bay street centre structure - vic€¦ · 2 bayside city council bay street centre structure plan...

Bay Street Centre Structure Plan Review

August 2016

HStanworth

Text Box

Attachment 1

2 Bayside City Council Bay Street Centre Structure Plan Review – August 2016 3

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 4

Introduction - Background 6

Context and rationale 6

Current planning controls 6

Scope of Review 7

Audit of the status of the actions from the Structure Plan 7

Planning Framework Review 8

State Policy – key changes 8

Plan Melbourne removes Major Activity Centre designation 8

Zone reforms 8

Reformed zones create mixed use commercial centres and make it harder to guide uses to specific precincts 8

There is a need to balance housing with commercial growth 9

Advice recommends considering additional areas for higher density housing 9

Local Planning Framework – key changes 10

The Bayside Housing Strategy directs development to Housing Growth Areas 10

The Planning Controls can be enhanced to improve decision making 12

Changing demographic, housing and economic profile 13

Demographic and Housing Profile 13

Population summary 13

Age structure 14

Household types 15

Household size 15

Recent housing change (Housing Development Data 2006-2014) 15

Housing Capacity Analysis 18

Economic Profile 18

Implications from demographic, housing and economic changes 20

There is demand for later opening services 20

Demand for health services is forecast to grow 20

There is a need to plan for the additional community infrastructure requirements of a growing population 21

Amenity, sense of place and walkability boosts economic potential 21

Population growth is the main driver of jobs in population-serving industries 22

There is a need to provide clarity on balancing character and growth objectives 22

Increased growth in residents, workers and visitors places pressure on car parking 23

Increased growth in the centre provides additional impetus to reconsider how new or widened laneways will be implemented 23

Implementation 24

Issues, Opportunities, Recommendations and Actions 24

Appendix 1 – Current Planning Controls

Appendix 2 – Audit of Actions, Bay Street Centre Structure Plan 2006

Appendix 3 – Policy and Implementation Review (Planisphere, 2015)

Appendix 4 – Background Materials to Policy and Implementation Review (Planisphere, 2015)

Appendix 5 – Bayside Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy, Major Activity Centre Review - Draft (SGS Economics and Planning, 2016)

Appendix 6 – Bayside Retail, Comercial and Employment Strategy, Issues and Opportunities Paper (SGS Economic and Planning, 2016)

Appendix 7 – Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10


In terms of building developments, the Design and Development Overlay was found to be effective in moderating building heights. Refinements including reviewing permit exemptions, strengthening guidelines for discretionary decision making, and reviewing controls to remove duplication have been identified to improve ease of use and better guide discretionary decision making.

The policy around neighbourhood and village character was found to be less effective in moderating development, particularly in terms of building design and scale. To improve this, preferred future character statements for the residential areas of the centre have been drafted to balance the intent of the General Residential Zone which seeks to achieve higher densities of up to 11 metres while maintaining the valued character elements of the area.

A car parking background report has been prepared to inform current and future car parking needs. The Structure Plan actions relating to the preparation of a car parking plan, achieving the widening of laneways and understanding of community infrastructure needs will require further strategic work to investigate the feasibility of proposed measures to respond to future car parking needs identified.

The review concludes with a list of key recommendations and actions that respond to the identified issues and opportunities. Where possible, direct actions are described. In other cases, further strategic work is proposed.

Executive Summary The Bay Street Centre Structure Plan (‘the Structure Plan’) was adopted in 2006, and given effect into the Bayside Planning Scheme in 2013 through Amendment C101. This report presents the findings of a review of the Structure Plan that has been informed by an understanding of:

• Demographic change since the preparation of the Structure Plan;

• Current housing and economic composition of the centre;

• Planning Panels and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) findings;

• State and local policy changes since the implementation of the Hampton St Structure Plan into the Bayside Planning Scheme;

• Development trends; and

• Functionality of the existing planning controls from a Statutory Planning perspective.

Since 2006, significant progress has been made to complete the actions identified within the Structure Plan, with 74% of the actions either completed or underway. Key actions completed include:

• preparation and implemention of an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce the objectives and applicable strategies into the Local Planning Policy and into a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay; and

• completion of a streetscape upgrade for Bay Street.

Through the review process, Council can now consider the relevance of the remaining actions based on the outcomes of the review and potentially consider new approaches to achieve the Structure Plan vision.

State policy changes have had minimal impact on the directions of the Structure Plan. However, the introduction of reformed zones have had tangible impacts on achieving the land uses described in the Structure Plan. On the one hand, the reformed commercial zone makes it harder to achieve the land uses specified for the commercial precincts as more uses are allowed as of right. On the other hand, the reformed residential zones better facilitates the desired housing development by providing clear guidance on the type and density of development expected.

Local strategies and plans developed by Council since 2006 have also been considered in this review. The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 is of particular importance as it provides a framework for residential development that provides direction on the location and type of residential development required to meet the changing needs of the Bayside community.

Economically, the centre is performing well and has a very low vacancy rate but opportunities exist to boost its economic potential including supporting residential development and shop-top office and residential uses, and continuing to improve the streetscape and amenity. Bay Street, as with Bayside as a whole, is forecast to experience an ageing of the population, which will increase the demand for health services.


Introduction - Background

Context and rationale

Council resolved to review the Structure Plan for the Bay Street Centre at its Ordinary Meeting of 27 November 2012. The report to Council made particular reference to revisiting the Structure Plans in light of the recommendations made by the Planning Panel and Expert Witness statements from Amendments C100-103, to align the Structure Plans with the latest State Government policies and to accommodate any variations in the local context that may have occurred in the interim. Council’s decision is reinforced by State Government guidance in Planning Practice Note 58: Structure Planning for Activity Centres, which states that it is essential to review products generated by the planning process to ensure that they remain current and relevant.

Ten years have passed since the Structure Plan was adopted with a considerable amount of development, land use and demographic change having occurred in the centre. Council has progressed many actions listed in the Structure Plan however some key actions have commenced but are yet to be completed. There have been changes in the State and local planning policy context, including zoning reforms, and a range of relevant Council strategies, policies and reviews that sit outside the planning system have been prepared and adopted. A number of Planning Panel reports and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decisions have commented on the strategic planning for Bay Street and as such, opportunity exists to review the effectiveness of the Structure Plan having regard to the matters raised.

Current planning controls

There are a range of planning controls affecting the Bay Street Activity Centre which each contribute to achieving the Structure Plan vision for the centre.

The Commercial 1 Zone, General Residential Zone and Mixed Use Zone are the primary zones affecting the centre, accompanied by the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 12.

These controls provide guidance for future development in relation to building setbacks, height, application requirements and decision guidelines specific to the activity centre.

The effectiveness of the zones to date is discussed in the background material (refer to the Literature and Policy Implementation review) and in the Planning Framework Review section of this report.

A full list of zones and overlays is included at Appendix 1.

Scope of review

This review was structured into the following elements:

• An audit of the status of the actions from the Structure Plan (refer Appendix 2);

• A Literature and Policy Implementation review, which reviewed Panel reports, VCAT decisions, Council strategies, plans and State policy, and identified areas of potential conflict or issues which may require updating or clarifying (refer Appendices 3 and 4);

• A demographic and housing analysis, which considered updated population characteristics, projections and housing and development characteristics;

• An economic analysis and forecasting study, which provided an understanding of current and future floor space requirements and expected commercial growth (refer Appendices 5 and 6); and

• A Neighbourhood Character review, which focussed on character issues in the residential areas.

These are included as appendices to this report.

This review is limited to updating content in line with policy, new data and expert evidence and Planning Panel recommendations. It is not intended to re-write or change the approach to the planning for the activity centre. As the Structure Plan was only implemented into the Planning Scheme in May 2013, any review of how effective the plan has been in guiding development outcomes is limited by the short time frame that the controls have been in place.

Audit of the status of the actions from the Structure Plan

The audit has identified a number of key achievements since 2006 with substantial progress achieved by Council in undertaking the actions listed in the Structure Plan. From the 38 actions contained in the Structure Plan, 17 are complete, 11 are underway/ongoing, and 10 have yet to commence.

Of the 17 completed actions, it is important to highlight the implementation of Amendment C101 to the Planning Scheme in 2013. The amendment implements the planning tools to assess and guide land use and development in the area by introducing the objectives and the applicable strategies from the Structure Plan into the Local Planning Policy Framework. A new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay was also included to identify specific design and built form requirements for new development in the area.

A number a capital works projects have been undertaken which have resulted in updates to the streetscape to facilitate a more inviting and safe pedestrian environment and improved bicycle facilities. Some of the actions are ongoing, particularly those related to decision making in the development application process including the provision of weather protection and active street frontages.

There are a number of actions yet to be commenced, most notably the preparation of a car parking plan, laneway investigations and community infrastructure planning. Whilst some of the background work to inform the car parking plan has been completed, further work needs to be undertaking to understand the feasibility of some of the proposed actions for investigation to address future carparking needs.


Planning Framework Review

State Policy – key changes

Despite changes to State planning policy since the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan was developed in 2006, the broad direction for activity centres remains the same in that activity centres are considered to be a major focus for change in metropolitan Melbourne. State planning policy directs the further expansion of services into activity centres and recognises that activity centres are ideally placed to provide for housing growth.

Plan Melbourne removes Major Activity Centre designation

The State Government released a new Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Plan Melbourne, in 2014 which removed the distinction between Principal Activity Centres (PAC) and Major Activity Centres (MAC), resulting in the Bay Street Centre changing from a MAC to a more general ‘Activity Centre’.

The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 maintains a distinction between the centres by directing a greater share of housing growth to Southland (previously a PAC), while the MACs play a secondary role in accommodating growth. The planning practice note for activity centres (PN58) also advocates for planning within the context of a broader understanding of activity centres, including their role and function in a hierarchy. In addition, the Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 identifies a need to provide updated clarity around the structure and hierarchy of centres across Bayside. The Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 confirms that Bay Street is classified as a Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre, having regard to its economic role and function.

Recommendation: • Ensure the Bayside Planning Scheme

reflects Bay Street’s economic role as a Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

Zone reforms

Since the Structure Plan was developed there have been reforms to the commercial and residential zones in Victoria. The new commercial zones came into effect in 2013, with the new residential zones implemented through Amendment C106 in 2014.

Reformed zones create mixed use commercial centres and make it harder to guide uses to specific precincts

The new Commercial 1 Zone allows a wider range of uses in commercial areas without the need for a planning permit. This makes it more difficult for Council to guide preferred land use outcomes on a precinct basis, such as for office or retail. The Economic Development Strategy 2014 identified that Bayside’s activity centres have moved towards more office and service focused sectors rather than being predominantly retail. Given that the Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 acknowledges Bay Street’s role as a centre for population serving commercial uses which is supported by increased residential growth, and having regard to the role and size of the centre, it is considered that the Commercial 1 Zone is the appropriate planning control for the activity centre.

Recommendation:• Retain the Commercial 1 Zone for the

commercial areas of Bay Street.

There is a need to balance housing with commercial growth

A challenge for Bay Street is to provide an appropriate balance between the housing growth envisioned within the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 and accommodating retail and commercial growth to preserve the centre’s viability. The Housing Strategy recognises the importance of ensuring that increased residential development in activity centres does not occur at the expense of the commercial activities, and notes expansion may be required for commercial facilities and additional services in order to meet the future needs of the community.

There is a risk that residential developments can ‘price out’ employment uses, as residential developments can attract a significantly higher sales price per square metre than retail and commercial floorspace. Therefore dwelling growth influences the relative profitability of retail and commercial developments when competing in the same market (i.e. many commercial and mixed use zoning controls allow both types of development).

Recommendation:

• Continue encouraging shop top development for both office and residential uses to absorb demand.

• Strengthen policy to ensure new development provides an increase in commercial floorspace to support the economic role of the centre.

• Monitor development outcomes to ensure increased commercial floorspace is being provided by new mixed use development.

Advice recommends considering additional areas for higher density housing

The Literature and Policy Implementation Review (Appendix 3) identified merit in reviewing the application of the General Residential Zone in Bayside activity centres. The Standing Advisory Committee that reviewed draft Amendment C125 recommended applying the Residential Growth Zone in activity centres across the municipality to create opportunities for housing diversity and growth, and for Council to consider the use of this

zone when reviewing dated Structure Plans. The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 identified the need to review the Structure Plans for the Housing Growth Areas (including Hampton Street) and consider whether the ‘Key Focus Residential Growth Areas’1 should be extended to include developments adjacent to this area and located with the ‘Moderate Residential Growth Area’.

The Literature and Policy Implementation Review (Appendix 3) identified the potential to apply the Residential Growth Zone instead of the Commercial 1 Zone for business precincts outside of the core retail areas, as the zone provides for commercial uses. However, this would need an economic assessment to ensure adequate floorspace for relevant commercial uses.

Having regard to the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 objectives relating to the ‘moderate residential growth areas’ in the Bay Street Centre Activity Centre, the vision seeks to retain the existing character whilst encouraging infill development. In order to encourage commercial uses to locate within the commercial core of the centre and avoid commercial uses spilling into residential precincts, consolidation of the centre rather than expansion is the preferred outcome supported by the Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016.

In considering the controls in place over Bay Street and the purpose and application of the General Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone and Commercial 1 Zone, it is recommended that the General Residential Zone be retained for the residential precincts within the Centre, consistent with the use of this zone outlined within PN58: Applying the Residential Zones. It is recommended that the Commercial 1 Zone be retained for the commercial precincts.

Recommendation

• Continue to apply the General Residential Zone in the residential areas of the Bay Street Activity Centre to provide for the housing outcomes anticipated in the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012.

1 Definition: Key Focus Residential Growth Areas are where the majority of medium and high density residential development will be located. These areas should provide a diverse range of housing types to meet the needs of the existing and future Bayside community. Further, these areas will have a high level of access to public transport along with commercial and community services. Where located within a commercial precinct, residential development is to be located above commercial and office premises to ensure active street frontages are achieved.


Local Planning Framework – key changes

Since the Structure Plan was prepared, Council has undertaken a significant amount of strategic work relevant to Bay Street. These include:

• Bayside 2020 Community Plan 2011

• Bayside Housing Strategy 2012

• Bayside Open Space Strategy 2012

• Integrated Transport Strategy 2013

• Active by the Bay Recreation Strategy 2013-2022 (2013)

• Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy 2013-2017 (2013)

• Bayside Tourism Strategy 2013

• Bayside Bicycle Strategy 2013

• Property Strategy 2014-2018 (2014)

• Economic Development Strategy 2014

• Place Design Manual (ongoing)

• Bayside Walking Strategy 2015

• Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016.

In addition, Council is currently working on a number of additional strategies and plans that have relevance to Hampton Street, including a Signage and Wayfinding Strategy.

Overall, these strategies support the existing Structure Plan vision and build upon the objectives at Clause 21.11-2. Several of these strategies have been included in the Bayside Planning Scheme through various amendments.

The Bayside Housing Strategy directs development to Housing Growth Areas

In 2014, Amendment C134 introduced the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 as a reference document to the Planning Scheme and inserted the ‘Residential Framework Plan’ (Figure 1) into Clause 21.02 to provide a spatial representation of the Housing Strategy.

The Housing Strategy provides direction about where residential development will be focused and the type of development required in order to meet the changing needs of the Bayside community, while addressing a wide range of challenges.

Within the Housing Growth Areas outlined in the Housing Strategy, activity centres are designated into ‘Key Focus Residential Growth Areas’ and ‘Moderate Residential Growth Areas’:

• Key Focus Residential Growth Areas are to accommodate the majority of medium and higher density residential development. They provide a diverse range of housing types, and have a high level of access to public transport and services. In Bay Street, this is located in the commercial precinct so residential development is to be located above commercial premises in order to retain active street frontages.

• Moderate Residential Growth Areas are for medium density development and will provide an appropriate transition to both adjoining Key Focus Residential Growth Areas and Minimal Residential Growth Areas. These areas are zoned General Residential Zone.

Outside of the activity centre are the Minimal Residential Growth Areas, zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (refer Appendix 1). Here the low density scale of these established areas is to be maintained.

The Housing Strategy also provides guidance on other factors relating to the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan, such as economic activity, open space opportunities, and physical and social infrastructure.

Figure 1 Residential Framework Plan


The Planning Controls can be enhanced to improve decision making

Relevant objectives and strategies from the Structure Plan have been introduced in the Planning Scheme aiming to avoid duplication. Objectives and strategies not considered relevant for the assessment of planning proposals and that duplicated existing policy were not included. Bayside’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.11 (Local Areas) implements the vision (based on the Future Role and Character Statement) and adopts a number of objectives from the Structure Plan. Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO10) implements specific requirements from the Structure Plan relating to the design and built form of new development.

Built form outcomes, particularly the height of buildings, is an area of considerable importance to Council and the Bayside community. The Buildings Plan in the Structure Plan specifies building heights for each area. Building heights are controlled through the DDO10 (refer to Appendix 7 for details) and variations to the residential zone to specify a mandatory height.

A review of VCAT decisions (refer Appendix 3) for Bayside’s MACs did not reveal any key structural deficiencies in the way the DDO operates. The findings suggest that the control is effective in moderating building heights, even in cases where the approved heights exceed the ‘preferred’ height outlined in the DDO10.

Potential opportunities to improvements to the DDO10 include:

• Two of the design objectives relating to developing the centre in a way that conserves its valued urban character and maintains the landscape character are similar to objectives in Clause 22.06 Neighbourhood Character Policy. Duplication of controls creates confusion and should be removed.

• The definition of an attic creates confusion and can be improved. This definition applies to many DDOs in Bayside so a broader review may be necessary for consistency.

• The review can consider if the permits exemptions are appropriate. For example:

– There is potential to consider more permit exemptions for land within a commercial zone, such as for changes

to facades and for rear extensions.

– For land in a residential zone, buildings with a height of 9m or less are not required to be assessed against the DDO. There is potential to align this figure with the lowest of the preferred building heights (11m) in the DDO. Alternatively, other exemptions may apply, such as a single dwelling on a lot, or using the standard residential zone exemptions based on the size of the lot.

• DDO10 includes a section titled ‘Permit requirements’ but this does not accurately describe what follows. ‘Design objectives’ or something similar may be more appropriate.

• Regarding frontages, the specification is for weather protection structures to not conflict with the cultural heritage significance of the existing buildings. However, there is no guidance regarding how it could conflict with the cultural heritage significance or how this would be assessed.

• Discretionary decision making can be strengthened by better linking the ‘Variations to the requirements of this schedule’ and/or the ‘Decision guidelines’ to the ‘Design Objectives’ of the DDO.

The Bayside Planning Scheme Review 2015 noted the following actions relating to DDO10:

• Review the DDO to delete storey definitions to simplify the clause.

• Review consistency between the Clause 21.11 maps and the DDO maps.

The Structure Plan review process also identified that some of the heights specified in the Buildings Plan differ from the heights applied through the DDO10. It is noted that the Structure Plan heights have been superseded as a result of subsequent decisions and that the DDO10 heights are the controls in place.

Recommendations• Amend DDO to improve ease of use

and discretionary decision making.

• Update building heights in the Bay Street Centre Buildings Plan to ensure alignment with DDO10.

• Ensure consistency between the Clause 21.11 maps and the DDO maps.

Changing demographic, housing and economic profile

Demographic and Housing Profile

Population summary

The following demographic and housing information for Bay Street is based on a geography encompassing a wider area than the Structure Plan activity centre boundary. This is due to limitations using Census data boundaries and the requirement for minimum household numbers for small area data as compiled by .id. A map showing the geography used for the demographic and housing information compared to the area covered by the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan is shown in Figure 2.

Bay Street is experiencing moderate population growth. Over the five years between 2006 and 2011, the centre grew by 302 people to reach its population of 2,195 residents. As shown in the table below, the population is forecast to increase to 3,796 residents by 2031. The average annual growth rate of the centre between 2011 and 2031 is forecast to be 2.8%, which is higher than the growth rate for Bayside (0.9%) and nearby Church Street Activity Centre (1.5%), but lower than Hampton Street Activity Centre (3.1%).

Figure 2 Bay Street - demographic and housing data (.id) boundary compared with the Structure Plan boundary.

All data used in this section is sourced from .id unless otherwise stated


Figure 3 Population overview Bay Street and Bayside, 2001-2031

Census Data ERP Forecast Data

Average Annual Growth

Rate (%)

2001 2006 2011 2021 2031 2011-2031

Bay Street Centre 1,742 1,893 2,195 3,421 3,796 2.8

City of Bayside 85,751 87,937 96,119 110,242 115,452 0.9

Age structure

The population pyramid in Figure 4 compares the age structure of the Bay Street Activity Centre to the City of Bayside in 2011 and forecast to 2031. In 2011, Bay Street had almost double the proportion of residents aged 85 years and over compared to the Bayside average, and higher proportions generally of residents 60 years and over. Bay Street also had a lower proportion of residents under 20 years old. Similarly in looking ahead to 2031, Bay Street will have lower proportions of younger residents for all age groups under 50, and higher proportions of older residents aged 55 years and over.

The age structure gives an insight into the level of demand for age-based services and facilities. Bay Street is forecast to experience increases in all age groups from 2011-2031, with the biggest increase occurring in seniors aged 70 to 84 years (+359 people) and empty nesters and retirees aged 60 to 69 years (+237 people). The most populous age group in the centre in 2011 and in 2031 is the 35 to 49 year olds (‘parents and homebuilders’). Figure 5 details the number of Bay Street residents in service age group categories for 2011 and forecast to 2031.

Figure 5 Service age groups, Bay Street, 2011 and 2031

Household types

Analysis of the household/family types in Bay Street in 2011 shows a similar profile to the average for Bayside, as shown in Figure 6. However, Bay Street has lower proportions of households with children (for both couple families and one parent families), and higher proportions of households without children (including couple and lone person households).

