SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER

CAR-PARKING STRATEGY STAGE 1 – MARGARET RIVER

Sustainable Development Directorate Shire of Augusta Margaret River

2014

Adopted 12 November 2014

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION________________________________________________1

2.0 OBJECTIVES___________________________________________________2

3.0 STATUTORY AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT_____________________________2 3.1 Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) 3.2 Local Planning Strategy 3.3 Supertown Growth Plan 3.4 Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) 3.5 Activity Centres Policy for Greater Bunbury

4.0 PARKING AND SUSTAINABILITY____________________________________4

5.0 THE COST OF CAR-PARKING_______________________________________5

6.0 CAR-PARKING STANDARDS LPS1___________________________________6 6.1 Comparison with other Shire’s

7.0 REVIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS____________________________________9 7.1 Woolworths 7.2 Lot 500 Bussell Highway (Caltex site) 7.3 Time limited parking

8.0 APPROACHES TO PARKING PROVISION_____________________________11 8.1 Minimum requirements 8.2 Demand at the 85th percentile

9.0 CAR-PARKING IN THE MARGARET RIVER TOWN CENTRE_______________13 9.1 Existing Provision 9.2 Population and Retail Growth 9.3 Future Car-parking Demand

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS_____________________________________20 10.1 Parking standards for the Margaret River town centre 10.2 Cash in Lieu Of Car-parking 10.3 Active Transport as a Parking Demand Management Tool 10.4 Time Limited Parking 10.5 Residential Parking Standards in the town centre 10.6 Parking in Secondary Settlements 10.7 Purchase of Parking 10.8 Way finding signage 10.9 Parking audits 10.10 Motorcycle Parking 10.11 Summary of Recommendations 10.12 Implementation

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River is a growing Shire which aspires to provide a high quality built environment in order to support healthy lifestyles and a thriving economy. In order to do this, the Shire requires a contemporary set of planning requirements which reflect industry best practice. A paradigm shift is occurring wherein transport demand management is becoming the primary tool for responding to increased parking demand, rather than the construction of more parking. This requires the Shire to set in place a new strategy to guide future decision making and urban planning. Margaret River’s identification as a ‘Supertown’ and the associated works planned for the Town Centre, have placed an increased focus upon the efficiency of transport and parking options in the central area. One of the key objectives of the Supertown funded ‘Townsite Improvement Plan’ is to promote a more pedestrian and cycle friendly environment. This follows an increasing trend towards more efficient use of existing transport infrastructure as an alternative to expanding roads and parking facilities. Notwithstanding, the primary mode of travel to the Town Centre continues to be the private motor vehicle and thus sufficient parking remains a critical component of future planning for the town. The recommendations contained within this strategy attempt to find a balance between an adequate parking supply which ensures the prosperity of the businesses within the Town Centre and the trend towards more efficient use of transportation infrastructure and transport demand management techniques. Old Parking Paradigm New Parking Paradigm

“Parking problem” means inadequate parking supply.

There can be many types of parking problems, including inadequate or excessive supply, too low or high prices, inadequate user information, and inefficient management.

Abundant parking supply is always desirable.

Too much supply is as harmful as too little.

Parking should generally be provided free, funded indirectly, through rents and taxes.

As much as possible, users should pay directly for parking facilities.

Parking should be available on a first-come basis.

Parking should be regulated to favour higher priority uses and encourage efficiency.

Parking requirements should be applied rigidly, without exception or variation.

Parking requirements should reflect each particular situation, and should be applied flexibly.

Innovation faces a high burden of proof and should only be applied if proven and widely accepted.

Innovations should be encouraged, since even unsuccessful experiments often provide useful information.

Parking management is a last resort, to be applied only if increasing supply is infeasible.

Parking management programs should be widely applied to prevent parking problems.

“Transportation” means driving. Land use dispersion (sprawl) is acceptable or even desirable.

Driving is just one type of transport. Dispersed, automobile- dependent land use patterns can be undesirable.

Figure 1 - Old and New Parking Paradigms Compared Source - Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning 2013 - Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute

1

2.0 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Car-parking Strategy are to: a) Review the efficacy and relevance of existing car-parking standards contained in LPS1; b) Investigate the adequacy of existing car-parking; c) Achieve maximum utilisation of existing car-parking bays; d) Ensure an adequate supply of future car-parking spaces can be provided that are

conveniently located and are easily accessible to support the desired growth of the town centre;

e) Ensure that the provision of car-parking facilities does not diminish the urban character, result in a poor urban design outcome, or overly restrict redevelopment; and

f) Encourage alternative forms of transport and actively promote these other sustainable modes of transport within the town centre.

Better managed parking in the Town will have a positive quadruple bottom line impact: Economic – it will support increased development in the town with more efficient use of land for both parking and other land uses. Social – it will support a shift to increased density which allows more housing and jobs which are easily accessible.

Cultural – it will support more effective monitoring of compliance which will create more turnover of spaces and free up more spaces for the intended users. This will attract more activity and investment.

Environmental – until more cars become electric and do not emit pollution, emissions would be less than if an increased parking supply was provided, which will attract more vehicles to the Town centre. 3.0 STATUTORY AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT 3.1 Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) LPS1 sets out the minimum amount of parking to be provided for any new development or change of landuse. Clause 5.8.1 ‘Car-parking requirements’ states: “(a) Land within the Scheme Area shall not be used or developed for any of the purposes requiring planning approval under the Scheme unless car parking is provided on the site in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 12…….” Examples of minimum standards contained at Schedule 12 are as follows: Retail: 1 bay per 25m2 Showroom: 1 bay per 50m2

Office: 1 bay per 25m2 (with street frontage) 1 bay per 40m2(first floor and above)

