draft gosford strategic parking study

GOSFORD STRATEGIC PARKING STUDY REPORT

NOVEMBER 2011

REPORT NO. X11170_R01

PREPARED FOR GOSFORD CITY COUNCIL

Gosford City Centre Strategic Parking Study Prepared for Gosford City Council

Level 2, Burbank Place, Norwest Business Park, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153 Brown Consulting (NSW) Pty Ltd

PO Box 8300, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153 Australia ABN 30 109 434 513 Telephone +61 2 8808 5000 Facsimile +61 2 8808 5099 brownconsulting.com.au

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

All intellectual property rights, including copyright, in designs developed and documents created by the group of companies listed below remain the property of those companies. Any use made of such design or document without the prior written approval of the Group will constitute an

infringement of the rights of the companies which reserves all legal rights and remedies in respect of any such infringement. The information, including any intellectual property, contained in this proposal is confidential and

proprietary to the Group. It may only be used by the person to whom it is provided for the stated purpose for which it is provided and must not be imparted to any third person without the prior written approval of the Group. The Group reserves all legal rights and remedies in relation to any infringement of its rights in respect of its confidential information.

©

Brown Consulting (NSW) Pty Ltd

November 2011


X11294r01A Page

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3

3 EXISTING SITUATION ........................................................................................................ 4

3.1 Gosford City Centre ....................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Public Parking................................................................................................................ 5

4 BACKGROUND REPORT REVIEW ...................................................................................... 7

4.1 Development Control Plan No.111 – Car Park Amendment No.1 – November 2000 .............. 7

4.2 Connecting the Central Coast – The Central Coast Transport Action Plan RTA and Transport

NSW, August 2002 ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Gosford City Centre LEP Review – Transport and Traffic Final Report - Scott Wilson Nairn

and Cardno MBK, June 2004 ....................................................................................................... 9

4.4 Gosford Vision 2025 – A Strategic Direction for the Future Gosford City Council, 2006 ....... 11

4.5 Gosford City Centre Plan – Development Control Plan Section 4 – Access, Parking and

Servicing -2007 ........................................................................................................................ 11

4.6 Gosford City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 ........................................................ 16

4.7 Gosford City Centre Vision Plan New South Wales Department of Planning, 2007 ............... 17

4.8 Central Coast Regional Strategy NSW Government Department of Planning, 2008 ............... 18

4.9 The Gosford Challenge – Masterplan for the Renewal of Gosford City Centre–2010 ............. 18

4.10 Gosford Masterplan Precincts ........................................................................................ 19

4.11 Revitalising Gosford City Centre Plan, Civic Improvement Plan NSW Government Department

of Planning, 2007 ..................................................................................................................... 25

4.12 Gosford City Centre – Transport Management & Accessibility Plan (TMAP) ....................... 26

4.13 Gosford Car Parks Review – Cardno July 2011 ................................................................. 32

4.14 Key Observations of Current Policies ............................................................................. 34

5 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................ 35

5.1 Stakeholder Workshop .................................................................................................. 35

5.2 Central Coast Regional Development Corporation Meeting................................................ 37

5.3 Gosford Hospital Precinct ............................................................................................. 37

6 GOSFORD TODAY AND TOMORROW ............................................................................. 38

7 CENSUS DATA VEHICLE OWNERSHIP REVIEW ........................................................... 44

7.1 Land Use Characteristics ............................................................................................... 44

7.2 Dwelling Type Distribution ........................................................................................... 45

7.3 Dwelling Mix Comparison ............................................................................................. 46

7.4 Vehicle Ownership per Dwelling Assessment ................................................................... 47

8 PARKING RATE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 50

8.1 Residential Parking Rate Review ..................................................................................... 50

8.2 High Transit Access Parking Rates .................................................................................. 54


X11294r01A Page

ii

8.3 Gosford Residential Rate Comparison ............................................................................ 56

8.4 Gosford Commercial Rate Comparison ........................................................................... 59

8.5 Gosford Retail Parking Rate Comparison ........................................................................ 67

8.6 Recommended Residential, Commercial and Retail Parking Rates ....................................... 68

8.7 Parking Rates for other Uses .......................................................................................... 69

8.8 Future Parking Demand versus Provision ................................................................ 70

9 INNOVATIVE PARKING PROVISION OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION .................... 75

9.1 Long Term Parking in Gosford City Centre ..................................................................... 75

9.2 Option to Transfer of Long Term Parking ....................................................................... 75

9.3 Residential Parking Provision ......................................................................................... 76

9.4 Large Residential Developments ..................................................................................... 78

9.5 Parking Allocation of Residential Units ........................................................................... 79

10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 81

10.1 Short Term Strategies ................................................................................................... 81

10.1.1 Council Policies ........................................................................................................................................ 81

10.2 Medium to Long Term Strategies ................................................................................... 82

10.3 Precincts ..................................................................................................................... 82

10.4 Draft Recommended Parking Rates ................................................................................ 83

10.5 Parking Provision Best Practice ...................................................................................... 84

11 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 85


X11294r01A Page

i

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Study Area (NTS) Figure 2 – Existing Main Public Car Parks Figure 3 - Gosford Parking Loan Boundaries Figure 4 - Existing Uses with Study Area (GTA 2009) Figure 5 - Masterplan Identified Additional Parking Areas Figure 6 – Gosford Masterplan Precincts Figure 7 - The Waterfront Precinct Figure 8 – The Arts & Entertainment Precinct Figure 9 - The City Core Precinct Figure 10 - The Railway Precinct Figure 11 - The Hospital Precinct Figure 12 – Census Zones Figure 13: Boundary of the zone referred to in Table 2-9 Figure 14 – Boundaries of CCD’s in Gosford City Centre Figure 15 – Vehicle Ownership Distribution in Gosford City Centre Figure 16 – Sydney Metro Average Parking Policy Rates by Unit Size Figure 17 – Projected Parking Demand 2021 Profile Figure 18 – Projected Parking Demand 2031 Profile

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Scott Wilson / Cardno LEP Traffic Report Recommended Parking Rates for Residential <600m from Gosford Railway Station Table 2 - Scott Wilson / Cardno LEP Traffic Report Recommended Parking Rates for Commercial <600m from

Gosford Railway Station Table 3 - TMAP Recommended Parking Rates Table 4 - TMAP Recommended Residential, Commercial & Retail Parking Rates Table 5 - Baker Street Parking Allocation & Capacities Table 6: Population estimates and projections for regions within Greater Metropolitan Region and estimated annual average geometric

growth rates (2006 to 2031) (ERP) Table 7: Population estimates and projections for Gosford City Centre compared with areas within the Central Coast Region and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (ERP) Table 8: Employment estimates and projections for regions within Greater Metropolitan Region and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (employed persons) Table 9: Employment estimates and projections - Gosford City Centre compared with areas within the Central Coast Region & est. annual avg geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (employed persons) Table 10: Projected population for each City Centre zone (ERP, persons) Table 11: Projected population change from 2006 (cumulative) for each City Centre zone (ERP, persons) Table 12: Projected employment for each City Centre zone (employment) Table 13: Projected employment change from 2006 (cumulative) for each City Centre zone (employment) Table 14: Employment estimates and projections for Erina Zone and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (employed persons) Table 15: Dwelling type distribution, remainder of Gosford LGA, City Centre and total Gosford LGA (frequency count of dwellings) Table 16 Dwelling type distribution, remainder of Gosford LGA, City Centre and total Gosford LGA (% of

dwellings in each subset) Table 17: Dwelling size distribution by dwelling type and number of bedrooms, remainder of Gosford LGA (% of dwellings in each dwelling type)


X11294r01A Page

ii

Table 18: Dwelling size distribution by dwelling type and number of bedrooms, Gosford City Centre (% of dwellings in

each dwelling type) Table 19: Vehicle ownership distribution by, Gosford City Centre, remainder of Gosford LGA and Gosford LGA (% of dwellings in each area) Table 20: Vehicle ownership distributions by dwelling type, Gosford City Centre Table 21: Vehicle ownership distributions by dwelling type, remainder of Gosford LGA Table 22 - Existing Parking Rates for FUA by Bedroom Numbers by LGA Table 23 - Sydney Metropolitan Average Parking Rate per Dwelling Size by Number of Bedrooms Table 24 - Council Parking Rates for Designated High Accessibility / Transit Areas Table 25 - Sydney Metropolitan Average Parking Rate per Dwelling by Bedroom Numbers in High Transit / Access to Services Area Table 26 – Sydney Metropolitan Average Standard Rates Compared with High Transit / Access to Services Rates Table 27 - Gosford City Centre DCP FUA Parking Requirements


X11294r01A Page

iii

Table 28 - Lowest to Highest Average Vehicle Ownership per Dwelling

Table 29 - Sydney Metropolitan Commercial Rate Comparison Table 30 - Sydney Metropolitan Retail DCP Rates Table 31 – Recommended Parking Rates for Flats, Units & Apartments Table 32 – Distribution of incremental non-residential floorspace by use Table 33 – Calculation of additional parking requirement Table 34 – Adjustment for different outcomes at Town Centre Shopping Centre Table 35 – Comparison of parking demand estimates, amended & re-calibrated model and Table 34 Table 36 – Total City Centre floorspace potential by use, 2007 LEP Table 37 – Floorspace potential by use under 2007 LEP, for Core City Centre Table 38 – Floorspace potential by use under 2007 LEP, for Precinct 1A (GTA) Table 39 – Existing floorspace for Precinct 1A Table 40 – Adjustment to existing floorspace in Precinct 1A Table 41 – Comparison of future floorspace requirement and potential floorspace in 2007 LEP Table 42 – Distribution of incremental non-residential floorspace by use Table 43 – Calculation of additional parking requirement Table 44 – Adjustment for different outcomes at Town Centre Shopping Centre Table 45 – Projected parking demand 2008 to 2021, from application of calibrated parking model Table 46 – Projected parking demand 2008 to 2031, from application of calibrated parking model Table 47 – Comparison of parking demand estimates, amended & re-calibrated model and Table 9


X11170r01 Page

1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There have been a number of studies and reports into car parking, public transport and commuter

car parks for the Gosford City Centre to date. A review of these reports has found in some instances the suggestions and approaches are in friction. What makes the difference with this report is that it:

Recommends parking provision rates based on census data analysis; Recognises the role of parking provision can play in achieving desired mode shift targets; Encourages Council to have a differential rate for commercial and residential development

that car park provision seeks to encourage public transport and more utilisation of existing public parking assets and less reliance on private parking.

Residential floorspace comprises of a major component of the envisaged future development of the

City Centre. In terms of transport this is about getting residents located in close proximity to a large number of different activities and facilities to reduce the overall need to travel and to reduce the use of private motor vehicles. It is this co-location of residents and activities that will be a key driver of mode choice, rather than highly restricted parking rates. This will be self-reinforcing if the planned

additional residential population can draw retail and personal services back to the City Centre.

The objectives of this study were as follows:

“The Parking Management and Control Plan should, as it states, provide guiding principles for how parking

should be managed based on the type of precinct to which it refers i.e. The Waterfront precinct might be dominated by restaurants and outdoor dining versus the City Core which is more shopping/retail focussed versus the Railway Precinct which is much more commuter focussed.

The Parking Management and Control Plan would also provide contemporary parking supply rates by land

use type for each precinct which would provide key guidance for Gosford Council's town planners in assessing future development applications for specific locations.”

The redevelopment of lands associated with both the Waterfront Precinct and the Hospital Precinct are subject to planning and assessment by the State Government. Whilst the findings of this report would assist in this planning of these areas in respect to parking provision, the ultimate configuration of these areas would be subject to negotiations with the State Government.

It is the view of this report that the provision of high quality and available public transport operations would have a much greater bearing on a person’s choice of mode than restricted

provision of on-site parking. This is not to discount the role of parking in mode choice but to

provide a comparative context to the all-too-frequently proposed influence of restricted parking provision alone.


X11170r01 Page

2

On the matter of parking rates per the precincts identified in the 2007 Gosford Masterplan Study, this report has not adopted the same five precincts to determine appropriate parking rates. The Gosford and Hospital Precincts have been separated given their role as State significant projects

although the parking rates in this report can be used to inform the planning of these two distinct areas.

The retail core of the Gosford City Centre has been identified as an area which is best placed to take advantage of Council’s existing public car park assets to provide short term parking for developments and a reduced on-site parking provision. All remaining areas of the study area have been considered in the relationship to access to public transport versus on-site parking provision.

This report has proposed an innovative method of potentially seeking additional funding for public transport and non-private mode infrastructure through Planning Agreements. This approach would still provide savings to developers without compromising the need for a development to provide

further on-site parking.

These arrangements should have flexibility to allow funding of specific works which not only

provide a direct benefit to occupiers of the particular development but the public at large. This might include new bus shelters, footpath connections to bus routes, dedication of land to provide cycle links to existing networks. Other examples of potential works can be from the TMAP Comprehensive Package of Transport Measures (page 64).

Alternatively, contributions towards planned higher cost infrastructure works can be incorporated into a scheme which savings can be the suggested discretionary funding scheme. This scheme would function separately to all other existing contribution plans currently in force with the City

Centre but would not add an additional cost burden to the developer.


X11170r01 Page

3

2 INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared for Gosford City Council to present findings of a Strategic Parking Study for the Gosford City Centre which includes the Gosford Waterfront and areas in the vicinity of Gosford Hospital. The purpose of this study is to provide Gosford City Council with guiding principles for the management of parking within the Gosford City Centre into the future and to

review the Council’s current car parking provision rates. The management principles and recommended parking rates which apply to future development in this study have been based on a thorough assessment of work undertaken to date within the City

Centre and available parking infrastructure assets. Further, the developed parking rates have endeavoured to acknowledge the role of parking provision as a management tool to achieve desired mode share outcomes to encourage urban

development opportunities.


X11170r01 Page

4

3 EXISTING SITUATION

3.1 Gosford City Centre

The following is noted, in part, from the Gosford Masterplan Report 2007

“In the NSW Government’s Regional Cities strategy Gosford has been designated as the Regional City for the Central Coast, just as Newcastle is the Hunter Regional City and Wollongong is the Illawarra Regional City.

Gosford serves the Central Coast’s current population of over 300,000 and as such, the city should encompass a wide

range of activities and uses including a full range of business, Government, retail, cultural, entertainment and recreational activities. It should be a focal point for regional transport and jobs.” The importance of Gosford to attract new development is considered vital for the surrounding

region and as such any policies should provide a balance with achieving desired outcomes, in this instance transport outcomes, whilst not inhibiting future development 3.2 Study Area

The boundaries of the study area are shown in Figure 1 below.


X11170r01 Page

5

Figure 1 - Study Area (NTS)

The study area includes generally land holdings bounded by Racecourse Road in the west, the

Gosford Waterfront in the south, Henry Parry Drive in the east and Dwyer Street in the north. The

study area includes the Gosford Dog Racing Track.

The study area shown in Figure 1 mirrors the overall study area assessed in the Gosford City Centre

Parking Study1.

3.3 Public Parking

Gosford City Council has two main public car parks within the study area to compliment a further commuter car park located adjacent to Gosford Railway Station. Council car parks include the Baker Street car park and the recently purchased Gosford Town Centre Carpark. Additional public parking, whilst attributed to both the Central Coast Leagues Club and the Imperial Shopping Centre,

are also available to visitors to the City Centre.

1 Gosford Parking Study – GTA Consultants May 2010


X11170r01 Page

6

The locations of these car parks (blue = Council car parks, yellow = State Rail commuter car park & magenta = other large scale publicly accessible parking areas) are shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2 – Existing Main Public Car Parks

The role of these car parks to determine appropriate parking rates for all future development is discussed further in this report. Further, Council recently commissioned an assessment of the

utilisation of both the Baker Street and Gosford Town Centre car parks. This report is reviewed in

Section 4 of this report. It is noted from the Gosford Car Park study2 that Baker Street includes a total of 703 spaces and

the Gosford City Centre carpark includes a total of 583 spaces. This report is discussed further in Section 4.13 of this report.

2 Gosford Car Parks Review Final Report – Cardno July 2011


X11170r01 Page

7

4 BACKGROUND REPORT REVIEW

A summary of the reports undertaken to date, in particular comments and recommendations on

parking matters, as provided in the original brief for the project are summarised below. This review has endeavoured to provide a summary of current policies in chronological order of adoption. 4.1 Development Control Plan No.111 – Car Park Amendment No.1 – November 2000

As stated above the Gosford City Plan provides parking rates (excluding commercial and retail uses)

for the Gosford City Centre main zones. However, this DCP also refers to ‘Gosford’ for the purpose of estimating parking rates for a particular development. It should be noted that the Gosford City Centre DCP provides no information on parking

provisions for ‘change of use’ nor contributions which may arise from negotiations with developers where a reduced parking provision is provided for a particular development. Therefore DCP No.111 does apply to new developments within the Gosford City Centre. On the

matter of change of use, the following is noted from DCP No.111:

2.4 Change of Use 2.4.1 Where the use of an existing building is to be changed, the Council will require that additional car

parking (if any) be provided on the basis of the difference between the requirements for the existing use and the proposed use.

2.4.2 Notwithstanding subclause 2.4.1 nothing in this plan shall be applied to require that additional

parking is required for the conversion of existing commercial floor space to either retail or restaurant land use in the Gosford town Centre. This saving provision only applies to the Gosford Town Centre because of the Gosford Parking Loan Rate which applies to this area.

The following clause permits a change of use development, which may require more parking than the existing development, the allowance of providing no additional parking on site as the Gosford Parking Loan Rate applies in the Gosford City Centre zone.

The Gosford Parking Loan Rate3 refers to the following:

Gosford Parking Special Rate Council is of the opinion that the funding from this rate of the operation and maintenance of the Baker Street

Parking Station would be of special benefit to that portion of the area referred to in Registered Plan 97/6 a copy of which is shown as Attachment J and accordingly resolves to make and levy a Special Rate of 0.00110231 in the dollar calculated on the land value of all rateable land within that portion of the area identified as per Attachment I.

3 Setting of Rates and Charges for 2010/2011 (IR 7937934)


X11170r01 Page

8

Thus a 0.1% levy applies to all annual rates of all development with the Gosford City Centre to operate and maintain the Baker Street car park. No provision is made to provide any additional public parking nor is any provision to operate or maintain the recently acquired Gosford City Centre

car park.

Parking Loan Boundaries

The area at which the Gosford Loan applies was plotted on the draft 2009 LEP zoning map. This is

shown below in Figure 3. Figure 3 - Gosford Parking Loan Boundaries


X11170r01 Page

9

It was noted that the boundaries of lands where the Gosford Parking Loan can be applied do not match boundaries of existing nor proposed zones in the 2009 LEP. It is unclear and unknown why some components of the Central Core zone and surrounding business zones were excluded.

Parking rates for key land uses, namely commercial and retail, are specified in the DCP. However, these are different to the LEP 2007 rates for the City Centre and as such are superseded by the LEP rates. The rates for other land uses set out in the DCP, such as industrial, hospital and education,

are applicable for the City Centre and have been used for the purposes of this report. It is noted that the draft Development Control Plan (DCP 2009) was on exhibition during the time this report was finalised but has not been reviewed as part of this project.

4.2 Connecting the Central Coast – The Central Coast Transport Action Plan RTA and Transport NSW, August 2002

The Central Coast Transport Action Plan builds on the Action for Transport 2010 document that was released in 1998. The plan includes all modes and projects which are proposed to be delivered in two broad timeframes – by the end of 2004 and post 2005. Projects are listed under the following

key categories:

rail travel

buses

park and ride

ferries

cycling

local transport initiatives

roads.