Figure 6 Household types, Bay Street and Bayside, 2011

Source: 2001 & 2006 data derived from Census data, Place of Usual Residence; 2011 data derived from Estimated Resident Population, Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2021 & 2031 data from forecast.id.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-84

85+

Percent of residential population

Age

20312011

Bay Street 2031 Bayside 2031Bay Street 2011 Bayside 2011

Figure 4 Age profiles for Bay Street and Bayside, 2011 and 2031

Babies & pre-schoolers (0 to 4)

Primary schoolers (5 to 11)

Secondary schoolers (12 to 17)

Tertiary education & independence (18 to 24)

Young workforce (25 to 34)

Parents & homebuilders (35 to 49)

Older workers & pre-retirees (50 to 59)

Empty nesters & retirees (60 to 69)

Seniors (70 to 84)

Elderly aged (85 and over)

2011 2031

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Couples withchildren

Couples withoutchildren

Grouphouseholds

Lone person One parentfamilies

% o

f tot

al h

ouse

hold

s

Bay Street Bayside


There is a forecast increase of 700 households from 2011 to 2031 in Bay Street. As detailed in Figure 7, the biggest increases will be in couples without children (+253 households) and lone persons (+206 households). Couples without children households are forecast to represent close to a third of all households in Bay Street in 2031.

Figure 7 Household types, Bay Street and Bayside, 2011 and 2031

Bay Street

Households by type

2011 Census 2031 ForecastsChange

2011-2031Number % % Bayside Number % % Bayside

Couples with children 278 32.8 37.3 444 28.6 32.8 +166

Couples without children 241 28.4 26.0 495 31.9 28.3 +253

Group households 23 2.7 2.2 45 2.9 2.6 +22

Lone person 231 27.2 24.0 436 28.1 26.3 +206

One parent families 63 7.4 9.2 111 7.1 8.6 +48

Household size

Bay Street has a smaller household size of 2.37 in 2011 compared to the Bayside average of 2.55. As shown in Figure 8, the average household size in Bay Street is forecast to decrease to 2.28 by 2031.

Figure 8 Average household size Bay Street and Bayside, 2006-2031

Average Household Size

Census data Forecast data

2006 2011 2031

Bay Street 2.38 2.37 2.28

City of Bayside 2.52 2.55 2.48

Recent housing change (Housing Development Data 2006-2014)

According to Housing Development Data2, 371 dwellings were added to the Bay Street Centre between 2006 and 2014. As shown in Figure 9 almost all (97%) of this growth came from 9 larger-scale construction projects which together yielded 360 new dwellings.

The location of these new dwellings were mostly on land zoned General Residential Zone 4 (GRZ4) or Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z). The residential land bound by Warleigh Grove (identified as Precinct E1 in DDO10, refer Appendix 7) accounted for half (52%) of all new dwellings. This area differs from the other residential areas in the Bay Street Activity Centre in that it has 3-storey preferred, rather than mandatory, building height controls. The commercial precinct accounted for a third (34%) of all new dwellings. Figure 10 shows the zone in which new dwellings were constructed.

In the Bay Street Activity Centre, as with the rest of the municipality, the most common construction project was by far, 1-for-1 projects, whereby the original house is demolished and replaced by another single dwelling on a lot. This form of development often does not require planning permission and is therefore not subject to consideration under the planning scheme. All of the 1-for-1 projects, as well as dual occupancy projects, occurred in the surrounding residential precinct zoned GRZ2. Therefore these areas experience a lot of construction activity but without the commensurate increase in additional dwellings.

Although there are no dwelling forecasts to 2031 for dwelling types, it is expected that higher density housing will continue to be constructed in the centre. Key planning changes will facilitate this growth. In particular, the implementation of the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan into the Planning Scheme, and the application of the new residential zones to implement the directions of the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012.

Figure 9 Number of construction projects and net new dwellings by development category, Bay Street Centre, 2006-2014

Development CategoryConstruction

projects Net new dwellings

1for1 19 0

Single Dwelling 1 1

Dual Occupancy 6 6

3-9 Dwellings 2 4

10+ Dwellings 9 360

Total 37 371

Figure 10 Zone of new dwellings, Bay Street Centre, 2006-2014

Net

new

dw

ellin

gs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

C1Z - Commercial area GRZ2 - Surroundingresidential precinct

GRZ4 - Precinct bound byWarleigh Grove

2 Draft Housing Development Data 2014 is lot-by-lot data on housing stock and dwellings demolished or constructed for each year from 2004 to 2014. This data is commissioned by the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning.


Housing Capacity Analysis

A housing capacity analysis using Council’s Housing Growth Model was undertaken to assess whether the current planning controls will enable sufficient dwelling yield to accommodate demand for additional housing. The results, as detailed in the table below, showed that the forecast dwelling yields in the Bay Street Activity Centre would meet and exceed the forecast dwelling demand.

Note that the figures detailed below match the boundaries used by forecast.id for the demographic profile and dwelling demand forecasts. As such it includes a larger area than covered by the Structure Plan, as illustrated previously in Figure 2.

Figure 11 Housing capacity analysis, Bay Street Centre

Supply DemandHousing capacity compared

to demand for housing

Housing Yield, low

development scenario 2030

Housing Yield, high

development scenario 2030

Dwelling forecasts 2031 .id

Difference - supply to demand under low development

scenario

Difference - supply to demand for

high development scenario

Bay Street Centre 2,070 2,626 1,644 +426 +982

Economic Profile

An economic analysis of Bay Street was prepared to update the 2006 Economic Assessment of the centre. Overall, the economic analysis concluded that Bay Street is reasonably well catered for by existing state and local policies, which have been highly effective in maintaining the character and trading viability of the centre.

The economic analysis recognised that Bayside’s activity centres are best practice examples of local activity centres, performing well and providing high quality offerings without the anchors often present in large activity centres of similar sizes. A full line supermarket was recently constructed in Bay Street and since this time the vacancy rate has dropped to below 5%, which is an indication that the supermarket anchor has had a positive influence in terms of attracting new business in the centre. However, the specialty stores in this centre had previously traded well even without the presence of a major supermarket anchor, so the centre was - and still is - much more than a standard suburban supermarket anchored centre.

The strengths of Bay Street lie in many facets of retails and commercial businesses which service the needs of the population. The analysis showed it has the strongest personal service offer in Bayside and the surrounding region, and can be considered a destination for this retail purpose.

The current land use composition of the non-residential uses in the centre is shown in Figure 12.

The analysis found that rather than changing policy direction, as the policies appear to be working well, refinements can be made to respond to broader economic changes and address location specific themes. Future opportunities identified primarily relate to strengthening existing policy to:

• Support residential development;

• Support ‘shop top’ development for both residential and office uses; and

• Continue to improve streetscape.

The economic analysis did not identify a need for any rezoning of residential to accommodate the growth in floorspace demand for retail and commercial uses, despite the assessment showing that many stores are likely to be overtrading and there is scope for more retail floorspace to be provided in the centre if suitable sites can be identified. The analysis advised that it is important to ensure that the incremental growth in floorspace can continue to be accommodated in order to meet demand.

The analysis identified business to consumer commercial uses are well suited to Bay Street and should continue to prosper. It further identified that in the long term, there may be opportunities to attract smaller/niche office uses attracted by the centre’s aesthetic appeal and good amenity.

The retail and commercial floorspace demand forecasts are detailed in Figure 13.

St A

ndre

ws

St

Bay Street, Brighton Land Use, July 2015

SupermarketFood RetailingCafés, Bars and RestaurantsClothing, Footwear and Personal ApparalGeneral RetailingPersonal ServicesHealth Care and Social AssistanceGovernment AdministrationBusiness and Other Support ServicesSport, Recreation and Travel ServicesMultiple TenanciesVacantUnder Construction

LegendGovernment AdministrationBusiness and Other Support ServicesSport, Recreation and Travel ServicesMultiple TenanciesVacantUnder Construction

North BrightonRailway Station

2000

metres

Figure 12 Spatial land use, Bay Street 2015

2021 2031

Land use 2014 Supply (sqm)

Demand Expansion Need

Demand Expansion Need

Retail (total) 20,114 29,200 9,100 30,500 10,400

Supermarket and Grocery Stores 4,028 6,200 2,100 6,500 2,500

Specialty – Food and Drink 2,137 4,100 2,000 4,300 2,100

Specialty – Non food 8,010 11,200 3,200 11,700 3,700

Hospitality 5,939 7,700 1,800 8,100 2,200

Commercial 14,627 15,400 800 16,900 2,200

Figure 13 Retail and Commercial Floorspace Estimates

Source: SGS Economics and Planning 2015, Bayside City Council


Implications from demographic, housing and economic changes

There is demand for later opening hours

Uses within an activity centre should reflect the needs of the community. A study has identified broad support in the Bayside community for later opening hours. The Research into the Night Time Economy 2014 report found that younger age groups, and residents in the northern part of the municipality were particularly supportive of later opening services.

The economic analysis and forecasting study accompanying this Structure Plan review, identified Bay Street as the centre most likely to attract activities in the night time economy, given its combination of medium density development, its local demographic and the existing mix of shopfronts. Attraction of more people in the 25 to 39 age demographic would over time increase the feasibility of more night time businesses opening in the centre.

Key services which residents would like to see with later opening hours include:

• Health and wellbeing services

• Gyms, pools and sports facilities

• Places for learning/study

• Personal/specialty stores.

The Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 advocates for expanding the commercial and retail offerings in activity centres beyond core business hours. The Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 recommends encouraging existing uses to have extended opening hours and improving the attractiveness of the centre as a night-time destination.

Recommendation• Expand the commercial and retail

offerings in the Bay Street Centre beyond core business hours.

Demand for health services is forecast to grow

The population change for Bayside shows there will be an ageing of the adult population, with a greater proportion of residents aged 60 years and older. The 2011 Census data shows that Bay Street has an older age profile compared to the Bayside average. This characteristic will remain over time, with forecasts showing a higher proportion of residents aged 60 and over, and a lower proportion under 60. This overall demographic change points to the need for a greater provision of medical and aged care services.

The economic study identified health care as the largest growth sector of the future, with the growth occurring on two fronts:

i. local health services (e.g. general practitioners) which will be evenly distributed across the metropolis and follow broad population and employment growth patterns (suited to activity centres)

ii. regional level services (including hospitals and medical specialists) which will increasingly be clustered around major medical nodes.

Local health services should be encouraged in Bay Street (and other centres), so residents have good local access to basic health service. This includes health related businesses such as allied health services, general practitioners and pharmaceutical retailers. This use can be accommodated over time by providing more commercial and retail floorspace (for those practices that require a shopfront).

Recommendation:• Encourage general health services to

locate within Bay Street so residents have good access to health services as the demand is forecast to grow.

There is a need to plan for the additional community infrastructure requirements of a growing population

In its Future Role and Character Statement, the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan states that it supports the role of the centre as a focus for community activity through the provision of community facilities and services. The expert evidence presented at the Planning Panel for Amendments C100-103, noted that the MAC Structure Plans lack detail in relation to the provision of community infrastructure. It follows that the Structure Plan review should take into account any community infrastructure strategies dealing with such matters as community hubs, libraries, family and children’s services and open space, a sentiment echoed in the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012.

The Housing Strategy identifies that further strategic work is required to:

• Determine the physical and social/community infrastructure requirements associated with accommodating future growth within the Housing Growth Areas.

• Develop a timeframe for the prioritised provision of physical and social/community infrastructure to meet the needs of the increasing population.

• Prepare a Development Contribution Plan for each Housing Growth Area identifying the physical and social/community infrastructure required, the prioritisation of works, an estimated cost and an appropriate contribution allocation ratio.

• Develop a five year capital works plan focusing on the upgrade and renewal of existing Council owned and managed assets.

• Develop a mechanism for the preparation and implementation of master plans for schools, hospitals, retirement villages and other large institutional uses.

• Liaise with the relevant agencies to advocate for the provision of infrastructure to meet community needs.

Recommendation:• Undertake strategic work to identify

community infrastructure needs in the Bay Street Activity Centre.

Amenity, sense of place and walkability boosts economic potential

Economic analysis identified the following factors in an activity centre as having positive economic spinoffs: a strong sense of place, high amenity, walkability, and good proximity to public transport and other services and facilities. In such centres, retail development opportunities will emerge, as speciality stores (niche fashion) in particular, can be presented distinctively here. In addition, such centres will be well placed to take advantage of the growing popularity of casual dining as a substitute for fine dining. In relation to Bay Street, high-end hospitality is also attracted by the distinct presentation available in such a street-based activity centre in the form of alfresco dining. On-street dining is already a popular feature along Bay Street in the retail precinct.

Bay Street already benefits from a high level of amenity. However, regular streetscape and public realm works are required to ensure the high level of amenity continues and remains relevant to needs.

Council has developed a Place Design Manual which provides general principles of design as well as specific guidance regarding the infrastructure standards for the MACs. The Place Design Manual sets out a coordinated approach to design and management of urban places, supporting the Spaces sections of the Structure Plan.

The Bayside Open Space Strategy 2012 identifies the need for more open space in the Bay Street Activity Centre. The Bay Street Centre Structure Plan does not identify any additional public open space but seeks to review opportunities for acquiring additional public open space and improve the open space around the railway station.

The Bayside Open Space Strategy 2012 identifies the need to mitigate the urban heat island effect and the impact of more compact development in the MACs. It highlighted the importance of open space within these centres to offset the build-up of urban heat and noted that planting large canopy trees in open space and the street will also help mitigate this impact. The Policy and Implementation Review report (Appendix 3) links this to potentially using the zone schedules to vary the provisions for landscaping, if necessary. Works undertaken in implementing the Structure Plan have included additional street tree plantings.


Improved pedestrian connectivity and safety contributes to the walkability of the centre and is one of the objectives of the Structure Plan. A number of related actions in the Structure Plan are yet to be completed, including the provision of a new pedestrian link between Outer Crescent and Bay Street, and investigating design solutions for improved pedestrian access and safety through the laneway that links Bay Street to Warleigh Grove. The Literature and Policy Implementation Review (refer Appendices 3 and 4) identified that a lack of statutory direction within the planning scheme is possibly a factor in these opportunities not being realised.

Recommendations:• Continue to undertake improvements

to the streetscapes, public realm and walkability of the centre.

• Ensure future streetscape works have regard to the urban heat island effect.

• Investigate the options for implementing the proposed improved pedestrian connections as shown on the Access Plan in the Structure Plan and Map 1 to Clause 21.11-2 in the Bayside Planning Scheme.

Population growth is the main driver of jobs in population-serving industries

Economic analysis identified that population growth is the main driver of the type of jobs located in Bay Street, that is, jobs in population serving industries such as retail and hospitality. Over the next 15 to 20 years, it will be population growth that drives the incremental growth of most store formats. Strong employment growth will also support the retail and hospitality sector directly through increased demand (i.e. workers spending money) which is often at different times to residents and visitors. This is important to the growth aspirations of Bay Street in the future.

The economic analysis recommended that the Structure Plan support residential development in the centre, to increase density and consolidate the catchment.

Recommendation• Continue to support residential

development in the centre, to increase density and consolidate the catchment.

There is a need to provide clarity on balancing character and growth objectives

Maintaining neighbourhood character is important to the Bayside community, as recognised in the Bayside 2020 Community Plan which outlines the value Bayside residents place on the unique character of the shopping strips. Whilst there is some acceptance that the MACs will increase in density, feedback regularly indicates that this type of development should not encroach into residential areas outside activity centres. The Structure Plan also provides a framework for the retention of neighbourhood character whilst accommodating the forecast growth supported by State and local policy.

As the General Residential Zone, Design and Development Overlay, Neighbourhood Character Policy and Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 all provide strategic direction for residential growth in activity centres, the number of controls has created a conflict which results in uncertainty as to the preferred future character of those areas. Clarification of the preferred neighbourhood character for the General Residential Zone areas

should be a priority to ensure the policy objectives are clear and achievable.

The Housing Strategy also identified the following pieces of additional work which would add clarity to the local planning policy framework to manage growth and change in the MACs:

• Review the Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy and amend to recognise the ‘Housing Growth Areas’ and the development which is likely to occur within these areas.

• Provide guidelines for development of properties affected by a Heritage Overlay or Neighbourhood Character Overlay within ‘Housing Growth Areas’ to provide direction on how to balance the need to protect heritage sites and precincts whilst accommodating future growth.

An analysis of VCAT cases (refer Appendix 3) also identified that the term ‘village feel’ and ‘village character’ can be interpreted in different ways. Council has presented to VCAT that the Planning Scheme calls for the maintenance of a ‘village feel’ in its activity centres and that it is essential that building height does not overwhelm this ‘village feel’. However, VCAT considers the term ‘village character’ as not necessarily relating to building scale but also the level of mixed activities and use of public space. Council’s position has indicated that building ‘design’ rather than ‘activity’ is the main issue when the term ‘village’ is raised in opposition to development.

The expression ‘village feel’ is found in the Planning Scheme at Clause 21.07 in relation to activity centres. VCAT has highlighted that the Planning Scheme does not explain what this means or its implications.

Recommendation:

• Develop preferred future character statements for the residential areas of the Bay Street Activity Centre, which recognise it will undergo change.

• Provide guidelines for the development of properties affected by a Heritage Overlay or Neighbourhood Character Overlay within the Bay Street Activity Centre.

• Define what is meant by ‘village feel’ and ‘village character’ in the Planning Scheme in relation to the Bay Street Activity Centre.

Increased growth in residents, workers and visitors places pressure on car parking

Car parking in activity centres has consistently been raised as an issue of concern for Bayside residents, traders and visitors. The preparation of a Car Parking Plan for the Bay Street Activity Centre will assist Council to articulate its position in relation to a range of parking issues, noting that the Car Parking Plan prepared in 2006 did not form part of Amendment C100.

Recommendation• Prepare a car parking plan for

the Bay Street Activity Centre.

Increased growth in the centre provides additional impetus to reconsider how new or widened laneways will be implemented

Laneway initiatives were identified in the Structure Plan but have not yet been realised. The forecast dwelling increases in the centre will place additional pressure on the laneways through increased use. Strengthening of implementation measures to widen laneways and create new laneways will assist Council in responding to this pressure.

Recommendation:• Investigate the options for implementing the

proposed laneway widenings and laneway connections as shown on the Access Plan in the Structure Plan and Map 1 to Clause 21.11-2 in the Bayside Planning Scheme.


Implementation

In order to implement the elements of this review, including its supporting reports, a table outlining the issues, opportunities and recommendations has been prepared. A number of these actions have commenced as part of other strategic work, referenced in the table. The actions are linked to the four themes within the Structure Plan.

Issues, Opportunities, Recommendations and Actions

Theme Identified Issues/Opportunities

Recommendations Actions

1 Activities The reformed commercial zones makes it harder to implement the land use objectives for each precinct. The intent of the reformed commercial zone is to create opportunities for a mixed-use centre that includes retail, office and commercial uses with the potential for higher-density residential growth. This is considered appropriate in Bay Street where much of the commercial activity has a population-serving function and has similar land use needs as retail.

Continue to use the Commercial 1 Zone and create opportunities for mixed use developments in the centre.

Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to update Cl 21.11-2 Bay Street to combine Precinct 1 (Retail Core), Precinct 2 (Western Office Area) and Precinct 3 (Medical Centres, Office and Residential).

2 Activities There is a risk that residential development can outprice retail and commercial development. It is important to ensure that increased residential development in activity centres does not occur at the expense of the retail and commercial activities nor inhibit their potential expansion to meet the future needs of a growing community.

Ensure a balance is achieved between providing sufficient floorspace for retail and commercial uses including for future growth and providing for additional residential development, through a monitoring and reviewing program.

Develop a monitoring and reviewing program for commercial and residential land supply and consumption in Activity Centres to ensure a sufficient forward supply of land for a 15 year or more period. This can be actioned through the Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016.

3 Activities Committee hearings and results from a policy review have suggested that Council consider the potential application of the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) when reviewing the Structure Plans to provide for housing diversity.

Continue to apply the General Residential Zone in the residential areas of the Bay Street Activity Centre to provide for the housing outcomes anticipated in the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012, and continue to apply the Commercial 1 Zone to the business precincts to allow for incremental expansion of retail and commercial floorspace.

No further action required. An urban design assessment identified precincts within the residential area of the MAC, each with its own preferred character statement and design guidelines that seek to provide a balance between accommodating growth and respecting the valued character. No precinct was identified that would be suitable for the Residential Growth Zone.



4 Activities There is support for later opening services in Bayside, particularly from the northern part of the municipality. The economic analysis study identifed Bay Street as the centre most likely to attract activities in the night time economy.

Expand the commercial and retail offerings in the Bay Street Activity Centre beyond core business hours.

Through the Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016, explore ways to encourage later opening services to operate and locate in the Bay Street Activity Centre.

5 Activities Demand for health services is forecast to grow. It is important that residents have good access to health services.

Encourage health services to locate within the Bay Street Activity Centre.

Undertake further strategic work to identify methods to attract health services to locate in the centre.

Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to update Cl 21.11-2 Bay Street to include a strategy to ‘encourage health service uses’, and if relevant, incorporate measures identified through the further strategic work.

6 Activities Evidence at the C100-103 Planning Panel identified that the Structure Plan lacks detail in relation to community infrastructure.

The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 also identified that further strategic work is needed to plan for the infrastructure requirements of a growing community.

Undertake the further strategic work identified in the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 regarding community infrastructure issues.

Undertake further strategic work relating to infrastructure needs in the Housing Growth Areas as per Bayside Housing Strategy 2012.

7 Activities Population growth will be the main driver of job growth in the centre. Residential development and intensification in the centre will therefore help to improve the viability of population-serving businesses in the longer term.

Continue to support residential development in the centre, to increase density and consolidate the catchment.

No further action needed - residential development is encouraged through the current planning controls through the GRZ, C1Z, DDO10 and State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

8 Buildings There are no key structural deficiencies in the way the DDO10 operates however potential improvements were identified relating to better guiding discretionary decision making, improving ease of use.

