When buying off-the-plan in NSW, many buyers focus on location, design, and amenities, often overlooking one critical factor: parking. A lack of sufficient parking spaces in off-the-plan developments can create major headaches for both owner-occupiers and investors. For urban developments, where public transport might not fully meet residents' needs, limited parking can impact not only the convenience of day-to-day living but also the resale and rental value of the property.
Whether due to developers prioritizing additional units over parking spaces or local council restrictions on parking allocation, the consequences can be severe for buyers. Off-the-plan buyers may find themselves competing for limited spaces, facing parking disputes with neighbors, or dealing with rising costs for off-site parking. Investors may struggle to attract tenants without adequate parking, and the property's overall appeal can be diminished in the competitive real estate market.
In this article, we’ll explore how a lack of parking impacts NSW off-the-plan developments, highlight a real case where parking limitations caused disputes and financial losses, and provide strategies for ensuring adequate parking when purchasing an off-the-plan property.
1. Insufficient Allocated Parking Spaces
Some off-the-plan developments prioritize maximizing living spaces over providing adequate parking. Buyers may be unaware that parking is limited, with fewer spaces available than the number of units in the development. This can lead to competition for parking spots, particularly in high-density areas, and can reduce the property's appeal.
2. Expensive Off-Site Parking
In developments with limited or no parking, buyers may be forced to secure off-site parking at a nearby facility, often at a high cost. This can create an ongoing financial burden for owner-occupiers and investors, who may also find it difficult to rent or sell the property without on-site parking.
3. Poor Design or Inconvenient Parking Access
In some developments, the parking provided may be poorly designed or located, making it inconvenient for residents to access their parking spots. Long walking distances, narrow driveways, or insufficient security measures can deter buyers and tenants from choosing the property.
4. Council and Zoning Restrictions on Parking
Local councils may impose restrictions on the number of parking spaces allowed in new developments, particularly in urban areas with public transport infrastructure. Buyers may not be aware of these restrictions until it’s too late, leading to frustration and dissatisfaction after purchase.
5. Parking Disputes Among Residents
In developments with shared or limited parking spaces, disputes over parking can arise between residents. These disputes can escalate into legal battles or cause friction within the community, negatively affecting the living experience for all residents.
A lack of parking can lead to various financial and legal challenges for off-the-plan buyers:
Introduction
In Harris v ABC Developments [2021] NSWSC 1289, a group of off-the-plan buyers in a new Sydney apartment complex faced financial losses and disputes due to the lack of sufficient parking. The case demonstrates how parking issues can negatively impact the livability and value of a property.
Executor’s Mismanagement
The buyers had signed contracts for off-the-plan apartments in a highly sought-after Sydney development. The marketing materials highlighted the property's proximity to public transport but did not emphasize the limited availability of on-site parking. Many buyers assumed that parking would be available for all units, as is common in most high-end developments.
After settlement, the buyers were shocked to discover that there were only 20 parking spaces for the 40 apartments in the building. To make matters worse, some of the parking spaces were located in inconvenient areas of the basement, making them difficult to access. As a result, many residents were forced to seek off-site parking at nearby facilities, which came with additional costs.
Frustrated by the lack of parking, several buyers contacted the developer, seeking compensation or a solution to the parking shortage. However, the developer claimed that the parking allocation had been disclosed in the contracts and that the buyers should have reviewed the details before purchase.
Several buyers, unable to find affordable off-site parking, began parking on nearby streets, which led to parking fines and disputes with local residents. Some buyers also faced difficulty renting out their apartments, as prospective tenants were deterred by the lack of parking.
The buyers filed a class action against the developer, arguing that the marketing materials had been misleading and that they had not been adequately informed about the limited parking availability. They sought compensation for the financial losses they incurred due to the lack of parking and the additional costs of off-site parking.
The court reviewed the evidence, including the marketing materials and the contracts signed by the buyers. While the judge acknowledged the buyers' frustration, the court found that the developer had disclosed the parking allocation in the contracts and that the buyers were responsible for reviewing these details before signing.
The financial consequences for the buyers were considerable. Many faced ongoing costs for off-site parking, while others struggled to rent out their apartments. Some buyers reported losses of $10,000–$20,000 due to reduced rental income or higher parking costs. Despite their dissatisfaction, the court did not award compensation to the buyers, leaving them to bear the financial burden of the parking shortage.
Government Resources
Non-Profit Organisations