Project: Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study€¦ · 7.10 Case Studies 100 8 Parking...

Project: Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study Technical Report

Reference: 230825

Prepared for: City of Port Adelaide Enfield

Revision: 5

26 March 2013

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

This project has been assisted by the Local Government Research & Development Scheme

Project 230825 File 230825_TechReport_2013.03.26_FINAL.docx 26 March 2013 Revision 5

Document Control Record Document prepared by:

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ABN 54 005 139 873 55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia T F E W

+61 8 8237 9777 +61 8 8237 9778 [email protected] aurecongroup.com

A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of: a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard

copy version. b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.

Document control

Report Title Technical Report

Document ID Project Number 230825

File Path P:\230825\Eng Calcs and Analysis\Traffic\Report\Final\230825_TechReport_2013.03.26_FINAL.docx

Client City of Port Adelaide Enfield Client Contact Rosa Gagetti

Rev Date Revision Details/Status Prepared by Author Verifier Approver

1 19 September 2012 Preliminary draft for client feedback. CH CH

2 28 September 2012 Revised draft. CH CH

3 19 October 2012 Revised draft. CH CH

4 9 November 2012 Final draft CH CH MH RH

5 26 March 2013 Issued for Review MH MH RS

Current Revision 5

Project 230825 File 230825_TechReport_2013.03.26_FINAL.docx 26 March 2013 Revision 5

Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study

Date | 26 March 2013 Reference | 230825 Revision | 5

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ABN 54 005 139 873 55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

T F E W


Project 230825 File 230825_TechReport_2013.03.26_FINAL.docx 26 March 2013 Revision 5 Page 1

Contents 1 Introduction 4

1.1 Background 4 1.2 Parking Spaces for Urban Places Car Parking Study 4 1.3 Benefits of the Project to Local Government 5

2 Strategic Setting 6 2.1 State Government’s Directions 6

3 Research 8 3.1 ABS Census Data 8 3.2 South Australia 14 3.3 Victoria 16 3.4 New South Wales 22 3.5 Queensland 23 3.6 Western Australia 23 3.7 Trips Database Bureau (data issued 2011) 24 3.8 SA Health 25 3.9 Other Research 25

4 Economic Impact 28 4.1 Research 28 4.2 Summary 30

5 Consultation 31 5.1 Reference Group 31 5.2 Stakeholders 31

6 Parking Rate Discounting 33 6.1 Accessibility Discount 34 6.2 Shared Use Discount 34 6.3 Improved Planning Outcome Discount 35 6.4 Paid Parking Discount 35 6.5 Adverse Economic Impact Discount 36 6.6 Other Discounts 36 6.7 Parking Rate Discount Table 36

7 Review of Parking Rates 39 7.1 Recreation 40 7.2 Medical 46


7.3 Industry and Warehouse 49 7.4 Community / Civic 49 7.5 Commercial 56 7.6 Accommodation 67 7.7 Other 71 7.8 New Entries 74 7.9 Summary of Recommended Rates 87 7.10 Case Studies 100

8 Parking for Special Users 101 8.1 People with Disabilities 101 8.2 Other users 103

9 Summary 104 10 References 105

Appendices Appendix A

Workshop #1 Minutes & Reference Group Responses to Questionnaire Appendix B

Workshop #2 Minutes and Written Reponses Appendix C

Stakeholder Contact List and Questionnaires Appendix D

Development Plan Rates versus Planning SA Parking Bulletin Rates Appendix E

VPP Rate versus Planning SA Parking Bulletin Rate Appendix F

Port Adelaide Enfield Case Studies


Index of Figures Figure 1 | Vehicle Ownership for Separate Dwellings (Data Source: ABS, 2012) 9 Figure 2 | Vehicle Ownership for Semi-detached, Row or Terrace House, Townhouse Dwellings (Data

Source: ABS, 2012) 9 Figure 3 | Vehicle Ownership for Flat, Unit or Apartment Type Dwellings (Data Source: ABS, 2012) 10 Figure 4 | Vehicle Ownership for All Dwelling Types (Data Source: ABS, 2012) 11 Figure 5 | Method of Travel to Work Place (Data Source: ABS, 2012) 12 Figure 6 | Internet Connections in Households (Data Source: ABS, 2012) 13 Figure 7 | Indicative parking rates for TOD precincts in Queensland (Source: Department of

Infrastructure and Planning, 2010) 23 Figure 8 | City of Vincent’s parking adjustment factors based on multi-modal accessibility (Source: City

of Vincent, 2008) 24 Figure 9 | Method of discounting the recommended rate 33 Figure 10 | Application of recommended car parking rates 39 Figure 11 | Provision of parking spaces for people with disabilities extracted from the available

superseded AS2890.1:1993 (Source: Standards Australia) 102

Index of Tables Table 1 | South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6, Parking Rates (Data Source:

Department of Planning and Local Government, 2011) 14 Table 2 | VPP Clause 52.06, Table 1 – Car Parking Requirement (Source: Department of Planning

and Community Development, 2010) 16 Table 3 | Hospital Development and Predicted Parking Demand 25 Table 4 | Suggested Parking Discounts 37 Table 5 | Recommended Car Parking Provisions for All Land Use Types 88


1.1 Background The provision of car parking is a fundamental component of all urban developments. Insufficient car parking provision can lead to congested, unsafe traffic conditions or result in illegal parking and may impact on the commercial viability of businesses. Conversely, an over-provision of car parking spaces may encourage car use and is an uneconomical use of urban land. Achieving the right balance is the aim of this Guideline.

In October 2001, Planning SA released the Planning Bulletin: Parking Provisions for Selected Land Uses (Suburban Metropolitan Adelaide). Many councils' car parking rates are still based on the recommended rates stated in this document. Given the changes in urban form, land use and transport policy and transport characteristics over the intervening years, this Bulletin is mostly out of date.

The Parking Spaces for Urban Places Car Parking Study aims to update the Planning Bulletin’s recommended car parking rates. This Technical Report provides the detailed analysis and research outcomes from this study, which complements the Guideline.

1.2 Parking Spaces for Urban Places Car Parking Study In 2011, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield was awarded funding from the Local Government Association (LGA) Research and Development Scheme for the purposes of completing a study of car parking rates.

Additional funds or technical assistance (through a Reference Group consisting of State Government and Local Government membership) were also committed towards the project by:

• The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure – Planning Division. • City of Port Adelaide Enfield. • City of Holdfast Bay. • City of Marion. • Rural City of Murray Bridge. • City of Playford. • City of Tea Tree Gully. • City of Charles Sturt. Aurecon was engaged by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield to undertake this study with particular consideration to be given to the following trends characterising urban development:

• The strategic policy objectives of The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, encouraging increased housing densities along key transit corridors and reduced reliance on the private car.

• Impacts of high-density residential developments.

1 Introduction


• The evolution of retail shopping trends (e.g. extended hours of trade, e-commerce etc.) changing the nature of peak shopping times and associated car parking demand.

• The continued growth of petrol filling stations, which provide an ever increasing range of goods and services and are often performing a similar role to that of a local centre.

• The continued centralisation and growth of schools, creating increased car parking and traffic congestion, particularly during pick-up and drop-off times.

1.3 Benefits of the Project to Local Government A factor in the success of a development or activity centre is the level of transport access and parking provided. Developers often consider it a necessity to provide adequate parking spaces to meet demand and achieve commercial success.

However, the following aspects are also relevant when determining the appropriate anticipated parking demand:

• The parking requirement may burden businesses where land value is high. • Parking considered free by users, but construction and maintenance costs are passed on through

prices of goods / services, housing costs and taxes. • Land used for parking could be used for other development that would generate an income. • Free and available parking encourages the choice of the car as the preferred transport mode. • Inadequate parking provision can result in overspill parking on residential streets, generating on-

street congestion and creating potential adverse economic impacts on relevant businesses. A suitable balance between satisfying the anticipated demand for parking, and the benefits of utilising the least land possible for parking is the ideal.

As such, this study has reviewed and assessed car parking rates and policies for all land uses (as data allows) from recent development applications, Property Council, interstate sources (particularly the Victorian Planning Provisions), the New Zealand Trips Database Bureau and Aurecon’s own extensive data library.

The study is intended to benefit the wider local government community by providing updated car parking rates that can be incorporated into the State Government’s Planning Policy Library and councils' Development Plans. In some instances, it may reduce the level of negotiation between councils and developers, thereby streamlining the assessment process. It will also provide guidance with regards to car parking provision for emerging urban forms, such as high density residential development and developments around transit nodes. This will be particularly useful for councils who have not yet experienced this type of development, but are likely to, in accordance with the aims of The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.


2.1 State Government’s Directions The South Australian Government released The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide in 2010. This document forms part of the Government’s Planning Strategy for the State and identifies objectives for the future provision of housing, open spaces, employment and infrastructure.

One tool for implementing the Government’s ‘vision’ for the State as outlined in The 30 Year Plan is the South Australian Planning Policy Library. The library provides a suite of up-to-date and ‘best practice’ policies to guide development. Both the Minister for Planning and councils draw upon these policies when updating council Development Plans.

2.1.1 The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide One of the main aims of The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is to outline how the State Government proposes to balance population and economic growth with the need to preserve the environment of Greater Adelaide over the next 30 years, amongst other considerations.

The Plan responds to a number of challenges faced by the Greater Adelaide region, including:

• Population growth and change. • A growing and changing economy. • Housing affordability. • Transport and infrastructure. The Plan therefore calls for a fundamental change to the way land use is managed in the Greater Adelaide region and specifically that a more compact and better designed urban form is pursued to meet the needs of a growing and changing population and economy.

The Plan recognises that:

“The long-term success of the Plan will be driven by a large part by the effectiveness of governance and implementation arrangements. To achieve the Plan’s objectives and principles, several issues need to be managed over the next 30 years. These include capacity to regularly update policies and targets, an ability to execute the Plan across local government and all state agencies, and an implementation approach that recognises that different land-use solutions are needed in different parts of Greater Adelaide” (p. 15, ).

The Plan’s policies and targets facilitate the following characteristics that the new urban form of the Greater Adelaide region is envisaged to include:

• Concentration of new housing in existing urban areas to contain the growth of residential and industrial and commercial activity to areas suitable for urban development.

2 Strategic Setting


• Location of new housing and new jobs in designated transit corridors to promote easy access to jobs and services and reduce the reliance on cars.

• Diversification of dwelling types and housing choice across Greater Adelaide and increase in the supply of smaller accommodation.

• Increase in housing densities around railway and tram stations and transport interchanges such as major bus interchanges.

• Creation of mixed-use precincts, including housing, jobs, and services, around transport networks and interchanges.

The Plan also recognises that car dependency needs to be reduced to achieve environmental and health outcomes and reduce congestion on metropolitan roads (which negatively impacts on productivity).

2.1.2 South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 6 Version 6 of the South Australian Planning Policy Library released in September 2011 introduced new zone modules to allow councils to align their development plans with the vision of The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

To encourage the growth of new neighbourhoods and promote infill development in transport corridors and activity centres, the Planning Policy Library includes several new zone modules that councils will be encouraged to adopt in their future rezoning exercises. These zones aim to facilitate good access to alternative modes of transport and high public realm standards, with the effect of encouraging commuters and residents to choose a mode of transport other than the car. As such, the car parking rates for land uses in these zones have been reduced.

The car parking rates for dwellings in the new zones can be further reduced by meeting the requirements of various incentives, such as a 30% reduction in car parking provision if 15% of dwellings are classed as affordable housing. The percentage reduction, depending on incentives achieved, can be accumulated to a maximum of 30%.

The State Government based the discounted car parking rates on research that included consideration of car parking rates used for the Subiaco Central development in Perth, the draft Victorian car parking rates for Activity Centres and the policies in the City of Sydney and City of North Sydney Development Control Plans. Notwithstanding the above, version 6 of the Planning Policy Library does not provide an updated suite of land-use based car parking rates for use across all zones by all councils.


Research has been carried out to gauge the national and local trends that affect car parking supply and demand. The research has examined data from numerous sources including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census data, the South Australian Planning Policy Library, Victoria Planning Provisions, Transport for NSW – NSW Roads and Maritime Services and other sources.

The findings of the research have been used to assess their likely impact on the parking supply and demand of future development.

3.1 ABS Census Data The ABS Census data for 2011 and 2006 was collated1 for the Greater Adelaide area, which are compared to data from greater metropolitan areas of the four most populous Australian cities2 to gauge the national and local trends that affect car parking supply and demand. The data for the greater metropolitan city areas was averaged, and includes the Greater Adelaide area. Following is a brief summary of the trends found.

3.1.1 Dwelling Structure by Car Ownership The numbers of motor vehicles per dwelling type are provided in Figures 1 to 4.

1 ABS Census data collated using the ABS Table Builder Facility. 2 Average of Selected Greater Metropolitan Cities’ refers to the average of the greater metropolitan areas of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide.

3 Research


Figure 1 | Vehicle Ownership for Separate Dwellings (Data Source: ABS, 2012)

Figure 2 | Vehicle Ownership for Semi-detached, Row or Terrace House, Townhouse Dwellings (Data Source: ABS, 2012)


Figure 3 | Vehicle Ownership for Flat, Unit or Apartment Type Dwellings (Data Source: ABS, 2012)

The level of vehicle ownership for different dwelling types is reasonably consistent between the States; similar trends are observed within the Greater Adelaide area and the average of other capital cities in Australia – vehicle ownership per dwelling is increasing.

Separate dwellings have the greatest vehicle ownership (over 50% have two or more vehicles), although little change is observed between 2006 and 2011. Semi-detached, row or terrace house, and townhouse style dwellings, and flat, unit or apartment style dwellings appear to have a smaller reliance on the use of vehicles with most dwellings only owning one vehicle (approximately 50% for all categories considered), which could partially be attributed to these dwelling types often being located closer to city CBDs or other key centres, where a high level of services exist (e.g. shops and public transport).


Figure 4 | Vehicle Ownership for All Dwelling Types (Data Source: ABS, 2012)

A marginal increase in the number of vehicles per household is observed between 2006 and 2011 across all dwelling types.

3.1.2 Motor Vehicle Census According to ABS Motor Vehicle Census Data, collected on a yearly basis, there were 16.7 million motor vehicles registered in Australia at the 2012 Motor Vehicle Census, representing a 13.3% increase from 2007.

The Motor Vehicle Census reveals that the passenger vehicle fleet (defined as vehicles constructed primarily for the carriage of persons and containing up to nine seats) has grown by 10.9% over the five year period; this is slightly higher than the population growth of 8% over the same period. Motor cycles demonstrated the largest growth, with an increase of 38.5% over the five year period. However, passenger vehicles, as a proportion of the vehicle fleet, have dropped by approximately 2% over this period.

3.1.3 Method of Journey to Work Figure 5 indicates there is still a great reliance on cars, with minor change in behaviour between the years and capital cities examined. Approximately 75% of people who must travel away from home to the work place travel as the driver by car in the Greater Adelaide area; approximately 5% higher than other capital cities. Between the years observed (2006 and 2011), the Greater Adelaide area shows a minor increase in the number of people travelling to work as the driver of a car, while other capital cities have shown a small decline. Note that Adelaide typically has lower densities, a more dispersed urban sprawl, and a less congested road network when compared to other greater capital city areas, accounting for its higher reliance on private car usage.


* ‘Percentage of People Working who Travel to Work’ includes those working who must travel away from home to the work place

Figure 5 | Method of Travel to Work Place (Data Source: ABS, 2012)

3.1.4 Internet Connection Over the last five years, ABS data indicates a significant increase in households with an internet connection (increase of 15%).


Figure 6 | Internet Connections in Households (Data Source: ABS, 2012)

The on-going rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN) is anticipated to have 3.5 million premises connected to high speed broadband by June 2015, and 93 per cent of Australian premises connected by 2020, when completed. With the connection of more dwellings to the internet the potential exists for an increased reliance on online services, potentially resulting in:

• Increase online shopping, reducing visitor numbers to shops. • Increase in the number of people working from home, reducing employee and dwelling parking

demand as well as reducing business travel. The Federal Government has a target of 12% of employees having a teleworking arrangement with their employee by 2020.

• Increased access to medical care by internet consultations (‘telemedicine’), potentially reducing parking demand at medical facilities, particularly in remote areas.

• Reduction in cinema and other entertainment attendance due to increases in television streaming, video on demand, online gaming, high quality video calling.

Notwithstanding the above predictions, the direct correlation between the increase of internet connections in the home, and the affect this may have on travel behaviour (i.e. reliance on cars to travel to work, shops etc.) cannot be confirmed.

3.1.5 ABS Sports Attendance Refer to Review of Parking Rates section.


3.2 South Australia

3.2.1 South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6 Version 6 of the South Australian Planning Policy Library released in September 2011 introduced new zone modules to allow councils to align their development plans with the vision of The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and to achieve the objectives of the South Australian Planning Strategy and South Australia’s Strategic Plan.

The new zones aim to encourage and promote infill development in transport corridors and activity centres. These zones share the common principles of good access to alternative modes of transport and high public realm standards, with the effect of encouraging commuters and residents to choose a mode of transport other than the car. As such the car parking rates for land uses in these zones have been reduced.

The car parking rates for dwellings can be further reduced by meeting the requirements of various incentives, such as a 30% reduction in car parking provision if 15% of dwellings are classed as affordable housing. The percentage reduction, depending on incentives achieved, can be accumulated to a maximum of 30%.

The Version 6 parking rates, together with the maximum accumulated parking discount, is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 | South Australian Planning Policy Library – Version 6, Parking Rates (Data Source: Department of Planning and Local Government, 2011)

Land Use Type Max. 30% Discount Standard Units

Core Area / Urban Corridor Zone

Apartment – Studio (TOTAL) 0.35 0.5 dwelling

Apartment – Studio (General) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment – Studio (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment - One Bedroom (TOTAL) 0.7 1 dwelling

Apartment - One Bedroom (General) 0.525 0.75 dwelling

Apartment - One Bedroom (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment - Two Bedroom (TOTAL) 0.9 1.25 dwelling

Apartment - Two Bedroom (General) 0.7 1 dwelling

Apartment - Two Bedroom (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment - Three or More Bedrooms (TOTAL) 1.15 1.5 dwelling

Apartment - Three or More Bedrooms (General 0.875 1.25 dwelling

Apartment - Three or More Bedrooms (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Other Min Max Units


Land Use Type Max. 30% Discount Standard Units

Other (Non-Residential and Non-Tourist Accommodation) 3 5 100 sq. m GLFA

Transition Areas

Apartment – Studio (TOTAL) 0.5 0.75 dwelling

Apartment – Studio (General) 0.35 0.5 dwelling

Apartment – Studio (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment - One Bedroom (TOTAL) 0.9 1.25 dwelling

Apartment - One Bedroom (General) 0.7 1 dwelling

Apartment - One Bedroom (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment - Two Bedroom (TOTAL) 1.23 1.75 dwelling

Apartment - Two Bedroom (General) 1.05 1.5 dwelling

Apartment - Two Bedroom (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Apartment - Three or More Bedrooms (TOTAL) 1.58 2.25 dwelling

Apartment - Three or More Bedrooms (General 1.4 2 dwelling

Apartment - Three or More Bedrooms (Visitor) 0.175 0.25 dwelling

Other Min Max Units

Other (Non-Residential and Non-Tourist Accommodation) 4 6 100 sq. m GLFA

General

Row, Semi-detached and Detached – One or Two Bedroom (TOTAL) - 1 dwelling

Row, Semi-detached and Detached – One or Two Bedroom (General) - 1 dwelling

Row, Semi-detached and Detached – One or Two Bedroom (Visitor) - 0 dwelling

Row, Semi-detached and Detached – Three or More Bedrooms (TOTAL) - 2 dwelling

Row, Semi-detached and Detached – Three or More Bedrooms (General) - 2 dwelling

Row, Semi-detached and Detached – Three or More Bedrooms (Visitors) - 0 dwelling

Tourist Accommodation Min Max Units

Tourist Accommodation – Up to 100 Beds* 0.25 0.5 bedroom

Tourist Accommodation – Once over 100 Beds^ 0.2 0.25 bedroom

* Tourist Accommodation – Up to 100 Beds: Min. 1 space per 4 bedrooms; Max 1 space per 2 bedrooms ^ Tourist Accommodation – Once over 100 Beds: Min. 1 space per 5 bedrooms; Max. 1 space per 4 bedrooms


The rates are based on research that looked at the local Development Plan policy, the Subiaco Central development in Perth, the draft Victorian car parking rates for Activity Centres and the policies in the City of Sydney and City of North Sydney Development Control Plans and as such are comparable with the rates used in these major cities.

3.3 Victoria

3.3.1 Victoria Planning Provisions The Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) form a template for all Victorian planning schemes, providing the framework, standard provisions and State planning policy for planning authorities. Clause 52.06 and Clause 45.09 of the VPP stipulate the car parking requirements and were amended in June and July of 2012.

As part of the review of the VPP car parking standards a 2008 Advisory Committee reviewed three different approaches to managing car parking:

• Specify and supply. • Limit and respond. • Assess and reduce demand. The 2008 Committee concluded that the ‘assess and reduce demand’ approach was the most appropriate for the majority of areas in Victoria and formed the key principle of the VPP Committee approach to establishing the rate at which parking is to be provided3.

3.3.2 VPP Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.06: Car Parking sets out the requirements for the number of parking spaces to be provided for new developments or the expansion of existing facilities, and stipulates design and construction standards for new parking spaces.

The number of spaces to be provided for selected land uses is listed in Clause 52.06, and is reproduced here within Table 2.

Table 2 | VPP Clause 52.06, Table 1 – Car Parking Requirement (Source: Department of Planning and Community Development, 2010)

3 McCullough, T. et al (2012) “Car Parking Provisions Advisory Committee Report: Review of the Car Parking Provisions in the Victoria Planning Provision", Department of Planning and Community Development, State Government of Victoria, Victoria.





The Clause 52.06 rates generally use a parking rate per 100m2 but for some land uses, notably Landscape gardening supplies (Bulky Goods), a percentage of the site area is used as a parking measure. For the purposes of an easy comparison, the Planning SA Parking Bulletin specifies a range of 2 to 4 spaces per 100 m2 for a Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods), assuming 30 m2 per parking space, this parking rate equates to 55% of a site area.

A comparison of the 2012 VPP and the 2001 Planning SA Parking Bulletin rates is given in Appendix E.

3.3.2.1 Reducing the requirement for car parking

Clause 52.06 permits a reduction in car parking spaces by considering the following factors in ascertaining whether a reduced number of parking spaces are warranted:

• Multi-purpose trips within an area – for example office workers using the café / restaurant located in their building. The café / restaurant do not need to provide parking for the office workers as their parking demand is already accounted for by the office rate.

• Variation of car parking demand over time – Parking spaces used by more than one land use, can accommodate the differing peaks

• Short-stay and long stay parking demand - Appropriate parking restrictions for land uses e.g. offices require all day parking

• Availability of public transport in the locality - Close proximity of public transport together with land use hours of operation must coincide with timetabling of services.


• Pedestrian and cyclist access to the site, and provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities – Demonstrated by surveying the number of pedestrians and cyclists in the sites vicinity. Some land uses attract people who have a lower rate of car use and are more likely to walk or cycle.

• Anticipated car ownership rates of the occupants. • Relevant local planning policy or incorporated document – they may cover related matters such as

activity centres or urban design. • Availability of car parking – off-site parking can be considered to cater for parking demand.

− Off-site car parking within 100m from the site is considered to be nearby for short term stay uses.

− Off-site car parking located greater than 100m may be appropriate depending on land uses considered.

− On-street parking can be utilised as long as it is managed with signs or meters and residents car parking needs can still be met.

− Car parking on other land is considered providing a permit or other enduring agreement exists, including commuter car parks at train stations.

• On-street car parking – can be significantly reduced with access driveways to numerous small (less than 300m2) dwelling lots.

• Adverse economic impact that a shortfall of car parking may have on an activity centre – Car parking has a role, but should not dominate. Lower parking can be provided where the land use is consistent with the strategic plan of an activity centre.

• Future growth and development of an activity centre – On-street parking can be utilised in the short-term of an activity centre, supporting the centre while financial contributions are collected and until shared parking facilities are developed or extended.

• Car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land – current car parking deficiency cannot be used to argue for a lesser parking demand of an expanded facility.

• Credit for car parking spaces provided on common land or by a special charge scheme or similar contribution – When calculating the existing car parking supply of a land use, the car parking spaces provided on common land need to be included.

• Local traffic management – The car parking requirement may be reduced where parking cannot be easily or safely accessed or where a car parking layout needs to be changed to improve traffic management.

• Local amenity – The car parking requirement may be reduced to preserve the amenity of an area (such as preservation of vegetation or pedestrian amenity) or to prevent disturbance to adjacent residents, a ‘planning gain’.

• The need to create safe, functional and attractive car parking areas – A minor decrease in the number of spaces is allowable to facilitate an improved layout, better landscaping or improved pedestrian access.

• The potential to access the site by public transport, bicycle and walking – Certain land uses attract young people, the elderly or other groups that traditionally have a lower rate of ownership. Areas served by public transport, bicycle and pedestrian facilities can also result in a reduced parking demand.

• Historic contributions by existing businesses – New developments are not expected to address a current parking shortfall in the area. It is unfair for an a development to have a reduced parking rate and use parking spaces provided or paid for by other businesses in the area.

• The need to respect the character of the neighbourhood or achieve a quality urban outcome – Reduce car parking provision to retain neighbourhood character or heritage.


3.3.2.2 Tailored Parking Rate

Parking rates can be tailored to suit different planning authorities than the rates in Table 1 of Clause 52.06. The planning authority can stipulate a maximum rate instead of the typical minimum rates. These rates can either replace or supplement the rates.

3.3.2.3 Column B

The lower rate specified in Column B are typically used for land uses in activity centres and is triggered for developments within a designed area, delineated by a parking overlay.

3.3.2.4 Financial Contributions

VPP Clause 45.09 allows for the collection of financial contributions in lieu of providing spaces on the site of a development (e.g. Parking Fund). The scheme must be area based,

3.4 New South Wales

3.4.1 Transport for New South Wales Metropolitan Parking Policy The 2002 edition of the Road Traffic Authority (New South Wales) ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ is an industry standard document commonly used in South Australia to calculate the parking requirement of new developments.

This document is currently being revised by the recently restructured Transport for NSW – NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), with the aim of reducing vehicle use and increasing the use of more sustainable transport modes.

• The RMS has proposed a discount factor to reduce parking provision requirements. The criteria takes into account quantifiable factors such as proximity to public transport, frequency thereof, is proximity to walking & cycling facilities. Currently not released, as it remains before NSW Cabinet. Details of the formula are therefore not available, but a description of the philosophy and the approach follows: − Aims to reduce car use and encourage the use of public transport, notably buses.

Step 1 – Determine historic unconstrained parking demand. Step 2 – Accessibility discount. Site specific assessment of public transport accessibility, a

score is given based on the proximity of the site to public transport and the number of services.

Step 3 – Land use policy discount. A further discount awarded depending on the land use to be developed, ranging from a Service Station attracting a discount of 0 points (cars are required on site to fill their fuel tanks) to General Business (offices) that are deemed to be able to fulfil the maximum trip reduction through the use of public transport.

− The process relies on a GIS system with an overlay of public transport services. − Formula includes pricing and management elements, specifically adjustment of value of the

Car Parking Levy imposed on the six main commercially operated parking facilities in Sydney. − Park’n’ride – only rail stations located in the outer suburbs to have commuter parking facilities,

inner stations to be serviced only by public transport.


3.5 Queensland

3.5.1 Transit Oriented Development: Guide for Practitioners in Queensland The Transport Oriented Development Guide for Practitioners in Queensland (TOD Guide) (2010) is part of a suite of guidelines and planning tools that will influence TOD implementation in Queensland and is endorsed by the Queensland Minister for Infrastructure and Planning.

The principle behind the parking rates in the TOD Guide are to ‘Locate, design and manage car parking in TOD precincts to support walking, cycling and public transport accessibility”.

The TOD Guide stipulates a base maximum and a preferred maximum parking rate for residential, retail and office land uses in TOD precincts as follows in Figure 7.

Figure 7 | Indicative parking rates for TOD precincts in Queensland (Source: Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2010)

The TOD Guide stipulates that parking should not exceed the base maximum rate, with planners encouraged to adopt the preferred maximum wherever possible.

3.6 Western Australia

3.6.1 City of Vincent The City of Vincent (previously known as the Town of Vincent), located in Perth, through its Planning and Building Policy Manual, Policy 3.7.1 – Parking and Access (2008) has a system where the car parking requirement may be partly or fully reduced through the application of adjustment factors. The table of adjustment factors is shown following in Figure 8. Adjustment factors can be applied to reflect particular site and design factors, as justified by an applicant.


Figure 8 | City of Vincent’s parking adjustment factors based on multi-modal accessibility (Source: City of Vincent, 2008)

3.6.2 City of Subiaco The City of Subiaco Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (City of Subiaco, 2013) determines the parking requirement for development proposals in this successful Australian model of a mixed use/main street TOD. Scheme No. 4 has a ‘Joint Use of Parking’ clause that allows for parking spaces to be provided jointly by two or more owners or user in respect of separate buildings or uses.

Development approval is only granted if the applicant can provide evidence that the peak hours of operation of the buildings or uses are different and do not substantially overlap.

3.7 Trips Database Bureau (data issued 2011) The Trips Database Bureau (TDB) is a database of New Zealand and Australian trip and parking surveys, with members submitting surveyed data in a standard format for inclusion in the database. The TDB has over 60 members in New Zealand and Australia, with contributors including Canterbury University and the former Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA). The data supplied to the TDB forms the basis of the RTA’s ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ publication (2002).

Where available, surveyed parking rates have been extracted from the database and used in later sections of this report. Some of the data originates from towns and cities in New Zealand. It should be


noted that travel modes in cities such as Christchurch differ from those of Adelaide, with a higher proportion walking or cycling.

3.8 SA Health Aurecon has provided traffic engineering consultation services for the redevelopment of four hospitals in South Australia for SA Health and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, from 2010 to 2012. As part of the traffic engineering assessment, Aurecon developed a Parking Demand Model to calculate the future parking demand of the expanded hospitals. A parking model of the existing facilities was created, calibrated using the results of patrol surveys of the hospital campus car parks. The parking demand model takes into account the future staff numbers and shift patterns, Inpatients and Outpatient processing, emergency arrivals and any other associated land uses on the hospital campus.

A summary of the redeveloped hospitals and their predicted parking demands is given in Table 3.

Table 3 | Hospital Development and Predicted Parking Demand

Hospital Development and Predicted Parking Demand

Hospital Development

Current No. of beds

Current parking demand per bed

Increase in bed

No. Staff

increase

Future Inpatient

per annum

Future Outpatient per annum

Future parking demand (spaces)

Predicted parking spaces per bed

Royal Adelaide Hospital 680

Unknown (parking

displaced to a wide

area)

120 (18%) 488 (10%) 85,000 400,000 2,300 2.9

Modbury Hospital 190 3.3 36 (19%) N/A 33,000 100,000 760 3.3

Port Lincoln 50 4.1 15 (30%) 30 (15%) 24,000 (+60%)

79,000 (+36%) 250 3.8

Mount Gambier 91 4.8 11 (12%) 37 (12%) 26,000 (+15%)

15,200 (+31%) 500 4.9

The table shows that the redevelopment of the hospitals often results in a moderate increase in bed numbers but with a substantial increase in Inpatients and / or Outpatients (Outpatients are treated in one day and do not stay overnight).

It should also be noted that the current Planning SA Bulletin rate of 2.5 spaces per bed (2001) is exceeded significantly by the current parking demand of all hospitals surveyed.

3.9 Other Research

3.9.1 Victorian Health Promotion Foundation Preliminary research conducted for a Streets Ahead Program, carried out by the Australian Council for Educational Research for the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, indicates that up to 75% of children travel to school by car (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2008).

3.9.2 Tax and Other Financial Incentives Employees of private companies are often provided with incentives that subsidise the use of a private vehicle. Federal tax structures are currently geared to offsetting cost of a private vehicle against income tax. These incentives promote a private vehicle as the preferred travel mode and include:


• Company car and novated leasing arrangements. • Private or public subsidised or free parking arrangements. • Salary packages that include a parking space.

3.9.3 Parking Charges The Victoria Transport Policy Institute produced a report on the effects of prices on travel behaviour titled ‘Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticies- How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behaviour’ (Litman, 2012). The report summaries the results of previous studies that investigated the effect of parking charges on private vehicle use.

The report (Litman, 2012) found the following:

• The majority of studies investigated assessed the impacts on behaviour based on a rise in parking fees and not an introduction of fees

• Some motorists respond to higher parking fees by reducing how long they stay rather than changing to cheaper locations or reducing total vehicle trips.

• A 10% increase in commuter parking prices reduced parking demand by 0.8%. • An introduction of a daily parking charge results in a switch from drive-alone commuters to public

transport, with this mode shifting increasing for income groups. • Parking fees reduce vehicle trips by 3% with a corresponding congestion delay decline of 8%, due

to the reduction of the majority of vehicle trips occurring during peak periods. • Parking fees can displace parking but, if fees are introduced over a wide area and are used in

conjunction with effective enforcement and good alternative travel modes, parking fees can reduce parking demand.

• Case studies have found that introducing paid parking typically reduces drive-alone commuting by 10 to 30%, particularly if implemented with alternative transport arrangements and other transport strategies.

• Charging employees for parking reduces single occupancy commuting by 20 to 40%. • Increased parking supply and lower priced monthly parking leases encourages the use of

commuting by car. • Short term discounts (first hour free) favours shoppers and business trips.

3.9.4 Car Share Schemes (Residential only) The parking requirement of a residential development could be reduced if a permanent car share scheme is provided.

3.9.5 Maximum Parking Rates, Capped Parking and Parking Freeze Maximum Rates:

• Not commonly used in Australia, but stipulated in the South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 6 (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2011) and Queensland TOD Guide (Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2010).

• Transport for New South Wales still recommends minimum rates but can be reduced using Accessibility Formula (Road and Traffic Authority, 2002).

• VPP still recommends minimum rates but the lower Clause 45.09 rates can be used where justified (Department of Planning and Community Development, 2012).

Capped Parking

• Centres and business parks could have a pre-imposed maximum cap on total parking based on a ‘congestion threshold’. It is assumed that at the threshold commuters would switch to public


transport. Once the cap is reached an annual levy is charged with funds directed to public transport (SGS Economics and Planning, 2007).

Parking Freeze:

• A parking freeze caps the total number of parking spaces in existing developments. • Have been imposed by authorities in the USA in response to non-attainment of environmental /

congestion reduction / pollution reduction / other planning targets (SGS Economics and Planning, 2007).

• Requires public transportation options and strong economic performance of centre (SGS Economics and Planning, 2007).


A number of reports and research papers have been written on the economic impacts of parking policy, in particular, on parking restraint measures that are designed to reduce car use within town centres. A brief summary of the research documents follows together with a summary of our recommendations.

4.1 Research

4.1.1 Transport Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behaviour

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) maintains an ‘Online TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Encyclopaedia’ which offers information on a broad range of TDM strategies, This collection includes the web document ‘Transportation Elasticities’ (2011) which describes how user costs affect travel behaviour. Following is an excerpt from this collation, relating to parking prices:

• “… [Kuzmyak et al. (2003)] describe how parking supply affects parking and travel demand, but this may actually reflect price impacts (reduced parking supply increases prices). These studies indicate that the elasticity of vehicle trips with regard to parking prices is typically in the –0.1 to –0.3 range, with significant variation depending on demographic, geographic, travel choice and trip characteristics. … [Vaca and Kuzmyak (2005)] find significantly higher elasticities (-0.9 to -1.2) of parking price with regard to commercial parking gross revenues, since motorists can respond to higher prices by reducing their parking duration or changing to cheaper locations and times, as well as reducing total vehicle trips.”

4.1.2 International Approaches to Tackling Transport Congestion: Paper 2 – Parking Restraint Measures

Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton for the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission in April 2006 this paper considers the parking policy, parking restraint measures and their impacts from previous studies undertaken in the UK and US. Under the heading Economic Impacts the following is given:

• “… [A] study comparing town centre retail vitality and parking provision in England [(Kamali and Potter, 1997)] found no meaningful relationship between specific elements of parking policy and the economic health of individual centres”.

• UK modelling results indicate “that if city centre parking restraint policies are introduced alone, then there will … be a decline in employment within the urban centre with mixed impacts on households and populations” (Simmonds and Still, 1999). To prevent decentralisation, co-ordinated alternative transport measures and land-use policies must be in place.

4 Economic Impact


• Considering the results of Dutch, New Zealand and Swiss studies it is possible to conclude that parking restraint is likely to have a significant negative economic impact on small centres, with little effect in medium to large cities such as Zurich and Auckland. The larger cities often have ‘special features’ that are not replicated within a considerable distance. These ‘special features’ create a strong demand for businesses to be located in a city centre and are considered more important than any parking restraints that may be imposed.

• A major factor in offsetting negative economic impacts is the availability of suitable alternative transport modes. Car drivers will be less likely to switch transport modes with low quality public transport; feeling they have no choice but to pay the parking charges or walk from more remote parking areas.

• Different groups of car parkers will react differently when faced with a parking restraint. Shoppers who have available options will change their destinations quicker than commuters who have a much more limited choice in destinations. As such, parking restraint measures aimed at commuters will have a much lesser negative economic impact than measures aimed at shoppers.

4.1.3 On-street parking on State Roads An Assistant Professor of Transportation Engineering at Michigan State University, Dr Virginia P. Sisiopiku, author of ‘On-street Parking on State Roads’ (2001) provides a brief summary of the provision of parking on economic development:

• Behavioural studies of parking affecting shoppers travel decisions found that “the availability of parking and the accessibility to the shopping area were among the most important factors in trip decision making (Innes D. et al, 1990)”.

4.1.4 Parking Price Policies – A review of the Melbourne congestion levy In January 2006 a levy of $400 per year (increased to $800 in 2007) was introduced for long-stay parking spaces located within the Melbourne CBD and inner city areas. Paul Hamer, Graham Currie and William Young of Monash University examined the changes in parking price after the introduction of the levy and consider the parking supply and travel demand impacts of the levy. In summary, this paper (2011) concludes that:

• Introduction of the levy coincided with an increase in price of long-stay parking, as well as short-stay parking.

• Minimal changes to the supply of long or short stay parking within the inner city. • The significant modal shift of the last decade is only partially attributed to the levy. • To maximise the effect of the levy the full cost must be passed on to the motorist.

4.1.5 Victoria Planning Provisions Practice Note 22 Practice Note 22 (2012) provides guidance about the use of Clause 52.06 and the parking overlay of the Victoria Planning Provisions. The note provides the following on economic impacts of over and under supply of parking.

Where a change of use or a relatively small extension is consistent with the strategic plan for the centre and car parking cannot easily be provided, it will often be more sensible to reduce the car parking requirement rather than prevent the use or development. Some activity centres will have excellent public transport access, ample car parking or mainly serve local customers who arrive on foot. In such circumstances, an increase in business and activity would increase the overall viability of the centre, and the reduced number of car trips would provide positive impacts.


4.2 Summary The use of a parking fee and the subsequent system of pricing is considered to be the most effective parking management tool and, as such, the majority of the papers investigating the economics of parking are concerned with the use of and the structure of parking fees. No data can be found on the economic effects of reducing the supply of parking other than how this increases the price of parking (where parking fees are used).

A parking fee or levy, maximum parking rates or substantial changes to current parking restrictions are considered as parking restraints. The level of fee or levy needs to be considered in the context of the current ‘market’, being dependent on the current price of alternative transport modes and available alternative parking facilities.

The research clearly indicates that the economic impact of introducing parking restraints is dependent on the effect of the restraint being directly felt by the motorist, the locality, whether adequate alternative transport modes are available, whether drivers have an optional destination and if the area has a unique and attractive characteristic.

Smaller centres are unlikely to have alternative transport modes in place or unique and attractive elements that would overcome the negative effects of a restrained parking policy and as such a negative economic impact would be expected. For larger centres, especially city centres, negative economic effects of parking restraint are likely to be minimal or neutral.

To avoid adverse economic impacts, parking restraint measures should generally be applied where adequate alternative transport modes are available or in larger centres and city centres.

Interestingly, a change in the historical approach to parking provision was identified in the Victoria Planning Provisions (2012) and the New South Wales Government Transport Roads & Maritime Services (or RTA, 2002) guidelines, which both proposed rates that do not reflect the actual parking demand. However, this approach is not thought to be appropriate within the Greater Adelaide context due to the more dispersed nature of the urban form and less extensive public transport system and use, thereby creating a greater dependency on the private car and associated car parking.


5.1 Reference Group The study reference group consists of the following members:

• City of Port Adelaide Enfield. • Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure – Planning Division. • City of Holdfast Bay. • The Rural City of Murray Bridge. • City of Marion. • City of Playford. • City of Tea Tree Gully. • Local Government Association.

5.1.1 Workshop #1 and Reference Group Questions Workshop #1 was held on the 8th August 2012 to bring together the Reference Group to gather their parking issues, experiences and goals for the outcome of this study. The workshop brought together both Planners and Traffic Engineers to understand the planning, implementation and long term effects of parking rates.

5.1.2 Workshop #2 Workshop #2 was held on the 17th October 2012 and provided the Reference Group an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft parking rates and the discounting method. The workshop brought together both Planners and Traffic Engineers.

5.2 Stakeholders

5.2.1 Questionnaires Questionnaires were sent to two groups of stakeholders on the 26th July 2012. The two groups were; Private Companies, stakeholders that could represent the views of individual private developers and business operators, and a second group consisting of non-government organisations. The questionnaires and the list of stakeholders are provided in Appendix C.

Unfortunately no returned questionnaires were received from any of the User Groups.

5 Consultation


5.2.2 Property Council of Australia A meeting was held on the 8th August 2012 with the Property Council of Australia (PCA) to discuss the impact of the parking rates contained in the current Planning SA Bulletin.

The PCA provided a draft report of a study conducted on their behalf. The study analysed the resulting car parking demand and supply of industrial development. The Planning SA Bulletin stipulates that parking be provided at a rate per 100m2 or per employee, whichever is the greater. The rate per 100m2 often results in two to three times the parking provision of the employee rate. To maintain competitiveness, Australian manufacturing has reduced labour costs, employing the use of computers and robotics. The current historic parking rates do not reflect the current manufacturing methods. The PCA has strong anecdotal evidence that parking areas are underutilised, with large parking areas an unnecessary cost that reduces their competitiveness.


Parking rates have been based on historic peak parking surveys (which led to specifying minimum parking requirements), surveys that often occurred in suburban locations with low density development and limited alternative transport modes available.

It is common practice for a parking rate to be discounted to a lower value to reflect the unique character of a development and its proximity to alternative transport modes. These circumstances vary considerably throughout the State, from isolated developments in rural areas to high density developments in regional centres.

The Reference Group indicated that a conservative approach should be adopted to discounting parking rates. The Reference Group also wanted a flexible system that would cater for the wide range of locations and circumstances, with the actual parking demand of each land use identified, but limiting the scope for lengthy negotiations during the development application process.

From these requirements the following principles were established:

• Fixed upper limit – a recommended rate representing the unconstrained parking demand of a land use.

• Discounted rate – where certain conditions are met the recommended rate can be reduced to a discounted rate. Each land use has a defined maximum discount that can be applied as some land uses have more scope for reducing parking demand than others.

• Discounts justified by meeting warrants that are clearly defined.

Figure 9 | Method of discounting the recommended rate

This is similar to the approach used in Version 6, where a parking discount can be accrued, but to a maximum 30%.

Feedback received at the Reference Group Workshop #2 indicated that the discount categories defined in the following sections could be used to form a Discount Table, but councils should be free to pick and choose from these five or add their own defined discounts to reflect local conditions or policy. Alternative discounts listed at Workshop #2 are provided in Section 6.6. The Discount Table will need to form part of a parking rate package with the recommended parking rates as a means of justifying why a discount is warranted and to what degree.

6 Parking Rate Discounting


6.1 Accessibility Discount The Victoria Planning Provisions (2012), City of Vincent (2008) and the NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS), formerly the Roads and Traffic Authority (2002), have devised methods to take into account the effect of closely located public transport, cycling and walking facilities on parking requirements. These are detailed in the research section of this report.

Discounting used by the City of Vincent (2008) based on ‘accessibility’ of alternative transport facilities or infrastructure include:

• 20% reduction when within 800m of rail station. • 15% reduction when within 400m of bus stop / station. • 10% development provides ‘end-of-trip’ facilities for bicycle users or • 5% secure on-site and/or adjacent street bicycle parking. Due to the low use of train, bus and cycling in South Australia it is recommended to use lower rates than the City of Vincent. To account for the higher cycling and bus use, but lower train use in South Australia when compared to Western Australia (refer ABS research), these rates have also been adjusted.

The distance has also been decreased as people are unlikely to walk further than 400m to access public transport. Similarly, cyclists are unlikely to walk further than 100m from where they can either store their bike or from a good quality cycling connection.

However, the size of the discount could be increased by individual councils to encourage the use of alternative transport and to encourage developers to improve cycling / footpath connections in the development. Following discussion at Workshop #2 the suggested accessibility discount is suggested:

• 20% reduction when within 200m walking distance of a public transport stop or station with 5 or more public transport routes or a Go Zone

• 10% reduction when within 200m walking distance of a train station, bus or tram stop. • 5% reduction when within 200m walking / cycling distance of a Bikedirect or a principal cycle

route. • 5% reduction when within 400m walking distance of a train station, bus or tram stop. • 0% reduction when located in excess of 400m walking distance of a train station, Bikedirect /

principal cycle route, bus or tram stop. OR an historic under supply of parking exists in an area within 200 m walking distance.

• Discounted rate cannot pass the stated maximum discount. • Not applicable to some land uses e.g. Non-residential mixed use development, petrol stations /

drive-throughs / hospitals.

