Car Stackers Unsuitable For Residential and Incompatible With Manningham “Green Hill” Policy

Hepburn Rd in Doncaster has raised quite a raft of issues, one of the particularly poignant is the use of Car stackers to increase density. The efficient use of space has it’s merit, but read on to see the extent of the down side, hardly a worthy or workable balance. This has been sent to the Koonung Ward Councilors, asking for their assistance as the case goes to VCAT.


Dear Councillor,

RE: Council decision to issue a notice of decision re 15 storey apartment building with 188 apartments at 20-24 Hepburn Road, Doncaster Hill incl 201 Car Stacker spaces.

I have just spoken with Adele Khoo, the leader of the 73 objectors, before sending this message. She has just written to the Koonung ward councillors requesting that a motion be made, that council, in the defence of its Notice of Decision at the Vcat hearing, resolve not to be supportive on the use of stackers, and in the meantime agree to establish a policy on their use.

Below are some of the issues used in the rationale.

The length of time for the next parker, waiting in turn to access the system, is approximately 2 minutes, but could be much longer depending on the deftness of the person before them. As the video link and correspondence below from Klaus Stacker Parking indicates, the next user must wait until the previous person closes the door before they can access the system. e.g. Certain people such as mothers with small children, uncoupling of an infant from a baby seat, an elderly person etc. may have difficulty in entering/regressing the system when parked in the stacker. If the system requires the user to walk to a control panel to insert and key and close this door this could also extend waiting times. The Mayor Geoff Gough, who in fairness had not been briefed by officers, had asserted that the operative times made no difference. (It had been represented by the proponent in the presence of Mayor, two other councillors and a senior planning officer that it took just 20 seconds).

The time in operating the system determines the length of queuing and on-street overspill, especially during a surge of use.

Record of his statement in council audio of questions without notice from Manningham Council website.


PADDINGTON COUNCIL will not allow them for environmental reasons due to their heavy power use. Manningham would be justified in adopting a similar stance. If stackers are allowed at Hepburn Road it will set a precedent for other developments to adopt same. The much vaunted Doncaster “Green Hill” policy with the trials on wind generators etc. will look a little ridiculous if these high power units were to be adopted.


WOLLONGONG COUNCIL will only allow them where at-grade parking cannot be achieved due to site constraints and/or where it can be demonstrated the proposal is NOT an overdevelopment.


LUXMORE PARKING CONSULTANTS FOR VINCENT COUNCIL have included all of the above plus the disadvantages associated with the use of Car stackers. They also raised the issue of vehicles not being able to access the system in one manoeuvre due to aisle widths and the narrow stacker platform.

 Below Video Link of Stacker Cluster and Correspondence from Klaus Stackers. Note the system shown in the video accommodates SUVs and most light commercial vehicles with a height clearance of 2200mm unlike the 1750mm proposed for Hepburn Road which caters for standard passenger vehicles.




Car-Stackers Comment From Luxmore Parking Consulting

Subject: Klaus Multiparking – Clarifications regraging the Klaus TrendVario 4300

Good afternoon,
To address the questions raised in our conversation earlier, I hope you will find the following information useful:

1) Runtime for TrendVario 4300
Generally we estimate 20 seconds per manoeuvre in a TrendVario, which is to say for each vertical movement, allow 20 seconds, and for the opening or the gate, allow 20 seconds. Allow 20 seconds for one bay to shift to the side, and for each additional sideways-shifting bay allow an extra 2 seconds.

A worst case scenario would occur when a user needs to access the far right, bottom platform, and the last platform accessed (i.e. where the machine is resting) was the far right top platform. Assuming a 10-bay (maximum width) system:

Far right platform raises into upper position = 20 sec
All nine ground-level platforms must move right = 20 sec + 9(3 sec) = 38 sec
Far left bottom platform raises to ground floor position = 20 sec
Gate opens= 20 sec
TOTAL = 98 Seconds.

Please bear in mind that when using electrical gates, a user must also close the gate before driving away. As long as the gate remains open, the machine will not move around, and only the user that opens the gate may close the gate, as a safety measure. So in the event you have two users turn up within the same few minutes, the second user will have to wait a total of 118 seconds, plus the time it takes for the first user to get in their car, drive away. With manual gates, the gate opening and closing times are however long it takes for a user to get out of their car and open the gate.

2) Aisle Width
Australian standards suggest a minimum aisle width of 5.8m. However, because of the placement of the columns within the TrendVario, as well as any columns that may be situated in front of the machine, a aisle width of at least 6.2m will ensure a comfortable entry into the machine. It is not recommended that a vehicle enter the machine in a single manoeuvre, but rather a three-point turn in order to be completely straight on the platform. The space for correction once on the parking platform is minimal, so the straighter a vehicle gets before entering, the better.

3) Maximum number of cars per single unit
As per the data sheet for the TrendVario 4300 (attached, see top right)), the maximum number of cars in any one unit or “cluster” is 29 (three cars high by 10 bays wide, less one car for the empty space).

Please let me know if there is anything I have missed, or if you would like any further information.
Kind regards,

KLAUS multiparking australia
648 Glenhuntly Road,
South Caulfield, VIC 3162
p: 03 9505 3085  f: 03 9532 9690 | 1800 MULTIPARK
It is the responsibility of the receiver of this transmission to ascertain the accuracy and the suitability of the material for their purposes.
Klaus Multiparking Australia shall not be held liable for any loss, damage or expense arising out of the use of material contained in this



  1. Edwin O'Flynn says:

    Nominations for Manningham Council open on Thursday 20th September and close at 12noon on Tuesday 25th September.

  2. Ken and Barbie says:

    It appears that Manningham Council have quite deliberately withheld information with the express purpose of limiting objections to the 15 storey apartment proposal at 20-24 Hepburn Road by not revealing that it would be 15 storeys and the majority of its car parking would be in stacker format. The mandatory signage erected on the block and the notifications letters sent to local residents, during the advertising period, inviting public comment, did not disclose stacker parking. Although much of the area on the sign was used up by unnecessarily repeating the address there was still enough space to reveal the parking method, had Council chose to. A photo of signage has been forwarded to this website.
    At the March 2012 meeting a resident asked the following question; Q) Would Council please explain why advertising for the apartment proposal at 20-24 Hepburn Road, Doncaster Hill, the sign placed on the land; A) did not reveal that the complex was to provide most of its parking requirement in car stacker format; B) why it did not indicate the number of proposed storeys. ANSWER; The Acting Director Planning & Environment advised that the notice of an application for a planning permit is not big enough to have the full details of the application written onto it but contained enough information to make people who read it aware of the proposal and provide them with the application number in order to come to the Office to view the actual file. The Notice was not the only communication given of an application as residents nearby are all written to. (ends)
    The above answer is not correct. There was still room enough to inform the community of this controversial method of parking particularly on the scale envisaged. The information in the letters sent to residents was restricted to the following; Planning Application No. PL11/021760 20-24 Hepburn Road and 1 Short Street Doncaster, Development of land for 188 Dwellings over a basement car park.
    The officer was correct in stating that plans of the proposal are usually available for public scrutiny at council during office hours but this is generally regard as not convenient for most residents who rely on information gleaned from signage and/or letters sent to the nearby community.

Leave a Reply

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