The plan does not contain any projects that will specifically impact the provision of car parking within the GCC. However, measures for improvements to the sustainable transport networks servicing the GCC area are proposed including local transport initiatives to encourage the use of

these alternative modes.

4.3 Gosford City Centre LEP Review – Transport and Traffic Final Report - Scott Wilson Nairn and Cardno MBK, June 2004

Scott Wilson Nairn and Cardno MBK were commissioned by Gosford City Council to investigate the transportation impacts of the proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) changes. This included

a review of parking policy. The report included current and forecast floor space within the study area for retail, commercial and residential uses for the years 2001, 2011 and 2021.


X11170r01 Page

10

On the matter of residential parking provision, the report suggested the 400m radius applied to the Council parking rates (lower parking provision) was too constrained and should be increased to 600m. It is unclear whether the report took topography into account which is a major barrier to

pedestrian movements in Gosford. The report recommended the following parking provision for residential development within 600m of the railway station: Table 1 - Scott Wilson / Cardno LEP Traffic Report Recommended Parking Rates for Residential <600m from Gosford Railway Station

Units & Townhouses within 600m of railway station Minimum Maximum

1 bedroom & studio / bedsitters 0.5 / unit 1.0 / unit

2 bedroom 1.0 / unit 1.5 / unit

3 bedroom 1.0 / unit 2.0 / unit

It was also recommended that in the event a developer proposes parking provision greater than the minimum rates, the developer should make contributions to a Transport Improvement Fund. In

addition, all residential parking should be provided on‐site and the on‐street car parking demand

should be monitored with on‐street restrictions being implemented if required.

On the matter of parking for commercial uses, the report noted the DCP provision of 1 per 45sqm of commercial floorspace was a generous parking rate and recommended the following:

Reduce the maximum parking rate and introduce a minimum rate (it is noted that this has

since been adopted).

Maintain the 2:1 ratio between on‐site and off‐site parking requirements, however ensure

that contributions be provided to Council for the off‐site parking component.

Review the price of parking in Council car parks, with a view to eliminating the charge for

less than three hours, increasing the cost of parking stays greater than five hours and eliminating all ‘early bird parking’.

Introduce timed parking in the Gosford central area.

It is noted that early bird parking has not been removed from Council car parking areas. It is also

noted the report adopted the 2:1 provision of parking on site / off site (by way of contribution) but

did not have any information as to where the contributions would be spent. For a commercial development within 600m of the Gosford Railway Station, the report

recommended the following:

Table 2 - Scott Wilson / Cardno LEP Traffic Report Recommended Parking Rates for Commercial <600m from Gosford Railway Station Office / Commercial < 600m

from Gosford Rail Station

Minimum Maximum Off Site Contribution

Office / Commercial 1 space / 100sqm GFA 1 space / 50sqm GFA 33%

Visitor Parking 10% of spaces 10% of space


X11170r01 Page

11

Further, the report recommended increasing short term parking available through the removal of charges for the first three hours of parking in Council carparks.

In addition, paid on‐street parking was recommended to be introduced to encourage turn over, with

details to be determined following duration of stay parking surveys. With regards to mixed use developments, parking should be provided at the same rates as other developments, with some level of negotiation available.

The report also recommended that no further free commuter parking be provided to service the station, with alternative measures used to control the number of vehicles parking in the station area. 4.4 Gosford Vision 2025 – A Strategic Direction for the Future Gosford City Council,

2006

The Gosford Vision 2025 outlines the strategic directions for the Gosford Local Government Area to 2025. The Vision was developed through extensive public consultation and was based on residents’ values. Nine key focus areas were established including transportation and infrastructure

strategies. Parking provisions and / or parking issues are not discussed in this document.

4.5 Gosford City Centre Plan – Development Control Plan Section 4 – Access, Parking

and Servicing -2007

This DCP includes the parking rate requirements for all developments in the Gosford City Centre within the Commercial Core and City Edge Zones except commercial and retail uses. These are

covered in the GCC Local Environment Plan 2007.

The key objectives of the DCP are to:

Facilitate an appropriate level of on‐site parking provision in the GCC to cater for a mix of

development types.

Enable the conversion of above ground parking to other future uses.

Recognise the complementary use and benefit of public transport and non-motorised modes

of transport.

The DCP requires that:

Car parking is provided underground where possible.

Car parking supply and internal manoeuvring areas beyond that required by the DCP and

the GCC LEP is to be calculated towards gross floor area.

A minimum of 4% of the required parking spaces, or minimum of 2 spaces per

development, be provided for persons with disabilities.

The following is also noted from this DCP:


X11170r01 Page

12

“In addition to the provisions of this DCP the provisions of the following controls also apply the Gosford City Centre area to the extent that the land use is for the purpose specified, or the development of the land involves the matter specified.

Where the provisions of the following DCPs conflict with those of this DCP, the provisions of the Gosford City Centre DCP 2007 shall prevail.”

Thus DCP 111 would apply where the Gosford City Centre DCP was silent and these items would include say ‘change of use’. The following parking rates are recommended were recommended by the TMAP report: Table 3 - TMAP Recommended Parking Rates Land Use Required Parking Requirement

RESIDENTIAL

Single Dwelling House Car parking:1 space/dwelling

Dual Occupancy Dwelling Dwellings less than 125m2 – 1 space/dwelling

Dwellings greater than 125m2 – 2 space/dwelling

Shop Top Housing 1 car Space/dwelling

Townhouses, Residential Flat

Buildings

1 Bedroom dwelling – 1 car space/dwelling

2 Bedroom dwelling – 1.2 car spaces/dwelling

3 or more bedroom dwellings – 1.5 car spaces/dwelling

Visitor car parking:

0.2 spaces/dwelling, provided on site and clearly marked for use by visitors only

Disability accessible car parking:

Not less than 10% of the required resident and visitor spaces

Motorcycle parking:

1 space /15 dwellings (or part thereof)

Bicycle parking:

1 resident’s space/3 dwellings + 1 visitor space/12 dwellings (or part thereof) Housing for seniors and persons with

disability

The provisions as contained in State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 being: Self-

contained dwellings (private) – not less than 0.5 spaces/dwelling

Self-contained dwellings (State) – not less than 1 space/5 dwellings (where application is

made by the Crown, a public authority or another person jointly with the Government

or a public authority)

Aged Care Hostels, Nursing Homes,

Convalescent Homes

Car parking:

Not less than 1 space per 10 beds,

Not less than 1 space per 2 employees,

Not less than 1 parking space suitable for an ambulance

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof

TOURISM Hotel Accommodation, Motel Units,

Tourist Units

(inc serviced apartments not strata

titled)

1 space per accommodation unit, plus 1 space for every 2 persons employed in connection with the development and on duty at any one time. Restaurants, function rooms etc associated with the development and open to the general public require additional parking at the rate for that use (See Part C) Motorcycle parking: 1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof

Boarding House 1.5 spaces for every two (2) bedroom or part thereof, plus one (1) space for any residential manager, plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees Motorcycle parking: 1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof


X11170r01 Page

13

Land Use Required Parking Requirement

Youth Hostel, Backpacker Hostel 1 space for each 5 occupants/lodgers plus 1 space for any resident manager, plus 1 space for each 2 Employees Motorcycle parking: 1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof (Applies to uses where the accommodation is directed to travellers, a majority of whom

do not use private motor vehicles)

RECREATION Licensed Hotel, Tavern /Club 1 space/4m2 of bar area, plus

1 space/6m2 of lounge, beer garden, gambling area, plus

1 space/10 seats or 20m2 area of auditorium, plus

1 space/resident manager, plus 1 space per 2 employees

NOTE: Restaurants and dining rooms require additional parking at the rate for that use

in that locality/zone. Accommodation where provided shall require parking at the

appropriate rate under part B.

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof Squash Courts / Tennis Courts

/Bowling Alley

3 spaces/ court or lane

Motorcycle parking:


Bicycle parking:

2 spaces/ court or lane

Bowling Green 30 spaces for first green and 15 spaces for each additional green.

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof.

Recreation Facility 1 space/25m2 gross floor area

Motorcycle parking:


Bicycle parking:

1 space/ 200m2 gross floor area

Restaurants 1 space/30m2 gross floor area

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof Bicycle parking:

1 space/ 200m2 gross floor area

COMMERCIAL & RETAIL Commercial Premises (including

Offices) Commercial Core and City Edge zones – in accordance with the Gosford City Centre Local Environment Plan 2007 Other land use zones – 1 space/40m2 GFA Motorcycle parking: 1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof Bicycle parking: 1 space/200m2 gross floor area per employee 1 space/750m2 gross floor are for visitors

Professional Consulting Rooms,

Medical Practices 3 spaces/ surgery or consulting room, plus 1 space for each professional practitioner and other staff present at any one time Motorcycle parking: 1 space/ 25 car spaces or part thereof Bicycle parking: 1 space/ 4 consulting rooms

Service Stations Minimum 4 spaces plus 6 spaces/service bay NOTE: Convenience stores and restaurants attached to a service station require additional parking calculated at the respective rates designated for those uses.


X11170r01 Page

14


Motor Showrooms 1.5 spaces/200m2 site plus

6 spaces/service bay or 1 space/2 persons employed in connection with the use

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/25car spaces or part thereof

Drive-In Take Away Food Outlet 1 space/8m2 gross floor area plus,

1 space/5 seats with a minimum of 30 spaces

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/ 25car spaces or part thereof

NOTE: Refers to a free-standing establishment not one within a shopping centre

Drive-In Liquor Outlet 2 spaces plus 1 space per person employed in connection with the use and on duty at

any one time

NOTE: These spaces to be exclusive of the driveway area used for queuing and service to customers in their vehicle.

Furniture and Building Materials

Showroom

1 space/45m2 gross floor area.

Shops In the City Core and City Edge zones – in accordance with the Gosford City Centre

Local Environment Plan 2007

All other zones – space per 30m2 GFA

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/25 car spaces or part thereof

Bicycle parking:

1 space/200m2 gross floor area per employee

1 space/750m2 gross floor are for visitors

Retail Markets 1 space/18m2

Motorcycle parking:


Bicycle parking:

1 space/ 750m2 for employees 1 space/ 1000m2 for shoppers

NOTE: This provision does not apply to approved markets operated by a community

organisation for charitable purposes.

Plant Nursery 1 space per 30m2 gross floor area of any building used for the retailing of plants and

associated products, plus 1 space per 45m2 for outdoor areas used for display purposes

associated with retail sales, plus 1 space per 200m2 for areas used exclusively for

propagation or storage, whether indoor or outdoor.

INDUSTRIAL

General light industry 1 space/100m2, but otherwise not less than;

2.5 spaces for factory units up to 200m2, or

3.5 spaces for factory units exceeding 200m2

Motorcycle parking:


Warehouses and high tech business 1 space/300m2 for warehouse/bulk stores

1 space/40m2 for ancillary office space

1 space/30m2 for ancillary retail space

Motorcycle parking:


NOTE: The need for additional car parking for future change of use from a warehouse

bulk store should be considered.

Car Repair Stations, Panel Beaters, Spray Painters

1 space/40m2 Motorcycle parking:


COMMUNITY FACILITIES


X11170r01 Page

15


Place of Worship and Place of Assembly (not elsewhere mentioned)

1 space/20m2 gross floor area, or

1 space/10seats, whichever is the greater

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/25car spaces or part thereof

Bicycle parking:

1 space/50seats

Child Minding Centre /Kindergarten / Pre-School

1 space per person employed in connection with the use, plus a temporary stand area at

the rate of 1 car for each 6 children (a minimum of 5 temporary stand spaces)

Motorcycle parking:


NOTE: The temporary standing area is to be designed so that vehicles can enter or

leave the site moving in a forward direction and without conflicting with other traffic/parking movements.

Hospital 1 space per 3 beds and 1 space per 3 employees

Motorcycle parking:


Schools, Educational Establishments 1 space per 2 staff place 1 space per 30 students

Motorcycle parking:


Bicycle parking:

1 space/ 5 students above Grade 4

NOTE: The parking requirement for each school site may vary. Refer to the Transport

Advisory Unit Manager for detailed assessment.

OTHER USES Were not specified, the Roads and Traffic Authority guidelines will be applied to

developments of a minor nature including extensions etc, however for a major proposal

the application is to be supported by a Traffic Impact Statement with recommendation

as to the appropriate provision for on-site car, motorbike and bicycle parking.

From Table 3 it is noted that many of the rates recommended in the TMAP by use are similar to the rates published in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments and are considered

reasonable. The expected main proportion of future development within the study area are

summarised in Table 4 below.


X11170r01 Page

16

Table 4 - TMAP Recommended Residential, Commercial & Retail Parking Rates Land Use Required Parking Requirement

RESIDENTIAL

Dual Occupancy Dwelling Dwellings less than 125m2 – 1 space/dwelling

Dwellings greater than 125m2 – 2 space/dwelling

Shop Top Housing 1 car Space/dwelling Townhouses, Residential Flat Buildings 1 Bedroom dwelling – 1 car space/dwelling

2 Bedroom dwelling – 1.2 car spaces/dwelling

3 or more bedroom dwellings – 1.5 car spaces/dwelling

Visitor car parking:

0.2 spaces/dwelling, provided on site and clearly marked for use

by visitors only

Disability accessible car parking:

Not less than 10% of the required resident and visitor spaces

Motorcycle parking:

1 space /15 dwellings (or part thereof)

Bicycle parking:

1 resident’s space/3 dwellings + 1 visitor space/12 dwellings (or

part thereof)

Commercial Premises (including Offices) Commercial Core and City Edge zones – in accordance with the

Gosford City Centre Local Environment Plan 2007

Other land use zones – 1 space/40m2 GFA Motorcycle parking:


Bicycle parking:

1 space/200m2 gross floor area per employee

1 space/750m2 gross floor are for visitors

Shops In the City Core and City Edge zones – in accordance with the

Gosford City Centre Local Environment Plan 2007

All other zones – space per 30m2 GFA

Motorcycle parking:

1 space/25 car spaces or part thereof

Bicycle parking:

1 space/200m2 gross floor area per employee 1 space/750m2 gross floor are for visitors

The above rates are further considered in the comparison assessment in Section 8 of this report. 4.6 Gosford City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

In relation to car parking, the Gosford LEP outlines the car parking requirements for new

developments for the purposes of commercial or retail activities, namely:

At least one car parking space is provided for every 75 square metres of the gross floor

area of the building that is to be used for commercial activities.

At least one car parking space is provided for every 40 square metres of the gross floor

area of the building that is to be used for the purposes of retail premises.

The LEP states that car parking associated with the above requirements is to be provided on‐site

unless the consent authority is satisfied that the provision of car parking is adequately provided

elsewhere.


X11170r01 Page

17

The following within the study area were noted from the GTA report: Figure 4 - Existing Uses with Study Area (GTA 2009)

It is noted that the draft Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2009 (DLEP 2009) was on exhibition during the time this report was finalised but has not been reviewed as part of this project.

It is also noted that in comparison, the LEP requires some 45% less parking for commercial uses

and 25% less parking for retail uses. 4.7 Gosford City Centre Vision Plan New South Wales Department of Planning, 2007

This document formed a key element of the analysis undertaken by GTA and included a strategic

framework for the GCC to facilitate the anticipated growth of an additional 6,000 jobs and 10,000

people over the next 25 years.


X11170r01 Page

18

The study predicted in the future the on‐street parking will extend further into the residential area

west of the railway line. This could be managed through the following:

Providing additional short term off‐street parking for new development.

Locating more residential and mixed use developments in the GCC.

Managing the turn‐over of on‐street parking and introducing paid on‐street parking.

Encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Intensifying development within walking distance of major public transport facilities.

4.8 Central Coast Regional Strategy NSW Government Department of Planning, 2008

The Central Coast Regional Strategy set capacity targets for new dwellings and employment numbers over 25 years to 2031. This included a dwelling target of 6,000 for the City of Gosford. In addition, employment within the Gosford LGA is predicted to increase by 18,000 jobs of which 6,000 were identified for the Gosford City Centre.

4.9 The Gosford Challenge – Masterplan for the Renewal of Gosford City Centre–2010

The Gosford Challenge project purpose was to develop achieving development planning outcomes for Gosford having regard to a number of previous strategies and documents undertaken to date. The study largely supports and affirms the existing planning regulatory framework (Gosford City

Centre LEP 2007).

In relation to parking, the Masterplan was prepared in conjunction with the TMAP. The Masterplan states that the long term goal under the NSW State Plan is to reduce the demand for parking and

better manage existing parking infrastructure.

It was identified that the principal method for reduction of parking demand would be via an improved public transport system and alternate methods of access to the city. In the immediate

future it was proposed that alternate parking sites can be identified as opportunities arise to provide

additional parking within private and/or public projects. This statement is also reflected by GTA Consultants in the Gosford Parking Study.

On the matter of parking, the following is noted from the masterplan: “The provision of adequate parking within the City Centre has long been a contentious issue. There is an inherent conflict between the requirements for long term parking for commuters and workers and short term

parking for retail and commercial activities.

The Gosford City Council recently commissioned a Parking Study which will be utilised in conjunction with the TMAP to identify needs and solutions to parking.


X11170r01 Page

19

The long term goal under the NSW State Plan is to reduce the demand for parking and better manage existing parking infrastructure. The principal method for reduction of parking demand will be via an improved public transport system and alternate methods of access to the city.

In the immediate future it is proposed that additional public parking sites be identified and opportunities will arise to provide additional parking within private and/or public projects.”

Further, the masterplan included a short term strategy recommendation to develop a short, medium and long term parking strategy for Gosford City Centre. The identified areas in the masterplan for additional parking provision are shown in Figure 5 - Masterplan Identified Additional Parking Areas

4.10 Gosford Masterplan Precincts

As per the suggestions of the Gosford Masterplan Report4, the study area was identified with five (5)

main precincts. These include the following:

4 The Gosford Challenge, Gosford City Centre Masterplan


X11170r01 Page

20

1. The Waterfront; 2. The Arts & Entertainment Precinct; 3. The City Core;

4. The Railway Precinct; and 5. The Hospital Precinct

The suggested precincts are shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 – Gosford Masterplan Precincts

A consideration of this study was whether parking rates should be applied at a precinct level to reflect the character of each precinct, whether a blanket approach was appropriate or a hybrid of the two. This is discussed further in this report. Plans showing the finer grain boundaries of the above precincts are presented from the masterplan report in Figures Figure 7 to Figure 11 below:


X11170r01 Page

21

Figure 7 - The Waterfront Precinct


X11170r01 Page

22

Figure 8 – The Arts & Entertainment Precinct


X11170r01 Page

23

Figure 9 - The City Core Precinct


X11170r01 Page

24

Figure 10 - The Railway Precinct


X11170r01 Page

25

Figure 11 - The Hospital Precinct

4.11 Revitalising Gosford City Centre Plan, Civic Improvement Plan NSW Government

Department of Planning, 2007

The Civic Improvement Plan provides both the contribution framework and recommended works

to that which collected contributions should be spent. The document includes design principles for paving, parks, signage, lighting and the improvement of key public places.

Currently the contribution is 4% of the total cost of the development but none of these monies are

to spent on the provision of additional parking within the Gosford Town Centre. Further, it is noted that a recent resolution of Council was to reduce this rate from 4% to 1% to stimulate development as noted in the Council resolution below.

“At its meeting on 22nd February 2011 Gosford City Council resolved to adopt a number of measures to provide

economic development incentives to encourage the early redevelopment of the Gosford City Centre, including:

deletion of clause 22B (4) – (9) of Gosford City in relation to design excellence;

an increase of 30% to the maximum height and floor space ratio development standards of Gosford City

Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007, subject to the development application being lodged within 24

months of the making of the required amending plan;


X11170r01 Page

26

amendment to the Gosford Civic Improvement Plan (CIP) to permit a 1% CIP contribution for any existing

operable development consent which has not yet received a Construction Certificate and for any development applications lodged from the 22nd February 2011 and within 24 months of the making of the above amending LEP, after which time the CIP contribution reverts to 4%. The payment of the 1% CIP

contribution is payable in the above cases prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate; and

Council pursue with the Department of Planning that the ‘Plan First Fee’ be refunded for those applications

lodged and commenced within the next 24 months and for which an Occupation Certificate is issued with 5 years.”

However, we understand Council has limited authority to change the State Government imposed rate. Further, this report has not assessed the parking impacts and needs of a 30% increase in maximum height and FSR in the centre city which may occur in the next 24 month period from the date of the resolution of Council.

The Civic Improvement Plan identifies the need for additional short term off‐street parking spaces

in association with new retail and commercial developments. The Plan notes that the preferred site

for the construction of a public car park is on Council land adjacent to the Gosford City Council

Chambers and at the rear of the potential Regional Library site. This site would be able to

accommodate a 200‐space, four‐level car park for public use.

A further initiative for the GCC included in this document is the introduction of a shuttle bus. This

bus route would service the GCC and its surrounds, linking the commercial core with such areas as

the railway station, waterfront and bushland reserves. This initiative would be subject to the results of a feasibility study.

4.12 Gosford City Centre – Transport Management & Accessibility Plan (TMAP)

This report, prepared by AECOM included a review of a number of previous reports including the parking report prepared by GTA and the LEP Traffic Report prepared by Scott Wilson / Cardno. The key findings / recommendations of this report are extracted verbatim below:

The TMAP supported the renewal process in Gosford with measures to encourage

sustainable growth. It addresses existing transport challenges such as access across the railway line, illegible and poor quality pedestrian facilities, severance of the waterfront, a developing cycle network and end-of trip facilities, and managing parking supply.

The objectives to better manage city centre parking, move away from long term to short

term parking to support retail and commercial activities as well as supporting shifts to public transport, walking and cycling where ever possible.


X11170r01 Page

27

Parking management is a key initiative which is fundamental to balance the attractiveness of

car travel to Gosford to meet wider objectives. The role of parking should be to enable access to shops and services whilst limiting long term, commuter parking and where feasible, provide park and ride on the city fringe in locations such as Erina and Kariong. Management

of long term parking needs to be accompanied by suitable alternative access measures, such as key bus corridors and park and ride.

Development of a parking policy that will encourage increased public transport mode share,

without compromising renewal ambitions.

Potential Park and Ride Locations – East Gosford and Kariong Interchange

The potential exists to provide park and ride facilities outside Gosford City Centre, to reduce

car trips into the central area with external parking sites and high frequency bus corridors.

Two locations that have potential for park and ride facilities are East of Gosford (either East

Gosford OR east of Gosford) near Erina and to the West, at Kariong. A location near to Erina would be able to capture trips which originate to the east of Gosford City Centre from

destinations such as The Entrance, Long Jetty, Bateau Bay, Terrigal and Avoca. Erina is

situated on an established bus corridor, which has the catchment and demand to support a higher frequency bus service. An investigation into the proposal would need to consider the potential impacts on bus viability and congestion.

Kariong would also be a suitable location for increased bus frequency and a park and ride

station to serve trips from the West and inbound into Gosford City Centre from the F3 Freeway corridor. Increased travel demand is also expected into Kariong as a growing employment area, therefore a park and ride site here would not only serve inbound trips to

Gosford City Centre but also reverse trips originating or linking through Gosford City

Centre with a Kariong as a destination. The investigation of a Kariong park and ride station for Gosford should also consider the

potential to capture demand for car share trips which originate in Gosford and have onward

destinations further afield such as Sydney, Newcastle and the Lower Hunter via the F3 Freeway and Pacific Highway. Bus services could facilitate trips out to Kariong from Gosford, whilst a park and ride station provides a safe, convenient location for interchange and parking close to the Freeway.

Bus priority measures are important to park and ride operations, as with quality or strategic

bus corridors in order to provide a reliable, consistent link between origin and destination and to provide a time benefit to bus trips over car trips. There would also need to be greater parking control, in Gosford to encourage people to use park and ride servicing the city centre. Park and ride schemes have tended to use a dedicated branded bus fleet to raise

awareness of the system and have a marketing and branding campaign to make car drivers aware of the service.

To support bus measures, parking restrictions and constraints such as time restrictions, tariff

changes and other supply and demand management measures need to be implemented.


X11170r01 Page

28

It is noted that the recommended locations for Park and Ride and the provision of additional parking differ from those suggested in the masterplan report. Ultimately, the strategy of both documents to provide periphery parking is consistent.

Commuter Parking at Rail Stations

Whilst the focus of the report is on commuter trips into Gosford, the role of commuter car

parking at upstream stations has not been discounted. Whilst primarily these car parks, developed under the commuter car parks program, provide for commuting to the higher

order centres of Newcastle and Sydney, there is a linked benefit for Gosford as they provide a potential alternative for commuters driving to Gosford as they have an alternative option to drive to a local station and use rail for onward journeys into Gosford.

Future of Parking in Gosford

Gosford City Centre and the surrounding areas are forecast to accommodate significant

additional population and employment growth over the next 20 years. These changes will

necessitate changes in the planning controls for Gosford which will determine the pricing, regulation and availability of parking in Gosford.

Gosford City Council manages parking in Gosford, with the current primary planning tool

being the Development Control Plan No.111 Car Parking (Amendment 1) dated November 2000. The purpose of this document is to ensure sufficient, well designed parking is provided by all new developments and to manage existing parking within the Gosford City Council area.

In central Gosford there are approximately 10,500 parking spaces, including over 7,000 off-

street parking spaces.

The vast majority of parking in Gosford City Centre is available for long stay parking, with

almost 90% of parking supply available for long stay use or unrestricted in the case of on-street supply.

Changes to Parking Policy Maximum or threshold parking provision for Gosford will have little effect as a travel

demand management tool to manage traffic flow and achieve modal shift. It is moreover the amount of long term parking supply which impacts on vehicular demand in the peak

periods, as travel associated with these spaces tends to be concentrated in the morning and evening peaks. Such commuter or long term parking also impacts on the streetscape and available land for development, as having a significant number of stationary vehicles in the city centre takes up valuable space for development and creates a visual eyesore.

Focus for Gosford should be on provision of adequate short-term parking to maintain and enhance the economic and cultural attractiveness of Gosford City Centre.

Long term planning policy should focus on encouraging a modal shift away from long term commuter parking by providing suitable public transport alternatives, transferring long

term parking capacity to short term and relocating long-term parking to the

periphery, possibly in conjunction with park and ride provision.


X11170r01 Page

29

Gosford City Council should consider reviewing their Development Control Policy

for parking for new developments. If present rates for residential and commercial development were retained, Gosford City Centre would require significant additional parking provision over time which would increase road network congestion.

Gosford Parking Strategy

The Gosford Parking Study (GTA, 2010) reported both long and short term parking

demand to be at approximately 85% of available supply throughout the city centre.

The key principles of a successful parking regime are highlighted which consider in the

design of measures providing the right balance of supply to demand for various trip types,

land uses and user groups: o to provide short term parking on-street or within public parking stations

conveniently accessible to key drivers of short term demand in the city centre to provide accessibility to shops and services and facilitate short stay trips which

support the local economy; and

o to provide long term parking within parking stations located on the periphery of the central area, to minimise traffic intrusion and circulation, and assist in the creation of a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment and to enhance the urban design quality

of the city centre.

Suggested Improvement Measures

promoting walking and cycling for city centre trips and opening up or enhancing routes for

pedestrians and cyclists; employer subsidised staff travel tickets for public transport; green

travel plans for new development in Gosford to reduce the environmental impact of travel and the dominance of single occupancy car trips;

Transport Management Associations (TMA’s) to provide a structured framework for local

area TDM programs. These recommendations align with the travel demand management initiatives in this TMAP.

GCC shuttle bus – Provision of a shuttle bus serving key developments and fringe areas of long-stay parking around Gosford to help reduce the dominance of the private car; this

could be in conjunction with the adoption of a free transit zone in the city centre. The analysis of city centre travel indicates that route buses, walking and cycling would be

preferred travel modes for trips within the city centre, although a more sophisticated park and ride system may use shuttle buses.

Parking Restrictions – to encourage turnover, especially in prime city centre locations, in

close proximity to shops and services; to discourage staff parking in areas set aside for

customer parking; to discourage long term parking by staff and employees in the city centre; to promote consistent access and a consistent approach to parking management to enhance user expectations and maximise operational efficiency.


X11170r01 Page

30

Enforcement of Parking Restrictions – Enforcement is critical to the function of parking

restrictions to ensure that operations on the ground adhere to policy and planning requirements. Paid parking could be introduced to encourage turnover, which would help to provide natural enforcement of supply, act as a demand management tool and to fund

operational enforcement.

Pricing of parking – Parking pricing is significantly lower than other centres in NSW, such

as Newcastle and Wollongong, although these locations are different in many respects the price of parking needs to emphasise the order of spaces and the price of convenience. Increasing the cost of parking, especially long term parking, should be utilised as a tool to

encourage modal shift in workers in Gosford City Centre.

Future Demands – The future demands in Gosford will be determined by (i) the extent to

which new development comes on line (additional floor space) (ii) changes to existing land use and (iii) changes in the way people travel and the mode share for journeys to Gosford City Centre. A major change in (i) of the order anticipated in both the Central Coast regional

strategy and the Gosford masterplan, would have the most significant impact on future

parking demand and supply. Parking Package of Measures

To achieve a significant modal shift from car travel to public transport travel for work

related trips into Gosford a change in parking management is needed.

This will need to be implemented in conjunction with accessibility improvements for public

transport, pedestrian and cycle travel to provide viable alternatives and will need to be

implemented over time to maintain and enhance the viability and vitality of Gosford City Centre.

A re-distribution of long-term parking, moving long term parking to the city fringe and

possibly implementing park and ride, and freeing up short term parking capacity in the city

centre are key tenets of this strategy.

At present the needs of Gosford’s residents, business, workers and tourists are well served

by the availability of a large amount of accessible, cheap parking, in off-street parking

stations and on-street. In future, in line with proposed population and employment growth, pressure on parking will increase, with a less favourable balance of supply to demand.

Current demand levels for long term parking are clearly unsustainable.

The focus for parking should be to facilitate growth and local economic prosperity but with

the aim of a redistribution of trips (especially commuter and long term trips to the city centre) towards public transport, cycling and walking.

The overall objective for parking is therefore to achieve a better balance between supply and

demand to emphasise the role of parking as a measure to support an integrated, balanced

transport system in Gosford, reducing the dominance of car travel, especially for long stay trips into the city centre. This will need to be achieved through two mechanisms:

o Firstly, by strengthening the role of planning policy (DCP) on parking provision for

new developments;


X11170r01 Page

31

o Secondly, through more efficient management of existing parking supply.

Parking rates for new development should ensure parking restraint can be used as a demand

management measure, to support travel by alternatives modes and to restrain growth in car travel. This needs to be used in conjunction with efficient management of existing off-street

and on-street parking through pricing and time restrictions to support short stay parking demand and seek to reduce, over time, the availability of long stay parking in the city centre.

The aim of these parking restraint and parking management measures is to promote the

viability of alternative modes (public transport, walking and cycling), ensure efficient supply of short stay parking in the city centre to support the local economy and enhance the local

environment. Improving the future viability of accessibility by alternative modes should be achieved by managing future development to ensure this promotes facilities for non-vehicular access alongside reduced parking.

It is therefore recommended that the Gosford DCP 111 Parking is reviewed within the short

term to revise the parking standards for new development, to the rates stated in Table 8.1.

The above rates for commercial and retail uses equate to 1 space / 80sqm and 1 space / 50sqm respectively (calibrated).

The recommended package of parking measures for Gosford is summarised in Table 8.2,

below. All measures are grouped into short term (to 2016), medium term (to 2021) and long

term (to 2036) timescales for implementation, in line with the suggested target implementation dates, as shown in the table below.


X11170r01 Page

32

In summary, the TMAP noted the high proportion of long term parking within the Gosford City Centre. The TMAP recommended:

1. Removal of the long term parking (including commuters parking) from Gosford and relocation to park and ride facilities on the periphery of the city;

2. Improvements to the bus network to provide access to / from the park and ride facilities; and

3. Reduction in parking rates to assist in achieving a mode shift away from private vehicle use;

4.13 Gosford Car Parks Review – Cardno July 2011

Cardno commissioned Skyhigh Traffic Survey Company to carry out a parking demand survey for Baker Street car park and Gosford Town Centre car park on Tuesday 7th June 2011 between 6:00am and 8.00pm. The main findings of the survey are summarised verbatim below:

Baker Street Car Park (BSCP)

Car park on Baker Street is a multi-storey car park that currently provides a total of 705 spaces. The allocation of spaces is summarised in Table 5. Table 5 - Baker Street Parking Allocation & Capacities

Location Restrictions Capacity

Ground Level 3P Pay & Display 36

Level 1 Reserved Parking 79

Level 1 Unreserved Public Paid Parking 30

Level 2 Unreserved Public Paid Parking 138

Level 3 Workcover Employees Parking 141

Level 4 Early Bird & Reserved Parking 141

Level 5 Early Bird & Reserved Parking 140

Combined 705

There are 36 spaces at the ground level which have 3 hour Pay & Display restrictions imposed along

with 70 long term spaces for Gosford City Council (GCC) staff car park distributed among levels 4

and 5.

Survey data demonstrated that with peak occupancy of 514 spaces (73%), the average peak demand period for the entire car park was at 10.30am. Survey data also noted that the average length of stay

at the 36 spaces allocated for 3P “Pay & Display” was approximately 1.5 hours and had an

occupancy of 75% at its peak demand period at 10am. The rest of the multi-storey car parks are generally used as long term parking with the average length of stay of around 7 hours.

Level 4 (Early Bird and Reserved Parking) was noted to be the most utilised level in the multi-storey

car park with 93% occupied at its peak. It was closely followed by Level 1, 2 and 3 with peak occupancies of 87%, 84% and 75% respectively. Level 5 (Early Bird and Reserved Parking) was noted to be the most underutilised level with 49% occupancy at its peak.


X11170r01 Page

33

Gosford Town Centre Car Park (GTCCP)

The Gosford Town Centre car park has a capacity of 583 unrestricted parking spaces over 2 levels of parking. These two levels are made up on an undercover parking level and a roof top parking

level.

The survey demonstrated that the undercover parking level was close to full utilisation with an

occupancy rate of more than 90% between 9.00am – 2.30pm. However, the rooftop level had an occupancy rate between 50 and 60% for the same period of time. The survey further noted that the car park generally caters for long term usage with an average length of stay of approximately 7 hours.

Assessment and Recommendations

The report assessed the impacts and merits of the following: - Implementation 2P free parking at Barker Street Car Park,

- Relocation of the 70 GCC’s staff parking spaces from BSCP to GTCCP and - Improvements to better utilise the car parks.

Assessment findings and recommendations:

Barker Street Car Park (BSCP) is currently noted to be underutilised and has sufficient spare

capacity to provide for more casual parking spaces to address the 2 hour free parking proposal. The report recommended provision of 2P free parking at BSCP and trial the arrangement for 6 months. Recommendation also included parking demand surveys to be undertaken during the trial period at 3 months and 6 months post implementation. This

would assist to determine if there is an improvement in parking demand or an increase in

demand for the short term parking spaces for business customers and whether it is having any negative impact on permanent car park users. A successful trial may allow a fee structure change at a later date in BSCP to recoup the revenue losses of providing free

parking in the facility.

The survey results showed 75% of vehicles parked in 3P parking had an average length of

stay for 1.5hours, therefore, the main impact of providing 2 hours free parking at BSCP will

be on the annual revenue for the car park facility. To recoup part of the losses it is recommended that:

- Casual all-day parking rate be increased by $1.00 to $9.00.

- Increase the rate at the ground level “Pay & Display” area to $1.00 per hour.

The report notes an increase in parking fees from 1st July 2011. It also recommends a

review to be carried out based on the trial results at a later date of any changes to the parking fee structure adopted to potentially recoup the losses from the free parking proposal.

The report does not recommend a relocation of the 70 GCC’s employee parking from BSCP

to GTCCP in the short term (less than 12 months). However subject to BSCP increasing the

peak parking occupancy to 85% and sustaining the high occupancy when the proposed 2 hour free parking is implemented, it should be considered in the medium term ( 12 +

months).


X11170r01 Page

34

It is recommended that directional signposting be installed at various locations around the

town centre to improve the parking usage at GTCCP which will provide benefits to the Gosford Business Centre

In summary, it is recommended that the implementation process of the parking proposals be staged to provide the best benefits to the Council car parks, business owners and customers in the Gosford Town Centre. 4.14 Key Observations of Current Policies

After a detailed assessment of current policies and contribution methods in place for new development in the Gosford City Centre, the following has been noted:

1. A number of policies and their objectives on the matter of parking provision are in friction

and need updating and / or replacement. 2. The calculation for the provision of parking for new developments and / or change of use is

confusing and difficult to determine.

3. The value of the existing parking rates, and / or adopting new parking rates to achieve mode shift targets are diminished by the current policies.

4. There is a disconnect between the objectives of current policies and outcomes which can be

achieved through their application.

5. The application of current policies pertaining to car park is dysfunctional.


X11170r01 Page

35

5 CONSULTATION

5.1 Stakeholder Workshop

As part of developing this report, consultation with key stakeholders was undertaken. The consultation included a workshop at Council chambers at which a number of stakeholders were invited to attend. These stakeholders included but were not limited to:

1. Chamber of Commerce 2. Gosford Business Improvement District 3. Central Coast Leagues Club 4. Department of Education

5. Police 6. Blue Tongue Stadium 7. RTA 8. Transport and Infrastructure NSW

9. Busways

10. Redbus 11. Department of Planning 12. Transport and Access Group

13. Hospital

14. Central Coast Regional Development Corporation The presentation included a summary of the work undertaken to date including a presentation of the

previous reports and key components of this project.

Attendees were asked about the role of parking provision and its influence on desired transport outcomes. The five precincts identified in the Gosford City Masterplan were reviewed on a case by

case basis to determine whether each precinct should or should not have its own specific parking

management guidelines. Brown Consulting was advised of the impending exhibition of the Gosford Waterfront Masterplan

which included a summary of the proposed development of the waterfront. This material was

placed on exhibition during the course of preparing this report. The proposal included recommended parking provision for all uses proposed including commercial,

retail, exhibition facilities, restaurants and included a large public car park adjacent to Georgina

Terrace as part of a three building commercial development. This is discussed further below in Section 5.2 of this report.


X11170r01 Page

36

Brown Consulting was also made aware of the proposals for the precinct bounded by Racecourse Road in the north, Holden Street in the west, Faunce Street West in the south and Showground Road in the east known as the ‘Medical Precinct’. Much of the landholdings within this precinct are

under the ownership of Central Coast Area Health and would be subject to a masterplan in the near future. This is also discussed further below in Section 4.2 of this report. Some of the main issues raised during discussion between attendees on the car parking strategy for

Gosford City Centre included the following:

Issues were raised on the costs of the commuter car parking on the individuals.

Specific comment concerning insufficient car parking for major events at the stadium.

Concern that the redevelopment of the Waterfront precinct will have a negative impact on

parking for the stadium particularly game days.

Comments that cost factors for car parking provision could be used to encourage public

transport usage.

Consider offices at reduced rate in car parking policy to encourage new developments.

Access to disabled and aged car parking spaces, especially for retail development.

Public parking issues with shopping trolleys in centres.

Public bus service does not provide access for commuters to all shops and facilities in City

Centre.

Questions about ability to better use the parking facilities.

In respect to on-street car parking not enough provision for 2 hours parking.

No consensus on paid on-street parking.

Suggestion about commuter car parking elsewhere at other locations outside City Centre.

Gosford Town Centre parking station not being fully utilised although public perception is

that it operates at capacity.

Shuttle bus not being well utilised, needs better provision.

Encourage amalgamation of sites to negotiate on car parking rates.

Council needs Transport NSW input and business case for funding the TMAP initiatives.

Proposed major development for the Waterfront and Hospital precincts by the Central

Coast Regional Development Corporation.

The Waterfront and Hospital precinct developments are significant projects to be determined by the State government in consultation with the Council.

The Waterfront precinct development will have provision for public parking areas associated

with the civic entertainment area, the new swimming pool complex, the restaurants at the wharf areas and the development of the school site.

The Hospital precinct development includes proposals for the Showground Road area

adjacent to the hospital for a medical use area including consultation rooms, clinics and specialist medical suites associated with the hospital. The car parking proposed with the

Hospital precinct plans is understood will greatly improve the provision of car parking around the hospital.


X11170r01 Page

37

The Waterfront and Hospital precincts are controlled by the State government and managed

through the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation. 5.2 Central Coast Regional Development Corporation Meeting

Following the meeting with stakeholders, Brown Consulting representatives met with the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation to discuss the finer details of the Gosford Waterfront planning which is known as ‘The Landing at Gosford”.

The proposal includes in the initial stages the following items:

Regional Performing Arts and Conference Centre; Commercial Office space;

The extension of Baker Street and a Hotel development to support the business tourism, which will be activated as part of the regional performing arts and conference centre; and

Gosford City Park.

On the matter of parking and as stated above, the proposal includes a large approximately 400 space

public car park as part of the commercial office development. In total the car park serving the commercial office / hotel developments along with the public parking would include some 850 spaces.

A proportion of the parking spaces would be made available outside of normal business hours to provide further additional parking for the developments around the precinct.

It should be noted that the calculation of parking provision for all uses was determined through the

application of a separate DCP for the area. The details of this DCP were not made available for this report and therefore it is unknown what parking rates were applied for each proposed use.

5.3 Gosford Hospital Precinct

As stated above, the Medical Precinct is subject to a masterplanning proposal which is in its infancy. At the time of writing this report, there was no specific information on the make-up of the potential

development proposals nor the scale of development. It is understood the scheme could include a

public parking element to alleviate current parking pressures around the hospital.


X11170r01 Page

38

6 GOSFORD TODAY AND TOMORROW

Gosford City Centre is designated as the regional city for the central coast in the Central Coast

Regional Strategy. The Central Coast region comprises Gosford LGA and Wyong LGA; these form part of the Sydney metropolitan area, but due to natural barriers of the Hawkesbury River and its estuary of Broken Bay, they are physically separated from Sydney. Due to their proximity to the Lower Hunter, there is considerable interaction between the Central Coast and the Hunter area.

The following set of tables provide an indication of the current and projected population within the greater metropolitan region, using forecasts prepared by the Bureau of Transport Statistics, within the NSW Department of Transport5.

Table 6: Population estimates and projections for regions within Greater Metropolitan Region and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (ERP)

Year Lower Hunter Central Coast Sydney less Central Coast Illawarra GMR Total

2006 517,511 304,744 3,977,244 414,704 5,214,203 2011 538,873 322,656 4,170,877 434,992 5,467,398 2016 559,162 342,416 4,354,263 453,817 5,709,658 2021 578,866 360,529 4,534,006 471,819 5,945,220 2026 597,488 378,126 4,706,354 488,844 6,170,812 2031 614,135 395,629 4,866,436 504,347 6,380,547

Period Lower Hunter Central Coast Sydney less Central Coast Illawarra GMR Total

06 to 11 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 11 to 16 0.7% 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 16 to 21 0.7% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 21 to 26 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 26 to 31 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7%

Source: Analysis uses BTS Population Forecasts, release December 2008

The above analysis indicates that in 2006 the Central Coast had a population about 60% that of the

Lower Hunter and about 75% of the Illawarra, as such it represents a substantial economic unit.

Over the forecast period the Central Coast’s share of the GMR’s total population will increase from just under 6% to just over 6%.

Table 7 shows the forecast population projections for Gosford City Centre, for the remainder of

Gosford LGA and for Wyong.

5 These forecasts were prepared in 2008 using BTS’s population projection methodology which works within control totals produced by ABS. Note that the projections reflect input assumptions which may not necessarily hold and that the projections do not necessarily reflect government policy.


X11170r01 Page

39

Table 7: Population estimates and projections for Gosford City Centre compared with areas within the Central Coast Region and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (ERP)

Year Gosford City Centre

Gosford LGA Remainder

Gosford LGA Total

Wyong LGA Central Coast Total

2006 7,147 154,911 162,058 142,686 304,744 2011 9,780 157,188 166,969 155,687 322,656 2016 13,366 159,887 173,253 169,163 342,416 2021 16,458 162,403 178,861 181,668 360,529 2026 19,519 164,724 184,243 193,882 378,126 2031 22,554 167,497 190,051 205,579 395,629

Period Gosford City Centre


Gosford LGA Total


06 to 11 6.5% 0.3% 0.6% 1.8% 1.1% 11 to 16 6.4% 0.3% 0.7% 1.7% 1.2% 16 to 21 4.3% 0.3% 0.6% 1.4% 1.0% 21 to 26 3.5% 0.3% 0.6% 1.3% 1.0% 26 to 31 2.9% 0.3% 0.6% 1.2% 0.9%

Note – Gosford City Centre here includes travel zones 3039 (Gosford), 3034 (North Gosford) and 3038 (West Gosford)

Figure 12 shows the boundaries of the zones referenced in the above table. Figure 12 – Census Zones


X11170r01 Page

40

The above table indicates that population in Gosford City Centre is projected grow more rapidly than the population of the Central Coast in general. In fact the City Centre’s population growth is projected to account for more than half (55%) of Gosford LGA’s total population growth over the

forecast period6. Table 8 present a similar analysis for employment projections. Table 8: Employment estimates and projections for regions within Greater Metropolitan Region and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (employed persons)

Year Lower Hunter Central Coast Sydney less Central Coast

Illawarra Total

2006 223,658 105,854 2,026,502 157,950 2,513,964 2011 236,908 112,628 2,136,307 169,157 2,655,000 2016 246,114 117,853 2,220,382 178,651 2,763,000 2021 257,191 124,208 2,282,268 186,333 2,850,000 2026 266,871 129,284 2,326,055 192,790 2,915,000 2031 275,454 133,209 2,358,629 197,708 2,965,000

Period Lower Hunter Central Coast Sydney less Central Coast

Illawarra Total

06 to 11 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.4% 1.1% 11 to 16 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 16 to 21 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 21 to 26 0.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 26 to 31 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%


Employment growth in the Central Coast is expected to be faster than Sydney. However, relative to population growth, the disparity in employment growth is not as marked. Table 9: Employment estimates and projections - Gosford City Centre compared with areas within the Central Coast Region & est. annual avg geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (employed persons)

Year Gosford City Centre

Gosford Remainder

Gosford LGA Total


2006 13,114 47,991 61,105 44,749 105,854 2011 13,642 51,212 64,855 47,774 112,628 2016 12,802 54,659 67,461 50,391 117,853 2021 12,685 58,059 70,744 53,464 124,208 2026 12,487 60,792 73,279 56,005 129,284 2031 12,230 62,913 75,143 58,067 133,209



Gosford LGA Total

Wyong LGA Central Coast

06 to 11 0.8% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 11 to 16 -1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 1.1% 0.9% 16 to 21 -0.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% 21 to 26 -0.3% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 26 to 31 -0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6%



Gosford LGA Total

Wyong LGA Central Coast

06 to 11 528 3,222 3,750 3,025 6,774 11 to 16 -840 3,447 2,607 2,618 5,225 16 to 21 -117 3,400 3,283 3,072 6,356 21 to 26 -198 2,733 2,535 2,541 5,076 26 to 31 -257 2,121 1,864 2,062 3,925

6 Dept of Planning 2006 – 2031 Employment Targets Central Coast Regional Strategy


X11170r01 Page

41

Note – Gosford City Centre here includes travel zones 3039 (Gosford), 3034 (North Gosford) and 3038 (West Gosford) Source: Analysis uses BTS Population Forecasts, release December 2008

For the City Centre zones the following tables disaggregate the population and employment forecasts to provide an indication of the spatial distribution of the likely changes in these planning variables. Population levels projected for each of the three travel zones covering the town centre.

Table 10: Projected population for each City Centre zone (ERP, persons)

Year Zone 3034 Zone 3038 Zone 3039 Total

2006 3,521 1,666 1,959 7,147 2011 3,799 2,795 3,187 9,780 2016 4,193 4,422 4,751 13,366 2021 4,533 5,829 6,097 16,458 2026 4,866 7,225 7,429 19,519 2031 5,203 8,608 8,742 22,554


These tables summarise projections of small area employment over the period 2006 to 2031. The projections are produced by Bureau of Transport Statistics in Department of Transport (was Transport Data Centre). As noted at the foot of page 38, these projections do not necessarily reflect

government policy. They are presented because they form important background information in

which to consider employment changes within Gosford LGA and Gosford City Centre: they do project an overall decline in employment within the town centre. For transport planning purposes, the BTS land use projections (population and employment) are regarded as the benchmark due to:

The independent manner in which they are prepared

The rigorous approach used by BTS in their preparation

The extensive track record which BTS has in the production of these projections

The implication of these projections is that if Gosford City Centre’s employment were to grow (as envisaged by the Central Coast Regional Strategy), then it is likely that employment elsewhere in the

Central Coast may grow more slowly than envisaged. This is the reason why Table 14 has been included, to indicate that BTS is projecting considerable employment growth in the zone which contains Erina Fair.

In terms of estimating future employment floorspace in the City Centre (and hence parking requirements) we have based our projections on the Central Coast Regional Strategy’s employment capacity target of an increase of 6,000 through to 2031 for the regional city of Gosford. We estimate about 4,000 of this additional employment capacity would be located within the Core City

Centre and the balance would be split between the hospital area; the waterfront area; and some distributed between North Gosford and the area to the west of the rail line (but not including the hospital area).

The Central Coast Regional Strategy is talking about the provision of additional employment capacity, rather than employment.


X11170r01 Page

42

Population changes from 2006 to each of the projection years for the three zones covering the town centre. Table 11: Projected population change from 2006 (cumulative) for each City Centre zone (ERP, persons) Year Zone 3034 Zone 3038 Zone 3039 Total

2006 0 0 0 0 2011 278 1,128 1,228 2,633 2016 672 2,755 2,792 6,219 2021 1,011 4,162 4,138 9,311 2026 1,344 5,559 5,469 12,372 2031 1,682 6,942 6,783 15,406

Source: Analysis uses BTS Population Forecasts, release December 2008 Table 12: Projected employment for each City Centre zone (employment)


2006 1,268 6,058 5,789 13,114 2011 1,304 6,071 6,268 13,642 2016 1,293 5,755 5,755 12,802 2021 1,321 5,833 5,531 12,685 2026 1,338 5,848 5,302 12,487 2031 1,345 5,809 5,077 12,230

Source: Analysis uses BTS Population Forecasts, release December 2008 Table 13: Projected employment change from 2006 (cumulative) for each City Centre zone (employment)


2006 0 0 0 0 2011 36 13 479 528 2016 25 -303 -34 -312 2021 53 -225 -258 -429 2026 70 -210 -487 -627 2031 77 -249 -712 -884


The projections indicate that, unlike population growth, Gosford City Centre’s employment will grow more slowly than that of Gosford LGA as a whole. This is in contrast to the zone in which Erina Fair is situated, where employment is projected to increase continuously over the forecast

period, as indicated in the table below.


X11170r01 Page

43

Table 14: Employment estimates and projections for Erina Zone and estimated annual average geometric growth rates (2006 to 2031) (employed persons)

Year Erina Zone Employed persons

2006 5,298 2011 6,025 2016 6,699 2021 7,353 2026 7,931 2031 8,440

Period Annual average growth rate over period

06 to 11 2.6% 11 to 16 2.1% 16 to 21 1.9% 21 to 26 1.5% 26 to 31 1.3%

Period Numerical increase over period

06 to 11 727 11 to 16 674 16 to 21 654 21 to 26 578 26 to 31 509

Note – Erina Zone is travel zone 2989 Source: Analysis uses BTS Population Forecasts, release December 2008 Figure 13: Boundary of the zone referred to in Table 2-9


X11170r01 Page

44

7 CENSUS DATA VEHICLE OWNERSHIP REVIEW

Brown Consulting in alliance with High Range Analytics has undertaken significant research into the

estimated parking demands the Census data provides to allow comparisons with expected parking provision required by policy. This research has been well received and presents one of the first measurements of parking demand at an LGA level right down to Census collector district level. A collector district refers to the boundary of an area which includes approximately 200 dwellings. This

is shown in Figure 14 below. 7.1 Land Use Characteristics

Census information collected in 2006 by ABS was analysed to identify characteristics of Gosford

City Centre and surrounds in terms of dwelling types, dwelling size and vehicle ownership. The base data from the Census is held at Census Collector District (CCD) level; these are units that hold, on average, about 200 dwellings. Consequently, in areas that are predominantly employment use CCDs tend to be larger and in dense residential areas they tend to be smaller in physical size. Figure 14

indicates the boundaries of CCDs in Gosford City Centre.

Figure 14 – Boundaries of CCD’s in Gosford City Centre

The CCDs used in the following analysis to represent the City Centre are:

1220505

1220506

1220509

1220512

1220508

1220513


X11170r01 Page

45

This is not completely consistent with the travel zone based analysis of the City Centre (see above). However it provides a fair reflection of City Centre population and housing characteristics.

7.2 Dwelling Type Distribution

The following table summarises dwelling type distributions for the City Centre and remainder of Gosford LGA. Table 15: Dwelling type distribution, remainder of Gosford LGA, City Centre and total Gosford LGA (frequency count of dwellings) Dwelling Types Remainder of

Gosford LGA City

Centre Gosford

LGA Total

Flat, unit or apartment attached to a house 270 0 270 Flat, unit or apartment in a one or two storey block 6,849 483 7,332 Flat, unit or apartment in a three storey block 1,213 410 1,623 Flat, unit or apartment in a four or more storey block 1,151 748 1,899 House or flat attached to a shop, office, etc. 196 3 199 Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc with one storey 8,703 119 8,822 Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc with two or more storeys

5,973 162 6,135

Separate house 106,025 161 106,186 Caravan, cabin, houseboat 1,600 0 1,600 Improvised home, tent, sleepers out 46 12 58 Not applicable 139 8 147 Not stated 113 0 113

Total 132,278 2,106 134,384

Source: Analysis uses ABS 2006 Census

The above table indicates that the City Centre, as at 2006, accounted for a small proportion (less

than 2%) of the dwellings within Gosford LGA.

The next table provides a distribution of dwellings by type within each of the areas. Table 16 Dwelling type distribution, remainder of Gosford LGA, City Centre and total Gosford LGA (% of dwellings in each subset) Dwelling Types Remainder of

Gosford LGA City Centre Gosford

LGA Total Flat, unit or apartment attached to a house 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

Flat, unit or apartment in a one or two storey block 5.2% 22.9% 5.5%

Flat, unit or apartment in a three storey block 0.9% 19.5% 1.2%

Flat, unit or apartment in a four or more storey block 0.9% 35.5% 1.4%

House or flat attached to a shop, office, etc. 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc with one storey 6.6% 5.7% 6.6%

Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc with two or more storeys 4.5% 7.7% 4.6%

Separate house 80.2% 7.6% 79.0%

Caravan, cabin, houseboat 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

Improvised home, tent, sleepers out 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.1% 0.4% 0.1%

Not stated 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



X11170r01 Page

46

Within the broader Gosford LGA separate dwelling houses form the overwhelming majority of dwellings, at 79%. In contrast, within the City Centre, separate dwelling houses represent just under 8% of dwellings, with flats units and apartments representing 78% of dwellings. Of note is that flats

units and apartments outside the City Centre are predominantly in one or two storey blocks, whereas in the City Centre, a large proportion of flats, units and apartments are in blocks of four or more storeys.

7.3 Dwelling Mix Comparison

The following table presents the dwelling size (in terms of number of bedrooms) distribution by dwelling type for Gosford LGA (excluding the City Centre).

Table 17: Dwelling size distribution by dwelling type and number of bedrooms, remainder of Gosford LGA (% of dwellings in each dwelling type) Dwelling Type None

(includes bedsitters)

1 bedroom 2 bedrooms

3 bedrooms

4 bedrooms

5+ bedrooms

Total

Flat, unit or apartment attached to a house

4.3% 34.8% 33.3% 18.8% 2.9% 5.8% 100.0%

Flat, unit or apartment in a one or two storey block

2.9% 20.4% 48.6% 25.6% 2.2% 0.5% 100.0%

Flat, unit or apartment in a three storey block

0.5% 7.2% 71.6% 19.6% 1.1% 0.0% 100.0%

Flat, unit or apartment in a four or more storey block

0.0% 5.4% 80.9% 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

House or flat attached to a shop, office, etc.

6.6% 13.2% 41.9% 30.9% 7.4% 0.0% 100.0%

Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc with one storey

0.4% 6.0% 45.7% 44.1% 3.2% 0.6% 100.0%

Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc with two or more storeys

0.4% 6.4% 32.0% 52.5% 7.5% 1.2% 100.0%

Separate house 0.1% 1.6% 14.1% 47.0% 30.4% 6.7% 100.0% Improvised home, tent, sleepers out

27.3% 45.5% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%

Caravan, cabin, houseboat

10.0% 33.5% 44.3% 9.4% 2.3% 0.5% 100.0%

Total 0.4% 3.5% 19.4% 45.3% 25.8% 5.6% 100.0%


The next table presents the same information for the City Centre.


X11170r01 Page

47

Table 18: Dwelling size distribution by dwelling type and number of bedrooms, Gosford City Centre (% of dwellings in each dwelling type) Dwelling Type None

(includes bedsitters)

1 bedroom 2 bedrooms

3 bedrooms

4 bedrooms

5 bedrooms or more

Total


na na na na na Na na


8.9% 18.3% 55.9% 16.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


2.1% 7.3% 79.0% 10.5% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%


0.0% 1.7% 67.6% 29.6% 1.1% 0.0% 100.0%


0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


0.0% 8.5% 78.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


2.1% 2.8% 61.0% 29.8% 4.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Separate house 0.0% 2.3% 16.8% 55.0% 19.1% 6.9% 100.0% Improvised home, tent, sleepers out

na na Na na na na na

Caravan, cabin, houseboat

na na Na na na na na

Total 2.6% 7.1% 62.7% 24.4% 2.6% 0.6% 100.0%

Source: Analysis uses ABS 2006 Census The above table indicates that flats, units and apartments in taller buildings tend to be larger within

the City Centre, with a relatively high proportion (29.6%) of 3 bedroom units in blocks of four or more storeys. Vehicle ownership information was extracted from the Census records and the following table compares the ownership distribution for Gosford City Centre, the remainder of Gosford LGA and the whole of Gosford LGA.

7.4 Vehicle Ownership per Dwelling Assessment Table 19: Vehicle ownership distribution by, Gosford City Centre, remainder of Gosford LGA and Gosford LGA (% of dwellings in each area) Number of vehicles Gosford City Centre Remainder of

Gosford LGA Total Gosford LGA

None 23.9% 11.0% 11.2%

1 motor vehicle 53.4% 42.5% 42.6%

2 motor vehicles 18.6% 34.1% 33.9%

3 motor vehicles 3.0% 8.9% 8.8%

4 or more motor vehicles 1.1% 3.6% 3.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


The average vehicle ownership for Gosford City Centre was 1.04 vehicles per dwelling, for the remainder of Gosford LGA the average was 1.52 vehicles per dwelling, and for the whole of

Gosford LGA it was 1.51 vehicles per dwelling. Just under a quarter of the dwellings in the City Centre recorded no vehicle parked at or near the dwelling on Census night.


X11170r01 Page

48

In comparison, the remainder of Gosford LGA had only 11% of dwellings with no vehicles on Census night. Also, about 23% of City Centre dwellings had 2 or more motor vehicles, whereas just over double that proportion of dwellings in the remainder of Gosford had 2 or more dwellings. The

following chart clearly shows the difference in vehicle ownership distribution Figure 15 – Vehicle Ownership Distribution in Gosford City Centre

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

None 1 motor vehicle

2 motor vehicles

3 motor vehicles

4 or more motor vehicles

% of dwellings

Number of vehicles at dwelling

Comparison of vehicle ownership distributions ‐ City Centre and remainder of

Gosford LGA

City Centre

Remainder of Gosford LGA

The following tables summarise the vehicle ownership distributions for the City Centre and the

remainder of Gosford LGA, by dwelling type.

Table 20: Vehicle ownership distributions by dwelling type, Gosford City Centre Row Labels None 1 motor

vehicle 2 motor vehicles

3 motor vehicles

4 or more motor

vehicles

Total Avg


na na na na na na na


43% 41% 12% 1% 3% 100% 0.8


29% 55% 13% 3% 0% 100% 0.9


12% 61% 23% 4% 0% 100% 1.2


100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.0


25% 59% 16% 0% 0% 100% 0.9


20% 56% 24% 0% 0% 100% 1.0

Separate house 16% 45% 26% 8% 5% 100% 1.4

Improvised home, tent, sleepers out

na na na na na na na

Caravan, cabin, houseboat na na na na na na na

Total 24% 53% 19% 3% 1% 100% 1.0



X11170r01 Page

49

Table 21: Vehicle ownership distributions by dwelling type, remainder of Gosford LGA Row Labels None 1 motor

vehicle 2 motor vehicles

3 motor vehicles

4 or more motor

vehicles

Total Avg


28% 52% 14% 3% 3% 100% 1.0


37% 50% 10% 2% 1% 100% 0.8


24% 53% 20% 3% 1% 100% 1.0


16% 64% 16% 0% 4% 100% 1.1


20% 56% 15% 7% 2% 100% 1.2


25% 58% 14% 2% 1% 100% 0.9


20% 52% 23% 4% 1% 100% 1.2

Separate house 8% 40% 38% 10% 4% 100% 1.6

Improvised home, tent, sleepers out 40% 60% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.6

Caravan, cabin, houseboat 31% 59% 9% 1% 1% 100% 0.8

Total 11% 42% 34% 9% 4% 100% 1.5

Source: Analysis uses ABS 2006 Census From Table 20 it is noted that the current car ownership per dwelling for flats, units and apartments within the Gosford City Centre was 0.97 vehicles per dwelling. When terrace type housing is

included, the average is 0.95 vehicles per dwelling.


X11170r01 Page

50

8 PARKING RATE REVIEW

In this section, parking rates of all 43 Sydney Metropolitan Councils have been reviewed to provide

a comparison to Gosford Council’s current parking rates for residential, commercial and retail uses which will form the largest component of future development within the Gosford Town Centre. Further, residential development is expected to take the form of flats, units or apartments (FUA’s) as part of either a stand-alone residential building or say part of a mixed use development.

8.1 Residential Parking Rate Review

The following table summarises the parking provision requirements of all 43 Sydney Councils for a range of size of dwellings for flats, units and apartments. The rates below apply either as a blanket or outside areas close to transport nodes.


X11170r01 Page

50

Table 22 - Existing Parking Rates for FUA by Bedroom Numbers by LGA LGA Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Visitor Parking Comments

The Council of the

Municipality of

Ashfield

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit + 1 space

/ 5 x 2 bedroom units

1 space / unit + 1 space

/ 2 x 3 bedroom units

1 space / unit + 1 space

/ 2 x 3 bedroom units 1 space per 5 units

Auburn Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space per 5 units

Bankstown City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space per 5 units Zone 2(b) residential and Zone 3(b) Business

Blacktown City

Council

1 space / unit + 1 space for each 3 bedroom unit 1 space per 2.5 units 2 spaces / 5 units

Blue Mountains 1 space / unit < 125m2 GFA or 2 spaces / unit > 125m2 GFA 1 space per 5 units 1 space per 2.5 units

The Council of the

City of Botany Bay

1 space / unit (1) 1 space / unit (1) 1 space / unit (1) 2 spaces / unit (2) 2 spaces / unit (2) 1 space per 5 units Small dwelling = 55m2, medium dwelling = 55-

85m2, large dwelling = >85m2

Burwood Council 0.5 spaces / unit 1 space / unit 1.3 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space per 4 units

Outside Burwood Town Centre rates, additional

spaces can be provided although deemed

'common property' for use by all residents

Camden Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit

1 space / 3 units (greater

than 8 dwellings) or 1

space / 4 units (less than 8

dwellings)

Campbelltown City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / 4 units

City of Canada Bay

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit

3 spaces (<5 dwellings) or

0.5 spaces / dwelling (> 5

dwellings)

Canterbury City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit

1 space per 5 dwellings or

Where a site is situated in

a narrow road (less than

11m in width) or cul-de-

sac, 1 space per 3

dwellings

0.2 of 1.2 rate for two bedroom units to remain

common property

Fairfield City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Greater than 400m from railway station or

major bus station

Hawkesbury City

Council

1 space / small

dwelling

1 space / small

dwelling

1 space / medium

dwelling 2 spaces / large dwelling 2 spaces / large dwelling 1 space per 5 units

Small dwelling = 55m2, medium dwelling = 55-

85m2, large dwelling = >85m2

The Hills Shire

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / 5 units

Holroyd City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units


X11170r01 Page

51

LGA Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Visitor Parking Comments The Council of the

Shire of Hornsby

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units Medium Density Rates, assume 100m2 = two

bedroom

The Council of the

Municipality of

Hunters Hill

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / 3 units

Hurstville City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Outside Hurstville CBD

Kogarah Municipal

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units

Ku-ring-gai Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.25 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units

Lane Cove Municipal

Council


Leichhardt Municipal

Council

0 - 0.5 spaces /

unit

0.5 - 1 space /

unit 0.8 - 1.6 spaces / unit 1 - 2 spaces / unit 1 - 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units Minimum to Maximum rates

Liverpool City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Outside Liverpool CBD

Manly Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit + 0.2

spaces / 2 bed unit

1 space / unit + 0.5

spaces / 3 bed unit

1 space / unit + 0.5

spaces / 3 bed unit 1 space / 4 units Residential Zone Rate

Marrickville Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / 4 units

Mosman Municipal

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Outside 200m walking distance to Spit Rd,

Manly Rd and any wharfs

North Sydney

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Within Residential Zones

Parramatta City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.25 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Outside 400m from railway station / transit

corridor

Penrith City Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units

Pittwater Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 3 units

Randwick City

Council

0.5 spaces / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units

Rockdale City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit

Ryde City Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.4 spaces / unit 1.6 spaces / unit 1.6 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Outside 400m of Victoria Rd / Epping Rd or a

Railway Station

Strathfield Municipal

Council


Sutherland Shire

Council

1.0-1.5 spaces /

unit

1.0-1.5 spaces /

unit 1.25-1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 - 2.0 spaces / unit 1.5 - 2.0 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units

Parking rates dependent on location around

town centres (use maps)


X11170r01 Page

52

LGA Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Visitor Parking Comments Council of the City

of Sydney

0.25 spaces / unit 0.5 spaces / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 2 spaces / unit 0 spaces / unit

Warringah Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 5 units

Waverley Council

0.3-1.0 spaces /

unit

0.3-1.0 spaces /

unit 0.4-1.2 spaces / unit 0.8-1.8 spaces / unit 0.8-1.8 spaces / unit

0 for first 14 units, then 1

per 7 units

Parking rates dependent on location along bus

routes (use maps)

Willoughby City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units

Woollahra Municipal

Council

1 space / 100m2

GFA

1 space / 100m2

GFA 2 spaces / 100m2 GFA 2 spaces / 100m2 GFA 3 spaces / 100m2 GFA

2 per first 3 units + 1 per

3 units thereof

Note: Multipliers applied throughout the LGA

(see table in DCP)


X11170r01 Page

53

In summary, the policy requirements of all 43 metropolitan councils are shown in Figure 16. Figure 16 – Sydney Metro Average Parking Policy Rates by Unit Size

The average number of parking spaces per dwelling by dwelling size for FUA in the Sydney Metropolitan Region, based on policy, is presented in Table 23. Table 23 - Sydney Metropolitan Average Parking Rate per Dwelling Size by Number of Bedrooms

Dwelling Size Sydney Metro Arithmetic Average Standard Deviation

Studio Dwelling 0.96 spaces / dwelling 0.21

One Bedroom Dwelling 1.00 spaces / dwelling 0.12

Two Bedroom Dwelling 1.28 spaces / dwelling 0.32

Three Bedroom Dwelling 1.81 spaces / dwelling 0.32

Three + Bedroom Dwelling 1.83 spaces / dwelling 0.38

Total Spaces – Unweighted Average 1.37 spaces per dwelling

Overall, Sydney metropolitan Councils require 1.37 spaces per dwelling for flats, units and apartments.

From Table 23 it can be seen that, in general, all Councils in the Sydney Metropolitan Region require at least one space per dwelling (0.96 spaces for studio sized dwellings) no matter what the dwelling size. Although application of all the existing ‘standard’ parking policies would require,

on average, 1.37 spaces per dwelling. When weighted by the existing bedroom size

distribution at an LGA level, the adjusted average is 1.26 spaces per unit, which reflects a higher proportion of smaller units than larger units.


X11170r01 Page

54

It was noted that almost all Councils required one space per studio / one bedroom dwelling except Sydney City Council, Burwood, Leichhardt, Randwick and Waverley, which require less than one; and, Sutherland Council, which requires more than one (1.5 spaces per studio / one

bedroom dwelling in a designated zone [Area 3]). 8.2 High Transit Access Parking Rates

Twelve councils include in their policies lower parking rates for residential developments located in a town centre, close to public transport (whether rail or bus), or close to facilities which are

expected to reduce the need for private vehicle usage. That is, these Councils apply a lower rate of parking provision in the hope that locational factors, such as better access to transit and local services will reduce the reliance on private vehicle use and, therefore, parking rates should reflect this.

The Councils with reduced parking rates are listed below:


X11170r01 Page

55

Table 24 - Council Parking Rates for Designated High Accessibility / Transit Areas

LGA Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Visitor Parking Comments

Bankstown City

Council

Minimum 1 space / dwelling to a maximum of 3 spaces per dwelling 1 space per 5 units Zone 3 (a) Bankstown CBD rate

Burwood Council 0.5 spaces / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 6 units

Outside Burwood Town Centre rates,

additional spaces can be provided

although deemed 'common property' for

use by all residents

Fairfield City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Less than 400m from railway station or major bus station

Hurstville City

Council

1 space per 100m2 1 space per

100m2 1 space per 100m2 1 space per 100m2 1 space per 100m2 1 space / 4 units Inside Hurstville CBD

Liverpool City

Council

0.5 spaces / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 10 units Liverpool CBD Parking Rates

Manly Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / 6 units Business Zone rates

Marrickville Council

0.5 spaces small dwelling

0.5 spaces small dwelling

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / 4 units Small dwelling in Business Zone <55m2

Mosman Municipal

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1.5 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Within 200m walking distance to Spit Rd, Manly Rd and any wharfs

North Sydney

Council

0.5 spaces / unit 0.5 spaces / unit 1 space / unit Not Listed Not Listed 1 space / 4 units Within Non Residential Zones

Parramatta City

Council

1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Within 400m from railway station / transit corridor

Ryde City Council 1 space / unit 1 space / unit 1.2 spaces / unit 1.6 spaces / unit 1.6 spaces / unit 1 space / 4 units Within 400m of Victoria Rd / Epping Rd or a Railway Station

Waverley Council

0.3-1.0 spaces / unit

0.3-1.0 spaces / unit

0.4-1.2 spaces / unit 0.8-1.8 spaces / unit 0.8-1.8 spaces / unit 0 for first 14 units, then 1

per 7 units Parking rates dependent on location along bus routes (use maps)


X11170r01 Page

56

As with the ‘standard’ parking rate assessment, the average parking rates by FUA dwelling size where ‘alternate’ parking rates are available is presented Table 25 below. Table 25 - Sydney Metropolitan Average Parking Rate per Dwelling by Bedroom Numbers in High Transit / Access to Services Area Dwelling Size High Transit/Access to Services Average Standard Deviation

Studio Dwelling 0.73 spaces / dwelling 0.34

One Bedroom Dwelling 0.86 spaces / dwelling 0.23

Two Bedroom Dwelling 1.02 spaces / dwelling 0.11

Three Bedroom Dwelling 1.28 spaces / dwelling 0.27

Three + Bedroom Dwelling 1.28 spaces / dwelling 0.27

Total Spaces – Unweighted Average 1.03 spaces / dwelling

Compared with the average ‘standard’ parking rate of 1.37 spaces per dwelling, parking rates which give consideration to transit accessibility or access to facilities would require as a whole 1.03 spaces

per dwelling.

A comparison of the Sydney wide average ‘standard’ rates versus ‘alternate’ rates is provided in Table 26. Table 26 – Sydney Metropolitan Average Standard Rates Compared with High Transit / Access to Services Rates Dwelling Size Sydney Metro Average High Transit/Access to Services Average Difference

Studio Dwelling 0.96 spaces / dwelling 0.73 spaces / dwelling 24.0%

One Bedroom Dwelling 1.00 spaces / dwelling 0.86 spaces / dwelling 14.0%

Two Bedroom Dwelling 1.28 spaces / dwelling 1.02 spaces / dwelling 20.3%

Three Bedroom Dwelling 1.81 spaces / dwelling 1.28 spaces / dwelling 29.3%

Three + Bedroom Dwelling 1.83 spaces / dwelling 1.28 spaces / dwelling 29.3%

Total Spaces – Unweighted

Avg

1.37 spaces per dwelling 1.03 spaces / dwelling 0.34 spaces / dwelling (24.8%)

From Table 26 it is noted that, in general, the approach is to require some 25% or thereabouts less parking provision in developments located close to transit nodes and in centres with higher levels of

access to services. Of interest is that the difference in the average parking provision for single bedroom units showed the smallest change, at 14%, compared with the other sized units. However, it is also noted that most Councils (31 of 43) do not offer alternative parking rates, consequently their parking provision rates apply no matter where the development is proposed within the LGA.

When these alternate parking rates are compared with the average of LGA-wide rates for the subset of twelve LGAs with alternate parking rates, the difference in the averages is the same (as Table 26) for studios and one bedroom units, whereas the difference in the averages is about five percentage

points for larger units. 8.3 Gosford Residential Rate Comparison The following is noted from the Gosford City Centre DCP:


X11170r01 Page

57

Table 27 - Gosford City Centre DCP FUA Parking Requirements Use Parking Requirement Townhouses, Residential Flat Buildings 1 Bedroom dwelling – 1 car space/dwelling

2 Bedroom dwelling – 1.2 car spaces/dwelling 3 or more bedroom dwellings – 1.5 car spaces/dwelling Visitor car parking: 0.2 spaces/dwelling, provided on site and clearly marked for use by visitors only Disability accessible car parking: Not less than 10% of the required resident and visitor spaces Motorcycle parking: 1 space /15 dwellings (or part thereof) Bicycle parking: 1 resident’s space/3 dwellings + 1 visitor space/12 dwellings (or part thereof)

As stated in Section 7.4, the current average vehicle ownership per dwelling based on the Census analysis for FUA’s, was 0.97 vehicles per dwelling. This is despite the current DCP requirement

between 1.0 spaces and 1.5 spaces per dwelling. The result in empty car spaces in these developments which in turn adds undue cost to buyers where parking is required by policy but not necessarily needed.

As a comparison, the average vehicles per dwelling for FUA’s in the Sydney Metropolitan area is:


X11170r01 Page

58

Table 28 - Lowest to Highest Average Vehicle Ownership per Dwelling

Rank LGA

No. of Vehicles per Dwelling Total No

of

Vehicles

Total No.

FUA

Dwellings

Avg. Veh

/

Dwelling 0 1 2 3

1 Blue Mountains 360 271 64 15 444 710 0.63

2 Sydney 18383 19033 4371 599 29572 42386 0.70 3 Blacktown 1597 1720 355 70 2641 3742 0.71

4 Penrith 1380 1621 319 85 2513 3405 0.74

5 Burwood 1392 1667 375 70 2627 3504 0.75

6 Marrickville 3531 5152 1166 167 7983 10015 0.80

7 Campbelltown 464 604 132 43 999 1243 0.80

8 Ashfield 2292 3710 738 114 5529 6855 0.81

9 Wyong 911 1336 253 84 2093 2584 0.81

10 Liverpool 2173 2809 761 150 4782 5894 0.81

11 Fairfield 2303 3172 819 151 5264 6445 0.82

12 Hawkesbury 257 395 111 20 678 783 0.87

13 Camden 88 118 33 12 218 250 0.87

14 Canterbury 4899 8333 2017 471 13778 15719 0.88

15 Parramatta 4518 8165 2031 321 13189 15035 0.88

16 Gosford 1489 2455 669 152 4250 4765 0.89

17 Ryde 2741 5825 1404 193 9213 10163 0.91

18 Randwick 6888 11677 3584 616 20693 22765 0.91 19 Leichhardt 1511 2774 841 112 4791 5238 0.91

20 Strathfield 1158 2342 648 75 3863 4223 0.91

21 Hornsby 2162 4694 1126 174 7467 8156 0.92

22 Holroyd 1937 4165 980 174 6646 7256 0.92

23 Botany Bay 1655 2813 883 171 5091 5521 0.92

24 Waverley 3830 6892 2194 342 12307 13259 0.93

25 Bankstown 2100 3484 1153 226 6468 6963 0.93

26 Hurstville 1750 3691 1000 146 6130 6587 0.93

27 Willoughby 2331 5342 1405 188 8715 9266 0.94

28 Hunters Hill 295 511 182 39 993 1027 0.97

29 Rockdale 2790 6620 1989 324 11570 11723 0.99

30 Auburn 1622 3233 1113 217 6108 6184 0.99

31 Mosman 1148 2933 861 114 4996 5055 0.99

32 North Sydney 4190 10577 3161 439 18215 18367 0.99

33 Kogarah 1366 3555 1081 157 6189 6160 1.00

34 Ku-ring-gai 740 2241 664 97 3861 3742 1.03 35 Lane Cove 959 2893 925 106 5061 4883 1.04

36 Woollahra 2448 5291 2165 365 10717 10269 1.04

37 Manly 1480 3408 1337 252 6837 6477 1.06

38 Sutherland Shire 2879 7991 3475 549 16588 14894 1.11

39 Wollondilly 39 60 26 16 161 142 1.13

40 Warringah 2561 8225 3661 549 17194 14996 1.15

41 Baulkham Hills 324 1058 518 93 2374 1994 1.19

42 Pittwater 353 1171 660 120 2851 2304 1.24

43 Canada Bay 1211 4536 2611 470 11168 8828 1.27

Total 98361 178630 53941 8845 313047 339777 0.92

In comparison, the vehicle ownership levels of the Gosford City Centre for FUA’s is slightly greater

than the average vehicle ownership across Sydney. Overall the current rates for parking provision for FUA’s are considered excessive.