6.2 Shared Use Discount The Shared Use Discount considers the differing parking peak periods for a land uses that share a common car parking facility or the use of public car parking facility within the locality of a development. The following documents refer to a shared use discount:

• City of Vincent (2008): − 15% where within 400m of one or more existing public car parking places with in excess of a

total of 75 car parking spaces; or − 10% where within 400m of one or more existing public car parking places with in excess of a

total of 50 car parking spaces; or − 5% where within 400m of one or more existing public car parking places with in excess of a

total of 25 car parking spaces. • VPP (2012) allows application of lower rates of Column B if any of the following apply:


− Off-site car parking within 100m from the site is considered to be nearby for short term stay uses.

− The degree of discounting varies for each land use. − No information is available for supporting the level of discounting used in the VPP.

• Midland Access and Parking Strategy 2012 (draft –for public comment) (City of Swan, WA): − ‘A maximum discount … of 25% be considered where shared parking is agreed by adjoining

owners and protected by legal instrument and the parking bays are visible and safely accessible from the roadway’ (p.22).

The following discounts are based on the above and, the assumption that the greater the number of developments using a common parking area, the possibility of shared parking will also be greater, with an increased likelihood of a wider range of differing land uses being in place and multiple purpose trips occurring.

• 25% reduction where a development has a shared parking area used by three or more land uses that have differing peak parking times. A legal instrument protecting the developments use of the shared parking area must be in place.

• 10% reduction where a development has a shared parking area used by two land uses that have different peak parking times. A legal instrument protecting the developments use of the shared parking area must be in place.

• 10% reduction where development is within 200 m walking distance of one or more existing public car parking places with more than a total of 100 car parking spaces.

• 5% reduction where development is within 400 m walking distance of one or more existing public car parking places with in excess of a total of 100 car parking spaces.

• 0% reduction where no shared parking available. Residential developments require a reserved space for residents so cannot be discounted on shared use principals.

6.3 Improved Planning Outcome Discount Similarly to the VPP it is recommended to reduce the parking rate to encourage developers to provide a higher quality walking / cycling / public transport environment than they otherwise would have. It should be noted that meeting the conditions of this discount will not reduce the demand for parking but is an incentive (or bonus) to the developer to provide a better facility.

• 10% reduction where the landscaping requirements of the current development plan is exceeded by 15%.

• 10% reduction where all the parking is located in an under croft parking area. • 5% reduction where the parking design includes two or more pedestrian footpaths, with

designated crossing points where applicable, providing safe convenient access through the main car parking area.

• 0% reduction where car parking meets statutory requirements.

6.4 Paid Parking Discount The discount rates used are based the Victoria Transport Policy Institute report ‘Transportation Elastics – How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behaviour’ (Litman, 2012). The dollar amount of the parking fee will be dependent on local conditions.

• 20% reduction where a $4 [or other optional rate] or more hourly charge applies during the developments busiest periods for a minimum period of 10 years. An on-street area parking strategy may be required in negotiation with Council.


• 10% reduction where a $2 [or other optional rate] to $4 [or other optional rate] or more hourly charge applies during the developments busiest periods for a minimum period of 10 years. An on-street area parking strategy may be required in negotiation with Council.

• 0% reduction where free parking is provided. A minimum period of ten years is stipulated as it is believed that there is a trend to introduce paid parking and it is expected that within ten years paid parking will be the norm.

It should be noted that paid parking may not necessarily reduce the demand for parking, instead displacing parking to other parking areas or residential streets. However, if an on-street area parking strategy is implemented in conjunction with the paid parking facility the Victoria Transport Policy Institute report (Litman, 2012) indicates that parking demand will be reduced, with displaced parking kept to a minimum.

6.5 Adverse Economic Impact Discount Where a change of use or a relatively small extension is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the relevant development plan and is located within a centre appropriate for historic areas where car parking cannot easily be provided, it is often more sensible to reduce the car parking requirement than prevent the use or development.

• Percentage reduction subject to negotiation where a change of use or a relatively small extension is consistent with the strategic plan and car parking cannot easily be provided, the car parking requirement can be reduced.

Additionally, a Car Parking fund could be utilised; where a dollar amount is deposited by a developer into the fund where a shortfall of parking is calculated.

6.6 Other Discounts A number of alternative discounts were suggested at the Reference Group Workshop #2 as listed below. It should be noted that many of these discounts may already be required by individual development plans.

• Swap a specified number of car spaces for specified number of bicycle parking rails. • Providing end of trip bicycle facilities in excess of that required by the development plan allows

parking to be reduced by a specified amount. • Retaining a specified number of trees within the site. • Water sensitive urban design. • Consider improved built form as a parameter, which could include; under croft parking, shared

parking for mixed use bulky goods with residential above. • Providing communal areas such as paved areas with seating. • Public realm improvements external to the site.

6.7 Parking Rate Discount Table A Parking Discount Table has been developed to represent the reduction in parking demand due to the unique characteristics and circumstances of a development. A selection of five discount categories has been shown in Table 4. However, following the outcome of Workshop #2, it is suggested that individual Councils tailor discounts to promote the objectives their development plans, particular where zones have been defined to promote local objectives, such as revitalising an area or within a historic area that provides little opportunity to provide car parking


Table 4 | Suggested Parking Discounts

Category Discount Permitted Insert Total Eligible Discounts

Discounts that directly reduce parking demand

Accessibility

Located within 200 m walking distance of a public transport stop or station with 5 or more public transport routes or a Go Zone. 20%

Located within 200m walking distance of a train station, bus or tram stop 10%

Located within 200m walking / cycling distance of a Bikedirect or a principal cycle route 5%

Located within 400m walking distance of a train station, bus or tram stop 5%

Located in excess of 400m walking distance of a train station, Bikedirect / principal cycle route, bus or tram stop OR located in an area of known under supply of parking within 200 m walking distance of a train station, Bike direct / principal cycle route, bus or tram stop.

0%

Shared Parking

Development has a shared parking area used by three or more land uses with differing peak parking times. A legal instrument protecting the developments use of the shared parking area must be in place.

25%

Development has a shared parking area used by two land uses with differing peak parking times. A legal instrument protecting the developments use of the shared parking area must be in place.

10%

Development is within 200 m walking distance of one or more existing public car parking places with in excess of a total of 100 car parking spaces.

10%

Development is within 400 m walking distance of one or more existing public car parking places with in excess of a total of 100 car parking spaces.

5%

No shared parking available. 0%

Bonus Discounts that do not directly reduce parking demand

Improved Outcome

Where the landscaping requirements of the current development plan is exceeded by 15%. 10%

All parking is contained in an undercroft parking area. 10%

Two or more pedestrian footpaths, with designated crossing points where applicable, are provided through the main car parking area 5%

Car parking meets Development Plan requirements 0%


Category Discount Permitted Insert Total Eligible Discounts

Paid Parking

A $4 [or other optional rate] or more hourly charge applies during the developments busiest periods for a minimum period of 10 years. An on-street area parking strategy may be required in negotiation with Council.

20%

A $2 to $4 [or other optional rate range] hourly charge applies during the developments busiest periods for a minimum period of 10 years. An on-street area parking strategy may be required in negotiation with Council.

10%

Free parking is provided. 0%

Adverse Economic / Planning Constraint (within designated Historic Conservation Area or revitalisation precincts)

Where a change of use or a small extension is a development that is envisaged in the Development Plan and it can be demonstrated that providing the calculated number of parking spaces is cost prohibitive

10% to 30%

(Subject to negotiation)

Total Warranted Discount (sum of Total Eligible Discounts)

Maximum Allowable Discount (as stipulated in Recommended Car Parking Provision for All Land Use Types Table)

Discount to be applied to the Recommended Parking Rate (the Recommended Parking Rate cannot be reduced beyond the Maximum Allowable Discount)

Table Notes:

• Parking rate:

− Car parking rates are stated in the Recommended Car Parking Provision for All Land Use Types Table. Car parking rates typically represent the surveyed 85th percentile parking demand, current (2001) SA Planning Bulletin rate or Victorian Planning Provisions rate.

− Developments may attract a car parking discount (as a percentage) in accordance with the criteria stipulated in the Suggested Parking Discounts Table. Developments may be eligible to attract discounts against multiple criteria. However, the percentage discounted cannot exceed the maximum allowable discount as defined in the Recommended Car Parking Provisions for All Land Use Types Table.

− The Suggested Parking Discounts Table permits the application of one discount percentage per category only; the sum of percentages can only be applied up to the maximum allowable discount permitted for the land-use type.


The parking rates of the Planning SA Bulletin (2001) have been reviewed in light of the research undertaken in the previous sections of this report and the results of the Reference Group workshops.

The recommended parking rate takes the form of an individual rate or a range of parking rates, with a defined recommended (upper) and discounted parking rate. Depending on meeting the conditions of the Discount Table, defined in the previous section, a discount can be applied to the standard parking rate until the maximum allowable discount is reached. The maximum discount should be considered fixed and, unless a strong case can be demonstrated, should not be breached.

The data available was prioritised as shown in the diagram below, with survey data given the highest priority, if survey data was not available, other data sources were utilised. Where survey data was available, the recommended rate was established by the 85th percentile surveyed demand and the minimum rate by the lowest surveyed demand.

Figure 10 | Application of recommended car parking rates

Where previous experience has indicated that a measurement metric may be inaccurate or difficult to use, an alternative metric has been suggested, e.g. Consulting Room metric changed from square metres to number of rooms as an area based metric was considered an inaccurate measurement due to the variations in architectural layout, particularly with large differences in consulting room sizes.

Some of the land use terms have been changed to align with the South Australian Planning Policy Library Terminology List (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2012).

For each land use a summary of the relevant research is provided, any future trends identified and a recommended parking rate range given.

The number in brackets is provided against the entry title, this number refers to the entry of the land use in the summary of parking rates in Table 5.

7 Review of Parking Rates


7.1 Recreation

7.1.1 Amusement Machine Centre (1) Background

• SA Planning Policy Library Terminology List (PPL Terminology List) defines this use as premises that contain four or more amusement machines that is open to the public and may be used for some other purpose. Includes pinball parlours, amusement centres, billiard saloons or fun parlours.

• SA Planning Bulletin rate: 7 spaces per 100m2. • VPP Amusement Parlour rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 4 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area. − Column B (reduced) rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area.

• RTA Guide: No rate given. Influential Trends

• Limited available data. • Anecdotal evidence suggests growth of this sector is principally led by gambling machines (that do

not fall under this land use) and not by non-gambling entertainment machines. Recommendation

• Due to the limited data available it is recommended that no change is made to the current requirement.

7.1.2 Bowling Club (2) Background

• Land use not defined in PPL Terminology List. • SA Planning Bulletin rate: 10 spaces per bowling green. • VPP bowling green rate of:

− Column A (standard) rate of 6 spaces per green plus 50% of any ancillary use. − Column B rate of 6 spaces per green plus 50% of any ancillary use.

• RTA Guide rate for bowling greens: 30 spaces for first green plus 15 spaces for each additional green.

Influential Trends

• Large difference between SA, VPP and RTA parking rates. • Data shows:

− In 2002, 89,200 people attended lawn bowls at least once in one year (ABS Census) − Highest attendance rate for lawn bowls was recorded for people aged 65 years and over,

followed by people aged 55 to 65 years (ABS Census) − South Australia has the highest participation rate than any other State or Territory (Australia

Sports Commission). − Individual clubs report a decline in membership.

Recommendation

• Due to the limited data available it is recommended that no change is made to the current requirement.


7.1.3 Cinema Complex (3) There is limited data available. The recommended rate range is to remain as 0.25 to 0.33 per seat.

7.1.4 Concert Hall/Theatre (4) There is limited data available. The recommended rate range is to remain as 0.25 to 0.33 per seat.

7.1.5 Conference Facility (5) There is limited data available. Recommended to remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’.

7.1.6 Entertainment Multiplex (6) There is limited data available. Recommended to remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’.

7.1.7 Exhibition Hall (7) There is limited data available. Recommended to remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’.

7.1.8 Hotels & Taverns (9) Background

• PPL Terminology rate applies to: Hotels that are licensed. • SA Planning Bulletin rate:

− Accommodation: Assess on needs basis. − Dining room: 1 per 3 seats. − Gaming room: 1 per 2 machines. − Lounge or beer garden: 1 per 6 m2. − Public bar: 1 per 2 m2. − Entertainment areas are often associated with licensed hotels but not considered in SA

Bulletin. • Aurecon surveys of hotel parking demand indicate that the application of the above rates results in

the over provision of parking, as the rates do not allow for the differing peaks of the hotel facilities (e.g. dining peak earlier than bar peak) and multi-purpose trips (e.g. one parked car has the purpose of gaming and then dining). An exception is where an hotel frequently holds live music events, attracting a significantly larger number of visitors.

• Parking surveys indicate the following relationship between number of people in the hotel (including staff), floor area and cars parked in the hotel car park: − 85th percentile peak of 0.55 spaces per person or 10.8 spaces per 100m2.

• VPP hotel and tavern rate: − Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces per patron. − Column B (reduced) rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area.

• RTA Guide for traditional and tourist hotels: no rate given. • Liquor Licence is based on the number of people expected to attend. • Hotels have scope to reduce their parking demand by increased car sharing and, in metropolitan

areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes. • Modern designs do not clearly define the dining room / lounge bar / public areas. • Reference Group feedback indicates that hotels located in higher density areas, such as Glenelg,

operate without any off-street parking on site.


Influential Trends

• Increased gaming and dining facilities in hotels. • Many hotels provide live music acts that attract a high number of patrons that are not accounted

for under the SA Planning Bulletin rates. Recommendation

• Due to the more open designs in modern refurbishments it is recommended to use a total floor area metric. The use of the total number of people (patrons and staff) expected on site to measure parking demand was considered, with patron numbers extracted from liquor licensing information. However, the development application process takes place before liquor licensing so the data may not be available in time.

• The small parking survey sample indicates a rate of 10.8 parking spaces per 100m2 of total area. Further data collection is required.

• An accessibility discount can apply. • Recommended rate range based on surveyed rate and VPP column B rate.

− 3.5 to 11 spaces per 100m2. − Accommodation to be considered under the Tourist Accommodation rate.

7.1.9 Indoor Recreation / Gymnasium (10) Background

• The PPL Terminology defines a wide range of land uses for ‘Indoor Recreation’ which includes: − Bowling alleys. − Gymnasiums. − Indoor Games Centre / Indoor Recreation Centre. − Skating Rink.

• Children’s Play Centres could be considered as an Indoor Recreation. • SA Bulletin rate: Assess on needs basis. • VPP: no Indoor Recreation or gymnasiums listed. • RTA Guide rate for Gymnasiums:

− Metropolitan regional centres: 3 spaces per 100m2 GFA. − Metropolitan sub-regional centres: 7.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA (desirable) and 4.5 spaces per

100m2 GFA (minimum). Influential Trends

• Data indicates a greater emphasis on ‘keep fit’ programs, leading to an increase in usage of gymnasiums and other facilities.

• Recorded increase in popularity of basketball, netball, volleyball and other court based team games. Attractiveness of these games appears to be quick turn-over games with associated socialising afterwards.

• Children’s Play Centres: anecdotal evidence indicates that the parking provision at these centres is currently inadequate, with parking commonly displaced to adjacent streets.

Recommendation

• Create Gymnasium as a separate land use; see New Land Uses section. Remove ‘Gymnasium’ from Indoor Recreation/Gymnasium land use name.

• Due to the remaining wide range of land uses under the heading ‘Indoor Recreation’ the parking rate should remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’.


7.1.10 Night Clubs & Late Night Venues (11) Background

• PPL Terminology: clubs come under Licensed Premises. • SA Bulletin rate: Assess on needs basis. • VPP: no rate listed. • RTA Guide: no rate listed. • Night Clubs & Late Night Venues have scope to reduce their parking demand by increased car

sharing and, in metropolitan areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes. Influential Trends

• No data available Recommendation

• Due to lack of available data the rate should remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’.

7.1.11 Non Residential Club (12) Background

• PPL Terminology: ‘fits definition of community centre - land used for the provision of social, recreational or educational facilities for the local community, but does not include a pre-school, primary school, educational establishment or indoor recreation centre’.

• SA Bulletin rate: Assess on needs basis. • VPP: no rate listed. • RTA Guide: no rate listed but ‘Comparison should be drawn with similar clubs’. • Non Residential Clubs have scope to reduce their parking demand by increased car sharing and,

in metropolitan areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes. • Aurecon surveys indicate a wide variance in parking demand for non-residential clubs including

South Australian Jockey Club and Australian Rules Football clubs. Influential Trends

• Clubs hosting functions with associated promotions to increase revenue e.g. Wine tasting, dining and guest speaker functions.

Recommendation

• There is limited data available. Recommended to remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’.

7.1.12 Restaurant (traditional) (13) Background

• PPL Terminology: ‘Land used primarily for the consumption of meals on the site’ and includes cafe. Also falls under associated land uses of motels, hotels, taverns and farm stay accommodation.

• SA Bulletin rate: greater of 1 space per 3 seats (0.33 spaces per seat) or 1 space per 15 m2. • VPP restaurant rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces per patron. − Column B (reduced) rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area.

• RTA Guide: 1 space per 3 seats or 1 space per 15 m2 (same as SA Bulletin). • Aurecon Darwin Study:

− Number of seats in a restaurant directly correlates with the maximum number of people that it can accommodate at any one time, and potential parking demand. Floor area is not directly


linked to parking demand as kitchen requirements; interior design and table arrangement vary widely.

− In the evening more customers visited an area purely to patronise a restaurant and therefore required a specific parking place.

− Recommended a parking rate of 0.34 spaces per seat. • Approved development rates:

− Mayfield, Adelaide: 3 spaces per 100m2 GFA. − Newport Quays: 1 space per 8.4m2 GFA.

• Restaurants have scope to reduce their parking demand by increased car sharing and, in metropolitan areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes.

• Restaurants commonly feature in mixed used developments and shared parking arrangement with other land uses, typically in shopping centres.

Influential Trends

• ABS data shows 51.7% of Australian restaurants survived from 2007. A high rate of restaurant opening and closures continues.

• The success of an establishment dictates the level of parking demand which creates difficulties in establishing a parking rate through surveys.

Recommendation

• Solely use the number of seats for measurement of the parking demand. • An accessibility discount is appropriate to apply. • Recommended rate range based on 2001 Planning Bulletin rate and VPP standard rate. • Parking rate range of 0.3 to 0.4 spaces per seat.

7.1.13 Restaurant (fast food/family) (14) Background

• PPL Terminology: if no seating on site then falls under the definition of shop as food will not be consumed on the site.

• SA Bulletin rate: − Without dine-in and drive through facilities: 12 spaces per 100m2. − With dine-in facilities but no drive through: greater of 1 space per 5m2 (internal and external

seating) or 1 space per 2 seats (internal seating). − With dine-in facilities and drive through facilities: greater of 1 space per 3m2 (internal and

external seating) or 1 space per 2 seats (internal seating). • VPP convenience restaurant rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 0.3 spaces per patron permitted. − Column B (reduced) rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area.

• RTA Guide for Drive-in take-away food outlets: − No on-site seating: 12 spaces per 100m2. − With on-site seating: 12 spaces per 100m2 or greater of:

1 space per 5 seats (internal and external) or 1 space per 2 seats (internal).

− With on-site seating and drive through facilities, greater of: 1 space per 2 seats (internal), or 1 space per 3 seats (internal and external) Plus a queuing area for 5 to 12 cars.


• TDB data for Fast Food restaurants (with drive through) indicates the following: − Survey of 28 stand-alone fast food restaurants throughout NSW by the RTA, varying in size

from 210m2 to 690m2. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.2 to 0.9 spaces per seat. The 85th

percentile parking rate is 0.55 spaces per seat. − Maximum drive-through queue observed was for 13 vehicles, with an 85th percentile queue

length of 12 vehicles. • Fast food restaurants without drive through facilities have scope to reduce their parking demand

by increased car sharing and, in metropolitan areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes.

• Fast food restaurants commonly feature in mixed used developments and shared parking arrangement with other land uses, typically in shopping centres.

Influential Trends

• The number of snack food chains outlets has trebled over the past decade. Growth of fast food consumption is predicted to increase over the long term (BIS Shrapnel Pty Ltd).

• Growth of major fast food franchises is slowing in the Asia Pacific Region (Australian Foodnews). Recommendation

• Simplify parking rate, with a single range of parking rates dependant on the total number of seats provided. The provision of drive through facilities has no bearing on the number of vehicles parked, only on queuing areas.

• An accessibility discount is appropriate to apply. • Recommended rate range based on 85th percentile surveyed demand and a higher rate than the

VPP standard rate. − 0.35 to 0.55 spaces per seat and, a queuing area for 12 vehicles if drive through facilities

provided.

7.1.14 Squash/Tennis Courts (15) Background

• PPL Terminology: Indoor recreation centre. • SA Bulletin rate: 4 spaces per court. • VPP squash and tennis court rate:

− Squash court: Column A (standard) rate of 3 spaces to each court plus 50% of the relevant requirement of any ancillary use.

− Tennis court: Column A (standard) rate of 4 spaces to each court plus 50% of the relevant requirement of any ancillary use.

• RTA Guide for squash and tennis courts: 3 spaces per court. Influential Trends

• Limited data available. Recommendation

• It is recommended to introduce a range or rates for squash / tennis courts to represent the variance in existing recommended rates; RTA Guide rate of 3 and VPP / SA Bulletin of 4. − Parking rate of between 3 and 4 spaces per court.

7.1.15 TAB Facility (16) Background


• PPL Terminology: None listed. • SA Bulletin rate: 8 spaces per 100m2 total floor area. • VPP Betting agency rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 4 spaces per 100m2 leasable floor area. − Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area.

• RTA Guide: none listed. Influential Trends

• Online gambling currently restricted in Australia but sports betting online is permissible. Growth has increased from 2004 to 2008 by 100%. Managed liberalisation of gambling may occur (Australian Government Productivity Commission).

• Tabcorp investing in TAB Sportsbet wagering App, but also investing in self-service technology in the TAB retail network (Tabcorp 2011 Annual Report).

• Effect of online gambling is unknown but may reduce the customer attendance at TAB facilities. Recommendation

• Due to the lack of data it is recommended to leave the standard TAB facility parking rate unchanged but introduce rate range. The lower rate will allow discounting when the parking discount conditions are met.

• The value of the lower parking rate has no basis apart from it remains much higher than the standard rate provided by the VPP. It is recommended to provide: − Parking rate of between 7 and 8 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

7.2 Medical

7.2.1 Consulting Room (17) Background

• PPL Terminology provides the following: − A building (not being a hospital) used in the practice of a profession by a medical, veterinary

or dental practitioner, or a practitioner in any curative science, provision of medical services, mental, moral or family guidance.

• SA Bulletin rate: 10 spaces per 100m2. • SA Bulletin provides same rate for Medical Centre / Day Surgery. • VPP: no rate given for consulting room but a rate provided for Medical Centre as follows:

− Column A (standard) rate of 5 spaces to the first person providing health services plus 3 spaces to every other person providing health services.

− Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area. • RTA Guide for Professional Consulting Suites: no rate provided. • RTA Guide for Extended Hours Medical Centre: 4 spaces per 100m2. • Aurecon Darwin Study: case study indicates a parking demand of between 2.5 and 8 spaces per

practitioner and between 1.1 and 2.63 spaces per consulting room. Recommended rate of 2.6 spaces per consulting and treatment room.

• The layouts of medical centres vary depending on reception space, consulting room sizes and whether conference facilities are provided. As such parking rates based on floor area may not represent an accurate parking demand for the facility.

• Recent Aurecon development applications for GP Plus developments show that the consulting rooms are less than 100% utilised in the short to medium term.

Influential Trends


• Recent introduction of medical centres with numerous medical and dental specialists e.g. GP Plus clinics.

Recommendation

• Consulting Room to include Medical Centre / Day Surgery. • The scope for discounting is limited given the medical nature of the land use, with patients unlikely

to switch to alternative transport modes. • The VPP column A rate is a reasonable representation of the parking demand of a consulting

room, allowing for a conservative four patients waiting, and one patient being seen, at any one time by a single practitioner. Patients are likely to arrive just before the scheduled appointment time, but are likely to be delayed by the practitioner and administration staff. The rate is based on the measurement of practitioners.

• The recommended rate range is based on the VPP Column A rate (the column B ‘every other person’ VPP rate is difficult to justify) but with the metric changed to consulting room, which represents a more permanent fixture than a practitioner. The minimum rate is slightly lower than the standard rate to allow for discounting when discount conditions are met: − 4.5 to 5 spaces per consulting room.

7.2.2 Hospital (18) Background

• SA Planning Bulletin rate: 1 space per 2.5 beds. • Aurecon developed parking demand models to assess the parking demand of four hospitals in

South Australia. The model took into account; staff shift patterns, Inpatient, Outpatient, Emergency admissions and visitor data supplied by the hospitals. − Surveyed parking demand:

Modbury Hospital: 3.3 spaces per bed. Port Lincoln Hospital: 4.1 spaces per bed. Mount Gambier Hospital: 4.8 spaces per bed.

− Predicted parking demand: NRAH: 2.9 spaces per bed. Modbury Hospital: 3.3 spaces per bed. Port Lincoln Hospital: 3.8 spaces per bed. Mount Gambier Hospital: 4.9 spaces per bed.

• VPP: no rate given. • RTA Guide rate for private hospitals: -26.52 + 1.18 x number of beds. • Hospitals located in metropolitan areas have scope to reduce parking demand by accessibility to

alternative transport modes, notably for staff on day shifts, as indicated by the lower parking demand of hospitals based in metropolitan areas.

Influential Trends

• Aurecon traffic assessment of New Royal Adelaide, Modbury, Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier hospitals showed a moderate increase in bed numbers but with large increases in Outpatient processing.

Recommendation

• Accessibility discount can apply. • The recommended rate range is defined by the highest modelled parking demand (rural hospital)

and the lowest modelled demand (metropolitan hospital): − Parking rate range of 3.5 to 5 spaces per bed.


7.2.3 Medical Centre / Day Surgery (19) Background

• PPL Terminology: medical centre or day surgery not listed. • SA Bulletin rate: 10 spaces per 100m2. • VPP Medical Centre rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 5 spaces to the first person providing health services plus 3 spaces to every other person providing health services.

− Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area. Influential Trends

• See Consulting Room. Recommendation

• PPL Terminology only refers to consulting rooms. • Delete Medical Centre / Day Surgery entry from SA Bulletin. • Consulting Room / Medical Centre to be considered under Consulting Room rate.

7.2.4 Aged Persons Accommodation / Nursing Home (formerly Nursing Home) (20)

Background

• PPL Terminology: − Nursing Home defined as:

‘Definition of ‘nursing home’ in Schedule 1 is ‘a place for the care of the aged and infirm where no care of outpatients or surgery is undertaken’ Some aspects may be controlled under the Retirement Villages Act 1987.’

− Aged Housing: Not accepted, use Aged Persons Accommodation or Nursing Home. • SA Bulletin rate: 1 space per 4 beds. • VPP residential aged care facility rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 0.3 spaces to each lodging room. − Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each lodging room.

• RTA Guide for hostel, nursing and convalescent homes: − Resident funded development:

1 space per 10 beds (visitors) +1 space per 2 employees. +1 space per ambulance.

− Subsidised development: 1 space per 10 beds (visitors) +1 space per 2 employees. +1 space per ambulance.

• CoHB Beyond 20 Section 30 Development Plan Review March 2008 recommended a review of the Nursing Home parking rate.

Influential Trends

• A shift towards assisting older people with special needs to remain in their familiar home environment (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare).

• Higher standard in facilities, with one resident per room rather than a ward of beds.


Recommendation

• No data on current parking demand, however the VPP Column A rate is higher than the current SA Bulletin rate.

• Limited scope for applying a discount; visitors and staff may opt to use alternative transport modes if available.

• Change measurement to lodging room to represent the type of accommodation being provided. • Include ‘Aged Persons Accommodation’ in title to clarify land use. • To represent the parking demand of an Aged Persons Accommodation/Nursing Home the

following parking rate range has been recommended, based on the SA Bulletin and VPP rates: − 0.25 to 0.3 spaces per lodging room.

7.3 Industry and Warehouse

7.3.1 Office Component and Non- Office Component (21) Refer to New Land Uses - ‘Industry’ and ‘Warehouse’.

7.4 Community / Civic

7.4.1 Child Care Centre / Pre-school (formerly Child Care Centre) (24) Background

• PPL Terminology: falls within definition of Pre-school. • SA Planning Bulletin rate: 1 space per 4 children (0.25 spaces per child). • VPP Child care centre rate:

− Column A (standard) rate: 0.22 spaces to each child. − Column B rate: 0.22 spaces to each child.

• VPP Committee found: − From 2012 staffing ratios for children under 3 are changing, representing a 20% increase in

staffing for 50% of centres. − Committee proposed a 10% increase in the parking requirement to 0.22 spaces to each child.

• RTA Guide surveyed Pre-schools and used for Child care centre, at the following rate: − Child care centres: 1 space per 4 children in attendance.

• TDB data: no data. • No Centre shall be licensed to care for more than 70 children at any one time, subject to decision

of the Director (Regulations under the Children’s Services Act, 1985). • Staff / child ratios (Children’s Services Licensing and Standards Fact Sheet, DECD):

− Children under 2 years of age – maximum of 1:5. − Children aged 2 years and over – maximum of 1:10.

• Calculations of drop-off / pick-up demand were made based on the following: − Based on length of drop-off/pick-up peak periods and average time taken for each driver to

drop-off / pick-up child. − TDB survey data indicates a drop-off for Pre-schools (not child care centre) from 8.30 AM to

9.05 AM. − Assumed pick-up between 5.15 PM to 5.45 PM. − TDB data for Pre-schools (not Child care centre) recorded 80% of parents drive child to centre

and 1 child per car on average, taking 10 minutes to drop-off and pick-up.


− Using the above parameters equates to: − A turnover of 3.5 vehicles per space in the AM and 3 vehicles per space in the PM, which

results in a peak of 1 drop-off/pick-up space per 0.23 children. − With a 70 children Child care centre this would equate to 16 spaces. − A higher child / vehicle occupancy rate will reduce the demand (currently assumed at 1 child

per vehicle). No data available on number of siblings attending child care simultaneously or car occupancy rates.

• Transport mode split of staff or parents unknown, but assumed majority drive. Influential Trends

• Pressure to change regulations to increase the number of staff (reduce child/carer ratios). The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union pursued a campaign in Victoria to increase staff numbers South Australia may follow suit which will result in an increased staff parking demand.

Recommendation

• Pre-school has similar characteristics and could be included in this entry. • Child care centres have strict staff / child ratios, and the number of staff will be known. • Some potential for staff to switch to alternative transport modes. • Potential of parents to switch to alternative transport modes unknown. • Depending on street characteristics, on-street parking could be utilised as part of an area wide

traffic management plan to accommodate part of or the entire drop-off / pick-up bay. • Recommended:

− Change title to include Pre-school. − Parking: in the range of 0.9 to1 space per employee plus − Short stay drop-off / pick up bays: 0.25 spaces per child OR − Area wide traffic management plan to accommodate drop-off / pick-up demand of 0.25 spaces

per child.

7.4.2 Civic Administration Offices (25) Background

• PPL Terminology: not listed. • SA Bulletin rate: 4 spaces per 100m2. • VPP Office other than listed rate:

− Column A (standard) rate: 3.5 spaces per 100m2. − Column B rate: 3 spaces per 100m2.

• RTA Guide Office and Commercial: − Unrestrained situation: 1 space per 40m2 GFA (2.5 spaces per 100m2). − Restrained situation: refer to council parking code.

• TBD data: no data. • Parking demand of Civic Administration Offices is considered similar to commercial offices. Influential Trends

• Expanding civil administration to meet needs of increasing population. However, pressure to reduce or restrict size of civil service.

Recommendation

• Assumed that Civic offices do not vary significantly from other offices (visitor numbers may be higher but SA Bulletin has same rates for both office types suggesting demand is the same)

• Delete Civic Administration Offices entry.


• Use Office parking rate as detailed in following section.

7.4.3 Community Centre (26) There is limited data available. In lieu of up to date data it is recommended to keep the rate at 10 spaces per 100m2.

7.4.4 Education (27 & 28) • Planning SA provides one rate for all three types of school; individual Council development plans

consider different rates for the three types. • Travel mode varies significantly for each type of school and subsequent parking demand varies

accordingly. An individual rate for each school type should be defined to reflect this. • DECD have informed us that parking is not an issue handled centrally, but by individual schools.

However, it should be noted that the brief to the Super-schools Project of 2010 stipulated that no student parking is to be accommodated on campus.

• School travel pattern is dominated by drop-off/pick-up activity, commonly with an adverse impact on residential streets and pedestrian safety, e.g. children exiting vehicles into live traffic lanes, parking restrictions, congestion. No authorities provide a student drop-off rate.

7.4.4.1 Pre-School (27a)

Background

• PPL Terminology: Pre-school, no definition provided. • SA Planning Bulletin rate: 1 space per full-time employee plus wheelchair users plus 10%. • VPP has an Education centre - other parking rate of:

− Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces to each student that is part of the maximum number of students on the site at any time.

− Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each student that is part of the maximum number of students on the site at any time.

• RTA Guide: none listed but Child care centre rate could apply. • TDB data available for Pre-school as follows:

− Survey of twelve Pre-schools, varying in size from 29 to 100 children. Located in suburban areas of Christchurch with low levels of public transport accessibility.

− Survey date: 2007 to 2009. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 2.0 to 7.1 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. The

85th percentile surveyed demand is 4.7 spaces per 100m2. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.5 to 2.80 spaces per employee. The 85th

percentile surveyed demand is 2.2 spaces per employee. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.12 to 0.34 spaces per child. The 85th

percentile surveyed demand is 0.32 spaces per child. • Pre-school caters for ages 4 to 5 (reception) (sa.gov.au). • For Child care centres and Pre-schools an overlap occurs of the ages of children being cared for,

with four year olds starting Pre-school. However, staff / child ratios will differ between the two. Influential Trends

• Anecdotal evidence suggests that an increasing proportion of families have both parents working and an increase in single parent families. This will increase the likelihood of the parent / carer being under time stress, needing to drop off a child then head to work, and as such is more likely to use a car for convenience and speed.

• Similarly to Child care centres, Pre-school children are too young for independent travel.


Recommendation

• Pre-school has limited scope for applying a discount. • Pre-school entry should be merged with the Child care centre entry, as the measurement of

parking demand used is based on the number of employees. Applying an employee based rate will negate the difference between staff / child ratios of Child care centres and Pre-school and, as the travel modes are anticipated to be similar, the same drop-off / pick-up rate should apply.

7.4.4.2 Educational Establishment: Primary School (27b)

Background

• PPL Terminology: Primary school, an ‘Educational establishment’. • SA Planning Bulletin rate: 1 space per full-time employee plus wheelchair users plus 10%. • VPP has an Primary School parking rate of:

− Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 1 space to each employee that is part of the maximum number of employees on the site at any one time.

• VPP provides for employee parking only. • RTA Guide: none listed. • TDB data available for Primary school as follows:

− Survey of one school of 450 children. Located in the town of Timaru 150 km outside of Christchurch, with a low level of public transport accessibility.

− Survey date: 2007. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of 0.80 spaces per employee. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of 0.06 spaces per child.

• DECD data shows 20% of primary school children use Outside of School Hours Care (OSCH) per week (30,000 of 156,000). These children are therefore picked up/dropped-off outside of school peaks; OSCH operates from 7 AM and finishes 6.15 PM.

• DECD data shows most frequent class size is 25. • Primary School caters for ages 5 (reception) to 12 (Year 7) (sa.gov.au). • Primary Schools generally accept children from 8.30 AM to 8.45 AM. • Primary Schools generally finish between 3 PM to 3.30 PM. • 2009 Streets Ahead Program carried out by the Australian Council for Educational Research for

the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) found that 75% of children travel to school by car.

• Children’s perception of safety and danger on the road is age dependant (Ampofo-Boeteng K, Thomson JA, Dept Psychology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) as follows: − 5 to 7 year olds: very poor skill in identifying dangerous road crossing sites. Relied exclusively

on the visible presence of cars in the vicinity. Blind summits, obstacles or complex junctions not recognised as threatening situations

− 9 year olds a higher level of ability. − 11 year olds showed quite good judgement. − Results suggest that children up to the age of 9 years old must often be at considerable risk

as they do not have the ability to recognise a location as dangerous. • Proportion of primary school children aged 10 and over is estimated at 35%. • Calculations of drop-off / pick-up demand were made based on the following:

− Based on length of drop-off/pick-up peak periods and average time taken for each driver to drop-off / pick-up child.

− Estimated drop-off from 8.25 AM to 8.45 AM (20 minutes) and pick-up between 3.00 PM to 3.30 PM (30 minutes).

− VicHealth data recorded 75% of parents drive their child to primary school.


− Assumed 1 child per car on average, taking 2 minutes to drop-off child and 10 minutes to pick-up (parent waiting for child).

− Equates to a turnover of 10 vehicles per space in the AM and 3 in the PM, which with a peak space per child of 0.25.

− However, with an 800 student primary school this would equate to 200 spaces, which would be difficult to achieve.

− A higher child / vehicle occupancy rate will reduce the demand (currently assumed at 1 child per vehicle). No data available on number of siblings attending school simultaneously or car occupancy rates.

Influential Trends

• Catchment areas only enforced when demand for places outstrips supply, this results in school children living further afield and outside of walking distance (400m).

• Increasingly, both parents work. • Parent’s perception of danger results in an unwillingness to let children walk to school (traffic

volumes are increasing but stranger danger remains at a constant rate). • DPTI Way2Go Active Travel Ideas promotes Park and Walk to school. Recommendation

• There is scope to apply discount to Primary schools, particularly for staff and children aged 10 and over (35% of all children)

• The calculated demand for the short stay drop-off / pick up bay would be very difficult to accommodate, even if on-street parking could be utilised to accommodate part of or the entire drop-off / pick-up bay. To reduce the impact on local streets of the drop-off / pick-up, individual school years could be allocated a street within a 400m radius of the school as a dedicated drop-off / pick-up zone, with younger years located closest to the school and older years the furthest. Staggered start and finish times would also reduce the intensity of the peak periods. Consultation with residents could champion the benefits to the whole community of sharing the responsibility of being located near a school.

• Depending on street characteristics, on-street parking could be utilised as part of an area wide traffic management plan to accommodate part of or the entire drop-off / pick-up bay.

• Recommended rate range based on SA Bulletin rate, with allowance for use of alternative transport modes: − Provide parking rate of 0.8 to 1.1 spaces per employee PLUS − Drop-off / pick-up rate range of 0.2 to 0.25 spaces per student OR − Area wide traffic management plan to accommodate drop-off / pick-up demand of 0.25 spaces

per child.

7.4.4.3 Educational Establishment: Secondary School (27c)

Background

• PPL Terminology: Secondary school not an accepted term, use ‘Educational establishment’. • PPL Terminology: High school not listed. • SA Planning Bulletin rate: 1 space per full-time employee plus wheelchair users plus 10%. • VPP has an Secondary school parking rate of:

− Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 1.2 spaces to each employee that is part of the maximum number of employees on the site at any one time.

• RTA Guide: none listed. • TDB data: no data. • Secondary or High School caters for ages 13 (Year 8) to 18 (Year 12) (sa.gov.au).


• Secondary Schools generally accept children from 8.30 AM to 8.45 AM. • Secondary Schools generally finish between 3 PM to 3.30 PM. • A child of Secondary school age is more likely to travel independently; this allows increased scope

for an accessibility discount. • Port Adelaide Enfield data indicates a drop-off/pick-up rate of 0.16 spaces per student. Influential Trends

• Catchment areas more strictly enforced for High Schools but have large catchment areas. • Both parents working. • Limited information on Secondary school transport modes. • DPTI Way2Go Active Travel Ideas promotes Park and Walk to school. Recommendation

• Similar to Primary Schools, but to a lesser extent, the calculated demand for the short stay drop-off / pick up bay would be very difficult to accommodate, even if on-street parking could be utilised to accommodate part of or the entire drop-off / pick-up bay. To reduce the impact on local streets of the drop-off / pick-up, individual school years could be allocated a street within a 400m radius of the school as a dedicated drop-off / pick-up zone, with younger years located closest to the school and older years the furthest. Staggered start and finish times would also reduce the intensity of the peak periods. Consultation with residents could champion the benefits to the whole community of sharing the responsibility of being located near a school.

• Depending on street characteristics, on-street parking could be utilised as part of an area wide traffic management plan to accommodate part of or the entire drop-off / pick-up bay.

• Recommended rate range based on SA Bulletin rate, with allowance for use of alternative transport modes: − Provide parking rate of 0.8 to 1.1 spaces per employee PLUS − Drop-off / pick-up rate range of 0.12 to 0.16 spaces per student OR − Area wide traffic management plan to accommodate drop-off / pick-up demand of 0.16 spaces

per child.

7.4.4.4 Educational Establishment: Tertiary Education (28)

Background

• PPL Terminology: − Tertiary Institution not listed. − Tertiary Education not an accepted term, use ‘Educational establishment’.

• SA Bulletin rate: − 0.6 spaces per full time student PLUS. − 0.2 spaces per part time student.

• VPP has an Education centre - other parking rate of: − Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces to each student that is part of the maximum number of

students on the site at any time. − Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each student that is part of the maximum number of students

on the site at any time. • RTA Guide: not listed. • TDB data available for a tertiary institution follows:

− Survey of Massey University, which has 3,700 full time students. Located in Auckland, with a low level of public transport accessibility.

− Survey date: 2004.


− Surveyed parking demand at the rate of 0.47 spaces per full-time student. • Limited data available. Influential Trends

• Universities expanding by attracting overseas students. Recommendation

• Tertiary Institutions located in metropolitan areas have scope to apply an accessibility discount. • Providing a part time and full time student rate may not represent the parking demand, e.g. a

university predominantly enrolled by part-time students would have a parking demand higher than the 0.2 spaces per student currently allowed for. Part-time students may arrive during the peak parking of full-time students. The VPP measurement unit refers to the maximum number of students on site; a more accurate gauge of parking demand.

• The recommended rate range is based on the current SA Bulletin rate and, due to the extensive consultation carried out by the VPP Committee, the VPP Column B rate: − 0.3 to 0.8 spaces per each student that is part of the maximum number of students on the site

at any time

7.4.5 Library (29) Background

• PPL Terminology: Library is an accepted term. • SA Bulletin rate: 4 spaces per 100m2. • VPP has no Library rate but refers to ‘Places of assembly’ parking rate of:

− Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each patron catered for. • RTA Guide: not listed. • TDB data: no data. • Limited data available. Influential Trends

• The State Librarian of NSW has identified scenarios for the future of libraries, including: − Budget reductions and introduction of user-pays, with increase in services offered e.g. CV

preparation and job hunting. − Increased local government services fronted by libraries. − Libraries increasingly used as centres for the community. − Public libraries becoming anchor tenants in major retail developments.

Recommendation

• Libraries located in metropolitan areas have scope to apply an accessibility discount. • The possibility of library services increasing may result in a higher parking demand. • The use of the VPP per patron rate could be used but it may difficult to identify the actual

patronage of a library prior to opening. • The recommended rate range is based on the SA Bulletin rate, with a minimum rate to allow for

potential use of alternative transport modes: − 2 to 4 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

7.4.6 Meeting Hall (30) No data available. The current rate is to remain unchanged.


7.4.7 Place of Worship (31) No data available. The current rate is to remain unchanged.

7.5 Commercial

7.5.1 Auction Depot (32) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Auction Depot: not listed. − Auction room is an accepted term.

• SA Bulletin rate: 1 per 100 m2 of total floor area plus 2 spaces. • VPP: None. Influential Trends

• Minimal data available. Recommendation

• Due to lack of available data the parking rate should remain but with a small discount allowed for alternative transport modes if warranted: − 0.9 to 1 space per 100m2 of total floor area plus 2 spaces.

7.5.2 Bank (33) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Bank: not an accepted term, PPL uses Office.

• SA Bulletin rate: 5 to 6 per 100 m2 of total floor area. • VPP: None. • VPP Terminology lists Bank under Office. Influential Trends

• Australian Prudential Regulation Authority data shows that 33% of bank branches or agencies were closed between 1990 and 2001.

• Internet banking widely available. • Minimal data available. Recommendation

• Delete Bank entry. • The traditionally higher parking demand of a bank may be offset by the use of internet banking

and ATMs. Banks to be considered as Offices.

7.5.3 Call Centre (34) Background

• PPL Terminology: Call Centre not listed. • SA Bulletin rate: Assess on needs basis. • VPP: None. • VPP Terminology: None


• Employee density researched in ‘Room for Thought: a study of office use in Australia (Clive M.J. Warren, The University of New South Wales / RICS, 2002) found: − Measurement is m2 of net lettable area per Full Time Equivalent (FTE). − Survey of 258 respondents, representing 840,000m2 total floor area and 47,268 employees. − Surveyed densities of:

Average 20.6m2 per FTE (RTA Guide data from 1979 is the equivalent of 16m2 per employee), with the following rates by office type:

• Head Office: 19.7m2/FTE. • Sales: 21m2/FTE. • Administration: 24m2/FTE. • Sole: 23m2/FTE. • Branch: 19m2/FTE. • Call centre: 10m2/FTE.

• Refer to Office background data. Influential Trends

• New NBN call centre opening in Queensland, with 130 employees. • NAB trialling a ‘Virtual Contact Centre’ with employees working from home. • Minimal data available. Recommendation

• Room for Thought study indicates that Call Centres have double the employee density of the average office.

