Victoria Parking Regulations: What the New Changes Mean for Developers and the Public

Victoria parking regulations changed in December 2025 through Amendment VC277, which updated Clause 52.06, Car Parking, in the Victoria Planning Provisions. The change alters how statutory car parking requirements are calculated for many new uses and developments.

Parking is no longer assessed only through fixed rates that apply broadly across the state. Victoria parking regulations have a new framework that links parking requirements to a site’s level of public transport access, using Car Parking Requirement Maps and a methodology called Public Transport Accessibility Level, or PTAL.

For developers, this can change feasibility. For childcare operators and education providers, it can change how much land must be allocated to parking. For residents, it raises practical questions about street parking, traffic flow and how suburbs function over time.

This article explains what changed, why the government says it made the change, and what it may mean in practice.

What changed under Clause 52.06?

Clause 52.06 sets out car parking requirements for specified land uses. It applies to new uses, increases in floor area or site area, and increases to an existing use where the measure is listed in Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5.

Under Amendment VC277, Victoria introduced a new location-based system. Sites are now assigned to one of four categories through the Car Parking Requirement Maps.

The categories are based on PTAL, which measures how well a location is connected to public transport. A higher PTAL score means better access to public transport. A lower PTAL score means weaker access.

The categories work broadly as follows:

Category 1: lower public transport access, minimum parking rates apply

Category 2: moderate public transport access, minimum parking rates apply

Category 3: better public transport access, minimum and maximum parking rates apply

Category 4: highest public transport access, maximum parking rates apply

Car Parking Requirement map - City of Melbourne (Source: Victorian State Government)

Planning Practice Note 22 confirms that Table 1 to Clause 52.06-5 now includes four categories, with Category 1 and 2 operating as minimum-rate categories, Category 3 as minimum and maximum, and Category 4 as maximum-rate. The applicable category is checked through VicPlan using the Car Parking Requirement Maps layer.

This is a major change because some sites are no longer simply required to provide a minimum number of spaces. In the most accessible locations, the planning scheme may also limit how much parking can be provided.

Why did the government make the change?

The Victorian Government states that Amendment VC277 implements Action 5 of Plan for Victoria, which aims to match car parking rates with demand and reduce the number of car parks required in locations well-served by public transport.

The government’s reasoning is based on a simple planning principle: where people have better access to public transport, less private vehicle parking should be required.

The new system aims to:

• Reduce unnecessary on-site parking in well-connected locations

• Support more efficient land use

• Reduce car dependency where public transport access is strong

• Avoid over-providing parking where demand may be lower

• Align parking requirements with transport infrastructure

The government’s PTAL methodology considers factors such as walking distance to public transport, the type of public transport available, route access and timetable data. The Car Parking Requirement Maps divide land into categories based on those scores.

This does not mean every site will need less parking. In lower-access areas, parking minimums still apply. The change is intended to make parking requirements more responsive to location.

How do you check which category applies?

The Victorian Government has incorporated the Car Parking Requirement Maps into the Victoria Planning Provisions at Clause 72.04. The category for a site can be checked through VicPlan by selecting the Car Parking Requirement Maps layer.

This matters because the category directly affects the parking calculation.

• A site in Category 1 may have a higher minimum rate.

• A site in Category 2 may have a lower minimum rate.

• A site in Category 3 may have both a minimum and a maximum rate.

• A site in Category 4 may have a maximum rate, with no minimum for some uses.

If land is shown in two or more categories, the higher category applies to the whole land. Planning Practice Note 22 gives the example that if a site is within both Category 3 and Category 4, the Category 4 rate applies.

What this means for apartment developments

For residential apartment and townhouse projects, the change can be substantial.

Under the earlier framework, bedroom numbers had a major effect on parking requirements. Larger dwellings generally required more spaces, and visitor parking could also apply in some developments.

Under the updated framework, the requirement in some categories is more closely tied to the number of dwellings rather than the bedroom count.

A practical example:

• A Category 2 site with 24 apartments, all three-bedroom dwellings, may previously have required 48 car spaces under the earlier framework, based on 2 spaces per three-bedroom dwelling.