X11170r01 Page

59

8.4 Gosford Commercial Rate Comparison

It is noted that the TMAP suggested a calibrated commercial parking rate of 1 space per 50sqm compared with the current LEP rate of 1 space per 75sqm.

A summary of all commercial rates across the Sydney Metropolitan area is provided below:


X11170r01 Page

59

Table 29 - Sydney Metropolitan Commercial Rate Comparison

DCP Rate Rate Adopted*

Council Area Commercial AVG Area(m2) for 1 space-

Commercial

Ashfield 1 in 40m2 40

Auburn 1 in 35m2 35

1 in 40m2

Bankstown CBD- 1 in 40m2 & section 94 for remaining 50% for public parking 40

Other locations- 1 in 40m2

Blacktown 1 in 30m2 30

Blue Mountains 1 in 40m2 40

Botany 1 in 40m2 40

Burwood 1 in 40m2 outside towncentre 50

1 in 50m2 inside towncentre

Camden 1 in 35m2 35

Campbelltown 1 in 35m2 35

Canada Bay 1 in 40m2 40

Canterbury 1 space per 60m2 for development in Zones 3(a), 3(e) and 4(d), or 60

1 space per 40m2 for elsewhere

Fairfield 1 in 40m2 40

Hawkesbury 1 in 30m2 30

Hills Shire Council 1 in 25m2 25

Holroyd 1 in 20m2 for Ground Floor 20

1 in 28m2 for first floor and above

Hornsby 1 in 40m2 40

Hunters Hill 1 in 30m2 30

Hurstville 1 in 50m2 50

Kogarah 1 in 40m2 40

Ku Ring Gai 1 in 33m2 gross floor area plus 1 space if resident manager or caretaker. 33

Lane Cove 1 in 40m2 40

1 in 110m2 in 800m radius of St. Leonards Centre

Leichardt Minimum: 1.5 in 100m2 33

Maximum: 3 in 100m2

Liverpool 1 in 35m2 of LFA 35

Manly 1 in 40m2 40

Marrickville 1 in 45m2 45

Mosman 1 in 37m2 37

Parramatta 1 in 50m2 + 1 loading bay/ 400m2 50

Penrith 1 in 40m2 40

Pittwater 2.5 in 100m2 40

Randwick 1 in 40m2 40

1 in 50m2 for residential zones

Rockdale 1 in 60m2 for Rockdale Towncentre 60

1 in 40m2 gfa for other areas

Ryde 1 in 30m2 30

Strathfield 1 in 30m2 at Strathfield towncentre 30

1 in 40m2 rest of the area


X11170r01 Page

60

DCP Rate Rate Adopted*

Council Area Commercial AVG Area(m2) for 1 space-

Commercial

Sutherland 1 in 30m2 at Ground Level 30

1 in 40m2 rest of the levels

Warringah 1 in 40m2 40

Waverley 1 in 60m2 60

Willoughby Outside Railway Precincts and MPTCs: 1 in 60m2 60

Within Railway Precincts (besides those mentioned below) and Major

public Transport Corridors as defined in Clause C.4.1-D: 1 in 110m2

Commercial premises in Chatswood: 1 in 200m2

Woollahra Depends on Activity. Average: 2.5 in 100m2 40

North Sydney 1 in 400m2 400

Excluding North Sydney

Average: 39.6

Standard Dev. : 9.5

Maximum 60

Minimum 20

Including North Sydney

Average: 49.4

Standard Dev. : 60.0

Maximum 60

Minimum 20


X11170r01 Page

67

8.5 Gosford Retail Parking Rate Comparison

A summary of the retail parking rates for the Sydney Metropolitan area is provided below. Table 30 - Sydney Metropolitan Retail DCP Rates

DCP Rate Rate Adopted

Council Area Retail AVG Area for 1 space- Retail

Ashfield 1 in 40m2 40

Auburn 6.1 in 100m2 16.4

(a) for 0- 10,000 m 2 GLFA: 6.1 in 100m2 GFA

(b) for 10,000- 20,000 m 2 GLFA: 5.6 in 100m2

(c) for 20,000- 30,000 m 2 GLFA: 4.3 in 100m2

(d) for more than 30,000 m 2 GLFA: 4.1 in 100m2

Bankstown 1 in 40m2 40

Blacktown 1 in 22m2 greater than 200m2 gfa 30

1 in 30m2 less than 200m2 gfa

Blue Mountains 1 in 25m2 25

Botany 1 in 40m2 40

Burwood 1 in 40m2 40

1 in 50m2

Camden 1 in 40m2 40

Campbelltown 1 in 25m2 25

Canada Bay 1 in 40m2 40

Canterbury 1 in 40m2 (< 120m2) 22

1 in 30m2 (120m2 – 1,000m2)

1 in 22m2 (> 1,000m2)

Fairfield Cabramatta, Fairfield, Bonnyrigg & 1 space per 25 m2 gross leasable area (if provided on- site) or 25

Prairiewood (Stocklands) 1 space per 33 m2 gross leasable area (if provided by way of contribution to centralised parking area).

Elsewhere in the City 1 space per 40 m2 gross leasable area

Hawkesbury 1 in 30m2 30

Hills Shire Council 1 in 18.5 m2 18.5

Holroyd 1 in 20m2 20

Hornsby 1 in 20m2 in Business A, B and E zones 20

1 in 17m2 in Business C and D zones

1 in 22.7m2 in Business F and G zones

Hunters Hill 1 in 25m2 25

Hurstville Spaces per 100m2 GLFA 16.6

0 - 10, 000= 6

10,000 - 20,000= 5

20,000 - 30,000= 4

>30,000 = 4

Kogarah 1 in 40m2 40

Ku Ring Gai

1 in 17m2 gross floor area. For minor additions to existing shops or conversion of existing premises to shops, 1 space per 28sqm. 17

Lane Cove 1 in 40m2 40

Leichardt Minimum: 1.5 in 100m2 33

Maximum: 3 in 100m2


X11170r01 Page

68

DCP Rate Rate Adopted

Council Area Retail AVG Area for 1 space- Retail

Liverpool Developments of LFA < 12,000sqm: 1 in 20m2 LFA 20

Developments of LFA 12,000 to 30,000m2: 1 in 25m2 of LFA

Developments of LFA > 30,000m2: 1 in 30m2 LFA

Manly 1 in 25m2 25

Marrickville up to 500m2 GFA: 1 in 45m2 25

500-750m2 GFA: 11 spaces + 1 space/30m2 over 500m2

750-1000m2 GFA: 19 spaces + 1 space/25m2 over 750m2

Over 1000m2: 30 spaces + 1 space/20m2 over 1000m2

Mosman 1 in 16m2 16

Parramatta 1 in 30m2 + 1 loading bay/ 400m2 30

Penrith 1 in 26m2 26

Pittwater 1 in 30m2 30

Randwick 1 in 40m2

Rockdale 1 in 35m2 @ Rockdale towncentre 35

1 in 25m2 @ other areas

Ryde 1 in 25m2 25

Strathfield 6.2 in 100m2: 75% for customers and 25% for employees 16

Sutherland 1 in 30m2 at Ground Level 30

1 in 40m2 rest of the levels

Warringah 1 space per 16.4 m2 GLFA 16

(6.1 spaces per 100 m2 GLFA)

(a) for 0- 10,000 m2 GLFA: 6.1 in 100m2 GFA

(b) for 10,000- 20,000 m2 GLFA: 5.6 in 100m2

(c) for 20,000- 30,000 m2 GLFA: 4.3 in 100m2

(d) for more than 30,000 m2 GLFA: 4.1 in 100m2

Waverley 1 in 30m2 30

Willoughby 1 in 25m2 25

Woollahra 4.6 in 100m2 21.7

North Sydney North Sydney Centre, Milsons Point and St Leonards = 1 space in 400 m2 400

Outside North Sydney Centre, Milsons Point and St Leonards = 4 spaces in 100m2

Average: 27.4

Standard Dev. : 8.3

Maximum 40

Minimum 16

Average: 37.7

Standard Dev. : 62.6

Maximum 40

Minimum 16

8.6 Recommended Residential, Commercial and Retail Parking Rates Having regard to the above analysis, a summary of the recommended parking rates for residential, commercial and retail uses within the Gosford City Centre are provided below.


X11170r01 Page

69

To both bring parking provision into line with ownership levels and to influence mode choice, the following parking rates for FUA’s are recommended: Table 31 – Recommended Parking Rates for Flats, Units & Apartments

Use Proposed Parking Rate

Flats, Units & Apartments 1 space per dwellingBedsitter, studio 1 space per dwelling

1 bedroom 1 space per dwelling2 bedroom 1 space per dwelling3+ bedroom 1.2 spaces per dwelling

Visitors 1 space per 7 dwellings

It is noted that on average in Sydney metro commercial developments require 1 space per 40sqm of

GFA. With North Sydney included, which has a significantly lower comparable rate, this increases to some 1 space per 50sqm. It is our view that commercial parking provision has not been an impediment to Gosford City to

date. We understand that since the change from one space per 40sqm from DCP 111 to the LEP

rate of 1 per 75sqm, minimal new development has occurred. Thus commercial parking provision should take a balanced view.

The recommended parking rate for commercial developments in Gosford is 1 space per 55sqm

GFA. This rate needs to be taken into context with the innovative proposals for parking provision in the City Centre as detailed in Section 10 of this report.

For retail uses, it is recommended that a rate of 1 space per 35sqm GFA is adopted for the

Gosford City Centre. Of equal importance to the recommended parking rates is how the allocation of parking is made.

This is discussed further in Section 10. 8.7 Parking Rates for other Uses

For the remaining uses which may occur in the Gosford City Centre, the TMAP recommended rates

have been reviewed in the context of how parking may influence mode of travel. The rates proposed in the TMAP are considered appropriate as part of a package of measures. However, on the matter of parking for educational facilities, it is our view that parking provision for

primary and secondary schools should include a provision for Kiss and Drop infrastructure. Historically parking provision for primary and secondary schools is based on a rate per staff and the number of students of driving age. Whilst this may be an appropriate approach for the provision of on-site spaces, kerb space and / or internal turn around areas should be provided for Kiss and

Drop.


X11170r01 Page

70

We recommended that Kiss and Drop provision should be made for the number of spaces which equates for 1-2% of the student population. For example, a school of 1000 students would require 10-20 Kiss and Drop spaces which would be located adjacent to each other and in a parallel parking

format. This allows one-way circular flows to occur. They may take the form of 90 degree spaces in a car park which convert to parallel Kiss and Drop spaces during morning and afternoon school peak periods.

8.8 Future Parking Demand versus Provision As per the requirements of the brief, the recommended parking provision rates have been placed in the original parking spreadsheet model prepared by GTA to determine a calibrated demand for long term and short term parking provision. The details assessment and resultant spreadsheets are

provided in Appendix A of this report. A summary of the approach is provided below: Application of parking model to Core City Centre uses the following process:

1. Concordance between GTA’s precinct and Core City Centre:

Identify blocks that are in GTA’s Precinct 1A and not in Core City Centre

Identify blocks that are not in GTA’s Precinct 1A but are in Core City Centre

2. Adjust for substantial change in use (closure of shopping centre)

3. Floorspace potential for City Core under LEP 2007 – using planners’ assumptions for residential splits

4. Examine land use projections for total City Centre and assign a proportion to City Centre

Core

5. Check they fit within floorspace potential under 2007 LEP 6. Identify incremental floorspace using these land use projections and allocate by use 7. Apply new parking rates to these incremental floorspaces by use

8. If a third of parking is provided off-site, then determine how many short term parking and how much off-site long term parking would be required?

Additional parking requirement Residential parking Residential parking for new developments would be provided on-site in accordance with the prevailing rate. While some proportion of this parking supply might be used for parking by non-

residential uses (sub leasing) it is reasonable to assume that demand would be met by the designated residential parking spaces and that these spaces would not be available for other uses.

Non-residential parking Non-residential floorspace would increase by 140,000 sqm within the Core City Centre and it will cover a number of different uses. Disaggregation of this additional floorspace by non-residential use

is based on current proportions for each use with the following adjustments:

No increase in industrial use, due to on-going structural adjustment and long term relative

decline of industrial activity


X11170r01 Page

71

Due to the large floorspace already used by hotel/taverns/clubs and place of worship/place of assembly with in Core City Centre, these uses are allocated additional floorspace at half their current proportion.

Table 32 – Distribution of incremental non-residential floorspace by use Use Existing Incremental TotalCommercial 114,124 97,489 211,613

Retail 31,183 26,638 57,821

Industrial 11,185 0 11,185

Hotel/Tavern/Club 21,607 6,359 27,966

Place of worship/place of assembly 6,659 1,960 8,619

Hospital 0 0 0

Education (Gosford Public School)* 0 0 0

Residential 0 0 0

Other 8,844 7,555 16,399

Total 237,844 140,000 377,844

Applying the recommended parking rates for retail and commercial and GTA rates for other uses to

the incremental floorspace yields the following additional car parking requirement for City Centre Core. Table 33 – Calculation of additional parking requirement Use Incremental

floorspace (sqm)

rate Parking requirement

(spaces)

Long term/short

term* Commercial 97,489 1 space per 55 sqm 1,773 Long term

Retail 26,638 1 space per 35 sqm 761 Short term

Industrial 0

Hotel/Tavern/Club 6,359 1.3 spaces per 100 sqm

83 Short term

Place of worship/place of assembly 1,960 5 spaces per 100 sqm

98 Short term

Hospital 0

Education (Gosford Public School)* 0

Residential 0

Other 7,555 2 spaces per 100 sqm

151 Long term

Total 140,000 2,866

Note: classification into long and short term from table 3.5, pg 26, GTA

The above table deals with incremental floorspace. In the situation where an existing building is re-

developed then current policies would have the following effect:

Where an existing building is replaced with the same floorspace and same use, then no

additional parking is required to be provided.


X11170r01 Page

72

Where an existing building is to be replaced by a new building, i having a floor area greater

than the existing building and / or ii which will have a different use, car parking is to be provided as calculated under this policy for the new building area and use.

In these cases, either status quo parking is maintained, or for additional floorspace current policy is applied (i.e., the additional floorspace would, for practical purposes, form part of the analysis in Table 8 above).

Consequently, demand due to additional floorspace would increase by approximately 942 short term spaces and 1,924 long term spaces. As noted previously, the closure of the Town Centre Shopping Centre post-GTA’s investigation and the current use of its car parking for commuter parkers (i.e., long stay), needs to be taken into consideration. It is our understanding that the funding

arrangements for the purchase of this facility by Council is that it must operate as a commuter car park for a period of at least four to five years. We now run the analysis for two cases:

with this car park as a commuter car park and assuming the retail floorspace in the shopping

centre does not operate (Current Situation); and,

without this car park as a commuter car park, with it operating as short stay parking for the

retail floorspace and with associated short term demand (Possible Future Situation). Table 34 – Adjustment for different outcomes at Town Centre Shopping Centre Element Current Situation

(Town Centre Car

Park as long term

parking)

Possible Future

Situation

(Town Centre Car

Park as short term

parking)

Future projected development

Additional floorspace (sqm) 140,000 140,000

Associated short term parking demand (spaces) 942 942

Associated long term parking demand (spaces) 1,924 1,924

Associated total parking (spaces) 2,866 2,866

Changes due to Town Centre Shopping

Reduced short term demand (retailed closed) (spaces) 491

Reduced short term supply (spaces switched to commuter) 558

Additional long term supply (spaces now commuter) 558

Taking account of Town Centre Shopping

Associated short term parking demand (spaces) 942

Associated long term parking demand (less long term supply in Town Centre Shopping Centre) (spaces)

1,366

Total additional parking requirement (spaces) 2,308 2,866

Up to one-third of this parking could be provided off-site in public car parks, with the balance to be provided on-site. If one-third of parking were provided off-site, then:


X11170r01 Page

73

under the Current Situation approximately 314 additional short term parking spaces and 455

public long term parking spaces would be required off-site.

under the Possible Future Situation approximately 314 additional public short term parking

spaces and 640 public long term parking spaces would be required off-site.

Permitting a proportion of parking to be located off-site in public car parks accrues a number of broad benefits to the community. These include:

For small sites with access and layout issues, the difficulty in providing all parking on-site

can reduce the site’s yield, even if, from a planning perspective, the site has many other desirable attributes and is an ideal location for more intensive activity

Construction of a large public car park can derive economies of scale in construction,

operation and maintenance, reducing unit capital and operating costs

Locating public car parks, especially for long term parking, around the edge of the city centre

can assist to reduce traffic congestion within the centre, especially during peak periods

By pooling parking spaces in a public facility or several public facilities, it is likely that the

spaces will have a higher overall utilisation than if they were located on-site, with occupancy varying across different times of the day and days of the week, as different uses become active (this has the potential to support additional activity with a given parking supply)

Previous studies have identified that a large proportion of Baker Street car park’s demand is long term. A recommendation of previous studies, such as the TMAP, has been that current long term parking supply should be progressively switched to short term use (by changing regulations and

charging regimes) and that long term parking is moved to the periphery of the City Centre.

Applying this approach, the 640 additional public long term spaces identified above for the possible future situation would be provided on the periphery of the centre, along with existing long term parking demand that is to be transitioned out of the City Centre.

The 314 additional public short term parking spaces would be accommodated in the Baker Street Car Park (total of 701 spaces) and the Town Centre Car Park (total of 558 spaces), largely in spaces freed-up by the transitioning out a proportion of the long term parking. It should be noted that

transitioning long term spaces out of the Town Centre Car Park may not be possible until after the

period concludes during which it was agreed by Council that the spaces would be long term (thought to be four to five years from purchase). To accommodate all of these 356 additional short term spaces in Baker Street and Town Centre Car Park would require approximately 25% of their

total supply to switch from long term to short term over the period through to 2031.

With more intensive management of the on-street parking supply, a proportion of this additional short term parking demand might be accommodated on-street.

The location of the Baker Street and Town Centre car parks at the eastern and western edges of the City Centre provides good walking access to most of the City Centre Core area.


X11170r01 Page

74

Application of parking model The above information for non-residential uses has been analysed in an adjusted parking model for the City Centre Core area for the incremental floorspace under the Possible Future Situation. It

does this for the future years of 2021 and 2031. The above analysis has treated each use separately, so that supply required under the policy is assumed, regardless of when peak demand occurs. The application of the parking model provides an estimate of overall incremental demand by hour (using the calibrated temporal parking demand profiles) through the day.