• Virtual Contact Centres utilising the NBN may negate the need for Call Centres. • Refer to recommendation made for Office. • Due to the employee density compared with an office, the recommended rate range is based on

double the Office rate: − 6 to 8 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

7.5.4 Bulky Goods Outlet or Retail Showroom (formerly Hardware & Other Retail Showrooms) (35)

Background

• PPL Terminology: not listed. • Statewide Bulky Goods DPA provides examples of bulky goods outlet or retail showroom as

follows: − Automotive parts and accessories. − Furniture; − Floor coverings; − Window coverings; − Appliances or electronic equipment; − Home entertainment goods; − Lighting and electric light fittings; − Curtains and fabric; − Bedding and manchester; − Party supplies; − Animal and pet supplies; − Camping and outdoor recreation supplies; − Hardware;


− Garden plants (primarily in an indoor setting); − Office equipment and stationery supplies; − Baby equipment and accessories; − Sporting, fitness and recreational equipment and accessories; − Homewares; − Children’s play equipment.

• Statewide Bulky Goods DPA: links Bulky Goods with Retail Showroom. • It should be noted that garden plants (primarily in an indoor setting) feature in the Retail / Service

Trade Premises definition. • SA Bulletin rate: 2 to 4 spaces per 100m2 (gross leasable floor area applies to retail, so assumed

to be a 100m2 GLFA). • VPP Restricted retail premises definition matches the Statewide Bulky Goods DPA examples

apart from including the following: − Swimming pools − Goods and accessories which require a large area for handling, display and storage of goods

or, − Requires direct vehicle access to the building by customers for the purpose of loading or

unloading goods into or from their vehicles after purchase or hire. • VPP Restricted retail premises rate:

− Column A (standard) rate of 3 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area. − Column B rate of 2.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area.

• RTA Guide lists Bulky goods retail stores: Comparisons should be drawn with similar developments.

• TDB data (from RTA surveys) indicates the following for bulky goods - hardware: − Survey of 18 Bunnings and Mitre10 stores, varying in size from 1,800m2 to 14,100 m2. − Located in outer suburban areas in NSW. − Survey date: March 2009. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.9 and 2.8 spaces per 100m2 of GFA (1.2

to 3.7 GLFA). The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 2.1 spaces per 100m2 (2.8 GLFA). • TDB data (from RTA surveys) indicates the following for bulky goods - Homewares:

− Survey of 12 stores (Freedom, Harvey Norman, Retravision, Domayne, Bing Lee and Fantastic),

− Four located in Inner Suburban areas in NSW, varying in size from 4,300m2 to 14,900m2. − Eight located in outer suburban areas in NSW, varying in size from 600m2 to 6,000m2. − Survey date: March 2009. − Surveyed parking demand of Inner suburban stores at the rate of between 0.7 and 1.6 spaces

per 100m2 of GFA (0.93 to 2.1 GLFA). The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 1.3 spaces per 100m2 (1.73 GLFA).

− Surveyed parking demand of Outer suburban stores at the rate of between 0.4 and 3.2 spaces per 100m2 of GFA (0.53 to 4.3 GLFA). The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 2.25 spaces per 100m2 (3 GLFA).

− The 85th percentile surveyed demand of inner and outer suburban stores is 2.2 spaces per 100m2 (2.9 GLFA).

• DA rates used: − Bunnings extension at Windsor Gardens: 3.2 spaces per 100m2 GLFA. − Gepps Cross Homemaker Centre: 2.6 spaces per 100m2 GLFA.

• Hardware and Homewares are assumed to create a high parking demand compared with the other bulky goods outlets and retail showrooms.


• Bulky goods commonly use shared parking arrangement with other similar land uses, typically in out of town centres.

Influential Trends

• Increasing size of bulky goods stores and stores grouped together to form ‘villages’. Recommendation

• Change land use type to match Statewide Bulky Goods DPA terminology of Bulky Goods Outlet or Retail Showroom. Current ‘Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods)’ entry to be deleted and considered as part of this entry.

• The lower surveyed parking demand rate of the inner suburban stores indicates that an accessibility discount can be applied.

• RTA 2009 surveys indicate a much lower parking demand rate than the SA Bulletin. • Considering the 85th percentile surveyed parking demand indicated in the TDB data, the following

rate range is recommended: − 1.7 to 3 spaces per 100m2 of GLFA.

7.5.5 Motor Repair Station (36) Background

• PPL Terminology: Motor Repair/Service Station listed with the following notes: − ‘The relationship between ‘petrol filling station’, ‘service station’ and ‘shop’ was considered in

Pro-Star Service Station Pty Ltd v Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Board, City of Salisbury and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1998] SASC 7174. It reaffirmed that ‘service station’ was undefined, but suggested that “the word ‘service’ must encompass the more minor activities such as providing petrol, oil, water and air.” ’.

• SA Bulletin rate: Greater of 2 per 100 m2 or 4 per service bay. • VPP Motor repairs rate:

− Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 3 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area plus 1 space for each vehicle being serviced, repaired or fitted with accessories, including vehicles waiting to be repaired, fitted with accessories or collected by owners.

Influential Trends


• VPP unlikely to have applied a discount to surveyed parking demand, due car oriented land use of a Motor Repair Station.

• Due to lack of available data, the age of the SA Bulletin and the up to date VPP rates it is recommended to adopt the VPP rate of: − 3 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area plus − 1 space for each vehicle being serviced, repaired or fitted with accessories, including vehicles

waiting to be repaired, fitted with accessories or collected by owners.

7.5.6 Motor Showroom (37) Background

• PPL Terminology: Motor Showroom not an accepted term, use service trade premises. • SA Bulletin rate: 1.5 to 2 per 100 m2 total floor area. • VPP: No equivalent. Influential Trends



• Motor Showroom not an accepted term in PPL Terminology. Land used for the sale of motor vehicles falls under the Service Trade Premises PPL Terminology definition.

• Delete Motor Showroom entry. • Motor Showroom to be considered in Retail Trade Premises (formerly Service Trade Premises)

entry.

7.5.7 Office (38) Background

• PPL Terminology: Office Means “means any building used for administration or the practice of a profession, but does not include consulting rooms or premises where materials or goods are stored for sale or manufacture” (see Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations 2008).

• SA Bulletin rate: 4 spaces per 100 m2 of total floor area. • VPP has a the following parking rates:

− Office other than listed: Column A (standard) rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area. Column B rate of 3 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area.

• RTA Guide has the following rates for Commercial Premises: − Unrestrained: 1 spaces per 40m2 of gross floor area (2.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA). − Restrained: refer to council parking code.

• ABS Data: − Journey to Work data from 2001 and 2011 not available to allow identification of journey to

work trends. 2011 data is due for release in October. − 2006 data indicates:

The Greater Adelaide area has the highest percentage of employees choosing the car to travel to work at 83%, compared with 78% in Sydney, 82% in Melbourne and Perth and 81% in Brisbane.

The South Australian councils considered range from 86% to 92% of employees choosing the car, with the following metropolitan / rural use:

• Metropolitan councils: 86% to 89%. • Rural councils: 87% to 92%.

• TDB Data indicates the following: − Offices:

Survey of ten offices, varying in size from 2,800m2 to 34,100 m2. Located in inner suburban, inner rural and town centres of New South Wales. Survey dates: 2009 and 2010. Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.30 to 2.89 spaces per 100m2 of GFA.

The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 1.33 spaces per 100m2 GFA. • Aurecon Darwin Study:

− Interview surveys of nine offices indicate an 85th percentile parking demand of 3.98 per 100m2 GFA (Employee demand of 2.5 per 100m2 and visitor demand of 1.4 per 100m2).

• DA or DPA rates: − Mayfield, Adelaide: 3 spaces per 100m2 GLFA (equivalent to 4 spaces per 100m2 GFA).


• Employee density researched in ‘Room for Thought: a study of office use in Australia (Clive M.J. Warren, The University of New South Wales / RICS, 2002) found: − Measurement is m2 of net lettable area per Full Time Equivalent (FTE). − Survey of 258 respondents, representing 840,000m2 total floor area and 47,268 employees. − Diverse range of densities dependant on the nature of the office and its location. − Surveyed densities of:

Average 20.6m2 per FTE (RTA Guide data from 1979 is the equivalent of 16m2 per employee), with the following rates by office type:

• Head Office: 19.7m2/FTE. • Sales: 21m2/FTE. • Administration: 24m2/FTE. • Sole: 23m2/FTE. • Branch: 19m2/FTE. • Call centre: 10m2/FTE.

Effect of new working practices:

• Hot desking: 18.7m2/FTE. • Hotelling: 16.7m2/FTE. • Virtual Officing: 22m2/FTE. • Home working: 21m2/FTE. • Team Working: 19m2/FTE. • No New practice: 21.1m2/FTE.

Effect of use of new technology:

• Organisations with intranet: 20.4m2/FTE. • Organisations without intranet: 21.3m2/FTE.

Office occupation of:

• Before 9 am: 40%. • 9am to 12 noon: 91%. • 12 noon to 3 pm: 85%. • 3 pm to 6 pm: 80%. • 6 pm to 9 pm: 15%.

• RTA Accessibility formula identifies Offices as the land use with the greatest potential to switch to alternative transport modes. In contrast, the VPP only allows for a 15% reduction from its standard rate.

Influential Trends

• Federal government has a target of 12% of employees having a teleworking arrangement with their employee by 2020.

• Room for Thought study indicates that internet, intranet and new working practices have a marginal effect on increasing employee / floor space densities. However, the study was conducted in 2002 with lower broadband speeds and coverage than when compared with the future NBN.

Recommendation

• The Darwin study showed a parking demand in line with the current SA Bulletin of 4 per 100m2 GFA. However, the TDB surveys of 2009 and 2010 record a highest parking demand of 2.9 per 100m2 GFA. This reflects the lower car use in Greater Sydney.

• Journey to work data shows that the car remains the dominant transport mode of choice across all council areas, with minor deviation between metropolitan and rural areas.


• It is recommended to introduce a rate range, with the current SA Bulletin rate used as the Standard rate, with a minimum rate to allow for discounting should conditions be met: − 3 to 4 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

7.5.8 Petrol Filling Station (39) Background

• PPL Terminology: Petrol filling station an accepted term, and: − ‘Means land used for the purposes of fuelling motor vehicles and may include and associated

land for the servicing of motor vehicles, or for the sale of goods where the area used for sale of goods is not greater than 50 square metres, but does not include a motor repair station (see Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations 2008) Interpretation was considered further in Pro-Star Service Station Pty Ltd V Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Board, City of Salisbury and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1998] SASC 7174’.

• SA Bulletin rate: 6 per service bay plus 5 per 100 m2 retail floor space. • VPP: None. • Various: The majority of guides and DPs require a rate per service bay plus the standard rate for

any ancillary use. • Anecdotal evidence suggests a minority of vehicles parked are solely to for the purposes of the

ancillary land use, with the majority of ancillary use trade resulting from petrol buying customers, with their vehicles parked adjacent to the fuel bowsers.

Influential Trends

• Service stations have an ever expanding range of ancillary land uses in favour over providing servicing facilities.


• Current SA Bulletin rate does not cater for non-retail ancillary land uses. • Parking discount not applicable. • To allow for the wide variety if ancillary land uses it is recommended to provide parking at the

following rate: − 6 per service bay plus 50% of the calculated parking demand of any ancillary land use.

7.5.9 Post Office (40) Background

• PPL Terminology: Post Office not an accepted term, use shop or office. • SA Bulletin rate: 7 per 100 m2 total floor area. • VPP rate for Postal agency:


Influential Trends

• Minimal data available. • Post offices often form part of a shopping centre and have become more retail orientated. Recommendation

• Post Office not an accepted term in PPL Terminology and falls under the Shop or Office PPL Terminology definition.

• VPP rates suggest post offices have similar parking demand to shops.


• Delete Post Office entry. • It is recommended that Post offices be considered as part of the Shop (not within a centre rate)

entry, if they are a stand-alone facility. If they form part of a shopping centre they are to be considered as part of the new entry; Shopping Centres.

7.5.10 Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods) (41) Background

• Refer to Hardware & other Retail Showrooms. Influential Trends

• Refer to Hardware & other Retail Showrooms. Recommendation

• 'Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods)' entry deleted, to be considered part of retitled ‘Bulky Goods and Retail Showroom’ entry due to similar parking demand and Statewide Bulky Goods DPA definition.

• Use Hardware & other Retail Showrooms, which has been renamed ‘Bulky Goods Outlet and Retail Showroom’.

7.5.11 Service Trade Premises (42) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Service Trade Premises used primarily for the sale, rental or display of (as listed as per the

Statewide Bulky Goods DPA examples for Retail Trade Premises given below). − Retail Trade Premises not listed in PPL Terminology.

• Statewide Bulky Goods DPA examples of retail trade premises (not Service Trade Premises): − basic plant, equipment or machinery used in agriculture or industry; or − boats; or − caravans; or − domestic garages; or − sheds; or − outbuildings; or − motor vehicles; or − marquees; or − trailers; or − swimming pools, equipment and accessories; or − building materials; or − landscaping materials; or − garden plants (primarily in an indoor setting), similar articles or merchandise;

• It should be noted that garden plants (primarily in an indoor setting) feature in the Bulky Goods Outlets and Retail Showroom definition.

• SA Bulletin rate: 2 to 4 spaces per 100m2 (gross leasable floor area applies to retail, so assumed to be a 100m2 GLFA).

• VPP has no general Service or Retail Trade Premises rates but has the following land uses that fall under the PPL Terminology and Statewide Bulky Goods DPA definitions: − Landscape Gardening Supplies

Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 10% of site area. − Trade Supplies


Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 10% of site area. • RTA Guide lists Bulky goods retail stores: Comparisons should be drawn with similar

developments. • TDB data: no data. • Using aerial imagery, sample sites were measured to gauge the portion of the site currently used

for parking. The measurements for landscape and trade supplies found the following: − Cost Less Plants, Newton – a 1,500m2 site, parking forms 18% of site area. Parking has been

observed to overspill onto neighbouring streets. − Norwood Garden Centre – a 1,700m2 site, parking forms 25% of site area. Unknown if peak

parking is accommodated on site. − Newton Building & Landscape Supplies – a 7,900m2 site, parking forms 20% of site area.

Unknown if peak parking is accommodated on site. Influential Trends

• No information. Recommendation

• The VPP parking provision of 10% site area is unlikely to accommodate the parking demand when considering the sample measurements of between 18% and 25%.

• Given the lack of information, the SA Bulletin rate range of 2 to 4 spaces per 100m2 GLFA should remain.

7.5.12 Shop (not within a shopping centre), formerly Shop (not within a centre) (43)

Background

• PPL Terminology: Shop ‘Means: − Premises used primarily for the sale by retail, rental or display of goods, foodstuffs,

merchandise or materials; or − a restaurant; or − a bulky goods outlet or retail showroom; or − a personal service establishment, − but does not include— − a hotel; or − a motor repair station; or − a petrol filling station; or − a plant nursery where there is no sale by retail; or − a timber yard; or − service trade premises; or − service industry;” − Supermarkets fall under the definition of Shop.

• SA Bulletin rate: 7 spaces per 100 m2 of gross leasable area. • VPP has a the following parking rates:

− Shop other than listed: Column A (standard) rate of 4 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area. Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area.

− Supermarket: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area

• RTA Guide: Shopping Centres rates listed and a formula for shops that utilises the following rates:


− Supermarkets: 4.2 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area. − Specialty shops: 4.5 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area.

• TDB Data indicates the following: − Shops:

Survey of three shops, varying in size from 350m2 to 2,700 m2. Located in outer suburban areas of Christchurch. Survey date: 2004 and 2005. Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 1.45 to 11.2 spaces per 100m2 of GFA

(1.93 to 14.9 of GLFA). The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 11 spaces per 100m2 (14.7 of GLFA).

− Supermarkets: Survey of three supermarkets, varying in size from 350m2 to 2,700 m2. Two located in outer suburban areas of Christchurch and one in Tauranga, a city with a

population of 107,000 people. Survey date: 2004, 2007 and 2008. Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 3.0 to 3.9 spaces per 100m2 of GFA (4

to 5.2 of GLFA). The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 3.8 spaces per 100m2 (5.1 of GLFA).

• Aurecon Darwin Study: − Retail measured in net floor area. The Aurecon Darwin study understood this to be similar to

gross leasable floor area. − Speciality retail generally clustered in strips and small activity centres which mean that there is

likely to be a range of uses generating a range of parking demands at different times. − Supermarkets are general not differentiated from individual / specialty shops in statutory

planning tools and have a higher parking demand than individual / specialty shops. A rate of 3.67 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area.

− For specialty retail (a Newsagency, a small jewellery / Homewares shop and a fashion boutique was surveyed) a parking rate range of between 1.02 and 2.21 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area is recommended.

• DA or DPA rates: − Axiom Churchill Centre: 5.2 spaces per 100m2 GLFA. − Bowden Urban Village: 3 spaces per 100m2 GLFA. − Mayfield, Adelaide: 3 spaces per 100m2 GLFA. − Newport Quays: 3 spaces per 100m2 GLFA.

City of Subiaco: 1 per 20m2 net lettable area or 5 spaces per 100m2 GLFA. Individual / specialty shops have scope to reduce their parking demand by sharing parking

areas and, in metropolitan areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes. The success of the establishment dictates the level of parking demand which creates

difficulties in establishing a guiding parking rate. Influential Trends

• ABS Census data indicates slow growth (0.1% for Household goods to 1.1% for cafes, restaurants and takeaway food services) in retail across Australia, with a 0.3% growth in South Australia. No breakdown of proportions of online or store purchases growth is available.

• Online shopping retail is growing faster than store purchase retail (NAB). Online retail expected to reduce demand for store bought items.

Recommendation


• The Darwin study showed that supermarkets have a higher demand for parking than individual / specialty shops. VPP rates higher for supermarkets. The TDB data shows that the supermarket demand falls within the specialty shop range.

• Shopping centres have significantly different parking demands, with a much broader range of retail and other land uses, allowing shared parking to occur. Therefore a separate entry for shopping centres has been created. A separate rate for supermarkets could be considered.

• Overall a large variation in parking demand is recorded for shops. • An accessibility discount can apply. • Change the entry title to 'Shop (not within a shopping centre)' to avoid misinterpretation of the

word centre. • In reference to the recorded data, to accommodate the parking demand a rate range of 3 to 7

spaces per 100m2 of GLFA is recommended. The minimum rate represents shops that are located in high streets or centres, with good alternative transport connections and shared parking arrangements. The higher rate represents supermarkets and shops outside of a reasonable walking distance from public transport and with no access to shared parking areas. A range of rates will place the onus on the developer in providing evidence of the anticipated parking demand.

7.5.13 Used Car Lot/ Vehicle Sales Yard (45) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard not accepted terms. − PPL refers to Service Trade Premises.

• SA Bulletin rate: 1.5 to 2 spaces per 100m2 of total floor area. Influential Trends


• Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard not accepted terms in PPL Terminology. Land used for the sale of motor vehicles falls under the Service Trade Premises PPL Terminology definition.

• Delete Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard entry. • Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard to be considered under the Service Trade Premises entry.

7.5.14 Video Store (46) Background

• PPL Terminology: Not listed. • SA Planning Bulletin rate of 6 spaces per 100m2 GFA. Influential Trends

• The Network Group, Australia’s second largest DVD rental group, reports strong business growth in 2011.

• Blockbuster Australia (a separate entity to Blockbuster Inc. of the US) reports double digit rental growth in 2011, with strong growth predicted for a number of years.

• Increase in use of internet to download of movies. • Lack of available data. Recommendation

• Video Store covered by definition of a Shop in the PPL Terminology List. • Entry to be deleted.


7.6 Accommodation

7.6.1 Retirement Village (formerly Aged Care Retirement Homes) (47) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Aged Care Retirement Homes: Not listed. − Aged Care: Not an accepted term, uses Nursing Home defined as:

‘Definition of ‘nursing home’ in Schedule 1 is ‘a place for the care of the aged and infirm where no care of outpatients or surgery is undertaken’ Some aspects may be controlled under the Retirement Villages Act 1987.’

− Aged Housing: Not accepted, use Aged Persons Accommodation or Nursing Home. − Retirement Homes; listed but use Supported Accommodation. − Retirement Village:

‘Definition of ‘retirement village’ in the Retirement Villages Act 1987 is “a complex of residences or a number of separate complexes of residences (including appurtenant land) occupied or intended for occupation under a retirement village scheme but does not include any such complex excluded from the ambit of this definition by the [Retirement Villages] regulations” (see Section 3(1) in the Development Regulations 2008). An application for a retirement village could also fall under other definitions at the same time (such as residential flat building) depending on the physical form of the development (see paragraphs 10-11 in The Chappel Investment Company Pty Ltd & The Smallacombe Investment Company Pty Ltd v The City of Mitcham [2009] SASC 23)’.

− Supported accommodation: accepted, no definition, related to Nursing Homes and Retirement Homes.

• SA Planning Bulletin rate of 1 space per unit. • VPP definitions:

− Residential aged care facility includes Nursing Home. − Retirement Village: Land used to provide permanent accommodation for retired people or the

aged and may include communal recreational or medical facilities for residents of the village. • VPP has the following parking rates:

− Residential Aged Care Facility: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3 spaces per lodging room.

− Retirement Village: Column A (standard) rate of:

• 1 space to each one or two bedroom dwelling PLUS

• 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studios or studies that are separate rooms counted bedrooms) PLUS

• 1 space for visitors to every five dwellings for developments of five or more dwellings.

Column B rate of:

• 1 space to each one or two bedroom dwelling PLUS • 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studios or studies that are

separate rooms counted bedrooms) PLUS • 0 spaces for visitors.

• TDB data: No parking data.


• ABS data: − 2006 ABS Census Data for Holdfast Bay South:

2 person household with 0 cars: 8.9% 2 person household with 1 car: 56.9% 2 person household with 2 cars: 29.8% 2 person household with 3 cars: 3.1% 2 person household car ownership unknown: 1.3%

− 2006 ABS Census Data for Holdfast Bay North: 2 person household with 0 cars: 11.8% 2 person household with 1 car: 50.5% 2 person household with 2 cars: 33.1% 2 person household with 3 cars: 2.8% 2 person household car ownership unknown: 1.8%

Influential Trends

• Advances in medicine and care. • Ageing population. • Expectancy of high standard facilities, developers providing facilities to match expectations. Recommendation

• No data on current parking demand. • Parking discount can apply, as residents and visitors may use available alternative transport

modes. • The entry title ‘Aged Care Retirement Homes’ merges two different types of accommodation. Aged

Care implies a home where a higher level of medical assistance is provided, contrasting with a retirement home where residents may be independent of medical assistance. However, no clear boundary is provided in the PPL Terminology, with Nursing Home listed as relating to Retirement Home or Retirement Village and, a note stating some aspects of a Nursing Home may be controlled under the Retirement Villages Act 1987. Elderly residents requiring a certain level of medical assistance are less likely to be able to drive compared to mobile retirees, requiring a lower parking rate.

• Measurement unit changed from unit to dwelling to represent the better standard of accommodation provided.

• To represent the parking demand of a retirement facility it is recommended changing the title to Retirement Village, with the following parking rate range, based on the VPP rate and supported by ABS data: − One or two bedroom dwelling: 1 to 1.2 spaces. − Three or more bedrooms: 2 to 2.2 spaces.

7.6.2 Display Home (48) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Display Home: not listed.

• SA Planning Bulletin: assess on needs basis. • VPP definitions:

− A building constructed as a dwelling, but used for display, to encourage people to buy or construct similar dwellings.

• VPP has the following parking rates:


− Column A (standard) rate of: 5 spaces to each dwelling for five or fewer contiguous dwellings PLUS 2 spaces to each additional contiguous dwelling.

− Column B rate of: 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of floor area.

Influential Trends

• Large scale residential development taking place in South Australia, Recommendation

• Parking reduction discount is applicable. • In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to provide a rate range, adopting the

VPP rate as the Standard rate, with a minimum rate to allow for discounting if conditions are met: − 5 to 5.5 spaces to each dwelling for five or fewer contiguous dwellings PLUS − 2.3 to 2.5 spaces to each additional contiguous dwelling.

7.6.3 Guesthouse/Hostel (50) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Guest house: not accepted, use dwelling or tourist accommodation. − Hostel: not accepted, use group dwelling, multiple dwelling or residential flat building.

• SA Planning Bulletin: 1 space per 3 beds. • VPP: Not listed. Influential Trends

• No data. Recommendation

• Guesthouse / Hostel fall under the definition of dwelling of tourist accommodation. Delete entry

7.6.4 Motel (51) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Motel:

‘Means “a building or group of buildings providing temporary accommodation for more than five travellers, and includes an associated restaurant facility, but does not include a hotel or residential flat building” (see Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations 2008)’.

• SA Planning Bulletin: − 1 space per room PLUS − 1 space per employee.

• VPP has the following parking rates: − Column A (standard) and Column B rate of:

1 space to each unit PLUS 1 space to each manager dwelling PLUS 50% of the calculated parking demand of any ancillary land use.

Influential Trends



• Limited parking reduction discount is applicable. • In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to modify the SA Bulletin rate as

follows: − 1 space per room PLUS − 1 space per employee PLUS − 50% of the relevant requirements of any ancillary land use except an hotel. 100% of parking

requirement of an associated hotel.

7.6.5 Serviced Apartments (52) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Serviced Apartments: not listed. − Serviced Holiday Apartments: not accepted, use hotel, motel, residential flat building or tourist

accommodation. • SA Planning Bulletin:

− 1 space per room PLUS − 1 space per employee.

• VPP: none. Influential Trends


• Serviced Apartments not listed in PPL Terminology, uses Tourist Accommodation. • Delete entry and consider Serviced Apartments in ‘Tourist Accommodation’ (formerly Tourist

Accommodation (bed & breakfast)’.

7.6.6 Tourist Accommodation (formerly Tourist Accommodation (bed & breakfast)) (53)

Background

• PPL Terminology: − Tourist Accommodation:

‘“an important distinction needs to be drawn between…tourist accommodation and urban residential and dwellings. In many matters considered by the Court…tourist accommodation is recognised as a distinct land use and development type, supported by regular use of the term in Development Plans. Whilst not defined in the Act or Regulations or the Development Plan (though several types are outlined…it is to be distinguished from a dwelling, detached dwelling, residence – all permanent or semi-permanent places of abode for the owner/tenanted occupiers. A tourist accommodation unit or apartment, even if self-contained is not a dwelling, a detached dwelling or a residence. Key distinctions are…the purpose and intended activities of the use – temporary accommodation for visitors – tourists (people away from their regular places of abode) from one night to as much as a month or so…” (see Gowling v Development Assessment Commission [2006] SAERDC 68) The relationship between ‘hotel’, ‘motel’ (both defined in the Regulations)


and ‘serviced apartment’ (not defined in the Regulations) was considered in Bleechmore & Ors v CC Nor Payn & St Pet v Bodgara [1999] SAERDC 47.’.

− Bed and breakfast: ‘If the bed and breakfast is for more than five travellers, it would meet the definition of a

motel (per Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations 2008). This interpretation was affirmed in Pohl & Ors v Adelaide Hills Council & Anor (No. 1 [2009] SAERDC 44) If the premises is licensed under the Liquor Licensing Act, it may fall under the definition of hotel in Schedule 1’.

• SA Planning Bulletin: − 1 space per guest room PLUS − 1 space per employee.

• VPP terminology: falls under the category of dwelling. • VPP rate: no rate for Bed and Breakfast. • Anecdotal evidence suggests that employees of a Bed and Breakfast would commonly live in or

near the same Bed and Breakfast building. • Tourist accommodation developments often include an ancillary land uses. Influential Trends


• Parking discount applicable: employees may live in the same building. • Change title to allow all tourist accommodation types to be considered under this entry. • Due to the lack of available data, it is recommended to introduce a rate range for the employee

parking element, using the SA Bulletin rate, with a minimum rate to allow for discounting if conditions are met. The parking requirement of ancillary development should also be accounted for, but discounted to allow for multiple purpose trips and shared parking arrangements. The recommended parking rates are as follows: − 1 space per guest room PLUS − 0.5 to 1 space per employee PLUS − 50% of the relevant parking requirement of ancillary use except hotels. − 100% of the parking requirement of an associated hotel.

7.7 Other

7.7.1 Funeral Parlour (57) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Funeral Parlour: an accepted term, no definition.

• SA Planning Bulletin: − 1 space per 400m2 of total floor area PLUS − 1 space per four seats (chapel).

• VPP has the following parking rates: − Column A (standard) and Column B rate of:

0.3 spaces to each patron catered for. Influential Trends



• Parking reduction discount is applicable. • In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to adopt the VPP rate, with a

minimum rate to allow for a discount if conditions are met: − 0.25 to 0.3 spaces to each patron catered for.

7.7.2 Transport Interchange (formerly Interchange/Transport Station) (59) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Interchange: not listed. − Transport Station: not listed. − Public Transport Interchange listed, no definition provided. − Related terms: Transport Interchange, Bus station and Passenger station.

• SA Bulletin: Assess on needs basis. • VPP: none. • Queensland TOD Guide: None. • Darwin Study: None. • Version 6: None. • TDB data: No data • DA or DPA: None. • Park and Ride: an Adelaide case study (Road & Transport Research Vol. 21 No. 1, March 2012):

− Researched the impact of the Adelaide Entertainment Centre Park and Ride facility. − 700 space facility, utilisation unknown. − 30% of Park and Ride users switched from driving into CBD to car-tram combination. − 82% of respondents have switched from public transport to car-public transport combination.

• Aurecon Woodville Village Car Parking Plan survey of Woodville Station parking: − 30% of 191 space or 63 spaces of Station Walk Car Park used as an informal Park and Ride

facility. − Glynis Nunn Drive has unrestricted on-street parking used as an informal Park and Ride with

62 spaces with a 94% to 97% utilisation rate between 9.30 am and 3 pm. Also recorded were 50 vehicles picking-up passengers in one hour in the pm, waiting up to 15 minutes.

− Peak Park and Ride parking demand of 123 spaces and a demand for 12 pick-up and drop-off spaces.

− Overspill parking occurring on adjacent streets. • Existing Adelaide Metropolitan Park and Ride facilities are:

− Aberfoyle Park (100 spaces) − Blackwood Station (155 spaces) − Brighton Station (220 spaces) − Coromandel Station (100 spaces) − Crafers (65 spaces) − Elizabeth Interchange (150 spaces) − Entertainment Centre (700 spaces) − Gawler Station (300 spaces) − Glanville Station (65 spaces) − Golden Grove (180 spaces) − Hallett Cove Station (100 spaces)


− Hallett Cove Beach Station (190 spaces) − Klemzig Interchange (215 spaces) – representations made to Council suggest 100% utilised. − Mawson Interchange (550 spaces) − Mitcham Station (35 spaces) − Mount Barker (183 spaces) − Noarlunga Centre Interchange (350 pay spaces, 100 free spaces) − Oaklands Interchange (265 spaces) − Old Reynella Interchange (50 spaces) − Reynella East (Panalatinga Road) (96 spaces) − Paradise Interchange (475 spaces) - representations made to Council suggest 100% utilised. − Paradise Interchange – Darley Rd (400 spaces) − Salisbury Interchange (240 spaces) - surveyed as 100% utilised. − St Agnes (94 spaces) − Smithfield Station (245 spaces) − Tea Tree Plaza Interchange (300 pay spaces, 100 free spaces)

• DPTI CSTR Part D050 Design – Interchange Facilities DRAFT (February 2010): − Reports increased patronage at all recently upgraded park and ride facilities throughout the

Adelaide Metropolitan Network. − Green Fields Bus / Train Interchange:

A “Go Station” frequency of 15 minute service from 7.30 am to 6.30 pm, Monday to Friday and 30 minute service outside of these times.

Minimum 200 space car park, including 8 accessible spaces. Potential for future expansion to 400 or more spaces. Taxi rank facility of 2 vehicles and 1 accessible taxi. Kiss and Ride and Taxi Rank of 4 spaces. Possible commercial fee based parking facility of 300 spaces.

• Seaford rail extension: − Extension scheduled to open in late 2013. − Meadows Station: 550 vehicle Park and Ride Facility. − Seaford Station: 450 vehicle Park and Ride Facility.

Influential Trends

• Expansion of public transport in South Australia. • DPTI reports increased patronage of train / bus services where park and ride facilities have been

upgraded. • Council reports of under supply of parking at Paradise Interchange, Modbury Interchange, Klemzig

and Salisbury Interchange Park and Ride facilities. Recommendation

• Due to the unique nature of each interchange a range cannot be defined and should remain as ‘assess on a needs basis’.

• Change the entry name to match the PPL Terminology: Public Transport Interchange. • Limited data available, available data complicated by over spill parking occurring on adjacent

streets. • Parking discount not applicable.

7.7.3 Radio Studio or Television Studio (formerly Radio & TV Studio) (60) Background

• PPL Terminology:


− Radio or TV Studio: not an accepted term, use Radio Studio or Television Studio • SA Planning Bulletin:

− 5 spaces per 100m2 of total floor area. • VPP: none. Influential Trends


• Change title to ‘radio studio or television studio’ to match PPL Terminology. • Parking reduction discount is applicable. • In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to introduce a rate range to allow for

discounting should conditions be met. The current SA Bulletin rate is used as the Standard rate. The recommended rate range is as follows: − 4 to 5 spaces per 100m2 of GFA.

7.8 New Entries

7.8.1 Multiple Dwelling Development (49a) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Dwelling defined as ‘a building or part of a building used as a self-contained residence’. − Detached dwelling defined as ‘comprising one dwelling on a site that is held exclusively with

dwelling and has a frontage to a public road, or to a road proposed in a plan of land division that is subject of a current development authorisation’.

− Semi-detached dwelling defined as ‘a dwelling occupying a site that is held exclusively with that dwelling and has a frontage to a public road or to a road proposed in a plan of land division that is subject of a current development authorisation and comprising one of two dwellings erected side by side, joined together and forming, by themselves, a single building’.

− row dwelling defined as ‘a dwelling occupying a site that is held exclusively with that dwelling and has a frontage to a public road or to a road proposed in a plan of land division that is subject of a current development authorisation and comprising one of three or more dwellings erected side by side, joined together and forming, by themselves, a single building’.

• No SA Planning Bulletin rate. • The Development Plans have numerous parking rates for dwellings, based on the type of dwelling,

number of bedrooms and the location of the dwelling. Including visitors, the rates range from 1.83 to 3 spaces per dwelling.

• VPP dwelling rates: − To each one or two bedroom dwelling:

Column A (standard) rate of 1 space per dwelling. Column B rate of 1 space per dwelling.

− Plus to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as bedrooms) Column A (standard) rate of 2 spaces per dwelling. Column B rate of 2 spaces per dwelling.

− Plus for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings Column A (standard) rate of 1 space per five dwellings.


Column B rate of 0 spaces per five dwellings. • RTA Guide rate for dwelling houses: 1 to 2 spaces per dwelling. • TDB data: no data • DA or DPA rate:

− Mayfield, Adelaide: 1.1 spaces per dwelling.

− Northgate apartment building: 1 space per dwelling (number of bedrooms unknown).

• ABS Census data shows: − That car ownership for separate dwellings doesn’t vary significantly when considering their

location, whether located in metropolitan or rural South Australian council areas. − The vehicle ownership for the different dwelling types is reasonably consistent when

comparing the States. This suggests that parking rates used in other States, particularly dwelling rates, could be applicable to South Australia. However, as raised by the Reference Group, the parking rates of Victoria and New South Wales are significantly influenced by their larger and more extensive public transport systems.

− That car ownership for flats / units /apartments varies significantly between rural and metropolitan areas.

− Flats / units /apartments in the metropolitan councils considered, that have no motor vehicles, ranges from 21% (Holdfast Bay) to 49% (Playford), with an average metropolitan council percentage of 29%.

− Rural council flats / units / apartments with one or less motor vehicles range from 78% to 86%. − Metropolitan council flats / units / apartments with one or less motor vehicles range from 79%

to 94%. • Parking demand of dwellings consists of residents and visitors; resident daily demand is

consistent and visitor demand is sporadic. • The parking demand of a dwelling is based on the number of bedrooms for most authorities and

not the dwelling type. • The scope for a reduction of the parking demand by an accessibility discount is considerable, for

residents and visitors alike. Influential Trends

• 30-Year Plan objectives for higher density dwellings. • Developers insisting on a minimum of 1 space per dwelling to meet perceived market demand. Recommendation

• The potential for residents and visitors to use alternative transport modes is significant in metropolitan areas. A wide parking rate range for dwellings would allow a higher rate to be used for dwellings located in rural areas and, subject to accessibility of alternative transport modes, discounted to a lower rate for metropolitan areas. This will place the onus on the developer for justifying a lower rate.

• It is considered that the parking rate should be based on the number of bedrooms as opposed to the type of dwelling. The Reference Group emphasised that a four bedroom townhouse is likely to have the same parking demand as a four bedroom detached dwelling.

• The recommended standard rate is based on the highest development plan rate, with a minimum rate to allow a discount if conditions are met. The recommended rates are as follows: − 1 bedroom: 1 to 1.25 spaces per dwelling. − 2 bedroom: 1.25 to 1.75 spaces per dwelling. − 3 or more bedroom: 1.75 to 2.5 spaces per dwelling.


− Independently accessible visitors parking: 0.25 to 0.5 space per dwelling.

7.8.2 Single Dwelling Development (49b) Background

• Refer to section 5.8.1 ‘Multiple Dwelling Development’.

Influential Trends

• Refer to section 5.8.1 ‘Multiple Dwelling Development’.

Recommendation

• Although the potential for residents and visitors to use alternative transport modes is significant in metropolitan areas, for a developer constructing a single dwelling a discounted rate results in a parking rate that is not a whole number which is not practical in application.

• It is considered that the parking rate should be based on the number of bedrooms as opposed to the type of dwelling. The Reference Group emphasised that a four bedroom townhouse is likely to have the same parking demand as a four bedroom detached dwelling.

• Separate dwelling developments are unlikely to include individually accessible visitor parking areas.

• The recommended standard rate is as follows: − 1 bedroom: 1 space per dwelling. − 2 bedrooms: 2 spaces per dwelling. − 3 or more bedroom: 3 spaces per dwelling.

7.8.3 Gymnasium (8) Background

• Gymnasiums under Indoor Recreation in PSA Bulletin with rate Assess on needs basis. • City of Holdfast Bay and Murray Bridge Council development plans have 10 per 100m2. • RTA Guide rates for gyms range from 3 per 100m2 (regional centres / CBD locations) to 7.5 per

100m2 (sub-regional centres). • The peak parking demand of a gymnasium is created by patrons attending classes, with a high

number of patrons arriving and departing at the within a 15 minute window. • Aurecon surveys of the travel mode of gym users shows 93% drive to the gym. • Majority of gyms operate up to two classes simultaneously, with peak class attendance occurring

between 6.30 PM to 7.30 PM weekdays and 9 AM to 10 AM Saturday. • Class sizes are unrestricted, with up to 45 patrons per class recorded. • Genesis Glenelg: 4.8 per 100m2. • Marion Fitness First: 5.2 per 100m2. • TBD data:

− Inner suburban gymnasium surveyed at 3.07 spaces per 100m2. − Outer suburban gymnasium surveyed at 4.62 spaces per 100m2.

• Darwin Study: 2 per 100m2. Influential Trends

• No data available. Recommendation

• Scope for Accessibility discount to be applied. • Recommended rate range, based on surveyed demand and the RTA Guide rate, of:


− 3 to 7 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

7.8.4 Industry (22) Background

• PPL Terminology: ‘the carrying on, in the course of a trade or business, of any process (other than a process in the course of farming or mining) for, or incidental to: − The making of any article, ship or vessel; or − The altering, repairing, ornamenting…or demolition, of any article, ship or vessel; or − The getting, dressing or treatment of materials.’

• SA Planning Bulletin: Industry and Warehousing at the following rates: − Office component: 3.3 per 100m2. − Plus:

Non-office component up to 200m2: 2 per 100m2. Plus: Non-office component 200m2 to 2000m2: 1.33 per 100m2. Plus: Non-office component greater than 2000m2: 1.33 per 100m2.

− OR: Labour intensive industries: 0.75 per employee − Whichever is the greater.

• VPP has an ‘Industry other than listed’ parking rate of: − Column A (standard) rate of 2.9 per 100m2 of net floor area. − Column B rate of 1 per 100m2 of net floor area.

• RTA Guide: − Factories: 1.3 spaces per 100m2 GFA. − Business Parks:

1.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA. 1.8 spaces per 100m2 GLFA of leasable office / showroom leasable factory / warehouse

area (where information is provided). • TDB data indicates the following:

− Survey of ten industrial units, varying in size from 240m2 to 4960m2. Located in suburban areas of Christchurch with moderate public transport accessibility.

− Survey date: September 2007. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.13 to 2.66 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. The

85th percentile rate is 1.85 spaces per 100m2 GFA. − Surveyed parking demand rate of between 0.13 and 0.63 spaces per employee. The 85th

percentile rate is 0.6 spaces per employee. • A Property Council of Australia investigation demonstrated that current rates result in an over

provision of parking spaces, as manufacturing methods have become more automated since the release of the 2001 SA Parking Bulletin. Competitiveness in international manufacturing has resulted in reduced labour, with the jobs per hectare being a key indicator of competitiveness. The oversupply of parking has increased development costs due to the significant increase in land costs, making South Australian manufacturing less competitive.

Influential Trends

• Since 2001 there has been increased automation of manufacturing processes with a corresponding reduction in the workforce.

Recommendation

• Create separate item for Industry.


• Delete area based parking rates as floor areas do not directly link to parking demand. • A discount can apply but should be minimal as the majority of industrial developments are often

isolated from alternative transport modes. • The TDB survey data indicates that the actual demand will be less than 1 space per employee

(85th percentile of 0.6 recorded). A rate of greater than 0.6 will per employee will allow for visitors. • If employee numbers are not known defer to a range of 1.5 to 1.85 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. The

standard rate will accommodate the 85th percentile surveyed demand recorded in the TDB (lower than the current SA Bulletin rate).

• Given the above the recommended rate range is: − 0.8 to 1 space per employee (if employee numbers known) OR − 1.5 to 1.85 spaces per 100m2 of GFA.

7.8.5 Mixed-use / TOD – Residential (54) Background

• PPL Terminology: − No Mixed Use Residential definition. − No Transport Oriented Development definition. − Mixed Use Building:

No legal definition. Means buildings containing two or more unrelated land uses, e.g. residential and offices.

• No SA Planning Bulletin rate. • The Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan has the following for multi-storey apartments:

− Residential flat building of 3 storeys or less (Specific zones): 1 bedroom: 1 space per dwelling. 2 bedrooms: 1.2 spaces per dwelling. 3 bedrooms plus: 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Visitors: 0.25 spaces per dwelling.

− Residential flat building of 4 storeys or more(Specific zones): 1 bedroom: 0.75 spaces per dwelling. 2 bedrooms: 1 space per dwelling. 3 bedrooms plus: 2 spaces per dwelling. Visitors: 0.2 spaces per dwelling.

• The City of Holdfast Bay Development Plan has the following group dwelling and residential flat buildings parking rates: − Residential flat building of 3 storeys or less (Specific zone):

1 bedroom or floor area of <75m2: 0.75 spaces per dwelling. 2 bedrooms or floor area of 75m2 to 130m2: 1 space per dwelling. 3 bedrooms plus or floor area of >130m2: 1.25 spaces per dwelling. Visitors: 0.25 spaces per dwelling.

− Residential flat building of 4 storeys or more(Any other location): 1 bedroom or floor area of <75m2: 1 space per dwelling. 2 bedrooms or floor area of 75m2 to 130m2: 1.5 spaces per dwelling. 3 bedrooms plus or floor area of >130m2: 2 spaces per dwelling. Visitors: 0.25 spaces per dwelling.

• VPP dwelling rates: − To each one or two bedroom dwelling:


Column A (standard) rate of 1 space per dwelling. Column B rate of 1 space per dwelling.

− Plus to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as bedrooms) Column A (standard) rate of 2 spaces per dwelling. Column B rate of 2 spaces per dwelling.

− Plus for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings Column A (standard) rate of 1 space per five dwellings. Column B rate of 0 spaces per five dwellings.

• VPP Commission reported: − A zero rate for a dwelling located in an Activity Zone was considered for sustainable transport

reasons but, following representations from Councils, consultants, developers and professional bodies, was disregarded in favour of a minimum of one space per dwelling. However, the rate can be reduced through a Schedule to the Parking Overlay.

• Queensland TOD Guide: − City centre:

Preferred: 0.5 per dwelling. Base maximum: 0.75 per dwelling.

− Activity centre: Preferred: 0.75 per dwelling. Base maximum 1 per dwelling.

− Specialist activity centre: Preferred: 0.75 per dwelling. Base maximum 1.25 per dwelling.

− Urban: Preferred: 0.75 per dwelling. Base maximum 1 per dwelling.

− Suburban: Preferred: 1 per dwelling. Base maximum 1.25 per dwelling.

− Neighbourhood: Preferred: 1 per dwelling. Base maximum 1.25 per dwelling.

• Darwin Study of multiple dwellings recommended the following based on the surveyed 85th percentile parking demand: − 1 bedroom: 1 space per dwelling. − 2 bedrooms: 1.5 spaces per dwelling. − 3 bedrooms: 1.7 spaces per dwelling. − 4 bedrooms: 2 spaces per dwelling. − Visitors: 0.24 spaces per dwelling.

• Version 6: − Apartments in Core Area / Urban Corridor Zone (including visitor parking):

Studio: 0.35 to 0.5 spaces per dwelling. 1 bedroom: 0.7 to 1 space per dwelling. 2 bedrooms: 0.9 to 1.25 spaces per dwelling.


3 or more bedrooms: 1.15 to 1.5 spaces per dwelling. − Apartments in Transition Areas (including visitor parking):

Studio: 0.5 to 0.75 spaces per dwelling. 1 bedroom: 0.9 to 1.25 space per dwelling. 2 bedrooms: 1.2 to 1.75 spaces per dwelling. 3 or more bedrooms: 1.6 to 2.25 spaces per dwelling.

− Row, semi-detached and detached dwellings in General (including visitor parking): 1 or 2 bedrooms: 1 space per dwelling. 3 or more bedrooms: 2 spaces per dwelling.

• TDB data: no data • DA or DPA rate:

− Bowden Urban Village: 0.75 spaces per dwelling considered low.

