AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

 

THURSDAY 4 MAY 2017

 

10:00am

 


Function of the Local Traffic Committee

Background

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is legislated as the Authority responsible for the control of traffic on all NSW Roads. The RMS has delegated certain aspects of the control of traffic on local roads to councils. To exercise this delegation, councils must establish a local traffic committee and obtain the advice of the RMS and Police. The Inner West Council Local Traffic Committee has been constituted by Council as a result of the delegation granted by the RMS pursuant to Section 50 of the Transport Administration Act 1988.

 

Role of the Committee

The Local Traffic Committee is primarily a technical review and advisory committee which considers the technical merits of proposals and ensures that current technical guidelines are considered. It provides recommendations to Council on traffic and parking control matters and on the provision of traffic control facilities and prescribed traffic control devices for which Council has delegated authority. These matters are dealt with under Part A of the agenda and require Council to consider exercising its delegation.

In addition to its formal role as the Local Traffic Committee, the Committee may also be requested to provide informal traffic engineering advice on traffic matters not requiring Council to exercise its delegated function at that point in time, for example, advice to Council’s Development Assessment Section on traffic generating developments. These matters are dealt with under Part C of the agenda and are for information or advice only and do not require Council to exercise its delegation.

 

Committee Delegations

The Local Traffic Committee has no decision-making powers. The Council must refer all traffic related matters to the Local Traffic Committee prior to exercising its delegated functions. Matters related to State Roads or functions that have not been delegated to Council must be referred directly to the RMS or relevant organisation.

The Committee provides recommendations to Council. Should Council wish to act contrary to the advice of the Committee or if that advice is not supported unanimously by the Committee members, then the Police or RMS have an opportunity to appeal to the Regional Traffic Committee.

 

Committee Membership & Voting

Formal voting membership comprises the following:

·            one representative of Council as nominated by Council;

·            one representative of the NSW Police from each Local Area Command (LAC) within the LGA, being Newtown, Marrickville, Leichhardt and Ashfield LAC’s.

·            one representative from the RMS;  and

·            State Members of Parliament (MP) for the electorates of Summer Hill, Newtown, Heffron, Canterbury, Strathfield and Balmain or their nominees.

 

Where the Council area is represented by more than one MP or covered by more than one Police LAC, representatives are only permitted to vote on matters which effect their electorate or LAC.

Informal (non-voting) advisors from within Council or external authorities may also attend Committee meetings to provide expert advice.

 

Committee Chair

Council’s representative will chair the meetings.

 

Public Participation

Members of the public or other stakeholders may address the Committee on agenda items to be considered by the Committee. The format and number of presentations is at the discretion of the Chairperson and is generally limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Committee debate on agenda items is not open to the public.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

 

AGENDA

 

 1         Apologies  

 

 

2          Disclosures of Interest

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

 

4          Matters Arising from Council’s Resolution of Minutes

 

 

5          Part A – Items Where Council May Exercise Its Delegated Functions

 

Traffic Matters                                                                                                                     Page

 

T0517 Item 1       'NO TRUCKS 3T AND OVER' RESTRICTIONS - Norman Lane and adjacent laneways, Rozelle
(BALMAIN WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)          5

 

Parking Matters

T0517 Item 2       CONVENT LANE, MARRICKVILLE – PROPOSED CHANGES TO NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)                                                        8

T0517 Item 3       PETERSHAM STREET, PETERSHAM - PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)                                                                                                            15

T0517 Item 4       BEACH ROAD & KINTORE STREET, DULWICH HILL - PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)                                                      19

T0517 Item 5       FEDERATION ROAD, NEWTOWN - PROPOSED CHANGES TO PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC)     23

T0517 Item 6       EWART STREET, DULWICH HILL - PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)                                                      26

T0517 Item 7       SYDENHAM/ST PETERS PARKING IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (MARRICKVILLE WARD/HEFFRON ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC)                             32

T0517 Item 8       REQUESTS FOR ‘WORKS ZONE’ ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION SITES (STANMORE & MARRICKVILLE WARDS/NEWTOWN & HEFFRON ELECTORATES/NEWTOWN LAC)                                                        132

