Tomorrow (10/11/2025) I will attend a meeting of the Glenorchy Planning Authority (GPA), a meeting with exactly one item on the agenda.

An item I find utterly exasperating.

An item necessary because the building in question, according to planning rules,  has too few parking spaces for its use.

An item necessary despite no response from any member of the public when the Development Application (DA) was advertised in the Mercury.

An item necessary because no Council staff member has the power to “determine applications with residential car parking discretions” (full list of delegations). Hence the Planning Authority must decide the matter.

But the situation arises originally because the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS) contains an algorithm for calculating the minimum amount of off-street parking required for the use to which the site will be put. If the amount of parking in a DA is not at least as much as the algorithm says, the DA does not have an “acceptable” parking solution and must be assessed against the “performance criteria”. Take a look at the algorithm and the table C2.1 it refers to; they both fit on only eight A4 pages.

The Parking Plan

What is remarkably timely about this particular DA is its timing. It comes while council staff are preparing a Parking Plan for the city of Glenorchy, a plan which is intended to “override the number of car parking spaces specified in the planning scheme and reduce car parking numbers in specific areas.”

Council employed GHD, an international consultancy, to “determine and summarise potential adjustments to minimum car parking rates for development applications within key areas of the Glenorchy LGA that may be applied in a Parking Plan for the municipality” and provide a report to council on the results. You can read the 12 August 2025 version of the GHD report on Minimum Parking Rates.

The GHD report states “evidence does not support a minimum parking requirement” and consequently shows, in order from most effective to least effective) options as:

1. Removal of car parking minimum rates
2. Partial removal by-location of car parking minimum rates
3. Partial removal by location and size of development
4. Reduction in minimum-parking rates (by location and/or use class)
5. Adopt widely accepted rates where appropriate

What is particularly disturbing about the first draft of the parking plan is that it adopts, without any explanation, the option GHD regards as the least effective, option 5, “Adopt widely accepted rates where appropriate”. The result was a decrease across the board of about twenty percent.

The first draft plan, if adopted essentially as is, would not improve the situation. The item on tomorrow’s planning authority agenda would still come to the GPA for decision.

We heard at the parking plan workshop that council were being encouraged to “be brave” in their decision-making. I hope that council will do so, change its mind, and accept the consultant’s number one recommendation to reduce minimum off-street parking requirements by 100% ….. all the way to zero.