Overlay (currently
Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay within the Moreland Planning Scheme) are being proposed by
Council to ensure that areas previously identified within the municipal wide Parking Overlay (applying
to the Mixed Use Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 2 Zone and Activity
Centre Zone) which do not strictly fall within the designated Activity Centres, Neighbourhood Centres
or Local Centre boundaries remain to reference the Column B rate of the Table to Clause 52.06 of the
Moreland Planning Scheme.
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 31
6. RESPONSE TO
SUBMISSIONS
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 32
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.
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 33
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.
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 34
Topic 4: Council’s proposed parking permit policy will be too restrictive and limit residents from owning
multiple permits.
Discussion regarding the limitation and altered access to parking permits is set out within Section 4.5.2
of this report. Key aspects of this discussion are summarised below in order to specifically respond to
this issue:
• The review of charges associated with parking permits seeks to pursue the directions of the MITS
to charge more fairly for the use of road space to store private vehicles and encourage reductions
in car ownership and car use, which are required in order to achieve the earlier identified mode
shift targets.
• The adoption of tighter on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are an important tool to
mitigate against parking spilling over onto the local network. This will ensure that in the context of
lower development car parking provisions being adopted, alternate modes of transport are uti lised
rather than the simple relocation of parking demands to on-street.
• Recent modifications to the proposed parking permit eligibility will be advantageous to existing
residents and workers with respect of access to on-street parking, while continuing to protect the
area from future parking intrusion noting the following:
o Changes made by Council to permit eligibility will generally resolve many of the issues raised
by submitters who had concerns with the proposed eligibility for parking permits.
o These changes seek to further prioritise the availability of parking for those members of the
community who need it most and have a lesser ability to use active or public transport modes
of travel.
o These changes however still retain the messaging of seeking mode shift by applying a price
to residents and businesses to park on-street and therefore seeking to encourage the
consideration of whether car ownership or use is required.
Topic 5: Concerns about human rights impacts of parking changes in particular, that parking
recommendations will result in people with diverse needs (e.g. elderly, females, mobility impaired and
shift workers) losing their ability to access the community freely.
A number of submissions raised concerns that the proposed Amendment and the actions contained
within the Parking Implementation Plan are contrary to the following Human Rights policies:
• Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)
• Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth)
• Equal Opportunities Act 2010 (Vic)
Generally, the submissions raised were regarding the potential barriers the Amendment or proposed
adjustments to parking restrictions could have to the life opportunities of people with a disability,
elderly as well as their family members, carers and friends.
To clarify the policy context of how MITS and the Parking Implementation Plan was developed, I have
reproduced the below policy discussion from MITS.
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 35
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.
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 36
As stated earlier, the adoption of tighter on-street parking controls and permit eligibility are an
important tool to mitigate against parking spilling over onto the local network and protect parking
availability for those who need it (i.e. people with disabilities and elderly).
In addition, when setting parking restrictions, it remains within Council’s control to be able to adopt
variations to parking restrictions to reflect specific local context needs.
As discussed in Section 4.5.2, recommendations of the Parking Implementation Plan include
adjustments to Parking Permits to ensure parking is available for people who need it (i.e. people with
disabilities, elderly, carers etc.). The intent of the reviewed fee structures expand on the concession
discounts (relating to parking permits) to address social equity concerns.
In summary I am of the opinion that the recommendations within the Parking Implementation Plan have
been developed to support an equitable Moreland. The recommendations also seek to protect parking
for people who genuinely need it to access their community (i.e. people with disabilities, the elderly and
carers).
SUMMARY OF OPINION AND
OTHER STATEMENTS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C183 37
7. SUMMARY OF OPINION AND
OTHER STATEMENTS
7.1. Summary of Opinion
Given the analysis and discussions contained within this evidence and the supporting documentation, it
is recommended that Schedule 1, 2 and 3 to the Parking Overlay, be supported and incorporated into
the Moreland Planning Scheme.
It is recommended that amendments to Schedule 4 to the Parking Overlay also be supported as
discussed in Section 5.2 of this evidence.
7.2. Declaration
I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of
significance that I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.
____________________
Chris Coath
Director
14 February 2020
APPENDIX: CURRICULUM VITAE
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 A-1
A. CURRICULUM VITAE
A
1 Chris Coath Resume 2019
CHRIS COATH Director
BE (Hons), Civil, Monash University 2002 MIEAust, CPEng, NER, APEC Engineer, IntPE(Aus), Engineers Australia
MY STORY I am a Director of GTA Consultants with over 17 years ’ professional experience at GTA Consultants. My breadth of knowledge covers the transport planning spectrum and includes experience working for the public and private sector across all states of Australia (and beyond).
A focus of my work is preparing city strategies which ensure competing activity centre and precinct transport demands (parking, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and loading/servicing) are balanced to achieve human-centred outcomes which consider resource efficiency, urban design, place-making and economic prosperity objectives.
Most specifically I have developed specialist knowledge of all facets of parking systems and have a passion for the creation of best-practice parking strategies and policies which respond to and shape the needs of current and future drivers.
My contribution to the transport industry includes regular research, paper preparations, conference attendance and contributions to transport text book publications. As a leader in the field I present expert testimony on transport and parking matters before Planning Tribunals and Planning Panels.
‘Creating transport solutions with a human-centred focus to deliver resource efficiency, urban design, place-making and economic prosperity outcomes’
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE SKILLS & EXPERTISE Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy and Policy Role: Project Lead and Director Development and implementation of car parking strategies to manage existing and future car parking resources within activity centres, modelling of future car parking demands and creation of new planning policies.
• Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre Parking Strategy, Vic • Footscray Central Activities Area Parking Study, Vic • Brunswick Major Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy, Vic • Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Parking Schemes, Qld • Rosny Park and Bellerive Parking Asset Management Strategy, Tas • Newcastle Parking Strategy, NSW • Woden, Mawson and Belconnen Parking Strategies, ACT • Bendigo CBD Parking Precinct Plan, Vic
Campus Planning and Strategy Role: Project Director and Manager Development of integrated transport and parking strategies for campuses and precincts . These have included transport planning and analysis, multi modal needs, parking strategies, logistics planning, loading and design.
• Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre and South Wharf Precinct, Vic • Melbourne Arts Precinct including Arts Centre Melbourne, Melbourne Recital Centre and
Melbourne Theatre Company, Vic • Melbourne Park Stage 3 Logistic Hub, Vic • Monash University, Vic • Deakin University, Vic • University of Canberra, ACT • Parliamentary Zone and Surrounds, ACT • Latrobe Regional Hospital, Vic • The Malt District, Vic
• CBD and Town Centre Strategies and Policies • Campus Planning and Strategies • Pay Parking Technology • Parking Detection and Directional Systems • Resident Permit Systems • Parking Management Plans • Economic Impacts of Parking • Modelling of Existing and Future Parking
Demands • Modelling of Paid Parking Systems (Revenue
and Cost) • Establishment of Appropriate Development
Parking Rates • Parking Enforcement Operations • Car Parking Design • Car Parking Signage and Line marking (incl.
Electronic Variable Message Signage)
MEMBERSHIPS AND
AFFILIATIONS Member of Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust)
Member of Transport Australia society (TAs)
Member of Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA)
2 Chris Coath Resume 2019
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS “Car Parking: Human Centred”, AITPM National Conference 2018, Chris Coath & Ali Yousif
“Activity Centre Planning – Parking Precinct Stations”, AITPM National Conference 2017, Chris Coath & Will Fooks
“Parking Limitation Policies – The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel Modes”, AITPM National Conference 2016, Chris Coath & Alexander Sheko
“Traffic and Parking Assessments”, Planning Institute of Australia, PLANET Course, 2012-2017
“Parking Overlay – Setting a New Base”, AITPM Technical Seminar, July 2012, Chris Coath
“Car Parking Strategy”, RMIT, Integrated Transport Planning Lecture 2014, Chris Coath
“Expert Reports: What to Look For”, VPELA Young Professionals Development Series 2015, Chris Coath
“Parking: A Basis or Burden to Liveable and Accessible Communities”, AITPM National Conference 2011, Chris Coath
Paid Parking and Technology Role: Project Director Development of paid parking strategies for Local Government and private sector clients including consideration of pricing strategies, technology applications, demand elasticities, revenue generation and cash flow modelling. This included providing strategic direction and leadership including facilitation of Council Executive and Councillor workshops.
Locations have included:
• Ku-ring-gai City Council, NSW • Liverpool City Centre, NSW • Coburg Major Activity Centre, Vic • University of Canberra, ACT • Evandale and Bundall, Qld • Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, Vic • Torquay, Vic • Bangkok Intelligent Parking System Study, Thailand • Moreland City Council, Vic • Crown Casino Car Parking Management Plan and Car Parking Automation Control, Vic • Melbourne City Council Parking Meter and Pay Parking Policy, Vic
Parking Policy Reviews and Research Role: Project Lead Creation of policy and management strategies to manage specific user group needs and priorities.
• Gold Coast City Council Permit Parking Review, Qld • City of Yarra Permit Parking Scheme, Vic • Review of Parking Enforcement Camera Operations for the City Maribyrnong, Vic • Carlton Parking and Access Strategy, Vic
Master Planning and Structure Planning Role: Project Director Creation of transport outcomes for areas with a focus on multi -modal access, enhancing sustainable outcomes and integration with industry experts to achieve a holistic urban planning response.
• Keystone Business Park, Armstrong Creek, Vic • Victoria Street East and Doonside Street Precinct, Priority Development Panel, Vic • Bacchus Marsh Structure Plan, Vic • Swan Street Structure Plan, Vic • Woden Town Centre Transport Master Planning, ACT
APPENDIX: MORELAND PARKING
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 B-2
B. MORELAND PARKING
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
B
v
© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (Vic) Pty Ltd) 2018
The information contained in this document is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has
been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as
being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in
whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants
constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property
contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.
Melbourne | Sydney | Brisbane
Canberra | Adelaide | Perth
Gold Coast | Townsville
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019
Issue: A 25/2/19
Client: Moreland City Council
Reference: V132700
GTA Consultants Office: Vic
Quality Record
Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed
A 25/2/19 Final – for Council
endorsement Saskia Noakes Chris Coath Chris Coath
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
Background 4
Purpose 4
Structure 5
Car Parking Implementation Plan Approach 5
Response to Consultation 6
How Parking Delivers the Vision 8
The Role of Parking 8
The Cost of Parking 9
Current Parking Policy Approach 11
Current Transport Policy Overview 11
Parking in the Planning Scheme 11
Moreland Parking Management Policy (2018) 13
Business as usual is not an option 14
Activity Centres in Moreland 15
Accessibility 17
Areas for Focus 18
Delivering the Vision through Parking 21
Directions in MITS 21
Key Parking Topics 22
Managing Parking in Moreland 24
Establishing appropriate parking rates for new development 24
Reallocation of road space and existing car parking 33
Better manage parking resources 34
Statutory Implementation 40
Overview 40
Preparing a Parking Overlay 40
Preparing a Development Contributions Plan 41
V132700 // 25/2/19
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 1
Executive Summary
The overarching vision for the City of Moreland, as set out in the Moreland Council Plan 2017-
2021, is:
‘Moreland will be known for its proud diversity, and for being a connected, progressive and
sustainable city in which to live, work and play’.
Leading on from this, the transport vision for Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) is:
Connecting the City of Moreland through a transport system that is diverse, progressive and
sustainable’,
MITS is a comprehensive transport strategy which addresses five core objectives to achieve the
above overarching vision.
1) A Liveable Moreland
2) A Sustainable Moreland
3) A Moreland that is Safe and Healthy
4) A Moreland that is Accessible and Equitable for all
5) A Prosperous Moreland.
The MITS addresses how to achieve and supplement these objectives from an overarching
transport perspective.
The purpose of the Parking Implementation Plan is to provide further detail on car parking related
actions in the MITS, both to provide strong justification for these changes and to provide further
detail to guide implementation. Importantly, this document provides the detail required to
implement changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme envisaged by MITS.
The MITS Policies and the Parking Policies were developed hand-in-hand to ensure an integrated
and holistic approach to delivering the future of Moreland.
This Parking Implementation Plan sets out a list of polices which are consistent with MITS. In order
to achieve each policy, a list of actions have been developed. The actions identify a number of
ways by which the movement network (vehicular, active transport and public transport) impacts
car parking or is in turn impacted by car parking.
These actions can be simplified, for discussion purposes, to a number of more specific key parking
topics which are discussed within this Parking Implementation Plan. These topics are as follows:
Topic 1: Establishing appropriate parking rates for new development
Topic 2: Reallocation of road space and existing car parking
Topic 3: Effectively managing parking resources.
Topic 1: Establishing appropriate parking provision requirements for new development within
Moreland
In the context of Moreland, the adoption of status quo car parking provision requirements is
unlikely to achieve transport change and as such a “vision and validate” approach should be
considered to set maximum parking policies in key areas which would apply to new
developments.
The following car parking provision approaches have been developed to apply across Moreland
Activity Centres:
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 2
Table ES.1: Car Parking Provision Approaches
Centre Category
Activity Centres Neighbourhood Centres Local Centres
Remove existing minimum parking
provision requirements and adopt
Column B as maximum parking
provision allowances.
Incorporate appropriate decision
guidelines identifying when the
maximum rates could be exceeded.
These rates would apply to the
activity centres of Coburg, Brunswick
and Glenroy.
Adopt parking provision
requirements 20 per cent lower than
Column B requirements as minimum
parking provisions.
Incorporate appropriate decision
guidelines identifying when the
minimum rates could be reduced.
These parking provision requirements
would apply to the Neighbourhood
Centres.
Adopt Column B parking provision
requirements as minimum
requirements (no change to status
quo.
Incorporate appropriate decision
guidelines identifying when the
minimum requirements could be
reduced.
These requirements would apply to
the Local Centres.
These requirements provide a flexible approach to parking provision to allow the market to
respond accordingly while also encouraging transport change.
In designing new car parking facilities, flexibility should be incorporated within the design to allow
for future repurposing of space should parking demands reduce in the future.
Council should also support a greater roll-out of share cars to help residents choose to reduce the
number of cars they own.
Topic 2: Reallocation of road space and existing car parking
Moreland is growing. To cater for this demand sustainably, change will be required to the way
that space is allocated. To achieve this change investment will be required.
The reallocation of parking space to support improvements to movement networks, road safety
and creation of great places should be supported and could include:
Reallocating Space for Movement
Parking could be considered for removal when it provides an overall benefit to the sustainable
movement of people in circumstances such as:
Improves pedestrian linkages, pathways and connections
Improves the operation and capacity of public transport routes
Improves cycling corridors and connectivity.
Reallocating Space for Safety
Parking must ensure that it does not impose on the safety of people using other modes. This is
particularly relevant along cycling routes and around schools.
To improve road safety, parked vehicles must not hinder the safety of other modes. Similar to
above, parking should be given less priority where required to improve safety.
Reallocating Space for Place
Parking should be considered for removal when it is demonstrated to provide an overall benefit
to the creation of ‘places’ in Moreland. This could include circumstances such as, but not limited
to:
Creating new green spaces and street tree planting opportunities to improve
pedestrian amenity
Creating places for sustainable transport end of trip facilities
Creating improved outdoor dining
Creating improved places for storage of vehicles for those with reduced mobility and
for sustainable vehicles.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 3
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 4
Introduction
Background
Moreland is changing, and the way people travel to and within Moreland will too.
The overarching vision for the City of Moreland, as set out in the Moreland Council Plan 2017-
2021, is:
‘Moreland will be known for its proud diversity, and for being a connected, progressive and
sustainable city in which to live, work and play’.
Leading on from this, the transport vision for Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019 (MITS) is:
Connecting the City of Moreland through a transport system that is diverse, progressive and
sustainable’,
The MITS is a comprehensive transport strategy which addresses five core objectives to achieve
the above overarching vision.
1) A Liveable Moreland
2) A Sustainable Moreland
3) A Moreland that is Safe and Healthy
4) A Moreland that is Accessible and Equitable for all
5) A Prosperous Moreland.
The MITS addresses how to achieve and supplement these objectives from an overarching
transport perspective.
Ultimately, change is needed to the way travel is thought about in Moreland.
Living in Moreland
Moreland is growing, its population is getting younger, townhouses and apartments are
becoming more popular, and the nature of work is changing. The way parking is approached
needs to respond and adapt to meet the needs of these changes in order to retain the liveability
of Moreland and manage transport issues associated with a denser population.
The Challenge
The challenge for Moreland will be to plan and advocate for parking measures that are not only
needed now, but also cater to the needs of tomorrow, in terms of promoting liveability, equity,
economic and sustainability.
The future of Moreland needs to be driven by an understanding of the true cost of parking and its
role in influencing the urban form, transport patterns and investment in Moreland.
Purpose
The purpose of the Parking Implementation Plan is to provide further detail on car parking related
actions in the MITS, both to provide strong justification for these changes and to provide further
detail to guide implementation. Importantly, this document provides the detail required to
implement changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme envisaged by MITS.
The MITS Policies and the Parking Policies were developed hand-in-hand to ensure an integrated
and holistic approach to delivering the future transport needs of Moreland.
1
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 5
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 6
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 7
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 8
How Parking Delivers the Vision
This Parking Implementation Plan has been developed to consider not only the current parking
system but what the future of parking could look like and how this will contribute to achieving the
vision for Moreland. It is critical that a forward-thinking approach is taken to reduce the need for
‘retrofitting’ solutions in the future.
Parking is a policy lever which can be used to implement the broader transport objectives and
unlock the vision for Moreland.
Further to this, the following realities relating to urban space have been considered in the
development of the policies and associated actions:
Road space is a finite resource
We need to cater for people’s needs.