T0517 Item 9       KEITH LANE, DULWICH HILL – PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING & NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)                                                                                                          139

T0517 Item 10     REQUESTS FOR MOBILITY PARKING SPACES (ASHFIELD & MARRICKVILLE WARDS/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)          146

T0517 Item 11     PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS - Outside 34-36 and 25-27 Lackey Street, Summer Hill
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC) 158

T0517 Item 12     92 CHARLOTTE STREET ASHFIELD - Request for Disabled Parking Space
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC) 162

T0517 Item 13     REMOVAL OF MOBILITY PARKING ZONE - Outside 9 Somerville Avenue Ashfield
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC) 166

T0517 Item 14     MINOR TRAFFIC FACILITIES
(Leichhardt & Balmain Wards/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)        169

T0517 Item 15     'NO STOPPING' RESTRICTIONS - Palmer Street at Wortley Street and Hyam Street
(BALMAIN WARD/BALMAIN ELECTORATE/LEICHHARDT LAC)      171

T0517 Item 16     PROPOSED 'NO STOPPING' RESTRICTION TO INTERSECTION CORNERS - Various Locations
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC) 175

T0517 Item 17     PROPOSED PARKING CHANGES TO LINDSAY AVENUE, SUMMER HILL
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC) 187

 

Late Items

 

Nil at time of printing.

 

 

6          Part B – Items for Information Only

 

T0517 Item 18     INSTALLATION OF WORKS ZONES OUTSIDE 2-6 THOMAS STREET AND 10 WEBBS AVENUE, ASHFIELD
(Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)                            191

 

 

7          Part C – Items for General Advice

 

Nil at time of printing.

 

 

8          General Business

 

9          Close of Meeting

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 1

Subject:     'NO TRUCKS 3T AND OVER' RESTRICTIONS - Norman Lane and adjacent laneways, Rozelle
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/42249.17         

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns from residents regarding heavy vehicles using Norman Lane and adjacent laneways between Norman Street and Wise Street as thoroughfares and subsequently causing property damage.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.               a ‘No Trucks, 3t and over’ restriction in Norman Lane and the adjacent laneways between Norman Street and Wise Street, Rozelle be supported in principle.

 

2.               a TMP outlining the restriction be submitted to RMS for approval.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received concerns from residents regarding heavy vehicles using Norman Lane and adjacent laneways between Norman Street and Wise Street as thoroughfares and subsequently causing property damage.

The subject laneways are approximately 3.4m wide and provide rear access to properties in Norman Street, Wise Street, Terry Street and Darling Street.

Vehicle volumes in these laneways are low with low speed levels due to their narrow carriageways.

 

Council officers have observed damage from large vehicles using these laneways instead of using Terry Street and Darling Street as alternate parallel routes, both of which are approximately 12.8m wide.

 

PROPOSAL

In order to address the concerns raised by residents, it is proposed to install a ‘No Trucks, 3t and Over’ restriction in Norman Lane and the adjacent laneways between Norman Street and Wise Street, Rozelle as shown on the following plan.

 

 

These restrictions indicate that a driver of a vehicle over 3 tonnes GVM (except the driver of a bus) must not drive past the sign. This rule does not apply if the driver has a destination which lies within the subject lanes.

 

 

CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the above proposal was mailed out to the affected properties (78 properties) in Norman Lane, Norman Street, Terry Street, Wise Street and Darling Street, Rozelle.

 

Two responses were received supporting the proposal.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the signposting will be funded from Council’s operational budget.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 2

Subject:     CONVENT LANE, MARRICKVILLE – PROPOSED CHANGES TO NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC) 

File Ref:     17/6022/41774.17        

Prepared By:     Emilio Andari - Civil Engineer 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

Requests have been received from a resident to shift the full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Convent Lane, Marrickville at the rear of their property to accommodate parking in the laneway. Residents have been notified of the proposal to shift the existing full-time ‘No Parking’ signs on the western side of Convent Lane. It is recommended that the proposal be approved.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the existing full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Convent Lane, Marrickville be shifted north (10 metres in length) to the rear of property no. 110 Malakoff Street, Marrickville and APPROVED, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the residents’ off-street car parking spaces.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

In March 2016, the matter was reported to the Local Traffic Committee (former-Marrickville) regarding the proposal of ‘No Parking’ restrictions along the entire western side of Convent Lane, Marrickville between the rear of property 112 Malakoff Street, Marrickville and to the rear of property 102 Malakoff Street, Marrickville, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the existing off-street car parking spaces and to deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings. The recommendation of this item was adopted by Council (former-Marrickville) at its meeting held in April 2016.