2

3.2 Local Planning Strategy Recommendations of the Local Planning Strategy relevant to car-parking are: “3.13.7 Development will be required to provide car parking in line with the provisions set out in Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and any relevant local planning policies. The provision of semi-permeable car parking surfaces and planting of trees to provide shade to parking areas should also be taken into consideration. 3.13.8 A comprehensive parking strategy will be developed by the local government to address future parking supply needs, car park locations, access arrangements, management strategies and funding mechanisms (including cash-in-lieu contributions), for settlements within the Shire.” 3.3 Supertown Growth Plan Section 3.7.2 of the Supertown Growth Plan is applicable in that it relates to car-parking. It states: “There are currently over 1,100 parking spaces within 400 metres of the centre of the townsite and available for public use (GHD 2012). A parking assessment undertaken by GHD in December 2011 suggested that parking space occupancy is about 60%. An additional retail anchor tenant (Woolworths) will add a further 208 vehicle spaces to parking provision in the centre of the townsite by mid-2013. Opportunities exist to provide additional parking in a number of locations throughout the Townsite, including Churchill Avenue and Town View Terrace.” 3.4 Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) “The Local Planning Scheme should be amended to revise the townsite centre parking standards for commercial and residential developments within 400m of the centre of the townsite. The proposed commercial parking standard is one space per 30m2. The residential car parking standards proposed are: maximum of one car parking space per one/two bed dwelling, and a maximum of two spaces per three or more bed dwelling. Schedule 12 of the Local Planning Scheme should apply for other land uses.” “There is potential for an additional 600-800 parking spaces that could be provided within decked car parks in the centre of the townsite. This will require further study to determine the engineering and visual constraints of these structures.” “Therefore, for the purposes of this strategy a cash-in-lieu payment of $30,000 per space is appropriate for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River, but this should be confirmed following the design and costing of the decked car parking areas.” 3.5 Activity Centres Policy for Greater Bunbury The Activity Centres Policy for Greater Bunbury is a policy produced by the Western Australian Planning Commission to guide the size, location and design of activity centres in the Greater Bunbury Region. Whilst not directly applicable to the Margaret River region, the policy does provide important guidance on the topic of car-parking which is relevant to the extent that the Margaret River Town Centre is classified as an ‘activity centre’ under the terms of the policy.

3

Section 3.3.6 ‘Sustainable forms of transport, traffic management and parking’ contains the following policy provisions: The planning of activity centres should: “• promote an efficient supply of car parking by a suitable allocation of on-street, off-

street public and shared parking including cash-in-lieu and reciprocal / shared use arrangements;

• prioritise access by different users and modes. e.g. central locations for short-stay parking with commuter and other long-stay parking near the edge of centres;

• enable most parking in higher-order centres to be supplied in the form of public or common-user facilities rather than reserved for a class of users. e.g. customers of a particular site or business….

For land within the boundary of an activity centre, the responsible authority should as a rule, set upper limits to car parking in view of opportunities for reciprocal and shared parking, availability of on-street or other public parking and the need for land efficiency.” 4.0 PARKING AND SUSTAINABILITY

The adoption of an environmentally responsible car-parking strategy can assist the Shire to achieve its strategic objective of ‘managing growth sustainably’ by promoting sustainable transport goals (see figure 2). This can be achieved by applying increased focus on the management of parking demand rather than parking provision only. Until/unless private automobiles are powered by ‘clean’ fuels, the use of cars will have a negative environmental impact by emitting carbon dioxide, which is known to contribute to harmful climate change. Experts agree that the provision of large amounts of readily available parking incentivises car use over other more sustainable modes of transport. It is expensive, takes up large areas of space, is aesthetically unpleasing and can contribute to urban drainage problems. If large amounts of car-parking are continuously vacant, an expectation is created that drivers will easily find a place to park and therefore other transportation options for that trip will not be considered. The Shire’s objective should not be to provide a parking bay to accommodate every possible car. In terms of supply, the Shire should seek to provide well located parking which is frequently used by multiple cars over the course of a day. It should be sufficient but not plentiful. In conjunction with a responsible approach to parking supply, non-motorised forms of transport need to be promoted. Both the Shire and developers have role to play in achieving the desired ‘modal shift’. The recommendations of this Strategy together with upgrades to the Margaret River town centre will assist with achieving this objective.

4

Figure 2 - Sustainable Transport Goals.

5.0 THE COST OF PROVIDING PARKING Parking is a relatively expensive commodity incorporated into the costs of buildings and roadway facilities, and added as a hidden surcharge to the price of effectively any good or service. Consumers pay for parking facilities through higher rents for residential parking, lower wages and benefits for employee parking, higher prices for retail goods for commercial parking, and environmental degradation. Shoup (1999) estimates that the total value of parking facilities exceeds the total value of motor vehicles and that providing minimum parking requirements is estimated to cost 4.4 times as much per square metre of developed building as other municipal services combined. (Austroads Guide to traffic management 1998)

Each on-street kerbside parking space requires 15.6 m² of land and encroaches 2.4 m into the roadway. Off-street parking generally requires 28 – 35 m² per space which includes an allowance for aisles and vehicle access. The current cost of constructing at-grade bays is approximately $5,000. Above ground deck parking will cost at least $30,000 per space, plus the cost of land. The cost of below ground parking is even higher at >$39,000 per space. Thus the capital cost of a two level, 50 bay deck car-park is approximately $1.1 million setting aside geotechnical considerations. The opportunity cost of off-street parking is significant. If the land were to be sold or leased for other uses, the Shire and broader community would benefit from the income generated by the sale/lease and the subsequent land-use on the property. The interest that could be earned on this potential income represents a lost opportunity for the Shire.

5

Although costly, it should be noted that car-parking can add value and indeed be vital to some developments. In the case of Margaret River, there is no alternative public transport option to accessing the Town Centre and therefore the provision of parking is essential to supporting a viable and prosperous activity centre. 6.0 CAR-PARKING STANDARDS – LPS1 The car-parking requirements applicable in the Shire of Augusta Margaret River are set out in Schedule 12 of LPS1 (see Appendix 1). It is not known as to where the standards have been derived from, however it is instructive to note that they are generally consistent with those contained within (now rescinded) Scheme 11 and Scheme 17, with differences mainly attributable to the change from reliance on gross lettable area (GLA), to net lettable area (NLA) for example: Land Use Scheme No. 11 1985 Scheme No. 17 1991 Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) 2010 Shop 1 space per 15m2 GLA 1 space per 15m2 GLA 1 space per 25m2 NLA Showroom 1 space per 50m2 GLA 1 space per 50m2 GLA 1 space per 50m2 NLA Office 1 space per 30m2 GLA 1 space per 30m2 GLA 1 space per 40m2 NLA Figure 3 – Comparison of parking requirements – various Planning Schemes A summary of the parking requirements currently applicable to some of the key land use categories is as follows: • General, Light and Service Industry: 1 bay per 50m2 • Restaurant: 1 space per 4 seats. • Hotel: 1 unit of accommodation where appropriate and 1 bay per 6m2 of bar space

(areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 6 patrons.

