What is AS/NZS 2890.1:2004?
AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 (commonly referred to as AS2890.1) is the Australian and New Zealand Standard governing the geometric design of off-street car parking for passenger vehicles. It establishes requirements for parking bay dimensions, aisle widths, ramp gradients and transitions, vertical clearances, sight distance, and design vehicle envelopes used during the design of a development.
Is AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 still the operative standard in 2026?
Yes, AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 remains the current published standard in 2026.
A draft revision circulated in 2024–2025 proposed updates, including increasing standard bay lengths from 5.4m to 5.6m to reflect larger modern vehicles.
Although it is expected that the updated version will come into effect at some point during 2026, it is unclear exactly when.
It is important to be aware of any state-based frameworks in addition to AS2890.1. For example, at the beginning of 2026, changes to the Victorian Planning Scheme reshaped how car parking is assessed for Victorian developments
Why AS2890.1 matters for development teams
For developers, architects, planners and private clients, AS2890.1 issues usually affect more than compliance. They can alter parking yield, basement efficiency, structural coordination and the likelihood of council RFIs.
Early review of bay geometry, aisle widths, ramps and clearance envelopes can reduce redesign pressure later in the approval process. Verifying parking and access early on can save time and money for your project in the long run.
What does AS/NZS 2890.1 control?
AS2890.1 governs the geometric layout of private car parks, including:
- Parking bay size
- Aisle widths
- Ramp gradients and transitions
- Height clearance
- Design vehicle selection (B85 and B99)
- Driveway sight distance
These dimensions shape parking design decisions, including structural grids, basement depth, circulation efficiency and overall parking yield.
Bay widths, user classes and clearance rules
Under AS2890.1:2004, there is no single standard parking bay width, as it depends on the development’s user class.
What Is a User Class?
User classes reflect expected driver familiarity
| User Class | Typical Land Use | Design Implication | Minimum Bay Width |
| Class 1 | Residential | More compact manoeuvring is generally permitted | Minimum 2.4m |
| Class 2 | Office / Commercial | Increased allowances | Minimum 2.5m |
| Class 3 | Retail / High Turnover | Larger bays and wider aisles are typically required | Minimum 2.6m |
Retail car parks are typically designed more generously because they serve higher turnover and less familiar drivers.
What Is the Door Opening Clearance Rule?
Clause 2.4.2(c) requires an additional 300mm width where a parking bay is adjacent to a wall or continuous obstruction.
Example:
- Standard Class 1 bay: 2.4m
- Adjacent to wall → effective required width: 2.7m
This additional clearance allows vehicle doors to open safely.
Common layout issue:
Failure to apply the 300mm increase where bays abut walls or continuous obstructions.
Do Structural Columns Require the Full 300mm Increase?
Not necessarily.
Unlike continuous walls, structural columns may be positioned closer to a bay if located within the permitted intrusion zone — typically between 0.75m and 1.5m from the aisle edge of the space (refer Clause 2.5.2).
When correctly positioned within this zone:
- Door opening clearance can still be maintained
Columns outside this zone may require additional clearance or layout revision.
Common RFI Trigger:
Columns positioned outside the permitted intrusion zone without supporting clearance justification.
Aisles, ramps and vehicle movement
How Wide Must the Aisle Be for 90° Parking?
For 90-degree parking:
- Class 1 aisle width is typically around 5.8m
- Increased widths apply for Class 2 and Class 3
Aisle width must align with both User Class and bay width.
Common RFI Trigger:
Aisle widths shown are dimensionally inconsistent with the nominated User Class or not supported by swept path modelling.
How Basement Ramps Can Trigger Council RFIs
Basement ramp geometry is one of the most common areas where layouts require revision during planning assessment
While parking bays and aisle widths are relatively straightforward, ramp design must consider multiple geometric factors, including ramp grade, transition geometry, vehicle overhang and internal circulation constraints.
In constrained developments, particularly in basement environments, small changes to ramp layout can affect:
- vehicle clearance
- manoeuvring ability
- driver sight lines
- pedestrian safety near ramp interfaces
For this reason, ramp design is typically verified through a detailed traffic engineering review rather than relying on standard templates or assumed dimensions.
