|
Previous Council Report |
|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1 |
Previous Council Report |
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 8.4
SUBJECT Parramatta City
Centre Parking Standards
REFERENCE F2009/01706 - D01585140
REPORT OF Senior Project Officer
|
PURPOSE: This matter was deferred from the Council Meeting on 28 June 2010. This report seeks
confirmation of Council’s current policy of applying car parking standards
for development in the city centre as maximum rates and to reflect this
policy in an amendment to the City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP). |
|
(a) That Council reinforce its policy position, adopted 17 December 2007, of specifying that the number of car spaces required per m2 of FSR (parking rates standards) is the maximum allowable to remove uncertainty in the interpretation of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan. (b) That a Planning
Proposal be prepared to re-initiate an amendment to the Parramatta City
Centre LEP 2007, proposing the parking rates as maximums and this be
forwarded to the Department of Planning for “Gateway Determination” under
Section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. (c) Further, that the
Urban Task Force be notified of Council’s decision. |
BACKGROUND
1. In
June 2009, Council resolved to prepare a draft amendment to the Parramatta City
Centre LEP 2007, (CCLEP) relating to a number of ‘housekeeping’ matters. This
included a proposed amendment to the table in Clause 22C, which sets car
parking rates, but does not specify the rates as either a maximum or minimum. The
amendment proposed that the rates be specified as maximum rates.
2. Prior to the CCLEP, the REP set parking
rates for the city centre as maximum rates.
Council adopted a policy position at its meeting on 17 December 2007, to
apply the CCLEP parking rates as maximums, given the lack of clarity in the
LEP.
3. During the public exhibition of the
‘housekeeping’ amendment to the CCLEP, Council received one submission from the
Urban Task Force. The Urban Task Force is an organisation representing prominent
property developers and equity financiers. The urban taskforce submission is
Attachment 1 to this report.
4. In considering this submission and finalising the
‘housekeeping’ amendment to the CCLEP, Council, at its meeting on 9 November
2009, resolved to support the submission from the Urban Taskforce and not to
proceed with the amendment to the CCLEP to apply maximum car parking rates.
Council also called for a report identifying issues as raised by the Urban
Taskforce. Comments in response to the Urban Task Force submission are provided
in Attachment 2 to this report.
5. A Councillor workshop was
held on 29 March 2010 to discuss the issues
associated with maximum parking rates in the city centre.
ISSUES
Parking rates are an integral part of a
Council’s strategic transport & policy framework:
6. A core component of Council’s strategic
transport planning is the reduction of reliance on the car for travel and
greater use of sustainable transport (walking, cycling, public transport). Limiting parking supply is widely acknowledged as a significant component
of a travel demand strategy. More car parking spaces mean more traffic
generation and more congestion. More congestion in the CBD erodes pedestrian
enjoyment and general amenity of the CBD and undermines economic growth.
7. A
maximum rate of parking is used in most major centres where congestion is an
issue, including many European cities,
Standards for car
parking permit relatively generous numbers of car spaces:
8. The standards for car parking rates
governing the actual number of car spaces required to be provided on site for
different types of land uses in the
9. Rates for residential development in the
Will maximum parking rates reduce the attraction of
the city centre to developers?
10. The
Parramatta CBD has good access to public transport and public parking,
including metered on road parking that encourages high turnover of patrons and
is supplemented by large parking stations in the CBD. The current levels of
traffic congestion in parts of the city centre are directly related to the
parking provision as clearly demonstrated by the level of traffic congestion in
streets around nodes with high levels of car parking like Parramatta
Westfields. Allowing excessive parking
provision in any location where traffic capacity is limited, leads to
congestion and will in turn undermine future development opportunities and the
marketability of the city.
11. An abundance of parking in the short term,
whilst there is some capacity in the road network, can be accommodated,
however, once this capacity is absorbed, new development becomes less
attractive as prospective investors consider the congestion of the city amongst
the various other factors that
Achieving targets and vision
for the
12. The 2010 NSW State Plan includes a 50% mode
split target by 2016 for work trips to and from the Parramatta CBD by public
transport. This is an ambitious target,
but one worth pursuing if
13. Council is hosting a Transport Forum in July
to focus attention on transport infrastructure requirements for western
CONCLUSION
14. It is recommended that Council reaffirm its
current policy of applying the car parking rates in the CCLEP as maximum rates
and prepare a draft amendment to the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 to specify
the parking rates as maximums to avoid the current ambiguity in the plan.
15. This will require the preparation of a draft
amendment to the CCLEP as a Planning Proposal for submission to the Department
of Planning for “Gateway” determination.
Council will be able to seek a ‘credit’ for the steps already undertaken
with the earlier planning proposal, including the public exhibition process
that has already been undertaken.