Amend DDO to improve ease of use and discretionary decision making.

Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to update DDO10 according to identified improvements.




9 Buildings There is an inconsistency in the heights specified in the Buildings Plan in the Structure Plan and what is contained in the Planning Scheme, which creates confusion. The controls arose as a result of subsequent decisions overriding the Structure Plan content.

Ensure the heights within the DDO10 are applied in place of those referenced in the Structure Plan heights and ensure consistency within the Bayside Planning Scheme.

Review the Bayside Planning Scheme to ensure consistent height controls for the Bay Street Activity Centre.

10 Buildings There is a need to balance objectives relating to facilitating growth and maintaining character. Currently, Council decisions are being overturned at VCAT when arguing on a neighbourhood character basis. Terms ‘village feel’ and ‘village character’ are ambiguous.

Develop preferred future character statements. These will strengthen decision making, clarify the extent of change envisaged, and include a description of housing typologies.

11 Spaces Improving the amenity, walkability and sense of place of the centre helps to boost its economic potential. Bay Street already benefits from a high level of amenity, however improvements should be continued over time to ensure it responds to changing needs.

Undertake continued improvements to the streetscapes, public realm and walkability of the centre.

Continue to review and undertake streetscape and public realm works in the long term.

12 Spaces The Bayside Open Space Strategy 2012 identified a need for additional open space in the Bay Street Activity Centre and identified that the urban heat island effect will be felt in the MACs. It put forward that the provision of open space and the planting of large canopy trees in open space and the street will help to mitigate this effect.

Continue to support opportunities to provide additional public open space.

Ensure future streetscape works have regard to the urban heat island effect.

Continue to review opportunities to acquire additional public open space, as per the action in the Structure Plan.

13 Access The new or improved pedestrian connections sought by the Structure Plan have not been achieved, possibly due to a lack of statutory direction within the planning scheme.

Investigate the options for implementing the proposed improved pedestrian connections as shown on the Access Plan in the Structure Plan and Map 1 to Clause 21.11-2 in the Bayside Planning Scheme.

Undertake further strategic work to develop stronger implementation measures relating to improved or new pedestrian connections. To be considered in conjunction with the development of a Principal Pedestrian Network.



14 Access The issue of car parking has consistenty been raised as a matter of concern for Bayside residents, traders and visitors and has been argued in VCAT. The forecast growth in residents and workers in the centre will create additional car parking demand. The Car Parking Plan prepared in 2006 did not form part of Amendment C101.

Prepare a car parking plan for the Bay Street Activity Centre.

Develop, adopt and implement a Car Parking Plan for the centre.

15 Access In terms of laneways, the widenings and new connections sought by the Structure Plan have not been achieved. With growth forecast for the centre, this will place additional pressure on the laneways.

Investigate options for implementing the proposed laneway widenings and laneway connections as shown in the Access Plan of the Structure Plan and in Map 1 to Clause 21.11-2 in the Planning Scheme.

Undertake further strategic work to develop stronger implementation measures relating to laneways, particularly widening and new laneway creation.

16 Other Plan Melbourne removed the distinction between Principal Activity Centres (PAC) and Major Activity Centres (MAC), with these centres now identified as ‘Activity Centres’.

Review the municipality’s activity centre classifications to ensure they respond to the economic role of the centre.

This is being addressed through the Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016.


Appendix 1 – Current Planning Controls, Bay Street Centre

Zoning and Land Use, Bay Street Planning Overlays, Bay Street


Appendix 2 – Audit of Actions, Bay Street Centre Structure Plan 2006

Theme Action Responsibility Status

1 Activities Prepare and implement an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce the Objectives and the applicable Strategies into the Local Planning Policy Framework. (p9)

Urban Strategy Complete - C100-C103

2 Activities Prepare and implement an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to rezone current Residential 1 Zoned properties in Bay Street, east of Cochrane Street (in precinct 1), and east of Male Street (precinct 3) to Mixed Use. (p9)

Urban Strategy Complete - The Cochrane Street precinct has been rezoned to Mixed Use however the Male Street precinct has not.

At its meeting of 20 February 2007 Council resolved not to pursue rezoning of the Male Street precinct.

3 Buildings Update the relevant Major Activity Centre Precincts within the Heritage review 1999 by Allom Lovell & Associates, with a view to preparing an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce a new schedule to the Heritage Overlay over areas of identified significance. (p13)

Urban Strategy An assessment of existing heritage studies is being prepared which will identify appropriate future actions for heritage areas.

4 Buildings Prepare and implement an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce the Objectives and the applicable Strategies into a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay and into the Local Planning Policy Framework. (p13)


5 Spaces Prepare and implement an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce the Objectives and the applicable Strategies into the Local Planning Policy Framework. (p15)


6 Spaces Undertake a streetscape upgrade of the entire street following a detailed streetscape plan or masterplan for the area. Upgrades should include low maintenance paving, placement of new and existing street furniture, bicycle parking and regular street tree planting, street lighting and, if appropriate, public art. (p15)

Urban Improvements

Complete – existing street lighting was adequate and public art was not included.

7 Spaces Undertake street tree planting at the eastern end of Bay Street, east of Male Street with consideration of Council’s Street Tree Policy in regards to species and spacing. (p16)

ESOS / Urban Improvements

Complete

8 Spaces Include and implement the following proposed works into the Council’s works program, prioritised to concentrate benefits and positive impacts:

• improve the small landscaped areas of open space around the railway station to provide an attractive pedestrian link. (p16)

Urban Improvements

This action is considered outside the jurisdiction of planning and beyond the remit of the Structure Plan

Primary purpose of planning controls applicable in Bay Street

Zone/Overlay Primary purpose of the zone or overlay

Commercial 1 Zone Seeks to create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses. Seeks to provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.

General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 and 4

Encourages a diversity of housing types, development and moderate housing growth in a manner that respects the neighbourhood character of an area.

Mixed Use Zone Encourages the creation of a range of residential, commercial and other uses whilst providing for higher density housing in a manner that responds to the existing or preferred character of an area.

Public Use Zone - Transport Recognises public land use for public utility and community services and facilities. Seeks to provide for associated uses that are consistent with the intent of the public land reservation purpose.

Design and Development Overlay 10 Seeks to ensure that the new development is compatible with the preferred role and character of Bay Street Major Activity Centre by conserving and enhancing its valued urban character and heritage places. Seeks new development to contribute to safe and active streets and to maintain a strong landscape character in residential precincts.

Heritage Overlays Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.

Special Building Overlay Identifies land in urban areas liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage system as determined by, or in consultation with, the floodplain management authority. Ensures new development does not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity and protects water quality in accordance with state policy requirements.



9 Spaces Manage street trading to support public activity and social interaction in the street. (p16)

Urban Strategy Ongoing

10 Spaces Develop a signage guideline to manage existing signage in the Centre and promote special features of the Centre. (p15)

Urban Improvements

Signage and Wayfinding Strategy to be commenced in the 2016-17 Financial Year.

11 Spaces Develop an appropriate strategy for funding of the undergrounding of powerlines between Nepean Highway and Cochrane Street to improve the appearance of the streetscape. (p16)

Urban Improvements

Not commenced. Government Funding/subsidy no longer available. Significant Council Budget would need to be allocated.

12 Spaces Implement as part of the streetscape work the undergrounding of powerlines between Nepean Highway and Cochrane Street to improve the appearance of the streetscape. (p16)

Urban Improvements

Not commenced. Government Funding/subsidy no longer available. Significant Council Budget would need to be allocated.

13 Spaces Require provision of weather protection and active frontages for properties facing Bay Street between Cochrane Street and Hillcrest Avenue. (p16)

Statutory Planning Ongoing

14 Spaces Review opportunities for acquiring additional public open space.

Urban Strategy / ESOS / Commercial Services

The Open Space Strategy identifies that additional land is required in the Bay Street Major Activity Centre for open space Particular sites have not yet been specifically identified.

Update Council’s property strategy accordingly regarding public open space in when this strategy is next reviewed.

15 Access Prepare and implement an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce the Objectives and the applicable Strategies into the Local Planning Policy Framework. (p20)

Urban Strategy Complete – C100-C103

16 Access Prepare and implement an amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to introduce the Bay Street Parking Precinct Plan into the Particular Provisions section of the Planning Scheme. (p20)

Urban Strategy Not commenced

17 Access Work with VicRoads to introduce a reduced speed limit within the Bay Street commercial area between Cochrane Street and Nepean Highway.(p20)

Traffic Engineering Complete

18 Access Review in conjunction with the train operator, the traffic management arrangements at the intersection of the private roadway that runs off the south side of Bay Street, immediately east of the railway line to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. (p20)

Traffic Engineering Complete


19 Access Investigate the options for implementing the proposed laneway widenings and laneway connections as shown on the access plan. (p20)

Urban Strategy Not commenced

20 Access Develop a laneway maintenance strategy for safety, sanitation, etc. The strategy should consider:

• Repaving to ensure even surfaces (asphalt typical)

• Lighting. (p20)

Asset Management

Asset Management Plan Review for Roads completed (includes laneways). Work underway to prepare conditions data and develop a forward works plan for renewal of laneways.

21 Access Change the car parking rates in the Bayside Planning Scheme for ‘Retail/Other Shopping’, ‘Restaurant/Café’ and ‘Commercial’, as recommended in the Parking Precinct Plan. (p20)

Urban Strategy Not commenced.

22 Access Plan the development of a new car parking facility over the existing Council owned parking lot between Marion Street and Willansby Avenue with an estimated ultimate capacity of 80 and 120 cars. Fund construction of the car park from the cash in lieu payments and a special rate scheme. Develop design criteria for the car park to ensure satisfactory design outcomes and integration into the surrounding streetscapes. (p20)

Urban Strategy / Commercial Services

Council’s Property Strategy identifies this site as an ideal site for redevelopment.

The Car Parking Plan will further investigate need for additional off street parking and the appropriate funding mechanisms.

23 Access IReview and implement the on-street car parking recommendations contained in the Parking Precinct Plan, including:

• Consultation with Traders and other relevant groups;

• Altering parking restriction from 2-hour to 3-hour limit in the car park east of Hampton Street on Willis Street, and the Crisp Street car park, to encourage greater use and promote a more balanced use of the various car parks in the Centre;

• Provide disabled parking for the Hampton Street retail strip in the intersecting side streets, which provide a safer environment. Where possible, the first parking space, after turning off Hampton Street, should be reserved for disabled parking, in accordance with Australian Standards. (p20)

Urban Strategy /Traffic Engineering

Not commenced.

24 Access Improve view lines to, and lighting in off-street car parks and pedestrian linkages between the car parks. (p20)

Urban Strategy / Statutory Planning

Ongoing.

25 Access Advocate for improvements to transport services for the public, connections and amenity of stations and surrounds. (p20)

Traffic Engineering Ongoing – Public transport Advocacy Statement



26 Access Work with public transport operators to encourage the provision of signage within the train station, to identify the location of interchange facilities outside the station, including bus stops, taxi ranks, cycle parking, pedestrian links, and key features and facilities within the Centre.(p20)

Traffic Engineering This will be addressed through the Signage and Wayfinding Strategy which is underway.

27 Access Work with bus operators to provide improved facilities at the transport interchange stops including improved shelter and seating. (p20)

Traffic Engineering Ongoing

28 Access Investigate the provision of suitable passenger set-down/pick-up facilities for private vehicles in Bay Street near the station. (p20)

Urban Strategy / Traffic Engineering

Not commenced.

Bayside City Council 76 Royal Avenue Sandringham VIC 3191Tel (03) 9599 4444 Fax (03) 9598 [email protected] www.bayside.vic.gov.au

0280

B1

DRAF

TDescription

Precinct B1 includes the properties that do not have a direct interface with Neighbourhood Residential Zoned Land. The precinct also includes the vast majority of properties that front the railway corridor and those that have a direct interface with the Bay St commercial corridor.

This precinct is diverse in architectural styles, with a concentration of Edwardian, Federation, California Bungalow Interwar, Post War era dwellings and occasional mansion and English attic houses. There are a number of heritage buildings and precincts, which reflect the role Brighton’s oldest residential area. The variety of achitectural styles is reflected in the setbacks and fences style. Materials are also mixed brick and render and there is often a variety of colours within the façade. Gardens are established with native and exotic species. Street planting is a mixture of existing and native species.

Dwelling are generally setback between 1m and 3m from side boundaries, however, garages extend to the boundary in some instances.

Moderately wide street frontages of approximately 10m to 15m and front setbacks of 5m to 9m allow for medium sized gardens which contribute to the garden, suburban feel of the area. This is reinforced by established street trees planted along nature strips which form a prominent feature of the streetscape.

Front fences are generally low to medium and have a mix of solid and open style. Building material is predominantly brick with new development using render finishes. Roofs forms are generally pitched.

Bay Street Activity Centre

Precinct Statement

MAR

ION

ST

ST ANDREWS

ST

BAY ST

OAKWOOD AVE ROODING ST

NEPEAN

HW

Y

ENFIELD RD

MAL

E

ST

NEW

ST

HAM

PTO

N

ST

ASLI

NG

ST

COCH

RAN

E

ST

GAR

DEN

VIEW

RD

WILLIAM

ST

WILLIAM

STDURANT

ST

BARKLY

ST

OAK GRBE

RWIC

K ST

North BrightonStation


B1

B1

B2

B2

B2

Character Precinct

Surrounding Character Precincts

Non-residential Zones

Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Heritage Overlay

Legend

August 2016

HStanworth

Text Box

Attachment 2

B1

DRAF

T

Design Guidelines

Valued character

• Mixture of housing from various eras including, Victorian, Federation, Interwar and Post-war with an increasing presence of new houses

• Materials are distinctive to each period

• Mix of 1 and 2 storey developments

• Open style frontages and front fences

• Established, mix native and exotic gardens, with coverings of shrubs and scattered medium to tall specimen trees

• Streets have bluestone kerbing and channelling

• Front setbacks vary from 5-9m.

Preferred Future Character

To guide development that provides a balance between accommodating higher density development in the form of townhouses and buildings of up to 3 storeys, that respects to the existing valued character of the area. This will be achieved by:

• Ensuring the third floor is recessed enough so it is distinct from the lower part of the building and/or present an attic style development

• Maximising building articulation that integrates with the streetscape character

• Maximising building articulation that reduces the visual bulk of the side building facades

• Encouraging the retention and planting of medium to large sized trees and landscaped front gardens

• Strengthening the bayside vegetation character of the area by ensuring sufficient space is provided around buildings to accommodate landscaping

• Ensuring front gardens reflect the existing character by maximising soft landscaping and minimising areas of hard surfaces

• Ensuring front fences are open style and low-medium scale.

Key Issues/Threats

• Development that appears bulky

• Boundary to boundary development

• High front fences that disrupt the rhythm of the street

• Development that dominates the streetscape

• Loss of existing vegetation contained in front gardens

• Lack of vegetation and soft landscaped area.

B1

DRAF

T

Design Guidelines

Character Elements

Objective Design Response Avoid Illustration

Vegetation To maintain and enhance the garden settings of the dwellings, and enhance the bayside vegetation character

Where possible, ensure retention of established large trees.

Replace any trees removed with species that will grow to a similar height.

Ensure front gardens incorporate soft landscaping that complements the bayside vegetation character.

Ensure landscaping to the side and rear of buildings.

Removal of large trees.

Lack of landscaping and substantial vegetation.

Gardens dominated by hard surfaces.

Siting To enhance the landscape character of streetscapes by providing sufficient space for vegetation.

Buildings should be sited to allow sufficient space to accommodate landscaping.

Loss of front garden space.

To minimise the dominance of car parking structures

Locate garages and carports behind the line of the dwelling.

Where possible, locate the entry to basement garages to the side or rear of buildings so they are not visible from the street.

Locate basement entrances at least 5m from the primary street frontage.

Car parking structures that dominate the façade or view of the dwelling.

Basement ramps that commence at the street frontage.

Front Boundary Treatment

To maintain and enhance interaction between building and the public realm.

Front fences should be open style.

Ensure front fences are no more than 1.2m or the average fence height in the street, whichever is less.

High, solid front fencing.

B1

DRAF

T

Character Elements


Building Form To ensure new building does not visually overwhelm the neighbouring properties.

Ensure upper level additions to existing dwellings are sufficiently setback to minimise their visibility.

Ensure visible roof forms integrate with the pitched roofs in the streetscape.

Large solid walls with limited articulations.

To ensure new buildings or extensions do not dominate disrupt the existing streetscape rhythm.

Encourage apartment or multi-unit style development that maintains the fine-grain streetscape rhythm.

Recess third storey elements from the front façade.

Articulate the buildings and elements, particularly front facades, and include elements that breaks the building bulk such as balconies, verandas, non-reflective glazing and light-transparent balustrading.

Three storey facades to the street.

Large bulky buildings or extensions that dominate or disrupt the streetscape.

Poorly articulated building forms.

Materials and Design Detail

To ensure building materials, finishes and articulations integrate with the streetscape character.

Ensure new buildings and visible extensions complement the material and design details of the existing buildings along the street.

Use different colours and materials that are commonly found in the streetscape or integrate with surrounding buildings and enhance the streetscape rhythm.

Bulky and bland design such as sheer or plain rendered facades.

Highly reflective materials or glazing.

Design Guidelines

B1

DRAF

T

The Precinct Statements will be used when assessing planning permit applications in residential zones. In instances where no planning permit is required (e.g. for single dwellings on lots over 500m2 ), the Precinct Statements will be used when assessing report and consent applications to vary the siting requirements of the Building Regulations.

New development proposals will be assessed against the directions contained in the “objective”, “design response” and “avoid” columns in the design guidelines Table of Elements. Proposals will need to demonstrate how they meet the objectives in the table if they do not meet the relevant “design response” or “avoid” criteria.

With the exception of the guidelines relating to rear garden character, the view from the street will be used to assess consistency with the design guidelines. Existing development that does not comply with the design guidelines should not be used as a precedent when designing new buildings or building extensions.

The Precinct Statements will be used in conjunction with other policies and guidelines in the Bayside Planning Scheme. Where a conflict occurs between the Precinct Statements and an existing Design and Development Overlay or a Heritage Overlay, the provisions of the Design and Development Overlay or Heritage Overlay will take precedence.

How the Precinct Statements will be used

Relationship to other Policies and Guidelines

B2

DRAF

T

Description

Precinct B2 includes the properties that have a direct interface with Neighbourhood Residential Zoned Land.

This precinct is diverse in architectural styles, with a concentration of Edwardian, Federation, California Bungalow Interwar, Post War era dwellings that are detached and single and double storey with detailed and articulated facades and rooflines. There are a number of heritage buildings and precincts, which reflect the role Brighton’s oldest residential area. The variety of architectural styles is reflected in the setbacks and fences style. Materials reflect eras of development and consist of a mix of brick, render and timber. Gardens are established with native and exotic species. Street planting is a mixture of existing and native species.

Dwelling are generally setback between 1m and 3m from side boundaries, however, garages extend to the boundary in some instances.

Moderately wide street frontages of approximately 15m to 20m and front setbacks of 5m to 9m allow for medium sized gardens which contribute to the garden, suburban feel of the area.

Front fences are generally low to medium and have a mix of solid and open style. Building material is predominantly brick with new development using render finishes. Roofs forms are generally pitched.


Precinct Statement

MAR

ION

ST

ST ANDREWS

ST

BAY ST

OAKWOOD AVE ROODING ST

NEPEAN HW

Y

ENFIELD RD

MAL

E

ST

NEW

ST

HAM

PTO

N

ST

ASLI

NG

ST

COCH

RAN

E

ST

GARD

ENVI

EW

RD

WILLIAM

ST

WILLIAM

STDURANT

ST

BARKLY

ST

OAK GR

BERW

ICK

ST



B1

B1

B2

B2

B2

Character Precinct

Surrounding Character Precincts

Non-residential Zones

Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Heritage Overlay

Legend

August 2016

B2

DRAF

T

Design Guidelines

Valued character

• Mixture of housing from various eras including, Victorian, Federation, Interwar and Post-war with an increasing presence of new houses

• Pitched roofs

• Well vegetated rear gardens

• Materials are distinctive to each period

• Mix of 1 and 2 storey developments

• Open style frontages and front fences

• Established, mix native and exotic gardens, with coverings of shrubs and scattered medium to tall specimen trees

• Streets have bluestone kerbing and channelling

• Front setbacks vary from 5-9m

• Street trees are mixed species of regular spacing and sizes.

Preferred Future Character

To guide development that provides a balance between accommodating higher density development in the form of townhouses that respect the existing valued character of the area. This will be achieved by:

• Encouraging increase densities through subdivision that facilitates smaller, low maintenance blocks with a single dwelling

• Ensuring the sitting of car parking structures minimise loss of garden space and dominance in the streetscape

• Maximising building articulation that integrates with the streetscape character

• Strengthening the bayside vegetation character of the area by ensuring sufficient space is provided around buildings to accommodate landscaping

• Ensuring front gardens reflect the existing character by maximising soft landscaping and minimising areas of hard surfaces

• Ensuring front fences are open style and low-medium scale

• Ensuring buildings are setback from side boundaries to retain the detached streetscape rhythm.

Key Issues/Threats

• Boundary to boundary development

• New houses that dominate the streetscape

• Unsympathetic or dominant dwelling extensions

• Period reproduction styles

• High front fences that disrupt the rhythm of the street

• Loss of existing vegetation contained in front gardens

• Lack of vegetation and soft landscaped area.

B2

DRAF

T

Design Guidelines

Character Elements


Vegetation To maintain and enhance the garden settings of the dwellings, and enhance the bayside vegetation character.

Where possible, ensure retention of established large trees.

Ensure retention of large trees.

Ensure front gardens incorporate soft landscaping that complements the bayside vegetation character.

