Page 3418 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Melbourne and Sydney have areas where there are maximum requirements rather than minimum requirements.
From the point of view of the market determining what is wanted, I can tell members that I have been approached by a number of developers saying that they would like to have fewer minimum requirements and that the idea of allowing the market to decide what parking provision they want is very attractive. It costs about $40,000 for each underground car park. Housing affordability is an issue in Canberra. Why should people have to buy car parking spaces that they do not want? And that is what happens with our current parking policy.
Paragraph (d)(ii) refers to encouraging car sharing spaces. Sydney and Melbourne both have car share organisations. We would like to see something like that happen in Canberra. One way is for the government to stand ready to encourage these. The provision of additional secure bike parking spaces for each “missing” car parking space is an issue. Even in the Assembly, the provision of secure bike parking spaces is an issue. If you try to park under the stairwells, which is the only place there is, there is simply not enough space for all the bikes there. If anyone has ever looked there, you will find half a dozen bikes all squashed on top of each other, which is why I always park mine outside. I am very pleased to note that the assistant clerk can watch it from his window, so I feel quite reassured by this security service. But not everybody is lucky enough to have this.
With respect to paragraph (d)(iv), the Greens feel that where offices are converted into residences the existing car parking should be deemed to be an adequate amount of car parking. We all know that there is an oversupply of offices in Canberra. We could utilise some of that as residential, but if they are forced to comply with the current car parking requirements, it cannot and will not happen. In the interest of housing affordability, we should do this.
Paragraph (d)(v) is very similar to one of the points in Mr Corbell’s amendment. I have said that a sustainable transport contributions fund would allow developers to limit the provision of car parking spaces in city and town centres. The provision of a sustainable transport contributions fund would go towards providing transport infrastructure which would mean that we do not need all of these car parking spaces.
My final point in the amendment is the provision of power points for electric vehicles in a proportion of parking spaces in all new developments. I think that electric cars are one of the more positive developments as far as private cars are concerned. I do not think they are the whole solution; far from it. But I think they are something that we should continue to look at.
I have to agree with Mr Coe that the car parking problem is not something that is going to go away just by looking at it—by saying that it should go away. But it will go away by having good planning for sustainable transport. Parking is part of that but it is only a part of it. Public transport, buses, hopefully light rail in the future—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, your time has expired. Have you moved your amendment?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video