The work across both strategies has been informed by:
Community feedback - The community had a clear voice that liveability, sustainability
and safety should be the top three objectives driving transport direction and outcomes
in MITS 2018.
Current Moreland strategies – The transport vision is informed by Moreland’s broader
strategic direction and existing policies, as discussed in detail within MITS.
Local and international best practice – Through the team’s experience, research and
expert knowledge, the best ideas from around Australia and the world have been
tailored to realise the Transport Vision for Moreland.
The Role of Parking
As discussed above, parking plays an instrumental
role in supporting broader transport and land use
strategies. Parking policies can have both a direct
and indirect impact on the ability to achieve
objectives related to such strategies. The supply of
parking at trip origins and destinations is a strong
driver of mode choice. This Implementation Plan
recognises that sometimes parking is required in
cases where people have special needs. For
example, to provide access for young families or
people with mobility impairment to access the
community. Therefore, parking should be prioritised
for people who truly need it. In doing so, it is still
possible to discourage car use and contribute to a shift towards sustainable transport modes
while catering to people who most need to drive.
Studies have shown that parking incentivises people to drive more, contributing to congestion. In
fact, much of our current parking policy was developed to encourage car use1. When, as a
response to this congestion, more road space (and parking) is provided, this can result in what is
known as a ‘cycle of car dependency’, which can compromise liveability and pose unnecessary
1 Taylor (2016) The elephant in the scheme: Planning for and around car parking in Melbourne, 1929–2016, Centre for Urban
Research, RMIT University, Australia.
Moreland is expected to grow by an
extra 18,000 dwellings by 2036. If the car
ownership rate stays the same as it is
now, such development would require
an additional 529,200sqm of land space
to accommodate its car parking needs.
This land area is equivalent to 26 playing
fields the size of the Melbourne Cricket
Ground taken up by cars!
Based on 1.4 vehicles per dwelling, the average
size of a car parking space and associated
access aisles being 21sqm and an estimation of
the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground playing
field being 20,000sqm.
2
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 9
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 10
Case Studies: Car parking and the link to affordability
Within Moreland there are numerous examples of how car parking increases housing prices and
how providing the option of owning a car bay provides residents with transparency around how
much a parking space is costing them, in order to make a more informed decision whether they
wish to pay this amount.
The below table displays the variances in listed sales price for apartments with and without car
bays. These figures were observed in May 2018.
Table 2.1: Case Study: Apartment Price, With Vs Without Parking
Location Price without parking Price with parking Price saving for no
parking space
288 Albert Street, Brunswick $330,000 $376,000 $46,000
26 Breese Street, Brunswick $329,500 $390,000 $60,500
14-20 Nicholson Street, Coburg $285,000 to $300,000 $340,000 to $350,000 $40,000 to $65,000
The above table indicates that apartments with no car parking are cheaper for home buyers. This
demonstrates that the cost savings from not constructing parking will not entirely be captured by
the developer but these savings will also be passed onto the consumer. In addition, unbundled
car parking means that people who choose to own a car bay still have this option but have a
clear understanding of how much the car bay will cost them. These additional costs of owning
car bays are also passed onto the rental market.
In light of the above, an unbundled parking structure would result in more transparent housing
choices and a fairer housing system.
2.2.2 Parking at the shops
Evidence indicates that the provision of on-street parking spaces at shopping strips is less valued
by shoppers than some people might have otherwise assumed, particularly in dense, inner areas
where many people already walk or cycle.
Indeed, making better use of on-street parking spaces on shopping strips can have benefits for
local businesses, particularly in cases where there is further, latent demand for active transport.
This is underlined by recent research examples in Acland Street, St Kilda2,3; High Street, Northcote4;
Boundary Street, Eagle Street and Caxton Street, Brisbane5; Graz, Austria; Bristol, UK6; and
Edinburgh, UK7 where the extent of shopper spend by car drivers has been over estimated by
traders and the importance of car parking provision by shoppers does not rate as a priority.
Ultimately, increased rates of walking, cycling and public transport use can strengthen the
economic case for increased public investment in active, public and multimodal transport
infrastructure and services. Parking policy has an important role to play in supporting such a
cycle.
With regard to staff parking requirements, on-site parking may be required depending on the
type of business. As such, developers should consider on-site staff parking needs as the
availability of on-street parking cannot be guaranteed into the future to support these users.
2 Tolley R: Case study of Acland Street, in Grant J and Tolley R: Background report for the City of Stonnington Walking Policy.
Stonnington, 2010.
3 Victoria Walks, Acland Street Traders, 2011 http://www.victoriawalks.org. au/Acland_St/
4 City of Darebin, 2009, Northcote Travel Survey. , Darebin City Council
5 Yen B, Burke M, Tseng W, Ghafoor M, Mulley C, Moutou C, 2015, Do restaurant precincts need more parking? Differences in
business perceptions and customer travel behaviour in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
6 Sustrans, 2006, “Shoppers and how they travel”
7 Heart Foundation, 2011 Good for Business Discussion paper
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 11
Current Parking Policy Approach
This Chapter presents a summary of where this Parking Implementation Plan fits in within the
overarching policy context and why a ‘business as usual’ approach is not sustainable.
Current Transport Policy Overview
Current policy (local and state) is to reduce the reliance on private car travel and encouraging
walk, cycle and public transport trips.
Moreland’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) states:
[The] Strategic Framework of the MSS is predicated on developing sustainable neighbourhoods
by integrating transport and land use planning decision making which maximise people’s
opportunities to walk, cycle and use public transport.
As it relates to car parking, the current policies promote other modes of travel but also seek to
provide car parking. Over the past four years, Moreland’s household survey shows that this policy
has not seen a significant mode shift away from the car.
Table 3.1: Mode of transport to work
Base: Currently
Employed
2013
(n=1190)
2015
(n=1070)
2017
(n=1029)
Car (as driver) 63.6% 66% 63%
Current Council policies, while supporting the multimodal nature of activity-centres in Moreland,
do not specifically push further to encourage or force mode shift. Previous strategies for Coburg
and Brunswick have supported this multimodal approach to planning. However, the lack of
formal planning scheme incorporation, means that decisive planning guidance is not available
to all involved in the planning decision-making process (i.e. developer, council officers,
Councillors, third party submitters and further VCAT and the Planning Minister).
On the basis of the above, it is clear that Moreland has aspirational policies towards supporting
sustainable transport modes. Yet local policies in the planning scheme could be more direct in
pushing for a mode shift towards sustainable transport.
As such, parking policy is critical lever which must clearly work towards a demonstrable change in
mode shift towards sustainable transport.
Parking in the Planning Scheme
3.2.1 Definitions
Minimum Parking Provision Requirements
A minimum parking provision requirement represents the minimum amount of parking a new
development is required to provide to support the size of development (number of dwellings,
floor space etc.). A developer may provide a greater amount of parking if desired. A planning
permit can however typically be sought for a lesser amount of parking.
3
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 12
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 13
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 14
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 15
Activity Centres in Moreland
This Chapter provides a high-level review of the existing parking and transport characteristics in
Moreland.
Moreland is made up of a number activity centres, being grouped into three primary categories:
Activity Centres; Neighbourhood Centres; and Local Centres.9 These centres are shown
graphically and listed in the following page. In addition, it is noted that there are areas within
Moreland that currently have a Parking Overlay (due to zoning) and although they are not Local
Centres they are proposed to be treated the same with Column B minimum rates applied.
9 Reference: Moreland Planning Scheme, Clause 21.02
4
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 16
A B C D E
1
2
3
4
5
6
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 17
An acknowledgement of the similarities and differences of these centres is important to develop
car parking policy which relates to the nature of the centre but also provides consistency in the
approach to delivering parking across the municipality.
Accessibility
As a means of further considering the activity centres, these have been grouped by their access
to public transport.
Each centre has been categorised as to whether it is served by 1, 2 or 3 modes of public
transport.
The categorisation assumes:
a 400m radius to bus and tram routes (not stop)
an 800m radius from railway station.
These distances were selected as they represent a commonly accepted, reasonable walking
distance to public transport. The distance was measured from the bus and tram routes for ease of
calculation and due to their frequent stops.
On this basis, each activity centre has been plotted within an assessment matrix grouping activity
centres by type, access to public transport. This matrix is shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Activity Centre Assessment Matrix
LO
W (
1 M
OD
E O
R L
ES
S)
LOCAL (LC) NEIGHBOURHOOD (NC) ACTIVITY CENTRE (AC)
ME
DIU
M (
2 M
OD
ES
) H
IGH
(3
MO
DE
S)
1 (Coburg AC)
2 (Brunswick AC)
3 (Glenroy AC) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14
33, 41
19, 25, 28, 35, 39, 42, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53
15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37,
38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54
9, 10, 11
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 18
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 19
4.2.1 Activity Centres
For the purpose of describing existing parking and transport conditions, Activity Centres have
been divided up as follows:
Sydney Road (Coburg AC and part of the Brunswick AC)
Brunswick East (part of the Brunswick AC), and
Glenroy AC.
Sydney Road
One of the most important characteristics of parking and transport along Sydney Road is the
nature of specialty retail and the long ‘strip shop’ layout of the activity centres. As the shopping
precinct is so long, considering Sydney Road as one activity centre does not cater as well for to
multi-purpose trips as a more condensed centre. This is owing to inaccessibility by efficient means
of public transport or where the visit may require the handling of bulky or delicate goods.
The allocation of kerbside parking is consistent along the length of Sydney Road which provides
short term (either 1 or 2-hour timed restrictions) parking for casual users to increase vehicle
turnover. Additionally, other special use zones have been implemented over time including
parking for people with disabilities, loading zones and drop off-pick up areas (less than 15
minutes). Parking is generally highly utilised along the strip, dependant on time and location
based on the type of businesses (e.g. office, specialty retail, entertainment, dining) located in
each precinct.
Both public and private at-grade off street car parks are located at various locations to the rear of
buildings along Sydney Road, accessible from adjoining streets. Council managed carparks have
medium term parking restrictions (generally 2 or 3-hour) to promote longer multi-purpose trips to
businesses within the activity centres, while discouraging employee and commuter car parking.
While on-street paid parking is essentially non-existent within the municipality (with the exception
of Barkly Street near Barkly Square), there are seven fee paying Council carparks at the south end
of Sydney Road. The occupancy of these car parks is typically low due to the availability of free
parking in the area. There are also several private paid carparks, some of which have a period of
free parking for casual users, to discourage all day parking. As such, all seven carparks are
located at the southern end of Sydney Road.
Clearways have been implemented on Sydney Road to assist traffic flows during peak periods
and facilitate efficient movements of trams.
Sydney Road is well connected to public transport. However, the availability of free parking and
ease of access to car parking encourages driving and discourages the use of these sustainable
options.
Brunswick East
Both Nicholson Street and Lygon Street have almost no off-street public parking, and as such,
parking in adjoining residential streets is much more congested than is seen in Sydney Road. Paid
parking is not present in either street. However short-term parking restrictions apply on street, with
in-ground sensors, to increase compliance and turnover of parking spaces.
Clearways have been implemented on Lygon Street to assist traffic flows during peak periods
and facilitate efficient movements of trams.
Most residential streets have had some residential parking restrictions applied, and parking in the
short-term areas experience high demand as do the unrestricted areas. This is largely due to the
high occupancy of on-street resources on the main roads and people seeking to find alternative
parking near their destination.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 20
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 21
Delivering the Vision through Parking
Directions in MITS
The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy identifies core objectives and along with it a range of
policies and actions across the transport spectrum. These objectives and associated policies and
actions as they relate to car parking are reproduced below.
Further discussion on the tools required to support these actions is detailed in the subsequent
sections of this report.
MITS sets out that the vision for the future of transport in Moreland is built upon five key
foundations or objectives. These are detailed below with their relevant policies and actions.
A liveable Moreland
‘Where the transport network is family-friendly, where we consciously reduce local vehicle traffic
and safeguard the wellbeing of our community.’ (MITS)
MITS recognises that good cities are ones that are better at promoting the best interests of their
communities, in terms not just of prosperity but also of liveability – how cities and the people that
live in them combine and contribute to a sense of wellbeing within the community. Parking has
an important role to play in fostering such liveability.
Car parks rarely if at all contribute to public amenity and a sense of security and well-being – in
fact, they can do the opposite when not integrated with surrounding land uses that offer
interaction and surveillance.
Further to this, parking takes up space that could alternatively be used for either ‘moving people’
‘or creating a place for people’. Council and the community need to re-evaluate when and
where parking is needed to support a liveable Moreland into the future.
A sustainable Moreland
‘Which achieves a city-leading shift toward sustainable modes of travel, supporting the transition
to active or zero emissions transport by 2040’ (MITS)
The existing car parking policies in Moreland encourage the use of the car for most trips in
Moreland. This is demonstrated by existing minimum parking rates for new developments and free
parking in most destinations within Moreland, reinforcing a culture of using the car even for short
trips that could be walked. This culture results in congestion – which during Community
Consultation many people expressed they do not want in Moreland.
Addressing an oversupply of car parking creates a self-reinforcing ‘positive cycle’ and in turn
helps deliver a more sustainable Moreland.
A Moreland that is safe and healthy
‘Where transport safety is a key focus, we improve personal security and safety and promote a
healthy community with cleaner air.’ (MITS)
It is understood from community feedback that it is currently common for cars to be parked in
ways that jeopardise the safety of the community, for example along footpaths or near school
entrances. Parking must ensure that it does not impose on the safety of people using other
modes.
5
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 22
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 23
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 24
Managing Parking in Moreland
This Chapter explores the key parking topics summarised from the MITS policies and actions.
Establishing appropriate parking rates for new
development
6.1.1 Setting Car Parking Provision Requirements
Overview
The MITS sets mode share targets for car journeys within the municipality. This provides a focus on
the ‘big picture’ objective which will reflect movement away from dependency on the car for
daily needs.
Our community engagement and background research has shown that suburbs in the north of
Moreland have different travel patterns, characteristics and needs to the south of Moreland. For
mode shares, our background research told us that the southernmost suburbs (Brunswick,
Brunswick East, Brunswick West and North Fitzroy) have a lower proportion of people driving to
work (around 40 per cent), while the northern suburbs of Gowanbrae, Tullamarine and Hadfield
have the highest (between 70 and 90 per cent).
To reflect this, Council has set two different targets for the way people travel to work, and one
target for the way people travel to education.
The journey to work and education targets are reproduced in the below table.
Table 6.1: MITS Mode Share Targets
Measure10 Current Target
Journey to Work (north) Car as driver: 74.8% Car as driver: 45%
Journey to Work (south) Car as driver: 58.0% Car as driver: 30%
Journey to Education Car as Passenger: 37.8% Car as Passenger: 20%
In regard to how the setting of car parking provision requirements supports the above mode
share targets, it should be recognised that proposed car parking provision requirements are just
one tool which will influence new development, with other parking tools (as discussed in following
sections) required to influence existing travel patterns.
The following discussion highlights the need for each Activity Centre Category to be treated
differently with regards to the setting of parking provision requirements to reflect the diverse
nature of each activity centre and municipality as a whole. Broadly the following discussion
identifies:
The below table summarises the approach to be taken for setting of parking requirements within
each centre type.
10 Current based on ABS Census 2016. Progress will be based on Moreland Household Surveys.
6
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 25
Table 6.2: Car Parking Rate Approaches
Centre Type
Activity Centre Neighbourhood Centre Local Centre
Remove existing minimum parking
provision requirements and adopt
Column B as maximum parking
provision allowances.
Incorporate appropriate decision
guidelines identifying when the
maximum rates could be exceeded.
These rates would apply to the
activity centres of Coburg, Brunswick
and Glenroy.
Adopt parking provision
requirements 20 per cent lower than
Column B requirements as minimum
parking provisions.
Incorporate appropriate decision
guidelines identifying when the
minimum rates could be reduced.
These parking provision requirements
would apply to the Neighbourhood
Centres.
Adopt Column B parking provision
requirements as minimum
requirements (no change to status
quo.
Incorporate appropriate decision
guidelines identifying when the
minimum requirements could be
reduced.
These requirements would apply to
the Local Centres.
Rationale
The setting of car parking provision requirements is an important tool to guide the future provision
of car parking associated with new development.
Traditionally the ‘predict and provide’ model11 (as used as the default Column A and B models in
the Clause 52.06) requiring minimum parking provisions results in:
A parking supply associated with new development being provided which encourages
private vehicle travel.
Creates uncertainty (to developers) and unease (from community) when reductions to
standard car parking requirements (to that required in all the planning schemes
throughout Victoria) are sought from Council in planning permit applications.
In the context of Moreland, as a fast growing established inner/middle ring suburb, the adoption
of status quo car parking provision is unlikely to achieve transport change and as such a “vision
and validate” approach should be considered to set maximum parking rates which would apply
to new developments.
Further minimum parking requirements have been found to inefficiently impact housing markets.
With parking potentially increasing minimum housing costs, removing minimum provision
requirements is critically important.
Coupling the needs of achieving transport change and improving housing affordability,
introducing maximum parking requirements can encourage reduced car ownership and
encourage mode shift to sustainable transport.
Minimum vs Maximum Provision Approaches
Minimum Requirements
The Planning Scheme sets out the minimum number of spaces that should be provided for a
development.
A reduction (including down to zero) to the requirement can be sought through the use of
prescribed decision guidelines. Any reduction requires approval by Council.
It is relatively rare that a developer would seek to provide more than the statutory requirement.
11 The definition of minimum parking rate requirements originated in America in the 1950’s to address the issue of too many car being
parked in public areas.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 26
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 27
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 28
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 29
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 30
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 31
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.