 

Since implementation of the ‘No Parking’ restrictions in the laneway, numerous requests have been raised by a resident to shift the full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Convent Lane, Marrickville to the rear of their property (i.e. reduce the overall length of the No Parking Zone on the western side) to accommodate parking in the laneway.

 

Council officers undertook a detailed investigation into Convent Lane, Marrickville to identify whether it was feasible to accommodate this request for parking within the laneway by shifting the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Convent Lane. Results of this investigation are detailed below.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended ‘No Parkingrestrictions are approximately $400 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

 

 

 


 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

Site location & road network

 

Street Name

Convent Lane

Section

Between Broadleys Lane to an end

Carriageway Width (m)

4.9

Carriageway Type

Two-way road that runs in a north-south direction and is a no through road.

Classification

Local

85th Percentile Speed (km/h)

Vehicles Per Day (vpd)

Reported Crash History

(July 2011 – June 2016)

No crashes recorded.

Heavy Vehicle Volume (%)

Parking Arrangements

‘No Parking’ restrictions on both sides of the road.

 

Site inspection

 

The subject section of Convent Lane, Marrickville is approximately 4.9 metres in width and runs north-south between Broadleys Lane and to an end. This section of the laneway provides rear access to the properties fronting Despointes Street and Malakoff Street (refer to the attached sign plan and photographs).

 

A site inspection undertaken by a Council Officer revealed there are six (6) vehicular crossings located along the western side of Convent Lane and there are three (3) vehicular crossings located along the eastern side of Convent Lane. At present, there is ‘No Parking’ restrictions along both sides of Convent Lane within the subject section of the lane.

 

Following public consultation, Council Officers undertook an experiment to determine whether it was feasible to park a vehicle at the rear of property no. 106 Malakoff Street and still maintain clear access into and out of the off-street parking facility located on the opposite side of the laneway. It was observed that when vehicles are parked in this location, off-street parking spaces that are located on the eastern side of the laneway do not have sufficient space for residents to enter into or exit from their garages/off-street parking spaces due to the narrow carriageway.

 

It should be noted that the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Convent Lane will not result in the loss of any legal on-street parking spaces. The subject location consists of several vehicular crossings with short kerb lengths (less than a standard car length) and therefore no legal space is available within this section of the laneway.

 

It should also be noted that laneways were generally built to provide service access for commercial/residential properties and access into their off-street parking facilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Sign Plan – Convent Lane, Marrickville

 

 

Photographs – Convent Lane, Marrickville

 

 

Existing ‘No Parking’ zones along both sides of Convent Lane facing north

 

Off-street car parking facilities located along both sides of Convent Lane facing south

 

Laneway Parking Guidelines

 

Council’s adopted Laneway Parking Guidelines outline the measures to consider whether the use of the laneway can prohibit on-street parking. The effective use of narrow streets and laneways alleviates parking pressure. Effectively managed laneways allow for adequate access while providing the maximum amount of on-street parking. The Laneway Parking Guidelines outline the priorities for using narrow laneways and the actions and processes that Council will use to manage access and parking. These guidelines have been developed to provide consistency for evaluating the need for parking controls and manage the use of narrow streets and laneways to maintain access and maximise parking. The need for parking controls is based on the width of the laneway shown below in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Laneway Parking Guideline Laneway Width

Laneway Width

(between property boundaries or kerbs/driveways)

 

Parking and Access Arrangements

 

 

5.1 metres or more wide

 

·    Parking allowed on at least one side of the laneway

·    Allows access for emergency, delivery and waste collection trucks at all times

·    Complies with Australian Standards and Road Rule 208(7)

 

Less than 5.1 metres

 

·    Parking NOT permitted in the laneway

·    Allows vehicle access at all times and complies with Australian Standards and Road Rule 208(7)

For parking to be allowed in a narrow laneway, the Australian Standards require that parallel parking spaces be at least 2.1 metres wide and NSW Road Rules requires that at least 3 metres must be available between a parked car and the kerb or edge of the laneway to allow moving vehicles to pass safely. Therefore, laneway widths that are less than 5.1 metres wide are too narrow to allow parking as any parked vehicle would prevent traffic from using the laneway (see Table 1 above and Figure 1 below).

