(b) a use or development does not detract from the amenity of users or the locality by:

(ii) minimising the impact of car parking on heritage and local character.

The number of on-site car parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of users, having regard to all of the following:

(b) the availability of on-street and public car parking in the locality;

(c) the availability and frequency of public transport within a 400m walking distance of the site;

(d) the availability and likely use of other modes of transport;

alternative arrangements for car parking provision;

(f) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car parking spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car

(g) any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land;

(h) any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement, except in the case of substantial redevelopment of a site;

contribution in lieu of parking towards the cost of parking facilities or other transport facilities, where such facilities exist or are planned in the vicinity;

(j) any verified prior payment of a financial contribution in lieu of parking for the land;

(k) any relevant parking plan for the area adopted by Council;

heritage significance of the site if subject to the Local Heritage Code;

(m) whether the provision of the parking would result in the loss, directly or indirectly, of one or more significant trees listed in the Significant Trees Code.

1. The proposal will provide a total of 43 parking spaces for cars, with 8 motorcycle parking spaces and at least 35 bicycle parking spaces. The parking will be provided on two basement levels of the proposed new building, with access via two lifts.
2. In order to satisfy the acceptable solution A1 the proposal must provide the number of onsite car parking spaces specified in table E6.1 of the Scheme. The proposal is for 41 apartments in the new building consisting of 35 one-bedroom apartments, 2 two-bedroom apartments, and 4 three-bedroom apartments, plus 4 one-bedroom apartments in the two existing buildings on the site. Using the formula in table E6.1 for that accommodation would result in a requirement for 63 spaces. The provision of 43 spaces will therefore not satisfy the requirements of the acceptable solution A1 and the proposal must be assessed against the performance criterion P1. P1 was not in issue in the 2022 decision.
3. The test set out in P1 is that the number of on-site car parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of users. In considering that test we are required to have regard to the matters listed (a) - (m) in the performance criterion.
4. The requirement to have regard to those matters does not raise them to the status of standards with which the proposal must comply, but we must take them in account as a fundamental element in our decision making in respect to the test in P1: Hobart City Council v Rich Tapestry Pty Ltd (ACN 667 999 055) [2024] TASSC 54 at [36].
5. In respect to the reasonable needs of users, the objective in cl E6.6.1 is to ensure that there is enough car parking to meet the reasonable needs of all users of a use or development. The relevant needs therefore will be the needs of the users of the residential use, being the occupants of the dwellings: Jacobs v Hobart City Council [2023] TASCAT 158 [87] and Buckeridge v Hobart City Council & Hurst [2025] TASCAT 147 [45]. Those needs may include provision of parking for visitors.
6. The appellant and the second respondent each called evidence from expert traffic engineers, Mr Keith Midson and Mr Milan Prodanovic respectively. The Council did not lead expert evidence in respect to ground 2.
7. P1(a), requires that regard be had to car parking demand. Mr Midson and Mr Prodanovic each undertook an assessment of the car parking demand that would be generated by the proposal. Mr Midson used the 2024 New South Wales Guide to Transport Impact Assessment, and calculated the demand at a total of 40 spaces, comprising 31 for residents and 9 visitor spaces. Mr Prodanovic used the 2002 New South Wales Road Traffic Authority Guide to Traffic Generating Developments and also determined a total demand for off-street resident parking spaces including visitor parking at 40 spaces. The proposal will provide 43 car parking spaces, and so exceed that demand.
8. The point of difference between the experts related to the access to the parking being via two parking lifts. Each car lift will be able to move 28 vehicles per hour. Mr Midson calculated a peak demand of 11 vehicle movements per hour. He considered that the lifts would comfortably accommodate the average demand of residents, but that the basement parking would be functionally resident-only and would not provide a practical solution for visitors, deliveries or short-stay needs where the expectation is for rapid turnover and convenience. He considered that the possibility of pulse arrivals during peak use might result in queueing onto Macquarie Street, causing associated safety impacts. He did not quantify the likelihood of this occurring or detail the resultant risk. It should be noted that cl E6.6.1 is concerned with sufficiency of parking, not safety considerations, which are dealt with by other standards, such as cl E6.7.2 which regulates safe and efficient access.
9. The residential parking demand and visitor demand generated by the proposal will be satisfied quantitatively by the provision of spaces. However, Mr Midson's concerns regarding the practicality of visitors using the parking lifts gives some importance to on-street parking for that purpose.