Ensure landscaping to the side and rear of buildings.

Removal of large trees.

Lack of landscaping and substantial vegetation.

Gardens dominated by hard surfaces.

Siting To maintain the existing detached streetscape rhythm.

Buildings should be sited to allow sufficient space to accommodate landscaping.

Loss of front garden space.

To minimise the dominance of car parking structures

Locate garages and carports behind the line of the dwelling.

Where possible, locate the entry to basement garages to the side or rear of buildings so they are not visible from the street.

Locate basement entrances at least 5m from the primary street frontage.

Car parking structures that dominate the façade or view of the dwelling.

Basement ramps that commence at the street frontage.

Front Boundary Treatment

To maintain and enhance interaction between building and the public realm.

Front fences should be open style.

Ensure front fences are no more than 1.2m or the average fence height in the street, whichever is less.

High, solid front fencing.

Building Form To ensure new building does not visually overwhelm the neighbouring properties.

Ensure upper level additions to existing dwellings are sufficiently setback to minimise their visibility.

Ensure visible roof forms integrate with the pitched roofs in the streetscape.

Large solid walls with limited articulations.

B2

DRAF

T

Character Elements


Building Form (continued)

To ensure new buildings or extensions do not dominate disrupt the existing streetscape rhythm.

Articulate the buildings and elements, particularly front facades, and include elements that disrupt the building bulk such as balconies, verandas, non-reflective glazing and light-transparent balustrading.

Three storey facades to the street.

Large bulky buildings or extensions that dominate or disrupt the streetscape.

Poorly articulated building forms.

Materials and Design Detail

To ensure building materials, finishes and articulations integrate with the streetscape character.

Ensure new buildings and visible extensions complement the material and design details of the existing buildings along the street.

Use different colours and materials that are commonly found in the streetscape or integrate with surrounding buildings and enhance the streetscape rhythm.

Bulky and bland design such as sheer or plain rendered facades.

Highly reflective materials or glazing.

Design Guidelines

B2

DRAF

T

The Precinct Statements will be used when assessing planning permit applications in residential zones. In instances where no planning permit is required (e.g. for single dwellings on lots over 500m2 ), the Precinct Statements will be used when assessing report and consent applications to vary the siting requirements of the Building Regulations.

New development proposals will be assessed against the directions contained in the “objective”, “design response” and “avoid” columns in the design guidelines Table of Elements. Proposals will need to demonstrate how they meet the objectives in the table if they do not meet the relevant “design response” or “avoid” criteria.

With the exception of the guidelines relating to rear garden character, the view from the street will be used to assess consistency with the design guidelines. Existing development that does not comply with the design guidelines should not be used as a precedent when designing new buildings or building extensions.

The Precinct Statements will be used in conjunction with other policies and guidelines in the Bayside Planning Scheme. Where a conflict occurs between the Precinct Statements and an existing Design and Development Overlay or a Heritage Overlay, the provisions of the Design and Development Overlay or Heritage Overlay will take precedence.

How the Precinct Statements will be used

Relationship to other Policies and Guidelines


Car Parking Background Report

August 2016

HStanworth

Text Box

Attachment 3

2

Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 5

2. STRATEGY AND POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 6

2.1. State Planning Policies ................................................................................................................ 6

2.1.1. Draft Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper October 2015 ............................................. 6

2.1.2. State Planning Policy Framework............................................................................................ 6

2.2. Relevant Local Strategic Documents........................................................................................... 8

2.2.1. Local Planning Policy Framework ............................................................................................ 8

2.2.2. Other Strategic Documents .................................................................................................... 9

3. BAY STREET MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ............................................... 12

3.1. Household Type ........................................................................................................................ 13

3.2. Dwelling Structure .................................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Car ownership ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.4. Ageing population ..................................................................................................................... 15

3.5. Method of travel to work .......................................................................................................... 15

3.6. Forecast population growth ...................................................................................................... 16

3.7. Economic growth ...................................................................................................................... 17

3.8. Projected demand for car parking based on forecasts for dwellings ....................................... 20

4. EXISTING CAR PARKING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 21

4.1. Types of parking users .............................................................................................................. 22

4.2. Current parking supply and restrictions ................................................................................... 22

4.3. Capacity limits ........................................................................................................................... 23

4.4. Summary of key findings from parking survey ......................................................................... 23

4.5. Public Transport data on North Brighton train station patronage ........................................... 24

4.6. Train station patronage fact sheet for 2013-2014 .................................................................... 26

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT / ISSUES IDENTIFICATION ............................................................. 27

5.1. Consultation / Feedback ........................................................................................................... 27

5.2. Community comments concerning car parking ........................................................................ 27

5.3. Summary of Key Issues Identified ............................................................................................. 29

6. OPTIONS FOR MANAGING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ..................................................................... 30

6.1. Car parking demand reduction mechanisms ............................................................................ 31

6.1.1. Reduce Unrestricted Parking Supply ..................................................................................... 31

6.1.2. Greater Parking Enforcement to Ensure Turnover ............................................................... 31

6.1.3. Installation of and improvements to Parking Guidance Signage .......................................... 32

6.1.4. Increased Parking Restrictions .............................................................................................. 33

6.1.5. The Installation of Paid Parking Facilities .............................................................................. 34

3

6.1.6. Parking Permit Schemes and Priority Parking for Identified Users ....................................... 34

6.1.7. Reduced Car Parking Rates ................................................................................................... 39

6.1.8. Improvements and Extensions to the Supply of Off-Street Parking ..................................... 47

6.1.9. Behavioural Change Programs .............................................................................................. 47

6.1.10. Incentives for Sustainable Transport Modes ........................................................................ 51

7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 53

List of Tables

Table 1: Household and Family Structure

Table 2: Dwelling Type

Table 3: Number of Cars per Household

Table 4: Age Structure – Five Year Age Groups

Table 5: Method of Travel to Work

Table 6: Forecast Age Structure – 5 Year Age Groups

Table 7: Retail Demand Forecast Projections

Table 8: Commercial Floorspace Forecast

Table 9: Projected Parking Demand for Commercial and Office

Table 10: Projected Parking Demand for Retail/Shop

Table 11: Dwelling Forecast for Bay Street MAC Towards 2031

Table 12: Car Parking Supply and Restrictions as at 2014

Table 13: North Brighton Station Weekday Entries

Table 14: The Proportional Weekday Entries by Access Mode

Table 15: Clause 52.06 Parking Rates

Table 16: Relevant Planning Applications and VCAT Findings for Bay Street MAC

Table 17: Council Owned Carparks in Bay Street Activity Centre

4

Reference Documents

Car Parking Precinct Plan, Aecom 2006

Expert Witness Report, Aurecon 2012

Community Consultation Summaries, Aurecon 2014

Parking Issues and Needs Analysis, Aurecon 2014

Bayside Car Parking Plans Part A - Review of Previous Studies, O’Brien Traffic, 2015

Bayside Car Parking Plans Part C- Proposed Method, O’Brien Traffic, 2016

Practice Note 22: Using the Car Parking Provisions, June 2012

Practice Note 57: The Parking Overlay, June 2012

City of Bayside 2011 Census results – Bay Street Major Activity Centre

Other supporting strategies

Bayside Housing Strategy 2012

Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy 2013

Bayside Bicycle Strategy 2013

Bayside Walking Strategy 2015

Public Transport Advocacy Statement 2013

Beach Road Corridor Strategy 2011

Bay Street Village Brighton Masterplan 2009

Bay Street Centre Structure Plan 2006

Bay Street Structure Plan Review 2016

Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016

Council Policy - Managing On-Street Car Parking Policy and Procedure

Council Policy - Residential Parking Permit Scheme

5

1. BACKGROUND In recent years, Bayside City Council has undertaken considerable work in relation to understanding

and planning for car parking and sustainable travel in its activity centres.

The purpose of this report has been to identify a package of measures that will manage car parking

supply and demand within the Activity Centre and support future growth of the centre whilst

maintaining the attractiveness of the centre as a place to live, shop, do business and visit.

Since the preparation of the AECOM Parking Precinct Plan in 2006, significant changes have occurred

both in relation to the policy context around sustainable transport use as well as changes within the

Bay Street Activity Centre.

Given the numerous studies prepared by and on behalf of Council in recent years, this report does

not set out to repeat the data but simply summarise the key influences and issues that are to be

addressed through the preparation of a new Car Parking Plan.

An initial community engagement process occurred in November 2014 to understand the key issues

for residents and traders within the activity centre. In addition, recent community consultation as

part of the development of the draft Community Plan has confirmed Bayside residents’ expectations

in relation to car parking and sustainable transport use. The community expectations in relation to

car parking are summarised further within this report. Many comments raised the issue of providing

additional car parking, however it is worth noting that on street parking is a finite resource in high

demand. Council’s ability to provide additional off street parking is limited, given the high cost of

development and the preferred character sought for the activity centre.

This background report provides a comprehensive review of previous work carried out in relation to

car parking in the Bay Street Activity Centre and concentrated on six key areas of investigation

including:

a review of previous studies including an analysis of strategic context and policy position;

a review of the literature including other councils’ car parking strategies;

an analysis on the car parking surveys;

community consultation;

an investigation into the different systems used to mitigate car parking demand; and

development of strategies recommended to assist in managing increasing car parking

demand.

6

2. STRATEGY AND POLICY CONTEXT This section provides a brief analysis on the strategic context and current policy position of Council

on car parking.

2.1. State Planning Policies

There are a number of relevant State and Local policy documents which provide guidance for the

direction of this Car Parking Background Report. Those which are most relevant in the context of

transport planning are as follows:

National Road Safety Strategy

Victoria Cycling Strategy

Transport Integration Act 2010

Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development

Metropolitan Planning Strategy - Plan Melbourne refresh discussion paper

SmartRoads Policy

Victorian Planning Provisions – Clause 18 (Transport)

Victorian Planning Provisions – Clause 52.06 (Car Parking)

2.1.1. Draft Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper October 2015 The refresh of Plan Melbourne will focus on climate change, housing affordability and updating Plan

Melbourne to reflect current government transport commitments and priorities. The draft

document is currently under review. This refresh is unlikely to have significant implications for the

Bay Street Activity Centre, as the centre is already a designated area for population growth having

regard to the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 and the role of the centre in the municipal activity

centre network.

2.1.2. State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) in the Bayside Planning Scheme contains a range of

state-wide policy directions that must be taken into account by the Council in administering the

Planning Scheme. The Framework states that in allocating or requiring land to be set aside for car

parking, Councils should:

Have regard to the existing and potential modes of access including public transport, the

demand for off-street car parking, road capacity and the potential for demand management

of car parking.

Encourage the efficient provision of car parking through the consolidation of car parking

facilities.

The SPPF also states at Clause 18.02 that planning and responsible authorities should prepare or

require car parking plans for the design and location of local car parking to:

Protect the role and function of nearby roads, and enable the easy and efficient movement

and delivery of goods.

Achieve a high standard of urban design and protect the amenity of the locality, including

the amenity of pedestrians and other road users.

Create a safe environment for users, particularly at night.

7

Facilitate the use of public transport.

Clause 18.02 further states that the amenity of residential land is to be protected from the effects of

road congestion created by on-street parking, and that adequate provision for taxi ranks should be

planned for as part of activity centres.

The following is a summary of the specific Clauses in the Scheme related to transport and car parking

requirements:

Clause 18.01 (Transport)

The objective of this Clause is to create a safe and sustainable transport system by integrating

land-use and transport. Encouraging the use of public transport and walking and cycling as

modes of transport is central to achieving this objective. The Bay Street Activity Centre lends

itself to promote the vision of this objective by encouraging the use of public transport, cycling

and walking and not encouraging an abundance of car parking within the area, and in turn an

overuse of motor vehicles.

Clause 52.06 (Car Parking)

Within Bayside proposed development land uses have associated off-street car parking

requirements and rates. The car parking rates are set as a standard across Victoria with the

option for local variances in car parking requirements. This clause also provides for the waiver or

reduction of parking requirements as appropriate.

Clause 52.06 provides car parking requirements for a use listed as a product of the standard

rates in Column A, or the lower rates in Column B in Table 1. The lower rates provided in Column

B apply to those areas specified in a schedule to the Parking Overlay.

These parking provisions have been provided to help streamline the planning system by

removing onerous requirements, providing wider flexibility in decision making and promoting

sustainable transport.

Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles)

The purpose of Clause 52.07 is to set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles

to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety. Clause 52.07 states

that no building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of

goods or materials unless the required loading facilities are provided on site.

To improve traffic circulation and the amenity in the Bay Street Activity Centre, loading and

unloading should be encouraged to the rear of properties. A key issue is to ensure that adequate

vehicle parking and appropriate traffic management practices are introduced into the centre so

as to improve vehicle access, circulation, parking, loading/unloading and pedestrian

movement/safety.

Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities)

Many existing office buildings and multi-dwelling residential buildings do not have enough

bicycle parking in convenient and accessible storage facilities. There are also issues with the

number of lockers and showers available to employees, and the provision of space for drying

8

clothes and towels. Many popular destinations do not have sufficient publicly accessible bicycle

parking forcing people to lock their bicycles to street fixtures that are not designed to properly

support a bicycle.

Clause 52.34 sets out the end of trip facilities that new developments must provide. Clause

52.34 sets out good rates of bicycle parking for areas that do not have a high demand for bicycle

parking. Areas with high demand should go above and beyond the requirements so that

employees, residents and visitors now and into the future can ride to their destinations without

having to think twice about bicycle parking.

Clause 52.36 (Integrated Public Transport Planning)

The purpose of Clause 52.36 is to ensure that new development supports public transport usage

and to ensure that easily accessible public transport networks, which are appropriate to the

scale of the development, and high quality public transport infrastructure are provided as part of

new development.

This is important in ensuring all new developments make it easier for people to use public

transport as their preferred method of transport.

2.2. Relevant Local Strategic Documents

The following is a summary of planning policy and strategic documents that have relevance to the

management of car parking demand within the Bay Street MAC. The most relevant documents are:

2.2.1. Local Planning Policy Framework

The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) in the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) of the

Planning Scheme states the Municipality’s strategic direction for Bayside.

Clause 21.02 (Bayside Key Issues and Strategic Vision)

The Residential Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.02 provides an overview of the

municipality’s strategic vision, recognising the role of Bay Street MAC as a key contributor of

economic activity and population growth.

Clause 21.03 (Settlement and Housing)

This clauses references Bay Street as a Major Activity Centre. This is reinforced in a key objective,

which is:

“To direct new medium density housing to Major Activity Centres, particularly those with good

access to public transport routes as identified in the Residential Strategic Framework Plan.”

Clause 21.09 (Transport and Access)

This Clause provides strategic direction about how integrated transport is to be addressed at the

local level. It sets out key objectives for cycling, roads, access and car parking in Bayside. The aim

of these objectives is to assist in reducing the car dependency of the municipality by providing

easier access and better transport alternatives to the motor vehicle in convenient locations. Of

particular relevance is the objective to improve access, movement and car parking within,

around and through activity centres and to maintain existing numbers of public parking spaces

9

and ensure appropriate numbers of additional parking spaces are provided in accordance with

Clause 52.06 'Car Parking' to support added intensity of uses within each centre.

2.2.2. Other Strategic Documents

Bayside Housing Strategy 2012

The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 identifies housing growth areas across Bayside, including the

MACs, and plans for growth over the next twenty years. A key objective is that car parking and

traffic will not be dominant within activity centres and will have minimal impact on the function

and aesthetics of activity centres, particularly at a pedestrian scale. The Bay Street MAC is

identified as a key focus residential growth area in the residential strategic framework plan. This

plan provides a framework for balanced development and sustainable land use in Bayside and

shows where housing growth will be focused.

Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy 2013

The Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy 2013 sets out Council’s direction for transport

planning, and the provision of transport services to 2023 and beyond. A key principle is the

promotion of sustainable modes of transport, such as walking and cycling for local trips. The

Strategy follows the work from the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan 2006 in approaching

pedestrian and cycling networks and parking management principles. The preparation of a Car

Parking Strategy for the municipality is a key recommendation of the Strategy.

Bayside Bicycle Strategy 2013

The Bayside Bicycle Strategy 2013 sets Council’s direction for the development of the bicycle

network within the municipality and identifies Council’s position in encouraging and supporting

more cycling within the Bayside community. The strategy seeks to improve bicycle infrastructure

across Bayside, particularly where short trips (1-2 kms) can be encouraged via cycling rather

than private motor vehicle travel. It presents strategies towards an integrated approach to

cycling with land use and development and ways to create a cycling culture in Bayside.

Bayside Walking Strategy 2015

The Walking Strategy 2015 prioritises the needs of the older community, people with disabilities

and people with young children. The main focus of the Strategy is to create safe, comfortable

and inviting places to experience walking. The aims of the strategy include increasing the

number of people who choose to walk, which can potentially reduce the future car parking

demand. The support for walking in Bayside will have major implications on the demand for

parking in activity centres.

Public Transport Advocacy Statement 2013

The role of the Public Transport Advocacy Statement is to ensure Council has a clear, justified

position around what improvements are required to the public transport system in Bayside to

achieve its transport vision. This is vital to the advocacy role Council plays in advocating to other

10

agencies for deliverable improvements for the transport needs of Bayside residents and visitors.

The Public Transport Advocacy Statement is currently being updated.

Beach Road Corridor Strategy 2011

The Beach Road Corridor Strategy 2011 identifies and prioritises a range of actions that will

improve the overall safety for all users of Beach Road with a particular emphasis on motorists,

cyclists and pedestrians. Key objectives of the Strategy in the context of transportation in Bay

Street are to improve the management of traffic issues and facilitate safer movement of

vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and other users.

Bay Street Centre Structure Plan 2006

The Bay Street Centre Structure Plan 2006 sets the vision for the Bay Street MAC. The Bay Street

Centre will be a multi-functional centre of activity providing public spaces for social interaction

and cultural expression. It will provide opportunities for people to live and work within the

Centre, and benefit from a greater range and supply of activities and services. The Centre will

retain its heritage character and remain a focus of the local area. The Structure Plan includes a

number of transport and access recommendations for the centre. It will continue to support a

conveniently located and reliable public transport system, which connects the community with

major transport infrastructure. The connectivity will be complemented by enhanced movement

networks for pedestrians and cyclists and result in overall improved traffic flows for all road

users. A key recommendation in relation to access is to encourage public transport use, cycling

and walking, while introducing some traffic management measures to improve safety, traffic

flow and amenity.

Bay Street Structure Plan Review 2016

The Bay Street Structure Plan review considers the effectiveness of Council in achieving the

vision of the Structure Plan and updates the vision to have regard to the policy changes and

development trends since the Structure Plan was prepared. The Review makes

recommendations on the future implementation of the objectives of the Structure Plans. A key

recommendation is the preparation of a Car Parking Plan for the centre, an action which was

completed as part of the development of the Structure Plan however due to the considerable

change in the centre over time, a new Car Parking Plan is now required.

Bay Street Village Brighton Masterplan 2009

The Masterplan separates the Bay Street Village into three distinct areas for the development of

individual design plans:

Asling Street to Male Street is identified as the core retail area. The overall design intent is to

maintain the existing character undertaking minor works in stages to improve street

function and amenity. Time limits for existing on-street parking are proposed to be changed

from 2 hours to 1 hour to increase turnover and create additional parking opportunities.

Longer stay shoppers are to be encouraged into off-street car parking areas.

Cochrane Street to Asling Street contains a mix of retail and offices. The overall design intent

is to provide for the existing mix of businesses undertaking works in stages to improve street

function and amenity.

11

Male Street to Nepean Highway contains a mix of business and residential.

Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016

The Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy will ultimately provide a vision for the future

of Bayside’s employment lands. It will help guide future investment, development, programs and

re-zoning applications. The draft Strategy highlights key demographic trends and policy

framework which will influence the development of the activity centres so that a clear and

informed future direction can be formed. The development of the Strategy included an analysis

of the existing commercial floorspace and the expected future demand which has been used to

estimate future car parking demand.

Managing On-Street Car Parking Policy and Procedure

The intent of this Policy is to provide consistent and transparent guidance for the introduction of

new parking restrictions in areas where on-street car parking may be causing a road safety

hazard or where on-street car parking spaces are in high demand and this has resulted in car

parking congestion. The needs for all road users are considered based on a hierarchy of road

users on the type of street type, such as residential, business or commercial, and this guides the

type and extent of restrictions required. For example within the residential areas of activity

centres, in the first instance, restrictions are implemented on one side of the street only. This is

intended to provide a balance between long term and short term car parking availability. This

policy is currently under review and available for public comment.

Residential Parking Permit Policy

The objective of the Residential Parking Permit Policy is to provide residents and their visitors

with a reasonable likelihood of finding car parking in close proximity to their homes, while

acknowledging the needs of other road users. Demand for parking is already high in areas close

to Activity Centres, commercial centres, shopping centres and train stations. Residents in these

areas, particularly those who have limited access to private off-street car parking, have to

compete with all road users for the available on-street spaces. Currently, particular residents of

activity centres are provided on-street parking permits for up to three vehicles, which exempt

eligible vehicles, including visitors from time restrictions of one hour or longer in designated

residential streets. However there are a number of exclusions to the scheme, such as multi-unit

developments built after July 2007, shop-top dwellings and business related properties. These

properties are ineligible for receiving residential permits however this is proposed to be changed

in a draft review currently available for public comment.

12

3. BAY STREET MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE This section of the reports provides a high level summary of the Bay Street Activity Centre having

regard to 2011 Census data. It is noted that the census data does not correspond exactly to the

activity centre boundaries due to the number of households required to estimate modelling, and the

boundaries of statistical areas not providing for a clear analysis. It is considered that the numbers

provide an acceptable estimate of the trends and patterns emerging through the activity centre for

the purpose of the development of a Car Parking Plan.