− Newport Quays: 1 bedroom dwelling: 0.75 spaces. 2 bedroom dwelling: 1 space. 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings: 2 spaces. Visitors: 1 space per 5 dwellings.

− Northgate DPA: Apartment

• Studio: 0 per dwelling. • 1 bedroom dwelling: 0.25 spaces per dwelling. • 2 and 3 bedrooms dwelling: 1 space. • 4 bedroom dwellings: 2 spaces. • Visitors: 1 space per 5 dwellings.

Row, semi-detached and detached:

• 1, 2 and 3 bedroom: 1 space. • 4 bedrooms: 2 spaces. • Visitors: 0 spaces.

• ABS Census data shows: − That car ownership for flats / units /apartments varies significantly between rural and

metropolitan areas. − Flats / units /apartments in the metropolitan councils considered, that have no motor vehicles,

ranges from 21% (Holdfast Bay) to 49% (Playford), with an average metropolitan council percentage of 29%.

− Rural council flats / units / apartments with one or less motor vehicles range from 78% to 86%. − Metropolitan council flats / units / apartments with one or less motor vehicles range from 79%

to 94%. • Bowden Urban Village –Revised Master Plan Report (Gov. of SA / LMC / AAUD / LFA, February

2011) shows apartment plans with one space per dwelling. • Parking demand of dwellings consists of residents and visitors; resident daily demand is

consistent and visitor demand is sporadic. • The parking demand of a dwelling is based on the number of bedrooms for most authorities. Influential Trends

• 30-Year Plan objectives for mixed use developments.


• Developers insisting on a minimum of 1 space per dwelling to meet perceived market demand. Recommendation

• The potential reduction in parking demand is significant in a mixed use development or TOD (multi-purpose trip, shared parking, alternative transport modes).

• The VPP Commission representations favoured a minimum of 1 space per dwelling. The revised Bowden Master Plan also indicates that 1 space per dwelling will be provided. There is a danger that the principles of mixed use and TOD developments could be undermined by cautious developers providing parking at a higher rate than the minimum. It should be noted that often, current owners of apartments / townhouses have no option but to pay an annual fee for an associated parking space regardless of whether it is needed, providing the freeholder with a guaranteed annual income. To avoid the situation of oversupply of parking, the recommended standard rate should not be exceeded.

• A parking discount is not applicable as the recommended rates are tailored to reflect good alternative transport links, shared use and mixed-use development.

• The definition of a MUD or TOD remains fluid. As discussed at Workshop #2, to define a TOD for the purposes of this study, reference is made to the 30 Year Plan. MUDs are only those located in transit corridors as identified in the 30 Year Plan. However, an extra stipulation of a minimum of 20 residential dwellings would reinforce the principle of MUDs, with residents living, working and being entertained in the same development and avoid undesirable MUDs, such as a shopping centre with one residential apartment.

• The recommended rates are based on SA PPL Version 6 Urban Core Zone, supported by ABS data: − 1 bedroom: 0.75 per dwelling. − 2 bedrooms: 1 space per dwelling. − 3 or more bedrooms: 1.25 spaces per dwelling. − Visitors: 0.25 spaces per dwelling.

• The visitor parking could be accommodated on-street, and where on-street parking is in demand for other land uses, e.g. retail / office use, should be time limited to encourage turn-over. The on-street spaces should be available for other users to allow sharing of common parking spaces.

7.8.6 Mixed Use / TOD- non-residential and non-tourist (55) Background

• PPL Terminology: − No Transport Oriented Development definition. − No Mixed Use Non-residential definition. − Mixed Use Building:

No legal definition. Means buildings containing two or more unrelated land uses, e.g. residential and offices.

• No SA Planning Bulletin rate. • VPP: no Mixed Use – Non-residential parking rates. • Queensland TOD Guide for retail and office uses:

− City centre: Preferred: 0.17 per 100m2. Base maximum 0.25 per 100m2.

− Activity centre: Preferred: 0.5 per 100m2. Base maximum 1 per 100m2.


− Specialist activity centre: Preferred: 0.5 per 100m2. Base maximum 1 per 100m2.

− Urban: Preferred: 0.33 per 100m2. Base maximum 0.5 per 100m2.

− Suburban: Preferred: 1 per 100m2. Base maximum 1.3 100m2.

− Neighbourhood: Preferred: 1 per 100m2. Base maximum 2 per 100m2.

• Darwin Study: no mixed use residential considered. • Version 6 rates for Other (non-tourist and non-residential):

− Core Area / Urban Corridor Zone: Minimum: 3 per 100m2. Maximum 5 per 100m2.

− Transition Areas: Minimum: 4 per 100m2. Maximum 6 per 100m2.

• City of Cockburn (WA) Town Centre Parking Strategy (June 2007): − Surveys of mixed use town centres in Western Australia generate weekday parking demand

between 2.5 – 4.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA. • City of Vincent (WA):

− 20% discount to standard rates where the proposed development contains a mix of uses, where at least 45 per cent of the gross floor area is residential.

− 10% discount to standard rates where the proposed development is within a District Centre Zone.

• TDB data: no data • DA or DPA rate:

− Bowden Urban Village: Shops: 3 per 100m2 GLFA. All other ground floor level: 3 per 100m2 GLFA. Any other case: 1.5 per 100m2 GLFA.

− Mayfield Development: Retail, Restaurant / Café, Commercial: 3 per 100m2.

− Newport Quays: Café: 1 per 8.4m2 GLFA. Shops: 3 per 100m2 GLFA.

− Northgate DPA: Non-residential at ground level:

• Minimum: 4 per 100m2 GLFA. • Maximum: 5 per 100m2 GLFA.

Influential Trends


• 30-Year Plan objectives for mixed use developments. Recommendation

• Create a Mixed Use - Non-residential and non-tourist rate entry. Having a single rate for all non-residential development allows for future changes in the land use without the need for costly additional parking measures that may deter potential developers.

• The potential for employees and visitors to use alternative transport modes is significant in a mixed use development or TOD.

• Parking discount not applicable as rates are tailored to reflect good alternative transport links, shared use parking and mixed residential / commercial development.

• The rates recommended for the South Australian TOD / mixed use developments are currently untested, but remain higher than used interstate.

• A separate rate for ground level use could be used but it is expected that commercial uses (particularly office / medical consultants) commonly utilise above ground floors.

• The definition of a MUD or TOD remains fluid. As discussed at Workshop #2, to define a TOD for the purposes of this study, reference is made to the 30 Year Plan. MUDs are only those located in transit corridors as identified in the 30 Year Plan. However, an extra stipulation of a minimum of 20 residential dwellings would reinforce the principle of MUDs, with residents living, working and being entertained in the same development and avoid undesirable MUDs, such as a shopping centre with one residential apartment.

• Considering the above, the following rates are recommended for Mixed Use – non-residential and non-tourist: − 3 per 100m2 GLFA.

7.8.7 Mixed Use / TOD - Tourist Accommodation (56) Background

• PPL Terminology: − No Transport Oriented Development definition. − No Mixed Use – Tourist Accommodation. − Tourist Accommodation: “an important distinction needs to be drawn between…tourist

accommodation and urban residential and dwellings. In many matters considered by the Court…tourist accommodation is recognised as a distinct land use and development type, supported by regular use of the term in Development Plans. Whilst not defined in the Act or Regulations or the Development Plan (though several types are outlined…it is to be distinguished from a dwelling, detached dwelling, residence – all permanent or semi-permanent places of abode for the owner/tenanted occupiers. A tourist accommodation unit or apartment, even if self-contained is not a dwelling, a detached dwelling or a residence. Key distinctions are…the purpose and intended activities of the use – temporary accommodation for visitors – tourists (people away from their regular places of abode) from one night to as much as a month or so…” (see Gowling v Development Assessment Commission [2006] SAERDC 68) The relationship between ‘hotel’, ‘motel’ (both defined in the Regulations) and ‘serviced apartment’ (not defined in the Regulations) was considered in Bleechmore & Ors v CC Nor Payn & St Pet v Bodgara [1999] SAERDC 47.

− Tourist Development: an accepted term. • No SA Planning Bulletin rate. • VPP: no Mixed Use – Non-residential parking rates. • Queensland TOD Guide: None. • Darwin Study: None. • SA PPL Version 6 rates:


− General – Tourist Accommodation up to 100 beds: Minimum: 0.25 per bedroom. Maximum 0.5 per bedroom.

− General – Tourist Accommodation once over 100 beds: Minimum: 0.2 per bedroom. Maximum 0.25 per bedroom.

• City of Cockburn (WA) Town Centre Parking Strategy (June 2007): − Surveys of mixed use town centres in Western Australia generate weekday parking demand

between 2.5 – 4.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA. • City of Vincent (WA):

− 20% discount to standard rates where the proposed development contains a mix of uses, where at least 45 per cent of the gross floor area is residential.

− 10% discount to standard rates where the proposed development is within a District Centre Zone.

• TDB data: no data • DA or DPA rate: None. Influential Trends

• 30-Year Plan objectives for mixed use developments. • South Australian Tourism Commission 2008 data:

− International visitors to the Adelaide tourism region represent 13% of all visitors. − 31% of visitors are from within South Australia. − 55% of visitors are from Interstate. − 20% of all visitors stay in a rented house, apartment, flat or unit. − 23% of all visitors stay in a hotel, resort motel or motor inn. − 48% of all visitors used private / company vehicles to get to Adelaide.

Recommendation

• Create a Mixed Use - tourist rate entry. • The potential for employees and visitors to use alternative transport modes is significant in a

mixed use development or TOD. Parking discounts are not applicable as rates are tailored to reflect good alternative transport links, shared use parking and mixed residential / commercial development.

• The rates recommended for the South Australian TOD / mixed use developments are currently untested, with little data available.

• Almost half of all visitors to the Adelaide tourism region used private vehicles. • The definition of a MUD or TOD remains fluid. As discussed at Workshop #2, to define a TOD for

the purposes of this study, reference is made to the 30 Year Plan. MUDs are only those located in transit corridors as identified in the 30 Year Plan. However, an extra stipulation of a minimum of 20 residential dwellings would reinforce the principle of MUDs, with residents living, working and being entertained in the same development and avoid undesirable MUDs, such as a shopping centre with one residential apartment.

• Considering the above, the following rates are recommended for Mixed Use – Non-residential and non-tourist: − 0.25 spaces per bedroom.

7.8.8 Shop within a shopping centre (43) Background


• PPL Terminology: Shopping Centre not listed. • SA Bulletin rate: none. • VPP does not have a Shopping Centre parking rate, but has Shop other than listed:


• RTA Guide: Shopping Centres rates listed and a formula also provided which takes into account the proportion of slow trade, fast trade and specialty shops. The rates listed are as follows: − 0m2 to 10,000m2 GLFA: 6.1 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area. − 10,000m2 to 20,000m2 GLFA: 5.6 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area. − 20,000m2 to 30,000m2 GLFA: 4.3 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area. − Over 30,000m2 GLFA: 4.1 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area.

• TDB Data indicates the following for Shopping Centres: − Survey of 27 Shopping Centres, varying in size from 2,400m2 to 18,200 m2. − Located in outer town centres, inner and outer suburban areas of Christchurch. − Survey date: 2004 and 2009. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.83 to 4.97 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. The

85th percentile surveyed demand is 3.57 spaces per 100m2 of GFA (4.46 GLFA). − 20 shopping centres with up to 10,000m2 GFA, with rates between 0.83 to 4.97 spaces per

100m2, with an 85th percentile rate of 3.55 spaces per 100m2 (4.44 GLFA) − 7 shopping centres over 10,000m2 GFA, with rates between 1.40 to 3.69 spaces per 100m2,

with an 85th percentile rate of 3.57 spaces per 100m2 (4.46 GLFA) − 6 shopping centres located in town centres, with rates between 1.55 to 4.97 spaces per

100m2, with an 85th percentile rate of 4.8 spaces per 100m2 (6 GLFA) − 17 shopping centres are located in Inner suburban areas, with rates between 1.40 to 4.16

spaces per 100m2, with an 85th percentile rate of 3.49 spaces per 100m2 (4.36 GLFA) − 4 shopping centres are located in Outer suburban areas, with rates between 0.83 to 2.03

spaces per 100m2, with an 85th percentile rate of 2.0 spaces per 100m2 (2.5 GLFA) − Eight Shopping centres were rated with public transport accessibility as High and Very High

and have rates between 1.55 and 3.69 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. The 85th percentile surveyed demand is 3.55 spaces per 100m2 of GFA (4.44 GLFA).

• Aurecon survey data: − Survey of 10 shopping centres in metropolitan Adelaide, including Mitcham and West Lakes

shopping centres. − Survey date: 2009. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 2.6 to 4.9 spaces per 100m2 of GLFA. The

85th percentile surveyed demand is 4.63 spaces per 100m2 of GLFA. • Shopping centres maximise shared parking arrangements but have limited scope to reduce the

parking demand by accessibility to alternative transport modes due to the unwillingness / practicality of shoppers carrying heavy shopping bags on public transport, walking or cycling.

• The success of the establishment dictates the level of parking demand which creates difficulties in establishing a guiding parking rate.

Influential Trends

• ABS Census data indicates slow growth (0.1% for Household goods to 1.1% for cafes, restaurants and takeaway food services) in retail across Australia, with a 0.3% growth in South Australia. No breakdown of proportions of online or store bought growth is available.

• Online shopping retail is growing faster than store bough retail (National Australia Bank). Online retail expected to reduce demand for store bought items.


• Introduction of parking fees is likely, but the effect is unknown as shoppers may simply divert to shopping centres with free parking.

Recommendation

• Overall a small variation in parking demand is recorded for shopping centres regardless of size or location.

• An accessibility discount should be limited. • It should be assumed that a new shopping centre will be successful in trading and as such create

a higher parking demand. • Unexpectedly the TDB data indicates that the shopping centres located in Outer suburban areas

have a lower parking demand than inner or town centre shopping centres. • The recommended rate range has a standard rate based on the highest surveyed 85th percentile

rate of the above data. The lower rate will accommodate the surveyed 85th percentile demand of shopping centres with good public transport accessibility. − 4.5 to 6 spaces per 100m2 of GLFA

7.8.9 Warehouse (23) Background

• PPL Terminology: − Warehouse listed with no definition. − Store is applicable: ‘a building or enclosed land used for the storage of goods, and within or

upon which no trade (whether wholesale or retail) or industry is carried on, but does not include a junk yard, timber yard or public service depot’.

• SA Planning Bulletin rates: − Office component: 3.3 per 100m2. − Plus:

Non-office component up to 200m2: 2 per 100m2. Plus: Non-office component 200m2 to 2000m2: 1.33 per 100m2. Plus: Non-office component greater than 2000m2: 1.33 per 100m2.

− OR: Labour intensive industries: 0.75 per employee − Whichever is the greater.

• VPP Warehouse other than listed rate: − Column A (standard) rate:

2 spaces minimum to each premises plus 1.5 spaces to each 100m2 of net floor area.

− Column B rate: 2 spaces minimum to each premises plus 1 space to each 100m2 of net floor area.

• VPP Committee found: − Examples of smaller warehousing (less than 500m2) had a high parking demand. The

committee believed that instead of applying a blanket higher rate for smaller warehousing, a better response would be a minimum requirement of 2 spaces for even the smallest warehouse use.

− Conversely, submissions regarding very large warehouses found the floor space ratio to the number of employees was skewed and resulted in unreasonably high parking requirements.


An example quoted is a warehouse of 10,000m2 GLA, having only 6 employees, but is required to provide 66 spaces.

• RTA Guide: − Warehouses: 0.33 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

• TDB data indicates the following: − Survey of four warehouses, varying in size from 900m2 to 6700 m2. Located in suburban areas

of Christchurch with moderate public transport accessibility. − Survey date: September 2007. − Surveyed parking demand at the rate of between 0.28 to 2.00 spaces per 100m2 of GFA .The

85th percentile surveyed demand is 1.85 spaces per 100m2 GFA. − Surveyed parking demand rate of between 0.36 and 0.76 spaces per employee. The 85th

percentile surveyed demand is 0.64 spaces per employee.

Influential Trends

• Automated storage systems are increasingly used in warehousing, reducing employee numbers. • Previously ‘just in time’ logistics systems reduced the need for storing excessive levels of goods.

However, anecdotal information suggests that online retailing is increasing the demand for warehousing.

Recommendation

• Create separate item for Warehousing. • An accessibility discount can apply but has a conservative low rate as the majority of warehouse

developments are often not well connected by alternative transport modes. • It is understood that the majority of the parking demand of small or large warehouses is dependent

on the number of employees. • The TDB survey data indicates that the 85th percentile parking demand will be 0.64 spaces per

employee. A rate of 1 space per employee will allow for visitors. • The standard recommended rate will accommodate the 85th percentile surveyed demand recorded

in the TDB and is lower than the sum of the current SA Bulletin rates, reducing the potential for oversupply. − If employee numbers are known: 0.8 to 1 space per employee (a minimum of 2 spaces per

premises). − If employee numbers are not known defer to a range of 1.5 to 1.85 spaces per 100m2 of GFA

(a minimum of 2 spaces per premises).

7.9 Summary of Recommended Rates A summary of the recommended rates is given in Table 5.


Table 5 | Recommended Car Parking Provisions for All Land Use Types

Land Use Type Recommended Rate Max

Allowable Discount

Planning SA Parking Bulletin, 2001 Research Highlights Comments

Existing Rate Summary of Change

Recreation

1 Amusement Machine Centre 7 per 100 sq m TFA N/A 7 per 100 sq m TFA No change • PPL Terminology List: four or more amusement machines. Includes pinball parlours, amusement centres, billiard saloons or fun parlours.

• Limited data available

2 Bowling Club 10 per bowling green N/A 10 per bowling green No change • South Australia has the highest participation rate than any other State or Territory (Australia Sports Commission).

• Large difference between SA, VPP and RTA parking rates.

3 Cinema Complex 0.33 per seat 25% 0.25 - 0.33 per seat No change • Limited data available

4 Concert Hall / Theatre 0.33 per seat 25% 0.25 - 0.33 per seat No change • Limited data available

5 Conference Facility Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis No change • Limited data available

6 Entertainment Multiplex Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis No change • Limited data available

7 Exhibition Hall Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis No change • Limited data available

8 Gymnasium 7 per 100 sq m GFA 55% N/A New Entry

• Surveyed demand: 2 to 5.2 per 100m2 GFA • DP rates: up to 10 per 100m2 GFA. • RTA Guide: 3 to 7.5 per 100m2 GFA • Aurecon survey: 93% drive to the gym

• Recommended rate range based on surveyed rates and RTA Guide

9 Hotels & Taverns 0.55 per patron 25%

Sum of the following:

New measurement unit and maximum

discount rate introduced

• Parking surveys (2 hotels) indicates a peak of 0.55 spaces per person. • VPP has a hotel and tavern parking rate of: o Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces per patron. o Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor area.

• Increased gaming and dining facilities in hotels. • Many hotels provide live music acts that attract a high number of patrons that are not accounted for under the SA Planning Bulletin rates. • Hotel developers have an understanding of the number of staff and patrons that the hotel will attract for liquor and entertainment licensing purposes. • Surveyed rate marginally higher than the standard VPP rate. • Recommended rate range based on surveyed rate and VPP standard rate.

Public Bar 0.50 per sq m TFA

Lounge or beer garden 0.17 per sq m TFA

Dining room 0.33 per seat

Gaming room 0.50 per machine

Accommodation Assess on needs basis

10 Indoor Recreation (formerly Indoor Recreation / Gymnasium) Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis Change entry title

• The PPL Terminology defines a wide range of land uses for ‘Indoor Recreation’ which includes: Bowling alleys, Gymnasiums, Indoor Games Centre / Indoor Recreation Centre, Skating Rink. • Children’s Play Centres could be considered as an Indoor Recreation use

• Due to the wide range of land uses under the heading ‘Indoor Recreation’ the parking rate should remain as ‘Assess on needs basis’. • Gymnasiums are a common development and survey data is available to establish a separate rate. • Remove ‘Gymnasium’ from Indoor Recreation/Gymnasium entry and create a 'Gymnasium entry' (8)

11 Night Clubs & Late Night Venues Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis No change • No data available

12 Non-residential club Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis No change

• PPL Terminology: ‘fits definition of community centre - land used for the provision of social, recreational or educational facilities for the local community, but does not include a pre-school, primary school, educational establishment or indoor recreation centre’.

• No data available



Allowable Discount



13 Restaurant (traditional) 0.4 per seat 25%

0.33 per seat

Maximum discount rate introduced

• VPP standard rate: 0.4 per patron • Floor area is not directly linked to parking demand as kitchen requirements, interior design and table arrangement vary widely. • Restaurants have scope to reduce their parking demand by car sharing, accessibility to alternative transport modes. • Restaurants commonly have shared parking arrangement with other land uses, typically in shopping centres.

• Solely use the number of seats for measurement of the parking demand • Developers know the number of seats they have designed to accommodate • Recommended rate range based on 2001 Planning Bulletin rate and VPP standard rate.

OR

6.67 per 100 sq m TFA

14 Restaurant (fast food / family / convenience restaurant)

0.55 per seat 35%

Without dine-in and drive through 12.00 per 100 sq m TFA


• VPP Col A (standard) rate: 0.3 per patron • RTA Surveyed demand: 0.2 to 0.9 per seat, with 85th percentile of 5.5 • 85th percentile queue of 12 at drive through

• Simplify parking rate, with a single range of parking rates dependant on the total number of seats provided • The provision of drive through facilities has no bearing on the number of vehicles parked, only on queuing areas • Recommended rate range based on 85th percentile surveyed demand and a higher rate than the VPP standard rate

With dine-in facilities but no drive through (internal and external seating)


PLUS With dine-in facilities but no drive through (internal seating)

0.50 per internal seat

12 vehicle queuing area if a drive

through N/A

With dine-in and drive through facilities (internal and external seating)


With dine-in and drive through facilities (internal seating)

0.50 per internal seat

15 Squash / Tennis Courts 4 per court 25% 4 per court Maximum discount rate introduced • Limited data available

• Recommended to introduce a range or rates for squash / tennis courts to represent the variance in existing recommended rates; RTA Guide rate of 3 and VPP / SA Bulletin of 4

16 TAB Facility 8 per 100 sq m GFA 15% 8 per 100 sq m TFA Maximum discount rate introduced

• VPP Col A (standard) rate: 4 spaces per 100m2 leasable floor area • Online gambling currently restricted in Australia but sports betting online is permissible. Growth has increased from 2004 to 2008 by 100%. Managed liberalisation of gambling may occur (Australian Government Productivity Commission). • Tabcorp investing in TAB Sportsbet wagering App, but also investing in self-service technology in the TAB retail network (Tabcorp 2011 Annual Report).

• Due to the lack of data it is recommended to introduce a rate range, with the standard TAB facility parking rate unchanged and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are met • The value of the lower parking rate has no basis apart from it remains much higher than the standard rate provided by the VPP

Medical

17 Consulting Room 5 per consulting room 10% 10 per 100 sq m TFA



• Consulting Room an accepted term in PPL Terminology • VPP Col A (standard) rate: 5 spaces to the first person providing health services plus 3 spaces to every other person providing health services • Aurecon Darwin Study: 2.5 and 8 spaces per practitioner and between 1.1 and 2.63 spaces per consulting room • The layouts of medical centres vary depending on reception space, consulting room sizes and whether conference facilities are provided. As such parking rates based on floor area may not represent an accurate parking demand for the facility.

• Consulting Room to include Medical Centre / Day Surgery. • The scope for accessibility discounting is limited given the medical nature of the land use. • The VPP column A rate is a reasonable representation, allowing for a conservative four patients waiting, and one patient being seen, at any one time by a single practitioner. Patients are likely to arrive just before the scheduled appointment time, but are likely to be delayed by the practitioner. The rate is based on the VPP rate with the metric changed to consulting room, as rooms are more permanent than practioners. • The recommended rate range is based on the VPP Column A rate (the column B ‘every other person’ VPP rate is difficult to justify), the minimum rate is slightly lower than the standard rate to allow discounting if the conditions are met.



Allowable Discount



18 Hospital 5 per bed 30% 2.5 per bed Higher with maximum


• Aurecon parking demand model created to represent the parking operation of four hospitals in South Australia that are expanding • Surveyed parking demand: 3.3 to 4.8 spaces per bed • The model took into account; staff shift patterns, Inpatient, Outpatient, Emergency admissions and visitor data supplied by the hospitals • Predicted parking demand of expanded facilities: 2.9 to 4.9 spaces per bed

• Aurecon parking model of New Royal Adelaide, Modbury, Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier hospitals showed a moderate increase in bed numbers but with large increases in Outpatient processing. • The recommended rate range is defined by the highest modelled parking demand (rural hospital) and the lowest modelled demand (metro hospital): 3.5 to 5 spaces per bed

19 Medical Centre / Day Surgery N/A N/A 10 per 100 sq m TFA Entry Deleted • Medical Centre / Day Surgery not listed in PPL Terminology • To be considered under 'Consulting Room' (17)

20 Aged Persons Accommodation / Nursing home (formerly Nursing Home)

0.3 per lodging room 15% 0.25 per bed Re-titled, higher, with maximum discount

rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: ‘Definition of ‘nursing home’ in Schedule 1 is ‘a place for the care of the aged and infirm where no care of outpatients or surgery is undertaken’ Some aspects may be controlled under the Retirement Villages Act 1987.’ • PPL Terminology: Aged Persons Accommodation or Nursing Home are accepted terms • VPP rate: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each lodging room.

• Some overlap with Nursing Home and Retirement acoomodation definitions, as both provide medical facilities • Assumed residents in retirement accommodation are more mobile than aged care / nursing home residents • No data on current parking demand, however the VPP Column A rate is higher than the current SA Bulletin rate. • Limited scope for applying a discount; visitors and staff may opt to use alternative transport modes if available. • Change measurement to lodging room to represent the type of accommodation being provided. • Include ‘Aged Persons Accommodation’ in title to clarify land use. • Parking rate recommended based on the SA Bulletin and VPP rates

Industry & Warehouse

21 Industry & Warehouse N/A N/A

Office Component: 3.30 per 100 sq m TFA

Entry Deleted

• A Property Council of Australia investigation demonstrated that current rates result in an over provision of parking spaces, as manufacturing methods have become more automated since the release of the 2001 SA Parking Bulletin. Competitiveness in international manufacturing has resulted in reduced labour, with the jobs/Ha being a key indicator of competitiveness. The oversupply of parking has increased development costs due to the significant increase in land costs, making South Australian manufacturing less competitive.

• To be considered under 'Industry' (22) or 'Warehouse' (23)

PLUS

Non-Office Component:

Up to 200 sq m 2 per 100 sq m TFA

Plus 200 - 2000 sq m 1.33 per 100 sq m TFA

Plus greater than 2000 sq m 0.67 per 100 sq m TFA

Labour intensive industries 0.75 per employee

22 Industry

1 per employee (if employee numbers known)

20%

N/A New Entry

• VPP ‘Industry other than listed’ rate: Column A (standard) rate of 2.9 per 100m2 of net floor area. Column B rate of 1 per 100m2 of net floor area. • RTA Guide: 1.3 spaces per 100m2 GFA. • TDB 2007 data of ten industrial units: 85th percentile rate is 1.85 spaces per 100m2 or 0.6 spaces per employee. • Since 2001, increased automation of manufacturing processes with a corresponding reduction in the workforce. • Area based rate not an accurate assessment of parking demand

• A discount can apply but should be minimal as the majority of industrial developments are often isolated from alternative transport modes. • Recommended rate range is based on the TBD data and Property Council of Australia investigation

OR

1.85

per 100 sq m GFA (if employee numbers are not known)

20%



Allowable Discount



23 Warehouse

1

per employee (if employee numbers known) with a minimum of 2 spaces per premises

20%

N/A New Entry

• VPP ‘Warehouse other than listed’ rate: Column A (standard) rate of 2 spaces minimum to each premises plus 1.5 spaces to each 100m2 of net floor area. • VPP ‘Warehouse other than listed’ rate: Column B (standard) rate of 2 spaces minimum to each premises plus 1 space to each 100m2 of net floor area. • VPP Committe: Small warehouses can have a high parking demand, provide minimum requirement of 2 spaces, also very large warehouses have very low demand. • RTA Guide: 0.33 spaces per 100m2 GFA. • TDB 2007 data of four warehouses: 85th percentile rate is 1.85 spaces per 100m2 or 0.64 spaces per employee. • Area based rate not an accurate assessment of parking demand

• A discount can apply but should be minimal as the majority of warehouse developments are often isolated from alternative transport modes. • VPP Committee: small warehouses have a minimum demand of 2 spaces. • Recommended rate range is based on the TBD data and VPP rates

OR

1.85

per 100 sq m GFA (if employee numbers not known) with a minimum of 2 spaces per premises

20%

Community / Civic

24 Child Care Centre / Educational Establishment: Pre-school (formerly Child Care Centre)

1 per employee 10%

0.25 per child

Re-titled, new measurement unit, drop-off / pick-up

requirement

• VPP: Column A and B rates of 0.22 spaces to each child • Calculated drop-off / pick-up demand: 0.23 spaces per child • Long term parking: measurement unit of 'child' may not be accurate in the future as staff / child ratios may increase • Transport mode split of staff or parents unknown, but assumed majority drive • Child care centre children are too young for independent travel • Pre-school (entry 27a) has similar characteristics and could be included in this entry

• Some potential for staff to switch to alternative transport modes. • Potential of parents to switch to alternative transport modes unknown • Recommended long term parking rate range based on anecdotal evidence • Recommended drop-off / pick-up rate based on calculation with assumptions • On-street parking could be utilised to accommodate part of or the entire drop-off / pick-up bay

PLUS EITHER

0.25 per child (drop-off / pick-up bays) 10%

OR

An area wide traffic management plan to accommodate the drop-off / pick-up demand at 0.25 spaces per

child

N/A

25 Civic Administrative Offices N/A N/A 4 per 100 sq m TFA Entry deleted

• Assumed that Civic offices do not vary significantly from other offices (visitor numbers may be higher but SA Bulletin has same rates for both office types suggesting demand is the same)

• To be considered under 'Office' ()

26 Community Centre 10 per 100 sq m TFA N/A 10 per 100 sq m TFA No change

• The layouts of community centres vary depending on building layout and whether conference facilities are provided. As such parking rates based on floor area may not represent an accurate parking demand for the facility • Suggest use of patron or seat as a measurement unit


27a Educational Establishmnet : Pre-School N/A N/A 1 per full time

student Entry deleted

• Pre-school caters for ages 4 to 5 (sa.gov.au). • For Child care centres and Pre-schools an overlap occurs of the ages of children being cared for, with four year olds starting Pre-school. However, staff / child ratios will differ between the two

• Pre-school characteristics have more in common with Child Care Centres than primary and secondary schools • Pre-school entry should be merged with the Child care centre entry, as the measurement of parking demand used is based on the number of employees • Applying an employee based rate will negate the difference between staff / child ratios of Child care centres and Pre-school and, as the travel modes are anticipated to be similar, the same drop-off / pick-up rate should apply



Allowable Discount



27b Educational Establishment: Primary School

1.1 per employee 25%

1 per full time student

Maximum discount rate introduced PLUS

drop-off / pick-up

• VPP: Column A and B rates: 1 space to each employee that is part of the maximum number of employees on the site at any one time • TDB data (1 school): 0.8 spaces per employee / 0.06 spaces per child • Catchment areas only enforced when demand for places outstrips supply, this results in school children living further afield • 2009 Streets Ahead Program (Australian Council for Educational Research): 75% of children travel to school by car • Calculated drop-off / pick-up demand: 0.23 spaces per child •University of Strathclyde, Glasgow: 5 to 7 year olds: very poor skill in identifying dangerous road crossing sites, 11 year olds good judgement

• Scope to apply a discount to schools, particularly for staff and children aged 10 and over (35% of all primary school children) • The calculated demand for the short stay drop-off / pick up bay would be very difficult to accommodate (800 students requires 200 spaces) • Introduce drop-off / pick-up management strategy: staggered start times and individual school years could be allocated a street within a 400m radius of the school as a dedicated drop-off / pick-up zone, with younger years located closest to the school and older years the furthest. Consultation with residents could champion the benefits to the whole community of sharing the responsibility of being located near a school • Staggered start and finish times would also reduce the intensity of the peak periods

PLUS EITHER

0.25 per student 20%

OR


child

N/A

27c Educational Establishment: Secondary School

1.1 per employee 25%

1 per full time student

Maximum discount rate introduced PLUS

drop-off / pick-up

• VPP: Column A and B rates: 1 space to each employee that is part of the maximum number of employees on the site at any one time • TDB data (1 school): 0.8 spaces per employee / 0.06 spaces per child • Catchment areas only enforced when demand for places outstrips supply, this results in school children living further afield • 2009 Streets Ahead Program (Australian Council for Educational Research): 75% of children travel to school by car • Calculated drop-off / pick-up demand: 0.23 spaces per child •University of Strathclyde, Glasgow: 5 to 7 year olds: very poor skill in identifying dangerous road crossing sites, 11 year olds good judgement

• Scope to apply a discount to schools, particularly for staff and children aged 10 and over (35% of all primary school children) • The calculated demand for the short stay drop-off / pick up bay would be very difficult to accommodate (800 students requires 130 spaces) • Introduce drop-off / pick-up management strategy: individual school years could be allocated a street within a 400m radius of the school as a dedicated drop-off / pick-up zone, with younger years located closest to the school and older years the furthest. Consultation with residents could champion the benefits to the whole community of sharing the responsibility of being located near a school • Staggered start and finish times would also reduce the intensity of the peak periods

PLUS EITHER

0.16 per student 25%

OR


child

N/A

28 Educational Establishment: Tertiary Education 0.8

per student that is part of the maximum number of students on the site at any time

60%

0.6 per full time student



• PPL Terminology: Tertiary Institution not listed, Tertiary Education not an accepted term • VPP: Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces to each student that is part of the maximum number of students on the site at any time. Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each student that is part of the maximum number of students on the site at any time • TDB survey of Massey Uni (3,700 students, poor public transport): 0.47 per full time student • Limited data

• Tertiary Institutions located in metro areas have scope to apply an accessibility discount. • Providing a part time and full time student rate may not represent the parking demand • Use the VPP measurement unit, as it refers to the maximum number of students on site; a more accurate gauge of parking demand. • The recommended rate range is based on the current SA Bulletin rate and, due to the extensive consultation carried out by the VPP Committee, the VPP Column B rate

0.02 per part time student

29 Library 4 per 100 sq m GFA 50% 4 per 100 sq m TFA Maximum discount rate introduced

• VPP: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each patron catered for • The State Librarian of NSW: introduction of user-pays, increase in services, becoming centres for the community

• Libraries located in metro areas have scope to apply an accessibility discount • The possibility of library services increasing may result in a higher parking demand • The use of the VPP per patron rate could be used but it may difficult to identify the actual patronage of a library prior to opening • The recommended rate range is based on the SA Bulletin rate, with a minimum rate to allow for potential use of alternative transport modes

30 Meeting Hall 0.2 per seat N/A 0.2 per seat No change • No data available. Rate unchanged

31 Place of Worship 0.33 per seat 25% 0.2 per seat No change • No data available. Rate unchanged



Allowable Discount



Commercial

32 Auction Depot

1 per 100 sq m TFA 10% 1 per 100 sq m TFA


• PPL Terminology: Auction Depot not listed, Auction room is an accepted term • No data

• The recommended rate range is based on the SA Bulletin rate, with a minimum rate to allow for a discount to be applied PLUS PLUS

2 spaces N/A 2 spaces

33 Bank N/A N/A 5 - 6 per 100 sq m TFA Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Bank not an accepted term, PPL uses Office • The traditionally higher parking demand of a bank may be offset by internet banking and ATM use • Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: 33% of bank branches or agencies were closed between 1990 and 2001. • Limited data

• Assumed lower visitor numbers to banks, comparably with offices in general • To be considered under 'Office'

34 Call Centre 8 per 100 sq m GFA 25% Assess on needs basis Maximum discount rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: Call Centre not listed • Room for thought study (Uni of NSW): Call Centres have double the employee density of the average office • Virtual Contact Centres utilising the NBN may negate the need for Call Centres

• Limited visitor numbers expected at Call Centres • Due to the double employee density compared with an office, the recommended rate range is based on double the Office rate

35 Bulky Goods Outlet or Retail Showroom (formerly Hardware and other retail showrooms)

3 per 100 sq m GLFA 40% 2 - 4 per 100 sq m GLA

Re-titled, lower rate and maximum discount rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: Hardware and Other Retail Showrooms not listed • Statewide Bulky Goods DPA: links Bulky Goods with Retail Showroom, similar to VPP definition of Restricted Retail premises •VPP restricted retail premises rate: Column A (standard) rate of 3 spaces per 100m2, Column B rate of 2.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area • TDB data (RTA 2009) of Bunnings / Mitre 10: 85th percentile demand is 2.8 spaces per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data (RTA 2009) of bulky goods / homewares, Inner suburban: 85th percentile demand is 1.7 spaces per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data (RTA 2009) of bulky goods / homewares, Outer suburban: 85th percentile demand is 3 spaces per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data (RTA 2009) of bulky goods / homewares, both: 85th percentile demand is 2.9 spaces per 100m2 GLFA • Bunnings extension at Windsor Gardens: 3.2 spaces per 100m2 GLFA • Gepps Cross Homemaker Centre: 2.6 spaces per 100m2 GLFA

• 'Villages' of stores allow for shared parking • The TDB data of inner suburban stores indicates that an accessibility discount can be applied • RTA 2009 surveys indicate lower parking demand rate than the 2001 SA Bulletin • 'Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods)' entry deleted, considered part of this entry due to similar parking demand and Statewide Bulky Goods DPA definition • Recommended rate range based on TDB data

36 Motor Repair Station

3 per 100 sq m GLFA N/A Greater of:

New measurement unit

• VPP: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 3 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area plus 1 space for each vehicle being serviced, repaired or fitted with accessories, including vehicles waiting to be repaired, fitted with accessories or collected by owners. • Limited data available

• VPP unlikely to have applied a discount to surveyed parking demand, due car oriented land use of a Motor Repair Station • Adopt up to date VPP rate

PLUS 2 per 100 sq m TFA

1

for each vehicle being serviced, repaired or fitted with accessories, including vehicles waiting to be repaired, fitted with accessories or collected by owners

N/A

OR

3 - 4 per service bay



Allowable Discount



37 Motor Showroom N/A N/A 1.5 - 2 per 100 sq m TFA Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Motor Showroom not an accepted term. • Land used for the sale of motor vehicles falls under the Service Trade Premises PPL Terminology definition

• To be considered under 'Service Trade Premises'

Office 4 per 100 sq m GFA 25% 4 per 100 sq m TFA Maximum discount rate introduced

• VPP: Column A (standard) rate of 3.5, Column B rate of 3 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area • ABS 2006 Data: Greater Adelaide highest car JtW at 83%, 78% in Sydney, 82% in Melbourne and Perth and 81% in Brisbane • ABS 2006 Data: SA car JtW; Metro councils: 86% to 89%, Rural councils: 87% to 92% • TDB Data (RTA 2009/10): 0.30 (suburban) to 2.89 (rural) per 100m2 of GFA, 85th percentile is 1.33 per 100m2 GFA • Darwin Study: 85th percentile 3.98 per 100m2 GFA • Room for Thought (Uni NSW/RICS, 2002): average 20.6m2 per FTE (RTA Guide 1979: 16m2 per employee) • Room for Thought (Uni NSW/RICS, 2002): Hot desking 18.7m2/FTE • RTA Accessibility formula: Offices greatest potential to switch to alternative transport modes • VPP only allows for a 15% reduction from Col A to B • Federal government: 12% of employees teleworking by 2020

• Room for Thought study indicates that internet, intranet and new working practices have a marginal effect on increasing employee / floor space densities. However, the study was conducted in 2002 with lower broadband speeds and coverage than when compared with the future NBN • TDB RTA surveys 2009/10: record a highest parking demand of 2.9 per 100m2 GFA. This reflects the lower car use in Greater Sydney •JtW data: car remains the dominant transport mode of choice across all council areas, with minor deviation between metro and rural areas • It is recommended to introduce a rate range, utilising the current parking rate as the standard rate and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are met

Petrol Filling Station: Service Bays and Retail Floor Space

6 per bay N/A Service bays 6 per bay PLUS

New measurement unit

• PPL Terminology: Petrol filling station : ‘Means land used for the purposes of fuelling motor vehicles and may include and associated land for the servicing of motor vehicles, or for the sale of goods where the area used for sale of goods is not greater than 50 square metres, but does not include a motor repair station (see Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations 2008) Interpretation was considered further in Pro-Star Service Station Pty Ltd V Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Board, City of Salisbury and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1998] SASC 7174’. • No data

• Service stations have an ever expanding range of ancillary land uses, with less vehicle service facilities.

PLUS PLUS • Anecdotal evidence: majority of ancillary land use trade from petrol buyers

50% of the calculated parking demand of any ancillary land use N/A Retail floor space 5 per 100 sq m GLA • Current SA Bulletin rate does not cater for non-

retail ancillary land uses

40 Post Office N/A N/A 7 per 100 sq m TFA Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Post Office not an accepted term, use shop or office • VPP rate: Column A (standard) rate of 4, Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area • Post offices often form part of a shopping centre and have become mor retail orientated.

• VPP rates suggest Post offices have similar parking demand to shops • Consider Post offices under Shop (not within a centre rate) entry, if they are a stand-alone facility. If they form part of a shopping centre; consider under the new entry; Shopping Centres.

41 Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods) N/A N/A 2 - 4 per 100 sq m GLA Entry deleted • Statewide Bulky Goods DPA: links Bulky Goods with Retail Showroom

• 'Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods)' entry deleted, to be considered part of retitled ‘Bulky Goods and Retail Showroom’ entry due to similar parking demand and Statewide Bulky Goods DPA definition

42 Service Trade Premises 4 per 100 sq m GLFA 50% 2 - 4 per 100 sq m GLA No change

• PPL Terminology: Retail Trade Premises not listed but commonly used in planning documents • Statewide Bulky Goods DPA defines land uses associated with Service Trade Premises but not Retail Trade Premises • VPP has no general Service Trade Premises • VPP Landscape Gardening Supplies: 10% of site area • VPP Trade Supplies: 10% of site area • Case study - Landscape supplies: 18% to 25% of site area • Case study - Building supplies: 20% of site area

• The term 'Service Trade Premises' is commonly used in planning documentation • The VPP parking provision of 10% site area is unlikely to accommodate the parking demand • Given the lack of information the current rate range should remain unchanged



Allowable Discount



43 Shop (not within a shopping centre) (formerly Shop (not within a centre)) 7 per 100 sq m

GLFA 55% 7 per 100 sq m GLA Maximum discount rate introduced

• VPP shop: 3.5 to 4 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area • VPP supermarket: 5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area • VPP: separate higher rate for supermarkets • TDB data - shops: 1.93 to 14.9 of GLFA, 85th percentile 14.7 of GLFA • TDB data - supermarkets: 4 to 5.2 of GLFA, 85th percentile 5.1 of GLFA • Darwin study - shops: 3.67 per 100m2 of net floor area • Darwin study - supermarket: 1 to 2.2 per 100m2 of net floor area • DA / DPA: Axiom Churchill Centre: 5.2 per 100m2 GLFA • City of Subiaco: 5 per 100m2 GLFA • Online retail growing faster than store bought retail (NAB)

• Change the entry title to 'Shop (not within a shopping centre)' to avoid mis interpretation of the word centre • Shops have scope to reduce their parking demand by sharing parking areas and, in metro areas, by accessibility to alternative transport modes • VPP rate and Darwin study indicate higher rate for supermarket • TDB data shows wide range of parking demand • Recommended rate range based on SA Bulletin rate, with data suggesting a lower minimum rate. Minimum rate set at Mixed-Use rate

44 Shop within a shopping centre 6 per 100 sq m GLFA 25% N/A New Entry

• RTA Guide: 4.1 to 6.1 per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data: 27 shopping centres surveyed, 85th percentile of 4.46 per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data: 20 shopping centres >10,000m2, 85th percentile of 4.44 per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data: 7 shopping centres 10,000m2>, 85th percentile of 4.46 per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data: 8 shopping centres with high PT, 85th percentile of 4.44 per 100m2 GLFA • TDB data: surveyed rate range 1 to 6.2 per 100m2 GLFA • SA survey: surveyed rate range 2.6 to 4.9 per 100m2 GLFA

• The recommended rate range has a standard rate based on the highest surveyed 85th percentile rate of the data. The lower rate will accommodate the surveyed 85th percentile demand of shopping centres with good public transport accessibility

45 Used Car Lot/ Vehicle Sales Yard N/A N/A 1.5 - 2 per 100 sq m total area of the site Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard not accepted terms • PPL Terminology: refers to Service Trade Premises • Limited data

• Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard not accepted terms in PPL Terminology. • Land used for the sale of motor vehicles falls under the Service Trade Premises PPL Terminology definition • Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard to be considered in' Service Trade Premises'

46 Video Store N/A N/A 6 per 100 sq m GLA Entry eleted

• PPL Terminology: Not listed • The Network Group, Australia’s second largest DVD rental group: strong growth in 2011 • Blockbuster Australia: double digit growth in 2011 • Increase of internet to download movies

• Video Store covered by definition of a Shop in the PPL Terminology List.