 

Figure 1: Recommended minimum width of laneway for parking – 5.1 metres

 

 

When vehicles are parked in narrow laneways, near street intersections, sharp bends, across or opposite from driveways, there needs to be enough space for vehicles to travel along the laneway or turn at intersections or into properties. Laneways are an integral part of a sustainable transport system which provides vehicle access to properties and garages.

 

In accordance with the Laneway Parking Guidelines, the laneway access priorities below have been developed to help Council decide whether parking is permitted in a laneway and determine how much space is required for the most important uses. The priorities for the use of the available space in laneways are listed in Table 2 below in order of priority.

 

Table 2: Laneway Access Priorities

Priority (Highest to Lowest)

Description

Emergency access

Provide access according to Australian Standards.

Deliveries and waste collection service

Maintain access for waste collection and delivery trucks where required.

Access to off-street parking

Ensure adequate access to properties along the laneway to maximise use of existing off-street parking.

Accessible on-street parking

Provide accessible parking spaces for people with a disability where appropriate and in accordance with the standards.

On-street parking

Allow parking in laneways where appropriate access is maintained. Parking signs to be installed to manage access where needed.

 

NSW legislation includes various requirements to manage access and parking on roads as follows:

 


 

Acts and Regulations Guiding Parking and Access

 

1.   A member of the public is entitled, as of right, to pass along a public road (whether on foot, in a vehicle or otherwise); and

 

2.   The owner of land adjoining a public road is entitled, as of right, to access (whether on foot, in a vehicle or otherwise) across the boundary between the land and the public road.

 

Road Rules

 

1.   A driver must not stop on or across a driveway or other way of access for vehicles travelling to or from adjacent land. Note a driver stops on or across a driveway or way of access if any part of the vehicle is on or across the driveway or way of access; and

 

2.   If the road does not have a continuous dividing line or a dividing strip, the driver must position the vehicle so there is at least 3 metres of the road alongside the vehicle that is clear for other vehicles to pass.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A notification letter was sent on 10 April 2017 to owners and occupiers of the affected properties that are adjacent to the subject section in Convent Lane, Marrickville regarding a proposal to shift the full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side to only retain ‘No parking’ restrictions at the rear of no. 102 & no. 104 Malakoff Street. This proposal intended to address 2 issues (1) concerns regarding the lack of ability to park in the laneway and (2) maintain no obstruction to access in and out of residential garages. The closing date for submissions ended on 24 April 2017.

 

A total of sixteen (16) letters were sent out to the affected residential properties (both Malakoff Street & Despointes Street properties). There were two (2) responses received.

 

There were two (2) responses opposing the proposed changes to the ‘No Parking’ restrictions received and are detailed below.

 

 

 

 

Residents’ Comments (opposing proposal)

Officer’s Response

1.      A resident of Despointes Street opposes the proposal to the changes of the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions. The resident would like to seek strong endorsement of the current signage in the Convent Lane. The resident stated they would like to continue using their off-street parking which has only been realistically possible since the installation of the ‘No Parking’ signs on the western side of the laneway in mid-2016. 

 

 

 

2.      A resident of Despointes Street opposes the proposal to change the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions. The resident insists that the current ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side remain without change as this allows clear vehicular access in and out of their garage. It was also stated that it is illegal to park across a driveway and that the laneway is not wide enough to park a vehicle, therefore the restrictions along the western side should remain.

 

Since the community engagement process, Council Officers undertook an experiment to see whether it was feasible to park a vehicle at the rear of property no. 106 Malakoff Street and still maintain clear access out of the off-street parking facility located on the opposite side of the laneway. It was observed that when vehicles are parked in this location, off-street parking spaces that are located on the eastern side of the laneway do not have sufficient space for residents to enter into or exit from their garages/off-street parking spaces due to the narrow carriageway.