Population

The population of Bay Street Major Activity Centre in 2011 was 2,065 living in 911 dwellings with

an average household size of 2.37 people. An analysis of the different age groups of the Centre

in 2011 compared to Greater Melbourne shows that there was a lower proportion of people in

the younger age groups (0 to 17 years) and a higher proportion of people in the older age groups

(60+ years). Overall, 21.4% of the population in the Bay Street MAC was aged between 0 and 17,

and 27.8% were aged 60 years and over, compared with 22.2% and 18.2% respectively for

Greater Melbourne. From 2006 to 2011, Bay Street Major Activity Centre's population increased

by 177 people (9.4 %). This represents an average annual population change of 1.81% per year

over the period. The largest change in the age structure in this area between 2006 and 2011 was

in the empty nesters and retirees age group (age 60-69) with an additional 64 people.

Dwelling densities

The last Census recorded a total of 908 dwellings in the Bay Street Activity Centre. This included

496 separate houses, 292 medium density dwellings, and 108 high density dwellings (11

responses did not specify). When these numbers are divided as percentages, the following rates

were found: 54.6% of all dwellings were separate houses; 32.2% were medium density

dwellings, and 11.9% were in high density dwellings. These results varied from those of Greater

Melbourne where a larger proportion, or approximately 72% were separate houses. The total

number of dwellings in Bay Street Major Activity Centre increased by 77 between 2006 and

2011. The largest changes in the type of dwellings found in the Centre were that the number of

high density increased by 100 dwellings, the number of medium density decreased by 94

dwellings and separate houses increased by 83 dwellings.

Method of travel to work

In the Bay Street Activity Centre 56 people rode their bike or walked to work on Census day in

2011. A larger percentage (18.6%) of persons travelled by train to work compared to less than

10% in Greater Melbourne. However, more than 50% of persons were recorded as travelling by

car (as driver) to work.

Car ownership

The analysis of car ownership in 2011, indicates 43.5% of households in Bay Street Major Activity

Centre had access to two or more motor vehicles, compared to 51% in Greater Melbourne.

13

3.1. Household Type

Bay Street Major Activity Centre's household and family structure is one of the most important

demographic indicators. It reveals the area's residential role and function, era of settlement and

provides key insights into the level of demand for services and facilities as most are related to age

and household types.

Table 1: Household and family structure

Household type

Bay Street Major

Activity Centre 2011 2006

Change

Households by type Number % Greater

Melbourne % Number %

Greater

Melbourne %

2006 to

2011

Couples with

children 240 29.0 33.6 216 29.1 33.5 +24

Couples without

children 206 24.9 23.5 169 22.7 22.9 +37

One parent families 67 8.2 10.4 71 9.5 10.4 -4

Other families 7 0.8 1.4 7 1.0 1.4 0

Group household 24 2.9 4.5 30 4.1 4.2 -6

Lone person 211 25.5 22.3 226 30.3 22.5 -15

Other not

classifiable

household

64 7.7 3.4 18 2.5 4.3 +45

Visitor only

households 8 1.0 0.9 6 0.8 0.7 +2

Total households 827 100.0 100.0 744 100.0 100.0 +83 Source: ABS Census (Enumerated data)

The number of household types in Bay Street Major Activity Centre are shown in Table 1. There was

an increase in the total number of households by 83 between 2006 and 2011. There were no major

differences in Bay Street Major Activity Centre between 2006 and 2011.

3.2. Dwelling Structure

As illustrated below in Table 2 there were 496 separate houses in the area, 294 medium density

dwellings, and 108 high density dwellings. Analysis of the types of dwellings in Bay Street Major

Activity Centre in 2011 shows that 54.6% of all dwellings were separate houses; 32.2% were medium

density dwellings, and 11.9% were in high density dwellings, compared with 71.1%, 21.1%, and 7.2%

in the Greater Melbourne respectively. The largest change in the type of dwellings found in Bay

Street Major Activity Centre between 2006 and 2011 was an increase of 100 high density dwellings.

14

Table 2: Dwelling type

Dwelling structure

Bay Street Major

Activity Centre 2011 2006

Change

Dwelling type Number % Greater


Greater

Melbourne %

2006 to

2011

Separate house 496 54.6 71.1 412 50.3 71.6 +83

Medium density 292 32.2 21.1 386 47.1 21.5 -94

High density 108 11.9 7.2 8 1.0 6.3 +100

Caravans, cabin,

houseboat 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.0 0.3 0

Other 9 1.0 0.3 14 1.6 0.3 -5

Not stated 2 0.3 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 +2

Total Private

Dwellings 908 100.0 100.0 820 100.0 100.0 +88

Source: ABS Census (Enumerated data)

3.3. Car ownership

Analysis of car ownership of the households in Bay Street Major Activity Centre is shown below in

Table 3. It shows that 82.9% of the households owned at least one car, while 8.8% did not,

compared with 84.8% and 9.0% respectively in Greater Melbourne.

Table 3: Number of cars per household


Of the households in Bay Street Activity Centre that owned at least one vehicle, there was a larger

proportion who owned just one car; a large proportion who owned two cars; and a smaller

proportion who owned three cars or more. Overall, 39.4% of the households owned one car; 33.2%

owned two cars; and 10.3% owned three cars or more, compared with 33.9%; 35.5% and 15.4%

respectively for Greater Melbourne.

15

There were no major differences in Bay Street Major Activity Centre between 2006 and 2011.

3.4. Ageing population

Analysis of the five year age groups in Bay Street Activity Centre is shown below in Table 4. The

results show that there was a lower proportion of people in the younger age groups (under 15) and a

higher proportion of people in the older age groups (65+) compared with Greater Melbourne.

Overall, 17.2% of the population was aged between 0 and 15, and 21.2% were aged 65 years and

over, compared with 18.5% and 13.1% respectively for Greater Melbourne.


In the Census period, the population increased by 172 people (9.1%). This represents an average

annual population change of 1.75% per year over the period. Analysis of the five year age groups of

Bay Street Major Activity Centre in 2011 compared to Greater Melbourne shows that there was a

lower proportion of people in the younger age groups (under 15) and a higher proportion of people

in the older age groups (65+). There were no major differences in Bay Street Major Activity Centre

between 2006 and 2011

3.5. Method of travel to work

Bay Street Major Activity Centre's commuting statistics reveal the main modes of transport by which

residents get to work. There are a number of reasons why people use different modes of transport

to get to work including the availability of affordable and effective public transport options, the

number of motor vehicles available within a household, and the distance travelled to work.

Table 4: Age structure – Five year age groups

16

Table 5: Method of travel to work

Method of travel to work

Bay Street Major

Activity Centre -

(Enumerated)

2011 2006

Change

Main method of travel Number % Greater


Greater

Melbourne %

2006 to

2011

Train 170 18.6 9.8 128 14.7 8.4 +42

Bus 0 0.0 1.5 6 0.7 1.2 -6

Tram or Ferry 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.0 0

Taxi 0 0.0 0.2 2 0.3 0.2 -2

Car - as driver 484 53.0 59.7 494 56.9 60.4 -10

Car - as passenger 24 2.6 4.3 26 3.0 4.6 -3

Truck 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.3 0.9 -2

Motorbike 1 0.1 0.4 3 0.4 0.5 -2

Bicycle 21 2.3 1.3 8 0.9 1.1 +14

Walked only 37 4.1 2.9 31 3.6 3.0 +6

Other 1 0.1 1.0 9 1.0 0.9 -8

Worked at home 63 6.9 3.6 55 6.4 3.6 +8

Did not go to work 110 12.1 9.2 82 9.4 10.0 +28

Not stated 1 0.1 1.5 21 2.4 1.9 -20

Total employed

persons aged 15+ 912 100.0 100.0 868 100.0 100.0 +44


Table 5 shows there were 170 people who caught public transport to work (train) in Bay Street

Major Activity Centre, compared with 508 who drove in private vehicles (car – as driver, car – as

passenger, motorbike, or truck).

Analysis of the method of travel to work of the residents in Bay Street Major Activity Centre in 2011,

compared to Greater Melbourne, shows that 18.6% used public transport, while 53% used a private

vehicle, compared with 13.6% and 65.1% respectively in Greater Melbourne.

The major differences in persons between the method of travel to work of Bay Street Major Activity

Centre and Greater Melbourne were:

A larger percentage of persons who travelled by train (18.6% compared to 9.8%)

A larger percentage of persons who worked at home (6.9% compared to 3.6%)

A larger percentage of persons who walked only (12.1% compared to 2.9%)

A smaller percentage of persons who travelled by car (as driver) (53% compared to 59.7%.

The number of employed people in Bay Street Major Activity Centre increased by 44 between 2006

and 2011. There were no major differences in terms of journey to work in Bay Street Major Activity

Centre between 2006 and 2011.

3.6. Forecast population growth

Although the population projections provided here are for the whole municipality, this information

is useful to show a broader overview on growth in the area more generally. It is recognised this

growth will contribute to the activity in Bay Street and impact upon car parking demand.

17

As shown in Table 6 the City of Bayside population forecast for 2016 is 103,110. This is forecast to

grow to 115,452 by 2031 at an estimated growth rate of approximately 12%. The greatest

population change for the City of Bayside is forecast for the period from 2017 to 2021, which is

expected to have a net increase of 7,132 people.

In 2011, the total population of the City of Bayside was estimated to be 96,119 people. It is expected

to increase by over 19,333 people to 115,452 by 2031, at an average annual growth rate of 5.26%.

This is based on an increase of over 9,600 households during the period, with the average number of

persons per household falling from 2.59 to 2.48 by 2031.

Table 6: Forecast age structure - 5 year age groups

Forecast age structure - 5 year age groups

City of Bayside - Total

persons 2011 2016 2031 Change between 2011

and 2031

Age group (years) Number % Number % Number % Number

0 to 4 5,771 6.0 5,649 5.5 6,173 5.3 +402

5 to 9 6,632 6.9 6,872 6.7 6,896 6.0 +264

10 to 14 6,100 6.3 7,090 6.9 7,076 6.1 +976

15 to 19 6,055 6.3 6,413 6.2 7,024 6.1 +969

20 to 24 5,472 5.7 5,612 5.4 6,375 5.5 +903

25 to 29 3,841 4.0 4,665 4.5 5,352 4.6 +1,511

30 to 34 4,063 4.2 4,616 4.5 5,546 4.8 +1,483

35 to 39 6,267 6.5 6,186 6.0 7,020 6.1 +753

40 to 44 7,911 8.2 7,904 7.7 8,218 7.1 +307

45 to 49 7,633 7.9 8,252 8.0 8,308 7.2 +675

50 to 54 7,321 7.6 7,585 7.4 7,959 6.9 +638

55 to 59 6,338 6.6 6,929 6.7 7,433 6.4 +1,095

60 to 64 5,873 6.1 6,035 5.9 6,904 6.0 +1,031

65 to 69 4,685 4.9 5,599 5.4 6,265 5.4 +1,580

70 to 74 3,357 3.5 4,444 4.3 5,725 5.0 +2,368

75 to 79 2,737 2.8 3,180 3.1 4,951 4.3 +2,214

80 to 84 2,761 2.9 2,556 2.5 4,110 3.6 +1,349

85 and over 3,302 3.4 3,523 3.4 4,117 3.6 +815

Total persons 96,119 100.0 103,110 100.0 115,452 100.0 +19,333


The most significant demographic change over the 2016 to 2026 period is going to be the growth in

the population of seniors aged 70-84 years. The population of seniors will increase by nearly 3,500 in

ten years, a growth of approximately 35%.

3.7. Economic growth

Bay Street Activity Centre performs a strong personal service and health care role. The Centre has

the strongest personal service offer in Bayside and the surrounding region, and can be considered a

destination for this retail purpose. Commercial floorspace to the west of the centre appear to have

attracted some corporate office tenants, although the majority of office floorspace in this centre is

better suited to population serving activities, including medical practices (as opposed to corporate

offices). It is assessed that many stores in Bay Street are likely to be overtrading at present, with the

18

scope for more retail floorspace of all types to be provided in the centre if suitable sites can be

identified. The centre should be particularly successful at attracting more:

Restaurants and cafes, with on street dining a popular feature across the retail precinct.

Health related businesses, primarily in terms of allied health services and pharmaceutical retailers as the population gradually ages over the longer term.

Personal care and services, including gymnasiums.

Supermarket floorspace, with modular increases likely. 1,600 to 2,500sqm of demand

suggests there may be room in the market for a high value supermarket such as a Leo’s or

Cardamone’s which can be marketed to a more discerning customer base in this catchment.

Opportunities for commercial office floorspace are likely to be moderate over the next few years,

particularly in regards to corporate offices, which the BBEA is well positioned to attract. Nonetheless

business to consumer commercial uses are well suited to this location and should continue to

prosper. Future opportunities for this centre include:

Support residential development to increase density and consolidate the catchment.

Continued 'shop top' development to absorb both residential and office demand.

Continue to improve streetscape.

Long term opportunities exist to attract smaller/niche office uses to areas with aesthetic appeal and good amenity.

This centre is also considered to be the most likely to attract activities in the night time

economy given its combination of medium density development, local demographic and

existing mix of shopfronts. Attraction of more people in the 25 to 39 age demographic would

over time increase the feasibility of more night time businesses opening in the centre.

The retail demand forecast for Bay Street Activity Centre towards 2031 is shown in Table 7 below. It

shows there is significant growth projected for a number of services. Table 8 shows the commercial

demand forecast towards 2031. It shows there is an additional 3,000m2 expansion needed.

Table 7: Retail Demand Forecast Projections

2014 2021 2031

Store Type RTD* Current

Supply

Demand Expansion

Need

Demand Expansion

Need

Demand Expansion

Need

Supermarket and Grocery

Stores

$10,800 4,028 5,600 1,600 6,200 2,100 6,500 2,500

Specialty –

Food & Drink $7,200 2,137 3,900 1,700 4,100 2,000 4,300 2,100

Specialty –

Non food $6,600 8,010 10,600 2,500 11,200 3,200 11,700 3,700

Hospitality $5,800 5,939 7,200 1,300 7,700 1,800 8,100 2,200

Total 20,114 27,200 7,100 29,200 9,100 30,500 10,400


*Retail turnover density

Table 8: Commercial Floorspace Forecast

Year Commercial

Employment

Estimated Supply

(m2)

Floorspace

Required (m2)

Expansion Need

2014 806 14,627

19

2021 847 14,627 15,400 800

2031 970 14,627 16,900 2,200


As indicated in the above tables, there is growth projected over the next 15 years. In line with this,

commercial and retail development generates a demand for car parking to facilitate operation of the

business activities. Floorspace projections for retail and commercial have been used to indicate the

potential demand for car parking for the next 15 years.

Table 9: Projected parking demand for commercial and office

Commercial floorspace projected demand

Year Demand (m2) # of Car Parking Spaces

Required

Number of car parks

2014 14,627 3.5 per 100m2 511

2021 15,400 3.5 per 100m2 539

2031 16,900 3.5 per 100m2 591

Source: SGS Economics Major Activity Centre Review 2015

Table 10: Projected parking demand for retail/shop

Retail floorspace projected demand

Year Demand (m2) # of Car Parking Spaces

Required

Number of car parks

2014 27,200 4 per 100m2 1,088

2021 29,200 4 per 100m2 1,168

2031 30,500 4 per 100m2 1,220

Source: SGS Economics Major Activity Centre Review 2015

Based on the retail and commercial floorspace projections for the years 2021 and 2031 as shown in

the above tables, a basic estimate of future car parking needs can be made. The required car parking

rates of the planning scheme have been adopted in calculating the forecast number of car spaces

required. It is assumed that all retail floor space will be located on ground floor and all office

floorspace above ground floor. Given the limited capacity for additional parking to be provided in

the public realm, new development would need to provide its onsite car parking requirements in

order to ensure needs are met. There may be a level of modal shift however this is difficult to

quantify for an area such as Bay Street MAC, where there has been limited evidence based on 2011

Census data.

As the current amount of on-street parking supply is considered to remain constant, the projected

demand for parking in the centre will need to be accommodated in other more sustainable transport

options. Given that a portion of future parking will naturally be located on certain development

sites, it is anticipated that future car parking demands could be accommodated on site or within

existing public on-street and off-street vacancies.

While it is acknowledged that in some isolated areas car parking may reach capacity, parking

supplies within peripheral areas can support the generated demands. However consideration could

be given to opportunities to reclassify existing underutilised spaces to accommodate the extensions

of high demand.

20

In addition, should parking demands reach capacity, particularly within the inner core, this would be

expected to encourage a shift in travel mode away from the private car supporting the key

objectives of encouraging a shift toward more environmental modes of travel that are healthier and

safer.

3.8. Projected demand for car parking based on forecasts for dwellings

There is expected growth in the number of dwellings in the activity centre in the future, as shown in

Table 11 below. There is an anticipated increase of 26% or an additional 426 dwellings, amounting to

2,014 dwellings by the year 2030. For the reasons outlined below, it is not anticipated this increase

in dwellings will impact upon the on-street car parking demand for the Bay Street Activity Centre:

It has been assumed that all new mixed use and residential developments within the MAC

will provide all residential parking on site rather than relying on public parking such as on-

street parking;

While it may be appropriate to reduce the car parking requirements for new dwellings, such

approvals should be coupled with appropriate on-street parking restrictions to ensure new

residents cannot park (for long periods) on-street to allow vehicle turnover. This may also

assist in ensuring reduced car ownership for activity centre residents;

Future activity centre residents would not be afforded the ability to obtain a Resident

Parking Permit;

The influence of an increasing use of public transport and active travel modes (cycling and

walking) or not travelling at all in some cases; and

Ultimately a reduction in car ownership for residents living in the activity centre.

Therefore residential growth has not been included as part of the future car parking demand

projections for the activity centre.

Table 11: Dwelling forecast for Bay Street MAC towards 2030

Area 2014

Existing dwellings *

Housing Yield 2030 Forecast dwelling

growth 2014-2030

Bay Street Activity

Centre (using Activity

Centre boundary)

1,588

2,014

426 Source: City of Bayside forecast.id

*Less future additional dwellings for the area outside MAC boundary but within forecast.id boundary.

21

4. EXISTING CAR PARKING CONDITIONS Car parking in Bay Street Major Activity Centre is provided both on and off-street and comprises a

variety of different types of parking. The time limits vary from drop-in, short-term, medium-term

and long-term or unrestricted.

The primary car parking activity across the centre is predominantly around North Brighton Railway

Station and the commercial areas predominantly located along Bay Street. The residential precinct

considered within this report extends to Wilson Street in the north-east, Halifax Street in the south-

east and New Street in the west.

Figure 1: Extent of car parking restrictions in Bay Street Major Activity Centre

DROP-IN SHORT MEDIUM LONG

P2 MIN

P5 MIN

1/4 P

1/2 P

1P

2P

3P4 HOUR +

22

Types of parking users

Bay Street Activity Centre contains a wide variety of land use anchored around the North Brighton

Railway Station. As a result, the needs and requirements for parking in terms of duration of stay vary

depending on trip purpose. People who require a parking space within the Bay Street Activity Centre

generally fall within the following categories: residents, local employees, rail passengers and visitors.

RESIDENTS

VISITORS

LOCAL

EMPLOYEES

RAIL

PASSENGERS

DROP –IN DROP –IN

DROP –IN

MEDIUM

SHORT

SHORT

MEDIUM

LONG

MEDIUM MEDIUM

LONG

LONG LONG

4.1. Current parking supply and restrictions

A survey was undertaken in November 2014 to determine the car parking demand based on the

supply and user needs during peak periods on weekdays and Saturdays. A summary of the results is

provided in Table 12.

Table 12: Car parking supply and restrictions as at 2014

Location Total

capacity

P 2

mins

P 5

mins

1/4P 1/2P 1P 2P 3P Unrestricted

Weekday

On-street 1127 0 1 20 4 38 560 62 442

Off-street car parks 223 0 0 0 0 36 99 6 82

Total parking 1350 0 1 20 4 74 659 68 524

Saturday

On-street 1139 0 1 17 0 38 296 9 778

Off-street car parks 223 0 0 0 0 0 99 6 118

Total parking 1362 0 1 17 0 38 395 15 896

Source: Aurecon 2014

23

4.2. Capacity limits

The surveyed results for the weekday peaks found that, generally there is sufficient supply.

However, there are some areas within the activity centre which are experiencing higher levels of

demand during peak times.

Weekdays

The 2014 peak occurs at 11.00am at

approximately 76% occupancy;

Off-street car parking occupancy rates

are generally higher compared to on-

street;

The one hour on-street parking is

generally the most utilised during the

peak at 2.00pm with over 80%

occupancy;

The survey results indicate that the

majority of the off-street car parks are

over 90% occupied generally

throughout the day.

Saturdays

The peak parking occupancy rate for

2014 occurs at 8.00pm at

approximately 57% occupancy;

Parking occupancies have generally

increased in the morning and

decreased in the evening;

The profile is similar to that of the

weekday profile despite the differing

peak at 8.00pm in that the lowest

demand occurs at 07:00am, increases

at 11:00am, peaks at 2:00pm and

then decreases to similar levels at

2:00pm and 5:00pm.

Other observations

Interestingly, the unrestricted weekday parking is nearing 90% occupancy level, compared to

Saturday on-street utilisation which demonstrates less than 50% occupancy; and

The central core area is demonstrating capacities with a mixture of 75-90% and over90%

during the peak times.

High demand

Train station long-term capacity;

The 5 minute parking is at capacity on

both days, however the 15 minute

parking on Saturdays is also nearing

100% occupancy rates;

Unrestricted parking in residential

streets.

Low demand

Short term parking including 2 mins, 5

mins and 15 mins for on and off-street

areas on weekdays and Saturdays;

The off-street car parks have

considerable less occupancies on

Saturdays compared to weekdays.

