By Mikayla van Loon
A modern, multi-storey medical centre and childcare facility will be moving into Lilydale despite concerns of a lack of parking and increased traffic in an already congested part of town.
Yarra Ranges councillors, bar Len Cox and Mitch Mazzarella, voted to approve the development for the vacant block between the Lilydale CFA and Hyundai dealership on Main Street.
The three storey building will house three medical centres, a shop and food and drinks premises on the ground floor, seven separate office spaces on the first floor, and a further two office spaces and the childcare centre on the second floor.
It is proposed that a maximum of 130 children will attend the childcare centre, while a total of nine practitioners will occupy the medical and allied health spaces.
Access to the onsite car parking will be at the rear of the building via Hardy Street, with the ground floor providing 41 car spaces and a further 46 car spaces on the first floor, totalling 87. It will also include 16 bicycle spaces.
Based on the use and occupancy, the statutory requirement for parking would require 129 spaces but the developer argued in the planning application, through a parking survey, “the parking demand generated by the proposed development would not require the full statutory rate”.
This was cause for objection by the Lilydale Township Action Group (LTAG), even though it supported the development as a whole secretary Sharyn Manning said it would only exacerbate existing parking and traffic problems in Lilydale.
“We need that development in Lilydale, there’s no doubt about that, and we support it, but we are concerned about parking, the number of parking spaces, and we’re also concerned about the amount of cars that will be coming out onto Hardy Street,” Ms Manning told Star Mail.
Calling the proposed parking arrangements “inadequate and impractical”, LTAG’s objection to the proposal was based on the “significant impacts on traffic flow, increases parking stress, doesn’t adequately address parking needs”.
Speaking at the council meeting on Tuesday 8 April, Ms Manning said “LTAG support appropriate developments” but were “disappointed” in their need to object to the approval.
Having submitted a petition calling for the council to reassess its parking restrictions in Lilydale earlier this year, Ms Manning and the Township group have been advocating for improved conditions for traders and the community to park in town for many months.
With impending changes to the current parking conditions in Lilydale, Ms Manning said this “will change both the demand and the capacity” which was not taken into consideration in the planning application.
Ms Manning also referred to three other approved developments in the vicinity where parking requirements had been reduced, equating to around 62 additional parking spaces lost.
It was also not confirmed whether adequate staff parking would be provided onsite, this most likely being a decision within the tenancy agreement, and the report noting nearby street parking to cater to overflow.
Describing this as “ludicrous, discriminatory, unsafe and unworkable”, Ms Manning said it was not fair to staff who work eight hours to have to move their vehicle throughout the day if they can only park in a two hour zone.
The “high volume” business types was also a major concern for Ms Manning, suggesting that 130 children using the childcare service could mean 260 parental comings and goings each day.
“That’s 260 extra cars going on to Hardy Street. And the other thing is the medical clinic…one doctor equals 10 patients a day. It’s just going to be quite busy because they’ll be doing that all day and Hardy street at school times and at peak times, the traffic’s backed up anyway.”
Metropol Planning Solutions director Michael Dunn said at the Tuesday meeting, however, that its “comprehensive” parking report “stacks up. We think it’s accurate”.
“Childcare has a peak demand at drop off and pick up times, whereas the other businesses that we’re proposing obviously have their peak demands during business hours,” he said.
“We don’t think the parking dispensation is unreasonable. Our traffic engineers and the council’s traffic engineers are the experts in the field of what the parking and traffic demands (will) be, and they’ve both found it to be reasonable.”
Moving the motion to approve the application, Cr Tim Heenan said because the council “commissioned a separate parking survey” to compare against the developers, he was satisfied this report had been appropriately assessed.
“For the figures to gel almost identically, it gave me a greater degree of confidence in knowing that obviously the developer got it right,” he said.
Opposing the motion, Cr Cox said “Hardy Street at peak hour is an absolute mess, and this is only going to make it worse”.
He also commented on the obstruction it may cause for the CFA when responding to call outs.
A condition of the build requires cars to exit the site by turning left onto Hardy Street only.
The council estimates that 17,000 cars use Hardy Street per day, noting the “traffic team is assessing potential upgrades and traffic management strategies for the entire length of Hardy Street”.
Cr Mazzarella, in a similar vein to Ms Manning, said “I’m not opposed to the development itself” but was concerned about increased traffic and parking.
“Public transport is cited, in an ideal world, we’d love to have as many people as we can on public transport…People will drive. We know people will drive,” he said.
“And as a result, we need parking, and I don’t think we can afford to negotiate away as many of these parking spots as we are.”
Cr Heenan said he could understand the concerns and points raised but believed the planning application met all requirements.
“I’ve been led to understand through our planning department, the needs that would exist throughout the day of the different uses within the facility, overall, the reduction in the statutory minimum car parking requirements is alleviated through the use of shared car parking spaces,” he said.
“This application is an important example of activating that space in that part of Lilydale…this particular development has come at the right time for the right area.”
The application was approved seven votes to two.