Accommodation

47 Retirement Village (formerly Aged Care Retirement Homes)

1.2 per one or two bedroom dwelling 15%

1 per unit

Re-titled, higher, new measurement unit,

and maximum discount rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: Aged Care not an accepted term, uses Nursing Home • PPL Terminology: Retirement Village accepted • VPP: separates retirement from aged care facilities • VPP rate: Retirement Village: 1 space to each one or two bedroom dwelling PLUS 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studios or studies that are separate rooms counted bedrooms) PLUS 0 to 1 space for visitors to every five dwellings for developments of five or more dwellings • ABS 2006 data Holdfast Bay Sth: 2 person household with 1 car: 56.9%, 2 person household with 2 cars: 29.8% • Expectancy of a high standard of facilities, developers providing facilities to match expectations

• ‘Aged Care Retirement Homes’ merges two different types of accommodation. Aged Care infers a high level of medical assistance, compared to retirement homes where residents are more independent • PPL Terminology provides no clear boundary: Nursing Home listed as relating to Retirement Home or Retirement Village and, a note stating some aspects of a Nursing Home may be controlled under the Retirement Villages Act 1987 • Measurement unit changed from unit to dwelling to represent the better standard of accommodation provided • Recommended rate range based on VPP, supported by ABS data • Aged care facilities to be considered under 'Aged Persons Accommodation / Nursing home' (formerly Nursing Home)

PLUS

2.2 per three or more bedroom dwelling 10%



Allowable Discount



48 Display Home

5.5

per dwelling for five or fewer contiguous dwellings

10%

Assess on needs basis Maximum discount rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: Not listed • VPP rate: Column A (standard) 5 spaces to each dwelling for five or fewer contiguous dwellings PLUS 2 spaces to each additional contiguous dwelling. Column B rate 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of floor area • Limited data

• Parking reduction discount is applicable. • In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to adopt the VPP rate, with a minimum rate to allow for access to alternative transport

PLUS

2.5 per additional contiguous dwelling

10%

49a Multiple Dwelling Developments

1.25 per one bedroom dwelling 20%

N/A New Entry

• DPs: 1.83 to 3 spaces per dwelling • VPP one or two bedroom: 1 per dwelling • VPP three or more bedroom: 2 per dwelling • VPP visitors: 0 to 1 space per 5 dwellings • RTA Guide: 1 to 2 per dwelling • DA / DPA Mayfield (Adelaide): 1.1 per dwelling • DA / DPA Northgate Apartment: 1 per dwelling • ABS: Vehicle ownership for different dwelling types is consistent when comparing the States • ABS: Car ownership for separate dwellings doesn’t vary significantly by location, whether located in metro or rural council areas • ABS: Car ownership for flats / units /apartments varies significantly between rural and metro areas • ABS: Flats / units /apartments in the metro councils considered, that have no motor vehicles: 21% (Holdfast Bay) to 49% (Playford) • ABS: Rural council flats / units / apartments with one or less motor vehicles range from 78% to 86%

• The potential for residents and visitors to use alternative transport modes is significant in metro areas. A wide parking rate range for dwellings would allow a higher rate to be used for dwellings located in rural areas and, subject to accessibility of alternative transport modes, discounted to a lower rate for metro areas • It is considered that the parking rate should be based on the number of bedrooms as opposed to the type of dwelling. The Reference Group emphasised that a four bedroom townhouse is likely to have the same parking demand as a four bedroom detached dwelling. • The recommended standard rate is based on the highest DP rate, with a minimum rate to represent dwellings that have access to alternative transport modes.

PLUS

1.75 per two bedroom dwelling 30%

PLUS

2.5 per three or more bedroom dwelling 30%

PLUS

0.5

per dwelling for independently accessible parking for visitors

50%

49b Single Dwelling Development

1 per one bedroom dwelling N/A

N/A New Entry

• DPs: 1.83 to 3 spaces per dwelling • VPP one or two bedroom: 1 per dwelling • VPP three or more bedroom: 2 per dwelling • VPP visitors: 0 to 1 space per 5 dwellings • RTA Guide: 1 to 2 per dwelling • DA / DPA Mayfield (Adelaide): 1.1 per dwelling • DA / DPA Northgate Apartment: 1 per dwelling • ABS: Vehicle ownership for different dwelling types is consistent when comparing the States • ABS: Car ownership for separate dwellings doesn’t vary significantly by location, whether located in metro or rural council areas • ABS: Car ownership for flats / units /apartments varies significantly between rural and metro areas • ABS: Flats / units /apartments in the metro councils considered, that have no motor vehicles: 21% (Holdfast Bay) to 49% (Playford) • ABS: Up to 17% of separate houses have three motor vehicles in rural Council areas, with up to 10% having four or more. • ABS: Up to 14% of separate houses have three motor vehicles in metro Council areas, with up to 6% having four or more.

• Although the potential for residents and visitors to use alternative transport modes is significant in metro areas. a discounted rate results in a parking rate that is not a whole number which is not practical in application. • It is considered that the parking rate should be based on the number of bedrooms as opposed to the type of dwelling. The Reference Group emphasised that a four bedroom townhouse is likely to have the same parking demand as a four bedroom detached dwelling. • Separate dwelling developments unlikely to include individually accessible visitor parking areas.

PLUS

2 per two bedroom dwelling N/A

PLUS

3 per three or more bedroom dwelling N/A

50 Guest House / Hostel N/A N/A 1 per 3 beds Entry deleted • PPL Terminology: Guest house not accepted term, Hostel not accepted term • No data

• Guest house / Hostel fall under the definition of dwelling ot tourist accommodation.



Allowable Discount



51 Motel

1 per room N/A 1 per room

Additional measurement unit

• PPL Terminology: Motel means “a building or group of buildings providing temporary accommodation for more than five travellers, and includes an associated restaurant facility, but does not include a hotel or residential flat building” (see Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations 2008)’. • VPP rate: o Column A (standard) and Column B rate of: 1 space to each unit PLUS 1 space to each manager dwelling PLUS 50% of the relevant requirement of any ancillary use. • Limited data

• Limited parking reduction discount is applicable. • In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to modify the SA Bulletin rate to allow for ancillary land uses

PLUS

1 per employee N/A PLUS

PLUS

1 per employee 50% of the calculated parking demand of any ancillary land use except a hotel. 100% of parking

requirement of an associated hotel

N/A

52 Serviced Apartments N/A N/A

1 per room

Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Serviced apartments not listed, use tourist accommodation • VPP rate: o Column A (standard) and Column B rate of: 1 space to each unit PLUS 1 space to each manager dwelling PLUS 50% of the relevant requirement of any ancillary use. • Limited data

• Serviced Apartments not listed in PPL Terminology, uses Tourist Accommodation • Delete entry and consider Serviced Apartments in ‘Tourist Accommodation’ (formerly Tourist Accommodation (bed & breakfast)’

PLUS

1 per employee

53 Tourist Accommodation (formerly Tourist Accommodation (bed & breakfast))

1 per room N/A 1 per room

Additional measurement unit,

and maximum discount rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: tourist accommodation accepted • Tourist accommodation developments often include ancillary land uses • Limited data

• Parking discount applicable: employees may live in the same building. • Change title to allow all tourist accommodation types to be considered under this entry • Due to the lack of available data, it is recommended to modify the SA Bulletin rate, with a minimum rate to discounting for the employee element

PLUS

1 per employee 50% PLUS

PLUS

1 per employee 50% of the calculated parking demand of any ancillary land use except a hotel. 100% of parking

requirement of an associated hotel

N/A



Allowable Discount



Mixed-use / TOD

54 Mixed-use / TOD - Residential

0.75 per one bedroom dwelling N/A

N/A New Entry

• No legal definition • PPL Terminology: 'buildings containing two or more unrelated land uses, e.g. residential and offices' • DPs - flats with one bedroom: 0.75 to 1 per dwelling • DPs - flats with two bedroom: 1 to 1.5 per dwelling • DPs - flats with three bedroom: 1.5 to 2 per dwelling • DPs - flats visitor: 0.2 to 0.25 per dwelling • VPP Commission: zero rate for dwellings considered but rejected following representations • Queensland TOD Guide: Preferred 0.5 to 1.25 per dwelling, max 0.75 to 1.25 per dwelling • Darwin Study Survey: 1 per 1 bedroom, 1.5 per 2 bedroom, 1.7 per 3 bedroom, 2 per 4 bedroom, visitors 0.24 per dwelling • Version 6: 0.35 to 0.75 per studio dwelling, 0.7 to 1.25 per 2 bedroom, 1.15 to 2.25 per 3 or more bedroom dwelling • DPA - Bowden: 0.75 per dwelling • Bowden Urban Village –Revised Master Plan Report (*February 2011) shows apartment plans with 1 space per dwelling • DA Newport Quays: 0.75 per 1 bedroom, 1 per 2 bedroom, 2 per 3 & 4 bedroom, visitors 0.2 per dwelling • DPA Northgate Apartments: 0 per studio, 0.25 per 1 bedroom, 1 per 2 & 3 bedroom, 2 per 4 bedroom, visitors 0.2 per dwelling • DPA Northgate Row / semi / detached: 1 per 1,2 & 3 bedroom, 2 per 4 bedroom, visitors 0 per dwelling • Parking demand based on the number of bedrooms for most authorities • ABS: Metro council flats / units / apartments with one or less motor vehicles range from 79% to 94%

• The potential reduction in parking demand is significant in a mixed use development or TOD (multi-purpose trip, shared parking, alternative transport modes) • VPP Commission representations favoured a minimum of 1 space per dwelling • Principles of mixed use and TOD developments could be undermined by cautious developers providing parking at higher than recommended rate • Current owners of apartments / townhouses have no option but to pay an annual fee for an associated parking space regardless of whether it is needed • To avoid the situation of oversupply of parking, the recommended standard rate should not be exceeded • Visitor parking could be accommodated on-street, time limited to encourage turn-over • Recommended rate based on Version 6 Urban Core Zone, backed by ABS data

PLUS

1 per two bedroom dwelling N/A

PLUS

1.25 per three or more bedroom dwelling N/A

PLUS

0.25 per dwelling for visitors N/A

55 Mixed-use / TOD - Non-residential and non-tourist 3 per 100 sq m

GLFA N/A N/A New Entry

• Queensland TOD Guide retail / office: preferred 0.17 to 1 per 100m2, max 0.25 to 2 per 100m2 • Version 6 Other (non-tourist & non-residential): 3 to 6 per 100m2 • City of Cockburn (WA) survey of mixed-use: 2.5 to 4.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA • Bowden Urban Village: shops 3 per 100m2 GLFA, other ground floor 3 per 100m2 GLFA, any other case 1.5 per 100m2 GLFA • Northgate DPA: non-residential at ground level 4 to 5 per 100m2 GLFA

• Use a single rate for all non-residential developmentto allows for future changes in the land use without additional infrastructure cost • The rates recommended for the South Australian TOD / mixed use developments are currently untested, but remain higher than used interstate • A separate rate for ground level use could be used but it is expected that commercial uses (particularly office / medical consultants) commonly utilise above ground floors • Recommended rate of 3 per 100m2 is commonly used in the data considered (City of Cockburn survey indicates higher rate may be needed)

56 Mixed-use / TOD - Tourist Accommodation 0.25 per bedroom N/A N/A New Entry

• Version 6: 0.2 to 0.5 per bedroom • SA Tourism Commission 2008 data: 31% visitors are from SA, 55% interstate, 48% of all visistors used private vehicle to get to Adelaide • Limited data

• The rates recommended for the South Australian TOD / mixed use developments are currently untested • Almost half of all visitors to the Adelaide tourism region used private vehicles • Recommended rate based on minimal data



Allowable Discount



Other

57 Funeral Parlour 0.3 per patron catered for 20%

1 per 400 sq m TFA New measurement unit, and maximum


• PPL Terminology: accepted • VPP rate: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to each patron catered for • No data

• Parking reduction discount is applicable. • Due to the lack of available data, it is recommended to introduce a rate range, utilising the VPP parking rate as the standard rate and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are met

PLUS

1 per four seats (chapel)

59 Public Transport Interchange (formerly Interchange / Transport Station) Assess on needs basis N/A Assess on needs basis Re-titled

• PPL Terminology: Transport Interchange accepted • Park and Ride: an Adelaide case study (Road & Transport Research Vol 21 No 1, March 2012): 700 space facility, utilisation unknown. 30% of Park and Ride users switched from driving into CBD to car-tram combination. 82% of respondents have switched from public transport to car-public transport combination • Woodville Station: demand of 123 spaces and 12 pick-up / drop-off spaces • Existing Adelaide Metro Park and Ride facilities: 35 to 700 spaces • DPTI CSTR Part D050 Design – Interchange Facilities DRAFT (February 2010): 200 spaces with 400 expansion, 6 K'n'R / taxi, possible commercial fee parking of 300 • Seaford rail extension: Meadows Station with 550 spaces, Seaford Station with 450 spaces • Council reports of under supply of parking at various facilities

• Change the entry title to match the PPL Terminology: Public Transport Interchange • Recent South Australian Park and Ride facilities have provided or have potential to provide for between 450 and 550 spaces • Limited data available, available data complicated by over spill parking occurring on adjacent streets • Parking discount not applicable • Unique nature of each interchange cannot be defined by a rate range. To remain as 'Assess on needs basis'.

60 Radio Studio or Television Studio (formerly Radio & TV Studio) 5 per 100 sq m GFA 20% 5 per 100 sq m TFA Maximum discount

rate introduced

• PPL Terminology: Radio or TV Studio: not an accepted term, use radio studio or television studio • No data

• Change title to ‘radio studio or television studio’ to match PPL Terminology • Parking reduction discount is applicable where warranted • Due to the lack of available data, it is recommended to introduce a rate range, utilising the current parking rate as the standard rate and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are met

Table Notes:

• Parking rate:

− Recommended rates typically represent the surveyed 85th percentile parking demand, current SA Planning Bulletin rate or Victorian Planning Provisions rate. − Developments may attract a car parking discount (as a percentage) in accordance with the criteria stipulated in the Suggested Parking Discounts Table. Developments may be eligible to attract discounts against multiple criteria. However, the percentage discounted cannot exceed the

maximum allowable discount as defined in the Recommended Car Parking Provision for All Land Uses Table.

• The parking discount criteria are defined in the Suggested Parking Discounts Table • Acronyms and abbreviations:

− SA Planning Bulletin – Planning Bulletin: Parking provisions for selected land uses (Suburban Metropolitan Adelaide). − TFA – Total Floor Area. − GFA – Gross Floor Area. − GLFA – Gross Leasable Floor Area.


7.10 Case Studies The Port Adelaide Enfield members of the steering group provided a series of case studies using the recommended rates and parking discounts. A comparison is made with the development plan parking requirement and the number of spaces proposed by the proponent. These case studies form Appendix F.


8.1 People with Disabilities The AS2890.6:2009 ‘Parking Facilities Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities’ refers to the Building Code of Australia for the rate of reserved parking provision for people with disabilities, with a range of 1% to 2% of parking spaces to be provided. Some development plans specify a rate of 1:30 spaces or 3.3%.

Prior to the issue of Part 6, the superseded AS2890.1:1993 ‘Parking Facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking’ remained available to cover off-street parking for disabilities (the revised 2004 edition of Part 1 did not cover parking for people with disabilities in anticipation of the release of Part 6). The available superseded AS2890.1:1993 off-street car parking rates are shown in the Figure 11.

8 Parking for Special Users


Figure 11 | Provision of parking spaces for people with disabilities extracted from the available superseded AS2890.1:1993 (Source: Standards Australia)

SA Health has noted an increase in requests for more parking reserved for people with disabilities at their hospitals. The data supplied by SA Health indicates that there is a demand for 4% of parking spaces reserved for people with disabilities.

It is suggested that the rates from the AS2890.1:1993 are adopted in future development plans.


8.2 Other users

8.2.1 Fuel Efficient Vehicles The Green Star rating tool recommends that between 10% and 25% of spaces be provided for small cars, hybrids, motorbikes/scooters or car-pooling (Green Building Council of Australia, 2013). To encourage sustainable transport, some parking could be designated for the following vehicles: • Small cars - The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) provides sales data for the

number and type of vehicles sold in Australia for each year. The sales data shows that the proportion of vehicles sold in Australia that fall into the small or light passenger car category is increasing each year, with 35% of new cars sold in 2011 being categorised as small or light vehicles (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, 2012). Large vehicle sales dropped by 22% in 2011.

• Motorcycles – Anecdotal evidence suggests the demand is not currently catered for. Sales data indicates a rise in motorcycle ownership. FCAI data shows a recovery in motorcycle sales in 2011, with sales of scooters up 8.9% and road bikes up 1.4% (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, 2012). The Motor Vehicle Census shows that the number of motor cycles has increased by 38% from 2007 to 2012. Encouraging the use of motorcycles and scooters has the advantage of reducing road space used but the disadvantage of more severe crashes.

8.2.2 Families or Parents with pram Adelaide City Council Development Plan (2013) specifies a general parking requirement (minimum rate for reserved spaces) for people with a disability of 1 car parking space in every 15 spaces provided with any form of development. Although, it should be noted that this rate is intended to function as a car parking space suitable for use by people with disabilities and other people with small children and prams, however this would be difficult to enforce.

8.2.3 Elderly Parking Spaces reserved for senior citizens could be considered further. Age related conditions often result in impaired mobility, however, this is not recognised under the disabled permit conditions (Government of South Australia, 2011). As such, it would be difficult to enforce.


The Parking Spaces for Urban Places Parking Study has reviewed the parking rates contained in the Planning SA Planning Bulletin ‘Parking provisions for selected land uses’ (2001) using information that was readily available; mostly from the Aurecon data bank, the New Zealand Trips Database Bureau and internet searches.

The initial search highlighted a change in the historical approach to parking, with the Victoria Planning Provisions and the New South Wales Government Transport Roads & Maritime Services, both defining parking rates for new development that do not reflect the actual parking demand. These initial findings were discussed with the Reference Group and a set of principles established to guide this study.

The Reference Group highlighted the need for South Australian parking rates to be set at a level that would accommodate the anticipated current parking demand of a development but, with the flexibility to be reduced as the State’s and Government Councils’ sustainable transport policies take effect.

To meet this aim, a Standard parking rate was defined (where data was available) which represents the current parking demand of a development. This Standard rate can be reduced by applying a series of discounts; each discount has a set value that represents the anticipated reduction in car use that comes from the increased use of transport modes other than the private car.

Further discounting to the Standard rate was available to encourage developers to improve the overall pedestrian environment of their development, such as more footpaths, landscaping or active frontages.

The Reference Group preferred that individual councils define their own discounts to suit their individual objectives, especially for unique development precincts.

The study also recommended changes to the title of the land uses to harmonise with the South Australian Planning Policy Library land use terminology and definitions. Also, the metric used was changed if the current Planning SA Planning Bulletin rate had proved inaccurate or cumbersome in the past.

9 Summary


The following documents were referenced in the production of this report:

• Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) “2006 Census Data”, Australian Government, Australia. • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) “2011 Census Data”, Australian Government, Australia. • Booz Allen Hamilton (2006) “International Approaches to Tackling Transport Congestion, Paper 2:

Parking Restraint Measures”, Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, Victoria. • City of Subiaco (2013) “City of Subiaco – Town Planning Scheme No. 4”, City of Subiaco,

Government of Western Australia, Western Australia. • City of Swan (2012) “Midland Access and Parking Strategy 2012 – Draft for Public Comment”, City

of Swan, Government of Western Australia, Western Australia. • City of Vincent (2008) “Planning and Building Policy Manual: Policy No. 3.7.1 – Parking and

Access”, City of Vincent, Government of Western Australia, Western Australia. • Department of Infrastructure and Planning (2010) “Transit oriented development: guide for

practitioners in Queensland”, Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Queensland Government, Queensland.

• Department of Planning and Community Development (2012) “Practice Note 22 – Using the Car Parking Provisions”, Department of Planning and Community Development, Victorian Government, Victoria.

• Department of Planning and Community Development (2012) “Victoria Planning Provisions: Clause 52.06 – Car Parking”, Department of Planning and Community Development, Victorian Government, Victoria.

• Department of Planning and Community Development (2012) “Victoria Planning Provisions: Clause 45.09 – Parking Overlay”, Department of Planning and Community Development, Victorian Government, Victoria.

• Department of Planning and Community Development (2012) “Victoria Planning Provisions: Clause 74 – Land Use Terms”, Department of Planning and Community Development, Victorian Government, Victoria.

• Department of Planning and Local Government (2010) “The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide”, Department of Planning and Local Government, Government of South Australia, South Australia.

• Department of Planning and Local Government (2011) “South Australian Planning Policy Library”, Version 6, Department of Planning and Local Government, Government of South Australia, South Australia.

• Department of Planning and Local Government (2011) “South Australian Planning Policy Library Terminology List”, Department of Planning and Local Government, Government of South Australia, South Australia.

• Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (2013) “Adelaide (City) Development Plan”, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Government of South Australia, South Australia.

10 References


• Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (2012) “2011 Annual Report”, Federal Chambers of Automotive Industries, Australian Capital Territory.

• Green Building Council of Australia (2013) “Green Star Rating Tools”, Sydney, viewed 7 March 2013, <http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-tools/>.

• Government of South Australia (2011) “Disability parking permit – Government of South Australia”, South Australia, viewed 17 October 2012, <http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport,+travel+and+motoring/Public+transport+and+travel/Getting+around+with+a+disability+or+mobility+aid/Disability+parking+permit>.

• Hamer, P., Currie, G., Young, W. (2011) “Parking Price Policies – A review of the Melbourne congestion levy”, Paper presented at the 34th Australian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, South Australia.

• Innes, D., Ircha, M.C., Badoe, D.A. (1990) “Factors Affecting Automobile Shopping Trip Destinations”, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 126-136.

• Kamali, F., Potter, H. (1997) “Do parking policies meet their objectives?”, Paper presented at the 25th PTRC European Transport Forum, London.

• Kuzmyak, J. R., Weinberger, R., Pratt, R.H., Levinson, H. S. (2003) “Traveller Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95, Chapter 18: Parking Management and Supply”, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.

• Litman, T. (2012) “Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behaviour”, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria.

• McCullough, T. et al (2012) “Car Parking Provisions Advisory Committee Report: Review of the Car Parking Provisions in the Victoria Planning Provision", Department of Planning and Community Development, State Government of Victoria, Victoria.

• Planning SA (2001) “Planning Bulletin: Parking provisions for selected land uses (Suburban Metropolitan Adelaide)”, Planning SA, Department for Transport, Urban Planning and the Arts, Government of South Australia, South Australia.

• Roads and Traffic Authority (2002) “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments”, Version 2.2, Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales Government, New South Wales.

• SGS Economics and Planning (2007) “SGS Paper – Parking and Urban Development”, paper prepared for SGS and Marrickville Council Parking and Urban Development Seminar, 9 May 2007.

• Simmonds, D., Still, B. (1999) “Parking Restraint Policy and Urban Vitality”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 291-316.

• Sisiopiku, V. P. (2001) “On-street Parking on State Roads”, ITE Annual Meeting Compendium, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, USA.

• Standards Australia (1993) “AS 2890.1:1993 – Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking”, Standards Australia, Australia.

• Standards Australia (2005) “AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 (incorporating Amendment No.1) – Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking”, Standards Australia, Australia.

• Standards Australia (2009) “AS/NZS 2890.6:2009 – Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities”, Standards Australia, Australia.

• Trips Database Bureau (2011) “TDB Database”, Trips Database Bureau, New Zealand. • Victoria Health Promotions Foundation (2008) “Streets Ahead – Supporting Children to get active

in their neighbourhoods”, VicHealth, State Government of Victoria, Victoria. • Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011) “Online TDM Encyclopaedia - Transportation Elasticities”,

Victoria, viewed 23 October 2012, <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm>. • Vaca, E., Kuzmyak, J. R. (2005) “Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP

Report 95, Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees”, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.

http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-tools/

http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport,+travel+and+motoring/Public+transport+and+travel/Getting+around+with+a+disability+or+mobility+aid/Disability+parking+permit

http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport,+travel+and+motoring/Public+transport+and+travel/Getting+around+with+a+disability+or+mobility+aid/Disability+parking+permit

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm

Appendices

Appendix A Workshop #1 Minutes &

Reference Group Responses to Questionnaire

p 1

Project Project No | File PS4UP_Workshop Questions. docx | Insert Date | Revision 0

Parking Spaces – Urban Places

Workshop Questions

1. Main Issues and Your Experience Please consider the main issues your Council has with the implementation of development plan parking rates. We would like you to consider the following:

• What are your top three issues associated with parking and development?

• Has potential development been encouraged or deterred by the parking requirement?

• Any developer feedback?

• Has the actual parking demand of a development proved to be noticeably different from the number of parking spaces that were predicted using parking rates?

2. Policy: Reducing car use or meet car parking dem and

• What should be the aim of a ‘parking rate’? Should it be to the meet the unconstrained demand of a development or should it be a tool to shape transport policy?

• Consider the use of parking rates that are lower than the surveyed demand or imposing maximum parking rates or parking charges as a method of reducing car use. From your experience what would be the effect on development and the public.

• In your view how can businesses and the public be persuaded of the benefits of reducing car use?

• Reduced parking rates may result in short to medium term overspill of vehicles to on-street parking. Consider the reaction of businesses and residents.

3. Special use parking

• Has your Council received requests for better or more special use parking? If so, which type (disabled / residential permits / parent and pram / small car / other)?

• Would the use of the recommended number of spaces for parking for people with disabilities, from table AS2890.1 - 1993, be beneficial?

4. Levy / Pricing / Parking fund

• Provide experiences of current levies / pricing / parking fund contributions.

• What would the effect be on introducing new parking charges on businesses / residents?

5. Economic Impacts

• Consider the economic impacts of providing too little or too much parking.

• Consider the optimum balance of parking provision / sustainable transport / business viability.

Parking Spaces – Urban Places

Workshop Questions

1. Main Issues and Your Experience

Please consider the main issues your Council has with the implementation of development plan parking rates. We would like you to consider the following:

• What are your top three issues associated with parking and development? 1. Residential, particularly the inconsistency in parking requirement between a 3

bedroom detached dwelling and a 3 bedroom residential flat building/group dwelling. 2. Service stations – changing nature of their land use 3. Current retail ratios inappropriate

• Has potential development been encouraged or deterred by the parking requirement?

Developers of small scale developments can sometimes be deterred due to lack of space on the subject site. Larger scale developments are often decided on the merits of a car parking report by a traffic consultant.

• Any developer feedback?

As above

• Has the actual parking demand of a development proved to be noticeably different from the number of parking spaces that were predicted using parking rates? A large homemaker centre approved a number of years ago has shown that the predicted car parking rates was far in excess of what was actually required. In fact, more recently, an additional two tenancies have been approved, constructed and operating successfully, over part of the previous parking area, without the need for additional parking bays. (total bays = original number – those lost to locate new tenancies).

2. Policy: Reducing car use or meet car parking dem and

• What should be the aim of a ‘parking rate’? Should it be to the meet the unconstrained demand of a development or should it be a tool to shape transport policy?

Fundamentally, a parking rate should be there to meet the anticipated demand of a particular development/land use. This rate can be reconsidered if evidence suggests a more appropriate figure in that particular instance.

Rather than a tool to shape transport policy, a change in rate would/should be the result of a change in transport policy, or at least part of the mix. The provision of better and more convenient options/alternatives to driving cars would probably entice more people to leave their car at home and result in a reduction in the number of car parks required.

Without a viable option to driving the car, reducing car parking rates may result in overspill into residential or other inappropriate locations.


As above. Increasing costs for work related car parking will often just result in short term grievances but no change in transport mode. Charges imposed by shopping centres may result in shoppers going elsewhere?!


This issue needs to be tackled on two fronts. There is the obvious education of the public in regard to health, pollution, congestion, costs, time etc. however, the alternatives need to be viable, convenient, safe etc. It would be difficult to persuade the public to use public transport until the system caters for their needs.

Of course if the business is one within walking/cycling distance and does not require a car for carrying goods the health benefits (from exercise and not using a car) should be presented.

• Reduced parking rates may result in short to medium term overspill of vehicles to on-street parking. Consider the reaction of businesses and residents. If there are no viable alternatives for the public the overspill may be a long term issue. In situations where the business fronts a street and on street parking is available it is both beneficial to the business owner and customers. When the overspill is onto an adjacent residential street the residents are likely to be upset about additional volumes of traffic, lack of manoeuvring space, noise and loss of amenity. Council is likely to receive requests for car parking restrictions on these streets.



Council has received requests for additional disabled parking bays to be provided in a number of centres and other businesses. As the required standard has been met in many instances, informal negotiations with the owner/s is generally undertaken.

Residential permits have been requested and provided around a number of shopping centres and sports facilities.

• Would the use of the recommended number of spaces for parking for people with disabilities, from table AS2890.1 -1993, be beneficial?

This standard is already used at the larger facilities/activities. Whether the standard is appropriate needs reviewing.


• Provide experiences of current levies / pricing / parking fund contributions.

The City of Marion currently has no levy/fund etc.


Could result in a decline in business for the tenants leading to a less viable centre and perhaps vacancies!!

Owner of the centre/business may receive an additional short term income stream.

Potential overflow into surrounding residential streets

5. Economic Impacts

• Consider the economic impacts of providing too little or too much parking.

The provision of too much parking could result in an underdevelopment of a property which reduces potential profits for the owner. It could also result in unnecessary maintenance and a reduction in aesthetic quality for the property and streetscape.

The provision of too little parking could result in potential customers being deterred and a loss in income/profit. The resultant overspill on residential streets could lead to a reduction in aesthetic quality and value of the properties within the street.

• Consider the optimum balance of parking provision / sustainable transport / business viability. The optimum balance is likely to be achieved when all 3 aspects are considered and involved in the process rather than one making a change to the other/s. Alternative transport methods (i.e. public transport) need to provide appropriate: destinations, frequency, convenience of location, quality of ride experience, maintenance, security etc. The business/centre should contain a mix of complementary uses:- o Differing hours of operation and or peaks allowing shared/reduced parking o Allowing multi-purpose journeys (shopping, doctors, cinema, café etc.) o Mix of car dependant and non-car dependant uses/activities.

In response please quote CG

19 October 2012

Richard Hanslip

Technical Director, Transport Services

Aurecon

Dear Richard,

RE: PARKING SPACES- URBAN PLACES STUDY

Please find below my response to the Workshop Questions, issued as part of

the Parking Space- Urban Places Study.

Please note that these responses are based solely on my personal opinions

and experiences and are not based on any formal research or data

collection. In this regard you will note that my response to Question 5 is

particularly light on as in my view this requires an informed well researched

response that I feel unable to provide.

Q1.

In a rural/ regional/ outer metro situation parking rates do not often relate to

the reality of what is occurring on the ground; rates based on floor areas do

not allow for a facility which may have a relatively large floor are but does

not have the population to utilise the nominated number of car parks. In

rural areas car parking numbers identified are often excessive as the

demand is not there, this is particularly true of smaller scale developments,

such as offices, individual retail facilities, consulting rooms etc, which

generally tend to be co-located with other such services, often in a

Commercial or Town Centre Zone.

A number of smaller Councils do not employ a traffic engineer, or may have

one engineer on a part time/ consultancy basis to cover traffic,

infrastructure, storm water etc. The resources and experience are often

limited. In my experience it has often been the case of the assessing officer

making a judgment call in relation to parking numbers, based on information

provided by the applicant as to the availability of additional parking in the

locality to allow for reduction in parking rates.

Residential allotments in the outer metro area are generally larger than those

established within the metro area and the provision of on-site parking is not

usually an issue, this is also the case where medium density development is

involved (ie semi-detached or group dwellings). The higher density issues

associated with residential development within metro areas again has limited

application to outer metro areas.

Increased provision of public transport may have some impact upon parking

numbers however it is my view that most public transport requirements would

relate to movements between the metro and outer metro areas rather than

within the immediate Council area.

Q2.

Parking rates outside of metro areas should be viewed differently from

parking rates in the metro areas. Whilst it is acknowledged there is a lack of

public transport in many outer metro areas, studies should be undertaken as

to whether or not this actually leads to further parking demand. Car parking

may be required to feed a larger geographic area (ie people from a

broader area may be wishing to park a car) but does this necessarily lead to

an increased demand for car parks.

Q3.

I am not aware of any specific requests for more specialised parking uses

within the Council area. I believe additional guidance into the number of

disabled spaces required would be an asset to Development Plan and

assessment process.

Q4.

It has been my experience that a number of smaller Councils do not

currently have a car parking fund, The Rural City of Murray Bridge for

example has only recently received Ministerial approval to commence the

DPA process in order to provide for a car parking fund. To my knowledge

Yankalilla Council and Barunga West Council, amongst others do not have

Car Parking funds. I understand Alexandrina Council have only recently

introduced one and there are a few teething problems. On speaking with

staff at Barunaga West, they indicated that the implementation of a car

parking fund would deter development in the area. They also confirmed my

belief that current car parking rates do not relate to the outer metro

experience. I have yet to experience a situation where a developer has

withdrawn from a development due to the car parking requirement. The

Rural City of Murray Bridge have initiated car parking agreements in certain

instances in order for developer to contribute should there be a car parking

short fall.

Q5.

I feel unqualified to respond as to the economic impacts associated with car

parking – this is a separate study in itself.

Whilst appreciating, that the title of this study is Parking Spaces – Urban

Spaces I feel a distinction needs to be made between metro urban space

and outer metro urban spaces as I believe the car parking issues vary

considerably.

Yours sincerely

Cherry Getsom

Senior Planner

1. Main Issues and Your Experience Please consider the main issues your Council has with the implementation of development plan parking rates. We would like you to consider the following:

• What are your top three issues associated with parking and development? 1. The extent to which a developer can deviate from given parking rate in a Development Plan. Is the rate perceived by developers as a minimum in its own right, or rather a negotiation point for more reduction? Court precedent suggests that numbers can't be rigidly enforced in every instance. 2. The tension between a point-in-time planning assessment and ongoing management of parking. If a shared parking area is envisaged for a given development, this may rely on management agreements that are beyond the scope of a Development Plan. Is it realistic for a planning inspector to enforce this type of management arrangement? 3. The strategic tendency to promote an optimistic approach to parking (i.e. rates reduced in the hope that people will then use public transport) in preference to a pessimistic approach (i.e. the rate should be enforced more strictly given that many have no intent to use public transport).

• Has potential development been encouraged or deterred by the parking requirement? In the case of St Vincent Street and Commercial Road in Port Adelaide, some sites (built before the advent of cars) aren't able to provide dedicated onsite parking. This is compounded in the case of heritage-listed buildings where demolition/site reconfiguration is impractical. Anecdotally, it is understood that some residents in the vicinity of Port Adelaide choose to shop at West Lakes (rather than the Port Canal/Port Mall Shopping Centres). While product/store range plays a role, it will be interesting to see if residents come back to Port Adelaide if parking charges are introduced at West Lakes.

• Any developer feedback? There have been past articles in the Portside Messenger regarding shop owners and their views on the parking regime in the Port Centre. One article featured a business owner saying that a lack of convenient parking would have a significant bearing on the viability of his business.

• Has the actual parking demand of a development proved to be noticeably different from the number of parking spaces that were predicted using parking rates?

In areas where new parking spaces are difficult to add (e.g. Semaphore Road) there is evidence of insufficient parking, especially on weekends. The result is kerbside parking on nearby backstreets such as Germein Street and Nelson Street. In some respects, any area with time restrictions on parking could be argued to have insufficient parking supply.

2. Policy: Reducing car use or meet car parking demand • What should be the aim of a ‘parking rate’? Should it be to the meet the unconstrained

demand of a development or should it be a tool to shape transport policy? A parking rate should set a reasonable requirement for the provision of site parking to provide convenience for the users of a development and prevent excessive use of neighbouring properties or residential streets. The rate should ideally be based on strong empirical data but if this is not available, should err a bit on the conservative side and require the development proponent to satisfy the planning authority that a lesser rate is appropriate. The currently used 85th percentile of demand seems to set a reasonable limit on the unconstrained demand of development. There are so many other more significant factors impacting car ownership and usage in Adelaide’s suburban areas that the use of parking rates as a transport policy tool is not considered appropriate unless these other factors are genuinely and practically addressed. The latter are

much more complicated and expensive to address than the former so there may be an untoward focus on the former.


Parking charges (if imposed by Council) would likely be politically unacceptable. Council would be more likely to impose time limits, as it done in several areas in the Council over the years. Maximum parking rates are essentially untested, although the Minister is introducing them through his Ministerial Development Plan Amendment for Northgate.


There is probably not much need to persuade businesses and the public of the benefit of reducing car usage. Most drivers have to confront increased congestion, increased travel times, road rage etc. Similarly, there is plenty of media coverage about car accidents, pollution and environmental impact. Likewise, the cost of fuel, registration, parking and fines is well known. There is probably not that much persuading that needs to be done but rather providing and promoting efficient, cost effective alternatives so that it is in fact viable for individuals to reduce car use.

• Reduced parking rates may result in short to medium term overspill of vehicles to on-street parking. Consider the reaction of businesses and residents.

See earlier comment re Germein Street on weekends - residents in these streets (and their visitors) may be frustrated if kerbside parking is taken up by customers of the commercial properties on Semaphore Road.



Council inspectors have noted an overuse of disabled spaces, often by people who are not disabled. This could be taking away opportunities for people who are disabled. See http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/port-drivers-pinching-disabled-parks/story-e6frea83-1226078584344

• Would the use of the recommended number of spaces for parking for people with disabilities, from table AS2890.1 - 1993, be beneficial?

Yes, but only if it's not covered by the Building Code. If it's in the Building Code (but not fully reflected), the Building Code would be the document to update rather than the Development Plan. If this is the case, DPTI may also have policy conventions/restrictions on reflecting this into Development Plans.


• Provide experiences of current levies / pricing / parking fund contributions. PAE has a car parking fund for a designated area within the Port Adelaide Regional Centre. It was established in 2006. It requires a fee of $7,200 per space in lieu of on site parking. This fee has remained unchanged since the Fund was established. There is no money in the Fund. Larger developers have been supportive of the Fund and have seen it as increasing their options to meet parking requirements. A handful of larger developments have agreed to make contributions to the Fund but the developments have not proceed for other reasons. Smaller developers, particularly those seeking a change of use in an existing premises, have seen the Fund as a deterrent. Council has considered suspending or abandoning the Fund but has recently introduced a mechanism where it has discretion to effectively reduce or remove the contribution requirement on a case by case basis.


In the context of parking funds, some developers could be open to it (in other areas) but this is likely to remain untested given the mixed response to the Port Centre parking fund. In suburban areas generally, parking charges per se would probably be resisted, irrespective of effective alternatives in public transport. In some ways there is a cultural expectation in suburbia of free parking. Time restrictions are tolerated somewhat, but this wouldn't seem the case for introducing charges. 5. Economic Impacts

• Consider the economic impacts of providing too little or too much parking. Disused parking spaces wouldn't seem to be the highest and best use of a given location. Some developers (more likely smaller businesses) may be reluctant to provide extra parking on economic grounds, especially where the existing built form makes this more difficult. The relationship between the Port Centre (fewer shops but free parking) and West Lakes (more shops but potentially charged parking) will be an interesting development. Another factor is whether the Development Plan assumes that all parking is free. If shopping centres introduce parking charges, does this mean the developers are actually varying their approved development, which was issued on the basis that all parking was free? Turning to developments with too little parking, visitors may feel discouraged in using these sites again, which could lead to a downturn in business. A lack of parking may affect commercial property values, but this may be difficult to prove directly.

• Consider the optimum balance of parking provision / sustainable transport / business viability.

Aside from physical, environmental or financial considerations, the issue of parking is also cultural. Citizens have particular expectations of transport, but these seem to be shaped by where they live e.g. expectations may vary between Adelaide and Melbourne. There is also a philosophical question over the extent that local/state government should influence individual transport choices. Among some urban planners, there seems an assumption (or perhaps hope) that if public transport is provided, then it will be used. In some respects, this assumption is questioned. The city centre has relatively good public transport, but it hasn't prevented the existence of multi-storey car parks. There are some land uses that may not see any appreciable shift to alternative transport. Industry is one example, particularly in less accessible areas (e.g. Wingfield) or for establishments that operate outside of regular business hours. In any case, there are other influences such as weekends vs. weekdays, weather, crime perception, cross-suburban trips, needing to visit different places in one trip run etc. Put together, these factors skew things in favour of parking provision. It also puts the concept of a balance in a different light; perhaps rather than a balance, a hierarchy or process may be at play i.e. 1. Car parking by default - uptake of public transport, cycling, and walking cannot be guaranteed 2. Public transport services do exist, but only in selected locations 3. Businesses will tend to flock where people flock. Catering for a worst scenario (i.e. all using cars) would seem more practical than a best-case scenario (i.e. hoping all will use alternative transport), especially if it is up to Councils to manage the aftermath of a development.

Parking Spaces – Urban Places Workshop Questions 1. Main Issues and Your Experience Please consider the main issues your Council has with the implementation of development plan parking rates. The answers below, regarding incentives/reductions etc. relate to balanced urban design outcomes being achieved predominantly in the 3 land use areas for Playford:

• Mixed Use • Main Street • Residential

We would like you to consider the following: • What are your top three issues associated with parking and development?

1. Challenging the 85th percentile ‘unwritten’ rule, regarding DP car parking rates 2. Good urban design/placemaking/achieving this balance 3. Walkability (moving to pedestrian dependent, not car/other vehicle dependent)

• Has potential development been encouraged or deterred by the parking requirement? Both, but need to consider on-street parking with off-street as part of the solution + see below * • Any developer feedback? Provided verbally by Rob Veitch during Group Sessions Wed 8/8/12 re: Woolies/Big W, Curtis Rd. Also, Rob Veitch provided the following reference points re:placemaking & car parking rates, direct to Chris Hardman: - David Engwicht (Placemaker) - Eugene Ferraro (Traffic Planner, Ferraro Planning & Development Consultancy, WA) “Car Parking - Not enough or too many? Setting land aside to park our motor vehicles consumes an enormous amount of our urban land. Every 10 car parking bay consumes approximately 330m2 of land for both the car park and manoeuvring areas. Car parking standards detailed in town planning schemes vary from local government to local government and to the outsider it is difficult to understand why these differences exist. How much thought and effort goes into prescribing these standards? Is there any science to the parking standards included in our town planning schemes, or are they just numbers chosen to satisfy local political issues? In time, when we look back and critically examine how we allowed our urban environment to be consumed by car parking, will we find that our efforts to “protect amenity” by prescribing minimum rates of car parking were sound planning outcomes, or misguided judgements that actually worked against broader planning outcomes? Why is it that we argue that providing sufficient car parking is necessary to “protect amenity”, yet some of the most attractive urban areas are those with limited parking? Parking is seen by many authorities as a necessary tax on development, yet when we look deeper, we find that providing excessive free on-site parking works against many of our sustainable planning objectives. Is providing what amounts to virtually unlimited on-site free parking the solution to our urban planning problems or is there another way?”

• Has the actual parking demand of a development proved to be noticeably different from the number of parking spaces that were predicted using parking rates? Definitely, subject to a lot of outside factors, including seasonal fluctuations. 2. Policy: Reducing car use or meet car parking dem and • What should be the aim of a ‘parking rate’? Should it be to the meet the unconstrained demand of a development or should it be a tool to shape transport policy? Both, but to go further, a tool to bring about a balanced urban design outcome – in both D/A & Policy • Consider the use of parking rates that are lower than the surveyed demand or imposing maximum parking rates or parking charges as a method of reducing car use. From your experience what would be the effect on development and the public. Good – any mechanism which promotes healthy lifestyle and makes private vehicle use less attractive is desirable. This must be tempered with the provision of alternatives such as public transport and shared paths to make access easier. It’s not reasonable to place a heavy levy on car use where there is no alternative. • In your view how can businesses and the public be persuaded of the benefits of reducing car use? By the promotion of healthy lifestyles, better urban design, etc. and making their location a destination with great amenity so that the public are tempted to linger. Car parks are not attractive but there is a mind set for commercial developers which insists expansive car parks must be visible to attract patrons. This is an obstacle to be overcome. • Reduced parking rates may result in short to medium term overspill of vehicles to on-street parking. Consider the reaction of businesses and residents. Businesses would regard this as good; residents may find it trying. Benefits are activation of the street, some congestion means self-management of speed and increased driver awareness in the locality. Detractors are inconvenience to residents, noise issues and possible access restriction (inconsiderate drivers blocking driveways, etc.) 3. Special use parking • Has your Council received requests for better or more special use parking? If so, which type (disabled / residential permits / parent and pram / small car / other)? Not at D/A stage, but we are open to this changing as the number of disabled parking requests in developments is not meeting the demand. Schools are excluding disabled parking from inside school grounds and deflecting their responsibility by pushing them out into the road environment, resulting in an increase in residential on-road disabled parking requests. There has also been an increase in requests for Residential Parking Permits in and around high activity areas such as hospitals, schools and shopping centres. Continual expansion of some of these developments impacts on the street systems and the existing on-road parking opportunities for local residents – if there are any.

There has also been an increase in requests for Residential Parking Permits in and around high activity areas such as hospitals, schools and shopping centres. Continual expansion of some of these developments impacts on the street systems and the existing on-road parking opportunities for local residents.

• Would the use of the recommended number of spaces for parking for people with disabilities, from table AS2890.1 - 1993, be beneficial? Yes 4. Levy / Pricing / Parking fund • Provide experiences of current levies / pricing / parking fund contributions. Hard to market – it’s still a tax! Achieving parity across a Car Parking Fund (for new development) versus levy/tax for existing businesses is a juggling act ie as passed on in discussion 8/8/12, re: Town of Gawler (Gawler main street) and Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council – Clare main street examples. • What would the effect be on introducing new parking charges on businesses / residents? Could have merit – it means better parity to ‘main street traders’ ie existing = levy, new = Dev Act Car Parking Fund. Experience has shown public resistance to car parking charges which can lead to elected member involvement. 5. Economic Impacts • Consider the economic impacts of providing too little or too much parking. A hard balance to achieve – too little parking provision can result in congestion resulting in the area being unattractive for customers and therefore limits business opportunities/ profits. Too much parking results in poor utilisation of land however, it can be relative to the viability/success of the businesses. • Consider the optimum balance of parking provision / sustainable transport / business viability.

Balanced and better urban design and pedestrian/cycle focussed environment creates a better, more attractive location, enabling car-dependent consumers access but placing emphasis on healthy lifestyle.