The adoption of decision guidelines (to further reduce parking provisions) should also supplement
the minimum provision approach to further allow for lower provisions to be adopted and
therefore the market to respond on a case by case basis.
Decision Guidelines
Further to the above, the intent of decision guidelines to supplement the recommended car
parking provision requirements within a Parking Overlay would generally be expected to be the
same as those specified for Neighbourhood Centres.
6.1.2 Designing for the future
It is well recognised that the nature of transport is changing, and this will impact in some way the
manner in which parking is provided in the future. However, the extent of change is not defined
at this time and is likely to occur, in the most part, outside of the timeframe of this Implementation
Plan. A number of elements however that could be predicted, at least in general terms, include
the following:
The way vehicles are powered is changing with the growing prevalence of electric
vehicles in the vehicle fleet. The cost of these vehicles is also declining making
ownership of these vehicles more accessible to more people.
The demand for parking (on a per capita basis) could be expected to decrease with
an increased accessibility to ride sharing services, car sharing services, home delivery
services etc.
In light of the above, it is recommended that the design for any new car parking within Moreland
should be designed to allow for:
Vehicle charging opportunities or at a minimum provision of electrical infrastructure to
allow for the future installation of charging points. The provision of such infrastructure
should be considered now in new buildings to avoid costly retrofitting of building
services or alternately a lack of charging provisions.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 32
Potential alternative uses of car parking space in the future. This will provide support to
the need for places to be flexible to the communities needs and ultimately save money
in the long run. As such, minimum floor to floor heights of above ground structured
parking levels should be designed to enable future repurposing.
The considerations could be included as an encouraged design response within a Design
Standards section of a Parking Overlay.
6.1.3 Car Share
To further support maximum and reduced car parking provision requirements, car share provides
a convenient option to enable access to a car but removes the need to own a vehicle.
Cars typically spend 95 per cent of their life unused, representing a very inefficient use of space
and resources. Car share provides convenient access to a car for trips where alternative modes
are not a viable option. Some service providers estimate that one share car can replace up to 15
private vehicles, significantly reducing the space required to store private cars and reducing the
costs of purchasing and operating a car for a number of would-be owners.16
As such Council should support a greater roll-out of share cars to help residents choose to reduce
the number of cars they own. This should include:
Repurposing general use car spaces for car share spaces in key areas (for example,
activity centres, areas with a high-density residential areas).
Encouraging developments to provide externally accessible car share spaces on-site.
Encourage developments to fund memberships for nearby car share schemes under
the implementation of a green travel plan.
16 The Sharing Economy, Transport Matters, GTA Consultants,
http://www.gta.com.au/transportmatters/transportmatters_vol9_issue4_web.pdf, accessed 22/04/18
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 33
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 34
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 35
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 36
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 37
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 38
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 39
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 40
Statutory Implementation
Overview
As identified earlier within this document (Section 1.4) the implementation of recommendations
will typically fall under statutory or non-statutory actions.
Those actions that require a statutory form typically represent those that place a requirement on
developers or other third parties.
Specifically, the following recommendations contained within MITS and this Parking
Implementation Plan would warrant implementation in a statutory form:
The identification of specific car parking rates and associated decision guidelines for
activity centres within Moreland (as identified in Section 6.1).
The encouragement for new developments to incorporate increased floor to floor
heights in car parking levels to allow for potential future repurposing (as identified in
Section 6.1).
The updating of Council’s Development Contributions Plan (as identified in MITS).
On the most part the recommendations will appropriately be provided with a statutory form
through a Parking Overlay, as a Schedule to Clause 45.09 to the Moreland Planning Scheme.
The exception will be the update to the Development Contributions Plan which has its own
statutory mechanism at Clause 45.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
Preparing a Parking Overlay
In preparing a Parking Overlay a number of specific matters need to be addressed including:
Definition of Objectives
Identifying the area to which the overlay will apply
Identifying car parking rates to be applied
Identifying any relevant decision guidelines
Identifying any specific design requirements.
In principle, these matters are addressed within the above and can be translated into a Schedule
to the Parking Overlay. These requirements have not been specifically reproduced again in this
section of the report.
In preparing the content of the Schedule to the Parking Overlay consideration should also be
given to the inclusion or referencing of the following elements of the Moreland Planning Scheme:
Conversion of the content currently contained within Clause 22.03 – Car and Bike
Parking and Vehicle Access into the proposed Schedule to the Parking Overlay. This
includes policy relating to the provision of car parking (superseded by this
Implementation Plan), the provision of bicycle parking and design requirements.
Conversion of bicycle parking requirements contained within Schedule 1 to the Activity
Centre Zone Clause 10.
While consolidation of the above material would be preferred to a single location in the Planning
Scheme, it may be required that bicycle parking policy also remains as part of the local policy (at
Clause 22.03) as it remains important, not only when considering reducing parking requirements.
7
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A 41
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
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A1
Existing Parking and Transport Characteristics
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A2
This Chapter describes in detail the existing parking and transport characteristics in Moreland and
their implications for the development of Parking Implementation Plan.
A.1 Introduction
As discussed within the Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, the activity centres of Moreland
have been divided into 3 categories.
Activity Centres: Established areas of high commercial activity and high density living
Neighbourhood Centres: Growing neighbourhood centres encouraging new
commercial and residential development served well by public transport
Local Centres: Local centres / activity centres poorly serviced by public transport.
In response to these categories the following investigations of parking and transport
characteristics will focus on Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres where most significant
parking policy and management change is likely to occur.
The purpose of such assessment and analysis is to determine the key themes of each centre with
regards to parking as an effective travel demand management tool. The results then will guide
the challenges faced under each centre and appropriate solutions.
Further details of parking and centre characteristics across all activity centres within the
municipality are summarised within Appendix B.
A.2 Existing Parking Characteristics
Parking within Moreland is currently an contentious issue for both businesses and residents
throughout the municipality as the activity centres, especially south of Bell Street, continue to
experience rapid growth of higher density living.
While accessing the Melbourne CBD by private motor car is constrained, activity centres within
Moreland, including in Brunswick, remain accessible by car.
While this Implementation Plan considers Brunswick Activity Centre (AC) and Coburg Activity
Centre (AC) as two separate activity centres, the reality is that they can be seen differently.
Sydney Road between Brunswick Road and Gaffney Street encompasses the Coburg AC and
Sydney Road section of the Brunswick AC. These two activity centres are similar from a transport
and parking perspective. The remainder of the Brunswick AC, Nicholson Street and Lygon Street,
south of Moreland Road both function similarly from a parking and traffic point of view also.
As with both the above areas, many precincts or sub-centres exist at different points along these
north-south shopping strips due to the diverse nature of the community within Moreland. As such,
the community sees each of these three areas very differently.
For the purpose of describing existing parking and transport conditions, Activity Centres have
been divided up as follows:
Sydney Road
Brunswick East, and
Glenroy.
Since 2011, parking has been managed around activity centres and areas of high occupancy
using the Moreland Parking Management Policy, which was reviewed with minor changes in
2018. The parking management policy prioritises user groups based on location.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A3
The major outcome with regards to parking in activity centres from this policy was that properties
that were subdivided after 31 August 2011, are not eligible for residential parking permits to
exempt the occupants from on-street restrictions which are typically implemented to protect the
residential amenity of the area.
Given both the Coburg AC and Brunswick AC are
both well-established areas, parking restrictions
and allocations were implemented many years
ago, to assist with the turnover and allocation of
parking spaces in high activity areas. Many of
these restrictions have not changed or been
reviewed over the years. The process in Moreland
and many other municipalities is that parking
restrictions are only reviewed based on
community feedback or complaint. There is also,
as discussed later in the report, very little paid
parking implemented in these activity centres.
Within Moreland City Council, there are two main
concerns from the community with regards to parking: the protection of parking supply in activity
centres and protecting the amenity of parking for residents in areas surrounding new mixed-use
development and public transport stops.
A.3 Activity Centres
A.3.1 Sydney Road
Centre and Accessibility
Sydney Road is one of the longest ‘shopping strips’ in the southern hemisphere, denoting the
historic style of development in Melbourne’s older areas, especially the inner north. The activity
centre expands from Park Street in the south, up to Gaffney Street, approx. 300m north of Bell
Street. It incorporates the Coburg AC and part of the Brunswick AC. The change in land use south
of Park Street provides a natural border between the city and Brunswick.
Sydney Road is well served by public transport,
with the number 19 tram route and the Upfield
Rail Line providing excellent accessibility to
public transport, connecting the northern
suburbs of Moreland to the city. Tram route 6
also connects Sydney Road to Lygon Street, via
Moreland Road.
One of the most important characteristics of
parking and transport along Sydney Road is the
nature of specialty retail and the long ‘strip
shop’ layout of the activity centres. As the
shopping precinct is so long, considering
Sydney Road as one activity centre does not
cater well to multi-purpose trips.
Figure A.1: Route 19 Tram on Sydney Road
Figure A.2: Brunswick Baths
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A4
The allocation of kerbside parking is consistent along
the length of Sydney Road which provides short term
(either one or two hour timed restrictions) parking for
casual users to increase vehicle turnover. Additionally,
other special use zones have been implemented over
time including parking for people with disabilities,
loading zones and drop off-pick up areas (less than 15
minutes). Parking is generally highly utilised along the
strip, dependant on time and location based on the
type of business (e.g. office, specialty retail,
entertainment, dining) located in each precinct.
Clearways implemented by VicRoads also apply
during peak times along Sydney Road, to improve traffic flow for traffic travelling into the city
during the AM peak and outbound during the PM peak. The trade-off of on-street parking along
Sydney Road is one that causes friction with other cars, cyclists and trams and leads to reduced
throughput of traffic along what is a highly congested arterial road, leading to additional
volumes of traffic on non-local streets.
Both public and private at-grade off street car parks
are located at various locations to the rear of buildings
along Sydney Road, accessible from adjoining streets.
Council managed carparks have medium term
parking restrictions (generally two or three hour) to
promote longer multi-purpose trips to businesses within
the activity centres, while discouraging employee and
commuter car parking. Generally, off-street car parks
are less utilised than on-street car parking given the
availability of alternative car parking on-street along
Sydney Road. As such, in many cases, off-street
parking in Sydney Road provides overflow parking
where on-street parking is not available.
Table A.1 shows the average on-street parking occupancies along Sydney Road (from south to
north) including details of observed residential overspill attributed to commuters and / or
employees’ vehicles.
Table A.1: Sydney Road on Street Parking, Observed Occupancies
Street From To Activity Centre
Occupancy
Residential
Overspill
Sydney Road, Brunswick
Park Street Dawson Street 75% 150m
Dawson Street Victoria Street 90% 150m
Victoria Street Albion Street 90% 100m
Albion Street Moreland Road 75% 150m
Sydney Road, Coburg
Moreland Road Reynard Street 50% 125m
Reynard Street Bell Street 50% 150m
Bell Street Gaffney Street 10% 100m
Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017
The observations show that on-street occupancies increase towards the southern end of Sydney
Road, and are nearing capacity (90 per cent) between Dawson Street and Albion Street where
there is high level of activity.
Figure A.3: Activity Centre active frontage
Figure A.4: Off street car parking
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A5
Enforcement
Council has implemented in-ground sensors within many of the off-street and on-street parking
spaces within the Coburg AC and Brunswick AC. Information from these sensors can be viewed
from an app that can help locate available parking. Local and regular visitors are aware that the
technology applies throughout the activity centre. This system of enforcement encourages
compliance and improves turnover of parking spaces.
Paid Parking
While on-street paid parking is essentially non-
existent within the municipality, there are seven fee
paying Council carparks at the south end of Sydney
Road, where both housing and adjoining land use is
at a higher density, with larger trip generators such
as RMIT University and the Brunswick Baths, Barkly
Square and Brunswick Town Hall, all creating
additional vehicle trips and demand for parking.
There are also several private paid carparks, some
of which have a period of free parking for casual
users, to discourage all day parking. As such, all
seven carparks are located at the southern end of Sydney Road. As is seen with paid car parking,
some users will seek suitable alternatives to paying a fee, such as an alternative either on or off-
street car park, within a reasonable distance. As a result, several of the paid off-street car parks
are underutilised. This could be attributed to the availability of free parking nearby.
Table A.2 below shows indicative observations of overall car parking occupancy at a number of
off-street car parks along Sydney Road, noting that many car parks are partially paid, or have
spaces allocated to other user groups, including business permit zones.
Table A.2: Sydney Road Off-street Car Parks, Observed Occupancies
Location [1] Occupancy Location Occupancy
Union Street, Brunswick ($) 100% Edward Street, Brunswick ($) 90%
Breese Street, Brunswick 100% Wilkinson Street, Brunswick ($) 75%
Stewart Street, Brunswick 100% Staley Street, Brunswick ($) 75%
Dawson Street, Brunswick ($) 90% Black Street, Brunswick 50%
Tripovich Street, Brunswick 90% Frith Street, Brunswick 50%
Louisa Street, Coburg 90% Dods Street, Brunswick 50%
Waterfield Street, Coburg 90% 797 Sydney Road, Brunswick ($) 10%
Russell Street, Coburg 90% Little Jones Street, Brunswick ($) 10%
[1] ($) denotes partial or fully paid car park
Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017(Between 11.00am and 1.00pm)
The observations show that the paid car parks at 797 Sydney Road and Little Jones Street are
heavily underutilised. This could be due to the fact that they are overpriced. These car parks are
the only two on this list which have direct access from Sydney Road, so lack of access and
visibility cannot be seen as a reason for the low utilisation rates.
Furthermore, it shows that car parks at Dawson Street, Union Street, and Edward Street are under-
priced as they are near capacity. While revenue generation will be high, it does not sufficiently
manage the turnover or provide any travel demand management benefits.
Figure A.5: Activity Centre active frontage
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A6
The characteristics of other off-street carparks, in both Brunswick and Coburg show that there is
insufficient demand management, which is a combination of free parking and lack of alternative
modes of active transport.
Commuter Parking
The Upfield train provides a quicker, though less frequent service in comparison to the tram and is
typically the preferred public transport mode for commuters. As such, parking around train
stations along the Upfield Railway Line, is well used, given the availability of kerbside parking
before the AM peak in most areas. Ease of access through east west collector roads into Sydney
Road incentivises travel by car to the train station. There is also a likely a latent demand for
parking in these areas, which is self-adjusting, with park-and-ride commuters selecting other train
stations as starting points along the Upfield Line where parking can be found within a reasonable
distance of the station.
Residential Overspill
Throughout the activity centre, there is very
limited availability of unrestricted off-street
parking (not including fee paying car parks). As
such, those seeking long term parking (e.g.
employees, rail commuters and residents without
off-street parking), park in adjoining residential
streets. Parking in some residential streets is
allocated on a 50/50 split of short term and
unrestricted under the current parking
management policy. Eligible residents 21are able
to obtain permits to exempt them from the short
term (usually two hour) parking restrictions. The
short-term restrictions are implemented in these
areas to protect residential amenity by giving residents an advantage of finding a parking space
closer to their properties, while also discouraging non-resident parking and traffic in residential
streets. As opposed to other municipalities, which enable resident permit zones in residential
streets, the allocation of two hour parking restrictions enables use of these parking spaces by
other users on a short-term basis for accessing the activity centre, therefore making best use of a
limited resource.
While overspill occurs at various levels throughout the activity centre, the observations in Table
A.2 show that there is a clear overspill of parking into residential streets from visitors to the activity
centre, towards the southern end of Sydney Road.
21 Under the current Parking Management Policy developed in 2011, residents of properties whose property was subdivided after 31
August 2011 are not eligible to obtain residential parking permits exempting them from permissive parking restrictions in their street.
Figure A.6: On-street parking – residential street
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A7
Summary
Parking occupancy increases further towards the southern end of Sydney Road as residents
compete for parking with rail commuters, employees and shoppers, and the ease of access by
car into the centre
While most off-street parking nears capacity, several paid car parks are underutilised given the
availability of suitable alternative long and short-term parking in surrounding streets. Other paid
car parks are near capacity due to ineffective pricing to manage travel demand.
Sydney Road is well connected to public transport; however the availability of free parking and
ease of access creates delays and reduces the throughput of public transport along an
important transport corridor, potentially reducing its appeal. Given the limited space and the
width of the footpaths, this space is highly valuable and any reallocation would likely lead to
more pavement activity.
The current way in which retail and commercial properties operate in activity centres such as
Sydney Road require the use of vehicles to handle goods. As such, some people still need to
drive, and parking provides an end of trip facility for the car.
A.3.2 Brunswick East
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
A8
Most residential streets near Lygon Street have had
residential parking restrictions applied, and parking
in the short-term areas experience high demand as
do the unrestricted areas. This is largely due to the
high occupancy of on-street resources on the main
roads and people seeking alternative parking near
their destination. It also shows that people are
unlikely to change their destination based on the
supply / demand for parking.
Table A.3 shows the typical occupancies observed
throughout the activity centres in segments broken
up by major east-west roads, including details of
observed overspill of parking into adjoining
residential streets.
Table A.3: Brunswick East Activity Centre Parking, Observed Occupancies
Street From To Activity Centre
Occupancy
Residential
Overspill
Lygon Street,
Brunswick East
Park Street Glenlyon Road 75% 250m
Glenlyon Road Blyth Street 50% 250m
Blyth Street Albion Street 50% 200m
Albion Street Moreland Road 25% 150m
Nicholson Street,
Brunswick East
Brunswick Road Glenlyon Road 10% 150m
Glenlyon Road Blyth Street 25% 50m
Blyth Street Albion Street 25% 50m
Source: Nearmap aerial image taken 4th May 2017 (Between 11.00am and 1.00pm)
The observations show that on-street parking occupancies fluctuate, averaging at midday
around 25 per cent for Nicholson Street, and 50 per cent in Lygon Street. The exception being the
dining precinct at the south of Lygon Street (75 per cent). However, it is acknowledged that
demand for parking may increase during the evening period due to the nature of the adjacent
land use e.g. dining. Given the level of change currently being experienced in these areas with
regards to housing and mixed-use developments, there is potential for future demands for short
term parking to be catered for.