• Under the updated Category 2 framework, the minimum may now be 24 spaces, based on 1 space per dwelling.

• That is a reduction of 24 spaces.

For a developer, that difference is not minor. Parking often affects the whole structure of a project. Fewer required car spaces may mean:

• A smaller basement

• Less excavation

• Less ramping and circulation space

• Reduced structural complexity

• Less reliance on car stackers

• More efficient use of land

The change does not automatically make every project viable. It also does not mean developers should always provide the minimum. Market expectations, purchaser demand, access to public transport, site constraints and council context still matter.

But it does mean parking has become a more important feasibility question at the start of a project, not something to check at the end.

What this means for childcare centres and education uses

The changes are also important for childcare and education-related projects.

Previously, childcare centre parking was commonly calculated at 0.22 spaces per child.

A 100-child centre could therefore require 22 spaces. Industry summaries of the former Clause 52.06 rate reflect this earlier calculation method.

Under the updated Clause 52.06 framework, childcare parking is now more closely linked to employees, with rates varying by category.

Planning Practice Note 22 gives a direct example: a childcare centre employing 10 people at any one time on Category 1 land would require 10 spaces, calculated as 1 space x 10 employees.

A practical example:

• A Category 1 childcare site with capacity for 100 preschool-aged children may previously have required 22 spaces under the old 0.22 spaces per child rate.

• Under the updated framework, if the maximum number of employees on site is 10, the minimum requirement may now be 10 spaces.

• That is a reduction of 12 spaces.

This matters because parking can dominate childcare site planning. A large car park can take land away from outdoor play areas, landscaping, setbacks or building function. In some cases, providing more parking can push a project toward a more expensive built form, including additional levels.

That said, childcare is not only a parking calculation. Pick-up and drop-off still need careful design. Queuing, short-stay demand, pedestrian safety, pram movement, local traffic and neighbour impacts remain important. Reduced parking does not remove the need to manage traffic.

What this means if you are building or developing a house

For one dwelling, Clause 52.06 does not always apply in the same way it does to larger developments. Planning Practice Note 22 states that in several residential zones, including the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone, Clause 52.06 does not apply to the extension of one dwelling, or construction and use of one dwelling, unless the zone or schedule specifies that a permit is required.

For homeowners, the more relevant issue is often indirect.

If you are planning a townhouse development, multi-unit development, subdivision, childcare conversion or mixed-use project, the updated parking category may affect:

• How many spaces are required

• Whether a basement is needed

• Whether parking can fit at ground level

• How much private open space remains

• Whether the layout still works

• Whether a traffic report or car parking demand assessment is needed

  
  

For homeowners considering development, this reinforces the importance of checking the site early. The same site may have a different feasibility outcome under the updated parking framework.

What this means for traffic and local streets

The government’s position is that parking should reflect likely demand, and likely demand should be lower where public transport access is stronger. That reasoning is clear from the PTAL framework and the Car Parking Requirement Maps. But the practical effect will vary.

Less on-site parking may reduce construction cost and support more efficient development, but it may also shift some demand onto the street if residents, staff or visitors still own and use cars.

Planning Practice Note 22 recognises this issue. When a proposal seeks to vary the car parking rate, a car parking demand assessment may need to address matters such as existing off-site spaces, short-stay and long-stay parking demand, availability of public transport, walking and cycling facilities, car ownership patterns and empirical parking surveys.

It also notes that commercial development should avoid relying on residential streets for car parking unless parking can be managed and residents’ parking needs can still be met.

This is where architecture, planning and traffic advice need to work together.

A reduced parking number on paper is not the full answer. The real question is whether the project still works on the site and within the street network.

A note on work-from-home and changing travel patterns

One reason parking demand is harder to assess than it used to be is that work patterns have changed.

ABS data shows that in August 2025, 36 percent of employed people usually worked from home. During August 2021, work-from-home levels reached 40 percent.

