How do 250 residents share 21 street parking spots on Hepburn Rd ? Easy, charge them $52pa

How do you solve the sharing of a total of 21 street parking spots between 200+ residents and their visitors ?

Have a look at the councils plan below…

Manningham visitor permit parking is valid only in the street of the recipient. Council have now determined that apartment occupants will have to pay $52-00 per year for a VP for such little chance of exploiting it. One wonders what will happen when apartment occupants use their majority in numbers democratically.


16.3    Mr W Welsh, Doncaster 29/11/2011

Q1 How will Council regulate the issuing of visitor car parking permits to the estimated 200-250 eligible residents of the existing and proposed dwellings in Hepburn Road when there are only 21 on street car spaces available and even more so to the approximate 150 future and existing residents of Whittens Lane North, where, apart from a limited number of single parking bay inserts, there is virtually no on-street parking?

The Director Planning & Environment advised that Council had earlier this year considered a report on resident parking permits and has agreed to limit the number of parking permits available to people living in apartments and units in Doncaster Hill and to also introduce a charge. Council also said it will review the number of permits it issues towards the end of next year once a lot of the apartments that are currently under construction are occupied within Doncaster Hill. It is something that will be monitored over a period of time and it is going to have to be made more difficult for people living in developments that are supposed to have provided adequate parking and for visitor parking to get any permits.


Why is Council wasting ratepayers funds employing consultants, as a measure to quell community unrest, by regularly conducting unnecessary reviews on nonexistent parking rather than acting responsibly on the findings of their own comprehensive two year study document they had previously commissioned on traffic and parking which had involved the participation of Council officers in four revised editions that found, after allowing for baseline parking rates already extended to apartment developments and a vastly improved public transport system, there would still be an imperative need to create several large areas of public off-street parking?


The parking report which was previously done is almost 10 years old. Since then we have had the expansion of Westfield’s, the opening up of Eastlink and improved public transport. In light of these factors, Council determined it was appropriate to now review the traffic and parking in Doncaster Hill and the outcomes of this study will be reported to Council in the new year.

Despite the appalling lack of off-street parking, Council will never agree to create appropriate facilities, instead it will only conduct regular parking reviews. This is merely an exercise in shifting one area burden to another etc etc.

The first stage of Eastlink to Springvale Road was opened in 1998, four years before the final of the four revised GTA comprehensive traffic and parking studies were tabled in Sept 2002. (attached)

In the same period the Westfield extension received a parking ratio dispensation of 37% below the rates (spaces per 100m2) that previously existed before its refurbishment.

Despite the recent introduction of a vastly improved bus network, the GTA recommendations for substantial public off-street parking in 2002 would be far more appropriate today considering the above and especially since the civic grounds, our only source for public parking, is to be developed and the current parking ratios applicable to major developments which are identical to those extended to developments and taken into account in the report’s recommendations.


The current parking ratios, designed by Council and applicable to developments on Doncaster Hill are sanctioned and administered by Manningham planners which questions the assertion in the answer above “that developments were supposed to have provided adequate parking” and moreover, as if to add insult to injury, we now have a council approved development allowing 71%  of its parking provided mostly in a three tiered “independent” cluster stackers, some containing 41 vehicles.

This type of system is more suitable in a commercial environment rather than in a domestic situation where the effectiveness of its “one car at a time system” will largely depend upon the deftness of it users and/or the occupants vehicle being within the height limit of 1750mm.


Here is the report refered to : Manningham September 2002 and Parking

The car stackers do not allow lowered vehicles, vehicles with spoilers, roof racks or vans over 1750mm, or even vehicles with low profile tyres.

And as they are allocated spaces, you have to wait your turn out of the 41 cars. Just think of the back log at 8:30 when families are loading kids, babies, strollers into their car, before their turn is done. Then your neighbor pushes the button for their car to come around, and you are still two people back in the queue…

Will you park on the street next time..


1 Comment

  1. jim says:

    What is not mentioned is the tacit agreement between the Council and the Doncaster Church of Christ to refrain from prosecuting parking infringers in Short St and Hepburn Road during church events. So $52pa does not seem like a wise investment when, if you have the right contacts, you can get it for free.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *