Council lashes out at car park ‘greed’

By Paul Dunlop
CARDINIA councillors have lashed out at plans for a new Pakenham business and shopping complex, claiming the proposal was more about “greed” than the good of the community.
In a decision expected to have a sequel at the Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal, council firmly rejected plans for a twostorey commercial centre in John Street.
Several councillors blasted the proposal over what they said was a chronic lack of car parking space.
Central Ward representatives Brett Owen and Kate Lempriere led the push to reject the application lodged by Cornetta Partners Architects on behalf of an unknown developer.
“This is totally unacceptable,” Cr Owen said.
Town planners also recommended the application be refused.
The proposal is for an office complex and nine shops on land that was formerly a veterinarian surgery close to the heart of Pakenham’s business centre. Councillors are currently grappling with options to extend car parking space around Pakenham’s business centre.
They expressed anger at Monday’s town planning meeting that the proposal sought permission to provide just over half of the car parking spaces recommended in Pakenham’s town planning framework.
Cr Owen said the 37 car parking spaces proposed was 28 fewer than town planners said would be needed for the development, which has a total floor area of more than 1700 square metres.
“Once staff and delivery vehicles use some of these spots there will not be much left for the public,” Cr Owen said.
“The intersection of John and James Street is already a bottleneck and if this is approved it will only get worse.”
Cr Owen said the Uniting Church carpark in James Street was already being used by traders and shoppers. He warned the problems could get to “breaking point” if council continued to accept applications seeking a reduction in car parking.
Cr Owen urged town planners to fight strongly if the decision went to appeal.
Cr Lempriere went even further, accusing the developer of “snubbing his nose” at council.
“It gets down to greed,” she said. “He is snubbing his nose at us and will go to VCAT. We need to put developers on notice that we will not be walked over.”
Under council guidelines, developers in business areas must provide four car parking spaces for every 100 square metres of shopping space and slightly less for office space.
But a study prepared for the developers by Traffix Group consultants has argued that the peak parking demand would be less than required under the council framework.
Councillors said they had tried to negotiate a compromise position that would have seen the developer contribute $200,000 to council’s car park fund to make up for the shortfall.
Town planners said this offer was rejected. Councillors said the development was otherwise perfectly appropriate for the location but stood firm on the car parking issue.
The decision to reject the application was unanimous.
Mayor Bill Ronald said car parking in the township was an issue of critical importance.
“It’s not appropriate nor acceptable for developers to come in and buy land and expect ratepayers via the council to put car parks so businesses can make money.
This is a typical example of a developer trying to try and push the limits.”