Construction Parking
An important consideration in determining the characteristics of kerbside parking in this activity
centre is the nature of parking demand associated with construction works. Each construction
site can accommodate up to 50-100 people on any given day. Workers often travel from outside
of the municipality and due to the nature of nature and variety of locations of their work, tend to
drive rather than use public transport. However, construction works being undertaken in the city
cannot accommodate workers vehicles. Change is possible depending on the management
and allocation of parking in these areas.
Figure A.9: Parking on Lygon Street
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A9
Commuter Parking
While park-and-ride parking congestion in
residential areas is not as prevalent as in Sydney
Road, many people drive to the Route 96
terminus at the intersection of Blyth Street and
Nicholson Street to access the Route 96 tram
which is one of the most utilised tram routes in
Melbourne. Brunswick East is naturally bordered
by the Merri Creek to both the north east and the
east, and as such, there is limited opportunities to
cross from Thornbury and Northcote, which is
already serviced by the St Georges Road route
11 tram and South Morang railway line. The ABS
car ownership data shows that Brunswick East has
the lowest rate within the municipality, and this is
largely attributable to its accessibility to public transport, including frequent and direct public
transport links in the east-west direction towards Sydney Road.
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.
Figure A.10: Trade Vehicles parked near
Activity Centre
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A10
Summary
Occupancy of short term parking on-street is low in both Nicholson Street and Lygon Street,
suggesting that most people travel to the activity centres by active transport modes.
The low occupancy of on-street parking and lack of medium term off-street parking suggests that
parking could be better managed to increase utilisation of on-street parking.
Occupancy and overspill of parking into residential streets is high and can attributed to the
availability of long-term on-street carparking and the lack of utilisation of private off-street
parking facilities.
A.3.3 Glenroy AC
Centre and Accessibility
Unlike activity centres in Coburg and Brunswick,
access by car to Glenroy AC is heavily relied upon
due to its geographical location, as many activity
centres in the northern suburbs of the municipality.
The ease of access by car into the centre from
short distances along with the availability of secure
and free off-street parking are major factors in
determining the characteristics of transport and
parking in this centre.
The train station which is on the Craigieburn
railway line is commuter use station rather than a
way of accessing the activity centre itself, given the location of other larger activity centres along
the same line including the Melbourne CBD, Moonee Ponds and Broadmeadows which provide
a larger and more diverse range of anchor retail stores. The commuter carpark at the railway
station is highly utilised however there is only minimal spill over of parking into residential streets
given its location central to the activity centre.
The town centre layout allows for multi-purpose trips however access by car to the activity centre
is appealing due to the good operation of both the arterial and local road network in the
northern suburbs, as well as the availability of short and long-term parking within the activity
centre. While there is currently minimal housing within the activity centre itself, mixed use
redevelopment of existing commercial properties is expected in future which will increase the
population within the activity centre.
Figure A.13: Intersection of Glenroy Road and
Pascoe Vale Road
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A11
Parking Management Approach
Figure A.14: Pascoe Vale Road active frontage Figure A.15: Wheatsheaf Road active frontage
On street parking is not permitted on parts of Pascoe Vale Road to allow for two through lanes of
traffic on both approaches and within the activity centre. Parking in Glenroy AC is adequately
served by several large at-grade off-street carparks. Some on street parking is available on
Wheatsheaf Road and along active frontages in adjoining streets to Pascoe Vale Road.
Parking restrictions vary across the centre, with a mix of both short and long-term restrictions
supplying different user groups depending on the adjacent land use.
Table A.4 shows the typical occupancies observed throughout the activity centres along each
key road, including details of observed overspill of parking into adjoining residential streets.
Table A.4: Glenroy Activity Centre on Street Parking, Observed Occupancies
Street From To Activity Centre
Occupancy
Residential
Overspill
Wheatsheaf Road Glenroy Road Blucher Street 90% 100m
Dowd Place Glenroy Road End 90% N/A
Waterloo Road Glenroy Road Blucher Street 25% N/A
Station Street Glenroy Road Barwon Street 75% N/A
Pascoe Vale Road Glenroy Road Finchley Avenue 50% N/A
Glenroy Road Pascoe Vale Road Plumpton Avenue 75% 20m
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
A12
Commuter Parking
Figure A.16: Glenroy station car park Figure A.17: Dowd Place commuter overspill car park
A large off-street carpark for rail commuters is provided at the train station with additional
unrestricted carparking provided for on-street in Dowd Place. While there is a bus interchange at
the train station, it appears most people using the train service are also utilising the park-and-ride
carparks given the ease of access and accessibility to unrestricted parking.
Another characteristic of the activity centre is that a lot of employee parking is catered for at-
grade within the property, or in one of the business permit zones, also contributing to lower
overspill rates in residential streets as explained below.
Table A.5 shows the parking occupancies observed in each of the major off-street carparks within
the activity centre.
Table A.5: Glenroy Activity Centre Off-street Car Parks, Observed Occupancies
Off Street Car Park Occupancy
From To
Gladstone Parade Lytton Street 75%
Belair Avenue Finchley Avenue 50%
Morgan Court Dowd Place 90%
Glenroy Station Glenroy Station 100%
Waterloo Road Blucher Street 90%
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
A13
Summary
Long-term off-street parking is highly utilised by commuters and employees and there is
adequate amount for current demand levels as observations show that there is no major overspill
into residential areas.
Future mixed-use developments will increase the demand for parking, pushing the existing
resources to capacity and the transition to active transport modes, especially within the northern
suburbs must be managed to ensure the impacts are minimised during the mode shift
While the activity centre is located around a train station, the ease of access by car and amount
of parking available encourages short car trips.
A.4 Neighbourhood Centres
A.4.1 Overview
As opposed to locations identified in Activity Centres, activity centres identified as
Neighbourhood Centres are much smaller and generally located away from arterial roads,
making it easier for access by short vehicle trips. Given the spacing and location of most
neighbourhood and activity centres within the municipality, it could be expected that some if not
most of the vehicle trips into the activity centres could be supplemented by other modes of
transport.
Of the activity centres in this category, those towards the south of the municipality are
experiencing much higher growth in terms of mixed use development and population growth
than those in the north given the lack of appetite for high density development in the north.
However, this is acknowledged to change as upward pressure continues to be placed on
property prices in the northern suburbs of the municipality.
As per Brunswick and Coburg activity centres, both on-street and off-street controls as managed
similarly from a restriction and allocation perspective where demand is high, provide a consistent
approach for parking management across the municipality. On-street spaces are generally short-
term to encourage turnover while discouraging employee and public transport commuter
parking, enabling access to businesses by customers.
More commonly seen in these activity centres is congestion created both within the activity
centre and in adjoining residential streets by park-and-ride commuters where inadequate supply
is provided for within rail commuter car parks. This is seen mostly in Melville Road, along the route
58 tram and at Oak Park and Pascoe Vale Stations along the Craigieburn Railway Line.
Table A.6 shown below outlines the parking occupancies22 for each of the Neighbourhood
Centres. Further descriptions of each activity centre from a parking and travel demand
management perspective are also provided in the following sections.
22 Parking occupancies were recorded using observations of Nearmap aerial imagery based on a spot count of parked vehicles
along the active frontages within the activity centre and do not account for overspill parking within residential streets. Spot count
observations were undertaken on images taken between 11am-2pm during a standard weekday, not within school or vacation
periods to ensure accuracy.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A14
Table A.6: Neighbourhood Centres, Parking Characteristics
ID Activity Centre Parking Occupancy
4 Grantham / Union Streets, Brunswick 50%
5 Melville Road / Albion Street / Victoria Street, Brunswick West 50%
6 Nicholson Street / Holmes Street/ Moreland Road, Coburg / Brunswick 75%
7 Bell Street / Melville Road, Pascoe Vale South 50%
8 Gaffney Street / Pascoe Vale Station, Pascoe Vale 90%
9 Gaffney / Sussex Streets, Coburg North 75%
10 Elizabeth Street, Coburg North 90%
11 West Street, Hadfield 90%
12 Bonwick Street, Fawkner 90%
13 Snell Grove, Oak Park 75%
14 Merlynston Station, Merlynston 90%
15 Moreland / Mellville Roads, West Brunswick 50%
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
along Grantham Street incorporates a small strip
shopping centre, as well as a medium size off-
street shopping centre. The route 58 tram runs
along Grantham Street and a tram stop is
located within the activity centre.
Parking Characteristics
The shopping centre has an off-street carpark
with medium term restrictions, supporting multi-
purpose trips to the activity centre. However
observations shown in Table A.6 indicate that
the carpark including on-street short-term
parking had an average occupancy of 50 per cent. Parking on-street is limited however it is short-
term to encourage turnover and discourage tram commuter parking within the centre.
Spill over of parking associated with park-and-ride commuters is observed to be 200-300m
however this is compounded by residents parking on street who do not have off-street parking
accessible from street frontages, which is seen in many of the Neighbourhood Centres in the
south of the municipality. Included in the spill over is parking along Grantham Street in front of
residential properties, which is unrestricted.
Figure A.18: Grantham Street active frontages
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A15
A.4.3 Melville Road / Albion Street / Victoria Street, Brunswick West
Centre and Accessibility
For the purposes of determining the parking and
transport characteristics of the individual activity
centres in the neighbourhood category, the
three neighbourhood activity centres along
Melville Road at Hope Street, Victoria Street and
Albion Street are considered as one due to their
proximity to each other. All are served by the
route 58 tram, connecting Pascoe Vale and
Brunswick to the city via Dawson Street and
Grantham Street. Both Victoria Street and Albion
Street are Council collector roads, which provide
crossings over the Moonee Ponds Creek and
continue through to Brunswick East.
Each of the three activity centres have small specialty retail offerings however multi-purpose trips
are not supported due to their distance from each other. There is currently limited medium and
high-density housing located across the three centres however the presence of commercial
premises on larger blocks provides the opportunity for future development within this centre.
Parking Characteristics
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.
Figure A.19: Activity Centre active frontage
Figure A.20: Activity Centre active frontage
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A16
Observations as described in Table A.6, show that the parking across the three activity centres
indicated an average occupancy of 50 per cent. This is largely due to the short-term nature of
office and retail visits along Melville Road. As such, there is no overspill which can be attributed to
the business use, apart from employee parking which cannot be accommodated on site. Several
automotive repair and maintenance businesses also reside in the area, which in inner city
Melbourne often result in cars waiting to be repaired being located on street however this is
occurring away from the main activity centre retail and office frontages.
A.4.4 Nicholson Street / Holmes Street / Moreland Road, Coburg / Brunswick
Centre and Accessibility
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.
Figure A.21: Moreland Road frontage facing west
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A17
A.4.5 Bell Street / Melville Road, Pascoe Vale South
Figure A.22: IGA off street car park Figure A.23: Melville Road active frontage,
facing west
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
A18
A.4.6 Gaffney Street / Pascoe Vale Station, Pascoe Vale
Centre and Accessibility
Similar to Oak Park Station activity centre and
Snell Grove, the Pascoe Vale Station activity
centre is located at a railway station along the
Craigieburn railway line. The activity centre
operates similarly from a parking and transport
perspective, however unlike Oak Park Station, it
is located on an arterial road (Gaffney Street)
creating higher visibility, and has several anchor
retail and entertainment business being a
supermarket and a hotel / pub.
This area of Pascoe Vale has relatively large
blocks, supporting medium density housing
developments. In addition to the anchor businesses, there is a mix of specialty retail and
commercial / industrial uses, which support multi-purpose trips into the centre.
A large area in the Pascoe Vale Station activity centre has also been designated as a
Neighbourhood Centre. This will result in a change to the current conditions with employment
and possibly residential development occurring in the area.
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.
Figure A.24: Pascoe Vale Station Activity Centre
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A19
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
A20
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
A21
A.4.11 Snell Grove, Oak Park
Centre and Accessibility
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.
Figure A.25: Snell Grove Shopping Centre
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A22
A.4.12 Merlynston Station, Merlynston
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
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.
Figure A.27: Activity Centre active frontage
Figure A.26: Merlynston Station Activity Centre
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A23
Summary
Neighbourhood Centres are well served by public transport and observations of parking around
activity centres by park-and-ride commuters, suggesting that many travel short distances by car
due to the abundance of available long-term parking and location of other public transport
nodes.
Residential parking restrictions apply to many adjoining streets, as residents perceive the
ownership of the parking resources in their street, despite in many locations, adequate off-street
parking supply.
Most of the activity centres in this category do not support long term multi-purpose trips, as such,
turnover is generally high in on-street parking around the immediate area, reducing the amount
of overspill attributable to visitors.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A24
A.5 Car Ownership Characteristics
The City of Moreland contains a highly variable level of car ownership. Figure A.28 presents the
car ownership rates for Moreland, as indicated in the 2016 Census. It displays the lower level of
car ownership in the densifying inner-city suburbs of Moreland’s south in contrast to the
noticeably higher levels of car ownership to the north.
As discussed above, the southern suburbs (such as Brunswick, Brunswick East and Brunswick West)
have the most available access to public transport and are experiencing a transition to higher
density living. This has resulted in a lesser reliance on car ownership. This is distinctly different to
what is experienced further to the north. As the tram network dissipates, and distance to the
Melbourne CBD increases, a higher car ownership is experienced.
Figure A.28: ABS Car Ownership - 2016
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A25
A.6 Travel Characteristics
The 2016 Census also provides valuable data on the journey to work habits of Moreland’s
residents. Figure A.29 similarly displays the contrast in private car use as above, when comparing
the northern and southern suburbs. The suburbs of Brunswick, Brunswick East, Brunswick West and
Coburg can all be seen to have less than 60 per cent of their population travelling via a private
vehicle every day. This is clearly in distinction to the northern suburbs, where a rate of
approximately 70 per cent and above is observed.
Due to the similarities between Figure A.28 and Figure A.29, it could be concluded that a lower
rate in car ownership will result in less people travelling to work via private motor car. To further
emphasise this point, Figure A.30 shows car ownership and journeys to work by car.
Figure A.29: ABS Journey to Work – Mode Split by Car (by Moreland residents) – 2016
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A26
Figure A.30: Car Ownership and Journey to Work (Car Mode Share) - 2016
Note: Only small parts of Tullamarine and Fitzroy North are in Moreland and suburb averages may
not be representative of Moreland sections.
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A27
Parking Rate Approaches
Ap
pe
nd
ix B
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A28
This Appendix reviews the existing planning scheme in relation to car parking and provides a
summary of car parking approaches adopted by surrounding municipalities.
B.1 Existing Policy
Clause 45.09 of the Moreland Planning Scheme applies parking overlays to land uses in the
Mixed-Use Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 2 Zone and Activity
Centre Zone within the City of Moreland. This overlay applies the Column B parking rates outlined
in Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
Column B parking rates outline a lesser requirement than the standard rates shown in Column A.
The rates that are outlined in Column A are the standard which is applied to the whole
municipality.
The Column B rates could be considered to typically reflect ‘Activity Centre’ type rates, which
begin to account for the sharing of car parking between multiple uses during the peak
(weekday, midday) time of the activity centre. An example of the difference between Column A
and Column B rates are that a residential development (such as the construction of a set of
apartments) must provide a space for visitors to park in for every 5 dwellings under the Column A
rates. This is not required under Column B.
The car parking rates for both Column A and B are listed within the state-wide Clauses of the
Victorian Planning Provisions.
While these Column B rates are more appropriate to be applied to activity centres, they are not
tailored to the individual transport availability and land use characteristics of each specific
Activity Centre. There are many Activity Centres throughout Melbourne that have these rates
applied to them, such as in Hawthorn, Kew, Footscray and Heidelberg.
They do not reflect the specific transport availability in the area, such as the amount of public
transport, quality of active travel facilities, amount of existing parking etc.
It should be noted that there are many circumstances in which the rates advised under the
planning scheme are not applied. Each development is assessed individually, and if it is deemed
appropriate to apply a lesser rate, then Council will approve them. Some developments are
being approved throughout Melbourne with close to no parking provided on site, if it is deemed
to be appropriate and acceptable outcome.
In a diverse municipality such as Moreland, with accessibility levels varying across activity centres
more specific consideration of the applied car parking rates is required, particularly if these are to
inform and achieve the mode shift aims of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.
B.2 Car Parking Benchmarking
B.2.1 Parking Overlays
As a means to inform how parking associated with new development within Moreland could be
managed, it is relevant to observe approaches adopted by other similar municipalities within
Metropolitan Melbourne.
This provides some guidance on the appetite of other similar areas to use parking as a tool to
seek mode shift and influence overall transport outcomes.
However, by no means does this limit the approach that could be adopted by Moreland in
managing car parking and potentially may point to the need for other municipalities to further
V132700 // 25/2/19
Moreland Parking Implementation Plan 2019 // Issue: A
A29
review parking management approaches to ensure that parking is an integrated component of
the transport systems rather than driving many of our end transport outcomes due to its rigid
minimum provision requirements.