 

The proposal to shift the existing ‘No Parking’ signs on the western side of Convent Lane to only retain ‘No parking’ restrictions at the rear of no. 102 & no. 104 Malakoff Street has been amended within this report to retain ‘No Parking’ restrictions from the rear of no. 102 to no. 108 Malakoff Street inclusive. This means an existing 21 metres in length of ‘No Parking’ restrictions will remain to accommodate access to their off-street parking spaces.

 

There is currently no legal car parking space along the western side of Convent Lane as majority of the lane consists of vehicular crossings.

 

 

 

The Proposed Changes

 

In consideration of the negative feedback received by Council from the community during the engagement process, the original proposal to shift the existing ‘No Parking’ signs on the western side of Convent Lane to only retain ‘No parking’ restrictions at the rear of no. 102 & no. 104 Malakoff Street has now been amended within this report to retain ‘No Parking’ restrictions from the rear of no. 102 to no. 108 Malakoff Street inclusive (refer to the attached sign plan and photographs).

 

The amended proposal addresses concerns regarding vehicles obstructing access to and from residential garages. It should be noted that ‘No Parking’ restrictions prohibit motorists from parking within the specified zone; however, they can legally stop to load/unload passengers and/or goods.

 

 

CONCLUSION

In order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to existing residents’ off-street car parking spaces in Convent Lane (east side), it is recommended that the existing full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the western side of Convent Lane, Marrickville be shifted north (10 metres in length) to the rear of property no. 110 Malakoff Street, Marrickville.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 3

Subject:     PETERSHAM STREET, PETERSHAM - PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)
 

File Ref:     15/SF546/37263.17        

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

Residents have made representations to Council to introduce resident parking restrictions in Petersham Street, Petersham. Permit parking restrictions are slated to be introduced in surrounding streets as part of the Parramatta Road Corridor/Camperdown Parking Strategy. There was sufficient support through community consultation with affected residents to recommend permit parking restrictions in Petersham Street, Petersham.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of ‘2P 8am–10pm Mon-Fri, Area M5 Permit Holders Excepted’ restrictions on the eastern side of Petersham Street, Petersham (between Queen Street and Elswick Street) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents;

 

2.   The installation of ‘2P 8am–10pm Mon-Fri, Area M5 Permit Holders Excepted’ restrictions on the eastern side of Petersham Street, Petersham (between Elswick Street and Fort Street) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents; and

 

3.   The statutory ’No Stopping’ zones (10 metres in length) be put in place where required as part of the recommended parking changes listed above.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

A number of streets in the Petersham area in close proximity to Petersham Street, Petersham have been designated as permit parking in the Parramatta Road Corridor/Camperdown Parking Study (2016). As Petersham Street was not included in the resident parking scheme, there have been concerns expressed by residents that parking for residents is already difficult due to a number of impacts including commuter parking. Also, residents have expressed a concern that there would be a knock-on effect when the proposed resident parking restrictions are implemented in surrounding streets. See Figure 1 for a map illustrating the nearby streets scheduled to have resident parking implemented within the current financial year.

 

The parking surveys undertaken as part of the Parramatta Road Corridor/Camperdown Parking Study show that there is a commuter/local worker effect with the northern end of Petersham Street experiencing high levels of occupancy (85% plus) on Tuesday and Thursday throughout the day. On Tuesday the occupancy was 85% plus throughout the day along the length of Petersham Street. On Thursday the northern end was 85% plus but the southern end was 50% or less. In the evening and on Saturday this occupancy drops to 50%.

 

Figure 1: Recommendations for parking restrictions from Parramatta Road Corridor/Camperdown Parking Study 2016

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended ‘No Stopping’ & Permit Parking restrictions are approximately $1,500 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.


 

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

One of the complicating factors with Petersham Street is that there is parking only on one side. At present, there is unrestricted parking along the eastern side and full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions along the western side of Petersham Street. Even though the study did not include Petersham Street in the recommended streets for resident parking, it may still be warranted but given that there will be no available unrestricted parking in the street if permit parking were to be implemented, it is important to ensure that residents have been given the opportunity to have a say on that specific proposal.

