On 23 September 2025 Council’s Planning Decisions Committee (PDC) refused an application for a planning permit mainly on the basis that the proposal failed to provide enough off-street car parking, which would lead commuters to park in nearby residential streets. By rejecting the application, Council sought to protect residents from commuters.
Context
The planning application was for 418 Burnley Street Richmond, at the corner with Madden Grove, and very close to Burnley Station (and the 603 bus heading south to Brighton).
Resolution
The resolution included two grounds for refusal, that the building would be too tall, and that it had insufficient parking.
What Councillors got right
In our view:
- Councillor Harrison was right to identify that cycling infrastructure in the area isn’t compliant with Yarra’s guidelines, which dissuades people from biking
- Councillor Harrison was right to highlight that on-street parking occupancy in the area was measured (by a consultant) as very high, i.e. above 95%
- Councillor Harrison was right to listen to local residents who pointed out that commuters from the Australia Post office building (just to the north of Burnley Station) were parking all day in their residential streets
- Councillor Davies was right to question whether nearby Cremorne was ‘working’, considering that Balmain Street and Cremorne Street experience severe congestion in the evening peak hour
- Councillor Wade was right to question whether (or suggest that) parking restrictions and enforcements in the area could be strengthened
What Councillors got wrong
In our view:
- Councillor Davies was wrong to state ‘we need to face the reality that we need more parking in Richmond’, for the simple reason that more parking will lead to increased peak hour traffic congestion, which is not in the public interest.
- Councillor Davies was wrong to state ‘they are going to fill our streets’, implying that this was inevitable, because this ignores the fact that Council has the power to set parking restrictions and improve parking enforcement methods, so that commuters aren’t able to occupy on-street parking all day.
- Councillor Aston was wrong to state ‘they never ever take public transport, ever, because they’re not on a direct line’, because the choice to drive is not just about how difficult it is to get to their nearest train station, but also how easy it is to get parking at their destination. If Council tightens parking restrictions and improves enforcement, then commuters will find it impractical to drive and park, and will instead have to find an alternative, such as a bus or e-bike to their nearest station, or car-sharing with a colleague who has access to parking in their building.
- Councillor Aston was wrong to state ‘we need to cater for the choices that are going to be made’, implying that we need to provide enough parking, because it’s impossible for an inner city area to provide enough parking (either on-street, public off-street, or private off-street) for everyone, nor is it possible to build enough roads to transport all those cars into the inner city in peak hour without congestion. Cities around the world have figured this out, and are instead investing in walking, biking, and public transport.
Likely outcome
The likely outcome for this planning application is that it will be overturned at VCAT, owing to established precedent, i.e. Red Dot decisions.
In the VCAT Red Dot Decision Ronge v Moreland CC [2017] the Tribunal made the following key statements in support of a reduction in parking provisions:
Our roads are already congested and will be unimaginably so if a ‘business-as-usual’ approach is accepted through until 2050. The stark reality is that the way people move around Melbourne will have to radically change, particularly in suburbs so well served by different modes of public transport and where cycling and walking are practical alternatives to car based travel.
–
A car parking demand assessment is called for by Clause 52.06-6 when there is an intention to provide less car parking than that required by Clause 52.06-5.
–
However, discussion around existing patterns of car parking is considered to be of marginal value given the strong policy imperatives about relying less on motor vehicles and more on public transport, walking and cycling. Census data from 2011 or 2016 is simply a snapshot in time, a base point, but such data should not be given much weight in determining what number of car spaces should be provided in future, for dwellings with different bedroom numbers.
–
Policy tells us the future must be different.
–
Oversupplying parking, whether or not to comply with Clause 52.06, has the real potential to undermine the encouragement being given to reduce car based travel in favour of public transport, walking and cycling.
–
One of the significant benefits of providing less car parking is a lower volume of vehicle movements and hence a reduced increase in traffic movements on the road network.
VCAT Red Dot Decision
A growing city
Melbourne is a growing city, with a population expected to reach 8 million by 2050. Yarra is a highly attractive location for people to live or work, because it is close to the city centre and well serviced by public transport. We need to accept the reality that there will be more medium-density and high-density development around our train stations, and plan for it.
State government policy
The state government has recognised this and has declared that whole municipality will be an ‘activity centre’, as part of their Activity Centre Program. This means that they are welcoming higher density development, especially around train stations. The planning application aligns with that policy.
The state government is also aware of the relationship between traffic congestion and the provision of off-street parking. If an inner-city area with a lot of office space also offers a lot of off-street parking, then the local streets will experience peak-hour traffic congestion. The state is responsible for managing traffic congestion on arterial roads – they know they can’t widen roads in the inner city, so instead they are seeking to minimise any further increases in traffic congestion by:
- increasing the costs of using off-street parking, via the congestion levy
- minimising the growth in off-street parking, by modernising parking requirements
The state government congestion levy is a fee that must be paid by land-owners to the State Revenue Office, for each applicable off-street car park. The levy acts to increase the cost of choosing to drive and park in the levy area, and also dissuades developers from including a large number of off-street car parks in future buildings. In 2024 the state government determined that the congestion levy area will be expanded to include the southern half of Yarra, including Burnley. For this planning application, the developer understandably responded to that signal by asking for a reduction in the car parking requirements.
For the City of Yarra, which is well served by public transport and defined as a ‘High Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) area’, the state government is proposing to eliminate costly parking mandates. No minimum spaces would be required. Developers would be free to choose how many off-street car parks to include in each new building, and Council would not have the ability to refuse a planning permit on the grounds of providing insufficient off-street parking. Thus, Council is faced with the question of how to protect residents from commuters.
Solutions
Council can and should protect residents from the parking congestion and traffic congestion caused by commuters, by:
- expanding permit zones and ticket zones, so that there aren’t any unrestricted parking bays
- improving parking enforcement, by changing from sensors (which can be re-set by driving out, then reversing back in) to number plate scanning, so that commuters can’t park in the same street (or neighbourhood) for longer than the signposted time limit, e.g. 2 hours or 4 hours
- approving reductions to car parking provisions, i.e. allowing developers to deliver lower cost housing or offices, which ends up as lower rents, i.e. supporting economic activity in Yarra, and acts to reduce the growth in traffic congestion
- increasing investment in walking and biking, so that footpaths are wide, smooth and level, safe crossings are available at regular intervals, and the bicycle network is cohesive, direct, safe, comfortable, and attractive
In parallel, the state government can and should improve public transport, including reforming the bus networks that link to each suburban train station. These concepts are described in more detail in our better for parking page and our actions page.
Learn more about managing parking in cities
Plenty of information is available for how best to manage parking in contested inner city areas, apart from the state government discussion paper shown above, including material from the Parking Reform Network, and the following texts:
Conclusion
The Planning Decisions Committee (PDC) on 23 September 2025 was a good introduction to the issue of integrated transport and land use planning. Responsible authorities (local and state) can’t separate the issues of transport from the issues of planning – the two are interdependent. Nor can Council ‘hold back the tide’ of development – Yarra is a highly attractive inner-city location and if Council continues to block, then it’s highly likely that the state will take planning powers away. It’s in the public interest for Councillors to learn from that case study and improve both how they make planning decisions, and what transport policies they implement.
Published 27 September 2025