This provides a slightly lower estimate of total demand, as different uses have different times of peak demand. However, if spaces are provided on-site and by use, then this is likely to understate the parking requirement.

Approximately 60% of the additional population is expected to be in the City Centre by 2021. This factor has also been applied to the employment estimate, and flows through to additional parking requirements.

Comparison of projections for 2031

The following table compares the projections for 2031 from the amended calibrated model and from our analysis.

Table 35 – Comparison of parking demand estimates, amended & re-calibrated model and Table 34 Element Amended & re-calibrated model Table 34 above

Projected short term demand 672 942

Projected long term demand 2,072 1,924

Total projected peak demand 2,745 2,866

The difference in the two estimates of total projected parking demand is due to timing differences of

the peak parking demand by use. The model applies different temporal profiles by use and then combines the parking demand across the uses for each hour. If the parking is going to be provided in a common pool, this projection indicates a saving in total parking provision is possible. Where

most parking is not provided in a common pool, the superposition method used in Table 9 provides a more realistic estimate of parking requirements. As indicated previously, some common pooling

of parking is desirable; however, we are not confident that more than a small proportion of additional parking can be provided in such a common pool.

The difference between the short term and long term splits in the total is due to the model assigning

20% of retail shopping demand to long term and 80% to short term. In Table 9 we have assumed 100% of retail would be short term, which, given the importance of parking to retail, is a more

conservative approach.


X11170r01 Page

75

9 INNOVATIVE PARKING PROVISION OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Gosford City Centre offers and unique opportunity to create a walkable urban city with parking on the periphery and high levels of activity in the core. The following are innovative options for consideration on the matters including:

of overall parking provision of developments;

allocation of parking in strata titles;

parking discounts;

transition of long term parking from Council car parks to short term parking;

contribution methods; and

opportunities large developments may provide.

9.1 Long Term Parking in Gosford City Centre

Council has in its possession now two large public car park assets of which the majority of vehicles parking do so long term. These mainly include town centre workers and to a lesser extent commuters using the rail network – our work indicates that there is quite a limited overflow of

parking by rail commuters from the NSW Government Railways car park, and this is broadly in line

with the results of GTA’s investigation. Broadly in line with the recommendations of the TMAP, long term parking should be removed

from the core of Gosford City Centre and some should be transferred to more appropriate locations

around the periphery of the city. Some travellers may choose another mode; and there will need to be consideration given to the potential for the development of some Park and Ride facilities outside the city centre. In any event, for this shift of long term parking to be successful it would need to be

supported by improved access by other modes, including buses and cycling.

With the additional projected residential population of the city centre, the rate of supply of long term parking, in terms of spaces per city centre worker, will reduce. This results from co-location of

a proportion of the workforce and their jobs.

9.2 Option to Transfer of Long Term Parking

It is our view that the Baker Street and Gosford City Centre public car parks offer a unique

opportunity to:

1. Achieve the desired outcomes of the TMAP; 2. Promote development through the transfer of a proportion of the parking provision of

developments within the City Centre Core;

3. Capture traffic travelling to and from the City Centre without the need to travel through the

centre; and 4. Create a walkable City Centre by ‘bookending’ the area.


X11170r01 Page

76

It is a difficult task to remove large volumes of long term parking from existing car parks both from a planning and a political perspective. However, the progressive transition of parking out of these car parks over time as the City Centre develops would achieve a number of positive

outcomes. For all new development within the City Centre Core zone, we have undertaken the following optional approach:

1. Calculated the total long term parking provision of each car park 2. Calculated the total increase in GFA of use on the ‘City Centre Core’ zone 3. Calculated the total parking provision which would be required under the new proposed

parking rates

4. Determined an appropriate proportion of the parking for new development which should be located in the public car parks as short term parking.

The ‘proportion’ of parking granted to new developments for inclusion as short term parking

spaces in the Baker Street and Gosford City Centre car parks is a matter for Council to

determine. However, the greater the transfer of long term parking provision from these car parks to short term parking, the greater the potential to achieve mode shift away from private vehicles for Journey to Work trips.

The above would not apply to residential developments. This approach accounts for the fact that parking provision for say a commercial development

includes both long term and short term parking. A small number of long term / operational

parking spaces would be provided as part of the development. The remainder would be set aside in the two public car parks.

Over time Council would ‘turn off’ portions of the long term parking to transfer these spaces to

short term parking, to support increasing development in the City Centre Core. Example 1

A commercial development is required to provide 10 spaces as per the parking rates. Seven spaces would be

provided on site whilst three spaces would be provided in either of Council’s two main car parks. Example 2

A restaurant is required to provide 20 spaces. Given the anticipated operational hours of the restaurant, the ‘dual

use’ of public parking should be promoted. Therefore the restaurant may be required to provide, say, five spaces on site plus service vehicle facilities whilst the remainder would be provided in the public car parks.

9.3 Residential Parking Provision

We have developed a potentially innovative method of providing funds for the provision of non-private car infrastructure through savings achieved in reducing costs of parking provision.


X11170r01 Page

77

It is our view that provision of infrastructure for non-private vehicle modes is a much greater influence on a person’s mode choice than simply restricting parking. Thus, we propose an innovative discretionary contribution approach to allow developers to contribute to infrastructure

/ services through savings on parking construction costs. We propose that all residential developments which include flats, units or apartments in not only the City Centre but the Gosford LGA should be granted up to a 10% discount on parking

provision if the development is located on a bus route and / or located within 600m (walking distance) of a rail station. If not located on a bus route or within 600m walking distance to a station, a 5% reduction would

be permitted. However, a proportion of the savings of the reduced parking provision (and thus reduced parking construction costs) should be provided to Council to provide infrastructure / services for

buses, walking and cycling.

It is noted that to provide basement car park, this would come at an estimated cost of some $30,000 - $50,000 per space. This cost is passed onto the purchaser. We propose that a

contribution of some $17,500 per space could be made to funding infrastructure for non-private

vehicle modes for each space not built under this discount provision. It is our view that this should be undertaken on a case by case basis and not to fund a

predetermined list of infrastructure works. We have taken this view as redevelopment of a site

may provide an opportunity to provide say a cycle link which previous planning has never thought could occur. Other examples might include the construction of a footpath, not necessarily along the frontage of the property in question, but in the next block to provide an all-

weather link to an existing bus route or cycle path.

This is not to say that Council’s current bike plan, Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and TMAP recommendations cannot be incorporated into future infrastructure works which

could be funded by this discretionary contribution method. Indeed, these plans do provide a

basis from which to work in the identification of useful improvements to the City Centre’s movement network. The approach should be flexible to create a win-win situation as well as providing some incentive for innovation in the identification and provision of relevant

improvements. The developer would have a reduced construction cost and a proportion of these

savings would be provided to construct specific facilities for public transport, walking and cycling facilities.


X11170r01 Page

78

Having regard to the current policies, each case would need to be handled through a Voluntary Planning Agreement. However, it is our view that developers would see the value in providing infrastructure which not only benefited residents of their particular development but the public in

general, within the city centre. Some examples could include:

1. Provide of a new shelter adjacent to or within reasonable walking distance to the development

2. Construction of a footpath link to provide an all-weather path to the nearest bus route. 3. Construction of pedestrian refuges / marked footcrossings as part of a greater network plan. 4. Road widening (say through the collection of a number of contributions) to provide bus

priority at a set of traffic signals.

5. Dedication of a portion of the land to provide a public pedestrian / cycleway link which would not have occurred if the development did not proceed.

It should be noted that the above discretionary contributions with VPA’s should where possible

provide specific agreed to facilities so the developer / Council can realise the immediate benefit.

Pooling these contributions into general review similar to Section 94 is not recommended. Ultimately the developer may choose to provide the parking provision as per the recommended

rates. However, the above approach provides an untapped resource of funding and has the

scope to improve the efficiency of the way in which resources are allocated. This allows developers to choose to make savings on a development which would not result in significant overflow parking onto the surrounding road network but results in measurable infrastructure to

assist in achieving transport mode share targets.

Example A development includes 100 x two bedroom units and thus requires 100 spaces.

The developer works with Council and proposes 90 spaces on site. Therefore a contribution of some $175,000 would be payable to Council. The developer provides two new bus shelters at $20,000 per shelter and $135,000 of footpath works on two surrounding streets to complete a linked network.

9.4 Large Residential Developments

It is noted that the allocation of parking is included in the strata title of each unit (where parking is allocated to that particular unit). As is the case with most developments, whilst parking is

provided at say 1 space per dwelling, the allocation of parking is disproportionally skewed to the

larger units at the expense of the bedsitter / studio units. Thus if a purchaser requires a car space to perform their work duties, for example an electrician,

they are required to buy a unit larger than their needs to simply gain access to a parking space on

site. What generally occurs is a sub-market is created where owners of larger units which do not need their car space, on-lease it to the smaller units for use.


X11170r01 Page

79

Our research has shown that on average in the Sydney Metropolitan Area that 28% of all units out of the 340,000 units currently constructed, do not have a vehicle parked overnight (2006 census).

Therefore a potential method to overcome the above issue is in large developments, say over 100 dwellings, parking is not strata titled to a particular unit. Parking is provided as per the recommended rates. However, occupiers would lease a space / s through the body corporate at a

reasonable rate. This potentially reduces the initial purchase price of a unit by some $30,000 - $50,000. The leasing of parking should be capped per dwelling at an appropriate rate. Example

Purchaser A requires a one bedroom unit but does not require parking. – Purchase price would be $300,000. Purchase B requires a one bedroom unit and requires one parking space. Purchase price would be $300,000 + $2,500 per annum payable to the body corporate to lease a car space. At this rate, it would take some 12-20

years ($30,000 - $50,000 construction cost for each space) before the owner would pay more for the space than it

was originally worth. The agreement could include a clause which say after 15 years no further contributions are

payable on the leased space.

On the matter of the saleability of each dwelling, there would be a minimum of one space per dwelling which could be made available to each dwelling. Larger dwellings (say 3 bedroom+)

could lease two spaces if they wish (capped).

The approach potentially reduces the initially up front cost of housing whilst allowing flexibility in the allocation of parking within a larger development. Further, it provides the opportunity for

units of any size to gain access to a parking space. An alternative to the above would be that the allocation of parking could not vary from the provision rate per unit. That is, at a rate of one space per dwelling, it is expected that each and every

unit be provided with at least one space in the strata plan and larger units are not provided with say two spaces and smaller spaces with none. 9.5 Parking Allocation of Residential Units

The provision of parking for residents within multi-unit developments is calculated by applying a parking rate to each of the units to determine a total. However, often the strata plan allocates more parking to the larger units of the development at expense of some of the small units not receiving any parking.


X11170r01 Page

80

Developers are of the view that larger allocations of parking for larger units assists in the saleability of the units and smaller units do not require as much or no parking. However, the cost burden to provide the parking originally is passed onto all units.

This approach discriminates somewhat to the persons who may not wish to purchase a large unit, say an electrician, but must do so to gain access to a parking space. It should be noted that on average 28% of all FUA dwellings had NO vehicles parked overnight.

From Table 20 it is noted that for FUA’s Gosford City Centre also had an average of 28% of dwellings had no vehicles parked overnight. Thus there is a natural capacity created in car parks for multi-unit dwellings which is generated by a

number of residents, somewhat irrespective of unit size, not owning a vehicle. This reflects planning and transport policy to locate higher density housing close to a range of transport options and services. This is consistent across Sydney.


X11170r01 Page

81

10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many of the recommendations of previous studies are not reflected in Council’s current policies. In

addition, parking rates proposed in previous studies often differ for a variety of reasons. The following strategies for the provision of parking in the Gosford City Centre should be considered: On the matter of public parking, this report has taken the view that Gosford City Centre has and

will continue to have (with the additional public parking areas proposed for the Waterfront and Hospital precincts) adequate public parking provision to service development now and into the future.

The main issue that has arisen is that the majority of the existing parking assets, even though supported through contribution maintenance levies, are accommodated by commuter and long term parkers.

To achieve a mode shift and have parking provision has a management tool of a package of

measures, Council must consider moving large portions of the existing public car parks to short term parking.

This can only occur in tandem with park and ride parking provision on the periphery.

This report has developed strategies for the transition of long term parking to short term parking in Councils two main car parks, namely Baker Street and the Gosford City Car Park.

10.1 Short Term Strategies 10.1.1 Council Policies

After a detailed assessment of current policies and contribution methods in place for new

development in the Gosford City Centre, the following has been noted:

1. A number of policies and their objectives on the matter of parking provision are in friction and need updating and / or replacement.

2. The calculation for the provision of parking for new developments and / or change of use is

confusing and difficult to determine with confidence. 3. The value of the existing parking rates, and / or adopting new parking rates to achieve mode

shift targets are diminished by the current policies.

4. There is a disconnect between the objectives of current policies and outcomes which can be

achieved through their application. 5. The application of current policies pertaining to car parking is dysfunctional.

To maximise the effectiveness of parking provision rates published in this report, Council must

consider undertaking a holistic and detailed review of current policies which apply to parking provision in the Gosford City Centre.


X11170r01 Page

82

This would include the Gosford Loan Rate levy. The boundary of this levy should be modified to adopt the boundaries of the ‘City Centre Core’ as described in Section 10.3.

10.2 Medium to Long Term Strategies

These strategies would include embracing the recommendations of the TMAP to move long term parking out of the Gosford City Centre to peripheral park and ride facilities serviced by higher quality transit operations. This could be combined with the suggestions of this report to transfer

long term parking over time with the provision of short term parking to service a proportion of the parking requirements of new developments / change of use. 10.3 Precincts

The five precincts detailed in the Gosford Masterplan have not been strictly adopted to determine appropriate parking rates for the Gosford City Centre. For both the Waterfront Precinct and Hospital Precinct, whilst the parking rates in the report can be

applied to these areas, it is clear the planning for the areas would be under the care and control of

the State Government. A precinct known as the City Centre Core has been developed which includes the entire current B3

zone and the B4 zones east of Mann Street and north up to Racecourse Road. The TAFE site has

been excluded from this precinct. The remaining areas would be considered as part of general rates which apply to the remainder of

the Gosford LGA.

The ‘City Centre Core’ boundaries are shown below:


X11170r01 Page

83

10.4 Draft Recommended Parking Rates

The full version of all applicable parking rates is provided in the main report. For the key uses

expected in the City Centre, the following rates are recommended to provide a balance between the need for a development to provide operational parking versus reducing the reliance on

private vehicle use.


X11170r01 Page

84

Use Proposed Parking Rate

Flats, Units & Apartments 1 space per dwellingBedsitter, studio 1 space per dwelling1 bedroom 1 space per dwelling

2 bedroom 1 space per dwelling3+ bedroom 1.2 spaces per dwelling

Visitors 1 space per 7 dwellings

Commercial 1 space per 55sqm GFA

Retail 1 space per 35sqm GFA

The proportion approach described above would apply to the commercial and retail parking rates on the basis that Council adopt the suggested approach of transferring long term parking out of

the two main public car parks to provide the short term parking components of commercial, retail etc. developments. In the event that Council does not adopt the proportion approach, then the above rates would be

applied and they would require all parking to be provided on site.

10.5 Parking Provision Best Practice

Recommendations for the design of car parking areas, access arrangements, bicycle parking and

bike rider facilities have been developed and summarised in Appendix B of this report.

Consideration should be given to adopting the recommendations of the ‘best practice’ approaches described in Appendix B in future policies.


X11170r01 Page

85

11 APPENDICES

Appendix A Updated Parking Forecast Spreadsheets

Appendix B Parking Provision Best Practice


X11170r01 Page

78

APPENDIX A

Updated Forecast Parking Spreadsheets

Application of parking model to Core City Centre uses the following process:

9. Concordance between GTA’s precinct and Core City Centre:

Identify blocks that are in GTA’s Precinct 1A and not in Core City Centre

Identify blocks that are not in GTA’s Precinct 1A but are in Core City Centre

10. Adjust for substantial change in use (closure of shopping centre)

11. Floorspace potential for City Core under LEP 2007 – using planners’ assumptions for

residential splits

12. Examine land use projections for total City Centre and assign a proportion to City Centre Core

13. Check they fit within floorspace potential under 2007 LEP

14. Identify incremental floorspace using these land use projections and allocate by use 15. Apply new parking rates to these incremental floorspaces by use 16. If a third of parking is provided off-site, then determine how many short term parking and

how much off-site long term parking would be required?

Concordance between GTA’s Precinct 1A and Core City Centre boundaries GTA’s Precinct 1A does not include:

B4 block 9 (included in Precinct 1B):

o Etna/Mann/Beane/Hills Sts

o 1 residential flat building o A number of retail and commercial premises with a site area of about 15,900 sqm7

o Ignore existing demand and supply – implication is that spare on-street parking would not be taken into consideration in the future year estimates

o Apply additional floorspace potential and calculate parking requirements

7 A number of the retail premises are vacant at 2011


X11170r01 Page

79

B4 block 10 (included in Precinct 1B)

o Etna/Hills/Beane sts o 5 residential flat buildings o 2 dwelling houses

o Commercial premises (including car park for medical centre) approx 3,830 sqm o Ignore existing demand and supply – implication is that spare on-street parking

would not be taken into consideration in the future year estimates o Apply additional floorspace potential and calculate parking requirements

Core City Centre does not include:

R1 block 20 – Beane St/Henry Parry Dr:

o Residential flat building o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do

not assign further floorspace to it

B4 block 18 – Margin St / Donnison St:

o Court House o 7,495 sqm site area o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do


B4 block 21 – Margin St / Donnison St:

o 4 residential flat buildings

o 1 dwelling house o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do


B4 block 22 – Georgiana Tce/Henry Parry Dr/Moat Ln:

o 6 residential flat buildings

o 7 dwelling houses o 2 vacant blocks of land (512.2 sqm and 796.7 sqm)

o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do


B4 block 23 – Georgiana Tce/Mann St/Henry Parry Dr:

o 3 dwelling houses

o 5 residential flat buildings o Commercial premises

o Police station – commercial 3450 sqm site area o Shop – 113.8 sqm

o Telstra – 6,026 sqm o Church – 10,337 sqm

o Vacant land – 2,075 sqm o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do



X11170r01 Page

80

SP1 block 5 – primary school:

o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do not assign further floorspace to it

SP1 block 6 – TAFE:

o Not explicitly in the model

o Treatment: leave the current demand and supply for this block in the model, but do not assign further floorspace to it

Treatment of Town Centre Shopping Centre:

William/Donnison St/Henry Parry Dr/Albany St

Site area 5,446.1sqm and total area 13,370sqm

This was trading during the 2008 surveys:

o Supply – 558 spaces (GTA, App A) o Peak demand – 491 cars at noon, GTA, App A

As part of the purchase arrangements of this facility by Council, it is our understanding that

the parking component must remain as a commuter (long term) car park for a period of at least four to five years

2011 status:

o shopping centre is closed loss of 491 car demand

o 558 additional spaces for car parking

Treatment:

o Initially calculate requirement for additional floorspace and then apply the following

adjustments to the result:

Deduct 491 cars from Precinct 1A short term demand

Deduct 558 spaces from Precinct 1A retail supply (short term)

Add 558 spaces to Precinct 1A public off-street parking (long term)

Floorspace potential 2007 LEP The following table identifies floorspace potential by use and precinct for the area covered by 2007

LEP. Table 36 – Total City Centre floorspace potential by use, 2007 LEP Use Potential Residential Potential Non ResidentialGeneral Residential Zone R1 640,775 0 Commercial Core Zone B3 0 398,198 Mixed Use Zone B4 746,985 248,906 Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor 51,243 153,730 Infrastructure Zone SP2 0 64,860 Special Activities Zone SP1 0 510,893 Total 1,439,003 1,376,587

Source: City Centre Development Potential under LEP 2007.xls, from Gosford City Council

A similar analysis is provided below for the Core City Centre.