This affects how people use homes, cars and local streets. Some residents may drive less during the week. Others may keep a car at home more often because they are not commuting daily. This can reduce traffic movement but increase daytime residential parking occupancy.

That is why the practical outcome cannot be assumed from the parking rate alone. The same parking reduction may work well in one location and create pressure in another.

What developers should take from the change

For developers, the updated Clause 52.06 framework creates opportunity, but it also requires more discipline at the feasibility stage.

The key questions/considerations for developers are now:

• What category applies to the site?Does the site fall within Category 1, 2, 3 or 4?

• Is there a minimum, maximum, or both?Does a Parking Overlay apply?

• Will the market expect more parking than the minimum?

• Can the street network manage the likely traffic behaviour?

• Will a car parking demand assessment be needed?

• Does the reduced parking number improve the layout or simply shift the problem elsewhere?

The biggest financial effect is usually basement parking. Basement excavation, structure, waterproofing, ventilation, fire services, ramps and car stackers can have a major effect on project cost. Reducing the number of required spaces may improve feasibility, especially on constrained infill sites.

But a lower statutory number should not be treated as a design shortcut. Poor access, awkward ramps, unsafe pedestrian movement or unresolved waste and servicing can still weaken a project.

Why this may be good: The Government’s rationale

The case for the reform is that fixed parking rates do not always match real demand.

A site near frequent trains, trams or buses does not necessarily generate the same car parking demand as a site with limited public transport. Requiring the same parking supply in both locations can lead to inefficient land use.

The government’s approach also recognises that excessive parking has costs. It uses land, adds construction cost, increases hard surfaces and can encourage car dependency.

In better-connected locations, reducing parking requirements may:

• Make infill housing easier to deliver

• reduce unnecessary construction cost

• support public transport use

• allow more land to be used for housing, landscaping or functional space

• avoid building car parks that sit underused for much of the day

  
  

For childcare and other community uses, the same logic applies. If a large number of parking spaces sit empty outside peak drop-off and pick-up times, the land may not be serving the project well for most of the day.

The risks and unresolved questions

The reform is not without risk. The main issue is whether planning assumptions match real behaviour.

A high PTAL score shows public transport access, but it does not necessarily prove that every resident, parent, worker or visitor will stop using a car. Planning Victoria’s PTAL material notes that PTAL measures public transport access, but does not account for every real-world factor such as crowding, disruptions, destination choice or trips by car.

The practical risks include:

• More pressure on on-street parking

• More conflict around pick-up and drop-off areas

• More reliance on traffic management plans

• A gap between statutory minimums and buyer expectations

• Projects being designed to the minimum without enough operational testing

  
  

The best response is to assess each site properly.

Apt Architecture’s rationale

From our perspective, the changes reflect issues already visible across many suburbs. Garages are not always used as garages. They often become storage, workshops, home gyms or secondary household space, while cars remain on the street. In many suburban areas, local streets already accommodate some level of on-street parking without stopping traffic flow, although this depends heavily on street width, density and local conditions.

There is also a cost issue, building car spaces, especially basement spaces, can add significant cost and complexity. If fewer spaces are genuinely needed, reducing them can improve feasibility and allow land to be used more efficiently. Established inner suburbs such as South Melbourne and Albert Park also show that many older areas have functioned for a long time without every dwelling having a garage. That does not mean the model works everywhere, but it shows that reduced on-site parking is not new in Melbourne’s inner ring.

The same logic applies to childcare. If a centre is required to provide a large number of spaces that sit empty for most of the day, the result can be inefficient land use and higher building cost. In some cases, extra parking can force more expensive design decisions, including additional levels or reduced usable outdoor space.

The updated rules are not automatically positive or negative. They create flexibility and whether that flexibility leads to better outcomes depends on how each site is planned, how traffic is managed, and whether the design responds to the way people actually use the building and the street.

For developers, childcare providers and landowners, it is important to gain an understanding Victoria's parking regulations early, as it may change how a site is assessed, designed and costed.

If you already have an approved development with more parking than the updated requirements, it may be worth checking whether your parking provision can now be reduced.

Speak with your architect, or reach out to us!