4.3. Summary of key findings from parking survey

Based on parking surveys, it is apparent that peak parking demands occurred at 11am and 8pm

during the week and Saturday survey periods respectively. Peak occupancy during these times was

observed to be 76% during the weekday peak and 57% during the Saturday peak.

In terms of future commercial growth, the surveys indicated that parking in the more commercially

focused areas centred around Bay Street was operating at between 75% and over 90% occupancy,

traditionally considered to represent peak efficiency. As a result of this relatively high existing

demand, additional parking demands generated by new development would increase pressure on

24

the performance of existing commercial supplies and ultimately, if no on-site parking is provided

result in commercial parking supplies being over capacity. It is important to note that the traffic

surveys and initial assessment covered a smaller area than that defined as the activity centre

boundary in the Structure Plan. This background report adopted the activity centre boundary

specified in the Bayside Planning Scheme at Clause 21.11 as it aligns more closely with the Structure

Plan review project. The Car Parking Strategy to be prepared will identify and provide advice on the

parking pressures for residential areas close to activity centres.

The survey results highlight the importance of better managing parking within the MAC to increase

availability and turnover of parking in the ‘core area’ at peak times throughout the year. It will be

important to implement the recommendations of the Masterplan to attempt to alleviate this

pressure.

4.4. Public Transport data on North Brighton train station patronage

Population growth, road congestion, petrol price rises and more environmental awareness are

reasons why people are turning to public transport. Public Transport Victoria’s Network

Development Plan 2012 report found there had been a 70 per cent increase in those catching trains

in the last decade, 40 per cent of which was in a five-year period between 2007 and 2012.

It is understood that commuter parking is of major concern around the Bay Street Activity Centre,

especially to residents, as it impacts upon unrestricted residential parking. As such, to estimate the

amount of commuter parking that is potentially currently being occupied, 2014 survey results and

2012 Public Transport Victoria (PTV) Estimated Station Entries at Metropolitan Stations data were

assessed.

Weekday entries for North Brighton Railway Station were obtained from the Public Transport

Victoria: Estimated Station Entries at Metropolitan Stations (2012). Based on this information,

entries into the North Brighton Railway Station from 2011-12 were considered to be relatively

consistent with a slight increase of approximately 2% annual growth. These estimated entries were

extrapolated to the current financial year and are shown in Table 13.

Between the years 2008 to 2013, there has been an average decline of 11.58%. This is due to a

decline in the period 2013-14 of 20%, it is unknown what has caused this reduction in public

transport usage. As the previous periods show a steady growth of approximately 4% per annum, this

is adopted in order to estimate the future train station patronage. This is considered to be a

‘business as usual’ approach towards the future.

Table 13: North Brighton Station weekday entries

Financial Year Number of weekday

entries

Difference Percentage change Average Weekly

Entries

2008-09 2,630 15,520

2009-10 2,740 +110 +4.18% 16,220

2010-11 2,860 +120 +4.38% 16,980

2011-12 2,840 -20 -0.7% 16,710

2012-13 Not available Not available Not available Not available

2013-14 2,270 -570 -20.07% 13,340

25

2014-2015 (est) 2,360 +90 +4 -

2015-2016 (est) 2,454 +94 +4 -

Source: Public Transport Victoria (PTV) Estimated Station Entries at Metropolitan Stations

Of the 2,270 weekday entries in 2013-14, more than 50.62% (1,149) of these occurred during the

morning peak between 7.00am and 9.30am. When this information is extrapolated into the current

financial year, it is estimated that the demand for commuter parking during the morning peak is

approximately 2,200 entries (50.62% of 4,412). This is an increase of approximately 1,000 entries to

the morning peak period on weekdays. This includes a variety of travel methods to the station as

shown below.

Table 14: The proportional weekday entries by access mode

Mode 2013-14

Number of entries

Percentage 2014-15

Est. entries

Increase in

entries

between

2013-15

2015-16

Est. entries

Bus 127 5.6% 132 +10 137

Cycle 47 2.1% 49 +4 51

Motor vehicle 681 30.0% 708 +55 736

Walking 1,285 56.6% 1,336 +105 1,390

Other 130 5.7% 135 +10 140

Total 2,270 100% 2360 +184 2,454

Source: Public Transport Victoria (PTV) Estimated Station Entries at Metropolitan Stations

The projected patronages for North Brighton station are provided in Table 14. This information

implies that the remaining unrestricted on-street parking close to the Railway Station is likely to be

occupied by commuters from early times in the morning. This would strongly support the expansion

of time restrictions within the entire activity centre. This will ensure the available on-street parking

is reserved for the activity centre patrons and visitors and not occupied by long term uses such as

train station passengers.

Council acknowledges that there are challenges in the provision of car parking at railway stations

which have a high demand, particularly at railway stations adjacent to major shopping centres.

Although the provision of car parking facilities at railway stations are the responsibility of the rail

operator, Council strives to balance the competing demands of drivers seeking to find adequate

parking by installing a variety of on-street parking restrictions, including areas to facilitate short-term

parking.

It is considered that the provision of improved bus connections to train stations and better end of

trip facilities, such as secure bicycle parking at stations would assist in providing passengers with

greater choice in terms of how they travel to train stations, thus assisting in alleviating some of the

parking pressures currently experienced around train stations. Council has identified public transport

advocacy actions in the Public Transport Advocacy Statement. This document contains measures

aimed at improving accessibility to train stations within Bayside, these measures will ultimately

assist in reducing car parking demand. The influences on parking demand are explored in detail in

the options section.

26

4.5. Train station patronage fact sheet for 2013-2014

Morning peak patronage at North Brighton is 1,149 people per day (7.00am -9.30am);

Morning peak patronage (2+hrs) accounts for 50.62% of total daily boardings (1,149/2,270);

There were 103 entries pre 7.00am peak time; and

Of the 2,270 total weekday entries, 681 of passengers arrived by car (30%) compared with

127 (5.6%) on the bus.

27

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT / ISSUES IDENTIFICATION Despite more than a decade of Council policies designed to discourage car use in Bayside; including

not issuing residential parking permits to multi-unit developments built after 2007; the number of

households with at least one vehicle increased from 86.2% to 88.6% between 2006 and 2011.

This is in large part due to the popularity of the south east as a place to live. Bayside attracted more

than 6,000 new residents between 2001 and 2011. With population forecasts in 2015 predicting

Bayside’s population to top 112,000 by 2031, it is clear that managing the demand for parking will

continue to be one of Council’s greatest challenges.

Since the parking survey conducted in 2014, there have been some changes which may have

resulted in an altered demand for long-term parking near the North Brighton Train Station. For

example, since the public transport fare restructure in 2015, it is understood commuters from the

southern part of the municipality are no longer driving to Zone 1 railway stations such as Middle

Brighton and North Brighton, to minimise the cost of travel. This restructure has afforded train

passengers the same ticket price travelling from Hampton and Sandringham stations as if travelling

from the more northern stations.

Since the commencement of the level crossing removal works on the Frankston railway line at

Bentleigh, McKinnon and Ormond Stations, this has resulted in further pressure being placed on the

already constrained supply of commuter parking close to the Sandringham line as commuters who

would normally use the Frankston line seek to avoid the service disruptions by changing to the

Sandringham line. The service disruptions on the Frankston line are currently planned up until late

2016. It is expected this will continue to impact the supply of long term parking in the vicinity of the

Sandringham railway line.

Providing car parking to satisfy the demands of all road users is one of the biggest challenges faced

by Council. Increasing intensification of development in the municipality, changing travel habits,

pressures to maintain amenity and ongoing issues surrounding the rail fee structure have led to a

reduction in the availability of on-street parking. Council is committed to providing residents and

their visitors with a reasonable likelihood of parking in close proximity to their home, while

preserving access for other road users in areas of high on-street parking demand.

5.1. Consultation / Feedback

In areas of regular high parking demand, such as activity centres and residential streets within the

vicinity of railway stations and activity centres, balancing the provision of on-street parking to satisfy

all road users is a difficult challenge. As competition for on-street car parking increases, Council

needs to balance the competing demands of all road users to provide a reasonable likelihood of

finding parking in close proximity to their destination.

5.2. Community comments concerning car parking

The feedback received during the community consultation exercise undertaken in late 2014

highlights the difficulties in balance the competing demand for parking, particularly in relation to

short-term and long-term demand.

28

RESIDENTS RAIL PASSENGERS

Commuters and traders parking in

local residential streets

Station carpark full by 8.00am

Development parking overflowing into

streets

Need more long-term parking

No residential permits available Lack of signage for parking

Need more enforcement More cycling amenities needed

Need more community buses Build multi-storey carpark

More disabled parking needed

LOCAL EMPLOYEES VISITORS

Long-term parking was converted to

short-term

Poor signage to Coles carpark from

Male Street access.

Need shuttlebus for parking outside

centre

Provide paid parking along feeder

streets

Long-term parking converted to short-

term. Now there’s nowhere to park

Visitor parking permits not at some

locations

Convert at grade carpark to multi Local employees using visitor parking

Dedicated parking for employees Oversupply of short-term parking

Parking too difficult – forced to walk Improve wayfinding & parking signs

Lack of medium to long-term parking Poor signage for off-street car parks

Need more enforcement

Need 5 hour parking for off-peak

29

5.3. Summary of Key Issues Identified

Car parking is a limited resource and there are competing demands between user groups in terms of

the need for specified time requirements. The following is a summary of some of the key issues

which were raised:

There is an imbalance of short to long-term parking (with both identified as priority);

Insufficient signage for locations of car parking;

Inappropriate time restrictions or lack of capacity within the main activity area leading to

over spill into the residential areas;

Commuter car parking over spilling into residential areas;

Need to expand disabled parking;

Bus services to the centre need improving, such as community bus;

Inadequate parking enforcement (with underactive and overactive being raised as a key

priority);

Rail passengers and traders parking in residential areas, impacting residents ability to take

advantage of on-street parking close to their homes; and

Council should develop a multi-deck carpark in the centre.

30

6. OPTIONS FOR MANAGING SUPPLY AND DEMAND Bayside, like all of Melbourne, is facing a future of change and our transport system must be flexible

and resilient enough to adapt. In order to guide the development of the parking plan a set of

objectives in relation to parking from background transport policy documents have been considered.

The key documented objectives in the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan and Integrated Transport

Strategy 2013 which can be adopted for the parking plan are outlined below:

Strengthen the role of Bay Street as a multi-use centre offering retail, office, entertainment

and community services to a small-medium sized neighbourhood catchment;

Ensure that the centre continues to compliment, rather than compete with, the intended

role and land use mix of the nearby Church Street Activity Centre;

Provide a safe, accessible and attractive pedestrian environment with continuous active

frontages on Bay Street between Cochrane Street and the Nepean Highway;

Facilitate new residential and mixed use developments within the Centre and

Provide for increased housing densities and diversity of housing types within the Centre.

Particularly related to car parking, the Structure Plan identifies the following strategies:

Maintain existing numbers of public parking spaces and provide additional spaces through

the development of a new car parking facility over the existing Council owned parking lot

located between Marion Street and Willansby Avenue, to provide between 80 and 120

additional car spaces;

Improve the safety for pedestrians moving between off street car parks and Bay Street;

Ensure new retail and commercial developments provide adequate off-street car parking in

accordance with the Parking Precinct Plan;

Ensure new residential units provide adequate off-street car parking in accordance with the

Planning Scheme requirements;

Improve the management of current on and off-street car park restrictions as recommended

in the Parking Precinct Plan;

Improve general signage directing traffic to car parks – in order to offer alternatives for

motorists if one car park is at or close to capacity; and

Provide for safer and more convenient access to disabled parking in the Bay Street retail

strip.

The Bay Street Village Brighton Masterplan also has a number of actions which still need to be

implemented. The recommended car parking improvements in the Bay Street Masterplan include:

Asling Street to Male Street - Time limits for existing on-street parking are proposed to be

changed from 2 hour to 1 hour to increase turnover and create additional parking

opportunities. Longer stay shoppers are to be encouraged into off-street car parking areas;

Cochrane Street to Asling Street – New street trees will be carefully integrated with existing

parking to retain a total of 67 spaces;

Male Street to Nepean Highway - Remove redundant crossovers and resheet footpath.

Provide 10 minute parking drop-off zone at swim school.

31

6.1. Car parking demand reduction mechanisms

Consideration needs to be given to both demand and supply side measures and how these could be

utilised to achieve a reduced dependency on motor cars. The investigation of supply and demand

side measures would be required in order to reduce the current private motor vehicle reliance.

A broad level discussion regarding these car parking management mechanisms is provided below as

a reference to the development of the Car Parking Plan, noting that Bay Street MAC currently utilises

a mix of some of these techniques.

A list of supplementary management tools, which may be considered appropriate to support the

reduction in road network congestion, parking demand and change existing travel habits are

outlined below:

Reduce Unrestricted Parking Supply in the Centre;

Greater Parking Enforcement to Ensure Turnover;

Installation of and improvements to Parking Guidance Signage;

Increased Parking Restrictions;

The Installation of Paid Parking Facilities;

Parking Permit Schemes and Priority Parking for Identified Users;

Reduced Car Parking Rates, through detailed consideration of the Car Parking Overlay, Car

Parking Waiver and Cash-in-lieu Schemes;

Improvements and Extensions to the Supply of Off-Street Parking;

Behavioural Change Programs; and

Incentives for Sustainable Transport Modes.

These mechanisms are further explored in the following sections.

6.1.1. Reduce Unrestricted Parking Supply

Currently there are 524 unrestricted parking spaces in the Bay Street Activity Centre on weekdays

and 896 on Saturdays. This does not effectively reflect the current car parking demand for the

Centre as it is gathered the longer term parking is often being utilised by commuters and traders.

It accordingly follows that by reducing the available parking provision within an area, or increasing

the restricted parking provision, it is possible to reduce the car parking demands associated with

that car parking. However, this should be carefully considered as it could have the potential to

reduce the commercial attractiveness of the area.

In the context of supporting the objectives for the Bay Street MAC, a reduction in the ‘unrestricted’

car parking supply could be considered to be one tool in shifting travel habits to sustainable and

active travel modes, particularly for the rail passengers. Gradually and over an extended period, it is

anticipated the number of on-street restricted parking spaces in the activity centre will expand and

cover the whole area whilst the residential parking scheme will protect those eligible properties

which rely solely on the on-street parking provision.

6.1.2. Greater Parking Enforcement to Ensure Turnover

Enforcement of car parking restrictions is paramount to the adoption and maintenance of a given car

parking system. Without suitable enforcement, particularly when demands are significant, car

32

parking restrictions are not adhered to, which can result in the loss of any efficiencies and amenity

that might be gained.

The enforcement of parking is critical to ensure that parking is occurring with the intended allocation

of parking, parking activities are occurring in a safe manner and illegal parking activities do not

interfere with the flow and circulation of traffic. In order to provide a suitable level of enforcement

to maintain compliance with the nominated parking restrictions, there needs to be an appropriate

level of surveillance and penalty for non-compliance.

In this regard, it is noted that it is possible to introduce high levels of technology for the surveillance,

ticketing and processing of parking offences. While such technology will incur a high implementation

cost, it can reduce operational costs, improve the coverage of officers and improve the

responsiveness to illegal parking. The use of technology also allows more frequent coverage of key

areas to maintain effective turnover and operations of parking.

Consideration could be given to the installation of high level technology sensors. A parking detection

overstay system (PODS) has proven to be a success in several Victorian councils. In Maribyrnong City

Council, for example, the number of infringement notices issued for time-limit breaches jumped

from 3734 to 7830 in the year following the installation of the system, significantly increasing vehicle

turnover. The main benefit for installation of such a system is the increased parking turnover in

specified areas, such as activity centres. Moreland City Council has had PODs installed in since 2011

with very positive results.

Partnering with a private operator to install POD infrastructure who receives a proportion of the

revenue from the fines issued would be a more preferable option, as Council would not be required

to expend high levels of investment in the technology or the enforcement. An investigation on local

providers and costs should form part of any future work.

During the parking surveys, it was found that a number of vehicles were overstaying time restrictions

during weekdays:

At least 6% of the vehicles parked within 2P bays exceeded the time restriction;

At least 12% exceed the 1 hour restriction during the survey period; and

At least 15% of the vehicles parked within the ¼ hour restriction stayed longer than half an

hour.

The Saturday results showed similar figures where vehicles consistently overstayed the time

requitements.

Although the rate of enforcement in Bayside has remained constant, the number of parking

infringements notices being issued has increased gradually in the last few years. This may be an

indicator that the time restrictions are not adequate and therefore may need to be changed.

6.1.3. Installation of and improvements to Parking Guidance Signage

Wayfinding guidance signage, specifically related to car parking, is important to:

Highlight parking areas to ensure the most effective use of all available spaces, particularly

areas which may not initially be visible, especially to visitors, or known to drivers;

Reduce road network congestion caused by vehicles circulating to find a parking space; and

33

Assist drivers to get their parking space as quickly as possible.

In addition, and further to the standard static way finding signage, dynamic car parking signage

allows the number of vacant car parking spaces in a given area to be continuously displayed and

updated on electronic signs located at key driver decision points. Such technology can improve the

utilisation of parking areas, particularly as they reach capacity and it becomes more difficult to

identify where vacant spaces exist. They can also assist in reducing road network congestion as

vehicle circulation and time spent in search of a vacant space is reduced.

The introduction of dynamic signage, alerting drivers to the number of spaces available in off-street

car parks, can improve their utilisation and assist drivers to locate vacant spaces prior to entering

and circulating the car parking areas. This technology would help balance car parking patronage

throughout the MAC and reduce traffic circulation.

Dynamic signage for outdoor car parks (at grade car parks) is typically done using loop based

technology (counting vehicles as they enter and exit the car parking area) or more accurately (and

more expensively) using individual parking sensors.

It is recommended that the opportunity for increased signage be investigated for the centre as

educating people on the available parking choices will likely assist people finding spaces to suit their

visitation needs. Alternatively, there are new Smart Car Parking technologies which can assist

drivers to locate a parking space with the use of an App on their phone. This should be explored as

part of the future investigation of increased signage.

6.1.4. Increased Parking Restrictions

Car parking space restrictions are fundamental to the appropriate management of a car parking

system. These restrictions have the ability to locate where certain user groups park, often providing

priority for certain user types, with their use also important in creating a turnover of parking within

spaces to allow for a greater number of motorists to use the same space. On the other hand, the

incorrect use of car parking restrictions can have negative flow-on effects to vehicular turnover and

can often cause excessive vehicle circulation in search of a car park and/or overspill into the

surrounding areas.

Parking can also play a role in protecting car parking overspill from adjacent land uses which may

result in a loss of amenity of surrounding land owners or residents. A balance needs to be carefully

met when introducing parking to ‘protect’ particular uses, given that parking is a shared public

resource and it is often inefficient to dedicate parking to a single user type.

It will be important to continue to maintain the short-term restricted parking within proximity to the

main activity centre to ensure priority parking for visitors and shoppers. These restrictions will need

to be reviewed periodically to ensure appropriate allocation of parking for all users in the future.

The development of a parking hierarchy which sees visitors and shoppers prioritised in the centre

core will assist in ensuring a high turnover of vehicles, with an appropriate balance of time

restrictions in place. Regular monitoring to ensure compliance with time restrictions is encouraged,

however should be carefully monitored to ensure the time restrictions are meeting their intended

purpose and community need. In addition to the user groups’ hierarchy, introducing specific parking

zones or areas for priority parking within the centre will assist in managing the car parking demand.

34

This information can also be very useful when shared with the general public so they can find

appropriate parking for their particular needs.

6.1.5. The Installation of Paid Parking Facilities

The pricing of car parking can act as an extremely powerful demand management tool as it directly

imposes a charge on the use of the car, in addition to the indirect charges associated with vehicle

registration, fuel, maintenance and insurance. The pricing of parking can also assist in providing:

A level of natural enforcement of restrictions (drivers are less willing to risk overstaying as an

overstay event in a paid parking area, relative to a normal time restricted parking area, is far

easier to detect by enforcement officers).

Greater time efficiency, in the enforcement task for officers monitoring car parking spaces,

thereby allowing a greater catchment of spaces to be captured.

It is widely recognised that paid parking is a tool which can be used to manage car parking demands

more efficiently during peak periods. The introduction of paid parking in the MAC would be a

significant policy decision, and both support and opposition for the introduction of paid parking was

demonstrated throughout the 2014 community consultation process. Issues that would need to be

considered prior to commencing a paid parking scheme include:

The effect of introducing paid parking on the ability of the Centre to attract a greater share

of local retail spending (i.e. to achieve Council’s retail objectives for Bay Street);

Whether pay parking has potential to achieve sustainability outcomes by reducing the

demand for parking in the centre due to use of alternative means of access to the Centre,

including walking, cycling, catching the train or the funding of a shuttle bus.

Any introduction of paid parking must be carefully considered for the reasons above and before a

decision regarding the introduction of paid parking is considered, a separate study may be

warranted to investigate the economic impacts. Council may consider the option of introducing paid

parking to the Bay Street MAC. However as it may not currently be supported widely and there is

capacity within the on-street supply, it is considered inappropriate to introduce at this time.

6.1.6. Parking Permit Schemes and Priority Parking for Identified Users

The purpose of a parking permit scheme is to provide a management mechanism for

rationing/sharing the benefits of the public parking resource to particular user groups such as

residents or businesses in the area during times of peak parking demand whilst minimising adverse

impacts of commercial activities, particularly during peak business hours. It also serves to provide

exemptions from parking restrictions.

As parking in the Bay Street Centre becomes more difficult, it is possible to give greater certainty of

finding a parking space to special priority user groups in the future. These are discussed below:

Seniors Parking

With the ageing population set to rise considerably over the next 15 years, Southland Shopping

Centre has already introduced dedicated Seniors Parking in the area. Only a limited number of

Councils appear to have investigated the introduction of Seniors Parking Permits for their

shopping centres, with the Cities of Brisbane and Copper Coast who is currently undertaking a

35

trial of permits for seniors. As Bayside currently has one of the greatest proportions of those

over aged 65 and over this will have implications in the future for parking and could be

investigated.