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ABN 54 005 139 873

55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

T +61 8 8237 9777 F +61 8 8237 9778 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com

Workshop Record v01

Project 230825 | Workshop Meeting Record_080812_v01.docx | Revision 0 | 21 August 2012 | Page 1

Project Number 230825 Workshop Date 8 August 2012

Project Name Parking Places - Urban Places: Car Parking Study

Recorded By Aurecon

Meeting / Subject Workshop 1 – Government Reference Group Total Pages 6

Pre

sent

Apo

logy

Cop

y

Name Organisation Contact Details

☒ ☐ ☒ Richard Hanslip Aurecon [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Chris Hardman Aurecon [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Melisse Heintze Aurecon [email protected]

☐ ☒ ☒ Rosa Gagetti City of Port Adelaide Enfield [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Michael Kobas City of Port Adelaide Enfield [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Tony Kamenjarin City of Port Adelaide Enfield [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Kym Dorrestyn City of Port Adelaide Enfield [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Andrew Mitchel DPTI [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Jason Ting DPTI [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Ken Potter City of Playford [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Robert Veitch City of Playford [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Peter Costopoulos City of Tea Tree Gully [email protected]

☐ ☒ ☒ Shari Fielke City of Tea Tree Gully [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Pam Andritsakis City of Holdfast Bay [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Sue Giles City of Holdfast Bay [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ David Melhuish City of Marion [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Cherry Getson Rural City of Murray Bridge [email protected]

☒ ☐ ☒ Daniel Jellings Local Government Association [email protected]


1 Introduction and Background The Planning SA Parking Bulletin Parking provisions for selected land uses (2001) is dated and does not reflect the current parking demand characteristics of the land uses contained in the document. The Parking Spaces – Urban Places: Car Parking Study is in the process of researching the latest parking rates and strategies used by local and State governments, with information also extracted from development applications and historic car park occupancy surveys. The focus of the study will be on the Adelaide Metropolitan and rural areas. The aim of the workshop was to bring together the Reference Group to air their parking issues, experiences and goals for the outcome of this study. Michael Kobas from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (PAE) introduced the workshop and highlighted the significant changes that have occurred since the release of the Planning SA Parking Bulletin, notably the increase in land costs, congestion and greater diversity of development. Michael also asked the question of whether parking rates should be defined by the need to meet the expected parking demand or should they be used as a strategic tool to influence greater use of sustainable transport modes. Jason Ting from DPTI provided the Department’s perspective and asked the participants to adopt a creative and innovative approach to the parking study. Considering the unique characteristics of South Australia, this study should be considered as the beginning of a journey of change. The results of this study will inform the next version of the SA Planning Policy Library. The background information for this workshop was presented, summarising the information contained in the Parking Spaces – Urban Places: Car Parking Study, Working Paper v03.

2 Session 1 – Main Issues, rates and special users The following issues were raised and discussed.

2.1 Development and Travel Trends

• The 30-Year Plan – encourages higher density development in defined corridors and zones. However, a demand for infill development does exist outside of the defined areas.

• Land cost increases – increases cost of providing parking and may deter development. • Dwellings:

o Narrow allotments – results in whole width of front garden used for parking, degrading street aesthetics and reduces the amount of available on-street parking.

o Multiple houses on sub-divided plots also causes similar issues. • Schools - Redevelopment of schools and school grounds for other land uses. • District Centre entertainment venues offer an alternative to CBD based venues. • Converting from one land use to another – premises remain empty as developers are deterred by

the cost of retrofitting buildings to accommodate predicted parking demand.


• Some large developers have provided parking at a higher rate than the minimum parking rates, resulting in an oversupply of parking.

2.2 Rates

• General o Parking rates in development plans often use a different method of measurement for the

same land use, making comparison difficult. A standardised method of measurement is desirable.

o 85th percentile method of evaluating survey demand could be reconsidered with a view to accommodating a lower percentile value.

o The defined vehicle to be catered for in parking rates should not be solely cars but should include a wider range of vehicles, including bicycles.

• Schools o PAE surveys indicate a parking demand at the rate of 0.25 to 0.3 spaces per child. o Parking demand of tertiary institutions depends on their location, e.g. University of South

Australia Mawson Lakes Campus has a high demand for car parking. • Dwellings

o Developers insist on 1 space per dwelling in medium and high density developments. o Commonly, a 3 bedroom apartment / townhouse type dwelling has a lower parking rate

than a 3 bedroom detached house, but actual parking demand is the same. o Guidance is needed on the parking rate to be applied to medium and high density

housing.

2.3 Parking Management • Canadian schools considered a ‘driver exclusion zone’ with a perimeter 200 m away from school.

Parents are encouraged to drop-off / pick-up children outside of the perimeter, reducing congestion on roads adjacent to school and encourage walking. Would displace traffic to streets located outside of perimeter, but could be managed.

• Visitor parking for dwellings has to be accessible. • Improved pedestrian facilities in car parks to allow better pedestrian permeability within and

through car parks and in a safer environment.

2.4 Special Users

• General consensus for more provision of parking spaces for people with disabilities, elderly and parent and child spaces.


3 Session 2 – Reducing or meeting demand, Financial and Economic considerations

The following issues were raised and discussed.

3.1 Reducing or meeting demand The key issue of whether to provide for the surveyed demand or, parking rates used as a tool for promoting other transport modes, was discussed, the prominent points noted as follows:

• General o National corporations insist on using internal standard floor plates in South Australia, with

generous parking facilities. Corporate strategy on parking provisions in South Australia can be persuaded to change gradually. Suggests an incremental approach to reducing parking rates.

o Noted that in some instances parking rates are resulting in a substantial oversupply of parking spaces, e.g. Supermarkets.

o External factors that may influence the future parking demand of land uses: � Internet / National Broadband Network – may reduce the parking demand of

dwellings, retail and offices.

• Discounting o Discounting takes many forms; most common is based on the availability of convenient

public transport, car sharing or a unique characteristic of the land use.

o Diminishing Parking Demand; use of non-discounted minimum parking rates in the short term whilst the business of the development is established, in the medium to long term, the parking areas can be built on.

o Currently used by: � The Town of Vincent, WA, parking rates - discount amount relative to distance

from development to public transport service. � The revised Roads and Traffic Authority Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments, NSW, ‘Accessibility Formula’. � Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) uses a table of lower than standard minimum

rates when stated conditions are met – the influence of the Melbourne train and tram network maybe a factor that Adelaide can’t, as yet, replicate. Should be noted that the VPP rates are applicable state wide.

o Discounting often relies on a good service level of public transport, pedestrian and cycling networks, which is currently not available in all locations. Public transport services are strong from suburb to Adelaide city centre but weak between suburbs. A single bus route should not constitute a large discount to the parking rate.

o Experience indicates that the use of discounted rates on the basis of public transport can result in overspill parking as drivers do not switch transport modes as envisaged.

o Longevity of discount schemes, e.g. car share schemes may fail over the medium to long term or public transport services reduced, resulting in an increase in the demand for parking, which cannot be accommodated on site.


o Car share schemes: � May not be as successful in the Adelaide Metro area when compared with larger

Australian cities; refer to CIC study for Lightsview. � They are difficult to enforce. � Their effect on parking demand is currently unknown in Adelaide.

o In certain circumstances, particularly High / Main Street settings, on-street parking should

be utilised to allow a parking rate discount to apply.

o Promote the linking of existing segregated arrangements of parking areas (tearing down fences), to allow sharing of parking spaces. Can be used to attract a parking discount.

o Consider the introduction of Green Travel Plans as a condition of development.

o Discounting is generally noted as worth pursuing, particularly if used to define a range of

parking rates, with fixed lower and upper limits.

o The discount criterion needs to be carefully and simply worded.

• Meeting Demand o Critical where overspill parking onto the street creates a detrimental situation, such as:

� Parked vehicles obstructing the movement of emergency service vehicles. � Parked vehicles blocking sightlines at intersections / bends / pedestrian and

cycle crossing points.

3.2 Economic • It is understood that business operators emphasise the need for convenient on-street parking. • In some circumstances, providing for the calculated parking demand is a burden for business

and, acts as a deterrent to development. Under some circumstances the opposite applies! • Even a relatively low parking fund deposit value has been seen by developers as a deterrent to

proceeding with a project.

4 Next Steps The reference group were asked for the issues that should be addressed as part of the study:

• Bulky Goods. • Medium / High density dwellings, including detached dwellings built at increased densities. • Mixed use precincts. • Hubs / Supercentres. • Schools. • Consulting rooms. • Offices. • Places of worship. • Discounting.


Due to budgetary pressures, the reference group were asked to select the top issues to be considered:

• Medium / High density dwellings, including detached dwellings built at increased densities. • Mixed Use precincts. • Policy incentives for rate reduction. • Trends, for example:

o Public transport patronage. o Car ownership. o Internet commerce.

Workshop#1 – Response to questions

Q1. Main Issues and Council Experience

Multiple issues were highlighted by local councils in response to parking and development. The current car parking rates are seen by councils as inappropriate and not suitable for application, finding that car parking rates do not properly reflect its targets.

Parking rates that affect residential dwellings tend to be inconsistent and retail developments tend to fluctuate especially between small and large scale developments. The Murray Bridge Council finds car parking rates impractical due to the difference between metropolitan and rural areas, where car parking areas tend to be excessive in rural/regional/outer metropolitan areas. They suggest that parking rates should be viewed differently when considering outer metropolitan areas.

Small councils also find it difficult to properly analyse car parking needs as council traffic engineers/consultants are either not employed or work only part-time. One issue was raised on how developers perceive these rates as negotiable as they are not rigidly enforced.

Councils have experienced of potential development being encouraged or deterred by current parking requirements. However, for small scale development, parking rates tend to be more of a deterrent. This can include a lack of space due to the need to provide a certain amount of parking spaces.

Q2. Policy: Reducing car use or meet car parking de mand

Responses from councils suggest that parking rates should be there to meet the anticipated demand for a particular development/land use. Often the current parking rates do not reflect actual demand and should be reconsidered if evidence suggests a more appropriate figure in order to prevent overspill and underutilisation in the immediate area.

Parking rates should also be mindful of areas that are unique and have different characteristics to the rest of metropolitan Adelaide. In the case of St Vincent Street and Commercial Road in Port Adelaide, some sites aren’t able to provide dedicated onsite parking due to the area being pre-motor car. Reconfiguration is impractical due to heritage listed buildings.

Methods that allocate fewer parking spots than the surveyed demand or imposing parking charges are techniques to reduce car use in certain areas. It is the council’s perception that these methods tend to have a negative effect on the public. Port Adelaide Enfield suggests it’s politically unacceptable and it’s more likely that the council will impose time limits. City of Marion states that these methods result in short term grievances and make no noticeable change in transport mode choice. Placing a charge on public parking can result in shoppers going elsewhere.

Promoting and education about the benefits of health, reduction of pollution and congestion are the obvious ways to reduce car use however, the alternatives to this need to be properly organised first. An approach should be promoting a more efficient, cost effective and safe alternative so people can see that it is a better option rather just a health benefit. Health benefits should not be the only persuasion to reduce car use.

Decreased parking rates have seen significant divisions between residents and business owners. Businesses would possibly see higher profits as they can increase floor space and make more efficient use of the land developed. With decreased parking rates shoppers that cannot park on site would most likely park on on-street parking or in residential areas. Residents however, tend to see this as unacceptable, especially those that live near areas of high activity. Shoppers can congest residential areas due to the lack of parking especially in peak shopping hours. Some shoppers could also see this as unappealing if no alternative parking is within the close proximity.

Q3. Special Use Parking

Marion Council, Playford Council and Port Adelaide-Enfield Council have received requests residents for more disabled parking and residential permit parking. Marion Council and the Playford Council in particular have stated that they have seen an increased number of requests for residential permits in areas around shopping centres and sporting facilities. This is mostly due to the overspill of parking from sites that have not been allocated enough car parking spaces. Requests for more disabled parking spaces have also been stated, chiefly by the Port Adelaide Enfield Council. People using disabled parking that are not entitled to have become a problem within the Port Adelaide Enfield council area. Disabled parking is over used which could be due to the lack of regular parking spaces around activity areas. The Playford Council also notes that disabled parking within developments is not meeting the actual demand.

Table AS2890.1 – 1993 is used by most council’s, particularly for larger developments. However some suggest this may need to be reviewed.

Q4. Levy/ Pricing/ Parking fund

The effect on businesses and residents when introducing new parking charges fees could result in a decline in business due to the lack of shoppers visiting the area, and could see more parking in residential areas due to overspill. This is the case in the Port Adelaide Enfield council, where many residents shop at West Lakes Shopping Centre rather than the Port Canal Shopping Centre due to the availability of parking spaces (though new parking rates could possibly be introduced in West Lakes. The Port Adelaide Enfield Council is interested in what will happen to business when this goes ahead).

Parking Funds are seen as deterrents to development by most council’s surveyed. Port Adelaide Enfield Council have considered suspending or abandoning the Fund.

Q5. Economic Impacts

Providing too many parking spaces often results in an underdevelopment of a site, leading to low returns for investors and poor utilisation of land (not the highest and best use of the site). It could also result in unnecessary maintenance and a reduction in aesthetic quality for the property and landscape. The City of Playford has also stated that this could be the result of a business that is not successful or viable instead of too much parking spaces being allocated.

Too little parking could deter customers and have a detrimental economic impact. The overspill of parking that can result from this could also affect the amenity of the broader area.

Marion Council has noted that optimum balance between parking provision/sustainable transport/business viability is likely when all three aspects are achieved. Port Adelaide Enfield council suggests that we should cater for a worst scenario rather than the best scenario as it would be more practical.

Appendix B Workshop #2 Minutes and

Written Reponses

Parking Spaces - Urban Places

DRAFT Summary of Recommendations

Version: 02

3rd October 2012

Notes:

1.Parking rate range:

• Standard (upper) rate: represents the surveyed 85th percentile parking demand, current SA Bulletin rate or VPP rate

• Minimum rate: represents the lowest rate that can be applied, often represents the lowest surveyed rate of a land use but commonly based on VPP rate or anecdotal evidence

• Where warranted, the Standard rate can be discounted by using the discount table. However, regardless of the total discount warranted, the minimum rate is considered fixed and cannot be lowered any

further

2 .The Parking discount consists of the sum of the following five discounts (refer to Table 2 - Parking Rate Discount Table):

• Accessibility Discount - allows the Standard rate to be discounted due to closely located public transport, cycling and walking facilities.

• Shared Use Discount - allows the Standard rate to be discounted where a development shares a common car parking facility or a public car parking facility is within the locality

• Improved Planning Outcome Discount - allows the Standard rate to be discounted where developers provide a higher quality walking / cycling / public transport environment than they otherwise would have

• Paid Parking Discount - allows the Standard rate to be discounted when a parking fee is charged for use of the car park. A minimum 10 year period is suggested

• Adverse Economic Impact Discount - allows the Standard rate to be discounted when the development is consistent with the strategic plan for a centre and modifications to existing infrastructure to meet the

standard parking demand is cost prohibitive

10. JtW - Journey to Work.

3. TFA - Total Floor Area as used in Planning Bulletin: Parking provisions for selected land uses for all non retail land uses and not used for car lot / vehicle sales yard.

4. GLA - Gross Leasable Area as used in Planning Bulletin: Parking provisions for selected land uses for all retail land uses.

6. Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP)

• Column A represents the VPP standard rate (not necessarily surveyed demand)

• Column B is the Parking Overlay rate (discounted rate) that can be used if certain conditions are met

5. Planning Bulletin: Parking provisions for selected land uses: Total area of the site for car lot / vehicle sales yard.

7. PPL Terminology - 'Department of Planning and Local Government - South Australian Planning Policy Library Terminology List, September 2011'.

8. RTA Guide - Road Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales Guide to traffic generating developments.

9. TDB - Trips Database Bureau.

1 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

Table 1 - Summary of Recommended RatesE

ntr

y

Max

discount

possible

Summary of

ChangeResearch highlight Comment

Recreation

1 Amusement Machine Centre 7.00

100 sq m

TFA - Note

2

N/A No change

• PPL Terminology List: four or more amusement

machines. Includes pinball parlours, amusement centres,

billiard saloons or fun parlours.


2 Bowling Club 10.00

per

bowling

green

N/A No change

• South Australia has the highest participation rate than

any other State or Territory (Australia Sports

Commission).• Large difference between SA, VPP and RTA parking rates.

3 Cinema Complex 0.25 to 0.33 seat Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered

under 'Places of assembly'

4 Concert Hall / Theatre 0.25 to 0.33 seat Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


5 Conference Facility Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


6 Entertainment Multiplex Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


7 Exhibition Hall Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


8 Gymnasium 3 to 5100 sq m

GFA40% New Entry

• Surveyed demand: 2 to 5.2 per 100m2 GFA

• DP rates: up to 10 per 100m2 GFA.

• RTA Guide: 3 to 7.5 per 100m2 GFA

• Aurecon survey: 93% drive to the gym

• Recommended rate range based on surveyed rates

Hotels & Taverns 0.4 to 0.55 patron 27% • Increased gaming and dining facilities in hotels.

Public Bar 0.50 sq m TFA

Lounge or beer garden 0.17 sq m TFA

Dining room 0.33 seats

• Hotel developers have an understanding of the number of staff

and patrons that the hotel will attract for liquor and

entertainment licensing purposes.

Gaming room 0.50 machine • Surveyed rate marginally higher than the standard VPP rate.

Accommodation• Recommended rate range based on surveyed rate and VPP

standard rate.

10Indoor Recreation (formerly Indoor

Recreation / Gymnasium)N/A

Change entry

title

• The PPL Terminology defines a wide range of land uses

for ‘Indoor Recreation’ which includes: Bowling alleys,

Gymnasiums, Indoor Games Centre / Indoor Recreation

Centre, Skating Rink.

• Children’s Play Centres could be considered as an Indoor

Recreation use

• Due to the wide range of land uses under the heading ‘Indoor

Recreation’ the parking rate should remain as ‘Assess on needs

basis’.

• Gymnasiums are a common development and survey data is

available to establish a separate rate.

• Remove ‘Gymnasium’ from Indoor Recreation/Gymnasium

entry and create a 'Gymnasium entry' (8)


Recommended Parking Rate

Planning SA Parking Bulletin,

2001

New

measurement

unit and rate

range

introduced.

9

• Parking surveys (2 hotels) indicates a peak of 0.55 spaces

per person.

• VPP has a hotel and tavern parking rate of:

o Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces per patron.

o Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 m2 of leasable floor

area.

• Many hotels provide live music acts that attract a high number

of patrons that are not accounted for under the SA Planning

Bulletin rates.

Assess on needs basis




sum of the following:


2 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

11 Night Clubs & Late Night Venues No change • No data available

12 Non residential club Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: ‘fits definition of community centre -

land used for the provision of social, recreational or

educational facilities for the local community, but does

not include a pre-school, primary school, educational

establishment or indoor recreation centre’.


• The PPL Terminology indicates that Non residential clubs fits the

definition of community centres

• Non residential club entry to be deleted and considered under

'Places of assembly' (58)

0.33 seat

6.67

100 sq m

TFA - Note

2

Restaurant (fast food / family /

convenience restaurant)

12.00 100 sq m

with dine-in facilities but no drive

through (internal and external seating)20.00

100 sq m

TFA - Note


through (internal seating)0.50

internal

seat

with dine-in and drive through facilities

(internal and external seating)33.33

100 sq m

TFA - Note


(internal seating)0.50

internal

seat

15 Squash / Tennis Courts 4.00 court 3 to 4 court 25%Rate range

introduced• Limited data available

• Recommended to introduce a range or rates for squash / tennis

courts to represent the variance in existing recommended rates;

RTA Guide rate of 3 and VPP / SA Bulletin of 4

16 TAB Facility 8.00

100 sq m

TFA - Note

2

7 to 8100 sq m

GFA13%

Rate range

introduced

• VPP Col A (standard) rate: 4 spaces per 100m2 leasable

floor area

• Online gambling currently restricted in Australia but

sports betting online is permissible. Growth has increased

from 2004 to 2008 by 100%. Managed liberalisation of

gambling may occur (Australian Government Productivity

Commission).

• Tabcorp investing in TAB Sportsbet wagering App, but

also investing in self-service technology in the TAB retail

network (Tabcorp 2011 Annual Report).

• Due to the lack of data it is recommended to introduce a rate

range, with the standard TAB facility parking rate unchanged and,

a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are met

• The value of the lower parking rate has no basis apart from it

remains much higher than the standard rate provided by the VPP

• VPP standard rate: 0.4 per patron

• Floor area is not directly linked to parking demand as

kitchen requirements, interior design and table

arrangement vary widely.

• Restaurants have scope to reduce their parking demand

by car sharing, accessibility to alternative transport

modes.

• Restaurants commonly have shared parking

arrangement with other land uses, typically in shopping

centres.

• Solely use the number of seats for measurement of the parking

demand

• Developers know the number of seats they have designed to

accommodate

• Recommemded rate range based on 2001 Planning Bulletin rate

and VPP standard rate.

14

0.35 to 0.55 seat 36%Rate range

introduced

PLUS 12 vehicle queuing area if

a drive through

Restaurant (traditional)13 0.3

without dine-in and drive thru

(Convenience?)

to 0.4 seat 25%Rate range

introduced

• VPP Col A (standard) rate: 0.3 per patron

• RTA Surveyed demand: 0.2 to 0.9 per seat, with 85th

percentile of 5.5

• 85th percentile queue of 12 at drive through

• Simplify parking rate, with a single range of parking rates

dependant on the total number of seats provided

• The provision of drive through facilities has no bearing on the

number of vehicles parked, only on queuing areas

• Recommended rate range based on 85th percentile surveyed

demand and a higher rate than the VPP standard rate



3 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Medical

17 Consulting Room 10100 sq m

TFA4.5 to 5 practioner 10%

New

measurement

unit and rate

range

introduced.

• Consulting Room an accepted term in PPL Terminology

• VPP Col A (standard) rate: 5 spaces to the first person

providing health services plus 3 spaces to every other

person providing health services

• Aurecon Darwin Study: 2.5 and 8 spaces per

practitioner and between 1.1 and 2.63 spaces per

consulting room

• The layouts of medical centres vary depending on

reception space, consulting room sizes and whether

conference facilities are provided. As such parking rates

based on floor area may not represent an accurate

parking demand for the facility.

• Consulting Room to include Medical Centre / Day Surgery.

• The scope for accessibility discounting is limited given the

medical nature of the land use.

• The VPP column A rate is a reasonable representation, allowing

for a conservative four patients waiting, and one patient being

seen, at any one time by a single practitioner. Patients are likely to

arrive just before the scheduled appointment time, but are likely

to be delayed by the practitioner. The rate is based on the more

accurate measurement of practitioners.

• The recommended rate range is based on the VPP Column A

rate (the column B ‘every other person’ VPP rate is difficult to

justify), the minimum rate is slightly lower than the standard rate

to allow discounting if the conditions are met.

18 Hospital 2.5 bed 3.5 to 5 bed 30%

Higher with

rate range

introduced

• Aurecon parking demand model created to represent

the parking operation of four hospitals in South Australia

that are expanding

• Surveyed parking demand: 3.3 to 4.8 spaces per bed

• The model took into account; staff shift patterns,

Inpatient, Outpatient, Emergency admissions and visitor

data supplied by the hospitals

• Predicted parking demand of expanded facilities: 2.9 to

4.9 spaces per bed

• Aurecon parking model of New Royal Adelaide, Modbury, Port

Lincoln and Mount Gambier hospitals showed a moderate

increase in bed numbers but with large increases in Outpatient

processing.

• The recommended rate range is defined by the highest

modelled parking demand (rural hospital) and the lowest

modelled demand (metro hospital): 3.5 to 5 spaces per bed

19 Medical Centre / Day Surgery 10100 sq m

TFAEntry deleted

• Medical Centre / Day Surgery not listed in PPL Terminology

• To be considered under 'Consulting Room' (17 )

20Aged Persons Accommodation / Nursing

home (formerly Nursing Home)0.25 bed 0.25 to 0.3

lodging

room17%

Re-titled,

higher, with

rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: ‘Definition of ‘nursing home’ in

Schedule 1 is ‘a place for the care of the aged and infirm

where no care of outpatients or surgery is undertaken’

Some aspects may be controlled under the Retirement

Villages Act 1987.’

• PPL Terminology: Aged Persons Accommodation or

Nursing Home are accepted terms

• VPP rate: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3

spaces to each lodging room.

• Some overlap with Nursing Home and Retirement

acoomodation definitions, as both provide medical facilities

• Assumed residents in retirement accommodation are more

mobile than aged care / nursing home residents

• No data on current parking demand, however the VPP Column A

rate is higher than the current SA Bulletin rate.

• Limited scope for applying a discount; visitors and staff may opt

to use alternative transport modes if available.

• Change measurement to lodging room to represent the type of

accommodation being provided.

• Include ‘Aged Persons Accommodation’ in title to clarify land

use.

• Parking rate recommended based on the SA Bulletin and VPP

rates

4 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001


Industry & Warehouse: Office Component 3.3100 sq m

TFAEntry deleted

PLUS

Industry & Warehouse: Non-Office

Component

Up to 200 sq m 2100 sq m

TFA

Plus 200 - 2000 sq m 1.33100 sq m

TFA

Plus greater than 2000 sq m 0.67100 sq m

TFA

OR

Labour intensive industries 0.75 employee

0.8 to 1

employee (if

employee

numbers

known)

20%

1.5 to 1.85

100 sq m GFA

(if employee

numbers are

not known)

19%

0.8 to 1

employee (if

employee

numbers

known) with a

minimum of 2

spaces per

premises

20%

1.5 to 1.85

100 sq m GFA

(if employee

numbers not

known) with a

minimum of 2

spaces per

premises

19%

Warehouse23

21

• A Property Council of Australia investigation

demonstrated that current rates result in an over

provision of parking spaces, as manufacturing methods

have become more automated since the release of the

2001 SA Parking Bulletin. Competitiveness in international

manufacturing has resulted in reduced labour, with the

jobs/Ha being a key indicator of competitiveness. The

oversupply of parking has increased development costs

due to the significant increase in land costs, making South

Australian manufacturing less competitive.

• To be considered under 'Industry' (22) or 'Warehouse' (23)

New Entry

• VPP ‘Industry other than listed’ rate: Column A

(standard) rate of 2.9 per 100m2 of net floor area. Column

B rate of 1 per 100m2 of net floor area.

• RTA Guide: 1.3 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

• TDB 2007 data of ten industrial units: 85th percentile

rate is 1.85 spaces per 100m2 or 0.6 spaces per employee.

• Since 2001, increased automation of manufacturing

processes with a corresponding reduction in the

workforce.

• Area based rate not an accurate assessment of parking

demand

• A discount can apply but should be minimal as the majority of

industrial developments are often isolated from alternative

transport modes.

• Recommended rate range is based on the TBD data and

Property Council of Australia investigation

New Entry

• VPP ‘Warehouse other than listed’ rate: Column A

(standard) rate of 2 spaces minimum to each premises

plus 1.5 spaces to each 100m2 of net floor area.

• VPP ‘Warehouse other than listed’ rate: Column B

(standard) rate of 2 spaces minimum to each premises

plus 1 space to each 100m2 of net floor area.•

• VPP Committe: Small warehouses can have a high

parking demand, provide minimum requirement of 2

spaces, also very large warehouses have very low demand

• RTA Guide: 0.33 spaces per 100m2 GFA.

• TDB 2007 data of four warehouses: 85th percentile rate

is 1.85 spaces per 100m2 or 0.64 spaces per employee.

• Area based rate not an accurate assessment of parking

demand

• A discount can apply but should be minimal as the majority of

warehouse developments are often isolated from alternative

transport modes.

• VPP Committee: small warehouses have a minimum demand of

2 spaces.

• Recommended rate range is based on the TBD data and VPP

rates

22 Industry OR if employee numbers are

not known:

5 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Community / Civic

0.25 children 0.9 to 1 employee 10%

0.23 to 0.25

child (drop-

off / pick-up

bays)

8%

25 Civic Administrative Offices 4.00100 sq m

TFAEntry deleted

• Assumed that Civic offices do not vary significantly from

other offices (visitor numbers may be higher but SA

Bulletin has same rates for both office types suggesting

demand is the same)

• To be considered under 'Office' ()

26 Community Centre 10.00100 sq m

TFAEntry deleted

• The layouts of community centres vary depending on

building layout and whether conference facilities are

provided. As such parking rates based on floor area may

not represent an accurate parking demand for the facility

• Suggest use of patron or seat as a measurement unit

• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


27 Education

27a Pre-school Entry deleted

• Pre-school caters for ages 4 to 5 (sa.gov.au).

• For Child care centres and Pre-schools an overlap occurs

of the ages of children being cared for, with four year olds

starting Pre-school. However, staff / child ratios will differ

between the two

• Pre-school characteristics have more in common with Child Care

Centres than primary and secondary schools

• Pre-school entry should be merged with the Child care centre

entry, as the measurement of parking demand used is based on

the number of employees

• Applying an employee based rate will negate the difference

between staff / child ratios of Child care centres and Pre-school

and, as the travel modes are anticipated to be similar, the same

drop-off / pick-up rate should apply

Child Care Centre / Pre-school (formerly

Child Care Centre)

1 space per full time

employee plus 1 space for

wheelchair users plus an

additional 10% of the total for

visitors

24

Re-titled, new

measurement

unit, drop-off /

pick-up

requirement

AND

• VPP: Column A and B rates of 0.22 spaces to each child

• Calculated drop-off / pick-up demand: 0.23 spaces per

child

• Long term parking: measurement unit of 'child' may not

be accurate in the future as staff / child ratios may

increase

• Transport mode split of staff or parents unknown, but

assumed majority drive

• Child care centre children are too young for

independent travel

• Pre-school (entry 27a) has similar characteristics and

could be included in this entry

• Some potential for staff to switch to alternative transport

modes.

• Potential of parents to switch to alternative transport modes

unknown

• Recommended long term parking rate range based on anecdotal

evidence

• Recommended drop-off / pick-up rate based on calculation with

assumptions

• On-street parking could be utilised to accommodate part of or

the entire drop-off / pick-up bay

6 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Primary School and Secondary School 0.8 to 1.1 employee 27%

0.60full time

student0.3 to 0.8

per each

student that is

part of the

maximum

number of

students on

the site at any

time

63%

0.20part time

student

29 Library 4.00100 sq m

TFA2 to 4

100 sq m

GFA50%

Rate range

introduced

• VPP: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3

spaces to each patron catered for

• The State Librarian of NSW: introduction of user-pays,

increase in services, becoming centres for the community

• Libraries located in metro areas have scope to apply an

accessibility discount

• The possibility of library services increasing may result in a

higher parking demand

• The use of the VPP per patron rate could be used but it may

difficult to identify the actual patronage of a library prior to

opening

• The recommended rate range is based on the SA Bulletin rate,

with a minimum rate to allow for potential use of alternative

transport modes

30 Meeting Hall 0.20 seat Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


31 Place of Worship 0.20 to 0.33 seat Entry deleted• Similar patron or seat based parking demand to be considered


PLUS28 Tertiary Education

27b

• PPL Terminology: Tertiary Institution not listed, Tertiary

Education not an accepted term

• VPP: Column A (standard) rate of 0.4 spaces to each

student that is part of the maximum number of students

on the site at any time. Column B rate of 0.3 spaces to

each student that is part of the maximum number of

students on the site at any time

• TDB survey of Massey Uni (3,700 students, poor public

transport): 0.47 per full time student

• Limited data

1 space per full time

employee plus 1 space for

wheelchair users plus an

additional 10% of the total for

visitors

• Tertiary Institutions located in metro areas have scope to apply

an accessibility discount.

• Providing a part time and full time student rate may not

represent the parking demand

• Use the VPP measurement unit, as it refers to the maximum

number of students on site; a more accurate gauge of parking

demand.

• The recommended rate range is based on the current SA

Bulletin rate and, due to the extensive consultation carried out by

the VPP Committee, the VPP Column B rate

New

measurement

unit and rate

range

introduced

• VPP: Column A and B rates: 1 space to each employee

that is part of the maximum number of employees on the

site at any one time

• TDB data (1 school): 0.8 spaces per employee / 0.06

spaces per child

• Catchment areas only enforced when demand for places

outstrips supply, this results in school children living

further afield

• 2009 Streets Ahead Program (Australian Council for

Educational Research): 75% of children travel to school by

car

• Calculated drop-off / pick-up demand: 0.23 spaces per

child

•University of Strathclyde, Glasgow: 5 to 7 year olds: very

poor skill in identifying dangerous road crossing sites, 11

year olds good judgement

• Scope to apply a discount to schools, particularly for staff and

children aged 10 and over (35% of all primary school children)

• The calculated demand for the short stay drop-off / pick up bay

would be very difficult to accommodate (800 students requires

200 spaces)

• Introduce drop-off / pick-up management strategy: individual

school years could be allocated a street within a 400m radius of

the school as a dedicated drop-off / pick-up zone, with younger

years located closest to the school and older years the furthest.

Consultation with residents could champion the benefits to the

whole community of sharing the responsibility of being located

near a school

• Staggered start and finish times would also reduce the intensity

of the peak periodsPLUS Drop-off / pick-up

management strategy

Rate range

introduced

PLUS drop-off /

pick-up

7 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Commercial

1.00100 sq m

TFA0.9 to 1

100 sq m

TFA10%

33 Bank 5.00 to 6.00100 sq m

TFAEntry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Bank not an accepted term, PPL uses

Office

• The traditionally higher parking demand of a bank may

be offset by internet banking and ATM use

• Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: 33% of bank

branches or agencies were closed between 1990 and

2001.

• Limited data

• Assumed lower visitor numbers to banks, comparably with

offices in general

• To be considered under 'Office'

34 Call Centre 6 to 8100 sq m

GFA25%

Rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: Call Centre not listed

• Room for thought study (Uni of NSW): Call Centres have

double the employee density of the average office

• Virtual Contact Centres utilising the NBN may negate the

need for Call Centres

• Limited visitor numbers expected at Call Centres

• Due to the double employee density compared with an office,

the recommended rate range is based on double the Office rate

35

Bulky Goods or Retail Showroom

(formerly Hardware and other retail

showrooms)

2 to 4

100 sq m

GLA - See

note 3

1.7 to 3100 sq m

GLFA43%

Re-titled, lower

rate

• PPL Terminology: Hardware and Other Retail

Showrooms not listed

• Statewide Bulky Goods DPA: links Bulky Goods with

Retail Showroom, similar to VPP definition of Restricted

Retail premises

•VPP restricted retail premises rate: Column A (standard)

rate of 3 spaces per 100m2, Column B rate of 2.5 spaces

per 100m2 of leasable floor area

• TDB data (RTA 2009) of Bunnings / Mitre 10: 85th

percentile demand is 2.8 spaces per 100m2 GLFA

• TDB data (RTA 2009) of bulky goods / homewares, Inner

suburban: 85th percentile demand is 1.7 spaces per

100m2 GLFA

• TDB data (RTA 2009) of bulky goods / homewares, Outer

suburban: 85th percentile demand is 3 spaces per 100m2

GLFA

• TDB data (RTA 2009) of bulky goods / homewares, both:

85th percentile demand is 2.9 spaces per 100m2 GLFA

• Bunnings extension at Windsor Gardens: 3.2 spaces per

100m2 GLFA

• Gepps Cross Homemaker Centre: 2.6 spaces per 100m2

GLFA

• 'Villages' of stores allow for shared parking

• The TDB data of inner suburban stores indicates that an

accessibility discount can be applied

• RTA 2009 surveys indicate lower parking demand rate than the

2001 SA Bulletin

• 'Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods)' entry deleted, considered part

of this entry due to similar parking demand and Statewide Bulky

Goods DPA definition

• Recommended rate range based on TDB data

• The recommended rate range is based on the SA Bulletin rate,

with a minimum rate to allow for a discount to be applied

• PPL Terminology: Auction Depot not listed, Auction

room is an accepted term

• No data

Auction DepotRate range

introducedPLUS

2 spaces

PLUS

2 spaces

32


8 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

2100 sq m

TFA3

100 sq m

GLFA

3 to 4 service bay 1

space for each

vehicle being

serviced,

repaired or fitted

with accessories,

including

vehicles waiting

to be repaired,

fitted with

accessories or

collected by

owners

37 Motor Showroom 1.50 to 2.00100 sq m

TFAEntry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Motor Showroom not an accepted

term.

• Land used for the sale of motor vehicles falls under the

Service Trade Premises PPL Terminology definition

• To be considered under 'Service Trade Premises'

38 Office 4.00100 sq m

TFA3 to 4

100 sq m

GFA25%

Rate range

introduced

• VPP: Column A (standard) rate of 3.5, Column B rate of 3

spaces per 100m2 of net floor area

• ABS 2006 Data: Greater Adelaide highest car JtW at 83%,

78% in Sydney, 82% in Melbourne and Perth and 81% in

Brisbane

• ABS 2006 Data: SA car JtW; Metro councils: 86% to 89%,

Rural councils: 87% to 92%

• TDB Data (RTA 2009/10): 0.30 (suburban) to 2.89 (rural)

per 100m2 of GFA, 85th percentile is 1.33 per 100m2 GFA

• Darwin Study: 85th percentile 3.98 per 100m2 GFA

• Room for Thought (Uni NSW/RICS, 2002): average

20.6m2 per FTE (RTA Guide 1979: 16m2 per employee)

• Room for Thought (Uni NSW/RICS, 2002): Hot desking

18.7m2/FTE

• RTA Accessibility formula: Offices greatest potential to

switch to alternative transport modes

• VPP only allows for a 15% reduction from Col A to B

• Federal government: 12% of employees teleworking by

2020

• Room for Thought study indicates that internet, intranet and

new working practices have a marginal effect on increasing

employee / floor space densities. However, the study was

conducted in 2002 with lower broadband speeds and coverage

than when compared with the future NBN

• TDB RTA surveys 2009/10: record a highest parking demand of

2.9 per 100m2 GFA. This reflects the lower car use in Greater

Sydney

•JtW data: car remains the dominant transport mode of choice

across all council areas, with minor deviation between metro and

rural areas

• It is recommended to introduce a rate range, utilising the

current parking rate as the standard rate and, a minimum rate to

allow discounting if the conditions are met

• VPP unlikely to have applied a discount to surveyed parking

demand, due car oriented land use of a Motor Repair Station

• Adopt up to date VPP rate

Motor Repair Station

GREATER OF:

OR

N/A

New

measurement

unit

• VPP: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 3 spaces

per 100m2 of net floor area plus 1 space for each vehicle

being serviced, repaired or fitted with accessories,

including vehicles waiting to be repaired, fitted with

accessories or collected by owners.


36

9 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Petrol Filling Station

Service bays 6per bay

PLUS6

per bay

PLUSN/A

Retail floor space 5100 sq m

GLAN/A

40 Post Office 7

100 sq m

TFA or

GLA?

Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Post Office not an accepted term, use

shop or office

• VPP rate: Column A (standard) rate of 4, Column B rate

of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area

• Post offices often form part of a shopping centre

• VPP rates suggest Post offices have similar parking demand to

shops

• Consider Post offices under Shop (not within a centre rate)

entry, if they are a stand-alone facility. If they form part of a

shopping centre; consider under the new entry; Shopping

Centres.

41 Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods) 2 to 4

100 sq m

GLA - See

note 3

Entry deleted• Statewide Bulky Goods DPA: links Bulky Goods with

Retail Showroom

• 'Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods)' entry deleted, to be

considered part of retitled ‘Bulky Goods and Retail Showroom’

entry due to similar parking demand and Statewide Bulky Goods

DPA definition

42 Service Trade Premises 2 to 4

100 sq m

GLA - See

note 3

2 to 4100 sq m

GLFA50% No change

• PPL Terminology: Retail Trade Premises not listed but

commonly used in planning documents

• Statewide Bulky Goods DPA defines land uses associated

with Service Trade Premises but not Retail Trade Premises

• VPP has no general Service Trade Premises

• VPP Landscape Gardening Supplies: 10% of site area

• VPP Trade Supplies: 10% of site area

• Case study - Landscape supplies: 18% to 25% of site area

• Case study - Building supplies: 20% of site area

• The term 'Service Trade Premises' is commonly used in planning

documentation

• The VPP parking provision of 10% site area is unlikely to

accommodate the parking demand

• Given the lack of information the current rate range should

remain unchanged

PLUS39

50% of the calculated parking

demand of any ancillary land

use

New

measurement

unit

PLUS

• PPL Terminology: Petrol filling station : ‘Means land used

for the purposes of fuelling motor vehicles and may

include and associated land for the servicing of motor

vehicles, or for the sale of goods where the area used for

sale of goods is not greater than 50 square metres, but

does not include a motor repair station (see Schedule 1 to

the Development Regulations 2008) Interpretation was

considered further in Pro-Star Service Station Pty Ltd V

Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Board, City of Salisbury

and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1998] SASC 7174’.

• No data

• Service stations have an ever expanding range of ancillary land

uses

• Anecdotal evidence: majority of ancillary land use trade from

petrol buyers

• Current SA Bulletin rate does not cater for non-retail ancillary

land uses

• Recommended rate based on SA Bulletin but with allowance for

a wider range of ancillary land uses, discounted by 50% to allow

for multi-purpose trips (simialr to VPP)

10 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

43 Shop (not within a centre) 7

100 sq m

GLA - See

note 3

3 to 7100 sq m

GLFA57%

Rate range

introduced

• VPP shop: 3.5 to 4 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor

area

• VPP supermarket: 5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor

area

• VPP: separate higher rate for supermarkets

• TDB data - shops: 1.93 to 14.9 of GLFA, 85th percentile

14.7 of GLFA

• TDB data - supermarkets: 4 to 5.2 of GLFA, 85th

percentile 5.1 of GLFA

• Darwin study - shops: 3.67 per 100m2 of net floor area

• Darwin study - supermarket: 1 to 2.2 per 100m2 of net

floor area

• DA / DPA: Axiom Churchill Centre: 5.2 per 100m2 GLFA

• City of Subiaco: 5 per 100m2 GLFA

• Online retail growing faster than store bought retail

(NAB)

• Change the entry title to 'Shop (not within a shopping centre)' to

avoid mis interpretation of the word centre

• Shops have scope to reduce their parking demand by sharing

parking areas and, in metro areas, by accessibility to alternative

transport modes

• VPP rate and Darwin study indicate higher rate for supermarket

• TDB data shows wide range of parking demand

• Recommended rate range based on SA Bulletin rate, with data

suggesting a lower minimum rate. Minimum rate set at Mixed-Use

rate

44 Shop within a shopping centre 4.5 to 6100 sq m

GLFA25% New Entry

• RTA Guide: 4.1 to 6.1 per 100m2 GLFA

• TDB data: 27 shopping centres surveyed, 85th percentile

of 4.46 per 100m2 GLFA

• TDB data: 20 shopping centres >10,000m2, 85th

percentile of 4.44 per 100m2 GLFA

• TDB data: 7 shopping centres 10,000m2>, 85th


• TDB data: 8 shopping centres with high PT, 85th


• TDB data: surveyed rate range 1 to 6.2 per 100m2 GLFA

• SA survey: surveyed rate range 2.6 to 4.9 per 100m2

GLFA

• The recommended rate range has a standard rate based on the

highest surveyed 85th percentile rate of the data. The lower rate

will accommodate the surveyed 85th percentile demand of

shopping centres with good public transport accessibility

45 Used Car Lot/ Vehicle Sales Yard 1.5 to 2

100 sq m

total area

of the site -

See note 4

Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard

not accepted terms

• PPL Terminology: refers to Service Trade Premises

• Limited data

• Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard not accepted terms in PPL

Terminology.

• Land used for the sale of motor vehicles falls under the Service

Trade Premises PPL Terminology definition

• Used Car Lot and Vehicle Sales Yard to be considered in' Service

Trade Premises'

46 Video Store 6

100 sq m

GLA - See

note 3

5 to 6100 sq m

GLFA17%

Rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: Not listed

• The Network Group, Australia’s second largest DVD

rental group: strong growth in 2011

• Blockbuster Australia: double digit growth in 2011

• Increase of internet to download movies

• Due to the lack of available data, it is recommended to introduce

a rate range, utilising the current parking rate as the standard rate

and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if conditions are met

11 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Accommodation

1 to 1.2

one or two

bedroom

dwelling

17%

2 to 2.2

three or

more

bedroom

dwelling

9%

5 to 5.5

to each

dwelling for

five or fewer

contiguous

dwellings PLUS

9%

2.3 to 2.5

to each

additional

contiguous

dwelling

8%

1 to 1.251 bedroom

dwelling20%

1.25 to 1.752 bedroom

dwelling29%

1.75 to 2.5

3 or more

bedroom

dwelling

30%

0.25 to 0.5Visitors per

dwelling50%

48

47Retirement Village (formerly Aged Care

Retirement Homes)

49 Dwelling New Entry

• DPs: 1.83 to 3 spaces per dwelling

• VPP one or two bedroom: 1 per dwelling

• VPP three or more bedroom: 2 per dwelling

• VPP visitors: 0 to 1 space per 5 dwellings

• RTA Guide: 1 to 2 per dwelling

• DA / DPA Mayfield (Adelaide): 1.1 per dwelling

• DA / DPA Northgate Apartment: 1 per dwelling

• ABS: Vehicle ownership for different dwelling types is

consistent when comparing the States

• ABS: Car ownership for separate dwellings doesn’t vary

significantly by location, whether located in metro or rural

council areas

• ABS: Car ownership for flats / units /apartments varies

significantly between rural and metro areas

• ABS: Flats / units /apartments in the metro councils

considered, that have no motor vehicles: 21% (Holdfast

Bay) to 49% (Playford)

• ABS: Rural council flats / units / apartments with one or

less motor vehicles range from 78% to 86%

• The potential for residents and visitors to use alternative

transport modes is significant in metro areas. A wide parking rate

range for dwellings would allow a higher rate to be used for

dwellings located in rural areas and, subject to accessibility of

alternative transport modes, discounted to a lower rate for metro

areas

• It is considered that the parking rate should be based on the

number of bedrooms as opposed to the type of dwelling. The

Reference Group emphasised that a four bedroom townhouse is

likely to have the same parking demand as a four bedroom

detached dwelling.