In this regard the surrounding and similar inner Melbourne municipalities and the extent to which
specific formal statutory parking management approaches have been adopted are as follows:
Darebin: No adopted parking overlay
Moonee Valley: No adopted parking overlay
Maribyrnong:
Footscray – Inner (2015)
Footscray – Outer (2015
Yarra:
Collingwood Arts Precinct (2017)
Stonnington: No adopted parking overlay
Boroondara:
Activity Centres (2013)
Banyule
Greensborough (2013)
Heidelberg Precinct Core (2017)
Bell St & Heidelberg West Core (2017)
Port Phillip
CCZ Fishermans Bend (2012)
The City of Melbourne was not chosen for this assessment, as it has unique characteristics due to it
being the central city; and has therefore applied unique and strict car parking rates. It would not
be a useful comparison point for this assessment.
To further elaborate on those locations where Parking Overlays have been incorporated within
Clause 45.09 of the Planning Scheme the following Parking Overlay approaches and content
summary have been reproduced as follows:
Footscray – Inner (2015)
Maximum Rates Specific Uses
Minimum Rates Specific Uses
Other Uses Column B
Decision Guidelines
Motorcycle Rates
Footscray – Outer (2015)
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
A30
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
A31
Decision Guidelines are provided within all identified Car Parking Overlays with the
exception of ‘Collingwood Arts Precinct (Yarra)’ and ‘Activity Centres (Boroondara)’. It
is noted that all Car Parking Overlays within Banyule require either a Car Parking
Management Plan (for where parking is provided elsewhere than on the site) or the
preparation of a Green Travel Plan.
All Car Parking Overlays provide guidance regarding minimum motorcycle parking rate
requirements.
Advice provided by Councils indicates that due to a number of the Car Parking
Overlays being relatively new, it is difficult at this stage to judge their effectiveness.
In addition to the above, many of the nominated neighbouring Municipalities feature
out-of-Scheme Car Parking Management Strategies. These generally seek a reduction
in the use of private motor vehicles and promote travel by sustainable transport modes.
B.2.2 Other Approaches
As part of this car parking benchmarking review, other key sources have been considered.
The RTANSW ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ (2002) provides a range of car parking
rates for various land uses based on surveys and research. These rates are typically differentiated
by location (e.g. sub-regional city centre), however are not easily categorised by the type of
activity area which they may be applicable to.
In comparing the RTA rates to those set down within Clause 52.06 of the Victorian Planning
Provisions, it is noted that they are generally lower than both the Column A and Column B
requirements for key land uses.
GTA Consultants also has a database of surveys that have been compiled over many years of
surveying car parking. These surveys have been conducted at varying locations around
Melbourne and Australia for many different land uses, locations and times. The rates that GTA
have found in their database are generally comparable with those in the RTANSW guide.
B.2.3 Previous Moreland Parking Strategy Approaches
Both the Brunswick and Coburg Car Parking Strategies developed by GTA generally seek to
provide a “balanced” approach to managing transport impacts. This being to maintain the
future viability of the Centres whilst also addressing current road network congestion issues by
providing a level of restriction around the provisions of additional car parking required for
development land use proposals. Specifically, the Coburg Car Parking Strategy provided
minimum car parking rates but dependant on precinct and location, whilst the Brunswick Car
Parking Strategy provided both minimum and maximum car parking rates as a range for the
entire study area. These rates were typically lower than the Column B rates adopted municipal
wide.
Melbourne
A Level 25, 55 Collins Street
PO Box 24055
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
P +613 9851 9600
Brisbane
A Ground Floor, 283 Elizabeth Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
GPO Box 115
BRISBANE QLD 4001
P +617 3113 5000
Adelaide
A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade
PO Box 3421
NORWOOD SA 5067
P +618 8334 3600
Sydney
A Level 16, 207 Kent Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
P +612 8448 1800
Canberra
A Level 4, 15 Moore Street
CANBERRA ACT 2600
P +612 6243 4826
Perth
A Level 2, 5 Mill Street
PERTH WA 6000
PO Box 7025, Cloisters Square
PERTH WA 6850
P +618 6169 1000
www.gta.com.au www.gta.com.au
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-3
C. FUNDING MECHANISMS
C
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-4
C.1. Funding Mechanisms
Aside from Council’s capital and operational funding, the p lanning and delivery of sustainable transport
infrastructure on an ongoing basis will require funding provisions. According to the Council’s 2016-17
Annual Report, the amount of infrastructure spending was around $15.5 million in 2016-17, of which
footpaths and cycleways accounted for around $2.6 million or 17 per cent of the total. The spending on
footpaths and cycleways included dedicated bike lanes and wider footpaths on Dawson Street in
Brunswick as well as an upgrade to the pedestrian crossing at the Upfield bike path. The previous
infrastructure spending provides a broad indication of the annual funding requirements, while noting the
implementation of the bike strategy may require additional funding into the future.
In terms of the Council’s revenue, in 2016-17 the Council received a total revenue of $205 million.
Council’s rates and charges represent the most significant revenue source accounting for 67 per cent
of the total revenue, followed by grant funding at around 10 per cent and development contributions at
around 9 per cent.95
Figure C1: Moreland City Council’s revenue breakdown (2016-17 actuals)
Source: Moreland City Council 2016-17 Annual Report95
The revenue breakdown suggests that while rates and charges are the main revenue source,
development contributions are an established mechanism in Moreland which contributed around $1 5.5
million revenue to the Council in 2016-17. There might also be opportunities to seek additional funding
through alternative means. The following sections describe a number of funding options currently used
by Council that could be considered to support the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure.
Further discussion is also provided on alternate funding options not currently used by Council.
It is noted that Council has a current Development Contributions Plan in and place and has in the past
used Special Rates as funding mechanisms (both discussed further below) however neither have been
specifically used for the funding of sustainable transport infrastructure.
Rates and
charges, 67%
Statutory fees
and fines, 6%
User fees, 4%
Grants –
operating, 10%
Grants - Capital,
1%
Contributions –
cash, 8%
Contributions –
non-monetary, 1%Other income, 3%
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-5
C.1.1. Suite of Funding Options
Development Contributions
A Development Contributions Plan (DCP) is a way by which Council can charge new development in a
given area for contributions towards planned infrastructure projects. It is a certain and transparent means
by which Council can recover some of the costs towards the on-going provision of adequate development
and community infrastructure.
Money received through the DCP can go towards a varied range of projects such as, but not limited to:
• Road and drainage upgrades
• Landscaping and streetscaping works
• Bike paths.
The DCP outlines why and how Council will charge new development for a financial contribution towards
planned infrastructure projects from which that development will benefit.
A DCP currently exists within the City of Moreland at Clause 45.06 of the Planning Scheme with funds
being collected to support drainage, road, planning and community facility infrastructure.
Contribution amounts range between $323.64 and $1,459.98 per dwelling. Contribution amounts are
also identified for industrial and commercial developments.
The process of preparing a DCP requires the integration of the provision of infrastructure with the
strategic planning framework for the municipality and provides a number of benefits including, but not
limited to:
• A DCP enables infrastructure costs to be shared fairly amongst multiple contributors.
• A DCP can enable the earlier delivery of infrastructure than if its provision is dependent upon general
taxes or rates. It also provides certainty about the delivery of infrastructure for the community and
developers, because a DCP must satisfy accountability and transparency principles.
• A DCP provides developers with certainty that the money that they contribute will be accounted for
separately and spent on the infrastructure it was collected to provide.
Special Rates Schemes
Councils are able to levy a special rate or charge on existing property owners to help pay for any council
service or activity that will be of special or unique benefit to those particular property owners.
Examples include schemes for constructing carparks, footpaths, roads or drains in a particular area, and
schemes for promoting and marketing local businesses.
Council must comply with the Local Government Act 1989 when proposing and establishing special rates
or charges. Council must give public notice of any proposal to levy special rates and charges and must
undertake public consultation.
Before proposing a special rate or charge, Council must evaluate the benefits of the proposed works or
services to the people who are liable to pay and must also levy the rate or charge in proportion to the
benefit to be received. Special rates schemes have been historically used by Council to fund the
construction of carparks in both Brunswick and Coburg.
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-6
As a means calculating contributions for Special Rates Schemes a concept of ‘value capture’ could also
be used. The concept of value capture essentially involves capturing land or property value uplift from
the improved infrastructure and attributing the cost of providing such infrastructure to the beneficiaries.
Value capture has been increasingly applied in Australia for major transport projects such as Sydney
Metro.
There has been a well-established legislation and process to facilitate the implementation of development
contribution for funding local infrastructure. However, the key challenges associated with implementing
value capture would include:
• Demonstrating that people value the proposed sustainable transport infrastructure and are willing
to pay more for housing and commercial development with access to such infrastructure.
• Quantifying the benefits of sustainable transport infrastructure and attributing the cost to specific
beneficiaries.
The Value Capture concept could also be used as a means to calculate contributions applied through
the Developer Contributions mechanism above.
Cash in Lieu of Parking
There have been discussions around using the developers’ cash-in-lieu of parking to fund sustainable
transport. It involves taking financial contributions from prospective developers rather than requiring the
on-site provision of parking spaces.
The cash-in-lieu scheme would require the Council to address the core principles of need, nexus,
accountability and equity in the strategic assessment of the proposal before it is introduced. It is
important to justify that there is a direct link between the types of proposals affected by the scheme and
the infrastructure provision.
If the cash-in-lieu of parking were to be used to fund sustainable transport infrastructure, there would be
a need to demonstrate that the provision of the sustainable transport will encourage a mode shift from
car to the extent that the existing parking provision will meet future demand.
A cash-in-lieu of parking scheme to fund parking and sustainable transport improvements was proposed
by the Moonee Valley City Council for the Moonee Ponds Activity Centre in 2017. The proposed scheme
was consequently refused by the Minister of Planning with a recommendation to the Council that the
type of infrastructure proposed would be better achieved using other means, such as special rates
charge or Development Contributions Plan Overlay.
Following a review of the supporting documentations published by the Moonee Valley City Council and
subsequent Panel report, the following issues have been identified which could exist and make it
challenging to use cash in lieu as a means to support sustainable transport infrastructure in Moreland:
• A cash-in-lieu scheme is not possible where there are maximum car parking requirements, which
will be introduced as part of MITS.
• It is difficult to justify the provision of public transport, or sustainable transport infrastructure can be
directly related to a reduction in car parking provision.
• While a cost-benefit-analysis as part of the strategic justification report was prepared, the economic
benefits (e.g. health benefits, reduced vehicle operating costs and emissions) quantified in the
report for the cash-in-lieu scheme could only be justified if the assumed mode shift target was
achieved.
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-7
• There may be limited economic benefits associated with mode shift from car from the overall
community’s perspective, as people who used to drive may choose an alternative living area with
sufficient parking provision.
• Even if the approval of the cash-in-lieu scheme can be obtained, there might not be sufficient
incentives for developers to take on the cash-in-lieu scheme, as the construction cost of on-site
parking can be recovered through the property sale price. As such, a cash-in-lieu is unlikely to
achieve cost savings for developers. In turn this may encourage developers to provide more rather
than less car parking.
Parking Revenue
Parking revenue could be a major source of income to the Council. In many local government areas,
paid parking has been introduced to manage parking demand. Revenue over and above the cost of
managing and enforcing parking could be spent on local area or sustainable transport improvements.
Parking revenue is an implementation of the “user pays” principle, which has been gradually accepted
by local residents over the years. The key advantage of using the parking revenue to fund local
infrastructure is that local residents can perceive the benefits when making their financial contribution
with regard to parking facilities.
However, it may require establishing a scheme or policy which enforces the dedication of parking
revenue to local sustainable transport infrastructure to ensure a consistent and sustainable source of
funding is available. It may also require an ongoing monitoring and forecasting of parking revenue to
reduce the impact of policy or travel behaviour changes on the revenue outcome.
The ability to collect revenue is also impacted by the state government parking levy which is currently
applicable to off-street paid parking in the southern portion of the municipality.
Government Funding
Government funding can be a potential source of local transport infrastructure funding. It would require
preparing a business case or relevant funding submission documentations for grant funding or i nclusion
in State Government budgets.
While the investment in sustainable transport infrastructure may be justifiable given its benefits to the
community, the process of funding application can be long and there is a greater uncertainty of the
funding availability. Therefore, government funding may be more appropriate for major infrastructure or
a sustainable transport infrastructure “program” that comprises staged investments.
This means that a long-term plan in relation to future investment will need to be developed to raise the
significance of the funding request.
Summary
A comparison of the above funding options is presented in Table 1 along with consideration of a number
of other funding opportunities.
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-8
Table C1: Comparison of sustainable transport funding options
Mechanism /
Description Nexus Advantages Disadvantages Risk
Development
Contributions
Payments or works-in-
kind towards the
provision of
infrastructure made by
the proponent of a new
development
New development to
be levied is likely to
benefit from the
sustainable transport
infrastructure to be
provided.
Already exists within
Moreland.
Established process
(Local Government
Act)
No financial impact
on existing residents
Enables collection of
funding where
parking limitation
policies are in place
Relative certainty of
contribution should
development be
realised
Limited to new
development
Requires
planning scheme
amendment
Underestimation of
whole-of-life
infrastructure cost
Special Rates
Levying special rates for
upgrading sustainable
transport infrastructure
to a particular group of
property owners
Financial contribution
to sustainable
transport infrastructure
from beneficiaries
Established process
(Local Government
Act)
Extensive public
consultation
process
Requires buy in
from community
to be
implemented
Objection from the
community
Inflexibility in re-
purposing
infrastructure
funded by special
rates
Cash in Lieu
Taking a financial
contribution from
prospective developers
rather than requiring the
on-site provision of
parking spaces to fund
sustainable transport
infrastructure.
There is a need to
demonstrate that the
provision of
sustainable transport
infrastructure will
achieve mode shift
from car, whilst
ensuring the existing
parking provision will
be able to meet future
demand.
Less financial burden
to community
Such mechanism
has not been
established with
previous lack of
success by
others
Approach is not
possible when
parking minimum
requirements
have been
removed
Challenge to
justify nexus
Lack of incentives
from developers
compared to
building on-site
parking
Reduced likelihood
of obtaining
approval
Funding certainty
limited as not only
reliant on
development
occurring but also
parking not being
provided
Encourages supply
of parking which is
contrary to MITS
directions
Council Funding
Council fund the
sustainable transport
infrastructure through
existing budget.
Council rates collected
are supposed to help
fund local
infrastructure and
services.
No additional
financial contribution
from residents/
businesses
Existing budget
may not be
sufficient
Rates redirected
to infrastructure,
impacting other
services given
rate-capped
environment
Suboptimal
infrastructure
standard due to
budget constraints
may not meet the
mode shift
objective
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-9
Mechanism /
Description Nexus Advantages Disadvantages Risk
Other Parking
Management Sources
Use funds collected from
the introduction of Paid
Parking to fund
sustainable transport
No requirement for
nexus demonstration,
however represents
good policy to reinvest
paid parking funds
back into improving
transport choice.
Collects funds from
those using the
transport system.
Reinvests funds back
into creating
transport choice.
Creates a clear
message that paid
parking is not simply
a revenue raising
tool.
Traditionally
parking revenue
goes back into
consolidated
revenue thus
losing the
effectiveness of
the reinvestment
message.
The level of
revenue capture is
unknown at this
stage.
Government Funding
Requesting funding from
the State or Federal
Government for the
provision of sustainable
transport infrastructure
The sustainable
transport infrastructure
would generate
broader benefits to the
community which
warrant government
funding.
No financial
contribution required
from residents or
developers
Ad-hoc funding
requests unable
to providing
sustainable
funding
Reliance on the
State or Federal
Government
Uncertainty of
funding availability
Based on the above assessment the following discussion is provided.
The use of a Cash in Lieu Scheme is not possible where a minimum parking requirements have been
removed, as is recommended for Major Activity Centres earlier, diminishing the effectiveness of this tool
in Moreland. In addition, there are suitable queries around the ability of a Cash in Lieu scheme to support
mode shift aims.
The use of a Development Contributions Plan represents a lower risk option (than a Cash in Lieu scheme)
to the Council to achieve funding to support the development of sustainable transport infrastructure and
achieving mode shift objectives of MITS. Such a scheme, however, commits Council to specific
prescribed investment (to be detailed through work beyond this strategy) that cannot be easily altered
in future years.
However, it must be recognised that a Development Contributions Plan places a cost on development
(albeit relatively small ranging between $323.64 and $1,459.98 per dwelling8 based on the existing DCP),
ultimately driving up the cost for new dwellings in Moreland. However, this cost in minor compared to
the cost to home buyers who are forced to purchase car bays through bundled accommodation
packages.
The use of funds from future paid parking reflects an outcome that, not only is the introduction of paid
parking being used to discourage private car use, but the funds collected from it are being used to invest
in sustainable transport infrastructure to better facilitate and encourage mode shift occurring. The use
of funds will also remain flexible to be allocated to specific projects on a needs basis. The availability of
funds however may not be immediately available as any paid parking system must be implemented and
go through a payback period before a revenue stream would be available to fund other projects. The
ability to collect revenue may also be impacted by the state government parking levy which is not shared
with Moreland or invested in the local area.
8 Contribution amounts are also identified for industrial and commercial developments.
APPENDIX: FUNDING
MECHANISMS
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 C-10
As such, from the options explored in the above, a Development Contributions Plan would appear to be
the most appropriate mechanism by which to use new developments to fund sustainable transport
infrastructure, but the use of funds collected from future paid parking could also represent an appropriate
and flexible funding source.
A DCP already exists within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In the short term, it is recommended that
Council investigate the possibility of including sustainable transport improvements in the current DCP,
such as through substituting them for similar projects within the same charge areas. In the medium term,
the next DCP could have a stronger focus on funding sustainable transport improvements, including
through charging higher contribution rates, given the current rates are relatively low.
In the longer term, revenue captured from paid parking could become significant revenue source and
complement a DCP as a funding mechanism for sustainable transport.