The Scheme at section 5.8. also sets out the circumstances wherein reciprocal use of parking and cash in lieu of parking can be applied. 6.1 Comparison with other Local Authorities In 2009, ARRB conducted a study for the WA Department for Planning and Infrastructure which compared the Parking Ratios (also known as Car-Parking Standards) of several Councils according to various land use classes (see Figure 4). The variation in requirements can in part be attributed to the multitude of factors which can differ between local government areas such as access to public transport, population and density of development. The comparison does however provide a useful description of the extent of requirements in different Local Government areas.

6

Figure 4 – Summary of parking ratios applicable to WA LGA’s For areas outside of the Town Centre, there appears to be few reported problems with the current parking rates, as set out in Schedule 12 of LPS1. Whilst not being an absolute determinant of the validity of current parking rates, a comparison is provided at Figure 5 between the car-parking requirements applicable to key landuses in Augusta Margaret River and regional centres located in Western Australia.

7

SHIRE Augusta

Margaret River City of Bunbury City of Albany City of

Geraldton LAND USE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Warehouse 1 space per 50m²

nla up to 200m² plus 1 space per 100m² above 200m².

1 bay per 100 square metres of nla of buildings and outdoor areas used for storage and/or display only; plus 1 bay per 50 square metres of nla of buildings and outdoor areas used for display and sale by wholesale – But with a minimum of not less than 5 bays, whichever is the greater.

None 1/100m2 NLA

Consulting Rooms

4 spaces for each practitioner the premises are designed to accommodate at any one time.

4 bays for each consulting room and/or health consultant or 1 bay per 20 square metres of nla, whichever is the greater; But with a minimum of not less than 5 bays, whichever is the greater.

5 for staff use and 1 for every 30m2 of floor space

5/Practitioner

Civic Use 1 space per 25m² nla.

1 bay for every 4 seats or 1 bay for every 4 persons the building is designed to accommodate, whichever is the greater

1 parking space for every 40m2 of floor space

1/30m2 NLA

Figure 5 – Sample of parking requirements in various WA Regional Shire’s. Of particular relevance in Augusta Margaret River is the effect that tourist traffic can have on parking demand, given the attractiveness of the Shire as a major tourist destination. Local and interstate Shire’s with similar tourism profiles provide more useful comparisons, as can be found at Figure 6.

SHIRE Augusta Margaret

River Byron Bay (NSW) Busselton (WA)

Noosa (Qld)

LAND USE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Shop 1 space per 25m² nla.

1 per 20m2 gross floor area

4 spaces per 100m2 in Business zone (Busselton / Dunsborough) for all uses, or otherwise 1 space per 30m2

1 space per 20m2 of gross floor area

Office 1 space per 25m² nla (1 apace per 40m2 above ground level)

1 per 20m2 gross floor area

1 space per 30m2 1 space per 20m2 of gross floor area

Restaurant 1 space per 4 seats.

1 per 7.5 m2 gross floor area or 1 per 3 seats, whichever is the greater.

1 space per 4 seats/6m2 of public area

1 space per 20m2 of gross floor area

8

Hotel / Tavern

1 unit of accommodation where appropriate and 1 bay per 6m2 of bar space (areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 6 patrons.

1 per 5 m2 public area in bars and lounges plus parking requirements for accommodation in accordance with requirements of motel.

1 space per bedroom plus 1 space for every 3m2 of public bar area plus 1 space for every 4m2 of lounge area

Performance based.

Figure 6 – Sample of parking requirements in Australian tourist locations 7.0 REVIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS 7.1 Woolworths In 2010, Council approved a Woolworths supermarket together with a liquor store and 14 specialty retail tenancies at Lot 66 Townview Terrace. Council required that 219 carbays be provided to cater for its 5832m2 overall floor area. Subsequently, the owners applied for a change of use approval to convert some of the approved retail tenancies to a ‘Fast Food Outlet’. It was considered that the subject floor area had eight (8) parking bays allocated to it on a pro-rata basis because it represented 3.5% of the overall net lettable area in the centre and was therefore entitled to 3.5% of the approved 219 parking bays. The parking requirement for the ‘Fast Food Outlet’ was calculated at 20 parking bays for 80 seats in accordance with Schedule 12 of LPS1, which requires one bay per 4 seats. As such there was a shortfall of 12 bays. Council explored the possibility of cash-in-lieu contributions under clause 5.8.7 and concluded that a cash-in-lieu contribution could not be accepted because there were no suitable nearby areas to construct parking which would benefit the Site and the subject land use. The Report also considered the uses operating at different times in accordance with clause 5.8.3 and concluded that there is no substantial difference in the operating hours of the ‘Fast Food Outlet’ and the other uses approved on the Site given that the ‘Fast Food Outlet’ can only operate between 7am and 9pm under condition 4 of the Approval. As such, the change of use proposal was refused. 7.2 Lot 500 Bussell Highway (Gull site) In July 2012, the Shire approved a two storey commercial development consisting of six shops on the ground floor and five offices on the first floor at Lot 500, at a former service station site on Bussell Highway, zoned ‘Town Centre’. Parking on the site is proposed behind the building with access from Ned Higgins Lane. Parking is also proposed on a separate lot (Lot 501) directly across the laneway from Lot 500, which is also zoned ‘Town Centre’ and under the same ownership. Parking is to be provided in accordance with LPS1 at the following ratios: 828m2 retail nla @ 1 bay per 25m2 = 33 bays 598m2 office nla @ 1 bay per 40m2 = 15 bays

9

7.3 Time limited parking In 2009, Council resolved to initiate a proposal to introduce time limited parking to specific locations within the town centre. Council requested that officers prepare a proposal for the implementation of parking restrictions in the Margaret River town centre and seek community feedback, with a view to possible implementation prior to Christmas 2009. The Margaret River Townsite Strategy noted that “Currently parking within the town centre lacks any formal management or strategic direction …” and “Ultimately it is considered that parking accommodation within the Margaret River CBD is adequate if staff relocated from prime parking areas.” The strategy recommended the introduction of time limits on Bussell Highway, Fearn Avenue and Charles West Avenue. In response to a formal advertising process, 32 responses were received with the proposal failing to win the support of the business community. Council resolved to defer implementation so that issues raised during the consultation process can be investigated. In particular, development of a parking strategy for the town centre was sought by Council, given the population growth rates and the potential for major development/redevelopment within the town centre, and would be consistent with the recommendations of the Margaret River Townsite Strategy. In the interim, Council requested more efficient use of existing parking facilities be pursued through the provision of directional signage to existing car-parks and working with the business community to educate staff not to park in prime customer locations. The Integrated Transport Strategy reflects on the decision not to progress with time limited parking. It states: “It is understood that a proposal was previously put to the community to introduce time limited parking on Bussell Highway and in surrounding commercial areas and was rejected by Council. Restrictions on time allowed in a bay should be reinvestigated and be implemented as measure to ensure a higher turnover of parking bays.”