Frequent compliance issue:
The basement ramp geometry, which appears acceptable on the plan, does not accommodate vehicle movement envelopes or vertical clearance constraints when assessed in section.
What Are B85 and B99 Design Vehicles?
AS2890.1 uses percentile-based passenger design vehicles:
- B85 – 85th percentile passenger vehicle
- B99 – 99.8th percentile passenger vehicle
These terms refer to the standard vehicle templates used when conducting swept path analysis. Swept path modelling verifies that aisles, ramps and turning areas accommodate the nominated design vehicles.
These represent geometric envelopes (length, width, turning path), not specific vehicle models. Although B99 represents larger vehicles such as SUVs and Utes, which are steadily increasing in popularity within Australia – “Four in five new cars sold in Australia are SUVs or utes – more than double the share of 20 years ago.”
Frequent compliance issue:
Swept path diagrams not aligned with the nominated User Class or design vehicle envelope.
Height clearance and site distance
Required Height Clearance for Parking
Vertical clearance depends on parking classification.
- Standard parking areas: minimum 2.2m
- Car Parking Aisles: minimum 2.3m
- Accessible parking spaces (refer AS2890.6): minimum 2.5m
The 2.5m clearance must form a continuous vertical envelope along the accessible path of travel, from the entry point through to the accessible bay. Not just within the marked bay.
Common layout issue:
2.5m clearance is provided at the accessible bay, but reduced along the circulation route serving that space.
Driveways Design Considerations: Sight Triangle
At vehicle exits to public roads, a pedestrian sight triangle is typically required:
- 2.0m along the property boundary
- 2.5m into the site (measured from the edge of the roadway on-site)
On one-way exit roadways, this pedestrian sight triangle is needed on both sides of the driveway.
However, on two-way exit roadways, this pedestrian sight triangle is only needed on the exit side of the driveway
This area should remain clear of obstructions above 500mm.
Failure to demonstrate compliant sight distance frequently results in Council Information Requests.
Quick Reference: Core AS2890.1 Parking Design Metrics
The table below summarises some of the most commonly referenced AS2890.1 metrics. Final dimensions still depend on configuration and user class.
| Metric | Class 1 (Residential) | Class 2 | Class 3 (Retail) |
| Bay Length | 5.4m | 5.4m | 5.4m |
| Bay Width | 2.4m | Increased | Increased |
| 90° Aisle | ~5.8m | Wider | Widest |
| Max Ramp Grade | 1:4 (25%) | 1:5 (20%) | 1:5 (20%) |
| Transition Required | If > 1:8 (12.5%) | Same | Same |
Common RFI triggers in car park layouts
Parking-related Information Requests commonly arise from:
- Missing 300mm width where the parking bay is adjacent to walls or a continuous obstruction
- Columns positioned outside the permitted intrusion zone without supporting clearance justification.
- Aisle widths are inconsistent with the nominated User Class
- Ramp grades shown without compliant transitions
- Insufficient height clearance along the path of travel
- Swept path modelling does not demonstrate B85/B99 accommodation
These issues are geometric and typically verifiable during assessment, which is why it is important to engage a traffic engineer early in the development to avoid delays and wasted budget.
Responding to a Council RFI Referencing AS2890.1?
Where a Council Information Request references AS2890.1, the issue is usually technical rather than conceptual.
A focused compliance review may assist in:
- Identifying the relevant clause or dimensional deficiency
- Verifying swept path and ramp transition compliance
- Assessing column placement and clearance envelopes
- Reviewing the accessible path vertical clearances
- Supporting a structured technical response
Parking geometry interacts with structural grids, basement levels and yield assumptions. Early technical review may reduce the risk of iterative redesign.
If you are reviewing a car park layout, responding to a council RFI or pressure-testing a basement design against AS2890.1, our traffic engineering team can provide an independent parking compliance review to help identify layout issues early.
Fill out this quick form and an engineer will be in contact to assist you shortly!
Or give us a call on: 1300 606 408
Disclaimer: The information provided on this page is general in nature and does not constitute site-specific engineering advice. Traffic management requirements vary depending on individual site conditions, operational characteristics, and regulatory obligations. A detailed assessment by a qualified professional is required to determine appropriate traffic management measures for any specific location.