APPENDIX: PARKING OVERLAY
V132702 // 14/02/20
Car Parking Evidence Report // Issue: Final
Moreland Parking Overlays, Moreland Planning
Scheme Amendment C183 D-11
D. PARKING OVERLAY
D
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 1 OF 3
SCHEDULE 1 TO CLAUSE 45.09 PARKING OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as PO1.
ACTIVITY CENTRES
1.0 Parking objectives to be achieved
To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres which:
Encourage the mode shift toward walking, cycling, and public transport. Contribute to an improved built environment.
To encourage the provision of car parking facilities which allow for the future adaptation to other uses and innovations in transport technology.
2.0 Permit requirement
A permit is required to provide car parking spaces in excess of the maximum number specified in this Schedule.
3.0 Number of car parking spaces required
For all uses listed in Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5, the maximum number of car parking spaces to be provided for the use is calculated by multiplying the Rate in Column B of that Table by the accompanying Measure.
4.0 Application requirements and decision guidelines for permit applications
Application requirements
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
A transport assessment which considers the impacts of increasing parking above the maximum limit, the purpose and need for such increase and the decision guidelines of this Schedule.
A Green Travel Plan which includes a variety of transport demand management measures that reduce peoples’ dependency on private vehicle trips.
A statement and plans that demonstrate how any car parking in excess of the maximum number of spaces could be transitioned to other uses over time.
Decision guidelines
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
The transport assessment. Any empirical analysis of the number of car parking spaces that should be
provided. The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car
parking demands generated. The availability and access to any alternative transport, such as walking, cycling
and public transport infrastructure. The current usage patterns of any nearby public parking and car share facilities.
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 2 OF 3
The capacity of the street network to accommodate additional traffic generated by the car parking facilities.
The impact of increased parking and associated traffic movements on pedestrian, cycle and public transport facilities in the area.
The impact on safety and convenience of pedestrians moving around the car parking facility.
Whether the development includes provision for bicycle, electronic bicycle, cargo bicycle, motorcycle and car share parking.
The provision of bicycle and end of trip facilitites in excess of those set out under Clause 52.34 and/or other clauses of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
The availability of car parking in the locality.
5.0 Financial contribution requirement
None specified.
6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan
The following requirements must be shown on a car parking plan, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-8:
Any spaces allocated to car share parking, motorcycle parking and bicycle parking.
If a Green Travel Plan is provided under any provision of the Scheme, any relevant information specified in the Green Travel plan.
How car parking could be transitioned to other uses over time. How provisions have been made to allow for future vehicle charging.
7.0 Design standards for car parking
The following design standards for car parking and other requirements for the design and management of car parking must be met, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-9:
Vehicle accessways, crossovers and car park entries should be provided from rear laneways where possible.
The design and provision of vehicle crossovers should: Be limited to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots. Avoid the removal of street trees. Maximise pedestrian safety and sight lines.
The layout and design of car parking areas should make a positive contribution to the public realm, including maximising opportunities for active frontages and casual surveillance.
8.0 Decision guidelines for car parking plans
The following decision guidelines apply to car parking plans under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
Whether the car parking plan encourages sustainable transport patterns that preference walking, cycling and public transport use (including adopting current design standards such as Australian Standard, Parking facilities Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities (AS 2890.3-2015).
The extent to which the car parking areas are designed for future adaptation and repurposing.
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 1 PAGE 3 OF 3
The extent to which car parking facilities (crossovers, accessways,garages and carports) are visible from the streetscape.
9.0 Reference document
Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 1 OF 3
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
To identify appropriate car parking rates for various land uses in Moreland’s Neighbourhood Centres which: Encourage the mode shift toward walking, cycling, and public transport. Contribute to an improved built environment To encourage the provision of car parking facilities which allow for the future adaptation to other uses and innovations in transport technology.
2.0 Permit requirement
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
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
Application Requirements
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: A transport assessment which considers the impacts of reducing parking below the
minimum limit and the decision guidelines of this Schedule. A Green Travel Plan which includes a variety of transport demand management
measures that reduce peoples’ dependency on private vehicle trips.
Decision Guidelines
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: The transport assessment. Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces
that should be provided. The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car parking
demands generated. For reductions in the rate of provision of commercial uses:
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 2 OF 3
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
None specified.
6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan
The following requirements must be shown on a car parking plan, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-8: Any spaces allocated to car share parking, motorcycle parking and bicycle
parking. If a Green Travel Plan is provided under any provision of the Scheme, any
relevant information specified in the Green Travel plan. How car parking could be transitioned to other uses over time. How provisions have been made to allow for future vehicle charging.
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 2 PAGE 3 OF 3
7.0 Design standards for car parking
The following design standards for car parking and other requirements for the design and management of car parking must be met, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-9:
Vehicle accessways, crossovers and car park entries should be provided from rear laneways where possible.
The design and provision of vehicle crossovers should: 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
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
Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 3
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
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
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
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
Application Requirements
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme and must accompany an application, as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: A transport assessment which considers the impacts of reducing parking below the
minimum limit and the decision guidelines of this Schedule. A Green Travel Plan which includes a variety of transport demand management
measures that reduce peoples’ dependency on private vehicle trips.
Decision Guidelines
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 45.09, in addition to those specified in Clause 45.09 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority: The transport assessment. Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces
that should be provided. The particular characteristics of the proposed use with regard to the likely car parking
demands generated. For reductions in the rate of provision of commercial uses:
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 3
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
None specified.
6.0 Requirements for a car parking plan
The following requirements must be shown on a car parking plan, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-8: Any spaces allocated to car share parking, motorcycle parking and bicycle parking. If a Green Travel Plan is provided under any provision of the Scheme, any relevant
information specified in the Green Travel plan. How car parking could be transitioned to other uses over time. How provisions have been made to allow for future vehicle charging.
7.0 Design standards for car parking
The following design standards for car parking and other requirements for the design and management of car parking must be met, in addition to the matters that must be shown on plans prepared under Clause 52.06-9:
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME
OVERLAYS - CLAUSE 45.09 – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 3 OF 3
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
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
Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy, March 2019 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan, March 2019
--/--/20— C183
--/--/20— C183
MAP No 1PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
HUMECITY
BRIMBANKCITY MOONEE
VALLEY CITY
MALVERN
AV
GO
WA
NB
RA
E
DR
SE
GG
AN
CIR
CO
VE
NTR
Y
ST
LANARK WAY
ORCHIDCT
BU
SH
MEW
S
IRIS CT
ADELA
IDE
BVD
LIL
AC
MEW
S
ELM SCT
CAROLINE
RISE
ROSE CT
BIRK
CT
CLOVER CT
O
AK CT
PERTH
CT
ALDER CT
LAUDER
CT
PA
ISLE
YC
T
VA
ND
ER
LO
O
RD
WA
RW
ICK
PL
DAFFO
DIL CT
BA
LD
E
RRIECT
MA
RIG
OLD
C
R
RUTH
ERG
LEN
CR
PRIM
ROSE
CT
BLU
EB
ELL
CR
H
OLLYCT
PR
IMU
LA
BVD
BA
LE
RN
O
CIR
HANN
AH
PA
SC
OE
DR
MELROSEDR
TULLAMARINE FWY
WESTERN
RINGRD
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 2PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
HUMECITY
GLEN PARK AV
HILTON ST
MELBOURNE AV
LYTTON ST
BELAIR AV
SH
EP
HE
RD
S
T
LU
PIN
CT
ACACIA ST
KIAMA ST
DO
WD
PL
KENNEDY ST
GORRIE PL
FINCHLEY AV
WA
TE
RL
OO
R
D
KA
DA
NA
ST
TR
EV
AN
NIO
N
ST
TH
ISTLE
BR
OO
KC
T
GRANDVIEW
ST
GLADSTONE PDE
WARANA CT
STA
TIO
N
RD
MUNTZ AV
PA
NO
RA
MA
CT
MACKINNON
GR
ARUNDEL AV
MCDONALD PL
ME
LIA
PL
RIDGEWAY AV
ANSELM GR
PENGANA AV
MITCHELL CT
OU
TLO
OK
DR
M
AR
RS
ON
PL