10

8.0 APPROACHES TO PARKING PROVISION 8.1 Minimum requirements Most local authorities have minimum parking provision rates, or standards, incorporated into their Local Planning Schemes. These are usually based on demand studies published elsewhere, or rates used successfully in adjoining Shire’s rather than any local assessment of demand. They are often broadly categorised; for example the use class of ‘shop’ is applicable to a range of different retail outlets with varying parking demand. The resultant outcome is that parking requirements can be at significant variance with the actual demand generated by a particular use, as demonstrated at Figure 7.

Figure 7 – Comparison of predicted vs evidenced parking needs

Minimum parking ratios are a historical by-product of plentiful and inexpensive land and a lack of convenient payment technologies. The ratios were seen as a means for shifting the responsibility of catering for parking demand onto private developers, thereby ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the local road network. The methodology underlying minimum parking ratios is considered to lack accuracy and efficiency in the following ways:

• It uses conservative design standards: Minimum parking ratios are typically designed so as to cater for most peak demands. This considers developments independently of the surrounding urban environment and ignores the potential to share parking resources between adjacent developments, leading to an oversupply of under-utilised parking.

• The ratios result in fragmented parking supplies: Because of the requirement for individual developments to cater for their parking demands, growing town centres are increasingly dominated by fragmented parking areas and there are several examples of these in the Town.

• Minimum ratios are unresponsive to demand management: There are numerous examples of cost-effective parking management measures that do not require increasing the supply of parking. Examples include shower and locker facilities for employees who walk or cycle, unbundling employee parking from salary packages, and developing workplace travel plans. Minimum parking ratios fail to account for demand management strategies and therefore provide no incentive for consideration of alternative transport modes.

For all of these reasons, minimum parking ratios are inaccurate and inefficient. In a number of jurisdictions maximum parking ratios are also applied. This is typically to prevent oversupply in out of centre locations where land is cheaper and retail seeks to compete by convenience. This situation isn’t relevant to Margaret River. In addition maximum rations

11

are typically associated with an efficient public transport system. Austroads recommends that parking provision standards for all types of parking should be interpreted and applied with caution. The main reasons are discussed below:

• Provision standards such as those given in Table 3.1 are often quite arbitrary and based on highly scattered data. For example, demand studies for ‘General Office Building’ published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Institute of Transportation Engineers 1987) show a range from 0.81 to 5.76 parking spaces occupied per 100 m2 of gross floor area. Standards based on averaging the values from such studies result in excessive parking for some buildings and insufficient parking for others.

• Conditions may vary widely for developments and land uses of the same type, and for different locations within an urban region. Specific parking needs may be quite different from those indicated in a rigid table of parking provision requirements. Also, changes in parking demands over a period of time may render documented parking provision standards inapplicable.

• Parking provision requirements are based on parking generation studies that are typically performed at new, suburban sites with unpriced parking. The parking provision standards resulting from this approach tend to be unnecessarily high for urban areas with good multi-modal accessibility options, and where parking is typically priced.

• Setting parking provision requirements does not normally take into account reciprocal parking arrangements that may exist between establishments such as universities, sports clubs, etc.

• Application of generous parking provision standards increases the cost for a given amount of development. For example, Willson states that increasing parking requirements from one to two spaces per unit increases the land required for a three-story multi-family housing by approximately 33% (Willson 1995). (Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 11 – Parking 2008)

8.2 Demand at the 85th percentile The alternative to using parking provision standards, and a more accurate method of linking supply to demand, is to base the provision of parking on actual estimates of demand. This is typically done by conducting parking demand surveys at the site under investigation or at other sites that exhibit similar characteristics. Alternatively, the demand may be estimated based on patronage numbers or other data that provides a good indication of the profile of use of the site. This approach is often employed for mixed-use development and special event sites. In either case the estimated level of demand should take into consideration the availability of access to alternative transport options. Conventional practice is to not provide parking supply to meet demand on the busiest day of the year as this approach would be uneconomical because parking supply would exceed demand for all but one day of the year. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to link the supply of parking to the demand on an average day, as this would mean that there would be insufficient parking available on half the days of every year. Instead, accepted practice is to

12

adopt a level of supply to satisfy the parking demand that will only be exceeded for a number of hours or days each year. This demand is most often taken to be equivalent to the

85th

percentile hourly utilisation level experienced throughout the year. Where this is difficult to accurately determine, often the peak hour demand on the tenth (or fifteenth) busiest day of the year is used. 9.0 CAR-PARKING IN THE MARGARET RIVER TOWN CENTRE The Margaret River Town Centre study area encompasses an 820m stretch of Bussell Highway and all land within its vicinity zoned ‘Town Centre’ (see Figure 8).

Figure 8 – Margaret River Town Centre Study Area.

13

9.1 Existing Provision There are currently over 1300 car bays available within the Town Centre area, available for public use. These bays consist of on-street and off-street bays, bays upon Shire controlled land and bays upon private land. The most substantial car-parking areas provided by the Shire are depicted at Figure 9. Larger car-parks provided on private land are depicted at Figure 10. Historically provision of parking for some private development has occurred on public land. Whilst the Town Centre in its entirety is compact and can be easily accessed on foot, the increase in gradient at the southern extent of Bussell Highway, and approaching Woolworths via Willmott Avenue to the East, are a disincentive to parking centrally and accessing a range of destinations on foot from that location. Being a small town with plentiful parking has also encouraged a culture of ‘parking at the door’ and this would particularly be true for trips involving access to supermarkets, where the ability to load large amounts of groceries directly from the checkout to the car provides convenience.

Figure 11 - Existing floor space for various land uses in the Margaret River Town Centre.

Revitalisation of the Town Centre via implementation of the Main Street Improvement Plan will reconfigure existing parking without significantly increasing the number of bays, with improvements focussed on amenity and supporting modal shift. There are currently no plans to construct additional car-parking within the Study Area.

Figure 11 combines a land use survey undertaken in 2012, with floor space details of development undertaken since that time (Woolworths), to arrive at the existing supply of floor space of various types in the Town Centre. A comparison between available parking bays with the existing parking supply (over 1300 bays) indicates that on average, 1 car bay per 25m2 of generic (all landuses) floor space is currently in place.

