9 Brighton St Richmond VIC 3121

The proposal responds affirmatively to Clauses 21.05, 22.03 and 22.10 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

The emerging character for the Swan Street Activity Centre has been articulated as early as 2017 in the Tract report for Council titled C191 Swan Street Activity Centre, Built Form Frame Work, Draft Report, September 2017.

The site opposite on the western side of Brighton Street has preferred heights of 20.8 metres and 11 metre maximum street wall heights under DDO26 and the current C191 Amendment.

The C191 Amendment represents Council's vision for the emerging character of the Swan Street Activity Centre and within it the intention to rezone the subject site from C2Z to C1Z which makes the proposed development most unremarkable against the context.

VCAT precedent to date affirms a greater weight for emerging character in deciding threshold and merit issues about response to context.

The subject site has a 28 metre preferred height and 14 metre maximum street wall heights.

The subject site is in the southern periphery of Precinct 3 Swan Street East, within the Swan Street Activity Centre.

Immediately south of the subject site is the railway corridor.

Overshadowing impacts are expected to be unremarkable for the context and the surrounding uses and their distances from the subject site.

There are no significant residential uses North, East or West of the subject site.

No modelled impacts upon local skyline or sightline to the Dimmeys Tower as viewed from Multiple Swan Street locations

The proposal represents an ambitious, visionary, sustainable development and renewal work which will provide considerable community and environmental benefit and it is very much in line with the emerging character of the Swan Street Activity Centre and the surrounding context.

The proposed food and drink use is an exciting revitalisation and activation of the site.

The reduction in Carparking requirement responds affirmatively to the surrounding context and emerging character.

The subject site is located close to Church and Swan Streets with frequent tram services and within a modest walk from railway stations with frequent services.

I support the approval of the proposal.

The PPA tries to justify a "...reduction in the statutory car parking rate ..." down from 329 to 72 car parks. This is for a $38,000,000.00 development.
Yarra City Council Planning Authority should not approve the application to reduce the statutory car parking rate.

"5.2 Targets" aka 'Imaginery Outcomes'
"It is anticipated that there will in the order of 1,082 employees on-site when development is tenanted and fully operational.
With a total of 72 on-site car parking spaces, this equates to a maximum of 7% of employee vehicle trips which can be taken by a car (as a driver)."

YET - Look at the proven facts. 7% v/s 54%
Mode of Travel for 'journey to work' trips to Richmond = Vehicle 54%
Source - Census Data 2016

"5.3.2 Car Parking"
"The development has a statutory requirement to provide 329 car parking spaces.
To manage car dependency and encourage the use of sustainable transport modes, only 72 spaces are planned on site."

A property developers goal is to earn an income as a property developer. Therefore, part of the business plan is to increase profit and decrease outlay. Providing fewer car parking spaces is a cost saver. After identifying areas of potential cost savings, a conceptual argument is formed around possible possibilities.

Locals, or anyone who travels to Richmond for social or business purposes are just as likely to travel by car.
The trend of developers to excuse themselves from providing parking is a cost saving measure for themselves.

We're all aware of the other transport options.
I'm a cyclist, I also drive, walk and use public transport.
There are plenty of times I've needed to use my car around Richmond, when I lived there and when I lived elsewhere.

Disability Discrimination Act and PARKING - FACE REALITY
"2.3 Car Parking"
"A total of 72 car parking spaces are planned on site inclusive of
two (2) DDA compliant parking spaces across two (2) basement floor levels."
>>>The developer proposes TWO DDA parking spaces per 1,082 employees.<<<

The developer should provide a bigger percentage of car parking spaces allocated to people with disabilities whose main form of transport is car, and additional spots for clients attending the offices.

Australia has a problem with DISCRIMINATION against employment of older people.
Something the Federal Government apparently thinks it's addressing.
More older employees experience chronic health conditions that impact mobility and the ability to to use forms of transport other than a car. There are a number of common health conditions other than those that affect mobility.
( Amount of time spent travelling & INCONTINENCE - Admit it !!!
Travelling in the heat = Heart issues. )
People in these criteria might not have a Disability Parking Permit, which is required for parking on Government roads. However, they would be able to get a Medical Certificate confirming their need to drive to work.

This brings up another barrier to employment. What if a potential employee says - I can take up the job if I have access to onsite parking as I have a medical/health related reason. This puts one more barrier in place because discrimination still exists despite the workplace laws and disability discrimination laws and that's a fact.
So the potential employee might be able to perform all the tasks of the job, and have no reason to disclose a medical / health condition - until the parking becomes a barrier.

Imagine applying for and succeeding in a work placement and being unable to accept solely because there is no parking.

What method will be used to allocate the car parks? Will it be equitable? Will there be a cost - if so, how is it applied fairly?