In 2011, 16,276 people aged 65 and over were living in Bayside, this accounted for

approximately 17.8% of the total population. In 2031, there will be 25,168 persons aged 65 and

over, this is a rise of 8,326 people in that age group and a substantial increase of almost 50%.

In the Bay Street Activity Centre, the newly developed Coles supermarket has provided 7 seniors

parking spaces within the basement carpark. There is the potential to provide designated seniors

parking within off-street Council car parks. In addition, seniors’ parking permits may allow the

extension of time in certain restricted parking areas. It is recommended that this should be

further explored as part of any future investigation for improving the provision of parking in the

Bay Street Centre.

Accessible Parking for People with a Disability

With the forecast ageing of the population in Bayside and in Victoria in general, there is a need

to ensure there is an adequate supply of convenient and accessible parking spaces that can be

used by disabled or mobility impaired visitors to the Bay Street MAC. The disabled parking is

located close to key retail destinations such as the supermarket and specialty shops or services.

The disabled parking bays have generally been provided on the end of blocks, which makes is

easier to park. There are no guidelines on the required rates for the provision of public disabled

parking spaces. As such, the provision should be based on meeting the stated needs of disabled

residents and visitors.

This approach involves engaging and listening to representations from relevant stakeholders

including disabled and mobility impaired residents and visitors to identify if access for disabled

people needs to be improved. Although there are currently 113 disabled parking permits

recorded in Bay Street MAC, there are only 4 designated disabled car parking spaces provided in

the Centre. The location and use of these spaces should be regularly monitored to understand

demand for additional spaces.

The occupancies for disabled parking bays were not included in the survey results. However,

analysis on the numbers of permit holders and supply along with community feedback suggests

there is a lack of disabled parking in the centre. This should be investigated further to ensure

there is sufficient accessible disabled parking available in key locations.

Another method to support access for electric wheelchairs and scooters in the activity centre is

to encourage local businesses to provide access to power. A key action included in the

Integrated Transport Strategy is to work with the Department of Human Services to assess the

suitability of implementing the National Recharge Scheme – Electric Wheelchair and Scooters

within Bayside. The RECHARGE Scheme™ is targeted at encouraging local businesses and

organisations to provide a power point so that users of electric wheelchairs or scooters can

recharge the battery, if required.

Trader Parking Permits

36

Trader parking permit schemes are an option where there is limited parking for long-term users

at a number of select locations such as within an activity centre or commercial area. Trader

permit parking systems allow traders to be exempt from time based restrictions. The allocation

of trader parking permits should have consideration for the expected parking demands under

Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme, the number of staff at each business, the size of the site

and the existing number of on-site parking spaces.

If such a scheme were to be in place, a clear and rigid eligibility criteria and fee structure would

need to be established to minimise demand for the scheme. Sustainable travel should be

encouraged as a priority and uses with low parking demand and no onsite parking should be

prioritised over larger employers with higher demands. A detailed eligibility criteria would need

to be established prior to rolling out such a scheme.

These permits can be made available at the discretion of the Council where it is considered

reasonable and need to meet specific criteria through an application and review process. Trader

parking permits may be made available under the following conditions:

There is a demand from local businesses as determined by parking studies and Council’s

Traffic Management Department; taking into account existing on-site provisions and

available on-street supply;

Permits will not allow parking in prohibited standing places, i.e.: No Stopping areas, Bus

Zones, within 10m of an intersection, etc;

Permit holder complies with conditions of issue;

The number of permits per business would be limited; and

Fees must apply, with the number of available permits would be limited and applications

subject to Council approval.

It could be possible to supply these permits. A new application would be required at the end

of the year or at the expiration of the permit. The following is a sample of where these

permits are currently in use:

The City of Boroondara has two types of trader permits. Quarterly permits and Annual

permits may be available for use in the traders parking zones. Local businesses and

certain other organisations can apply for a permit for parking all day in certain

designated areas. Fees apply, permit numbers are limited and applications subject to

Council approval;

As part of the Activity Centre Parking Strategy, Maroondah Council developed a Croydon

Traders Parking Permit Policy. The Croydon Trader Parking Permit is $125 per year. A

new application needs to be made each year; and

City of Kingston has two Trader Parking Permit Schemes: operating in Cheltenham since

2007 (50 permits) and Chelsea more recently with a total of 80 permits available. The

cost of the permits is $220 annually. Waiting Lists exist for the Chelsea and Cheltenham

schemes which suggests they are working well and are in high demand.

City of Monash is currently reviewing its Trader Parking Permit Scheme. Under the existing

scheme, Council issues parking permits to businesses on application. These permits allow

traders to park without restriction in designated streets or off street car parks (OSCP) near

37

activity centres. Permits last for one year and are renewable annually on 1 July each year.

There is no cost to obtain a permit and generally there are no limits as to the number of

permits that may be issued to each applicant. Essentially there are more permits issued

than there are permit parking spaces and therefore Monash is seeking the introduction of

fees for these permits.

If these permits were to be introduced, they should be made available for use in areas of

more than 400 metres (i.e. a 5 minute walk) from the activity centre core. This will ensure

trader parking does not interfere with the allocation of parking for higher priority user

groups within the core, such as visitors. Therefore it is suggested that designated locations

for trader parking in the activity centre periphery (surrounding residential streets) is

explored. It is recommended that consultation with the key stakeholders should follow to

ensure residents and traders are comfortable with the proposal.

Whilst considering the introduction of these permits, it is important to note, Banyule City

Council is now recommending the phasing out of its traders’ permits in the long term within

the Heidelberg Activity Centre. The rational for this is that each space occupied by a trader

potentially offsets up to eight short term spaces which could otherwise be used by visitors

and customers, which is not sustainable in the long term.

Expansion of Fees for Residential Parking Permits in the Centre

As mentioned earlier, the objective of the Resident Parking Permit Scheme Policy is to

provide residents and their visitors with a reasonable likelihood of finding car parking in

close proximity to their homes, while acknowledging the needs of other road users. There

are currently two options for residential parking permits in Bayside:

Option 1 is for three free resident parking permits; and

Option 2 is for two free resident parking permits, plus one visitor parking permit for a

fee of $64.50.

Additional permits can be purchased for a fee of $174 which is currently valid for 3 years.

There are a number of properties not eligible to participate in the scheme including

properties located in commercial areas, shop top dwellings and multi-unit development

properties (constructed after 2007).

As parking becomes more of an issue in key growth areas such as the Hampton Street

Activity Centre, Bayside has the opportunity to investigate the expansion of fees for

residential permits through a community consultation process. Evidence of successful

residential permit parking fees is demonstrated in many other municipalities. The fee aims

for residents to take advantage of their onsite parking, reduce car ownership of residents in

activity centres and encourage short trips to be undertaken on foot rather than through

motor vehicles. A brief review of other councils with effective residential permit schemes is

provided here:

The City of Darebin issues residential parking permits for eligible residences who own a

car and do not have sufficient off street parking. These apply in two zones:

38

o Zone A: All shop-top residences along defined shopping precincts. If no off-street

parking is available, residences are eligible for a maximum of one permanently

affixed permit only.

o Zone B: Covers areas of significant parking congestion. If no off-street parking is

available, residences are eligible for a maximum of two permits – which can be any

combination of transferable or resident permits.

Households with access to off-street parking or who do not own a car are entitled to one

less permit. Permits cost $30 for the first, and $50 for the second if eligible, with concession

card holders entitled to a 50 per cent discount. Permits must be renewed annually.

Manningham City Council’s Parking Permit Policy aims to reduce the number of parking

permits available to residents due to increased demand for on street parking and the

need to provide an equitable scheme. The permits available for issue include:

o Single detached dwellings – able to apply for two free permits, to be renewed every

three years, with exceptional cases able to apply for a third permit at a cost of $85,

to be renewed annually.

o Multi-dwelling developments can apply for one permit at a cost of $52, to be

renewed annually.

The City of Port Phillip has a Resident Parking Permit Scheme in place which helps to

alleviate parking issues for residents. The annual charge per permit is $75.

The City of Glen Eira’s residential parking permit scheme has a number of eligibility and

conditions which apply to applications, including an exclusions areas. The permits are

renewable in December each year.

A key action in managing the expectations of demand for parking from the community is

that Council should publish a list of properties which are excluded from the residential

parking permit scheme to ensure potential purchasers are aware before they buy ineligible

land. The City of Glen Eira has successfully done this to assist in clarifying the properties

which are excluded from the scheme and reduce the number of applications which would

ultimately be rejected by Council.

The majority of residences within the Bay Street Activity Centre have off-street parking

available. Currently there is a distribution of 233 residential parking permits and 80 visitor

parking permits within the centre. When demand for on-street parking increases, Council

may explore increased eligibility criteria for the distribution of residential parking permits.

Currently, residents living in multi-unit developments are not eligible for parking permits

when the building was constructed after 2007. A key method to reduce on street-parking

demand which could be explored in the future may be to exclude all residential properties

within the centre with access to off-street parking to be eligible for a parking permit.

Where demand for on-street parking in activity centres is high, these locations may

command an increased fee to encourage reduced car ownership and sustainable travel

behaviour. Consistent with the practices of other councils, Council could investigate the

opportunity to expand the fees for residential parking permits through a community

consultation process. This may assist in easing the car parking demand in residential areas in

the Bay Street Activity Centre. Providing clear access to information on eligibility, refining

the eligibility criteria given the current high number of permits issued and introducing a fee

39

will ensure that demand is reduced to those who are most in need of a permit. Another key

indicator going forward will be with the monitoring and recording of the distribution and

uptake of residential parking permits within the activity centre. It will be necessary to record

data on the numbers of residents who hold both residential and visitor permits and the

applicable fees, if any. This information needs to be recorded so it is easily dissimilated for

future use in terms of gaining a better understanding of where the residential permits are

used which may need more protection in the future as the activity centre expands and car

parking demand increases in the residential areas.

During a recent VCAT hearing, Member Bensz made some comments on the perceived

parking issues in the Bay Street Activity Centre:

Of particular relevance, Council has had significant complaints from Bay Street shoppers,

traders and residents in Outer Crescent about parking in the area but has thus far resisted

providing permit parking for residents in this and other nearby streets. The other issue that

needs to be considered is whether it is appropriate to consider a whole centre based

approach to car parking for this centre. I acknowledge that council doesn’t support the car

parking waiver but apart from its refusal to look at resident parking permits it is has not

developed a centre based approach for car parking and its attendant potential for congestion

in the area. This is a matter, that given the growth of the centre I consider needs to be

tackled in a holistic manner.1

The above commentary simply strengthens the support for the development of a car parking

plan for the Bay Street Activity Centre and the subsequent Parking Overlay into the Planning

Scheme.

6.1.7. Reduced Car Parking Rates

The provision of reduced car parking rates beyond what the MAC currently generates may be used

to reduce current road network congestion and assist to shift the way in which people travel to,

from and within Bay Street MAC. Reduced car parking provisions alone will, however not be

sufficient to manage the existing and future car parking system.

Future car parking rates can only be applied to reduce the amount of parking that is provided as part

of a new development in the area, as such additional mechanisms (or demand management tools)

are required to modify and reduce existing car parking demands within the area.

The use of either maximum or minimum car parking rates needs to give consideration to the

appropriate balance between the need to reduce car dependence within an activity area whilst not

constraining parking to such an extent that it may impact a developer’s decision to invest in the

area, or encourage shoppers to travel elsewhere. In this regard, development applications which

seek to reduce the parking requirements need to be carefully monitored and reviewed periodically

to ensure the parking supply is maintained at a sufficient level to balance increasing demand. A more

detailed discussion regarding maximum versus minimum rates should be provided in future work.

Car Parking Overlay

1 E. Bensz, Member: Bayside Health Care Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2015] VCAT 1407 (8 September 2015)

40

Introducing a parking overlay can:

Outline when car parking spaces must be provided and how those spaces can be

provided;

Determine the number of car parking spaces to be provided;

Explain the requirements for reducing the provision of car parking spaces;

Require that new car parking spaces are designed and constructed to certain standards;

Provide for precinct based provisions that establish local rates in identified areas such as

activity centres.

Current car parking rates in Bayside are based on Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.

Clause 52.06: Car Parking sets out the standard planning scheme requirements for parking in

Victoria. Table 1 of Clause 52.06 outlines the minimum car parking requirements for a given

land use. These car parking provisions apply to new land uses or where there is an increase

in floor area, number of patrons, seats, practitioners, residents or staff of an existing land

use. When a Council wants to vary the requirements for parking in a specified area, a parking

overlay can be implemented. Clause 45.09: Parking Overlay enables councils to respond to

local car parking issues and can be used to outline local variations to the standard

requirements in Clause 52.06. The rates specified in a parking overlay override the standard

requirements (Column A or Column B) at Clause 52.06.

It is recommended that a Parking Overlay should be considered for the Bay Street Activity

Centre to cover the entire area as illustrated in the Planning Scheme at Clause 21.11 Bay

Street Centre Framework Plan. The Overlay should be used to apply the “Column B Activity

Centre” rates to the Bay Street Activity Centre.

The rates for dwellings, shops, supermarkets and offices are presented below in Table 15.

These are the primary land uses in the Bay Street Activity Centre and are targeted by the

introduction of a parking overlay. In particular the reduced rates will apply to visitor parking,

shops and offices.

Table 15: Clause 52.06 parking rates

Use Column A

Standard

rate

Column B Only applies

where

specified in a

schedule to

the Parking

Overlay

Measure

Dwelling

1 1 To each one and two bedroom dwelling, plus

2 2 To each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies

or studios that are separate rooms counted as a

bedroom, plus

1 0 For visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or

more dwellings

Shop 4 3.5 To each 100 sq m

Supermarket 5 5 To each 100 sq m

Office 3.5 3 To each 100 sq m

41

Before a Parking Overlay is drafted, it will generally be necessary to prepare a car parking

plan that identifies car parking needs and issues, relates these to broader social, economic

and environmental considerations and sets out what car parking objectives a council wishes

to achieve and how it will do this. The car parking plan needs to be widely understandable

and, where possible, supported by the community it affects. Involving stakeholders in key

decisions as the car parking plan is developed will increase the likelihood of support when

the Parking Overlay is exhibited as a planning scheme amendment.

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

Parking Overlay or other appropriate implementation mechanism, such as:

parking permits for residents, workers and visitors;

management of public and private parking (for example, through time restrictions or

fines);

special rate charges – a requirement for land owners to pay towards the related

provision of new spaces; and

shared car parking requirements.

The Parking Overlay’s primary function is to manage car parking in a precinct, such as an

activity centre, rather than on a site-by-site basis.

Car parking plans will generally be required to justify variations in parking rates or other

requirements in a Parking Overlay. An exception is where a planning authority seeks only to

activate the Column B rates. In this situation a Council may rely on other strategic work, such

as a structure plan or previous parking surveys, to support the designation of areas to apply

the lower rates.

It is therefore recommended that Council consider the implementation of a parking overlay

without the need to prepare a car parking plan. Council has undertaken considerable work

on this matter and it is considered this is sufficient to implement the Column B rates in

Clause 52.06.

Car Parking Waivers

There may be times when a proposed development and/or land use cannot physically

support the required off-street car parking requirements as required in the planning

scheme. It is in these instances when a waiver or reduction of the car parking rate is

required.

A car parking waiver is managed through the planning permit system and if Council

considers it appropriate, a planning permit can be issued for the waiver.

At the individual site level, where there is a change of use within an existing building or an

extension to an existing building, where there is no possibility to provide additional on-site

car parking, in most circumstances car parking shortfalls should be waived if it is consistent

with the strategic plan for the centre. This is often the most equitable solution to deal with

car parking on a centre wide basis, and secondly because even in saturated car parking

conditions a balance will occur between the level of activity and the car parking supply. As

Bay Street is identified as an area where Council is encouraging higher density residential

42

development, consideration should be given to a reduction of the car parking requirements

for changes of uses or minor extensions to existing development.

The ongoing rising demand and cost of land in the Bay Street Activity Centre is resulting in

many developments being lodged at Council with significant car parking shortfalls beyond

the requirements of planning schemes, even though these rates have recently been further

reduced to acknowledge the better public transport options available in Activity Centres.

Council is often left with no option but to pursue the car parking required through lengthy

negotiations with developers or through VCAT, with either approach being uncertain and

costly for all parties. A summary of Council’s refusals for parking waivers/reductions have

been set aside by VCAT, creating significant implications for the long term provision of on-

street parking in Bay Street, as outlined in the following table.

Table 16: Relevant planning applications and VCAT findings for Bay Street MAC

Address and case

details

Case reference and

summary of proposal

Decision Car parking

provisions and

comment

439 Bay Street Brighton

Bay Street MAC

Meleuge Developments Pty

Ltd v Bayside CC [2016]

VCAT 162 (10 February

2016)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P2186/2015

The applicant proposed a

four storey mixed use

development containing 22

dwellings on the subject

land. Bayside city council

determined to grant a

permit, but subject to a

number of conditions, one

on which sought the

deletion of the third level

(fourth floor) of the

development (condition

1a)). The applicant sought a

review of four of the

conditions including the

deletion of the first floor.

The decision of the

Responsible Authority was

varied. Condition 1a which

required deletion of the

fourth floor was deleted

and therefore the proposal

could go ahead with the

development of 22

apartments, retail

component and provision of

27 parking spaces.

Condition 1k which

required the provision of a

loading bay was also

deleted and therefore the

loading bay waived

The proposed development

has a statutory requirement

of 36 spaces comprising:

1+2 bedrooms = 22 spaces

Visitors = 4 spaces

Retail component = 10

spaces.

The proposal specifies a

total of 27 spaces,

comprising 24 resident

spaces and 3 retail spaces.

The application is seeking a

waiver of 11 spaces

comprising 4 visitor spaces

and 7 retail spaces.

7-9 Cowra Street Brighton

Bay Street MAC

Sac Building Workshop v

Bayside CC [2014] VCAT

1320 (20 October 2014)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P885/2014

The proposal is for

construction of a three-

storey building containing

39 dwellings with two levels

of basement to provide

parking for 53 cars. It is

proposed to have 14

dwellings at the ground

floor, 15 dwellings at level 1

and 10 dwellings at level 2,

all with either courtyards or

balcony open space. The

building will have a

maximum height of 10.6

metres

The decision of the

responsible authority is set

aside. The permit allows the

construction of a three-

storey building containing

not more than thirty-nine

dwellings, a reduction in

the visitor car parking and

variation to an easement.

The Council did not cite

parking as grounds for their

refusal. The proposal is for:

9 x 1 bedroom = 9 spaces



Visitor parking = 7 spaces

The total parking required is

for 51 spaces. There are 53

spaces provided. This

means there is a shortfall of

2 visitor spaces.


Bay Street MAC

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P1949/2005

This is an application by the

adjoining neighbour with

The decision of the

Responsible Authority is

affirmed. A permit is

granted and directed to be

The application included

the provision of nine car

parking spaces located to

the rear of the site. This is a

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/162.html







43

Morley v Bayside CC [2005]

VCAT 2569 (5 December

2005)

respect to a notice of

decision to grant a permit

by the responsible authority

for the use of an existing

dwelling as a two person

medical centre on land at

459 Bay Street, Brighton.

issued for use of a dwelling

at 459 Bay Street, Brighton,

as a medical centre with a

reduction in the car parking

requirements.

shortfall of one parking

space.

184-186 Bay Street

Brighton

Bay Street MAC

Bay Street Brighton

Developments Pty Ltd v


1823 (19 November 2012)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P1087/2012

A four storey building with

two medical facilities at

ground floor with three

storeys of residential (14)

apartments above with

basement car parking using

a mechanical remote

parking system.

The Responsible Authority

failed to determine the

matter within the specified

timeframe. The VCAT

Member approved the

permit which will allow the

use of the site as a medical

centre and development of

fourteen (14) apartments.

Basement car parking for 25

cars and a reduction in car

parking.

The proposed development

requires a dispensation of

three car parking spaces

given that there are 25

spaces provided on site and

the assessed requirement is

at 28 spaces. Therefore

there is a shortfall of 3

spaces.

184-186 Bay Street

Brighton

Bay Street MAC

Bayside Health Care Pty Ltd

v Bayside CC [2015] VCAT

1407 (8 September 2015)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P487/2015

The proposal is for a

variation to the number of

medical practitioners

allowed on the site from

two to six at any one time,

without an increase in the

number of car parking

spaces being provided on

site.

A development previously

approved by the Tribunal is

currently under

construction on the site and

is nearing a completion. The

building will be used for a

mix of thirteen residential

apartments and medical

centre with a floor area of

316m2 with basement car

parking for 25 vehicles in an

automated parking system.

Member is satisfied that

the increase in the number

of practitioners from two to

six being a net increase of

four with all their staff

parking provided on site is

satisfactory. Given the

evidence provided about

the likely demand being less

than the statutory demand,

the Member is satisfied that

the short-term patient

demand can be managed

on the surrounding street

network without undue

detriment to the locality.

The car parking

requirements have changed

from the above with an

increase in the number of

practitioners from 2 to 6

with a floor area of 316m2

and a reduction in the

number of apartments from

14 to 13. The proposal

provided 10 spaces for the

medical professionals and 4

support staff in the form of

stackers. Council’s concern

was in relation to the

patient parking. The

planning scheme requires

five spaces for the first

practitioner and three

spaces for every

practitioner after the first.

This equates to a total of 20

spaces and therefore there

is an assumed shortfall of

10 spaces.