Landuse Floor Space (m2) Government Agency, office 2870 Clothing and accessories 3035 Recreation and Entertainment Equipment

2900

Furniture, house wares and appliances

6935

Groceries and specialty foods 9213 Food and liquor catering 5075 Garden and hardware goods 3605 Other goods personal and services 3595 Vacant 4474 Total 34705m2

14

Figure 9 – Example of car-parks and no. of car bays on Shire controlled land

15

Figure 10 – Example of car-parks and no. of car bays on privately owned land

16

Some limited surveys of the occupancy of existing carparks have previously been undertaken with the results outlined below: Easter Christmas Coles car-park 100% occupied Coles car-park 100%

occupied IGA car-park 100% occupied (note – this predates the expansion of the IGA carpark in 2013)

IGA car-park 100% occupied

Figure 12 – Survey 2006

Time Coles car-park IGA capark 9am 54% occupied 37% occupied 11am 74% 66% 1pm 76% 62% 3pm 74% 59% 5pm 47% 15%

Figure 13 -Survey – 2/3 September 2009

On 10 December 2011 between 10am and 1pm GHD consultants undertook a parking beat survey and found that the parking space occupancy was approximately 60%. The assessment that 1 car-parking bay is available per 25m2 of generic commercial floor space, suggests that on theoretical basis there is not a current shortage of parking in the Margaret River town centre. The results of surveys undertaken confirm this to be the case. 9.2 Population and Retail Growth As at 2014 the population of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River was 13,250 persons (source, ABS). This is predicted to grow to between 15,200 and 19,400 by 2026 with a proportionally significant amount of the anticipated growth to be accommodated in the Margaret River townsite. (WA Tomorrow, Population Report No. 7, Department of Planning Feb 2012). Car-parking in the Town Centre is generally provided to suit the amount of development which occurs, rather than to suit increases in the population, however it is accepted that commercial floor space will generally increase in line with the population as the demand for commercial floor space created by the increased population is met. As shown at Figure 10, there is currently approximately 35,000m2 of commercial floor space in the Margaret River town centre. It is predicted that at 2031, an additional 35,000m2 of floor space will be required. The Supertown Growth plan for Margaret River identifies that 8,000m2 is likely to be provided in ‘new’ neighbourhood centres and that 4,000m2 of retail floor space can be accommodated in vacant tenancies within the Margaret River Town Centre. The remaining 23,000m2 is likely to be office floor space and developed in the Margaret River town centre. Based upon an assumed 2/3 ground floor 1/3 upper floor, this level of office development would, under current requirements, require approximately 800 new car bays to be constructed.

17

9.3 Future Car-parking Demand The available evidence suggests that at peak times within the holiday periods associated with Christmas and Easter, all available bays can be occupied. As has been discussed in this strategy however, it should not be the goal of the Shire to ensure that there is always spare car-parking capacity in the Town Centre. Given the significant difference in demand between peak and non-peak periods, this would result in large amounts of parking being underutilised for most of the year. Such an approach would incentivise car use over other available means, would be expensive, unattractive, and would remove land from being available for other productive uses. Based upon an estimation of the population increase and associated residential and commercial expansion, the Integrated Transport Strategy concludes that an additional 700 vehicles will enter the town centre at 2035 during the peak hour. If the mode share targets outlined by the Integrated Transport Strategy are achieved, this will be reduced to 577 vehicles (see Figure 14). The corresponding impact of fewer cars entering the Town Centre is a reduction in demand for car-parking bays.

Figure 14 - Achieving Mode Share – Incremental Targets

A comparison between the number of additional cars looking for a car bay at the peak hour (700 – excluding any reduction achieved through modal shift) and the amount of bays required from the likely amount of new development (800), gives a broad understanding of the adequacy of the current car-parking ratios and identifies that there is scope for the ratio to be reduced. The discrepancy between supply and demand is increased if the Shire’s mode share targets are achieved thus reducing the number of cars requiring a place to park. If demand at the 85th percentile is assumed rather than peak demand the discrepancy is increased even further. This analysis supports a modification to the parking requirements in the Margaret River Town Centre.

18

9.4 Decked Car-parking The Integrated Transport Strategy identifies sites which could potentially accommodate decked car-parking. Decked parking provides the opportunity to maximise the use of scarce land to provide a maximum number of car-parking bays. A review of the sites identified by the ITS is provided below, which should be used to identify a preferred site, towards which cash in lieu contributions could be allocated providing further flexibility for parking provision.

Figure 15 - Potential Decked Parking Sites (ITS) – numbers added.

Site 1 – Predominantly owned by a private landowner. Redevelopment of adjoining sites may result in additional (possibly decked) car-parking however the timing of such is beyond the Shire’s control.

19

Site 2 – Shire Reserve. Contains some significant trees and is in close proximity to historic buildings (former hospital now Community Resource Centre). A decked car-park would be out of character with this locality. Site 3 – Shire reserve. Potential to minimise visual impact given elevated nature of Fearn Avenue. Site 4 – Shire Reserve. Small size would provide limited additional parking. Site 5 – Privately owned. Multiple owners would make development hard to coordinate. Site 6 – Elevated nature of Ned Higgins Lane would makes this site ideal for decked parking however land is privately owned by multiple owners. 10.0 KEY DIRECTIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

10.1 Revised parking standards for the Margaret River Town Centre The ITS recommends that the various parking requirements applicable to commercial landuses be rationalised into one parking standard which would apply to all future applications for commercial landuses within the Margaret River Town Centre. The application of an average parking rate would more logically relate to the total parking demand by making allowance for shared trips that are common throughout the Town Centre. A rationalisation of the parking standards provides the further opportunity for parking rates to be reduced more generally, in acknowledgment of the fact that an oversupply of car-parking can promote the use of private vehicles. A reduction in car-parking would correspond with the Shire’s objective of reducing car use and therefore, if the Shire achieved its intended modal shift, less car-parking bays would be necessary. The ITS recommends a notional parking rate of 1 bay per 30m2. As it applies to ‘retail’ development, a ratio of 1 bay per 30m2 (3.3 bays per 100m2) would not be out of balance with the ratios applied by Local Governments elsewhere in Australia as Figure 16 shows.