X11170r01 Page

81

Table 37 – Floorspace potential by use under 2007 LEP, for Core City Centre Use Block Potential Residential Potential Non ResidentialB3 - Commercial Core Precinct 1 7,656

Precinct 2 81,777Precinct 3 71,811Precinct 4 68,166Precinct 5 61,868Precinct 6 20,432Precinct 7 20,756Precinct 8 7,089Precinct 9 33,336Precinct 10 21,329Precinct 11 394,220

Sub total 788,439B4 - Mixed Use Precinct 6 39,325 13,108

Precinct 9 59,667 19,889Precinct 10 24,678 8,226Precinct 11 44,334 14,778Precinct 12 10,669 3,556Precinct 13 24,888 8,296Precinct 14 22,584 7,528Precinct 15 50,874 16,958Precinct 16 46,036 15,256Precinct 17 42,521 14,174Precinct 19 40,108 13,369Precinct 20 32,349 10,783Precinct 27 40,736 13,579

Sub total 478,769 159,501Total 478,769 947,940


The above indicates that the City Centre Core accounts for 33% of the potential residential floorspace and 68% of the potential non-residential floorspace in the area covered by the 2007 LEP.


X11170r01 Page

82

The area covered by GTA’s Precinct 1A has the following floorspace potential. Table 38 – Floorspace potential by use under 2007 LEP, for Precinct 1A (GTA) Use Block Residential Non Residential

B3 - Commercial Core Precinct 1 7,656 Precinct 2 81,777 Precinct 3 71,811

Precinct 4 68,166 Precinct 5 61,868

Precinct 6 20,432 Precinct 7 3,978 Precinct 8 20,756

Precinct 9 7,089 Precinct 10 33,336 Precinct 11 21,329

Sub-total 398,198

B4 Mixed Use Precinct 6 39,325 13,108 Precinct 11 44,334 14,778

Precinct 12 10,669 3,556 Precinct 13 24,888 8,296 Precinct 14 22,584 7,528

Precinct 15 50,874 16,958 Precinct 16 46,036 15,256 Precinct 17 42,521 14,174

Precinct 18 14,053 4,684 Precinct 19 40,108 13,369

Precinct 20 32,349 10,783 Precinct 21 2,561 854 Precinct 22 10,670 3,557

Precinct 23 61,440 20,480 Precinct 27 40,736 13,579

Sub-total 483,148 160,960

SP1 - Special Activities Precinct 5 35,017

Precinct 6 141,360

Sub-total 176,377Total 483,148 735,535


The above table indicates that the difference in floorspace potential between Core City Centre and Precinct 1A is relatively small. Land use projections for Gosford City Centre Target year of 2031.

Population

Additional population 15,401 (based on BTS population projections) of which

approximately 6,783 are projected to be in the Core City Centre

Assuming 2 persons per dwelling on average – requirement for 3,400 dwellings

if there is 100 sqm per dwelling unit – requirement for approximately 340,000 sqm of

additional residential floorspace in the Core City Centre


X11170r01 Page

83

Employment

Additional employment – increase in employment capacity of 6,000 by 2031 (Central Coast

Regional Strategy)8

We estimate that about 4,000 of this additional employment capacity would be located

within the Core City Centre and the balance would be split between the hospital area; the

waterfront area; with the balance distributed between North Gosford and the area to the west of the rail line (but not including the hospital area)

At an average employee density of around 1 employee per 35 sqm, this would require about

140,000 sqm of additional floorspace Existing floorspace Existing floorspace reported in GTA for Precinct 1A is tabulated below. Table 39 – Existing floorspace for Precinct 1A Use Unit Precinct 1A floorspace

Commercial sqm 114,124

Retail sqm 44,553 Industrial sqm 11,185 Hotel/Taver/Club sqm 21,607

Place of worship/place of assembly sqm 6,659 Hospital beds 0

Education (Gosford Public School)* students 565 Residential sqm 43,677 Other sqm 8,844

Total 251,214

Note: education excluded from total Source: Table 3.3, pg 23, GTA Note that the existing floorspace of the Core City Centre is not exactly the same as GTA’s Precinct 1A, it is, however, very similar.

Adjustment for closure of Town Centre Shopping Centre Based on information in the 2007 LEP spreadsheet, the Town Centre Shopping Centre site has an area of 5,446 sqm and total floorspace area 13,370 sqm. This floorspace (13,370 sqm) is deducted in

the following table from the retail component of City Centre Core to provide an estimate of current

active floorspace9.

8 Note that BTS are projecting a decline in City Centre Employment through to 2031. 9 This is based on our understanding of the funding arrangements for the purchase of this facility by Council that it must operate as a commuter

car park for a period of at least four to five years


X11170r01 Page

84

Table 40 – Adjustment to existing floorspace in Precinct 1A Use Unit Precinct 1A

floorspace

Adjusted Precinct 1A

floorspace

Commercial sqm 114,124 114,124Retail sqm 44,553 31,183*Industrial sqm 11,185 11,185

Hotel/Taver/Club sqm 21,607 21,607Place of worship/place of assembly sqm 6,659 6,659 Hospital beds 0 0

Education (Gosford Public School)* students 565 565 Residential sqm 43,677 43,677

Other sqm 8,844 8,844

Total 251,214 237,844

Of importance is whether the 2007 LEP provides sufficient floorspace to accommodate the projected increase in resident population and employment capacity. The following table compares the existing floorspace plus projected floorspace requirement with the 2007 LEP’s potential

floorspace.

Table 41 – Comparison of future floorspace requirement and potential floorspace in 2007 LEP Use Residential Non Residential

Existing floorspace 43,677 194,167

Additional floorspace requirement 340,000 140,000 Total 383,677 334,167 2007 LEP floorspace potential 478,769 947,940

Balance* +95,092 +613,773

Note: * +ve denotes excess of potential floorspace over requirement; -ve denotes deficit of potential floorspace when compared with requirement

There is sufficient potential floorspace provided under 2007 LEP to meet existing and projected future uses. Additional parking requirement Residential parking Residential parking for new developments would be provided on-site in accordance with the prevailing rate. While some proportion of this parking supply might be used for parking by non-

residential uses (sub leasing) it is reasonable to assume that demand would be met by the designated residential parking spaces and that these spaces would not be available for other uses.

Non-residential parking Non-residential floorspace would increase by 140,000 sqm within the Core City Centre and it will cover a number of different uses. Disaggregation of this additional floorspace by non-residential use

is based on current proportions for each use with the following adjustments:

No increase in industrial use, due to ongoing structural adjustment and long term relative

decline of industrial activity


X11170r01 Page

85

Due to the large floorspace already used by hotel/taverns/clubs and place of worship/place of assembly with in Core City Centre, these uses are allocated additional floorspace at half their current proportion.

Table 42 – Distribution of incremental non-residential floorspace by use Use Existing Incremental TotalCommercial 114,124 97,489 211,613

Retail 31,183 26,638 57,821

Industrial 11,185 0 11,185

Hotel/Tavern/Club 21,607 6,359 27,966

Place of worship/place of assembly 6,659 1,960 8,619

Hospital 0 0 0

Education (Gosford Public School)* 0 0 0

Residential 0 0 0

Other 8,844 7,555 16,399

Total 237,844 140,000 377,844

Proposed parking rates:

Retail 1 space per 35 sqm (minimum)

Commercial 1 space per 55 sqm (minimum)

(source: current study) Calibrated rates for:

Hotel/Tavern/Club 1.3 spaces per 100 sqm

Place of worship/place of assembly 5 space per 100 sqm

Other 2 spaces per 100 sqm (source: pg 27, GTA)

Applying the above rates to the incremental floorspace yields the following additional car parking requirement for City Centre Core.


X11170r01 Page

86

Table 43 – Calculation of additional parking requirement Use Incremental

floorspace (sqm)

rate Parking requirement

(spaces)

Long term/short

term* Commercial 97,489 1 space per 55 sqm 1,773 Long term

Retail 26,638 1 space per 35 sqm 761 Short term

Industrial 0

Hotel/Tavern/Club 6,359 1.3 spaces per 100 sqm

83 Short term

Place of worship/place of assembly 1,960 5 spaces per 100 sqm

98 Short term

Hospital 0

Education (Gosford Public School)* 0

Residential 0

Other 7,555 2 spaces per 100 sqm

151 Long term

Total 140,000 2,866

Note: classification into long and short term from table 3.5, pg 26, GTA

The above table deals with incremental floorspace. In the situation where an existing building is re-developed then current policies would have the following effect:

Where an existing building is replaced with the same floorspace and same use, then no

additional parking is required to be provided.

Where an existing building is to be replaced by a new building, i having a floor area greater

than the existing building and / or ii which will have a different use, car parking is to be provided as calculated under this policy for the new building area and use.

In these cases, either status quo parking is maintained, or for additional floorspace current policy is applied (i.e., the additional floorspace would, for practical purposes, form part of the analysis in Table 8 above).

Consequently, demand due to additional floorspace would increase by approximately 942 short term

spaces and 1,924 long term spaces. As noted previously, the closure of the Town Centre Shopping Centre post-GTA’s investigation and the current use of its car parking for commuter parkers (i.e., long stay), needs to be taken into consideration. It is our understanding that the funding

arrangements for the purchase of this facility by Council is that it must operate as a commuter car

park for a period of at least four to five years. We now run the analysis for two cases:

with this car park as a commuter car park and assuming the retail floorspace in the shopping

centre does not operate (Current Situation); and,

without this car park as a commuter car park, with it operating as short stay parking for the

retail floorspace and with associated short term demand (Possible Future Situation).


X11170r01 Page

87

Table 44 – Adjustment for different outcomes at Town Centre Shopping Centre Element Current Situation

(Town Centre Car

Park as long term

parking)

Possible Future

Situation

(Town Centre Car

Park as short term

parking)

Future projected development

Additional floorspace (sqm) 140,000 140,000

Associated short term parking demand (spaces) 942 942

Associated long term parking demand (spaces) 1,924 1,924

Associated total parking (spaces) 2,866 2,866

Changes due to Town Centre Shopping

Reduced short term demand (retailed closed) (spaces) 491

Reduced short term supply (spaces switched to commuter) 558

Additional long term supply (spaces now commuter) 558

Taking account of Town Centre Shopping

Associated short term parking demand (spaces) 942

Associated long term parking demand (less long term supply in Town Centre Shopping Centre) (spaces)

1,366

Total additional parking requirement (spaces) 2,308 2,866

Up to one-third of this parking could be provided off-site in public car parks, with the balance to be provided on-site. If one-third of parking were provided off-site, then:

under the Current Situation approximately 314 additional short term parking spaces and 455

public long term parking spaces would be required off-site.

under the Possible Future Situation approximately 314 additional public short term parking

spaces and 640 public long term parking spaces would be required off-site. Permitting a proportion of parking to be located off-site in public car parks accrues a number of broad benefits to the community. These include:

For small sites with access and layout issues, the difficulty in providing all parking on-site

can reduce the site’s yield, even if, from a planning perspective, the site has many other desirable attributes and is an ideal location for more intensive activity

Construction of a large public car park can derive economies of scale in construction,

operation and maintenance, reducing unit capital and operating costs

Locating public car parks, especially for long term parking, around the edge of the city centre

can assist to reduce traffic congestion within the centre, especially during peak periods

By pooling parking spaces in a public facility or several public facilities, it is likely that the

spaces will have a higher overall utilisation than if they were located on-site, with occupancy varying across different times of the day and days of the week, as different uses become active (this has the potential to support additional activity with a given parking supply)


X11170r01 Page

88

Previous studies have identified that a large proportion of Baker Street car park’s demand is long term. A recommendation of previous studies, such as the TMAP, has been that current long term parking supply should be progressively switched to short term use (by changing regulations and

charging regimes) and that long term parking is moved to the periphery of the City Centre. Applying this approach, the 640 additional public long term spaces identified above for the possible future situation would be provided on the periphery of the centre, along with existing long term parking demand that is to be transitioned out of the City Centre.

The 314 additional public short term parking spaces would be accommodated in the Baker Street Car Park (total of 701 spaces) and the Town Centre Car Park (total of 558 spaces), largely in spaces freed-up by the transitioning out a proportion of the long term parking. It should be noted that

transitioning long term spaces out of the Town Centre Car Park may not be possible until after the period concludes during which it was agreed by Council that the spaces would be long term (thought to be four to five years from purchase). To accommodate all of these 356 additional short term spaces in Baker Street and Town Centre Car Park would require approximately 25% of their

total supply to switch from long term to short term over the period through to 2031.

With more intensive management of the on-street parking supply, a proportion of this additional short term parking demand might be accommodated on-street.

The location of the Baker Street and Town Centre car parks at the eastern and western edges of the City Centre provides good walking access to most of the City Centre Core area. Application of parking model The above information for non-residential uses has been analysed in an adjusted parking model for

the City Centre Core area for the incremental floorspace under the Possible Future Situation. It does this for the future years of 2021 and 2031. The above analysis has treated each use separately,

so that supply required under the policy is assumed, regardless of when peak demand occurs. The application of the parking model provides an estimate of overall incremental demand by hour (using the calibrated temporal parking demand profiles) through the day.

This provides a slightly lower estimate of total demand, as different uses have different times of peak demand. However, if spaces are provided on-site and by use, then this is likely to understate the parking requirement.

Approximately 60% of the additional population is expected to be in the City Centre by 2021. This factor has also been applied to the employment estimate, and flows through to additional parking requirements.

The following table is a snapshot of the 2021 model based on incremental floorspace from 2008 and identifies incremental parking demand by hour through the day by use.


X11170r01 Page

89

Table 45 – Projected parking demand 2008 to 2021, from application of calibrated parking model Model ‐ Incremental floorspace and parking demand to 2021

9:00am 10:00am 11:00am 12:00noo1:00pm 2:00pm 3:00pm 4:00pm 5:00pm 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm

Residential (Visitor) vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hotel/Tavern/Club vehicles 50 50 48 46 45 44 42 25 20 30 32 33

Commercial vehicles 904 1042 1053 1010 968 1010 1010 1032 681 160 53 0

Retail vehicles 151 297 457 406 324 315 342 283 91 0 0 0

Industrial vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Place of Worship / Assembly vehicles 0 0 0 12 25 17 13 0 0 28 41 0

Hospital vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Education vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Categories vehicles 77 89 90 86 83 86 86 88 58 14 5 0

Sub Totals 1181 1478 1647 1560 1444 1473 1494 1428 850 230 130 33

Long Term (Professional) 100% 981 1131 1143 1096 1050 1096 1096 1120 739 173 58 0

Short Term (Professional) 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long Term (Retail) 20% 40 69 101 90 74 72 77 62 22 6 6 7

Short Term (Retail) 80% 160 277 403 362 295 287 307 247 89 24 25 26

Long Term (Residential) 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short Term (Residential) 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long Term (Place of Worship/Assembly) 5% 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0

Short Term (Place of Worship/Assembly) 95% 0 0 0 11 23 16 12 0 0 26 39 0

Long Term (Hospital) 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short Term (Hospital) 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long Term (School) 95% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short Term (School) 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Predicted Demand Total 1181 1478 1647 1560 1444 1473 1494 1428 850 230 130 33

Long Term 1021 1200 1243 1187 1125 1169 1174 1181 761 180 66 7

Short Term 160 277 403 373 319 304 320 247 89 50 64 26

Use Unit

Parking Demand

Core City Centre

Source: Original model produced by GTA, modifications as outlined in this note by High Range Analytics

The figure below shows the profile of this projected demand over the course of the day.

Figure 17 – Projected Parking Demand 2021 Profile

The following table is a snapshot of the 2031 model based on incremental floorspace from 2008 and

identifies incremental parking demand by hour through the day by use.


X11170r01 Page

90

Table 46 – Projected parking demand 2008 to 2031, from application of calibrated parking model Model ‐ Incremental floorspace and parking demand to 2031

9:00am 10:00am 11:00am 12:00noo1:00pm 2:00pm 3:00pm 4:00pm 5:00pm 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm

Residential (Visitor) vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hotel/Tavern/Club vehicles 83 83 79 76 75 74 70 42 33 49 53 55

Commercial vehicles 1507 1737 1755 1684 1613 1684 1684 1719 1134 266 89 0

Retail vehicles 251 495 761 677 540 525 571 472 152 0 0 0

Industrial vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Place of Worship / Assembly vehicles 0 0 0 20 41 28 22 0 0 46 69 0

Hospital vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Education vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Categories vehicles 128 148 150 144 138 144 144 147 97 23 8 0

Sub Totals 1969 2463 2745 2600 2407 2455 2490 2380 1416 384 217 55

Long Term (Professional) 100% 1635 1885 1904 1827 1751 1827 1827 1866 1231 289 96 0

Short Term (Professional) 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long Term (Retail) 20% 67 115 168 151 123 120 128 103 37 10 11 11

Short Term (Retail) 80% 267 462 672 603 492 479 512 411 148 40 42 44

Long Term (Residential) 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short Term (Residential) 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long Term (Place of Worship/Assembly) 5% 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 3 0

Short Term (Place of Worship/Assembly) 95% 0 0 0 19 39 27 20 0 0 44 65 0

Long Term (Hospital) 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short Term (Hospital) 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long Term (School) 95% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short Term (School) 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Predicted Demand Total 1969 2463 2745 2600 2407 2455 2490 2380 1416 384 217 55

Long Term 1702 2001 2072 1979 1876 1949 1957 1969 1268 301 110 11

Short Term 267 462 672 621 531 506 533 411 148 83 107 44

Use Unit

Parking Demand

Core City Centre

Source: Original model produced by GTA, modifications as outlined in this note by High Range Analytics Figure 18 – Projected Parking Demand 2031 Profile

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

9:00

am

10:0

0am

11:0

0am

12:0

0no

on

1:00

pm

2:00

pm

3:00

pm

4:00

pm

5:00

pm

6:00

pm

7:00

pm

8:00

pm

CA

RS

TIME

Core City Centre - projected demand 2031

Total Predicted Demand


X11170r01 Page

91

Comparison of projections for 2031

The following table compares the projections for 2031 from the amended calibrated model and from our analysis.

Table 47 – Comparison of parking demand estimates, amended & re-calibrated model and Table 9 Element Amended & re-calibrated model Table 44 above

Projected short term demand 672 942

Projected long term demand 2,072 1,924

Total projected peak demand 2,745 2,866

The difference in the two estimates of total projected parking demand is due to timing differences of the peak parking demand by use. The model applies different temporal profiles by use and then combines the parking demand across the uses for each hour. If the parking is going to be provided

in a common pool, this projection indicates a saving in total parking provision is possible. Where most parking is not provided in a common pool, the superposition method used in Table 9 provides a more realistic estimate of parking requirements. As indicated previously, some common pooling of parking is desirable; however, we are not confident that more than a small proportion of

additional parking can be provided in such a common pool.

The difference between the short term and long term splits in the total is due to the model assigning 20% of retail shopping demand to long term and 80% to short term. In Table 9 we have assumed

100% of retail would be short term, which, given the importance of parking to retail, is a more

conservative approach.


X11170r01 Page

92

APPENDIX B

Parking Provision Best Practice