Good planning must work for everyone.

The City of Port Phillip is currently considering expanding bike lanes along Grey Street. Many residents are concerned the proposal is becoming one-dimensional and disconnected from the realities of daily life for the people who actually live here.

This is not simply a transport issue. It is about safety, accessibility, fairness, liveability, and whether residents are genuinely being heard before major changes are imposed on established neighbourhoods.

Parking in this area is already under extreme pressure. Many apartment buildings in St Kilda were built decades ago without off-street parking, long before current population density, permit restrictions, and parking shortages existed.

Removing parking from Grey Street will not remove cars from the area. It will simply push them into surrounding residential streets including Burnett Street, Gurner Street, Robe Street, Emilton Avenue, and Dalgety Street, where parking is already at breaking point.

Residents from Barkly Street, Grey Street, Robe Street, and Waterloo Crescent already park in Emilton Avenue for days at a time because there is nowhere else available.

Parking permits become meaningless if residents cannot find a park anywhere near their homes.

For many people, access to a nearby vehicle is not a luxury — it is essential.

Council must consider:

• elderly residents attending medical appointments
• people with disabilities and mobility challenges
• carers and support workers needing reliable access
• parents managing children, school drop-offs, and groceries
• shift workers returning home late at night
• tradespeople who rely on vehicles for work
• renters and apartment residents with no off-street parking
• local businesses already struggling with reduced customer access

There is also a genuine community safety issue.

Many residents — particularly women, elderly people, healthcare workers, and hospitality staff — regularly return home late at night. Expecting people to walk several streets alone because parking has been removed from their area is neither realistic nor safe.

Residents deserve clear answers:

• Why was Grey Street specifically chosen?
• What evidence shows this is the best location?
• What genuine consultation has occurred with affected residents?
• Were alternative routes properly assessed?
• What modelling has been done on parking displacement into surrounding streets?
• What protections will be put in place for nearby residents?
• Will surrounding streets face further permit restrictions as overflow increases?
• How will emergency access, deliveries, rideshare access, and disability parking be affected?

This is also about trust.

Residents remember previous bike lane projects that cost millions, divided the community, disrupted local businesses, and were later altered or removed following backlash and safety concerns.

Residents are not opposed to progress. They are asking for balanced planning that considers the full picture — not just one mode of transport.

A successful city supports cyclists, pedestrians, public transport users, families, elderly residents, renters, businesses, and drivers alike.

Good urban planning should unite communities, not divide them.

Most residents would support practical solutions that improve safety while also preserving accessibility, residential amenity, and common-sense outcomes for the broader community.

The growing concern is that Council appears increasingly driven by ideology rather than balanced consultation and practical neighbourhood planning.

Residents deserve transparency, evidence-based decision-making, and meaningful consultation before permanent changes are made to already heavily pressured streets.