HEATHER CT
HOLLY CT
POST OFFICE
PL
CHERWELL AV
MA
PLE
S
T
GERVASE AV
BR
O
WNS LANE
DA
MIA
N
CT
CR
OM
WE
LL
ST
MO
RG
AN
C
T
MARLBOROUGH ST
BY
RO
NC
T
CORRIGAN ST
NENE AV
BARWON ST
WO
NG
A
PL
RESERVE CT
VIEW ST
MENANA RD
CORIO ST
STANLEY ST
DALEY ST
BLE
NH
EIM
S
T
KING ST
ILLAWARRA ST
NE
LS
ON
S
T
CURRAJONG ST
BLUCHER ST
ROWAN ST
MITCHELL ST
CR
OSS
TC
E
DROMANA ST
CLOVELLY AV
PROSPECT ST
MURRELL ST
TUDOR ST
ELECTRIC AV
LEWIS ST
KALANG RD
YORK ST
GR
AN
VIL
LE
S
T
CH
UR
CH
ILL
ST
SA
LIS
BU
RY
S
T
HA
RT
ING
TO
N
ST
BE
CK
ET
S
T
SO
UT
H
BE
CK
ET
S
T
NO
RT
H
AU
GU
ST
INE
T
CE
WIL
LIA
M
ST
AD
ELA
IDE
BV
D
LIN
DS
AY
S
T
ELE
CTR
IC
ST
CH
AP
MA
N
AV
MOONEE BVD
DU
RA
NTA
DR
MA
RIG
OLD
C
R
PA
LA
NA
ST
LO
ONG
A
NA
AV
PE
CH
AM
S
T
TARANA AV
FR
AN
S
T
VALLEY
CR
LAN
GTO
N
ST
KA
RIN
CR
PR
IMU
LA
BVD
GLENROY RD
PASCOE VALE
RD
PLUMPTON AV
WHEATSHEAF RD
WESTERN RING RD
PO1
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 3PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
HUMECITY
MIDDLE ST
WALTER ST
GEUM ST
ACACIA
ST
NORTH ST
EILEEN ST
MO
RL
EY
S
T
CALDWELL ST
TRUSCOTT ST
EVELL
ST
JESSIEHUNTER
ST
JOHN
ST
BOURCHIER ST
STELLA ST
ILA ST
NEWTON ST
JU
ST
IN
AV
MAY
S
T
MORELL
ST
EV
ER
ITT
ST
HO
WA
RD
CT
MU
RR
AY
S
T
MA
RIA
CT
VIEW ST
ANDREW ST
DALEY ST
FA
RV
IEW
S
T
RE
X
PL
TA
SS
ELL
ST
MOSS CT
SAD
IE
ST
RO
Y
ST
ASH CT
CH
IFLE
Y
AV
VO
LG
A
ST
MELBOURNE AV
HILDA ST
SU
NB
EA
M
ST
GORDON CT
WIN
-M
ALE
E
ST
WHEATSHEAF
RD PE
AR
L
ST
BINDI ST
GOWRIE
ST
DANAE ST
DELHI ST
LYONS ST
MIKADO ST
PATIENCE ST
HAROLD ST
APSLEY ST
RE
GE
NT
S
T
BA
RB
AR
A
ST
HA
LS
BU
RY
S
T
LA
WR
EN
CE
S
T
EU
CR
A
ST
LA
RLA
C
ST
NE
IL
ST
DIC
KIN
SO
N
ST
LO
CK
LE
Y
ST
BA
RU
NA
H
ST
CO
SM
OS
S
T
VA
LE
NC
IA
ST
MA
UD
E
AV
HU
BE
RT
A
V
ISLA
A
V
LE
ON
AR
D
AV
LO
GA
N
ST
CO
NN
ELL
ST
BE
AT
TY
A
V
GOLF LINKS
RD
ST
AG
NE
SC
T
GLE
NS
T
CH
AR
LE
S
ST
EVERARD
ST
PA
GE
T
AV
AN
GU
S
ST
WARD
ST
BAYVIEW
RD
WEST
ST
PLUMPTONAV
HILTON ST
GLENROY RD
WIDF
ORD
ST
CARD
INAL
RD
WESTERN RING RD
PO2
PO3
PO1
PO1
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 4PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
HUMECITY
DA
VIE
S
ST
WIL
LIA
M
ST
JESSIE HUNTER ST
MA
Y
ST
ST
AN
FO
RD
CL
PIM
BIA
L C
T
EA
ST
S
T
DA
VID
S
T
ANDERSON RD
FO
UR
TH
C
R
WIL
LO
WT
RE
ELA
NE
JUKES RD
JE
AN
INE
CR
LOWSON ST
LIS
TO
N
RD
DO
WD
ING
CL
LYNCH RD
MAJOR RD
PRESTON ST
NORTH ST
VIC
TO
RIA
B
VD
SA
RA
CT
MA
LM
SB
UR
YC
T
DENYS ST
PA
TR
ICIA
D
R
MORELL ST
HUME
AV
HUDSON ST
REBECCA CL
EVELL ST
WE
LLS
CT
EV
A
CT
MIDDLE ST
PA
RK
P
L
STA
R
CT
DISNEY ST
ALV
A
CT
SO
UT
H B
OX
CT
BIR
CH
WO
OD
S
T
FIR
ST
CR
ED
GA
R
ST
OS
ULLIV
AN
CT
JA
SM
INE
WA
Y
TH
IRD
C
R
T INACL
MEADOWBANK ST
NO
RT
HW
EA
LD
WA
Y
FIN
UC
AN
E P
L
IRV
IN
CT
NO
RT
H B
OX
CT
GLY
ND
A
ST
WIN
N
GR
MURRAY ST
WE
LC
H
ST
BASIL ST
BO
ST
ON
S
T
MA
NS
TO
NW
AY
DOROTHY ST
HEDLEY ST
ALE
C
CR
LE
IGH
TO
N
CR
PEPPERMINTCT
SIXTH
AV
FA
IRM
OU
NT
S
T
FITZROY ST
STRATFORD ST
SAMSON ST
LA
VE
ND
ER
C
T
ST JAMES ST
OG
DE
N
ST
KATOOMBA ST
FA
IRLE
IGH
S
T
STAPLES CT
SEACOMBE ST
SE
LO
LA
C
T
LOVELY ST
SA
GE
SR
D
PE
NN
CT
EPPING ST
CLA
RA
S
T
FLIN
DE
RS LANE
WY
MLE
T
ST
SANDRA AV
SHERWOOD ST
BATTERSEA ST
CURTIN AV
LE
DG
ER
AV
RO
DIN
GS
S
T
LEO ST
RIC
HM
ON
D
ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
SH
AW
ST
BEDFORD ST
EXETER ST
BRIAN ST
MAHER ST
SHIRLEY ST
PALMER ST
MARGARET ST
BASS
AV
MA
PLE
TC
EB
EE
CH
WO
OD
TC
E
PA
RK
LA
ND
DR
MC
DO
UG
ALL
ST
GU
YC
T
SE
VE
NT
H
AV
CO
-O
PLA
NE
SU
TH
ER
LA
ND
S
T
WILLSLANE
DO
MA
IN
ST
SY
DN
EY
RD
BO
NW
ICK
ST
MITCHELL CCT
ED
WA
RD
S
T
ALLA
N
ST
RIC
HA
RD
S
T
GIS
H
CT
HY
DE
S
T
PIP
ER
S
T
LO
CK
ST
LO
RD
S
T
MORAY ST
BOX FOREST RD
HILTON ST
MAHONEYSRD
SYDNEYRD
WESTERN RING RD
METROPOLITAN RING RD
PO2
PO3
PO3PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 5PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
DAREBINCITY
HUMECITY WHITTLESEA
CITY
VICTORY ST
LYNCH RD
TY
RR
ELL
CR
MAJOR RD
JUKES RD
RO
HA
NC
T
EPSOM CT
LOWSON ST
LEONARDST
HU
GO
C
T
LOCK STOMARA ST
JA
ME
S
ST
MIN
ON
A
ST
TY
SO
N
ST
DENYS ST
BA
IRD
S
T
VERVALE AV
BU
NG
AY
S
T
MARJORY ST
HARE ST
HOOD CR
HUDSON ST
PRESTON ST
TU
CK
ER
S
T
FR
ED
ER
ICK
ST
PIT
TS
T
DO
WLIN
G
ST
MIL
LE
R
ST
PE
RC
Y
ST
BR
OO
KS
S
T
WA
TK
INS
S
T
HO
GA
N
ST
JUNE ST
FAY ST
CLA
RE
MO
NT
S
T
OU
LT
ON
S
T
BE
CC
LE
S
ST
JE
NN
IFE
R
ST
ELSA ST
WURRUK ST
EMMA ST
BR
UC
E
ST
MC
BR
YD
E
ST
ELIZ
AB
ET
H
ST
LA
NIG
AN
S
T
SOMERLAYTON CR
LIN
K
PD
E
TW
YF
OR
D
ST
ALE
C
CR
MAHONEYS RD
PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 6PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
MOONEEVALLEY
CITY
DEVON RD
PA
RK
S
T
STA
TIO
N
RD
MACKINNON GR
VICTORIA ST
DEVEREAUX ST
GEORGE ST
WIL
LIA
M
ST
WA
TE
RL
OO
R
D
SIM
CR
FOTIS CT
PATRICK ST
STANLEY ST
KA
DA
NA
ST
EDGECOMBE ST
ELPIS CT
HERBERT
ST
PA
LA
NA
S
T
OAK PARK
CT
WILLETT AV
BARINA RD
FRANCIS
ST
ADELAIDE ST
DR
AS
KA
CT
KE
RR
AV
BO
NA
AV
CLY
DE
CT
CA
RT
WR
IGH
T
ST
MURPHY
ST
JOHN
ST
LOONGANA AV
PINES GR
VIN
CEN
T
ST
WIN
IFRED
ST
MEAKER AV
CURIE AV
SH
OR
TA
V
JOSEPH
INE
ST
MA
RIE
S
T
KENNEDY
ST
JESSIE ST
STRACHAN ST
FL
AN
NE
RY
C
T
SYLV
ESTE
R
ST
NEW RD
CHARLOTTE ST
MILT
ON
S
T
AS
HG
R
MAIN ST
GR
AN
DIS
ON
G
R
ETH
EL
ST
GR
EG
OR
Y
ST
MA
RG
AR
ET
ST
SU
MM
IT
AV
XAVIE
RS
T
RID
GE
R
D
CH
RIS
C
T
VALDOONE
CT
BA
ILE
Y C R
JAC
AR
AN
DA
S
T
PERCIVAL ST
PASCOE VALE
RD
PO2
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 7PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
MOONEEVALLEY
CITY
SOUTH ST
OHEA ST
DEVON RDA
ND
ER
SO
N
ST
KENT RD
NO
RT
HG
AT
E
ST
BR
IST
OL
RD
NE
RIS
SA
GR
IRV
INE
S
T
LA
ND
ELLS
R
D
SNELL
GR
RA
Y
ST
NO
RT
HU
MB
ER
LA
ND
R
D
BARINA RD
EDDIE ST
ARNDT RD
ESSEX ST
WINDSOR ST
CEDARCT
PROSPECT ST
WA
TT
A
V
TATE ST
MARTIN ST
AU
ST
IN
CR
PENZANCE ST
ASH CT
KE
RN
AN
ST
NORTON ST
B
I RCH CT
KAUMPLE ST
ALP
INE
G
R
HE
LE
N
VIE
W
FREEMAN DR
GLENFERN PL
PR
INC
ES
S
ST
PEARCEYGR
COLORADO ST
FR
AN
CIS
S
T
BOLINGBROKE ST
DA
LE
A
V
KIN
RO
SS
S
T
KEVIN ST
LON
GVIE
W
ST
MOONEE ST
BA
RA
K
CT
CASUARINACT
AMBER CT
CALLANDER RD
DONNELLY CT
BIG
NE
LL
ST
KA
LLIS
D
R
EARLS CT
BRYAN CT
BAYVIEWRD
AN
N
ST
VIRGINIA ST
DOUGLAS ST
PLEASANT ST
JO
HN
S
T
FR
EY
S
TQ
UIC
KS
T
BASS ST
ROSE ST
LIZ
A
CT
EVELYN ST
NITA ST
BU
RG
UN
DY
S
T
OLIVE GR
JESSIE ST
DONALD ST
SIMS ST
PA
RK
S
T
VALE ST
H
ARRA CT
GY
LE
S
ST
AR
CH
IBA
LD
S
T
SO
ME
RS
ET
S
T
FAWKNER
RD
KE OG
HC
T
BE
LLE
VU
ET
CE
BRADLEY ST
ESPERANTO
CT
CURIE AV
CROWLEYCT
BOTHWELL ST
OA
K
ST
WARWICK RD
ALW
YN
S
T
ARNOLD
CT
FARRINGDON ST
WIL
NA
S
T
PE
RK
IN
AV
EDITH ST
STANLEY ST
HE
AT
H
ST
TANGYES ST
JE
NS
EN
S
T
LAKE AV
SC
HO
OL
CT
MALCOLM ST
LIL
LIA
N
ST
FORBES GR
HA
LS
BU
RY
S
T
AVOCA CR
ALBERT ST
VA
LE
RIE
S
T
EV
ER
ITT
S
T
RAEBURN ST
DR
OM
AN
A
AV
CA
MD
ON
S
T
OAKBANK
GR
GR
OV
ER
S
T
COANE ST
BENDIGO ST
DALEY ST
SEFTON ST
MAGNOLIA ST
MC
CR
AC
KE
N
AV S
YLV
AN
G
R
HA
ZE
L
GR
PLY
MO
UT
H
AV
HILLCREST RD
DO
WN
S
ST
OR
MO
ND
S
T
LEX GR
WICKLOW ST
SHANLEY ST
ALEXANDRA ST
KIT
CH
EN
ER
R
D
JO
FF
RE
R
D
PARDY ST
PE
AC
HE
YC
T
GA
RD
EN
DR
CO
RN
WA
LL
RD
HE
RM
ION
E
AV
PA
RK
ER
ST
RA
ILWAY
P
DE
ZE
NIT
H
ST
VIE
W
ST
CLEVE
RD
TA
SS
ELL
ST
HA
YE
S
PD
E
FARVIEW ST
DA
NIN
S
T
PASCOE VALE
RD
GREV
ILLIA
RD
GAFFNEY ST
WEST
ST
BOUNDARY RD
CARD
INAL
RD
CUMB
ERLA
ND
RD
RHODES PDE
STEWARTST
PASCOE ST
PLUMPTON AV
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 8PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
RAEBURN ST
SOUTH ST
CHARLES ST
CAR
R
ST
TONKIN AV
PA
LL
ET
T
ST
BAKERS RD
ARGYLE ST
MARION ST
ORVIETO ST
SHORTS RD
RE
NO
WN
S
T
DIXON ST
LILY ST
MARLBOROUGH ST
EA
ST
S
T
WIL
LIA
MS
RD
RO
SE
PL
AT
HO
L
AV
LESLIE AV
FAME ST
WY
MLE
T
ST
QUEENS PDE
LORNE ST
FUCHSIA CT
TANGYES ST
DO
RO
TH
Y
ST
KENT RD
DAHLIA CT
GU
ILF
OY
LE
A
V
KEADY ST
PR
UE
CT
COLLINGSCT
ALB
ER
T
ST
CARINGA ST
PR
INC
ES
S
ST
KEVINST
IRE
NE
A
V
MATHIESON ST
MA
SH
OO
BR
A
ST
EVELYNST
WINDSOR ST
GILMOUR CT
FOURTH AV
MARTIN ST
IDA ST
BA
TM
AN
AV
ED
M
UNDS CT
OAKBANKGR
WARATAH ST
GO
ULD
S
T
CO
PE
S
T
STURDEE ST
FRENCH ST
RO
LLO
ST
DA
VIE
S
ST
WA
RN
ER
S
T
MILLSON CT
RISING ST
MC
DO
NA
LD
S
T
IRMA GR
AD
LE
R
GR
LO
RE
NS
EN
A
V
SH
EP
PA
RD
S
T
YUNGERA ST
YUROKE ST
GLY
ND
ON
A
V
SU
RR
EY
S
T
SPRY ST
ULM ST
DELTA AV
WE
MB
LE
YR
D
BOND ST
MC
CO
Y
ST
RYLAND ST
ME
RLY
N
ST
SHAW CT
LYKING ST
BRID
GES
AV
SEC
ON
D
AV
WY
UN
A
ST
ES
TH
ER
C
T
THIRD
AV
FIF
TH
AV
ELLIOTT ST
BO
RO
NIA
S
T
BU
SH
S
T
SECOND
CR
KR
ITH
IA
ST
TA
BIL
KS
T
SU
NB
EA
MS
T
KN
IGH
T
ST
PAU ST
HE
AD
LE
YS
T
CLARKE ST
BR
AE
SID
ES
T
ER
ICA
S
T
KARADOC AV
WONGA AV
NOVIAN ST
LA
KE
G
R
ARMSTRONG ST
DA
PH
NE
ST
SHARP GR
SAGE ST
MANTELL ST
MC
GR
EG
OR
ST
FA
IRM
OU
NT
S
T
KN
OLE
S
T
STOCK CT
DORSET RD
RYAN ST
ST
OC
K
ST
ESSEX ST
LYON ST
LEWIS ST
ASHKANASY AV
HEATHER AV
FLEMING GR
SM
ITH
S
T
DA
WS
ON
S
T
AU
DR
EY
A
V
DEANS ST
WARWICK RD
MA
DO
LIN
ES
T
GOLEEN ST
CA
TH
ER
INE
ST
NO
RR
IS
ST
TR
ELO
AR
S
T
HE
AT
HC
OT
E
ST
AR
AR
AT
AV
TRISTANCT
MA
Y
ST
STA
WE
LL
ST
BR
OC
KLE
YR
D
BA
WD
EN
C
T
GA
LE
KA
S
T
MO
LE
SW
OR
TH
S
T
ANZAC AV
HIG
INB
OT
HA
M
ST
HO
LR
OY
D
ST
YO
RK
SH
IRE
S
T
AB
EC
KE
TT
S
T
HOCKING ST
WE
BB
S
T
SUVLA GR
KE
RF
ER
D
ST
LIN
CO
LN
A
V
RO
DN
EY
A
V
LEE ST
TALBOT ST
GLOUCESTER ST
JE
RS
EY
S
T
ALLE
NB
Y
ST
SU
NS
HIN
E
ST
BIS
HO
P
ST
HO
SS
AC
K
AV
ME
RC
IER
S
T
LO
UV
AIN
S
T
LE
NS
ST
AU
TU
MN
S
T
ST
EN
NIS
ST
KIR
BIS
TE
R
ST
MERBEIN ST
ATTERCLIFFE AV
SHEDDEN ST
FIR
ST
CR
FIR
ST
AV
FO
UR
TH
CR
TULIP CL
BA
IN
AV
MU
TT
ON
R
D
TH
IRD
CR
CO
NV
EN
TC
T
FIS
CH
ER
S
T
RO
OS
EV
ELT
S
T
KINGSFORD AV
GAFFNEY ST
BOUNDARY RD
DERB
Y ST
SUSS
EXST
SYDNEY RD
SYDNEYRD
PO1
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3PO3
PO3
PO3PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 9PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
DAREBINCITY
ELIZ
AB
ET
H
ST
RO
US
E
ST
CARR ST
SPECTRUM WAY
DE
RB
Y
ST
FO
CU
S
DR
PETE
RS
ON
AV
ARGYLE ST
MURNONGLANE
MA
DIN
A
ST
NOLA ST
LORNE ST
CAMERA WALKK
IDD
LE
S
T
PORTRAIT WAY
MATHIE
SON
ST
CH
AM
P
ST
MU
RIE
L C
T
BLA
NC
HE
CT
RED BOX ST
ADNETTE CT
UNDERA CT
BA
AN
C
L
JA
CK
SO
N
PD
E
JELFCT
TILLEY ST
BOYNE ST
VELOX ST
CLAREMONTST
EM
MA
C
T
JOY
CE
C
T
LIVINGSTONE ST
CR
EE
DO
N S
T
GLA
DY
SC
T
WH
ITTO
N
PD
E
CHESTER CT
CA
LK
ST
ARTHUR ST
SP
EE
DIE
ST
MC
DO
NN
ELL R
D
VIE
WS
T
ALEXANDER AV
BO
RA
NG
ST
COYNE ST
MA
NLY
C
T
IMAROOST
PHOTOGRAPHYDR
HO
PE
TO
UN
CR
MIL
KM
AN
W
AY
MC
BR
YD
ES
T
ME
HE
GA
N
AV
SY
ND
AL
ST
TO
XT
ET
H
PA
RK
ST
LE
SLE
IGH
S
T
WIL
SO
N
ST
BE
RR
Y
ST
MO
RR
IS
ST
JULIU
S
ST
MARLBOROUGH ST
ACHESON PL
NORFOLK CT
QUEENS PDE
TRADE PL
RONALDST
SNAPSHOTDR
PIXEL CCT
DANTHONIA ST
OU
TLO
OK
RD
CYANWALK
BIG
GS
ST
SAHARA
WA
Y
DE
CH
EN
E
PDE
GO
LF
RD
DAIRY DR
IMAG
EWALK
BO
YD
C
R
BALLARD AV
KE
AN
E
ST
SH
OR
E
GR
MURRAY RD
NEWL
ANDS
RD
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 10PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
PO4 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 4
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
MOONEEVALLEY
CITY
OHEA ST
WESTGATE ST
GA
LLIP
OLI
PD
E
WA
LE
S
ST
WIN
IFR
ED
S
T
CULLODEN ST
TU
RN
BU
LL
DR
WOODLANDS AV
EASTGATE ST
WE
NT
WO
RT
HA
V
EV
ER
ET
T
ST
FONTAINE ST
BREARLEY PDE
WA
DH
AM
S
T
CLEVE
RD
VIMY CT
HIL
LV
IEW
A
V
EU
NIC
E C
T
WARD GR
BR
IAR
PL
DA
CE
CT
HO
DG
INS
CT
LOC
HIN
VAR
ST
GR
ON
N
PL
MA
GD
ALE
NS
T
FLANNERY CT
MOAMA
CR
AN
DE
RS
ON
S
T
PRINCES TCE
WA
LH
ALLA
S
T
LO
TH
AIR