 

The proposal is to restrict parking to 2 hours between 8am and 10pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M5, at the front of residential properties on the eastern side of Petersham Street between Queen Street and Fort Street. The 10m Statutory ‘No Stopping’ zones are also proposed in conjunction with the proposed resident parking restrictions. See Figure 2 below for a map of the proposed changes.

 

Figure 2: Map showing proposed parking restrictions in Petersham Street, Petersham


 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

A notification letter was sent on 7 April 2017 to owners and occupiers of the affected properties that are adjacent to the subject sections along Petersham Street, Petersham regarding proposed introduction of ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M5’ restrictions to address concerns regarding difficulty for residents to find parking. The closing date for submissions ended on 21 April 2017.

 

A total of twenty-three (23) letters were sent out to the affected residential properties (Elswick Street, Fort Street and Petersham Street properties). There were seven (7) responses received.

 

Council received three (3) responses opposing and four (4) responses supporting the proposed permit parking and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions. The responses are detailed below.

 

Residents’ Comments (opposing proposal)

Officer’s Response

One (1) resident of Fort Street opposes the proposed permit parking stating that there were multiple vehicles associated with the household and further restrictions would make parking more difficult.

 

Where resident parking restrictions are installed, this is only on one side of the affected street, leaving the opposite side unrestricted parking (excluding Petersham Street). This unrestricted parking is available for vehicles of residents who are not eligible for resident parking permits.

One (1) resident and one (1) business in Petersham Street opposed the proposed permit parking. Reasons cited for opposing included;  not wanting more signs in the street, loss of parking spaces due to implementation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ zones, and the proposed restrictions could make parking for visitors and long term parkers more difficult.

Visitor parking permits are available from Council to facilitate visitor parking. There is also unrestricted parking in adjacent streets to accommodate visitors and long term parking.

 

Residents’ Comments (supporting proposal)

Officer’s Response

Four (4) residents of Petersham Street supported the proposal citing difficulty finding parking, concerns about knock-on effects from pending permit parking restrictions and concerns about safety walking distances from parked vehicles to home particularly after dark.

Received and noted.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Council acknowledges the potential impact of knock-on effects from the pending introduction of permit parking in surrounding streets. The proposal to introduce permit parking restrictions in Petersham Street, Petersham has received sufficient support to proceed with the implementation.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 4

Subject:     BEACH ROAD & KINTORE STREET, DULWICH HILL - PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)   

File Ref:     15/5909/37268.17        

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

Following implementation of the Permit Parking restrictions in Kintore Street and Beach Street, Dulwich Hill as a result of the recommendations in the Dulwich Hill Parking Strategy, there was opposition from local residents, notably those living above the shops in New Canterbury Road.

 

In order to accommodate the residents and the shop owners it is proposed to introduce permit parking on the eastern side of Beach Road, Dulwich Hill between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road and on the western side of Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road. The proposed hours of the restrictions are, ‘2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Permit Holders Excepted Area M6’.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of ‘2P 8.30am–6pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am-12.30pm Sat, Permit Holders Excepted Area M6’ restrictions on the eastern side of Beach Road, Dulwich Hill (between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents;

 

2.   The installation of ‘2P 8.30am–6pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am-12.30pm Sat, Permit Holders Excepted Area M6’ restrictions on the western side of Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill (between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents;

 

3.   The installation of a statutory ’No Stopping’ zone (10 metres in length) on the western side of Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill at its intersection with New Canterbury Road be APPROVED, in order to deter illegal parking, increase safety, improve visibility and access for turning motorists; and

 

4.   The installation of unrestricted parking on the eastern side of Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill (between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road) and unrestricted parking on the western side of Beach Road, Dulwich Hill (between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road) be APPROVED, in order to maintain consistency with the surrounding streets where permit parking restrictions apply.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Dulwich Hill Parking Strategy proposed 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday on both sides Beach Road, Dulwich Hill (between New Canterbury road and Hercules Street) and on both sides of Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill (between New Canterbury road and Hercules Street).