10. P1(b) requires that regard be had to the availability of on-street and public car parking in the locality. Mr Midson did not undertake a parking survey, but he assessed available on-street parking within 150m walking distance of the site, and identified 57 spaces. A walking distance of 150m is relatively short in terms of parking convenience, but he noted that some spaces were subject to time restrictions as low as 15 minutes. He observed that all the parking available within 150m is subject to time restrictions of between 15 minutes and two hours before 6pm on weekdays and that some is subject to clearways, which would erode the practicality of on-street parking for visitors.
11. Mr Prodanovic undertook parking surveys of the surrounding on-street parking within 250m walking distance from the site, on different days and times to include weekday work hours, weekends, and evenings. The surveys showed vacant numbers of car parking spaces between 72 on a weekday afternoon and 146 on a weekend afternoon and weekday evening. He noted that parking was permitted for at least one hour in all those vacant spaces, but that most spaces were available for at least two hours on the weekday, and for an unlimited time period during the weekend and evening. Since Mr Prodanovic undertook the surveys some parking has been lost to bike lanes, but he considered that the remaining supply would exceed any visitor car parking demand for the proposal.
12. Given the parking and visitor parking demand identified by Mr Midson and Mr Prodanovic it appears that, even within Mr Midson's more restricted area and even with the time limits on weekdays before 6pm, significant on-street parking will be available to contribute to meeting the reasonable needs of the residents and of visitors.
13. P1(c) requires regard to the availability and frequency of public transport within a 400m walking distance of the site. The evidence of Mr Midson and Mr Prodanovic established that bus services which connect to the central city bus station regularly operate within 400m of the site. Mr Midson described multiple services in the weekday peaks and a steady flow of bus services across the day, however he observed that the only public transport is by bus and considered that it would not materially reduce the likelihood of visitors requiring cars. Notwithstanding that concern, it is apparent that there will be frequent public transport within 400m that will be available for residents and visitors.
14. P1(d) raises the availability and likely use of other modes of transport. The proposal will provide 35 bicycle parking spaces and 8 motorcycle parking spaces. There are bicycle lanes within 80m of the site. The site is within walking distance of the Hobart CBD.
15. In respect to P1(e), there are no alternative arrangements for car parking provision other than existing private car parking facilities for long term rental in the general vicinity. Those facilities would not assist in meeting the needs of short-term visitors.
16. P1(f ) requires consideration of reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car parking spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. As there is a single use, being the residential use, (f) has no role to play in considering the test in the standard.
17. In respect to P1(g), any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land, no relevant issues arose on the evidence. Neither Mr Midson nor Mr Prodanovic raised any relevant issues in connection with P1(h), (i), (j), (k) or (m). In respect to P1(l), impact on the historic cultural heritage significance of the site is subject to the Local Heritage Code, and the heritage status of the site was acknowledged by Mr Midson, but no relevant impact was identified.
18. Mr Prodanovic considered that the proposal would satisfy P1. Mr Midson concluded that the design of the car park would not provide efficient, safe and accessible parking, because efficiency would be compromised by the manoeuvring and time associated with the lift operations, and safety would be undermined if queues onto Macquarie Street occurred. He considered that visitors would not be able to practically access the secure basement, and that the lift operation would make the car park unsuitable for short-term use such as drop-offs or deliveries. Clause E6.6.1 is concerned with sufficiency of parking for users, not with safety or efficiency. The experts agree that the proposal will provide sufficient spaces for the residents and their visitors. Mr Midson's point concerning the moderating effect of the lifts on short-time users is cogent, but is mitigated by the availability of on-street parking.
19. We are satisfied that the proposed number of on-site car parking spaces will be sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the users, being the residents, including their needs as concerns visitor parking, having regard to the elements in P1. Ground 2 is not made out.

1. In the course of the hearing an issue arose as to the adequacy of the conditions of the new permit and whether the conditions should reflect both the 2022 permit and the new permit to avoid confusion or error in the construction of the development. It was agreed to leave consideration of the conditions until the grounds of appeal were determined.

1. The grounds of appeal are not made out and the Council's decision to grant a permit should be affirmed subject to any variation of the conditions of the permit.
2. We therefore make the following directions, taking into account the impending Easter holidays in setting the timetable:
   1. The parties are to jointly file agreed conditions for a permit within 21 days from the date of these reasons.
   2. If the parties are unable to agree conditions in accordance with (1) then within 21 days from the date of these reasons the Council is to file and serve proposed conditions and each of the other parties are to file any submissions in respect to the proposed conditions within 7 days following filing and service of the proposed conditions.
   3. The parties have liberty to apply in respect to this timetable.