Sunday, January 24, 2010

Carparking at Kyme Place and in the Bay St precinct

There will still be publicly accessible carparking at Kyme Place in the new development as follows:


Kyme Place
There are 33 places in the carpark at Kyme Place currently.
There will be a net loss to the public of 5 spaces from the approved housing development. That means there will still be 28 spaces publicly available.

[7 spaces will be lost from within the car park and 2 will be gained on Liardet St outside A Simple Affair where the cross over will be re-instated, including a disabled parking place.]
Liardet St

Recent council works have added to the supply of on-street parking.
The kerb and channel works in Liardet Street (between Esplanade East and Dow St) in December 2008/January 2009 created 10 new spaces.
More recently, as part of the reconstruction of the kerb and channel between Bay and Princes St, 12 new spaces have been created which were not taken into account at the time of the planning decision.
The steering committee for the family and children’s centre in Liardet St are actively considering how new carparking can be created to service that facility without taking away play space for children.

South of Graham Street

Additional parking for shopping and visitors was required as part of the planning approvals for Bayview 142 spaces (cnr Rouse/Bay eastern side), Bayshore 130 spaces (cnr Rouse/Bay western side), and Bianca 108 spaces (the curvy building). That is a total of 380 spaces.

These carparks are all open and accessible to the public. Bayview and Bayshore carparks are run by commercial operators who offer all day parking at competitive rates. They are currently under utilised.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can you please explain why the City of Port Phillip Council continues to focus on the issue of car parking (being the only issue council is able to address in relation to this project) and not the size, scale bulk, together with negative environmental factors caused by this development, over shadowing and loss of light to people's property, disturbance during development, high cost and community objection to this proposal formulated by a previous council that was almost entirely removed due to poor performance in the eyes of the community?

Janet Bolitho said...

Where there is a disagreement about a planning decision, the decision can be appealed to VCAT, the umpire. This is what happened in this case when residents appealed the council decision.
Council's decision was upheld by VCAT with no change. In other words, the proposal complies with planning policy.

Anonymous said...

To say that it should be left up to VCAT is a terrible cop-out. And a terrible expense for the residents involved. Why has Council, who are supposed to be the residents' representatives, so gung-ho about this development? Who do you represent? Which way did you vote on the planning decision?

Anonymous said...

I am now writing this as a former Port Melbourne resident as I have been forced to move from an apartment I purchased in 2007 that is adjacent to the Kyme Place development due to the loss of nearly all natural light to our property, massive disruption and issues with potentially contaminated dust and noise for an extended period, loss of privacy and access to our property. This has had severe financial and stress related consequences for my wife and I. We saved for many years to purchase the apartment all of which has been lost due to the development and as a result we have been force to move out of the Port Melbourne (and the bayside area). Also being forced through a extended, time consuming and expensive dispute which was entirely one sided has had an caused considerable stress.

Was any consideration given to the many other people like us that have been effected by this monumentally poor decision, or were the council too blinkered by the prospect of assisting a handful of people into a new Bayside unit with all mod cons in a first class position? Perhaps I should consider applying for a unit in the new development? Cr, I would appreciate your view. Regards, Michael.

Janet Bolitho said...

Michael
The development was assessed according to the same guidelines used in all Port Phillip planning decisions. It was tested twice: once by council with the assistance of expert planners, and secondly by VCAT. The proposal met planning requirements.
I have lived through the construction of the major developments of hmas, Bayview, the Port and Bianca which was difficult at the time but now these buildings and their residents make a positive contriubtion in Port Melbourne.
I am sorry you have chosen to move away because Port Melbourne is a great place to live.