S
T
SHETLA
ND
AV
ELLENVALE AV
JH
ON
SO
N
ST
HE
NLE
Y
ST
KIT
CH
EN
ER
ST
KA
TH
LE
EN
S
T
HE
LIO
PO
LIS
ST
BAKERS PDE
PE
PPE
RC
OR
NT
CE
LO
UIS
VIL
LE
AV
FOR
ST
ER
CT
MCKEON AV
PURCHES AV
YO
RK
S
T
HA
TT
ER
S
T
HA
YW
AR
D
ST
ZEAL ST
LE CATEAU ST
BRENTWOOD AV
THISTLE ST
MIL
TO
N
ST
MY
ER
S
ST
LY
NE
G
R
BERESFORD ST
MOASCAR ST
VAUX ST
MCCO
LL CT
MCGREGOR
AV
WA
RR
EN
S
T
DIC
KE
NS
S
T
LEMNOS
AV
SOMALI ST
DA
VE
RN
S
T
MARSDEN AV
PARKSTONE AV
CURTIN AV
PO
WE
R
ST
GEZIREH ST
PERONNE ST
WA
VE
RLE
Y
PD
E
BA
LM
OR
AL
AV
SP
RIN
GH
ALL
PD
E
GR
AN
DV
IEW
A
V
GRUNDY GR
WHEELER
ST
CA
NTA
LA
S
T
DISRAELI GR
GR
AH
AM
S
T
PRENDERGAST ST
PEACOCK ST
MIT
CH
ELL
PD
E
PA
RK
SID
E
BVD
SO
UT
HA
M
ST
HO
PE
TO
UN
AV
RA
INE
R
ST
HACKETT
ST
ME
NZ
IES
C
T
MC
LE
AN
S
T
ACACIA
GR
GA
LTE
S
CR
LA
NG
TR
EE
AV
GR
EE
NB
AN
KC
R
WIL
LS
S
T
WINONA GR
MORELAND RD
BELL ST
REYNARD ST
REYN
OLDS
PD
E
CUMB
ERLA
NDRD
COON
ANS
RD
PO2
PO2
PO2
PO4PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 11PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
STA
TIO
N
ST
REYNARD ST
RO
SS
ST
CARRON ST
LO
BB
S
T
SA
UN
DE
RS
ST
DO
NN
ES
T
GA
RN
ET
S
T
MUNRO ST
BERRY ST
LEVER ST
RU
SS
ELL
ST
OHEA ST
MURRAY ST
DA
PH
NE
ST
TH
IST
LE
S
T
PE
RR
ET
TS
T
BRUNSWICK ST
BAKERS PDE
WIL
LO
WG
R
WILSON ST
RATHDOWN ST
SH
AF
TS
BU
RY
S
T
SOUDAN ST
SU
TH
ER
LA
ND
S
T
FRANCIS ST
PRINCES TCE
BREARLEY PDE
CR
AM
ER
S
T
VICTORIA ST
SE
RV
ICE
ST
CH
AM
P
ST
SH
AM
RO
CK
ST
BENNYLANE
CORAL ST
PAGE ST
DE
C
AR
LE
S
T
MA
RY
ST
CA
ME
RO
N
ST
CAMPBELL ST
CANBERRA ST
MOORE ST
STRANGWAYCT
ANKETELL ST
MAVIS ST
ELGIN ST
LINDA ST
APPLEBY CR
WA
LK
ER
S
T
JO
LLE
Y
ST
NORMAN ST
CULLODENST
BAXTER ST
FIF
TH
A
V
GRAFTON ST
BLAIR ST
CO
RN
WA
LL
ST
RA
ILW
AY
P
L
DR
ISH
AN
E S
T
ME
TH
VE
N S
T
ST
RA
TH
EA
RN
A
V
BE
NS
ON
S
T
SO
ME
RV
ILLE
ST
CH
AN
DO
S
ST
FO
UR
TH
A
V
MC
PH
ER
SO
N
ST
GLE
NC
AIR
N
AV
ROGERS ST
MO
NT
IFO
RE
S
T
MC
CR
OR
Y
ST
KA
YE
CT
HIG
H
ST
INC
A
WA
Y
HA
IGA
VSELBOURNE ST
DAVIES ST
BIS
HO
P
ST
GEAKE ST
ALF
RE
D
ST
CO
OP
ER
S
T
RO
SE
S
T
BA
RR
YS
LA
NE
IRR
ELA
CH
LA
NE
DONALD ST
OLG
A
ST
JE
RS
EY
S
T
OB
ER
ON
S
T
YO
UN
G
ST
KIN
GS
T
FR
AN
K
ST
BO
NA
R
AV
FIS
CH
ER
S
T
LOC
HIN
VAR
ST
FIRST AV
SECOND AV
THIRD AV
LO
CH
S
T
GO
RD
ON
S
T
SHEFFIELD ST
TR
EN
OW
ET
H
ST
CA
DM
AN
S
T
WE
BB
S
T
HATTON GR
AB
EC
KE
TT
S
T
HO
LR
OY
D
ST
HIG
INB
OT
HA
M
ST
ALLEN ST
COZENS ST
PEVERIL ST
MO
LE
SW
OR
TH
S
T
FOCH AV
STA
WE
LL
ST
FL
IND
ER
SS
T
LO
NS
DA
LE
ST
BO
UR
KE
ST
CLIF
TO
N
GR
FR
AS
ER
S
T
RO
LL
AN
D
ST
CA
SH
ST
EW
EN
S
T
GIL
BE
RT
S
T
DE
AK
IN
ST
BE
CK
WIT
H
ST
MA
Y
ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
ST
ALIC
ES
T
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
S
T
NE
LS
ON
S
T
KE
ND
ALL
ST
MA
YF
IELD
S
T
HU
DS
ON
S
T
CO
PE
S
T
VIN
CE
NT
S
T
BE
LLE
VU
E
ST
MC
KA
Y
ST
SU
FF
OLK
AV
BALLOAN ST
WO
LS
ELE
Y
ST
STA
TT
ER
S
ST
DE
VO
N
AV
WOOLACOTT ST
RO
YA
L
PD
E
FLORENCE ST
WHITE ST
HALL ST
JESSIE ST
CO
LE
BR
OO
K
ST
QU
EE
N
ST
CA
SS
ELS
RD
MU
RD
OC
K
ST
DO
WN
S
ST
DE
NM
AN
S
TMATTINGLEY CR
IRVINECR
LA
NS
DO
WN
E
ST
GR
EE
NW
OO
D
ST
BR
UC
E
ST
CA
RR
ING
TO
N
ST
DA
VIS
S
T
SH
AC
KE
LL
ST
JA
MIE
SO
N
ST
LA
SC
ELLE
S
ST
MARKS ST
KE
RF
ER
D
ST
MA
RAN
O
A
CR
AU
DLE
Y
ST
HU
NT
S
T
WATTLE GR
CR
AIGROSSIE AV
ABERD
EE
NS
T
BR
OW
N
ST
CO
LL
INS
S
T
GIL
MO
UR
S
T
CLA
RE
ND
ON
S
T
LO
UIS
A
ST
WA
TE
RF
IELD
S
T
ST
OC
K
ST
MA
IN
ST
PR
ES
TO
N
ST
KE
LS
ON
S
T
PH
ILLIP
S
ST
LIV
ER
PO
OL
ST
PO
RT
LA
ND
S
T
MORELAND RD
MELV
ILLE
RD
BELL ST
SUSS
EXST
SYDN
EY
RD
TURN
ER
ST
PO1
PO1
PO2
PO2
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
PO1
PO1
MAP No 12PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
DAREBINCITY
WH
AT
MO
RE
D
R
CLA
RA
S
T
CO
NN
OLLY
AV
HARDING ST
RENNIE ST
EA
ST
S
T
HARDWICK ST
MEADOWST
URQUHART ST
CROZIER ST
TANDERU
M
DR
YOULLCT
DAVIES ST
JIKAST
LY
NN
ST
OR
ILE
Y
RD
GO
VER
NO
RS
RD
DA
RE
ST
MIL
L P
L
BLAIR ST
MOORE ST
BASALTLANE
GR
EY
CT
PARKLANE MEWS
PA
YN
ES
T
DU
NS
TA
N
AV
EDNA GR
HATTON GR
GR
AN
T
ST
FA
RM
RD
BOOTH ST
BATEMAN CT
KE
WA
RR
EN
CT
KIR
KB
Y
ST
CH
AM
BE
RS
ST
CARLISLE ST
FO
WL
ER
S
T
PA
TT
ER
SO
N
ST
PA
RK
ST
WALSH ST
SHEFFIELD ST
IND
US
TR
Y L
AN
E
HUTCHINSON ST
BA
BB
AJIA
CT
MIL
LE
R
ST
DA
RLIN
GT
ON
G
R
AV
OC
A
ST
AR
MS
TE
AD
A
V
ALV
A
GR
KE
ITH
S
T
BU
TLE
R
GR
BA
RR
OW
ST
CO
BU
RG
S
T
LIN
CO
LN
S
T
M
ANNA
GU
MC
T
GOFF ST
LA
NA
RK
S
T
RO
LL
S
ST
WA
TC
HT
OW
ER
R
D
FR
AN
KLIN
S
T
BU
DD
S
ST
ST
UR
RO
CK
S
T
GR
AS
SL
AN
D
AV
CU
LLIT
Y
WA
LK
CA
TO
N
AV
MU
CH
EL
L
GR
HU
TC
HI S ON
PL
YO
UN
GE
R
ST
BE
CK
LE
Y
ST
HU
NT
ING
TO
N
GR
GLE
NO
RA
A
V
SPRING ST
CAMPBELL ST
BE
LG
RA
VE
S
T
GLENGYLE ST
WOIWURUNG CR
CO
LE
CR
BEAUMONDEST
ST
OC
KA
DE
AV
LY
GO
N
ST
RO
DD
A
ST
WA
RD
EN
S
WA
LK
QUARRY CC
T
DA
NN
YS
T
MERRIBELLAV
GLA
DS
TO
NE
ST
SA
LIS
BU
RY
S
T
RIC
HA
RD
SS
T
MORELAND RD
MURRAY RD
ELIZA
BETH
ST
ELM
GR
NICH
OLSO
N ST
BELL ST
HOLM
ES
ST
PENTRIDGEBVD
PO3
PO3
PO3 PO3 PO3
PO1
PO2
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
MAP No 13PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
PO4 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 4
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
MELBOURNECITY
MOONEEVALLEY
CITY
EG
GIN
TO
NS
T
UN
ION
S
T
PARK ST
HOPE ST
NA
PP
ER
BY
S
T
WA
XM
AN
PDE
WHITBY ST
HUNTER ST
HUDSONGR
WATTLE
VALLEY
RD
RY
EC
RO
FT
S
T
EV
ER
ET
TS
T
GU
TH
RIE
ST
ALLA
RD
S
T
MC
NA
IR
LA
NE
HE
ND
ER
SO
N
ST
JO
RD
AN
S
T
GIB
SO
NA
V
HARRY ST
BE
NT
S
T
MO
UL
E
ST
PASSFIELD ST
SO
UT
H
DA
LY
S
T
MURRAY ST
CUMMING ST
HO
LB
RO
OK
CR
YA
RR
AB
IN
ST
WY
ALL
ST
WA
LK
ER
S
T
COLLINGS ST
HOFFMAN ST
MA
RIO
NA
V
DA
LG
ET
Y
ST
WY
UN
A
ST
JA
ME
S
ST
MOONEE
PD
E
RE
AB
UR
N
CRJ
EW
ELL
CR
HO
OP
ER
CR
MA
NIC
A
ST
CO
HU
NA
S
T
MIN
CH
A
ST
SMITH ST
TE
MP
LE
S
T
OW
EN
S
T
DU
GG
AN
ST
TU
RNBULL
CT
BA
LFE
C
R
OLIV
EY
OR
KW
AY
DAWSON ST
ALBION ST
BRUNSWICK RD
VICTORIA ST
ORMONDRDME
LVILL
ERD
PO2PO3
PO4PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
PO2
MAP No 14PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
YARRACITY
MELBOURNECITY
HALPIN ST
HOPE ST
NEWMAN ST
PE
RC
Y
ST
ALBERT ST
UNION ST
BELFAST RD
SA
XO
N
ST
CH
AR
LE
S
ST
AM
ELIA
S
T
LUX
WA
Y
EVANS ST
SMITH ST
BLA
IR
ST
STEWART ST
SHEFFIELD ST
GR
EG
OR
Y
ST
FERRIE
RS
T
HUDSONGR
SH
AM
RO
CK
ST
FA
Y
ST
BARKLY ST
CH
AP
EL
ST
BO
AS
ES
T
TINNING ST
HO
DG
SO
N
ST
MERRI ST
CO
LLIER
CR
PARK ST
WA
TS
ON
S
T
TR
INIT
YS
T
MUNRO ST
HUNTER
ST
CR
OO
K
ST
ROPE WALK
FR
ITH
S
T
BE
ITH
S
T
BR
EE
SE
ST
TR
IPO
VIC
H
ST
FR
ED
ER
ICK
S
T
BARNINGHAM ST
TH
IST
LE
S
T
WR
AIT
H ST
MC
KA
Y
ST
ES
SE
X
ST
WALTON ST
MITCHELL ST
WESTON ST
ST
RA
NK
S
AV
RO
SE
S
T
LOBB ST
BEZZELL ST
WHITBY ST
EV
AB
UH
LE
RT
CL
WA
LT
ER
S
ST
LA
RO
SE
ST
DA
VID
S
T
GA
RN
ET
S
T
VIN
CE
NT
ST
HENKEL ST
WILSON ST
WE
ND
EL
ST
LIL
LIA
N
ST
EDWARD ST
MICHAEL ST
PE
AR
SO
N
ST
NA
RD
ELLA
WA
Y
RUSSELL ST
BAKERY ST
DA
LY
S
T
HOWARTH ST
PR
OW
S
E ST
DE
C
AR
LE
S
T
WEST ST
FLORENCE ST
PO
TT
ER
YC
T
DUCKETT ST
WA
LLA
CE
ST
ST
RA
W
ST
HARRIS ST
LE
SLIE
S
T
SC
HO
OL LANE
FLE
MIN
GS
T
HA
RV
EY
S
T
IVY
S
T
ED
ME
ND
S
ST
GO
OD
MA
N
ST
BRYANT ST
CU
RT
IS
PL
TALBOT ST
BE
NN
IE
ST
MA
NA
LLA
CK
S
T
RA
ILW
AY
P
L
LOUISA ST
BLA
CK
S
T
NEW ST
CO
RO
NA
TIO
N
ST
MCIVER ST
HE
NN
ES
SY
ST
MIL
LWA
RD
ST
ECKERSALL ST
ALE
XA
ND
ER
S
T
MC
VE
AN
S
T
JONES ST
DO
LL
MA
N
ST
ST
RA
NG
ER
S
T
ME
AK
ER
AV
HELLER ST
WILLIAM ST
LIT
TL
E B
RE
ES
E S
T
JO
LLE
Y
ST
CLIFF ST
BR
UC
E
ST
RO
SS
ER
ST
ILH
AN
LA
NE
FA
LL
ON
S
T
OG
RA
DY
S
T
PA
TT
ER
SO
N
ST
OR
MO
ND
S
T
TR
EN
OW
ET
H
ST
LITTLE GO LD
ST
TE
AG
UE
A
V
CA
DM
AN
S
T
GO
RD
ON
S
T
CO
LE
BR
OO
K
ST
FE
RR
IMA
N
ST
CO
RN
WA
LL
ST
HO
WS
ON
S
T
GOLD ST
DODS ST
MACKENZIE ST
MACFARLAND ST
FO
RD
S
T
LAURA ST
MAYFIELD AV
OS
BO
RN
E
STS
UT
HE
RLA
ND
S
T
HA
NO
VE
R
ST
FR
AS
ER
S
T
WE
ST
BO
UR
NE
ST
LYDIA ST
HA
LL
ST
BIS
HO
P
ST
OV
EN
S
ST
GA
RD
INE
R
ST
PR
EN
TIC
ES
T
TH
OM
AS
S
T
HO
LL
OW
AY
R
D
CO
NN
ELLY
ST
FO
DE
N
ST
LA
RN
OO
AV
FE
RR
Y
CR
WARNE ST
STA
LE
YS
T
COOK ST
DE
C
AR
LE
LA
NE
SY
ME
S
T
SPURWAY LANE
LYLE ST
CENTENNIAL AV
PHOENIX ST
BU
RN
EL
L
ST
AU
STR
AL
AV
WILSON AV
BE
LL
ST
WILKINSON ST
BRICKWORKS
DR
AN
NIE
BO
RAT
CL
ORIENT
GR
BA
RR
Y
ST
GR
AY
S
T
BA
LM
ER
S
T
FIT
ZG
IBB
ON
AV
OB
RIE
NS
IST
ER
SLA
NE
GA
RD
EN
S
T
DA
VIS
ON
S
T
HA
MIL
TO
N
ST
EV
ELIN
ES
T
ALBION ST
BRUNSWICK RD
VICTORIA ST
DAWSON ST
MELV
ILLE
RD
GLENLYON RD
BLYTH ST
SYDN
EY
RD
GRAN
THAM
ST
PO1
PO2
PO2
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
PO2
PO1
PO1
MAP No 15PO
MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
PO1 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 1
PO2 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 2
PO3 - Parking Overlay - Schedule 3
N
AMENDMENT C183
Australian Map Grid Zone 55
Printed: 4/04/2019
Planning Group
0 225 450
Meters
7
4
12
15
52
10
13 14
8
11
96
31
PARKING OVERLAY
Municipal Boundary
INDEX TO ADJOINING SCHEME MAPSLEGEND
YARRACITY
DAREBINCITY
NO
EL
ST
DONALD ST
KIN
G
ST
ALBERT STEVANS ST
MITCHELL STB
AR
RO
W
ST
STEWART ST
VICTORIA ST
ELSIE MEWS
BIL
LB
AR
RY
CL
PLEASANCE ST
NUNAN ST
GALADA WAY
DOROTHY ST
PITT ST
ELE
SB
UR
YA
V
KATAWA GR
WH
ITE
S
T
BARKLY ST
AB
ER
DE
EN
S
T
SO
UT
HA
UD
LE
YS
T
ANN ST
FU
LT
ON
CT
CO
LL
AC
E
ST
LE
INS
TE
R
GR
ST PHILLIP ST
WILLOWBANK
RD
LUSCOMBE ST
IDA
S
T
BLADEN AV
COCOA JACKSON LANE
LO
WA
N
ST
ED
DY
S
T
RU
PE
RT
S
T
LA
WR
EN
CE
ST
GR
AN
TS
T
JO
HN
S
T
EW
ING
S
T
HO
RN
ES
T
GRYLLS ST
ST
ER
LIN
G
ST
LO
MA
ND
RA
W
KW
Y
LO
YO
LA
A
V
LORD ST
ET
HE
L
ST
GE
OR
GE
S
T
LINDEN ST
SA
MU
EL
PL
HU
TC
HIN
SO
N
STM
INN
IE
ST
WESTON ST
HICKFORD ST
BA
NK
ST
HE
RB
ER
TS
T
RA
TH
DO
WN
E S
T
EDWARD ST
LEE ST
GLE
W
ST
JARVIE ST
CA
NN
ING
ST
SUMNER ST
ST
UR
RO
CK
ST
STA
TIO
N
ST
ME
TH
VE
N
ST
GA
MB
LE
S
T
PA
RE
OR
A A
V
OR
AR
I A
V
CH
AM
BE
RS
ST
TE
MU
KA
A
V
RO
BE
RT
SS
T
MY
RT
LE
S
T
TIM
AR
U
AV
AK
ER
OA
A
V
BE
LLV
UE
S
T
CA
RN
AR
VO
N
ST
WA
IHI
AV
MO
UN
TF
IELD
S
T
CU
NN
ING
TO
N A
V
CO
OR
AM
INTA
ST
TA
RA
NA
KI
AV
RY
AN
S
T
PARKVIEW AV
ELM
G
R
BO
UR
KE
ST
BR
ET
T
ST
AIN
TR
EE
S
T
LIT
TL
E M
ILLE
R S
T
MA
RK
S
ST
ELIZ
AB
ET
H
ST
AM
ES
S
ST
RIC
KA
RD
S
T
AU
ST
IN
TC
E
WE
IGA
LL
ST
LEYDEN ST
TR
US
CO
TT
S
T
GIA
NN
AR
ELLI
DR
DIA
NE
LLA
W
KW
Y
HAMER ST
GE
AR
ST
ER
RO
L
AV
ALISTER ST
PRIMROSE ST
ALS
AC
E
ST
INV
ER
NE
SS
ST
PIERA ST
OCONNOR ST
IVO
RY
W
AY
MAGHULL ST
LYDIA ST
RICHARDSON ST
DU
DLE
Y
ST
LAURA ST
ARNOLD ST
HE
NT
Y
ST
LA
TR
OB
E
ST
NO
RT
H
ST
GA
LE
S
T
SE
DG
MA
N
ST
CR
OS
S
ST
ALLA
N
ST
WA
RB
UR
TO
N
ST
PEERS ST
TA
YLO
R
ST
TRAFFORD ST
KIRKDALE ST
LE
ITH
EA
D
ST
AS
HM
OR
ES
T
VIC
TO
RIA
G
R
HO
WA
RD
S
T
GLENMORGAN ST
CLARENCE ST
NA
SH
S
T
STA
NLE
Y
ST
JENKIN ST
LY
ND
HU
RS
T
CR
DU
NS
TA
NA
V
CLA
RK
E
ST
FRENCH AV
HA
RR
ISO
NS
T
KINGFISHER GDNS
CLA
RA
S
T
CH
UR
CH
S
T
DE
AK
IN
ST
HA
RD
Y
ST
CRISPAV
QUEEN ST
DU
KE
S
TARTHURTONRD
BRUNSWICK RD
BLYTH ST
GLENLYON RD
ALBION ST
HOLM
ES
ST
NICH
OLSO
N ST
LYGO
N ST
PO1
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO3
PO1
PO1
PO2
PO3
PO3
PO3PO3 PO3
PO3
DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance
to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particularpurposes and therefore disclaims all liabilityfor any error, loss or other consequence
which may arise from you relying on anyinformation in this publication.
© The State of Victoria Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
PO1
PO1
PO1
PO1
www.gta.com.au