Foot down on car parking

By Paul Dunlop
CARDINIA Shire councillor Brett Owen has vowed to put the handbrake on new developments in Pakenham unless they come with plenty of carparking.
In a move that continues longrunning debate on the issue, Cr Owen last week said he would refuse to support applications that reduced carparking around the town’s central business district.
But Cr Owen’s stance was challenged by Cr Kate Lempriere who said sensible planning sometimes meant making concessions on carparks.
Cr Lempriere said she understood Cr Owen’s point of view but believed it was wrong to make ‘sweeping’ statements condemning any reduction of carparks in or near the CBD.
“We have to have sensible planning in terms of carparking. If you travel to any suburban area there are residential houses and designated car park spots,” Cr Lempriere said.
“You are not going to be able to put carparks on the premises of every single business in Pakenham township.”
The debate was sparked by an application from Don Sottosanti to rezone land in Rogers Street from residential to a business zone.
Although supporting the application, Cr Owen stressed the need for adequate carparking arrangements.
Cr Owen said Rogers Street was very close to the main shopping area and remained mainly residential.
“If council continues down the path of allowing applications with a reduction in carparking it will be a nightmare for the residents who remain in Rogers Street,” Cr Owen said.
Cr Lempriere said areas such as Rogers Street needed to be developed to create a viable and exciting business district.
“I understand where Cr Owen is coming from but to make a statement that you’ll never support any business creating employment and vibrancy is a sweeping statement in my opinion,” she said.
Cr Owen said he supported employment but also emphasised the need to protect residents’ interests.
“We can’t forget these people,” he said.
The council decided at its meeting last Monday to seek authorisation from Planning Minister Rob Hulls to change the zoning of the land at 2, 2a and 2b Rogers Street.
An officer’s report to the meeting said the land was suitable for commercial purposes.