• The recommended standard rate is based on the highest DP

rate, with a minimum rate to represent dwellings that have access

to alternative transport modes. Individual dwellings will need to

round-up to nearest whole number

Rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: Not listed

• VPP rate: Column A (standard) 5 spaces to each dwelling

for five or fewer contiguous dwellings PLUS 2 spaces to

each additional contiguous dwelling. Column B rate 3.5

spaces per 100m2 of floor area

• Limited data

• Parking reduction discount is applicable.

• In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to

adopt the VPP rate, with a minimum rate to allow for access to

alternative transport

1 unit

Display Home Assess on needs basis

Re-titled,

higher, new

measurement,

rate range

introduced

For individual dwellings the number of

parking spaces to be calculated are to be

rounded up to the nearest whole number

• PPL Terminology: Aged Care not an accepted term, uses

Nursing Home

• PPL Terminology: Retirement Village accepted

• VPP: separates retirement from aged care facilities

• VPP rate: Retirement Village: 1 space to each one or two

bedroom dwelling PLUS 2 spaces to each three or more

bedroom dwelling (with studios or studies that are

separate rooms counted bedrooms) PLUS 0 to 1 space for

visitors to every five dwellings for developments of five or

more dwellings

• ABS 2006 data Holdfast Bay Sth: 2 person household

with 1 car: 56.9%, 2 person household with 2 cars: 29.8%

• Expectancy of a high standard of facilities, developers

providing facilities to match expectations

• ‘Aged Care Retirement Homes’ merges two different types of

accommodation. Aged Care infers a high level of medical

assistance, compared to retirement homes where residents are

more independent

• PPL Terminology provides no clear boundary: Nursing Home

listed as relating to Retirement Home or Retirement Village and, a

note stating some aspects of a Nursing Home may be controlled

under the Retirement Villages Act 1987

• Measurement unit changed from unit to dwelling to represent

the better standard of accommodation provided

• Recommended rate range based on VPP, supported by ABS data

• Aged care facilities to be considered under 'Aged Persons

Accommodation / Nursing home' (formerly Nursing Home)

12 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

50 Guest House / Hostel 1 3 beds 0.9 to 1 3 beds 10%Rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: Guest house not accepted term,

Hostel not accepted term

• No data

• The recommended rate range has the current rate as the

standard rate, with a minimum rate to allow for access to

alternative transport modes

1 room PLUS 1 room PLUS N/A

1 employee N/A

N/A

1 room

1 employee

1 room 1 room N/A

0.5 to 1employee

PLUS50%

N/A

PLUS

PLUS

PLUS

PLUS PLUS

PLUS

Serviced Apartments

Motel

employee

50% of the parking

requirement of any ancillary

land use

51

52

53

• PPL Terminology: Motel means “a building or group of

buildings providing temporary accommodation for more

than five travellers, and includes an associated restaurant

facility, but does not include a hotel or residential flat

building” (see Schedule 1 to the Development Regulations

2008)’.

• VPP rate: o Column A (standard) and Column B rate of: 1

space to each unit PLUS 1 space to each manager dwelling

PLUS 50% of the relevant requirement of any ancillary use.

• Limited data

• Limited parking reduction discount is applicable.

• In lieu of available parking demand data, it is recommended to

modify the SA Bulletin rate to allow for ancillary land uses

50% of the calculated parking

demand of any ancillary land

use

Additional

measurement

unit

1

Entry deleted

• PPL Terminology: Serviced apartments not listed, use

tourist accommodation

• VPP rate: o Column A (standard) and Column B rate of: 1

space to each unit PLUS 1 space to each manager dwelling

PLUS 50% of the relevant requirement of any ancillary use.

• Limited data

• Serviced Apartments not listed in PPL Terminology, uses Tourist

Accommodation

• Delete entry and consider Serviced Apartments in ‘Tourist

Accommodation’ (formerly Tourist Accommodation (bed &

breakfast)’

Tourist Accommodation (formerly Tourist

Accommodation (bed & breakfast))

Additional

measurement

unit, rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: tourist accommodation accepted

• Tourist accommodation developments often include

ancillary land uses

• Limited data

• Parking discount applicable: employees may live in the same

building.

• Change title to allow all tourist accommodation types to be

considered under this entry

• Due to the lack of available data, it is recommended to modify

the SA Bulletin rate, with a minimum rate to discounting for the

employee element1

employee

PLUS

13 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Mixed-use / TOD

0.751 bedroom

dwellingN/A

12 bedroom

dwellingN/A

1.25

3 or more

bedroom

dwelling

N/A

0.25Visitors per

dwellingN/A

55Mixed-use / TOD - Non-residential and

non-tourist3

100 sq m

GLFAN/A New Entry

• Queensland TOD Guide retail / office: preferred 0.17 to

1 per 100m2, max 0.25 to 2 per 100m2

• Version 6 Other (non-tourist & non-residential): 3 to 6

per 100m2

• City of Cockburn (WA) survey of mixed-use: 2.5 to 4.5

spaces per 100m2 GFA

• Bowden Urban Village: shops 3 per 100m2 GLFA, other

ground floor 3 per 100m2 GLFA, any other case 1.5 per

100m2 GLFA

• Northgate DPA: non-residential at ground level 4 to 5

per 100m2 GLFA

• Use a single rate for all non-residential developmentto allows

for future changes in the land use without additional

infrastructure cost

• The rates recommended for the South Australian TOD / mixed

use developments are currently untested, but remain higher than

used interstate

• A separate rate for ground level use could be used but it is

expected that commercial uses (particularly office / medical

consultants) commonly utilise above ground floors

• Recommended rate of 3 per 100m2 is commonly used in the

data considered (City of Cockburn survey indicates higher rate

may be needed)

56Mixed-use / TOD - Tourist

Accommodation0.25 bedroom N/A New Entry

• Version 6: 0.2 to 0.5 per bedroom

• SA Tourism Commission 2008 data: 31% visitors are

from SA, 55% interstate, 48% of all visistors used private

vehicle to get to Adelaide

• Limited data

• The rates recommended for the South Australian TOD / mixed

use developments are currently untested

• Almost half of all visitors to the Adelaide tourism region used

private vehicles

• Recommended rate based on minimal data

Mixed-use / TOD - Residential New Entry

• No legal definition

• PPL Terminology: 'buildings containing two or more

unrelated land uses, e.g. residential and offices'

• DPs - flats with one bedroom: 0.75 to 1 per dwelling

• DPs - flats with two bedroom: 1 to 1.5 per dwelling

• DPs - flats with three bedroom: 1.5 to 2 per dwelling

• DPs - flats visitor: 0.2 to 0.25 per dwelling

• VPP Commission: zero rate for dwellings considered but

rejected following representations

• Queensland TOD Guide: Preferred 0.5 to 1.25 per

dwelling, max 0.75 to 1.25 per dwelling

• Darwin Study Survey: 1 per 1 bedroom, 1.5 per 2

bedroom, 1.7 per 3 bedroom, 2 per 4 bedroom, visitors

0.24 per dwelling

• Version 6: 0.35 to 0.75 per studio dw, 0.7 to 1.25 per 2

bedroom, 1.15 to 2.25 per 3 or more bedroom dwelling

• DPA - Bowden: 0.75 per dwelling

• Bowden Urban Village –Revised Master Plan Report

(*February 2011) shows apartment plans with 1 space per

dwelling

• DA Newport Quays: 0.75 per 1 bedroom, 1 per 2

bedroom, 2 per 3 & 4 bedroom, visitors 0.2 per dwelling

• DPA Northgate Apartments: 0 per studio, 0.25 per 1

bedroom, 1 per 2 & 3 bedroom, 2 per 4 bedroom, visitors

0.2 per dwelling

• DPA Northgate Row / semi / detached: 1 per 1,2 & 3

bedroom, 2 per 4 bedroom, visitors 0 per dwelling

• Parking demand based on the number of bedrooms for

most authorities

• ABS: Metro council flats / units / apartments with one or

less motor vehicles range from 79% to 94%

• The potential reduction in parking demand is significant in a

mixed use development or TOD (multi-purpose trip, shared

parking, alternative transport modes)

• VPP Commission representations favoured a minimum of 1

space per dwelling

• Principles of mixed use and TOD developments could be

undermined by cautious developers providing parking at higher

than recommended rate

• Current owners of apartments / townhouses have no option

but to pay an annual fee for an associated parking space

regardless of whether it is needed

• To avoid the situation of oversupply of parking, the

recommended standard rate should not be exceeded

• Visitor parking could be accommodated on-street, time limited

to encourage turn-over

• Recommended rate based on Version 6 Urban Core Zone,

backed by ABS data

54

14 of 15



Version: 02

3rd October 2012

En

try

Max

discount

possible

Summary of





2001

Other

1 400m2 TFA

1four seats

(chapel)

58 Places of assembly 0.3 to 0.5patron

catered for40% New Entry

• VPP has a rate for all ‘Places of assembly’ with the

parking rate measured by patrons. The VPP Clause 74

defines Places of Assembly as ‘Land where people

congregate for religious or cultural activities,

entertainment, or meetings’ and lists the following land

uses; Amusement Parlour, Carnival, Cinema, Circus, Drive-

in theatre, Exhibition centre, Function centre, Hall, Library,

Nightclub, Place of worship, Restricted place of assembly

• Developments in this category are designed to

accommodate a specified number of patrons, which offers

an easy measure of the likely parking demand

The following SA Bulletin entries could be considered as 'Places of

Assembly':

• Cinema Complex – 1 per 0.25 tp 0.3 seats

• Non-residential Club -Assess on needs basis

• Community Centre - 10 per 100 m2

• Conference Facility - assess on needs basis

• Exhibition Hall - assess on needs basis

• Meeting Hall - 1 per 5 seats

• Places of Worship - 1 per 5 seats

The recommended rate range is based utilises the VPP rate as the

minimum rate and, in the absence of data, a standard rate set

higher to allow a level of conservatism

450 to 700 facility

15 to 20

kiss and ride

/ taxi per

facility

60Radio studio or television studio

(formerly Radio & TV Studio)5

100 sq m

TFA - See

note 2

4 to 5100 sq m

GFA20%

Rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: Radio or TV Studio: not an accepted

term, use radio studio or television studio

• No data

• Change title to ‘radio studio or television studio’ to match PPL

Terminology

• Parking reduction discount is applicable where warranted


a rate range, utilising the current parking rate as the standard rate

and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are

met

PLUS

PLUS

Public Transport Interchange (formerly

Interchange / Transport Station)

57

59 N/A

New

measurement

unit, rate range

introduced

Funeral Parlour

New

measurement

unit, rate range

introduced

• PPL Terminology: accepted

• VPP rate: Column A (standard) and Column B rate of 0.3

spaces to each patron catered for

• No data

• Parking reduction discount is applicable.


a rate range, utilising the VPP parking rate as the standard rate

and, a minimum rate to allow discounting if the conditions are

met

0.25 to 0.3patron

catered for17%

• PPL Terminology: Transport Interchange accepted

• Park and Ride: an Adelaide case study (Road & Transport

Research Vol 21 No 1, March 2012): 700 space facility,

utilisation unknown. 30% of Park and Ride users switched

from driving into CBD to car-tram combination. 82% of

respondents have switched from public transport to car-

public transport combination

• Woodville Station: demand of 123 spaces and 12 pick-up

/ drop-off spaces

• Existing Adelaide Metro Park and Ride facilities: 35 to

700 spaces

• DPTI CSTR Part D050 Design – Interchange Facilities

DRAFT (February 2010): 200 spaces with 400 expansion, 6

K'n'R / taxi, possible commercial fee parking of 300

• Seaford rail extension: Meadows Station with 550

spaces, Seaford Station with 450 spaces

• Council reports of under supply of parking at various

facilities

• Change the entry title to match the PPL Terminology: Public

Transport Interchange

• Recent South Australian Park and Ride facilities have provided or

have potential to provide for between 450 and 550 spaces

• Limited data available, available data complicated by over spill

parking occurring on adjacent streets

• Parking discount not applicable

• Recommended rate range to act as a guide


15 of 15

Parking Rate Discount Table Version 02

October 2012

Table 2 - Parking Rate Discount Table

Located within 100m of a

bus stop with 5 or more

routes

Located within 100m of

a train station, bus or

tram stop

Located within

100m of a

Bikedirect cycle

route

Located within

400m of a train

station, bus or

tram stop

Located in excess of

400m of a train

station, Bikedirect

route, bus or tram

stop.

15% 10% 5% 5% 0%Enter discount

here

Development has a shared

parking area used by five

or more different land

uses. A legal instrument

protecting the

developments use of the

shared parking area must

be in place.

Development has a

shared parking area

used by three to five

different land uses. A

legal instrument

protecting the

developments use of

the shared parking area

must be in place.

Development is

within 100 m of one

or more existing

public car parking

places with in

excess of a total of

100 car parking

spaces.

Development is

within 400 m of

one or more

existing public

car parking

places with in

excess of a total

of 100 car

parking spaces.

No shared parking

available.

25% 15% 10% 5% 0%Enter discount

here

Where the landscaping

requirements of the

current development plan

is exceeded by 15%.

Two or more pedestrian

footpaths, with

designated crossing

points where

applicable, are provided

through the main car

parking area.

Car parking meets

statutory

requirements

10% 5% 0%Enter discount

here

A $4 or more hourly

charge applies during the

developments busiest

periods for a minimum

period of 10 years. On-

street parking restrictions

may be required in

negotiation with Council.

A $2 to $4 hourly

charge applies during

the developments

busiest periods for a

minimum period of 10

years. On-street parking

restrictions may be

required in negotiation

with Council.

Free parking is

provided.

20% 10% 0%Enter discount

here

Enter discount

here

Enter total

discount here

Adverse

Economic

ImpactSubject to negotiation (recommend 10% to 30%)

Where a change of use or a small extension is a development that is envisaged in the Development Plan and it can

be demonstrated that providing the calculated number of parking spaces is cost prohibitive

Total discount to be applied to the standard parking rate (the standard parking rate

cannot be reduced beyond the minimum rate)

equals

plus

plus

plus

plus

Select one value from each of the five discounts available

Accessibility

Shared

Parking

Improved

Outcome

Paid parking

p 1

Project Project No | File 230825_PS4US_Workshop#2_minutes_v03.docx | Insert Date | Revision 3

Parking Spaces – Urban Places: Car Parking Study Workshop #2 17 th October 2012

Notes v03

1. Introductions Purpose of study is the review and update of Planning SA’s 2001 car parking rates, and of the workshop: refer slide**.

2. Overview of the approach and findings

2.1. Previous Feedback from Reference Group and Use r Group:

2.1.1. Topics discussed

o Metro / Rural differences

o Developers perceive parking rates as negotiable.

o Parking rates reflecting demand.

o Discounting rates only when justified.

o Lower rates necessary in Historic areas / areas in need of stimulus.

o Limited information available.

o Parking rate guides (VPP, Queensland TOD, WA).

o Trips Database Bureau (NZ/Aus).

2.1.2. Feedback

o The rate range is an important factor itself. The proposed “range” principle is applicable to all councils. But developers would tend to go for lower value. However, this would not necessarily be in their interests to under-provide because may impact upon their business viability.

o Confirmed percentage of land uses that have survey data – 20% approx.

o Christchurch data may not be relevant to Adelaide, as journey to work choice is different; Christchurch has higher bicycle use than Adelaide. Christchurch has highest cycling mode split (7%) in NZ, approximately twice that in Australia.

o Office: The previous Department of Transport’s office at Walkerville had a parking rate of 2.75/100 sq. m GFA, i.e. relatively low due to proximity Torrens Linear Park. A rate of 3/100 was considered low by Kym Dorrestyn.

o State Governments have another perspective, compared to Local Governments, that is a concern about future strategic directions and priorities. Therefore, new parking rates need to look beyond just local planning issues.

o Concern about pre-existing use, that development comprising upgrading and extensions of existing premises would only be assessed on the applicable rates of the improvements not the whole building. This is based on case Law. But this can leave the provision of car parking

p 2


to be inadequate, and not meeting the total parking generation of the proposed development. Consider legislative change.

o Somewhat similarly in Port Adelaide Enfield, some industrial land had inadequate parking because parking areas were being utilised for other purposes, e.g. storage, therefore putting pressure on local streets from over-spill parking. Again there was a need to amend legislation, or to pursue non-conformances of development approval/conditions.

o Discussion was had about councils altering some rates to better suit their needs. o Identified issues of developers applying for developments with the bare minimum of

the car parking range incorporated into their plans.

o Discounts to be afforded to developments of any scale which meet certain criteria.

o Some participants mentioned that some of the information was a bit contradictory in the way that the Victorian and Christchurch studies turned back results with rates that didn’t align with the rates Aurecon came up with.

2.2. Parking Rate Principles:

2.2.1. Topics discussed

o Establish a rate range:

� Allows for varying circumstances, encourages development near alternative transport modes, can be used to promote better design outcome.

� Fixed upper and lower limits.

� Upper or Standard rate represents 85th percentile surveyed demand or current rate.

� Always start with Standard rate, discount table used to move rate towards Minimum rate.

� Discounts defined by meeting warrants in Discount Table.

o Other changes:

� Measurement unit change e.g. Hotels & Taverns from m2, seats and machines to patrons.

� Align table entry titles to the South Australian Planning Policy Library Terminology List where practical.

� Statewide Bulky Goods DPA – entry title aligned with DPA.

2.2.2. Feedback

o The approach of establishing a rate range, with the upper and lower limits defined was widely accepted.

o Car parking rate issue was also raised when discussing hotels. o The old rates were formed on the basis of X amount of spaces for Y amount of floor

area. o The new rates are proposed to be arranged on the basis of the patronage the hotel

occupies

p 3


� Further issues raised were: • How would the hotel’s patronage be assessed? • Would the patronage be based on the provisions of the associated

Liquor License? • Hotels often have more than one function so would rates be based

on the dining, bar, pokies, or night club aspects? Or a (peak) combination of each?

3. Supported Rates

3.1. All Participants Due to time constraints it was decided not to explore the reasons why the following rates were supported, but to concentrate on the rates that are not supported. It should be noted that some participants mentioned that if a rate was not on their ‘Less supported’ list then they supported them.

The following list of supported rates was compiled from the ‘Top 3’ list submitted by all attendees:

• Bulky Goods (Table item: 35)

• Mixed Use Development (Table items 54, 55 & 56)

• Industry (Table item 22)

• Warehouse (Table item 23)

• Public Transport Interchange (Table item 59)

• Primary School / tertiary (Table item 27b)

• Restaurants (fast food) (Table item 14)

• Aged persons accommodation (Table item 20)

• Shop (not within a centre) (Table item 43)

p 4


4. Group session 1 – Less supported rates for furth er consideration

For this session the attendees were divided into three groups to discuss rates that are less supported, rates were selected from the ‘Top 3’ lists of “Less Supported Rates” submitted by all attendees.

List of “Less Supported (Rates) – for further consideration” were:

• Places of Assembly (2 participants selected)

• Service trade premise (1)

• Educational establishment (drop off/pick up) (2)

• Mixed uses/non-residential and night club (1)

• Shop (within a shopping centre (0)

• Medical centre consulting room based on number of practitioners (2)

• Hotel/tavern (2)

• Gymnasium (0)

• Mixed use/TOD’s (terminology)

4.1. Group A: David (Marion), Cherry (Mount Barker) , Andrew (DPTI), Richard (Aurecon), Daniel (Holdfast Bay), Ken (Play ford). Notes by Richard

A general comment from this table was for the compilation of land uses to be arranged in alphabetical order for easier reference.

4.1.1. Places of assembly (58)

• Several disparate uses; new proposed rates greater than previous/existing, maybe too high for some uses. Consider maintaining some existing uses as separate ones within the table, e.g. cinema complex, community centre, meeting hall, place of worship and conference facility

• Definitions of land uses need to be clearer. • How to determine the number of patrons? - Can cap an agreed or designated number of

patrons as part of a Development Application - any variation upwards would be subject to further negotiation/evidence.

• Some uses also part other shared uses - Council is aware of a number of cases where particular uses are subject to dwindling members/patrons and viability of being sole owner/tenant of a building is questionable. There is a tendency for buildings to be shared by a number of different land uses, each with different car parking requirements. - a rate that caters for all users should be considered.

• Rates need a bit of tweaking, consider range 0.2 to 0.5, and select appropriate rate on a needs/merit basis. Higher rates may be onerous in some circumstances.

p 5


4.1.2. Service Trade Premises (42)

• Proposed rate range = 0.2 to 0.4 /100 sq m. Why is there a difference with the Bulky Goods rates (1.7 to 3.0)? - Because generally less intensive and extensive development compared to large bulky goods. It was noted by Richard Hanslip that there was no available data to base a change from the existing rates. It was concluded that the proposed rates were acceptable, ie to maintain existing rates on this basis.

4.1.3. Education (27) - Primary School and Secondar y School

• Comments that follow relate to proposed visitors (pick up and set down) provision: high provision proposed, significant issue at many schools with poor driving/parking behaviour of parents/guardians; how to deal with this?

• Proposal recommends a management strategy and staggered start/finish time of different classes. This was generally found acceptable but will need significant involvement of all parties (particularly the school and parents, and maybe the relevant Government Department) to find a workable management strategy.

• It was suggested that more explanatory information is given in the Table 1. • In discussions which followed, Kym Dorrestyn stated that the following visitor parking rates per

student have been observed; Primary: 0.25, and Secondary: 0.16.

4.1.4. Consulting Room (17)

• Note this issue was only partially discussed. The proposed rate which is based on the number of practitioners may overestimate parking required, because often not all consulting rooms have attending practitioner at all times. It was suggested to make the rate based on the number of practitioners in attendance.

p 6


4.2. Group B: Peter (TTG); Pam (Holdfast Bay); Sara /Kym (PAE). Notes by Sara

4.2.1. Schools

• Department of Education policies (re provision of no student car parking and out of school

grounds drop off/pick up areas) problematic. • Recommendation to split and adjust accordingly the car parking rate for primary schools and

secondary schools as some students at high school will drive. • Acknowledge that it isn't appropriate to have huge car parks within schools. • Pick up and drop off locations can be problematic for schools that are on arterial roads or areas

where there is limited curb space around the schools (especially where surrounding residential has undergone a lot of infill development resulting in dwellings with narrow frontages).

• Acknowledge that the peak times are short but intense. • Potential to factor the student population into the rate.

4.2.2. Hotels

• Some DA officers may prefer a floor area to determine the rate (Peter). • However, usually liquor licensing application comes with the DA so the highest number of

patrons will be known and can be used to calculate the rate. • Concern about provision of appropriate car parking in the future or with a change of use if

reduced car parking is provided. • Pam expressed a preference for less car parking for taverns/hotels to discourage people taking

their cars and drink-driving - and would like to see the 26% discount increased.

4.2.3. Residential

• Kym advised that there should be a rate for 'independently accessible' visitor car parking in

addition to the car parking required for the dwelling occupants. This car parking needs to be proximate (easily accessible) to the dwellings they serve.

4.2.4. Gymnasium

• Kym and Pam both raised the issue that peak times for gyms were generally around 5pm-8pm

and that the rate proposed may be too low to cater for the peak times. • Kym thought that around 7 spaces may be more appropriate rather than the 3-5 spaces per

100GFA proposed in the table.

4.2.5. Dwellings (Sara’s comments, not discussed wi th the table)

• I think that the existing rates are appropriate for apartments and group dwellings where

fractions of rates (e.g. 1.75 to 2.5 spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling) will be added together for a number of flats/living units and can be rounded up or down (e.g. 5 x 3 bedroom apartments @ 1.75 = 8.75 spaces to be rounded up to 9 spaces).

• However, for all other dwellings which are assessed individually, then a round number makes more sense (e.g. 2-3 space per 3 bedroom dwelling).

p 7


• Acknowledged that the table notes the need to round up for individual dwellings but I think for ease of use it would be better if you could specify it in the table itself.

4.2.6. Mixed Use/TOD rates (Sara’s comments, not di scussed with the table)

• The term 'mixed use' or 'TOD' is not a land-use per se. The application of these rates could be

misused for developments that contain many different land-uses in one (e.g. a warehouse that has an office component and showroom component and could be argued by a developer as being 'mixed use').

• However, this might be resolved by noting in the study that they should be applied in areas specifically designated as TODs (e.g. Bowdon). It can then be left to the Department as to how they express this in the Planning Policy Library.

p 8


4.3. Group C: Shari (TTG); Jane (Playford); Russell /Aaron/Michael (PAE). Notes by Michael

4.3.1. Cinema Complex

• Shared parking often available given that most new cinemas are suburban and built as part of

shopping centres • Peak times are at night, which is generally off-peak for other uses • May be scope for further discounting

4.3.2. Hotels/mixed uses/non-residential clubs/nigh tclubs

• Existing table has identified individual components, but redevelopment of existing hotels (or

establishment of new hotels) has seen a trend to open-plan design with somewhat less compartmentalisation.

• Some patrons may use multiple components of a hotel in the course of an evening • Calculating rates according to patrons may be difficult in practice, although patron counts are

done for other reasons such as fire and safety and licensing. • Lifestyle and behavioural changes suggest that some people may be drink driving less, and

consuming alcohol more often at home. • May be scope for further discounting.

4.3.3. Mixed Uses (TODs)

• Clear definition of the land use required - if left open, may be exploited by developers who wish

to have the discount applied to something that may not be a mixed use in the fullest sense of the term.

• Unclear why the non-residential/non-tourist component rate is higher than interstate - possibility for further discounting.

• Ideally, a mixed use development reflects the mentality of not needing a conventional car parking rate/arrangement.

• Realising this can depend often on management arrangements (between developers) that have not always been the domain of planners in the past.

• Discounts can be appealing to developers with grand plans. • Higher potential for reduction (than many standalone uses) but a higher risk of backfiring if

other elements (e.g. management) fall apart.

4.3.4. Medical centres/consulting rooms

• Proposed rate is according to the number of practitioners working in the development - would

this be full-time or part-time practitioners? What if the number of practitioners increases beyond that of the initial development?

• Could be difficult for a planning officer to ensure compliance along this line. • Physical size/number of rooms may be a clearer basis for calculating a parking rate.

p 9


4.4. Open Floor Discussion

4.4.1. Dwellings

• An identified issue with streets is the current lack of kerb space, the parking rate for dwellings should be:

o 1 undercover car park for a dwelling of between 1 and 3 bedrooms with an additional on-site visitor park, or;

o 2 undercover car parks for a dwelling of 4 or more bedrooms with an additional on-site Visitor Park.

o Review has seen the current rates altered to accommodate less car parking in some instances.

4.4.2. Educational establishment (regarding drop of f/pick up rate)

• It is difficult to place a number on the amount of spaces for this particular issue with school varying in size and student population.

• Identified issue of kerb space from Residential Development also applies. Particularly if there are no onsite parks available.

• Primary school and secondary school rates should be separate. • Secondary school students driving to and from school will require additional car parking

spaces. • If on site school car park is full, students will park on the kerb along streets surrounding the

school which will affect the drop off/pick up rate.

4.4.3. Medical centre/consulting room/warehouse (ba sed on no. of employees/practitioners)

• Issue of identifying how many practitioners are employed at the site for the rates to be identified, furthermore the issue of visitor parking and how the employee parking will be assessed particularly if not all employees are present 5 days a week.

4.4.4. Hotels/taverns

• As mentioned in previous sections, the rates set out in the ‘hotels/tavern’ section raised some issues.

• The main issue was ascertaining how the maximum car parking rates would be applied if the application was assessed by patrons.

• For instance a hotel which has after-hours function as a night club will cater for significantly more patrons as a night club than a pub.

• The issue was then raised to identify how many patrons would be using the premise and at what time they would use it.

• A hotel at dinner time would occupy far less patrons than it does as a nightclub however it would have more patrons travelling to and from via car.

• The question of proposing rates based on floor area then arose with the following questions: o How many patrons are expected in each area? o How do you divide up the floor area, particularly when using an open plan?

p 10


5. Group session 2 – Reduction Factors For this session the attendees were not divided into smaller groups, instead an open discussion took place across the floor.

It was generally considered that it would be beneficial for councils to define unique discounts to reflect local characteristics and objectives. The following discounts can be used or replaced with a council defined discount.

It was noted that while offering a rate range, new developments would default to the maximum range, and discounts from that maximum will be based on meeting the defined discount conditions.

• i.e. a gymnasium which must provide between 3 and 5 car parks per 100sqm. By default, the gymnasium must provide 5 car parks for the development. Any discounts will reduce that figure.

o The inclusion of 15% more landscaping than is required can provides a 10% discount.

o The development is located on South Road and is within 100m of a ‘Go Zone’ bus with 5 routes which adds another 15% discount

o The total discount for the gymnasium is 25% which means the required car parks is 1.25 parks per 100 sqm.

o The minimum number in the range is 3 car parks per 100 sqm so the minimum amount of parking gymnasium can provide is 3 car parks per 100 sqm.

o This is regardless of the amount of discounts the development is entitled to. • Members in the group identified that the way to implement aspects of these rates would be to

sell them as a package. o i.e. with large scale retail centres like Marion shopping centre, a development on the

site could have reduced spaces (and therefore more retail area) if they optioned to extensively landscape a proportion of the new car parking area.

5.1. Accessibility Discount

• Limited scope for applying this discount in rural areas; can add ‘principle bicycle network route’ to Bikedirect routes as rural council areas have these.

• Unsure whether many locations in metro have bus stops serviced by 5 or more bus routes. • When assigning applications with a measured distance of “within 200m of a bus network with 3

or more routes.” o How is that 200m assessed? It was clarified that the distances quoted related to

walking distances, also in Column 1 & 5, bus stop and routes should refer to bus/stations with 5 or more public transport routes.

o The group identified the need to further clarify the wording so developers cannot

simply apply the shortest route (aerial) and then dispute it when council says they can’t.

o Bicycle rate could apply to developments within a prescribed distance of a principle bicycle route.

o Not all councils having a functioning principle bicycle route.

o Concern was expressed that in Glenelg the Development Plan does not allow for these factors and recently for a development in the Jetty Road precinct the normal car parking was provided even though the precinct has excellent public transport accessibility.

p 11


o Comments relating to “built form” as another parameter are included in the “improved outcome” factor below.

o Consider adding another criterion: allow a discount of 1 car park per 5 bicycle spaces provided in excess of the prescribed bicycle parking provision stated in the relevant Development Plan.

o Col 2 10% maybe low.

o 5% bike rate too low? Generally considered modest/ok (Different remarks). Consider including building/ end of trip facilities for bikes as part of “bike” parameter.

o Col 5 – add “or principal bike route”

o Table parameters should be set by Councils and be negotiable.

Sara’s notes:

• 'Within 100m' needs to be specified as walking distance so developers do not try to use 100m as the crow flies.

• Perhaps citing developments within 100m of a 'go zone' may be better. Another option is to reference 5 transport routes (bus, tram or train). This allows for a combination of a train route with bus routes.

• Kym Dorrestyn felt that a discount of 5% for developments located within 100m of a Bikedirect was too much as these networks aren't well utilised. However Pam felt that the discount was too low (we should be encouraging bicycle use).

• Potential discounts for provision of undercroft car parking • Potential discounts for developments that include bicycle facilities (e.g. storage lockers,

showers etc).

5.2. Shared Parking Discount

• Five or more different land uses rarely occurs in practice. Three would be more practical. • Public car parks may be fully occupied at same time as development peak parking time. • Knowing the peak and the effect of that peak:

o West Lakes Shopping centre was discussed as a case study.

� The shopping centre shares its car park with the SANFL during the AFL season to provide over flow car parking at a cost.

� Affects those who wish to shop at the centre without paying to park.

� Depending on when the game is played, the increase in car activity using the car parking facilities significantly limits the car spaces for shoppers particularly when it’s a game day.

• The new aquatic centre was also commented on: o It was identified that the Marion shopping centre and the aquatic centre share their

car parks

o i.e. the aquatic centre may use the Marion shopping centre parks in the event of over flow parking and vice versa.

o A legal document between the two corporations is in place to allow such activity.

o It is also managed by the two corporations.

• More so for large scale retail i.e. Westfield shopping centres:

p 12


o Two of the proposed discounts are relating to a development which has 5 or more land uses on the site.

o Another two of the proposed development discounts apply developments within distances of public car parking in excess of 100 parking spaces.

o Again the issue is raised with the distances between the development and the car parks and how they are measured.

Sara’s notes:

• The need for 5 different land-uses may be too high as it may be difficult or unlikely to have 5 different land-uses in one area. Also different land-uses may still have the same operation hours e.g. office, shops, motor repair station etc. Perhaps this should be about different peak hours instead?

5.3. Improved Planning Outcome Discount

• Achieving these warrants does not reduce parking demand. • Better pedestrian facilities would be beneficial in promoting walking. • Potential for Councils to define their own. • Suggested to use a +10% penalty instead of 0% in the ‘Car parking meets statutory

requirements’. • Consider discounts for:

o Retaining a specified number of existing trees in the proposed car park area.

o Consider improved quality Built form as a parameter; under croft car parking, shared parking for mixed use bulky goods with residential on top to encourage higher densities. Built form really a Development Plan (DP) issue – should be included as part of the DP, update as required. Similarly for WSUD, permeable pavements, tree retention etc.

o Communal area not necessarily just landscaping but paving as well. Particularly aimed at increasing visual amenity by subjecting car parking to discounts for providing an increase of landscaping above what is necessary and the increase in pedestrian awareness by implementing pedestrian footpaths and crossing points.

Sara’s notes:

• The need for the provision of additional landscaping does not negate the need for car parking. • However, developers may not want to use it if less parking does not help their business. • The maintenance of landscaping is an issue - if it is not well maintained it can actually create a

lower aesthetic outcome (this is difficult for Councils to enforce although there are legitimate avenues to do so).

• Potential for landscaping to be paving, outdoor furniture etc instead of vegetation. • Potential for discounts to be provided for public realm improvements external to the

development site. • Potential for discounts to be provided for implementation of WSUD. • Potential for discounts to be provided for retention of trees/natural vegetation?

p 13


5.4. Paid Parking Discount

• Achieving these warrants may not reduce parking demand; be wary of adverse migration of parking to other locations.

• Refer Glenelg parking charge ($4/hour) – achieves turnover and revenue. • Amount of discount is based on old data. • Glenelg is a case study of applying fees; anecdotal evidence suggests that it has not deterred

people travelling by car and people are willing to pay the fee as they still go to Glenelg • Case examples provided from the City of Holdfast Bay and their 24 hour parking along Colley

Terrace, and the City of Marion’s Marion shopping centre. • Existing research for paid parking was found to be out dated and no longer relevant. • Councils are going along with their own paid parking fees with a couple more examples

discussed at the City of Charles Sturt’s Henley Beach Apartments with their underground parking with the first 2 hours free and The City of Holdfast Bay’s Bayside village car park.

Sara’s notes:

• Kym strongly disagreed with discounting parking rates using Paid Parking as a form of discounting from his traffic engineering perspective.

• There may be an issue if people parking elsewhere and needing to cross busy roads to get to the development especially for the elderly etc (implications for Councils).

• Jetty Road is an example of paid on-street and off-street car parking. Development (Woolworths) on corner of Jetty Road and Brighton Road provides paid parking but patrons get a discount or free parking.

5.5. Adverse Economic Impact Discount

• Generally perceived to be useful but requires significant effort in negotiations. • The rates offered in this section are generally council specific. • Historic Conservation:

o It could have a big impact on historical or heritage conservation.

o Limiting the car parks will in this event provide greater amenity and visual appeal.

• Scant data available. • Maintain register of these sites. • Enhance minimum rate. • Jason Ting: sell reduction factors as part of the (DP) package.

Sara’s notes:

• One area where each council needs to develop their own critiera (e.g. discount to only apply to Historic Conservation Zones).

• Main application would be for historic buildings (encourages re-use). • May need to balance a large discount with a payment into a Car Parking Fund (however using

a reduced dollar amount).

p 14


6. Post-workshop #2 Written Responses

6.1. City of Holdfast Bay Concerned that the amalgamation of a number of uses into the definition of “place of assembly” meant that a few low-impact uses would require additional parking (eg churches and local halls from memory – from 0.2 spaces per patron to 0.3) and the options to resolve were to:

• Lower the absolute minimum rate to 0.2; or • Keep the rates separate but build in provision to consider a true multi-function “place of

assembly” with the rates as proposed.

6.2. City of Tea Tree Gully Parking Rate Discount table:

• Accessibility: include provision of bicycle rack/park for 5 or more (i.e. equates to reduction of 1 park or whatever % is appropriate)

• Shared Parking: consider reducing the number of different land uses below 5 (and clarify if the uses are those considered in the recommended rates table to make the distinction from land zones)

• Improved outcome: include under croft parking, WSUD (i.e. permeable surface/landscaping) disability access (i.e. footpath access to car park safe and wide enough/landscaping and visual security)

• Adverse Economic Impact: include more detail for DA assessment on Historic Buildings and new/extended use of site (i.e. prohibitive to have 20 parks for a hotel in an Historic building if it can only provide 5, but economically good to have that use in that building).

For the Recommended Rates Table/feedback to DPTI:

• Consider flexibility in individual Development Plans for areas which are in need of stimulus. • Clarify assessment starts with fixed standard rate and can negotiate/discount from there (but

clearly identify where no discount is applicable such as Mixed use/motel etc). • Maintain flexibility so individual Development Plans can choose a fixed rate (with discount) or

range where appropriate. • Include the ability to enforce a lower rate if a proposed development is located where excess

parking already exists. • 'Hotels and Taverns' classification could include reference to the figures detailed in the Liquor

Licence. • Notes for the Mixed use/TOD non-res include a separate rate for ground level use could be

used, could you also specify another rate for under croft?

Appendix C Stakeholder Contact List and

Questionnaires

Port Adelaide Enfield Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Parking Study Project No: 230825

Preliminary Stakeholder List and Suggested Actions – Draft 3 July 2012 (To be progressively updated as we progress)

Stakeholder Contact Reason Action Adelaide Airport Limited John McArdle

P: 8308 9211

E: [email protected]

1 James Schofield Drive

ADELAIDE AIRPORT SA 5950

Would provide a good industry perspective in terms of providing car parking for a variety of mixed uses on airport land.

Operator of Adelaide and Parafield Airports where there is a considerable amount of bulky goods development / warehousing development (eg. Harbourtown / IKEA / Bunnings etc).

Type 2 Questionnaire.

Australian Hotels Association, SA Branch (AHA-SA)

PO Box 3092

Rundle Mall SA

5000

[email protected]

The current parking demand for hotels is based on numerous rates (public bar / lounge or beer garden / dining / gaming / accommodation). This often results in a demand for a high number of parking spaces, with applicants resorting to a complicated shared use argument; identifying peak periods for all the individual parts.


Australian Retailers Association

[email protected]

1300 368 041

To ascertain their view on the desire for retailers to introduce paid parking at shopping centres as this has a significant impact on parking demand (The Westfields at Marion may trigger others to follow suit).


Axiom Properties Ltd

(Bulky Goods / Brands Direct operators)

Paul Rouvray

General Manager, South Australia and Northern Territory

P (08) 8423 4450 F (08) 8423 4500

E [email protected]

The office is located at Level 5, Ernst & Young Building, 121 King William Street, Adelaide SA 5000.

Perspective of a major commercial bulky goods / brands direct developer.

Owners / developers of:

• Home HQ Gepps Cross

• Islington Railyards – developed with a Bunnings Warehouse.

• Also involved in World Park: 01 at Richmond Road, Keswick.


Booze Brothers Head Office - 353 Cross Road, Clarence Gardens P: 08 8292 2800 F: 08 8292 2899

Bottle shops and hotels. Type 2 Questionnaire.

Bike SA / Victoria [email protected]

+61 8 8168 9999

Bike SA or Bike Victoria may have travel mode data for various land uses. This data may indicate that some land uses have a reduced car parking demand as a high number of visitors / staff cycle instead, e.g. a Bike Shop.

Specific questions.

Centro Mario Boscaini, State Manager

Michelle Rowse, State Marketing Manager Phone: 08 8384 2000 Facsimile: 08 8384 2067

Address: Centro Colonnades, Beach Road, Noarlunga Centre SA 5168

Media:

Mario Papaleo – Corporate Affairs

[email protected]

Perspective of a major shopping centre owner / developer.

Owners of:

• Hollywood Plaza S/C (31,186 square metres) - Wholly Owned - Centro MCS 9 (100%)

• Colonnades S/C (65,493 square metres) - Jointly Owned - Centro Australia Wholesale Fund (50%), Centro Retail Trust (50%)

• Kurralta Park S/C (10,675 square metres) - Wholly Owned - Centro MCS 5 (100%)

• Arndale S/C (40,546 square metres) - Jointly Owned - Centro Australia Wholesale Fund (50%), Centro MCS 33 (50%)

• Hilton S/C (4,442 square metres) - Wholly Owned - Centro MCS 18 (100%)

• Newton S/C (13,579 square metres) - Wholly Owned - Centro MCS 37 (100%)


Chapley Group (also known as Commercial Retail Group)

Aurecon to advise.

Spero Chapley, Director


Mike Rutherford, General Manager


Head Office Line: (08) 8132 7800

Fax Number: (08) 8132 7850 Mailing Address: PO Box 525, FULLARTON SA 5063 Office Address: 322a The Parade KENSINGTON SA 5068

Perspective of an Aurecon known commercial developer.

Perspective of smaller supermarket operator.

Owners of:

• Munno Para S/C

• Pasadena S/C

• Frewville Green S/C

• Norwood Plaza

Also owns Munno Para, Norwood, Pasadena, Frewville, Fairview, Henley Beach and Sefton Park Foodlands

Type 2 Questionnaire and Aurecon liaison.

Cohen Group

Owners of:

• Burnside Village

• Port Mall S/C

• 50% joint venture partners in the Seaford S/C (21, 659 square metres)

To be established.

Retail Division:

• Lyn Gray, General Manager – Retail

• David Jones, Operations Manager

Commercial / Industrial Division:

• Robert Alvaro , General Manager Cohen Group Property

[email protected]

Cohen Group Level 1, 32 Richmond Road KESWICK SA 5035 Phone: 08 8297 4355 Fax: 08 8297 4366

Will provide the perspective of the smaller boutique shopping centre owner.


Colonial First State Group Ltd

Don Smith, Development Manager

Colonial First State Property Manager

PO Box 104

Chadstone Shopping Centre

Victoria 3148

Phone: 03 9936 1222

Facsimile: 03 9936 1333

Perspective of a large shopping centre owner.

Owners of:

• Castle Plaza S/C (22, 744 square metres)

• Elizabeth S/C (73,667 square metres)

Also Leasing Agents / Property Managers for the Myer Centre, Adelaide (51,470 square metres)


Department for Education and Child Development (DECD)

[email protected]

(08) 8226 1000

Gauge their opinion on high school student parking provision. They may also be able to provide travel mode data (with corresponding rates of drop-off / pick-up) and, if there are any examples of drop-off / pick-up facilities that perform well, we can glean a rate of drop-off/pick-up spaces based on per student.

Specific questions.

Discount City Carpets Croydon Park Superstore

(Also Warehouse & Administration)

344-346 South Road,

Croydon Park, SA 5008

(08) 8346 7477

Floor coverings defined as Bulky Goods, they operate 12 superstores in SA.


Harvey Norman To be established. Sales numerous bulky goods, with nine stores located in CBD and suburban and rural District Centres.


Housing Industry Association (Peak Industry Group)

Mr Robert Harding, Regional Executive Director SA

Cnr Port Road & Station Place Hindmarsh

SA 5007

Phone: (08) 8340 5900

Fax: (08) 8340 5992

Will provide a peak industry group perspective.


IGA Supermarkets

(owned by Metcash Trading Limited - also operate Cellarbrations and Mitre 10)

Metcash Limited 50 Waterloo Road Macquarie Park NSW 2113 Australia Tel: 61 2 9751 8200 Fax: 61 2 9889 1557


Perspective of smaller supermarket operators.


Local Government Association (peak local government body)

• Daniel Jellings (Strategic Planner) 8224 2068 – Confirmed representative.

Ground floor, 148 Frome Street, Adelaide SA 5000

Postal: GPO Box 2693, Adelaide SA 5001

Phone: 8224 2068

Email: [email protected]

Will provide a peak local government group perspective. They have also contributed funding for this car parking study.

Workshop Notes and Workshop Invitation.

Makris Group

Owners of:

• North Adelaide Village

• City Cross Shopping Centre

• Hallett Cove S/C

• Gillies Plains S/C

Contact details:

Level 6/32 Grenfell Street ADELAIDE SA 5000

[email protected]

Will provide the perspective of the smaller boutique shopping centre owner.


Motor Traders Association [email protected]

PO Box 2204

ADELAIDE SA 5001

Although they now represent a minority of service stations (refer to Coles and Woolworths) they offer smaller developer perspective.


Palmer Group RH to advise.

Martin Palmer?

Property developer. Type 2 Questionnaire.

Peregrine Corporation (Petrol stations with On The Run, Smokemart and giftbox.

Peregrine Corporation Head Office

270 The Parade

Kensington Park

South Australia 5068

Ph: 08 8333 9777

Fax: 08 8333 9788

[email protected]

Service stations with ancillary sales. Type 2 Questionnaire.

Physical Disability Council South Australia (PDC-SA) or Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

PDC-SA: [email protected]

AHRC: [email protected]

Feedback on provision of parking spaces for people with disabilities as detailed in the superseded AS2890.1 – 1993, Table C1.

Specific questions.

Property Council of Australia (PCA) – SA Division

Kyall Smith

142 Gawler Place Adelaide SA 5000

Tel: 08 8236 0900 Fax: 08 8223 6451 Email: [email protected]

Will provide a peer planning / commercial group perspective.

Discuss reasons why developer deposits into Car Parking Funds are typically low and possibility of depositing into an alternative (and cheaper) ‘Sustainable Transport Fund’.