20

Figure 16 – Retail car-parking requirements across 168 Australian Planning Schemes

What then, would be the effect of the car-parking ratio recommended by the ITS on a typical mixed use development in the Town Centre? The Gull development discussed in this report would require 48 carbays at one bay per 30m2. This is exactly the same number as required under the existing LPS1 requirements. This is because LPS1 currently allows upper floor office space to be calculated at a reduced rate of 1 bay per 40m2. If a separate rate for upper floor office space was retained at 1 bay per 40m2 and coupled with a reduced rate for other uses of 1 bay per 30m2, the required number of bays required for the Gull example would be reduced to 43 bays. A change from 1 bay per 25m2 as is applicable to most commercial landuses to 1 bay per 30m2 would result in a 20% decrease to the amount of parking required for applicable development. The effect however is magnified in the case of hospitality land uses such as restaurants and cafes. Currently, LPS1 requires the provision of 1 car-parking bay per 4 seats for any café or restaurant. A survey of existing premises indicates that a typical restaurant consists of 1/3 kitchen/utility space to 2/3 seating area. Therefore if a rate of 16 patrons per 30m2 is assumed (including proportionate share of kitchen space), the change to a rate of 1:30m2

would reduce the parking required for restaurants from 4 bays to 1 bay, a decrease of 75%. This is not to say that if a reduction in bays required for hospitality land uses was supported a lack of parking associated with restaurants and cafés would result. This is because the peak demand times associated with these uses differs from other uses in the Town Centre, and given that hospitality uses are likely to continue to make up a similar proportion of the overall floorspace/ demand generation identified in total floorspace growth estimates. As the diagram below shows, on a typical day the fall in demand for bays by office workers corresponds with a peak in demand by restaurants. As such, some reciprocal use of other available bays can occur. Reciprocal use results in the most efficient use of car-parking bays as it extends the period for which they are occupied.

21

Figure 17 - Temporal Distribution of Parking Demand Source - Austroads Guide to Traffic Management 2011.

Notwithstanding, it would not be equitable to afford the commercial sector with a 25% reduction in car-parking and a much greater reduction (75%) to the hospitality sector. A more equitable approach would be to decrease the required bays applicable to hospitality land uses in the Margaret River Town centre as follows: Land Use Existing Requirement Proposed Requirement % Reduction Restaurant/Café 1 space per 4 seats.

1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 30m2 nla whichever is the greater.

25%

Fast Food Outlet/ Lunch Bar 1 space per 4 seats or 1 space per 25m2 nla whichever is the greater.

1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 30m2 nla whichever is the greater.

25%

Hotel/Tavern, Small Bar, Brewery

1 (bay per) unit of accommodation where appropriate and 1 bay per 6m2 of bar space (areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 6 patrons.

1 bay per unit of accommodation where appropriate and 1 bay per 7.5m2 of bar space (areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 7.5 patrons.

25%

Figure 18 – Proposed modifications to car-parking ratios – hospitality land uses.

A reduction in the required number of car bays is not the only reason as to why reduced parking rates for commercial development could be pursued. As evidenced by the Woolworths ‘change of use’ application, once landuses within a mixed used development have been approved, it is extremely hard for them to change over time, in cases where the new landuse has a greater car-parking requirement than that originally approved. For example, a 100m2 showroom has a parking requirement of 2 bays. Should the showroom convert to a shop, the parking requirement increases to 4 bays. Without spare capacity in the existing bays provided for that development, the landuse change is unlikely to be approved. This is counter to the Shire’s objective of administering a flexible planning

22

regime in order to respond to the dynamic nature of the Town Centre and to accommodate its change and growth over time. A further benefit of providing for the modification outlined above would be to enable change of use without the need to obtain planning approval in situations where the existing parking was sufficient to provide for the proposed use (subject to future modifications to LPS1). A reduced commercial parking rate would decrease the amount of regulation associated with changing the use of a premises without any reduction in appropriate controls and standards necessary to deliver development which meets with community expectations. Recommendation No. 1 Parking rates for all non-residential land uses in the Town

Centre be reduced via modification to LPS1 as follows: Ground floor commercial - 1 bay per 30m2 NLA Upper floor office space - 1 bay per 40m2NLA

Recommendation No. 2 The parking rates for all ‘hospitality’ land uses in the Margaret

River Town Centre be reduced via modification to LPS1 as follows: Restaurant/Café - 1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 30m2 nla whichever is the greater. Fast Food Outlet/ Lunch Bar - 1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 30m2 nla whichever is the greater. Hotel/Tavern, Small Bar, Brewery - 1 bay per unit of accommodation where applicable plus 1 bay per 7.5m2 of bar space (areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 7.5 patrons.

23

10.2 Cash in Lieu Of Car-parking Cash in lieu of parking is a facility whereby developers make a cash contribution to the Shire, in lieu of providing parking bays. It is common-place within Australia and there are provisions setting out the circumstances whereby cash in lieu may be accepted within most Local Planning Scheme’s throughout WA. Cash in lieu of parking contributions are held for the sole purpose of providing car bays within proximity of the development which contributed the funds. The Shire currently holds $112,890.75 of funds in its cash in lieu of parking account. Cash in lieu can be attractive to both developers and Local Governments. It allows developers to maximise the use of their finite resource (land) and provides funds to the local government, who may otherwise have sufficient land, but insufficient money to utilise it to its full potential. Cash in lieu meets the earlier stated objective of consolidating parking areas which increases efficiency of land use. As discussed in section 5.0, the cost of providing car-parking is expensive, whether it be provided by the Local Government or private developers. The City of Busselton have acknowledged this fact and its impact upon the progress of development within its City Centre, and resolved to apply a heavily subsidised ‘fixed rate’ for cash in lieu, of $5,000 per bay. The concept of adopting a ‘fixed rate’ for cash in lieu contributions has merit, and was recommended as an outcome of the Integrated Transport Strategy, albeit at a rate 6 times that applied in Busselton ($30,000 per bay) which reflects the true cost. A fixed rate can avoid unnecessary time and work in preparing and assessing quotations and land values to establish land and construction costs on a site by site basis. However, the rate should be thoughtfully and fairly set. Too high and developers will opt to provide all parking on site. Too low and developers will provide no physical parking and opt to provide 100 % cash in lieu which will never amount to a sufficient amount for the Shire to provide alternative parking. In order that the cash in lieu rate is set at a rate sufficient to allow construction of parking on Shire owned land it is recommended that the Shire undertake detailed evaluation of cost and feasibility of decked parking. Recommendation No. 3 Undertake detailed evaluation of cost and feasibility of decked

parking and application of cash in lieu rate.

