On-Site Parking in a ‘Designated Area’ – Palma Investments Pty Ltd v Assessment Panel City of Mitcham [2026] SAERDC 5
In the recent decision of Palma Investments Pty Ltd v Assessment Panel – City of Mitcham [2026] SAERDC 5 the Environment, Resources and Development Court (Court) has clarified how car parking provisions in the Planning and Design Code (Code) are to be interpreted and applied in a ‘Designated Area’.
Facts
The case involved an appeal against a decision of the City of Mitcham Council Assessment Panel (CAP) to refuse planning consent for additions to existing medical consulting rooms.
The land contained a single storey building used as consulting rooms and a pharmacy. The existing building had a gross leasable floor area (GFLA) of 830m2 and was serviced by 38 on-site car parks, 14 of which were in a secured basement available only to staff.
The proposal involved addition of an upper level containing 7 additional consulting rooms, which would add 420m2 GLFA. No additional on-site car-parking spaces were proposed.
The land was situated on Main Road, Blackwood, within an Urban Corridor (Living) Zone (Zone). Importantly, the land was situated within a ‘Designated Area’ for the purposes of General Development Policies, Transport Access and Parking, DPF 5.1 and Table 2 Offstreet Car Parking Requirements in Designated Areas in the Code (Table 2).
While the case also raised the issue of scale, the issue of most interest was whether the development provided sufficient on-site car parking. At the hearing, the Court received uncontested evidence that, at peak times, the existing car-park was already at, or exceeding, capacity.
Relevant Code Provisions
In the General Development Policies ‘Transport, Access and Parking’, PO 5.1 required that:
“Sufficient on-site vehicle parking and specifically marked accessible car parking places are provided to meet the needs of the development or land use, having regard to factors that may support a reduced on-site rate such as:
a) availability of on-street car parking
…
e) proximity to high frequency public transport.”
DPF 5.1 provided that where land is within a ‘designated area’:
“Development provides a number of car parking spaces on-site at a rate no less than the amount calculated using…
(a) Transport, Access and Parking Table 2 – Off-Street Vehicle Parking Requirements in Designated Areas if the development is in a class of development listed in Table 2 and the site is in a designated area.”
Table 2 required that for ‘Non-residential development excluding tourist accommodation’ the minimum of 3 spaces and a maximum of 5 spaces per 100m2 of GLFA. By comparison, outside a designated area, the relevant rate in Table 1 would have been 4 spaces per 100m2 of GLFA for consulting rooms.
On the issue of car-parking, the essential questions for the Court were:
- does the proposal meet DPF 5.1 and Table 2?
- does meeting DPF 5.1 result in PO 5.1 being satisfied?
Competing arguments
The CAP argued that the minimum car-parking rate in Table 2 applied to ‘development’ which, in this instance, comprised the proposed additional floor area. As such, it was argued that an additional 420m2 of floor area required an additional 13 on-site spaces.
The CAP further argued that insofar as this requirement could otherwise have been met by any existing surplus of car-parking spaces, the empirical evidence (based on actual car-parking surveys) established that no such surplus existed. As such, even if it could be said that the rate in Table 2 was met for the purposes of DPF 5.1, it could not be demonstrated that ‘sufficient on-site vehicle parking’ was available for the purposes of PO 5.1.
In contrast to the ‘empirical approach’ favoured by the CAP, the Appellant argued that the minimum car-parking rate in Table 2 applied to the total floor area (both existing and proposed). As such, 1,250m2 required a minimum of 38 spaces which, coincidentally, was the existing number of spaces currently available.
The Appellant further argued that if additional spaces were required, that requirement was satisfied having regard to a ‘theoretical surplus’ when assessing the existing GLFA against the minimum car-parking rate in Table 2.
Decision
The Court preferred the Appellant’s arguments over those advanced by the CAP.
As to DPF 5.1, the Court held at [39] that Table 2 “does not speak to an empirical assessment or broader consideration of parking supply over and above a simple calculation of parked based on the appropriate rate.”
The Court found that the rates in Table 2 involved a conscious decision by the Code to allow a lower rate of parking within a ‘designated area’. Further, it was said that to require existing development to provide a level of parking based on empirical demand would be counter to this desired strategic outcome of the Code. As such, the Court was satisfied the minimum on-site car-parking rate in Table 2 was met taking into account the existing and proposed GLFA.
In relation to PO 5.1, while acknowledging that satisfaction of DPF 5.1 did not necessarily mean that PO 5.1 was met, the Court held that it was.
In reliance on Garden College v City of Salisbury [2022] SAERDC 10, the Court held that the refence to ‘on-site rate’ in PO 5.1 meant the relevant rate according to DPF 5.1 and Table 2. In relation to the CAP’s argument that the ‘needs of the development’ opened the door to an on-ground assessment of demand and supply, the Court considered that empirical assessments were generally applicable only when a development proposal is unlikely to require the higher parking rates sought in Table 1 i.e. when the rate is too onerous and is not achieved. The Court also accepted the argument that the list of factors in PO 5.1 supporting a ‘reduced on-site rate’ are not exhaustive, and meeting the minimum rate in Table 2 is another factor.
The Court also considered the reasons for a lower parking rate within a designated area. While accepting that Blackwood was less intensely developed than other ‘designated areas’ with a comparable zoning (including Kent Town, Prospect and Unley), the Court was satisfied that ‘the zone is more aspirational within the local context of Blackwood’ and that lower parking rates, along with other triggers such as increased building heights and density, is a driver of development and change. In the court’s words:
'In this instance the car parking policy rises above a purely functional, empirical assessment and performs a more strategic town planning role.’
Finally, the Court noted that as a consequence, it was likely that the proposal will result in overflow parking within the adjoining streets. However, the Court said while that is ‘unlikely to be tolerable within a zone or locality outside of a designated area’, it was nevertheless acceptable in this locality.
Implications
While the impact of the decision is likely limited to ‘designated areas’, it would seem to reduce an assessment of the adequacy of on-site car-parking to a largely quantitative assessment based on the relevant rates in Table 2.
Further, it would only be where the relevant rates are not met that regard may be had to empirical evidence such as car-parking surveys.
Most interestingly, this would seem to elevate the role of DPF 5.1 – and the rates in Table 2 – above simply being ‘a guide…to what is generally considered to satisfy the corresponding performance outcome’; as a corollary, the role of PO 5.1 in terms of a performance-based policy against which the development should be assessed would seem to be diminished.
For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Peter Psaltis on +61 8 8210 1297 or ppsaltis@normans.com.au or Aden Miegel on +61 8 8217 1342 or amiegel@normans.com.au
