Tuesday, 8 March 2022

Domain precinct development

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (19:46): (1791) My matter is for the attention of the Minister for Planning, and it concerns the Domain precinct development plan. I have had communication from the Baldey family and indeed many others. There are around 700 permanent residents in the three buildings, City Condos, Promenade and the Princeton, all of whom rely on kerbside parking to a greater or lesser extent. The state government, through the actions of Minister Wynne, is removing that kerbside parking, and that will cause, as they say, ‘unnecessary inconvenience to not only the residents but also the businesses in this area’.

The sad response that has been received from Minister Wynne shows that this is not something that is really the focus that it should be. The Baldey family are residents of 416 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, and it is clear that they are incredibly disappointed with the responses they have received from the minister. They are aware of the challenges for Australia Post, they are aware of the challenges for taxis and they are aware of the challenges for those who are trying to set down passengers at almost any hour of the day, with the proposals that are put forward. There are issues with the tram service that is proposed along Domain Road. That is to be reinstated, and the third platform at stop 22 is still required for trams coming from South Yarra. ‘Are you aware’, they say, ‘that trams coming from South Yarra do not use the third platform at stop 22?’, with the route along Domain Road. They tell me reinstated trams coming from South Yarra will not travel through stop 22 at all. It is important to note that with the removal of all this parking the overall width of the St Kilda Road carriageway has not changed. Actually, if anything it is slightly increased in width due to a reduction in the median strip.

I think that there are a number of key points here. The community locally has tried to post alternative solutions. They have put these up on websites, and these are things that should be examined. It seems that the planners are obsessed, as they say, with a ‘Copenhagen-style’ solution, and the truth is, as they say quite correctly in this correspondence, Melbourne in 2022 is not Copenhagen. ‘Segregated cycle lanes have been progressively developed in Copenhagen’, they say, ‘since the early 1960s and done in a coordinated and inclusive manner’. This is not the case here, and we are certainly seeing in other parts of the city, particularly the City of Melbourne, an excessive focus on cycle lanes at the expense of local businesses and certainly motorists. But in this case I want to draw the attention of the chamber and the Minister for Planning to the decisions that have been made and ask him to act to reverse some of these changes.