24

As has been detailed at section 9.0, it is predicted that a parking rate of 1 bay per 30m2 for most commercial landuses will deliver adequate parking to cater for average demand over the course of the next 20 years. This provides the opportunity for the Shire to adopt a position whereby 25% of all required parking could be taken as cash in lieu. Such an approach would:

• Not detract from the timely provision of car-parking by developers in line with the construction of new commercial establishments;

• Make more land available for commercial development to meet the needs of the community;

• Potentially provide over $5 million in revenue (based upon 20,000m2 of new commercial floor space being developed) with which to buy or construct strategically located car-parking; and

• Allow the Shire to maximise the utilisation of land already identified and used for car-parking through the introduction of decked parking.

Recommendation No.4 Subject to the outcome of recommendation 3, 25% of car-parking obligations for any development requiring over 4 bays, may be discharged via the payment of cash in lieu of parking.

25

Figure 19 – Cash in lieu contributions for various Local Governments

26

10.3 Active Transport as a Parking Demand Management Tool Active transport refers to non-motorised forms of transport and can include public transport where walking or cycling forms part of the journey (healthyspacesandplaces.org). By encouraging active transport the demand for car-parking spaces can be reduced and other positive outcomes achieved, such as:

■ a healthier, happier workforce or student body ■ higher productivity and better attitudes towards work ■ reductions in absenteeism ■ reduced work/study time lost from traffic congestion ■ an improved environmental and healthy image for the organisation (Queensland

Transport 2006) Research has shown that the third most important factor affecting a person’s decision to opt for the bicycle as a mode of transport is the availability of end of trip facilities (the other factors being distance and safety). End of trip facilities generally consist of bicycle parking but can also include showers, change rooms lockers and other supportive infrastructure. Currently LPS1 does not specify requirements for end of trip facilities other than a reference at section 5.8 ‘Car-parking’ which states that in addition to car-parking bays “the local government may require the provision of spaces for cycle racks….” Developers should be encouraged to maximise the extent to which buildings support active transport. One way of achieving this would be to provide for a reduction in car-parking bays subject to preparation by the developer of an ‘active transport plan’ inclusive of end of trip facilities to be incorporated into the development. The cost of so doing would be offset by the reduction in space required to be set aside for car-parking, its construction and maintenance, noting that many bicycles can be accommodated within the space necessary to accommodate just one vehicle. It is recommended that LPS1 be amended to include provisions which will allow a reduction in car-parking subject to the preparation and implementation of an active transport plan which is acceptable to the Shire. There are a range of resources available to assist with the determination of the extent to which such facilities as showers are required. The Shire can also assist in incentivising active transport and achieving its mode share aspirations as outlined in the Integrated Transport Strategy, through the main street redevelopment program. As has been demonstrated elsewhere, bicycle facilities are far from being purely functional and can make a positive impact on the aesthetics of the street (see Figure 20) Recommendation No. 5 LPS1 be amended to allow for a reduction in the amount of car-

parking otherwise required, where a developer prepares and implements an active transport plan, to the satisfaction of the Shire. The applicable reduction is to be no more than 10% of the required bays up to a maximum of 5 bays.

27

Figure 20 - Bicycle Parking in New York City

10.4 Time Limited Parking Parking restrictions or time limits are generally the first level of parking controls introduced in cities and towns to ensure that prime public car-parking bays are available for customers to support retail activity, rather than used by staff for all day parking. Different time limits can be used for different purposes i.e. 15 to 30 minute limit to support high turnover business activities such as post offices and newsagents, or one to three hour limit to support other retail and commercial activities. Longer term (4 hours or greater) and unrestricted all day parking is also required for staff and longer stay visitors. Parking restrictions are used worldwide, including the South West of Western Australia in centres such as Bunbury, Busselton, Dunsborough, Bridgetown and Donnybrook. Support for a proposal to introduce time limited parking in Margaret River was not forthcoming from the business community in 2009 and thus Council declined to progress with this option. Car-parking is a means to an end in that it exists to support the enjoyment of the attractions and facilities available in the Town Centre. Primarily this is made up of shop / retail landuses. Theoretically, business owners would seek to have good access to car bays, with those bays being turned over frequently throughout the day, as each bay represents a potential customer. Notwithstanding that timed car-parking could assist with the frequency of bay turnover, it was not previously supported by the business community. As explored in this Strategy, the key issue presently facing the Town Centre is not a lack of bays (except at peak times) but whether or not available bays meet with user needs in the

28

sense that they are located within relative proximity of the intended destination. With over 200 bays having recently been constructed at the Woolworths development, it could be the case that shoppers are prepared to park and walk to access other destinations. Whilst the relatively compact nature of the town centre makes walking feasible, it would be at odds with the culture of ‘parking at the door’ which has developed over time. Therefore, the impact of a lack of car-parking bays in prime parking locations would affect retailers most of all. For these reasons, it is recommended that a second attempt to introduce timed parking in the town centre not be made until/unless supported by the business community. In order to gauge the perception of the business community as to problems and issues associated with parking, it is recommended that the Shire undertake regular (biannual) surveys of business owners. Recommendation No.6 Time limited parking in the Margaret River town centre should

not be introduced until/unless supported by the business community.

10.5 Residential Parking Standards in the Town Centre The integrated Transport Strategy recommends “a maximum of one car parking space per one/two bed dwelling, and a maximum of two spaces per three or more bed dwelling Schedule 12 of the Local Planning Scheme should apply for other land uses”. Currently, residential car-parking is required by LPS1 at a rate as prescribed by the Residential Design Codes. Section 6.3.3 of the R-Codes specifies the car-parking requirements applicable to multiple dwellings in areas coded R30 or greater in mixed use developments and activity centres. Ratios range from 1.25 bays to 1.75 bays per dwelling inclusive of visitor bays.

Type and plot ratio area of dwelling

Location B

Small (<75m2 or 1 bedroom)

1

Medium (75-110m2) 1.25

Large (>110m2) 1.5

Visitors car parking spaces (per dwelling) 0.25

Figure 21 - Deemed to comply standard C3.1 – Residential Design Codes

When compared to the existing standards, the recommendations of the ITS are slightly more for single bedroom dwellings, and slightly less for larger dwellings. The difference is so marginal (0.25 bays in both instances) that it does not warrant the Shire modifying LPS1 to change the parking standard.