2009

232-234 Bay Street

Brighton

Bay Street MAC

232 Bay Street Pty Ltd v


2550 (30 November 2009)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P1529/2009

Proposal is for use and

development of the land for

a four storey building

containing 2 retail premises

at ground floor, 7 offices (at

ground, first and second

floors) and 5 dwellings (at

second and third floors) and

a partial waiver of on-site

car parking and waiver of

loading/unloading bay

requirements

Despite an officer’s

recommendation to

support the proposal,

Council refused the

application. This was set

aside by VCAT and the

permit allowed use and

development of the land for

a four storey building

containing 2 retail

premises, 7 offices and 5

dwellings and a partial

waiver of on-site car

parking and waiver of

loading/unloading bay

requirements. The Member

stated that insufficient on-

Adoption of the parking

rates in Clause 52.06 would

result in a requirement for

50 spaces (10 for the

dwellings, 14 for the shops

and 26 for the offices).

A total of 21 car spaces are

provided in the basement

carpark of which 10 are

provided in a stacker unit.

The traffic engineer

recommended that 1 space

be made available for each

retail tenancy (2 in total),

11 spaces be made

available for the office and

8 for the dwellings (1 per 2














44

site car parking is not a

reason for refusing the

development.

bedroom dwelling and 2 per

3 bedroom dwelling). This

amounts to 21 and

therefore the shortfall is 29

spaces

2013

232-234 Bay Street Brighton

Bay Street MAC

232 Bay Street Pty Ltd v

Bayside CC & Ors [2013]

VCAT 17 (4 January 2013)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P818/2012

Amendment to the

permit/plans for addition of

a fifth storey and alteration

to a four storey building use

for accommodation and

retail premises and a car

parking reduction.

The decision of the

responsible authority in

relation to permit

application number

2008/609/01 is set aside

and the permit allows

construction of a multi

storey building, use for

accommodation and retail

premises and a car parking

reduction.

This is subsequent to the

existing application above.

The parking shortfall still

stands.


Bay Street MAC

The Town Hall Consulting

Group v Bayside CC [2012]

VCAT 1090 (20 July 2012)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P207/2012

To construct a two story

building containing five

apartments with basement

car parking.

The Responsible

Authority is set aside and

the permit allows

construction of five

dwellings on a lot.

The planning scheme car

parking requirements for

this proposal is for 5

parking spaces. The

application for 5 x two

bedroom dwellings

proposes nine car parking

spaces. Therefore there is

sufficient parking onsite.

There were discussions

about providing additional

landscape opportunities

and therefore the parking

was agreed to be reduced

to 8 spaces.


Bay Street MAC

PAJ Consultants v Bayside

CC [2012] VCAT 1449 (3

October 2012)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P240/2012

Use of premises as a Tavern

and waiver of car and

bicycle parking.

The Member concluded

that as car parking

shortfalls should be waived

if the application is

consistent with the

strategic plan for the centre

and therefore it was

appropriate to waive the

car parking and bicycle

parking.

A reduction to the standard

parking rate of 0.4 spaces

per patron is sought. This

generates a statutory

requirement for 64 or 40

spaces respectively. The

Council considers that the

current use carries a credit

of 8 parking spaces against

the above mentioned

statutory requirements, and

that for a permitted 100

patrons the proposal is

deficient by 32 parking

spaces.

282-284 Bay Street Brighton

Bay Street MAC

Domus Design Pty Ltd v

Bayside CC [2009] VCAT 843

(13 May 2009)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P3446/2008

The proposal for 5 new

dwellings to be

incorporated into an

important historic building.

The application includes a

partial waiver of on-site

parking

Council’s decision is set

aside. Member is satisfied

with the amount of parking.

The permit will allow:

Use of land for dwellings,

partial demolition, buildings

and works and partial

waiver of on-site parking

Although the residential

parking does not meet

Clause 52.06, it does meet

the requirement included in

ResCode of one space per

one/two bedroom dwelling.

The proposal is seeking a

partial waiver of on-site

parking.


Bay Street MAC

Madison v Bayside

CC [2010] VCAT 707

(20 April 2010)

VCAT REFERENCE NO.

P2976/2009

The application is to amend

an existing permit to allow

an additional 20 seats in the

existing 40 seat restaurant.

The Member set aside

council’s decision and

approved the amendment

to allow a further 20 seats

on the premises. Given that

it was unlikely that 6-8

Council refused the

application based on the

failure to provide sufficient

parking. The application of

the car parking rate of 0.6

space per seat specified at

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/17.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(232%20Bay%20Street%20Pty%20Ltd%20and%20Bayside%20CC%20)















45

spaces could be provided

on-site and that there is

available on-street car

parking within a convenient

walking distance of the site

(200 metres) to cater for

this demand. The direction

was to issue the permit.

Clause 52.06-5 generates a

requirement of 12 car

spaces.

The Council would support

the proposal if there was an

additional 6-8 parking

spaces made available.

Based on the above analysis of both planning permit approvals by Council and recent VCAT

decisions, it has been found that there is a mix of development proposals within the Bay

Street Activity Centre which often seek to reduce the car parking provision whilst others

exceed the car parking requirements in the planning scheme.

The main benefit of a parking overlay will ensure that there is sufficient parking provided on

site and at a reduced rate for parking as per the application of Column B rates. This will

ensure more certainty to developers for the required parking rates within the activity centre.

It will also assist in encouraging the provision of reduced rates of parking. Introducing a

parking overlay will also assist in the reduction of development applications that ultimately

end up involved in a costly legal process at VCAT.

Cash-In-Lieu Schemes

Cash-in-lieu schemes allow developers to reduce or waive the requirement for car parking,

generally in return for a payment per car space. The funds raised from the scheme should

typically then be spent on upgrading parking facilities and management within the

municipality. If a Council has adopted the Scheme, it will be outlined within a Schedule to

the Parking Overlay of the Planning Scheme with details and required payments. A limited

number of Victorian Metropolitan Councils have adopted the Scheme.

The use of cash-in-lieu (CIL) payments can assist to effectively provide parking in shared

pools and to maximise the key land parcels in the Centre for commercial purposes rather

than for car parking. CIL schemes are most effective when on-site parking is difficult to

supply, on street spaces are not available, there is regular redevelopment of an area

contributing to the collection of funds and where there are a number of uses closely located

to benefit from the shared parking location.

The benefits for a CIL approach relate to when uses (particularly changes to uses) are not

able to provide existing car parking on site. A challenge for Councils to implement successful

CIL schemes require Council’s to have a long term strategic plan in place, generally to build

additional off street car parking facilities. In addition, CIL contributions can generally only be

applied to new development rather than simple change of use applications.

Council’s 2006 Car Parking Precinct Plan recommended a significant discount be provided to

those developers required to pay the cash-in-lieu rate for provision of parking below the

requirements to be set out in the parking precinct plan. This was due to the considerably

high cost of land in Bayside, which would require a CIL contribution to be over $75,000 per

car parking space waivered. In many cases, this would not be feasible for development and

would likely stifle development of the Activity Centre. In addition, any new multi deck or off

street car park constructed would likely need to charge paid parking in order to recoup the

46

considerable cost of development – an option not heavily supported through the community

consultation feedback. It is noted that while a significant proportion of the estimated total

cost of providing additional parking are land costs, which may be able to be reduced through

the development of sites currently owned by Council, there may be the need for Council to

subsidise the capital costs of providing spaces within a multi-level car park.

An assessment on the three council-owned carparks in the Bay Street Activity Centre was

undertaken in 2014. This assessment revealed that the carpark located at 44 Marion Street,

Brighton is considered a valuable site with scope for significant development potential and

value uplift, worthy of further detailed assessment to confirm likely financial return and

supporting disposal/development strategies. While the carpark located at 47 Willansby

Avenue, has some development opportunities, there have been constraints identified that

would need to be addressed further. The carpark located at 17 Marion Street, has a number

of significant development constraints that are likely to be difficult to address and resolve.

The sites are included in the table below.

Table 17: Council Owned Carparks in Bay Street Activity Centre

Council Asst ID Address Approx. Size (m2) Site Classification

20118 47 Willansby Avenue, Brighton 1,309.5 Potential Site

20115 44 Marion Street, Brighton 593.1 Prime Site

20119 17 Marion Street, Brighton 744.1 Restricted Site

The Bay Street Structure Plan also identifies potential development opportunities in the

Activity Centre through the development of a new car parking facility over the existing

Council owned parking lot located between Marion Street and Willansby Avenue, an

incorporation of the first two listed above, to provide between 80 and 120 additional car

spaces. The Plan recommended to fund construction of the carpark from the cash-in-lieu

payments and a special rate scheme and to develop design criteria for the car park to ensure

satisfactory design outcomes and integration into the surrounding streetscapes.

In regard to the proposed development of the car park located between Marion Street and

Williamsby Avenue, it is noted that this would be a considerable increase in parking

provision from the current 66 spaces (estimated). It is also noted that the size and shape of

the car park would provide constraints to developing a multi-level car park. The spare

parking capacity in the entire catchment recorded at peak time (11.00am) was 300 spaces.

While some spare capacity existed, most of these spare parking spaces were located at the

extremities of the catchment, as the survey revealed that occupancies were very high (84%)

in the sections of streets nearest Bay Street. Although a small number of motorists may be

prepared to walk longer distances it is more realistic to expect that the majority would wish

to park closer to Bay Street. It is therefore considered reasonable to investigate the potential

development of a new car parking facility to accommodate between 80 to 120 cars over the

existing parking lot located between Marion Street and Williansby Avenue. A more detailed

feasibility assessment should be undertaken to determine the overall viability of the project

and appropriate $/space rate for cash-in-lieu.

47

6.1.8. Improvements and Extensions to the Supply of Off-Street Parking

Maintenance of car parking areas is important to ensure that parking is safe, attractive to users and

efficiently used. It is recommended that Council continually work with private car parking owners to

ensure that parking facilities meet with current design standards and are maintained at an

appropriate level of lighting and surveillance to encourage the perception of safety.

Although it is best to provide parking in publicly accessible locations as much as practicable to

enable sharing of spaces for activity centre users, there are potentially other sites throughout the

centre on privately owned land where it could be desirable to establish parking associated with

commercial development of the land.

Together with the existing public parking, these may provide a significant contribution to

coordinating shared parking areas that are readily accessible and identifiable by the public. The

opportunities for private parking should be investigated for future use. It is therefore recommended

that Council play an advocacy role in the promotion of informal agreements between landowners

and car owners to increase the availability of more parking in the MAC.

It is understood these types of arrangements are already occurring in other inner city municipalities,

such as City of Melbourne, City of Port Phillip and City of Yarra. ‘Parkhound’ is an example of an

online marketplace which connects drivers looking for parking with local property owners who have

spare parking spaces. Council can play a role of advocacy in promoting awareness of products such

as Parkhound to the broader community.

Car parking strategies have been identified in the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan to increase the

supply of car parking in the Centre. For example, the following key action under the Access section

will assist in the extension to the provision of off-street parking in the centre:

Plan the development of a new car parking facility over the existing Council owned

parking lot located between Marion Street and Willansby Avenue with an estimated

ultimate capacity of the car park is between 80 and 120 cars. Fund construction of the

car park from the cash-in-lieu payments and a special rate scheme. Develop design

criteria for the car park to ensure satisfactory design outcomes and integration into the

surrounding streetscapes.

As outlined above, the Council owned carpark located between Marion Street and Willansby Avenue

could be a significant contribution to the provision of off-street parking. The carpark is located at the

rear of the Bay Street Activity Centre. North Brighton station is located approximately 100 metres

North West of the site. The site is at the interface of commercial land uses (to the north) and

surrounding residential hinterland. It has been identified as a development site for extension of Bay

Street MAC. However, there are development issues with regard to access, parking, public toilets,

loading, and residential interface implications. This site should be the subject of further detailed

appraisal comprising financial feasibility and analysis on sustainability criteria for the future role of

the MAC. It is important to note that if the site was to be developed as mixed-use facilities, the car

parking component would undoubtedly require payment for usage.

6.1.9. Behavioural Change Programs

48

Green Travel Plans

A way of managing or reducing parking demand is to have a travel management plan, or

green travel plan, in place. These typically use incentives to encourage employees and

visitors to use sustainable travel modes. For example, local areas can set up carpooling

schemes with a guaranteed ride home for the passenger if the driver has to leave

unexpectedly.

Council may wish to provide support to local traders to encourage workplaces to have in

place a green travel plan which includes methods to monitor its effectiveness. Generally a

green travel ‘champion’ can be appointed in each workplace operating green travel plan.

The champion is then responsible for setting up the various strategies within the plan (such

as a car pooling scheme) and monitoring use to measure the plan’s effectiveness. Green

travel planning is generally only suitable for workplaces, as the employer can influence the

travel behaviours of employees (such as by charging staff to park in the company car park,

for example).

There are methods for reducing activity centre residents’ reliance on cars and therefore the

parking demand. For example, when car sharing schemes are located close to residential

areas, this may assist in steering people away from car ownership. It may also be possible to

‘unbundle’ car parking in residential buildings. This means that off-street parking spaces are

not attached to individual property titles, but are available for purchase/hire separately to

owners and tenants. This avoids the situation where people are paying for a parking space

they do not need and enables those who do not own a car to rent a space only when they

need one. This technique tends to lower the overall number of spaces required in a building.

Council is in the process of updating its Green Travel Plan. The main objective of the draft

Plan is to lower energy related transport emissions which, currently account for

approximately 15 per cent of Council’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At a state-

wide level GHG emissions of energy related transport emissions represent around 17 per

cent across Victoria. There are many benefits of the draft Plan including:

A reduction in Council’s GHG emissions;

Promoting Council as an innovative and environmentally aware organisation;

Improvements to health and fitness of Council staff through increased cycling and

walking activity;

Improved staff moral and social interaction at the corporate centre;

More people walking and cycling fosters a sense of community and links to the ITS;

Reduced traffic congestion and car parking problems; and

Cost savings to Council and Council staff.

The City of Darebin and the City of Maribyrnong are two councils that have developed

guidance on travel plans specifically for new developments. It is recommended that in order

to increase the use of public transport, walking and cycling in Bayside, Council should

consider development of travel plans for new developments in the Bay Street Activity

Centre.

Bicycle Parking

49

Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme (Bicycle Facilities) seeks to encourage cycling as a mode

of transport with the provision of secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces

and associated shower and change facilities. The standard requirement for the provision of

bicycle facilities for a range of uses is set out in Clause 52.34.

The Australian Bicycle Council has produced a developer fact sheet that outlines typical

bicycle parking space requirements and subsequent end-of-trip facilities for a range of uses.

Following on from this, City of Yarra has produced a transport fact sheet which outlines ways

to incorporate alternative modes of transport into building design. It could be expected that

as new development occurs that end-of-trip facilities will be provided for both staff and

customers and is recommended that these facilities be enforced by Council except where it

is not practical to access the site by bicycle.

Higher bicycle parking requirements should be enforced on new developments that have

excellent access to cycling facilities. This is especially the case for developments that are the

source of trips, such as residential, as approximately 60% of all Australians own or have

access to a bike. Ensuring that there is sufficient bike parking on site, and not in a closet or

storage cage, where it is difficult to access helps to reduce barriers to its use.

Furthermore, should additional end-of trip facilities be provided, along with other initiatives

that are likely to result in the increased use of alternative methods of transport, then

reductions in the minimum number of car parking spaces required to be provided should be

offered.

Motorcycle/Scooter Parking

It is noted that while Clauses 52.06 and 52.34 outline the statutory car and bicycle parking

requirements of development proposals, no consideration is given within the Planning

Scheme to facilitate the provision of motorcycle/scooter parking within developments.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the number of scooters and motorcycles parked close to the

Railway Station has increased, with parking informal around bicycle lockers and bus waiting

areas.

This is considered to represent a shortcoming of the Planning Scheme and it recommended

that motorcycle/scooter parking be provided within all car parks constructed in the activity

centre (irrespective of whether they are private or public car parks).

According to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), motor cycle

registrations in Australia continue to grow, showing the fastest growth of any type of vehicle

over the past five years. From 2010 to 2015 motor cycle registrations - including scooters -

went up by over 22 per cent. This represented the largest increase in any vehicle and this

trend accordingly highlights the importance of providing greater parking for motorcycles and

scooters.

Car Sharing Schemes

Public car sharing facilities, such as those provided by FlexiCar, GreenShareCar, GoGet and

CarNextDoor should be encouraged within the activity centre, particularly within mixed-use

50

developments including residential apartments, as a means to further reduce the car

dependency in the activity centre.

The popularity of car sharing schemes across Melbourne has increased significantly in recent

years. Car sharing allows registered members to book and rent a ‘pool’ car for, generally,

short term usage, typically ranging from a few hours to a day or two. Car sharing is most

effective in mixed-use areas such as activity centres with greater dwelling density with good

public transport, cycling and pedestrian networks, which make it possible for residents and

workers to undertake most of their daily activities without a car, while offering the flexibility

of car usage for special occasions.

Car share networks are proven to reduce the use of motor vehicles and increase the use of

public transport, bicycle riding and walking. For example, the City of Melbourne2 have

reported that each car-share spot equates to 10 less cars owned by residents or businesses

and that there were now 2000 fewer cars in central Melbourne than if car-share schemes

did not exist. This new transport mode enables the City to ease the pressure on network

capacity resulting from population growth and cars owned by residents, which in turn

reduces the number of cars competing for parking and driving space. Remarkably this can all

be achieved at a minimal cost to the Council.

City of Port Phillip has prepared a draft Car Share Policy. The purpose of the policy is to

encourage the expansion of car share across the municipality and provide a clear basis for

Council procedures in how Council officers can increase the number of car share vehicles

and the coverage across the municipality.

Currently, these schemes do not operate in Bayside. It is important to note though, that

Bayside’s proximity to the central city and increasing density and diversity of land uses offers

significant potential for increased use of car sharing vehicles. Car share companies should be

encouraged to establish their services in Bayside and Council should be proactive in

attracting the service providers and communication this with the market. In support of this

aim, strategies to encourage increased uptake of car sharing should be encouraged by

Council.

A number of key actions in Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy for increasing the

opportunity of car sharing schemes to operate in Bayside include:

investigate the benefits of broadening access to a car share program for existing

residents and business and as part of parking schemes for major residential

development in Bayside; and

Continue to work with the Department of Transport on the Electric Vehicle Trial to

develop appropriate policy and implementation guidelines should its demand

increase within the broader community over time.

Electric vehicle charge zone (charging outlets)

2 City of Melbourne: Emerging transport technologies: Assessing impacts and implications for the City of Melbourne 2016

51

Electric vehicles (EVs) have started to arrive on Victoria’s roads. Most major vehicle

manufacturers are now or soon will be delivering EVs into the market. However, electric

vehicle charging stations are rare in Australia and there’s no government incentives to have

them set up. The number of electric vehicles sold in Australia more than tripled from 304 in

2013 to 1130 last year. The Department of Transport expects plug-in cars will make up a

quarter of new vehicle sales in Victoria by 2020.

Whilst the electric car is still an emerging market, there are some local councils taking the

opportunity to introduce charging stations. City of Moreland was the first council in Victoria

to introduce a network of publicly available electric vehicle charging stations located at four

destinations. City of Darebin is also planning for the introduction of electric vehicles. Darebin

Councillors agreed with a transport management report recommending the council

encourage developers to include charging points in new projects and for shopping centres to

also provide somewhere to charge electric cars.

Stockland is putting its green foot forward, with four ChargePoint outlets at its shopping

centres in NSW and Point Cook Town Centre, Victoria. The company is planning to more

than double that in the next financial year. Electric car company, Tesla is also planning to

install 16 supercharger stations between Melbourne and Brisbane.

In 2013, Moreland City Council launched their electric vehicle Fast Charge station as part of

the Victorian Government’s Electric Vehicle Trial. Capable of charging electric vehicles in 30

minutes, the station was launched by Minister for Public Transport and Roads, Terry Mulder.

Supplied and installed by ChargePoint, the Fast Charger is one of the first of its kind

connected to the ChargePoint network, meaning EV drivers can locate and reserve the

station where and when they need it.

Some key actions for Bayside include:

Investigate the opportunity to install charging stations in key locations within its activity

centres;

Investigate the potential expansion of the number of electric vehicles in Council’s fleet;

Encourage EV charging stations (both public and private) in new developments through

the existing Statutory Planning process;

Continue to monitor the actions of other participating councils to remain aware of their

decisions around EV. Council should also monitor activities being undertaken by other

national and international councils to ensure that we are aware of best practises and

responding accordingly.

6.1.10. Incentives for Sustainable Transport Modes

These incentives provide the “carrot” to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and

assist in removing the perceived barriers to travelling by bus, tram, train, bicycle, walking,

carpooling, etc. while making it more difficult (less attractive) to drive. A number of these initiatives

are listed as follows:

car clubs and car share schemes;

bike share schemes (i.e. at the train station, foreshore and other key destinations);

lower provision of car parking in new developments;

52

end of trip facilities for cyclists, runners and walkers;

priority access and movement over cars;

infrastructure that supports each alternative mode and their connection between them – multi-

modal trips; and

personalised travel planning, travel awareness campaigns and public transport information and

marketing.

The encouragement of the use of alternative transport modes would provide a tool to reduce

existing and future parking demands. These facilities are considered to be particularly important to

encourage short trips, such as those from apartments to shops, to be completed by modes other

than car.

The Bay Street Activity Centre is well serviced by public transport services, including the train and

bus services operating throughout the area. The public transport services connect the Centre with

key origins and destinations. The provision of these services and the continued investment in them

provides a great opportunity to further reduce car parking dependency in the Centre.

53

7. CONCLUSION The analysis provided within this report provides guidance on a range of options for the future

development of a Car Parking Plan for the centre. Council’s commitment to encourage sustainable

travel behaviour should be given priority, with subordinate documents given a secondary focus as

outlined in the Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy 2013.

It is recommended that a car parking plan be considered which responds to and provides guidance

on the matters outlined within this report and provides appropriate measures in place for the longer

term.