Senior
Project Officer Land Use Planning
|
Urban Taskforce Submissions |
4 Pages |
|
|
|
Comments in response to Urban Taskforce
Submissions |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Previous Council Report |
Response to Urban Taskforce Submission
The Urban Taskforce made a submission to the draft amendment dated 16
October 2009 objecting to the setting of maximum rates. The submission is summarised in the
following dot points:
§ The setting of
mandatory limits on residential car parking will not reduce car ownership. The benefits of compact pedestrian friendly communities around public
transport nodes will not be reduced car ownership;
the benefit is more likely to be lower car usage. Where parking is
limited, there are major social impacts caused by the lack of off-street
parking.
Response
There are two primary issues for discussion here. The first is the notion of setting a maximum
car parking rate. The second is the
actual rates of parking and how they compare with other centres.
A maximum rate of parking is used in most major centres where congestion
is an issue. These include
The actual parking rates in the Parramatta City Centre are relatively
generous and far less restrictive than the rates in
The current levels of traffic congestion in parts of the city centre are
directly related to the parking provision as clearly demonstrated by the level
of traffic congestion in streets around nodes with high levels of car parking
like Parramatta Westfields. Allowing
excessive parking provision in any location where traffic capacity is limited,
leads to congestion and will in turn undermine future development opportunities
and the marketability of the City.
§ Proposed numerical restrictions on shops will make
such development unviable. The
proposed parking restrictions on shops will make most such development
unviable. Limiting shops
to one parking space for every 30 square metres of gross floor area will
cripple many development opportunities. For example, most retail development
requires one car parking space for every 20 square metres in order to be
viable.
Response
It is worth noting that most of the existing retail, outside Westfields,
has little or no on-site parking and operates successfully serving local
employees, residents and those using public transport or public parking. The parking rates in Parramatta CBD that
apply to retail and residential are in line with RTA guidelines for parking
rates that also apply to smaller centres with less public transport, the main
difference is that Parramatta sets these as maximum rates. The Urban Task Force submits that the car
parking provision for some activities such as restaurants and take-away food
bars are excessive. With the amendment
proposed, such premises will have the choice to provide a reduced number of
parking spaces.
Shops, restaurants and other retail activities outside of large shopping
malls often operate without on site parking, especially in city centre
localities. Parramatta City Council
provides metered on road parking that encourages high turnover of patrons and
is supplemented by large parking stations throughout the CBD.
§ Neither minimum, nor maximum car parking provisions are appropriate for
commercial development, shops, restaurants or drive-in take-away food and drink
premises.
Response
The amendments proposed will give developers
a degree of choice in meeting local needs by being able to provide parking to
the maximum or to a lesser amount. In
addition, as discussed, the commercial
rates in the city centre are generous in comparison with other similar centres
and provide for ample parking to be provided on site.
The discussion of
parking requirements and demand for drive in take away food and drink premises
of suburban
As the Urban
Taskforce submission acknowledges, some uses will not require any parking. The proposed amendment will enable this.
§ Parramatta Council has misinterpreted the current provisions of the
local environmental plan.
Response
It is acknowledged that the current parking
provisions of the LEP can be interpreted as providing for minimum parking
rates. However, the “ambiguity” of the
controls is not the main focus of the amendment. The reason for the amendment is to complement
Council’s strategic transport planning by ensuring that the city does not
encourage so much parking as to create congestion, reduce pedestrian amenity
and ultimately, reduce the marketability of the Parramatta CBD. An abundance of
parking in the short term whilst there is some capacity in the road network is
fine, however, once this capacity is absorbed, new development becomes less
attractive as prospective investors consider the congestion of the city amongst
the various other factors that Parramatta competes with other employment areas.
The notion that responsible transport planning
ceased with the Parramatta REP, is incorrect.
The city centre LEP 2007 includes objectives to
promote public transport use and to reduce unnecessary car traffic. Clause 2 (f) of the City Centre LEP includes
the objective to, “enhance access to
In addition, Council at its meeting on 17
December 2007, resolved to consider the rates of parking in the City Centre LEP
as maximum rates, not minimum rates.
§ Developers should be free to provide car parking sufficient to meet
local needs, subject to the traffic studies required in the development
assessment process.
Response
As discussed above, the rates of parking in
the City Centre are relatively generous.
In addition, allowing the market to absorb the limited on road capacity
will work until a point in time when the network will no longer accommodate
additional traffic without very significant delays and impacts upon the amenity
of the City centre.
Conclusion
The Urban Taskforce submission is short
sighted.
The 2010 NSW State Plan includes a 50% mode
split target for work trips to and from the Parramatta CBD by public
transport. This is an ambitious target
but one worth pursuing if