Super Retail Group (Ray’s Outdoors, Amart All Sports, Rebel Sport, Supercheap Auto, BCF,Goldcross Cycles

Australia (Support Office)

751 Gympie Road,

LAWNTON, QLD 4501

PO Box 344, STRATHPINE, QLD

4500

Phone: +61 (0)7 3482 7500

Fax: + 61 (0)7 3205 8522

Camping and outdoor equipment (Bulky Goods) with five stores in SA (CBD and suburbs).


SA Health [email protected]

(08) 8226 6599

We have a lot of data on hospital parking demand (which shows that current hospital demand exceeds the current 2.5 spaces per bed), but a changing policy towards parking charges will drastically change the parking patterns associated with hospitals. SA Health may not be too willing to divulge future policy, but it is worth trying. Also, they may have data on parking demand for GPs, dentists and other medical consulting rooms

Specific questions.

South Australian Secondary Principals’ Association (SASPA)

08 8463 5810

[email protected]

Office Manager

Gauge their opinion on high school student parking provision. They may also be able to provide travel mode data (with corresponding rates of drop-off / pick-up) and, if there are any examples of drop-off / pick-up facilities that perform well, we can glean a rate of drop-off/pick-up spaces based on per student.

Recent Child Care Centre data would also be useful.


South Australian Primary Principals’ Association (SAPPA)

SAPPA - To be established.

Gauge their opinion on school parking provision. They may also be able to provide travel mode data (with corresponding rates of drop-off / pick-up) and, if there are any examples of drop-off / pick-up facilities that perform well, we can glean a rate of drop-off/pick-up spaces based on per student.

Recent Child Care Centre data would also be useful.


Super-A-Mart (Furniture superstores)

Head Office

Corner Pacific Motorway and Springwood Road, Springwood, Queensland, 4127.

Furniture, Bedding and Homewares (Bulky Goods). Numerous stores in different location types in SA.


Urban Development Institute Australia (UDIA) (peak industry / planning group)

Mr Terry Walsh, Executive Director


Mobile: 0408704790

19 Vardon Avenue Adelaide SA 5000

Ph: 08 8359 3000 Fax: 08 8359 2000


The UDIA will provide a peak industry / planning group perspective.


Urban Renewal Authority (formerly the Land Management Corporation)

Anne Highett, Manager – Planning Services

P: 82070835


Level 9 Riverside Centre

North Terrace

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Will provide a key State Agency stakeholder as well as a key developer perspective.

The URA are the developers / project managers of a number of critical urban regeneration sites including the Bowden Urban Village and Lightsview sites (residential development) and the Greater Edinburgh Parks Industrial Precinct (industrial development)

Specific questions.

Wesfarmers Group.

(operate Coles, Target, K-Mart, Officeworks, Liquorland, Vintage Cellars, Coles Express and 1st Choice Liquor Superstores, Bunnings)

Wesfarmers Limited 11th Floor, Wesfarmers House 40 The Esplanade Perth 6000 Western Australia Telephone: (61 8) 9327 4211 Facsimile: (61 8) 9327 4216 Website: www.wesfarmers.com.au Contact us: [email protected]

Bulky Goods sales.


Westfield Pty Ltd Stuart Harkness Regional Manager P: 8461 8378 M: 0408 637 297 E: [email protected]

Will offer the perspective of a large shopping centre owner / developer (the company proposes to implement paid parking at its Marion and West Lakes shopping centres).

Owners of:

• Marion S/C (133,227 square metres) - Westfield Marion is jointly owned by Australian Prime Property Fund (50%), Westfield Group (25%) and Westfield Retail Trust (25%).

• West Lakes S/C (60, 708 square metres) - Westfield West Lakes is jointly owned by Dexus Property Group (50%), Westfield Group (25%) and Westfield Retail Trust (25%).

• Tea Tree Plaza S/C (95,332 square metres) - Westfield Tea Tree Plaza is jointly owned by AMP (50%), Westfield Group (31.2%) and Westfield Retail Trust (18.8%).

•


Woolworths Limited

(operate Caltex Woolworths petrol stations, BWS, Dan Murphy’s, Big W, Dick Smiths, Masters Home Improvement – joint venture with US company Lowes)

Fabcot Pty Ltd

Sid Sharma

1 Woolworths Way

Bella Vista NSW


Perspective of larger supermarket operators.



T F E W


Project 230825 | 230825_Questionnaire Letter.docx | Revision 0 | 26 July 2012 | Page 1

26 July 2012 To whom it may concern Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study Aurecon Australia is currently conducting a parking study on behalf of a number of South Australian Councils, led by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, with a view to recommending revised parking rates for all land uses for urban areas in South Australia, particularly metropolitan Adelaide. This project has been assisted by the Local Government Research and Development Scheme. Ultimately the revised car parking rates would be used to inform future Council development plans and State Government guidelines, and as such would influence the number of parking spaces that would need to be provided for future developments. To gain a fuller understanding of the parking demands of particular land uses we are asking a selected group of businesses and land developers to relate their experiences, issues and to help identify future trends in parking demand. Please take the time to answer the attached questionnaire and, if available, provide data that will assist us in making an informed parking study. Any information you provide will be treated in confidence. Aurecon Australia may state the name of contributors in the reports detailing the Study’s findings, but we will not link a particular contributor to the data supplied. To enable time to consider and analyse all the experiences, issues and overall trends in parking demand, we would appreciate receipt of your questionnaire responses to [email protected] by close of business on Tuesday 14th August 2012. If you are not the correct person to answer these questions please forward to the most appropriate person. I thank you in advance for any information you provide.

Regards,

Chris Hardman Project Leader – Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study Transport Services Aurecon Australia

mailto:[email protected]

Project 230825 | File 230825_Questionnaire Type 1.docx | 26 July 2012 | Revision 0 | Page 1


Questionnaire – Non-Government Organisations

This questionnaire will assist Aurecon Australia with their research for a parking study conducted on behalf of a number of South Australian Councils, led by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, with a view to recommending revised parking rates for various land uses for urban areas in South Australia, particularly metropolitan Adelaide.

The more information you supply, the more informed our study and the more robust the results will be. If available, please provide any data that you feel would be beneficial to the study.

If you would like assistance in responding to any question, please call Chris Hardman (Tel: 08 8237 9632).

(If insufficient space is provided, please attach additional pages)

Question 1

Name of your Organisation or Company

Mailing Address

Contact Name

Email Address

Contact Phone Number

Question 2

Please enter the primary types(s) of land use(s) that your organisation or members are particularly involved with or interested in. Appendix A lists the land use types to assist in answering this question. NOTE: If your organisation or its members are involved or have an interest in several types of land uses (for example:

Shopping Centre or Mixed Use Development), please list all land use types.

Land Use Types

For Example: Commercial – Shop Commercial – Petrol Filling Station Medical – Consulting Room

Question 3

How important is car parking (regarding the number of spaces, location of parking etc.) to the viability of your members’ businesses / organisations?

Not Important Important Very Important

Please provide justification for your responses.


Question 4

Has your organisation or its members had requests for more or less permit / special use parking spaces in recent years (over the last five years)? Yes No

If yes, please specify what permit / special use parking provisions have been requested, and how many of these permit / special use parking spaces are currently provided. For Example: Parking spaces for families with children;

Parking spaces for the elderly; Extra spaces for taxis; Parking spaces for people with disabilities.

Question 5

Can your organisation or its members identify a trend or change in the parking patterns of their business / operation / school parking situation in recent years (over the last five years)? Please provide justification for your response. For Example: Extended retail hours have changed the peak parking time;

Peak parking times have expanded throughout the day; More Staff are working from home; More Year 12s are driving.

Question 6

Does your organisation or its members anticipate that the overall demand for car parking will change in the future? Yes No

If yes, what do you think the change might be? Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: More motorcycles are being used;

Less / more people wanting to use their vehicles; Increase in walking / cycling / public transport use; No change anticipated.


Question 7

Does your organisation or its members consider that increased use of alternative non-car based modes of transport, such as walking, buses and bicycles, would reduce the parking demand of your members’ business / operation?

Yes No

Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: We have had many requests for better bicycle parking;

Many of our customers have indicated they would use public transport if it was more convenient; We sell heavy / large goods and our customers need cars to transport them.

Question 8

Does your organisation or its members consider that moving towards denser and more mixed use developments built along key public transport corridors (bus / rail routes) would reduce the need for car parking?

Yes No

Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: Different users may be able to share car parking spaces at different times of the day;

A mix of land uses in the one location will actually reduce the demand for car parking; Users will be encouraged to walk given most things or services they need are close by.

Question 9

Would your organisation or its members consider developing or locating in a mixed use development area in the future? Yes No

If yes, what do you see as being the potential benefits or disbenefits from a parking provision perspective? Please provide justification for your responses. NOTE: The proposed Bowden Urban Village site (former Clipsal land) now starting construction is one example of a future

mixed use development in Adelaide.


Question 10

Has your organisation or its members recently been involved with a development application to Council? Yes No

If yes, please provide suggestions or comments relating to the adequacy or inadequacy of those parking requirements which were used in the assessment of that application. For Example: We provided more than the minimum number of parking spaces that were required by Council;

The number of parking spaces we would have had to provide made our proposal unviable economically; The parking rate for some business types is way too low / high because……; We wanted to provide less than the minimum number of parking spaces because the development was located near a major public transport place / route; We wanted to provide less than the minimum number of car parking spaces through shared car parking arrangements with other land uses; Shared car parking spaces with adjacent businesses has been utilised, resulting in a reduced number of car parks required on site.

Question 11

Has your organisation or its members experienced a situation where parking requirements have made a development proposal economically unviable? Yes No

If yes, please provide justification for your responses. For Example: We provided more than the minimum number of parking spaces that were required by Council;

The number of parking spaces we would have had to provide made our proposal unviable economically; The parking rate for some business types is way too low / high because……; We wanted to provide less than the minimum number of parking spaces because the development was located near a major public transport place / route; We wanted to provide less than the minimum number of car parking spaces through shared car parking arrangements with other land uses; Shared car parking spaces with adjacent businesses has been utilised, resulting in a reduced number of car parks required on site.


Question 12

Some Councils offer developers the option of making a contribution to a Parking Fund as an alternative to providing car parking spaces in their developments. The fund is then used by Council to construct or maintain parking facilities in a location remote from the development, but used by staff / visitors of the development. The contribution, per parking space, varies from $5,000 to $30,000 or more. The contribution value can be 50% of the actual build cost of a parking space.

Has your organisation or members used this option? Yes No

If yes, please provide justifications for your responses.

Where a car parking fund is available, does your organisation or its members consider payment into the fund a desirable alternative to providing car parking on-site? Yes No

Question 13

Does your organisation or its members actively promote (or would consider promoting) the use of alternative non car based modes of transport? Yes No

If yes, please provide justification for your responses. For Example: Five of our members provide discounted Metro tickets;

50% of our members are involved in car-pooling; Our members are considering introducing parking charges to dissuade car use.

Question 14

Does your organisation or its members have any other comments?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire for the Parking Spaces for Urban Places Car Parking Study.

So your responses can be considered for our study, please forward completed questionnaires to Chris Hardman either via email [email protected] or mail to Aurecon, Level 10, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000 by close of business Tuesday 14th August 2012.



Appendix A – Land Use Types

Accommodation - Aged Care Retirement Homes Accommodation - Serviced Apartments

Accommodation - Display Home Accommodation - Tourist Accommodation (Bed & Breakfast)

Accommodation - Guesthouse/Hostel Accommodation - Tourist Accommodation (Motel)

Accommodation - Motel

Commercial - Auction Depot Commercial - Motor Showroom

Commercial - Bank Commercial - Office

Commercial – Bulky Goods (Automotive / Furniture / Floor Coverings/ Window Coverings / Appliances / Electronics / Home Entertainment / Lighting / Curtains and Fabrics / Bedding and Manchester / Part Suppliers / Animal and Pets / Camping and Outdoor / Hardware / Garden and Plants / Office Equipment / Sporting / Howewares / Children’s Play Equipment)

Commercial - Petrol Filling Station

Commercial - Petrol Filling Station (with auxiliary uses)

Commercial - Post Office

Commercial - Retail Showroom

Commercial - Shop

Commercial - Call Centre Commercial - Used Car Lot/ Vehicle Sales Yard

Commercial - Hardware & Other Retail Showrooms Commercial - Video Store

Commercial - Motor Repair Station

Community/Civic - Child Care Centre Community/Civic - Place of Worship

Community/Civic - Civic Administration Offices Community/Civic - Pre-School

Community/Civic - Community Centre Community/Civic - Primary School

Community/Civic - Library Community/Civic - Secondary School

Community/Civic - Meeting Hall

Industry & Warehouse - Warehouse with Office Component

Medical - Consulting Room Medical - Medical Centre (inc. Day Surgery)

Medical - Hospital Medical - Nursing Home

Mixed Use Development (Please specify what land use types)

Other - Funeral Parlour Other - Radio & TV Studio

Other - Interchange/Transport Station

Recreation - Amusement Machine Centre Recreation - Hotels & Taverns with public bar / lounge or beer garden / dining room / gaming room / accommodation Recreation - Bowling Club

Recreation - Cinema Complex Recreation - Indoor Recreation (inc. Gymnasium)

Recreation - Community Centre Recreation - Night Clubs & Late Night Venues

Recreation - Concert Hall/Theatre Recreation - Restaurant (Fast Food/Family) – with dine-in / without dine-in / drive through

Recreation - Conference Facility Recreation - Restaurant (Traditional)

Recreation - Entertainment Multiple Recreation - Squash/Tennis Courts

Recreation - Exhibition Hall Recreation - TAB Facility


T F E W


Project 230825 | 230825_Questionnaire Letter.docx | Revision 0 | 26 July 2012 | Page 1

26 July 2012 To whom it may concern Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study Aurecon Australia is currently conducting a parking study on behalf of a number of South Australian Councils, led by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, with a view to recommending revised parking rates for all land uses for urban areas in South Australia, particularly metropolitan Adelaide. This project has been assisted by the Local Government Research and Development Scheme. Ultimately the revised car parking rates would be used to inform future Council development plans and State Government guidelines, and as such would influence the number of parking spaces that would need to be provided for future developments. To gain a fuller understanding of the parking demands of particular land uses we are asking a selected group of businesses and land developers to relate their experiences, issues and to help identify future trends in parking demand. Please take the time to answer the attached questionnaire and, if available, provide data that will assist us in making an informed parking study. Any information you provide will be treated in confidence. Aurecon Australia may state the name of contributors in the reports detailing the Study’s findings, but we will not link a particular contributor to the data supplied. To enable time to consider and analyse all the experiences, issues and overall trends in parking demand, we would appreciate receipt of your questionnaire responses to [email protected] by close of business on Tuesday 14th August 2012. If you are not the correct person to answer these questions please forward to the most appropriate person. I thank you in advance for any information you provide.

Regards,

Chris Hardman Project Leader – Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study Transport Services Aurecon Australia




Questionnaire – Private Companies

This questionnaire will assist Aurecon Australia with their research for a parking study conducted on behalf of a number of South Australian Councils, led by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, with a view to recommending revised parking rates for various land uses for urban areas in South Australia, particularly metropolitan Adelaide.

The more information you supply, the more informed our study and the more robust the results will be. If available, please provide any data that you feel would be beneficial to the study.

If you would like assistance in responding to any question, please call Chris Hardman (Tel: 08 8237 9632).

(If insufficient space is provided, please attach additional pages)

Question 1

Name of your Organisation or Company

Mailing Address

Contact Name

Email Address

Contact Phone Number

Question 2

Please enter the primary types(s) of land use(s) that your organisation is involved with. Appendix A lists the land use types to assist in answering this question. NOTE: If your organisation has several types of land uses within the same property address (for example: Shopping Centre

or Mixed Use Development), please list all land use types on the property. If your organisation has several property addresses, please complete separate forms for each property that has parking issues.

Property Address Land Use Types

For Example: ABC Shopping Centre 10-35 ABC Street ABC SA 5432

Commercial – Shop Commercial – Petrol Filling Station Medical – Consulting Room

Question 3

Is your company an owner, tenant or developer of the above mentioned property?

Owner Tenant Developer Other: ________________


Question 4

How many employees are on the premises during a typical day?

How many of these employees work part-time?

Question 5

How many employees are typically on the premises during the hours shown? If other hours / shifts are more applicable, please state the appropriate shift times.

8am – 1pm 1pm – 6pm 6pm – 9pm

Other

Question 6

How many customers and / or visitors are typically on the premises during the hours shown? If other hours are more applicable, please state the appropriate times.

8am – 1pm 1pm – 6pm 6pm – 9pm

Other

Question 7

How important is car parking (regarding the number of spaces, location of parking etc.) to the viability of your business?

Not Important Important Very Important

Please provide justification for your responses.

Question 8

How many off-street car parking spaces are provided on your property or are provided / reserved specifically for your company’s use?

Question 9

State the busiest (peak) parking time(s) of this property? If there are several land use types on the one property, please attempt to separate the peak parking periods according to land use type. For Example: A shop typically has a peak on Saturday mornings or late night shopping days;

A Bulky Goods development typically has a peak on weekends and certain times during the week (e.g. Thursday / Friday night after 5pm); An office typically has a consistent number of vehicles parked during the working day, with no noticeable peaks; Mixed use developments tend to have more variable peak vehicles parked throughout the day.

What percentage of the off-street car park would be occupied during a typical peak parking period for the property?


Question 10

Have you had requests for more or less permit / special use parking spaces in recent years (over the last five years)? Yes No

If yes, please specify what permit / special use parking provisions have been requested, and how many of these permit / special use parking spaces are currently provided. For Example: Parking spaces for families with children;

Parking spaces for the elderly; Extra spaces for taxis; Parking spaces for people with disabilities.

Question 11

Identify any recent trend or change that you have noticed in the operation of your business (over the last five years) that has impacted upon your parking situation? Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: Extended retail hours have changed the peak parking time;

More Staff are working from home; Company is located in a mixed use development which has led to an increase / reduction in car parking demand.

Question 12

Do you anticipate that the overall demand for car parking will change in the future? Yes No

If yes, what do you think the change might be? Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: More motorcycles are being used;

Less / more people wanting to use their vehicles; People shopping more locally; Increase in walking / cycling / public transport use; No change anticipated.


Question 13

Do you consider that increased use of alternative non-car based modes of transport, such as walking, buses and bicycles, would reduce the parking demand of your business / operation?

Yes No

Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: We have had many requests for better bicycle parking;

Many of our customers have indicated they would use public transport if it was more convenient; We sell heavy / large goods and our customers need cars to transport them.

Question 14

Do you consider that moving towards denser and more mixed use developments built along key public transport corridors (bus / rail routes) would reduce the need for car parking? Yes No

Please provide justification for your responses. For Example: Different users may be able to share car parking spaces at different times of the day;

A mix of land uses in the one location will actually reduce the demand for car parking; Users will be encouraged to walk given most things or services they need are close by.

Question 15

Would you consider developing or locating in a mixed use development area in the future? Yes No

If yes, what do you see as being the potential benefits or disbenefits from a parking provision perspective? Please provide justification for your responses. NOTE: The proposed Bowden Urban Village site (former Clipsal land) now starting construction is one example of a future

mixed use development in Adelaide.


Question 16

Have you recently been involved with a development application to Council? Yes No

If yes, please provide suggestions or comments relating to the adequacy or inadequacy of those parking requirements which were used in the assessment of that application. For Example: We provided more than the minimum number of parking spaces that were required by Council;

The number of parking spaces we would have had to provide made our proposal unviable economically; The parking rate for some business types is way too low / high because……; We wanted to provide less than the minimum number of parking spaces because the development was located near a major public transport places / route; We wanted to provide less than the minimum number of car parking spaces through shared car parking arrangements with other land uses; Shared car parking spaces with adjacent businesses has been utilised, resulting in a reduced number of car parks required on site.

Question 17

Some Councils offer developers the option of making a contribution to a Parking Fund as an alternative to providing car parking spaces in their developments. The fund is then used by Council to construct or maintain parking facilities in a location remote from the development, but used by staff / visitors of the development. The contribution, per parking space, varies from $5,000 to $30,000 or more. The contribution value can be 50% of the actual build cost of a parking space.

Has your business used this option? Yes No

If yes, please provide details.

Where a car parking fund is available, does your business consider payment into the fund a desirable alternative to providing car parking on-site? Yes No

Question 18

Do you have any other comments?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire for the Parking Spaces for Urban Places Car Parking Study.

So your responses can be considered for our study, please forward completed questionnaires to Chris Hardman either via email [email protected] or mail to Aurecon, Level 10, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000 by close of business Tuesday 14th August 2012.



Appendix A – Land Use Types

Accommodation - Aged Care Retirement Homes Accommodation - Serviced Apartments

Accommodation - Display Home Accommodation - Tourist Accommodation (Bed & Breakfast)

Accommodation - Guesthouse/Hostel Accommodation - Tourist Accommodation (Motel)

Accommodation - Motel

Commercial - Auction Depot Commercial - Motor Showroom

Commercial - Bank Commercial - Office

Commercial – Bulky Goods (Automotive / Furniture / Floor Coverings/ Window Coverings / Appliances / Electronics / Home Entertainment / Lighting / Curtains and Fabrics / Bedding and Manchester / Part Suppliers / Animal and Pets / Camping and Outdoor / Hardware / Garden and Plants / Office Equipment / Sporting / Howewares / Children’s Play Equipment)

Commercial - Petrol Filling Station

Commercial - Petrol Filling Station (with auxiliary uses)

Commercial - Post Office

Commercial - Retail Showroom

Commercial - Shop

Commercial - Call Centre Commercial - Used Car Lot/ Vehicle Sales Yard

Commercial - Hardware & Other Retail Showrooms Commercial - Video Store

Commercial - Motor Repair Station

Community/Civic - Child Care Centre Community/Civic - Place of Worship

Community/Civic - Civic Administration Offices Community/Civic - Pre-School

Community/Civic - Community Centre Community/Civic - Primary School

Community/Civic - Library Community/Civic - Secondary School

Community/Civic - Meeting Hall

Industry & Warehouse - Warehouse with Office Component

Medical - Consulting Room Medical - Medical Centre (inc. Day Surgery)

Medical - Hospital Medical - Nursing Home

Mixed Use Development (Please specify what land use types)

Other - Funeral Parlour Other - Radio & TV Studio

Other - Interchange/Transport Station

Recreation - Amusement Machine Centre Recreation - Hotels & Taverns with public bar / lounge or beer garden / dining room / gaming room / accommodation Recreation - Bowling Club

Recreation - Cinema Complex Recreation - Indoor Recreation (inc. Gymnasium)

Recreation - Community Centre Recreation - Night Clubs & Late Night Venues

Recreation - Concert Hall/Theatre Recreation - Restaurant (Fast Food/Family) – with dine-in / without dine-in / drive through

Recreation - Conference Facility Recreation - Restaurant (Traditional)

Recreation - Entertainment Multiple Recreation - Squash/Tennis Courts

Recreation - Exhibition Hall Recreation - TAB Facility

Appendix D Development Plan Rates

versus Planning SA Parking Bulletin Rates

DAs and DPAs vs Planning SA Bulletin Version: 01

Axiom Shopping Complex, Islington Railyards

Totalper 100m2

GLFA

Number of

spaces

Supermarket 4250 7 100m2 GLFA 298

Discount Department Store 5600 7 100m2 GLFA 392

3 x mini major tenancies 4095 7 100m2 GLFA 287

Café 308 1 15m2 GLA 21The DAP report uses the Shop parking rate for the

café.

53 x Speciality shops 4858 7 100m2 GLFA 340

Total 0 19111 1002 5.2 1337

The DAP report calculates a parking provision of

1,338 spaces based on 7 spaces per 100m2 gross

retail floor area. Car parking has been provided at the

rate of 5.24 spaces per 100m2 GLFA. This rate has not

been tested as the Churchill Centre is not fully

operational, and is expected to be completed in early

2014.

Bowden Urban Village DPA

Residential development 0.75 per dw

DPA considered the recommended rate of 0.75

spaces per dwelling to be low, but did not provide

alternative rate.

Shops3 per 100m2

GLFA

Tourist accommodation - up

to 100 bedrooms

1 per 4

bedrooms

Tourist accommodation - over

100 bedrooms

1 per 5

bedrooms

All other non-residential use -

ground floor level

3 per 100m2

GLFA


any other case

1.5 per 100m2

GLFA

Bunnings Extension, Windsor Gardens

Totalper 100m2

GLFA

Number of

spaces

Extended Bunnings (Bulky

Goods Outlet and Retail 11816 434 4 100m2 GLFA 473 Higher rate of 4 spaces per 100m2 used.

Total 0 11816 434 3.7 473

The DAP report accepts the parking rate of 3.7 spaces

per 100m2 GLFA. This rate has not been tested as the

Bunnings extension is not fully operational.

Gepps Cross Homemaker

Totalper 100m2

GLFA

Number of

spaces

Gepps Cross Homemaker 54307 1457

Total 0 54307 1457 2.68

The DAP report calculates parking demand of 1,728

spaces at the rates if 7 (Shop) and 3 (Bulky Gds)

spaces per 100m2. DAP Report accepts shared

parking and the traffic report research of interstate

developments showing that a rate of 2.6 spaces per

100m2 GLFA accommodates the demand of all but

one of the examples provided. This development is

operational but no feedback on the adequacy of the

parking provision is available.

Mayfield Development, Adelaide

Total rateNumber of

spaces

Retail 1700 7 100m2 GLFA 119

Restaurant / Café 720 1 15m2 GLA 48

Commercial 870 4 100m2 GLFA 35

Dwelling - 1 bedroom 154


Total 496 202

Comments

Floor area

GFALand uses

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor

Parking provided

Land usesFloor area

GFA

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor

area

Comments

Land usesFloor area

GFA

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor

Parking provided Planning SA Parking Bulletin

CommentsParking rate

DPA favoured not defining rates for all land use types

but considers the possible application of more

standardised rates; Shops, tourist accommodation

and all other non-residential uses.

Parking provided

Parking rate

Planning SA Parking Bulletin

Land usesFloor area

GFA

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor


Parking rate

Planning SA Parking Bulletin


391

105 3 per 100m2

1.09

Car share availability. Development located within

CBD.

1 of 2

DAs and DPAs vs Planning SA Bulletin Version: 01

Newport Quays

Totalper dw / berth /

100m2 GLFA

Number of

spaces

Dwelling - 1 bedroom 316 0.75 per dw

Dwelling - 2 bedroom 35 1 per dw

Dwelling - 3 and 4 bedroom 142 2 per dw

Dwelling - visitors 507 1 per 5 dw

SOHO dwelling (Office/ residential) 14 1.25 per SOHO

Café 556 1 per 8.4m2

Shops 688 3 per 100m2

Marina 28 1 per 3 berths

Northgate DPA - Suburban Neighbourhood ZoneComments

Dwelling - Studio 0 per dw

Flats / multi-storey - Dwelling -

1 bedroom0.25 per dw DPA recommendeds:


2 and 3 bedroom1 per dw

a reduction in the rate for on-site car parking

associated with dwellings within a multi-storey

building located within 400 m of an identified transit

corridor is warranted.


4 bedroom2 per dw

limiting the amount of car parking for retail uses to

discourage wider catchment use.


visitors1 per 5 dw

Row, semi-detached and

detached - Dwelling - 1, 2 and

3 bedroom

1 per dw


detached - Dwelling - 4

bedroom

2 per dw


detached - Dwelling - visitors0.00


ground floor level

Min: 4 per

100m2 GLFA

Max: 5 per

100m2 GLFA

Northgate, Five storey apartment


100m2 GLFA

Number of

spaces

Dwelling 32 1 per dwNumber of bedrooms not stated in DAP report.

Development plan consent granted

Dwelling - visitors 0 per dw

87-89 Commercial Rd, Port Adelaide - four-storey building, five shops and 5 dwellings


100m2 GLFA

Number of

spaces


Previous land use had a demand of 58 parking spaces

but no provision, this number of spaces were credited

as the proposed development is improving the site.

DAP report recommended refusal.

Dwelling - visitors 0

Retail shops 486 7 100m2 GLFA 34

Total 16

Land usesFloor area

GFA

Dw / berth /

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor

area


Land usesFloor area

GFA

Dw / berth /

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor


Parking rate



DAP report recommended the refusal of the

application.

Comments

Land usesFloor area

GFA

Dw / berth /

Gross

Leaseable or

Nett floor


2 of 2

Appendix E VPP Rate versus Planning

SA Parking Bulletin Rate

Victoria Planning Provisions vs Planning SA Bulletin Version: 01

Column A

to B

Discount

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column A

difference

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column B

difference

Parking

spaces per

unit

Recreation

Cinema Complex 0.3 patron 0.3 patron 0.00 0.33 seat -0.03 -0.03VPP Column A rate slightly lower than Planning SA

Bulletin. No difference between Column A and B

Hotels & Taverns 0.4 patron 3.5 100 sq mDifficult to

comparesee below:

Difficult to compare between Column A, B and

Planning SA Bulletin

Public Bar 0.50 sq m

Lounge or beer garden 0.17 sq m

Dining room 0.33 seats

Gaming room 0.50 machine

Accommodation

Indoor Recreation / Gymnasium No VPP rates

Restaurant (traditional) by seat 0.4 seat 0.33 seat 0.07VPP Column A rate per seat is higher than Planning

SA Bulletin

Restaurant (traditional) by area 3.5 100 sq m 6.67 100 sq m -3.17VPP Column B rate is 50% lower than Planning SA

Bulletin

Restaurant (fast food / family /

convenience restaurant)

0.3 seat VPP has a rate for convenience restaurant

3.5 100 sq m 12.00 100 sq m Difficult to compare -8.50VPP Column B rate is 70% lower than Planning SA

Bulletin


through (internal and external seating)4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m -0.5 20.00 100 sq m -16.00 -16.50

VPP has Food & Drink premises other rate. Vast

difference


through (internal seating)4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m -0.5 0.50

internal

seatDifficult to compare Difficult to compare VPP has Food & Drink premises other rate


(internal and external seating)4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m -0.5 33.33 100 sq m -29.33 -29.83

VPP has Food & Drink premises other rate. Vast

difference


(internal seating)4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m -0.5 0.50

internal

seatDifficult to compare Difficult to compare VPP has Food & Drink premises other rate

assess on needsNone None

Difficult to compare Difficult to compare

(Changes in number of machines etc significantly

changes comparison)

Parking spaces per unitParking spaces per unit Parking spaces per unit

Comment

Parking spaces per unit

Planning SA Parking

Bulletin

Victoria Planning

Provisions - Std rate

(Column A)

Victoria Planning

Provisions - Lower rate

(Column B)

assess on needs

Difficult to

compare

without dine-in and drive thru

(Convenience?)

Difficult to

compare

1 of 6


Column A

to B

Discount

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column A

difference

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column B

difference

Parking

spaces per

unit


Comment


Planning SA Parking

Bulletin

Victoria Planning


(Column A)

Victoria Planning


(Column B)

Squash Courts 3 court 3 court 0.00 4.00 court -1.00 -1.00

VPP Column A and B rates 25% lower than Planning

SA Bulletin. No difference between Column A and

B. VPP plus 50% for ancillary uses

Tennis Courts 4 court 4 court 0.00 4.00 court 0.00 0.00

VPP Column A and B rates the same as Planning SA

Bulletin. No difference between Column A and B.

VPP plus 50% for ancillary uses

TAB Facility (VPP: Betting Agency) 4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m 0.50 8.00 100 sq m -4.00 -4.5025% drop between Column A and B rates, these

rates are 50% lower than Planning SA Bulletin.

Gambling premises other (VPP only) 0.4 patron 3.5 100 sq mDifficult to

compareNo Planning SA Bulletin rate

Medical

Consulting Room / Medical Centre / Day

Surgery5

1st

provider3.5 100 sq m

Difficult to

compare10.00 100 sq m Difficult to compare -6.50

VPP Column A rate difficult to compare. (Size of

consultation rooms vary)

3

for every

other

provider

VPP Column B rate is 65% lower than Planning SA

Bulletin

Hospital 2.5 bed

Aurecon studies indicate a rate of between 4 per

bed for Metro regions and 5 spaces per bed for

Rural

Nursing home 0.25 bed 0.25 bed 0.25 bed VPP rate for Residential Aged Care

None None

2 of 6


Column A

to B

Discount

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column A

difference

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column B

difference

Parking

spaces per

unit


Comment


Planning SA Parking

Bulletin

Victoria Planning


(Column A)

Victoria Planning


(Column B)


Office Component 3.3 100 sq m

PLUS

Non-Office Component

Up to 200 sq m 2 100 sq m

Plus 200 - 2000 sq m 1.33 100 sq m

Plus greater than 2000 sq m 0.67 100 sq m

OR

Labour intensive industries 0.75 employee

Freezing & cool storage 1.5 100 sq m 1 100 sq m -0.5VPP comparable with Planning SA Bulletin 2000 sq

m facility

Fuel depot 10percent of

area10

percent of

area0

Initial investigations indicate that 10% would only

work for sites larger than 2000 sq m

Industry other 2.9 100 sq m 1 100 sq m -1.9

VPP comparable with Planning SA Bulletin 200 sq m

facility. VPP Column B rate represents a 60%

discount compared to Column A

Materials Recycling 10percent of

area10

percent of

area0

Milk depot 10percent of

area10

percent of

area0

Warehouse other - 2 spaces min PLUS 2 premises 2 premises 0 Note minium of 2 spaces per premises

Warehouse other floor area 1.5 100 sq m 1 100 sq m -0.5VPP comparable with Planning SA Bulletin 2000 sq

m facility

3 of 6


Column A

to B

Discount

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column A

difference

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column B

difference

Parking

spaces per

unit


Comment


Planning SA Parking

Bulletin

Victoria Planning


(Column A)

Victoria Planning


(Column B)

Community / Civic

Child Care Centre 0.22 patron 0.22 patron 0.00 0.25 children -0.03 -0.03No Column B discount. Comparable rates with

Planning SA Bulletin

Community Centre (VPP: Place of

assembly except amusement parlour)0.3 patron 0.3 patron 0.00 10.00 100 sq m Difficult to compare Difficult to compare

VPP have general rate of Place of assembly. No

Column B discount.

Pre-school No VPP rate

Primary School 1 employee 1 employee 0.00 1.10 employee -0.10 -0.10No Column B discount. VPP and Planning SA

Bulletin similar

Secondary School 1.2 employee 1.2 employee 0.00 1.10 employee 0.10 0.10No Column B discount. VPP and Planning SA

Bulletin similar

Tertiary Education 0.4 student 0.3 student 0.10 0.80 student -0.40 -0.50VPP Column A and B up to 60% lower than Planning

SA Bulletin

Library 4.00 100 sq m No VPP rate

Meeting Hall / Place of Worship (VPP:

Place of assembly except amusement

parlour)

0.3 patron 0.3 patron 0.00 0.33 seat -0.03 -0.03

VPP have general rate of Place of assembly. No

Column B discount. Similar rates to higher Planning

SA Bulletin rate

1 space per FT

employee plus 1 space

for wheelchair users

plus 10% for visitors

4 of 6


Column A

to B

Discount

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column A

difference

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column B

difference

Parking

spaces per

unit


Comment


Planning SA Parking

Bulletin

Victoria Planning


(Column A)

Victoria Planning


(Column B)

Commercial

Bank (VPP: Office other) 3.5 100 sq m 3 100 sq m 0.50 5.00 100 sq m -1.50 -2.00

VPP Column A and B up to 60% lower than Planning

SA Bulletin. RTA Guide revision targets Offices as

having the most potential to use sustainable

transport attracting biggest land use discount

Research and development centre (VPP) 3.5 100 sq m 3 100 sq m 0.50

Retail Showroom (Bulky Goods) /

Hardware and other retail showrooms /

Service Trade Premises

4 100 sq m Range given of 2 to 4 per 100 sq m

VPP Bulky Goods:

Landscape Gardening Supplies 10percent of

site area10

percent of

site area0

Manufacturing Sales (VPP) 4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m -0.5

VPP: Land used as an incidental part of an industry,

to retail goods made materially different on the

land by that industry

Primary Produce Sales 4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m -0.5VPP: Land used to sell unprocessed primary

produce, grown on the land or adjacent land

Restricted retail premises 3 100 sq m 2.5 100 sq m -0.5

VPP listed land uses fall under SA Planning bulky

goods, retail showroom and service trade premises

definitions e.g. camping, swimming pools, floor

coverings

Trade supplies 10percent of

site area10

percent of

site area0

VPP: Land used to sell by both and retail and

wholesale, or to hire materials, tools, equipment,

machinery or other goods: automotive, building,

industtry, landscape, medical, government

Office (VPP: Office other) 3.5 100 sq m 3 100 sq m 0.50 4.00 100 sq m -0.50 -1.00

VPP Column A and B similar to Planning SA Bulletin.

RTA Guide revision targets Offices as having the

most potential to use sustainable transport

attracting biggest land use discount

Petrol Filling Station

Service bays 6 per bay No VPP rates

Retail floor space 5 100 sq m

Shop (not within a centre), VPP: Shop

other4 100 sq m 3.5 100 sq m 0.50 7 100 sq m -3.00 -3.50

VPP rates up to 50% less than Planning SA Bulletin

VPP Shops:

Convenience shop if leasable floor area

exceeds 60 sq m10

each

premises3.5 100 sq m

Difficult to

compareVPP Column A has a per premises rate

Supermarket 5 100 sq m 5 100 sq m 0 VPP Column A and B rates are the same

5 of 6


Column A

to B

Discount

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column A

difference

Planning SA

Bulletin - Column B

difference

Parking

spaces per

unit


Comment


Planning SA Parking

Bulletin

Victoria Planning


(Column A)

Victoria Planning


(Column B)

Accommodation

Display Home

Five or fewer plus 5 dw

each contiguous dwelling 2 dw

floor area 3.5 100 sq m

Dwelling (VPP only)

one or two bedroom 1 dw 1 dw

three or more bedrooms (counts studios

or studies)2 dw 2 dw

Visitors 1 5 dw 0 5 dw

Residential Village (VPP only)

one or two bedroom 1 dw 1 dw


or studies)2 dw 2 dw

Visitors 1 5 dw 0 5 dw

Aged Care Retirement Homes (VPP:

Retirement village

one or two bedroom 1 dw 1 dw 1 unit 0.00 0.00


or studies)2 dw 2 dw 1 unit 1.00 1.00

VPP rate higher for more bedrooms

Visitors 1 5 dw 0 5 dw 1 unti

assess on needs basis

6 of 6

Appendix F Port Adelaide Enfield Case

Studies

Location Nature of development

252-254 Hampstead Road, Clearview New IGA Supermarket and 2 consulting rooms

- 42 car parks were proposed for the development by the applicant - the Development Plan would require 40 spaces, given:

o 7 spaces per 100m² of supermarket = 37 spaces o 1 space per 25m² of consulting rooms = 7 spaces

- the October workshop parking table would require 43 spaces, given: o 7 spaces per 100m² of supermarket = 33 spaces o 5 spaces per consulting room = 10 spaces (given 2 consulting rooms)

Accessibility The site is within 100 metres of bus stop 25 on Hampstead Road. According to Google Maps, this stop is served by 7 bus routes (although some may be occasional services). On this basis, a 15% discount would be secured Shared Parking Aerial photography suggests that there are no public car parks within walking distance that meet the criteria of the discount table. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Improved Outcome Aerial photography suggests that additional landscaping (beyond the Development Plan) has not been provided. None of the other options have been met, with the possible exception of enhancing neighbourhood character, which is perhaps too subjective. On this basis, no discount would appear to have been secured. Paid Parking There was no evidence in the application to suggest that paid parking was implemented. On this basis, no discount appears to have been secured. Adverse Economic Impact The development straddled a Local Centre Zone and a Residential Zone. This type of development was non-complying in the Residential Zone, and therefore had to undergo a more onerous non-complying process. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Conclusion A 15% discount (15% + 0% + 0% + 0%+ 0%) may have been achieved. This equates to 6 spaces (if using the October workshop table rate) and a discounted parking requirement of 37 spaces, 3 spaces less when compared with the original development application and five less than the proponent.


502-504 Main North Road, Blair Athol Medical Consulting Rooms


o 1 space per 25m² of total floor area, with a minimum of 4 spaces - The October workshop parking table would require 80 spaces, given:

o 5 spaces per consultation room = 80 (given 16 consulting rooms) Accessibility The site is within 100 metres of bus stop 24 on Main North Road. According to Google Maps, this stop is served by 11 bus routes (although some may be occasional services). On this basis, a discount of 15% would be secured. Shared Parking Aerial photography suggests that the premises are within 75 metres of a shared parking site at the Enfield Plaza shopping centre. However, it could be argued this is not shared (i.e. public) in the fullest sense and was only built to serve shopping centre customers (not surrounding areas). On this basis, no discount would be secured. Improved Outcome Site plans suggest that landscaping has not gone beyond standard Development Plan requirements. Other options seem not to have been met. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Paid Parking The application does not suggest that paid parking has been considered. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Adverse Economic Impact Consulting rooms are envisaged in the Commercial Zone. On this basis, there may be scope for a discount of up to 5%, subject to negotiation and interpretation of plans Conclusion A 20% discount (15% + 0% + 0% + say 5%) may have been achieved. This equates to a discounted parking requirement of 64 spaces, 46 more than proposed by the proponent and 49 more than the development plan (assuming that the area is only 375m2).


504 Regency Road, Enfield Change of use to educational establishment (conversion of existing dwelling into class rooms and crèche), with associated car parking and landscaping areas (Our Lady Sacred Heart College)


o 1 space per full-time staff member plus 10 spaces for visitors and students - the October workshop parking table would require 4 spaces, given:

o 1.1 employee spaces + a pick-up/drop-off management strategy * Spaces for staff were provided on-site as part of the application, but spaces for visitors and students existed on the adjacent school site. The arrangement was deemed acceptable by the Development Assessment Panel Accessibility The site is within 150 metres of bus stop 17A on Regency Road. According to Google Maps this stop is served by five bus routes (but four would seem variations of one route i.e. 300, 300C, 300G, and 300H). On this basis, a 5% discount would be secured (being within 400m of a public transport stop) Shared Parking The development is for a private school facility; while it is within 75 metres of a shopping centre (which would almost certainly have shared parking), this would be unlikely to be shared in the fullest sense because that carpark would have been intended for shoppers. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Improved Outcome This was a category 3 development that drew several public submissions concerned about extra car/bus traffic/parking and its effect on surrounding residences. No other criteria seem appropriate in this case. On this basis, no discount would likely have been secured. Paid Parking The application has no evidence of paid parking provision. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Adverse Economic Impact The development is neither envisaged nor non-complying in the residential zone. It may not have explicit strategic importance. On this basis, no discount would be secured. Conclusion A 5% discount (5% +0% +0% +0% +0%) may have been achieved from the default rate (which cannot be directly calculated due to the adjoining nature of the school). An extra 5% may be allowable depending on how the discount criteria are interpreted. This equates to a parking requirement of 4 spaces which matches the number put forward by the proponent and 10 less than the development plan.

Ray's Outdoor Centre - Bulky Goods Outlet (shop) 399-405 Main North Road, Enfield 040/02161/02 (went before ERD Court) − Developer proposal: 26 car parking spaces (noting availability of 6 on-street spaces) − Development area: 1,753 floor square area − Council's Development Plan: 7 spaces per 100sqm - equates to 123 spaces. − ERD Court judge considered that 2 spaces per 100sqm was a more appropriate rate -

equates to 35 spaces Assessment against ERD Court's car parking rate and Aurecon's proposed discount table: − Judges rate: 2 spaces per 100sqm - equates to 35 spaces − Bus stop out front of development with 7 bus routes = 15% discount − 15% - equates to 5 spaces − 35 - 5 = 30 spaces. Assessment against Aurecon proposed rate and discount table: − Aurecon's proposed rate: 3 spaces per 100sqm - equates to 53 car parks − Bus stop out front of development with 7 bus routes = 15% − 15% - equates to 8 car parks. − 53 - 8 = 45 spaces. − No other discounts apply.

Warehouse and office 110 Grand Junction Road 040/1844/09 Office = 95sqm − Council's Development Plan: 1 space per 25sqm with a minimum of 4 spaces per

establishment. − Equates to 4 spaces Warehouse = 407sqm − Council's Development Plan: requires 3.3 spaces for every 100 square metres of

office component plus 2 spaces for every 100 square metres of non-office component up to 200 square metres, 1.33 spaces for every 100 square metres of non office component between 200 and 2000 square metres and 0.67 spaces for every 100 square metres of non-office component greater than 2000 square metres;

− 4 + 2.66 = 6.66 spaces (rounded to 7 spaces) − 4 + 7 = 11 spaces Application of Aurecon's proposed discount table: Bus stop out of the front of the site (with 3 routes) = 10% discount - equates to 1.3 spaces. Results in a discounted car parking rate of 1 space. Assessment against Aurecon's proposed rate and discount table: − Warehouse component: 1.85 spaces per 100sqm for warehouse (employee numbers

are not known) - equates to 7 spaces − Office component: 4 spaces per 100sqm - equates to 4 spaces − 7 + 4 = 11 spaces − 10% discount equates to 1.1% - therefore 10 car parking is required. No other discounts apply.

Community Centre (Klemzig Hall) North East Road, Klemzig 040/2042/11 − New community centre expected to accommodate 400 people. − Council's Development Plan: One space for every 5 people able to be seated or

accommodated. − This equates to 80 car parks. Application of Aurecon's discount table: − 2 bus stops within 100 metres (2 routes) = 10% discount - equates to 8 car parks − 80 - 8 = 72 car parks. Assessment against Aurecon's proposed rate and discount table: − Rate: 0.5 spaces per patron − 400 people x 0.5 = 200 car parks − 10% discount = 20 car parks -equates to requirement of 180 car parks.

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ABN 54 005 139 873 55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia T +61 8 8237 9777 F +61 8 8237 9778 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com Aurecon offices are located in: Angola, Australia, Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

Date post:	18-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buique
View:	249 times
Download:	4 times

Project: Parking Spaces for Urban Places: Car Parking Study€¦ · 7.10 Case Studies 100 8 Parking...

Documents