RESIDENTS RALLY AGAINST CAR STACKER PARKING

MECHANICAL PARKING PROPOSED TO ENABLE MORE UNITS

A developer of a town house development at 15 Glendale Avenue, Templestowe wants to install car stacker parking in 8 single garages so that the space saved can be put towards extra units on the land. Stacker parking in new developments is only acceptable where normal parking cannot be achieved and is not environmentally friendly since they draw a lot of electricity at a time when Melbourne is already experiencing blackouts. This is in direct conflict with Manningham’s own 2020 climate action plan.

Typical Two Car Stacker  Click to enlarge

The land is of a sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate double garages. There is no demonstrated reason why parking cannot be met in a normal parking arrangement.  Mechanical parking installations such as car lifts, turntables and car stackers are usually permitted for residential and non residential development where: The topography or lot size does not allow a simpler parking arrangement, an existing building is being refurbished and there is no land available for additional parking OR refurbishment does not include extension of the building so as to increase site coverage or any other works to increase site coverage, all of which have the effect of reducing site area which could be used for conventional parking arrangements.

In the case of

 

non-residential development, the installations are for long-stay parking, Car stackers are inappropriate and commonly not permitted by other Councils.  Stackers are not considered acceptable parking options due to -A carbon footprint, which require a surge in electrical power and are therefore environmentally unacceptable.   climate 2020 action plan (2)

Advertised_Plans_PLN18_0304_15_Glendale_Avenue_Templestowe (3)

The Age reported that a car stacker had fallen more than a metre while a resident was parking a car. The car stacker which allows more than one car to be parked in the one space by raising one vehicle so another vehicles may be parked below it. Picture from Age newspaper below.

The stricken Range Rover in the Shmith's garage.

Councillors will have a say in the matter if Council receive more than 10 objections otherwise proposals of this type in lower density areas are usually delegated for decision by the Manningham Planning Division.

Written objections to this development can be lodged by email addressed to Manningham@manningham.vic.gov.au  Full name and address and phone number must be included with your objection OR www.manningham.vic.gov.au/planning-register Or by mail addressed to Manningham Planning Department 699 Doncaster Road, Doncaster 3108.

6 Responses to “RESIDENTS RALLY AGAINST CAR STACKER PARKING”

  1. Jordan says:

    We had to install a two car stacker behind our unit in Camberwell which was a bit of a hassle to operate initially but better than one of our cars having to to be parked in the street where there is limited parking available. When backing our cars out of the stacker the rear double gate to the back lane had to be opened to allow clearance for our cars to exit the stacker. In new properties so far from the city, where two cars per household are the norm, you need proper parking and room for overhead storage space.

  2. Elmer Donald says:

    As far as I know there are no stacker parking units on Doncaster Hill even though Manningham council have been issuing permits for their installation. Developers won’t entertain them because they tend to devalue a building which will more likely be the case in medium density and outer areas such as Templestowe.

  3. J Dixon says:

    The stackers leave very little options for alternative uses since they are permanently fixed and take up too much of the garage area. 2.600 m x 5.200 and the height of 3.2 m will not accommodate most SUVs, which measure at least 1.8 m, the side clearance leaves very little space for accessing the vehicle and would need to be backed out before loading.

    The toilet, entranced directly from the family room in six of the units, might have to be changed because there is no air lock such as configured in units 1 and 5.

    If I were the developer I would consider changing the plans and reducing the number of units from 8 to 6 and get rid of the car stackers and include double garages.

  4. Lucky says:

    I manage quite a few apartments with stackers (one on top, one on the bottom) – overall there are very few issues. However it does limit your tenant market as only certain size cars can fit on them and there’s a lot of people that hate stackers because they are time consuming and inconvenient. Like all machinery they will need maintenance and that can be expensive.

  5. Ross says:

    The development has not been approved yet and I very much doubt it will be because if it were it will set a precedent where they will deemed acceptable. If they approve this it could be the thin end of the wedge and open slather for car stackers across the municipality.

  6. Desmond again says:

    Approximately a 200 car stackers were approved in Hepburn Road, Doncaster but the new owner who bought the land with the permit refused to install them. The power drain would have been enormous had they been installed.
    The original notice board on the block giving details of a planning application pending did not reveal that most of the parking requirement in the development would be provided by the use of car stackers.
    It would have been a disaster had they been installed because of the limited on-street parking available for the local community in the surrounding area that would have been taken up by short term parking overspill from the the residents of the Hepburn Road development who would want to avoid the humbug of having to repeatedly store and retrieve their vehicles throughout the day.

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.