29

Of greater relevance is the fact that the ITS advocates for a maximum amount of car-parking provision per dwelling, whereas the R-Codes provide a minimum standard. Experience shows that it would be highly unusual for a developer to provide greater than the minimum prescribed car-parking requirement when undertaking residential development at density, and therefore conversion of minimum standards to maximum standards are not warranted. Recommendation No.7 That parking rates applicable to residential development in the

Margaret River town centre be left unchanged 10.6 Parking in other centres The majority of recommendations contained within this strategy relate most particularly to the Margaret River town centre where parking issues are most acute. However, parking in other centres within the shire, particularly Augusta should be monitored over time so that specific action can be taken in response to issues that may arise. Recommendation No.8 The Shire monitors parking in centres outside of Margaret

River, in particular Augusta, to determine whether alternative parking rates (see recommendations 2 and 3) should be applied.

10.7 Purchase of Car-parking It is foreseeable that major retailers in the Town Centre will in the future, seek to improve the patronage to their establishments by providing additional car-parking such has recently been the case adjacent to IGA. The impetus for this comes from the recent introduction of a new supermarket competitor to the Town Centre and the desire to match the convenience offered by the readily available and covered parking that Woolworths provides. In this context, it would be practical for the Local Government to partner with retailers where both are looking to provide significant new parking opportunities. As such it is recommended that the Shire adopts a position that it will buy surplus bays arising from any new development wherein bays over and above the LPS1 requirements are provided, and where the location of such bays are strategically located and will be available for use by the general public.

Recommendation No.9 Subject to availability of funds received from ‘cash in lieu’ contributions, the Shire consider purchase of privately constructed car bays where excess bays over and above the LPS1 requirements are provided, and where the location of such bays are strategically located and will be available for use by the general public.

30

10.8 Way-finding Signage Parking way-finding refers to a system of static signs, directories and other design features which provide an early warning navigational aid. Drivers, especially visitors, want to know where to look for way-finding information when they need it, understand the way the information is communicated and obtain the information quickly and without fuss. A single, consistent system should guide drivers to all car-parks in the Town Centre. This involves the provision of information on parking availability using signage, brochures, maps, websites and apps (iPhone applications). Good parking information tends to reduce motorist delay and frustration, and increase the satisfaction of drivers visiting and parking in a town centre. Recommendation No.10 Parking plans should be developed for specific users including

motorcyclists, drivers of vehicles towing boats, caravans and trailers and the disabled. These plans should extend to advertising the location of such parking via wayfinding signage, the website and other media, especially for visitors.

10.9 Parking Audits Once parking is constructed it is important that it be maintained over time. In order to achieve this it is recommended that the Shire undertake an annual audit of all public car-parks to determine necessary improvements and maintenance as may be necessary. Recommendation No.11 An annual audit should be undertaken of all public car-parks

and a detailed list of improvements provided which are to be prioritised. In particular, the location, sufficiency and use of disabled bays should be given high regard.

10.10 Motorcycle Parking The Shire’s intended mode share targets, if realised, will result in trips made upon motorcycles growing from 0.3% to 1% of all trips. The Shires’ Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2013 stipulates that “A person shall not park a motorcycle without a sidecar or a trailer, or a bicycle in a parking stall unless the stall is marked ‘M/C’”. Catering for the increased demand will therefore require additional dedicated motorcycle bays which the Shire should cater for in any new car-parking which is constructed. Another measure which could be employed which would provide an immediate increase to parking opportunities for motorcycles is a change to the Local Law to allow motorcycle parking in all car bays.

Recommendation No.12 Complement the construction of new carbays with the

provision of additional motorcycle parking commensurate with the expected growth in motorcycle use over the next 20 years;

31

10.11 Summary of Recommendations A summary of the recommendations contained within this Strategy is as follows: Recommendation No.1 The parking rates for all non-residential land uses in the

Margaret River Town Centre be reduced via modification to LPS1. The recommended rate for ground floor development is 1 bay per 30m2 NLA. The recommended rate for upper floor office space is 1 bay per 40m2NLA.

Recommendation No.2 The parking rates for all ‘hospitality’ land uses in the Margaret River Town Centre be reduced via modification to LPS1 as follows: Restaurant/Café - 1 space per 5 seats or 1 space per 30m2 nla whichever is the greater. Hotel/Tavern, Small Bar, Brewery - 1 bay per unit of accommodation where applicable plus 1 bay per 7.5m2 of bar space (areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 7.5 patrons.

Recommendation No.3 Undertake detailed evaluation of cost and feasibility of decked parking and application of cash in lieu rate.

Recommendation No.4 Subject to the outcome of recommendation 3, 25% of car-parking obligations for any development requiring over 4 bays, may be discharged via the payment of cash in lieu of parking.

Recommendation No.5 LPS1 should be amended to allow for a 10% reduction in the amount of car-parking otherwise required, where a developer prepares and implements an active transport plan, to the satisfaction of the Shire up to a maximum of 5 bays.

Recommendation No.6 Time limited parking in the Margaret River town centre should not be introduced, until/unless supported by the business community.

Recommendation No.7 Parking rates applicable to residential development in the Margaret River town centre should be left unchanged.

Recommendation No.8 The Shire monitors parking in centres outside of Margaret River, in particular Augusta, to determine whether alternative parking rates (see recommendations 2 and 3) should be applied.

Recommendation No.9 Subject to availability of funds received from ‘cash in lieu’ contributions, the Shire consider purchase of privately constructed car bays where excess bays over and above the LPS1 requirements are provided, and where the location of such bays are strategically located and will be available for use by the general public.

32

Recommendation No.10 Parking plans should be developed for specific users including motorcyclists, drivers of vehicles towing boats, caravans and trailers and the disabled. These plans should extend to advertising the location of such parking via wayfinding signage, the website and other media, especially for visitors.

Recommendation No.11 An annual audit should be undertaken of all public car-parks and a detailed list of improvements provided which are to be prioritised. In particular, the location, sufficiency and use of disabled bays should be given high regard.

Recommendation No.12 Complement the construction of new carbays with the provision of additional motorcycle parking commensurate with the expected growth in motorcycle use over the next 20 years.

10.12 Implementation Recommendation Priority How 1 Immediate Amendment to LPS1 2 Immediate Amendment to LPS1 3 Medium Detailed study 4 Medium

(subject to recc. 3)

Amendment to LPS1

5 Immediate Amendment to LPS1 6 Ongoing Regular interaction with chamber of commerce 7 N/a N/a 8 Ongoing Regular monitoring 9 Medium Expenditure of cash in lieu funds (when available) 10 Medium In conjunction with town centre upgrades 11 Medium Annual audits

12 Ongoing Together with construction of new carbays by the Shire

33