 

 

When this was implemented, there was a negative response from residents mainly those living above the shops which front onto New Canterbury Road.

 

As a result, Council removed the timed ‘2P’ restrictions that had been installed and undertook consultation specifically with the residents of that area to accommodate the needs of the affected residents and shop owners.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended ‘No Stopping & Permit Parking restrictions are approximately $1,500 and can be met from Council’s operating budget

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

The proposal for ‘2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Permit Holders Excepted Area M6’ restrictions on one side of Beach Road and Kintore Street allows for some turnover for the shops and also protects parking for residents affected by multi-unit development nearby.

 

It is proposed to introduce permit parking restrictions on the eastern side of Beach Road, Dulwich Hill between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road and on the western side of Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road. The proposed hours of the restrictions are, ‘2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Permit Holders Excepted Area M6’. A proposal to include a statutory ‘No Stopping’ zone (10 metres in length) will be implemented where required. See Figure 1 for map of the proposed changes.

 

Residents of the following streets are affected and may be eligible to apply for a permit (subject to the permit conditions).

 

1.   New Canterbury Road between Beach Road and Kintore Street

2.   Beach Road between New Canterbury Road and Hercules Street

 

The first parking permit is free of charge. You can also get further information on resident parking via Council’s website.

 

There are no properties fronting Kintore Street in the section between New Canterbury Road and Hercules Street, however the proposed permit parking restrictions in that section will be available for residents of New Canterbury Road who are subject to clearways and to other nearby residents who are eligible in the ‘Area M6’ permit parking area.

 

It should be noted that residents in recently built residential apartment buildings may not be eligible for parking permits. This will depend on the conditions of consent of their development approval.

Figure 1: Map showing existing and proposed parking conditions in Beach Road & Kintore Street

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

A notification letter was sent on 7 April 2017 to owners and occupiers of the affected properties that are adjacent to the subject sections along Beach Street and Kintore Street, Dulwich Hill regarding proposed introduction of ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Permit Holders Excepted Area M6’ restrictions to address concerns regarding difficulty for residents to find parking. The closing date for submissions ended on 21 April 2017.

 

A total of fifty-three (53) letters were sent out to the affected residential and commercial properties (Beach Road, Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road properties). There were eight (8) responses received. Council received five (5) responses opposing and three (3) responses supporting the proposed permit parking and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions. The responses are detailed below.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Residents’ Comments (opposing proposal)

Officer’s Response

Two (2) households from Hercules Street opposed the permit parking restrictions one (1) citing the cost of permits as a reason.

 

The first parking permit is granted at no cost. Where resident parking restrictions are installed, this is only on one side of the affected street, leaving the opposite side unrestricted parking.

Three (3) households in New Canterbury Road opposed the proposed permit parking citing that there is short term parking available in the Beach Road car park.

Resident parking is proposed for one side of the street only and there is unrestricted parking available in adjacent streets as well.

 

Residents’ Comments (supporting proposal)

Officer’s Response

Three (3) residents, two (2) in New Canterbury Road and one (1) in Beach Road supported the permit parking restrictions, one (1) noting that if restrictions were installed residents should be eligible.

Received and noted. Residents are eligible subject to the conditions of the permit.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

Council acknowledges the knock-on impact from implementation of permit parking in nearby streets. The introduction of permit parking on one side of the street in Kintore Street and Beach Street between Hercules Street and New Canterbury Road will accommodate the residents and the shop owners and provide a balance of use of parking in the subjects streets.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 5

Subject:     FEDERATION ROAD, NEWTOWN - PROPOSED CHANGES TO PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC) 

File Ref:     15/SF546/37290.17        

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

As part of the Parramatta Road Corridor/Camperdown Parking Strategy implementation, changes will be made to parking conditions in Federation Road, Newtown and surrounding streets. Following representation from residents, Council Officers have developed a number of proposals addressing additional concerns raised by residents following the adoption of the parking study. Feedback from residents regarding the current proposed additional restrictions indicate that in order to provide more parking opportunities for residents; there is support for extension of the permit parking hours and the conversion of unrestricted parking to permit parking in Federation Road, Newtown between Australia Street and Church Street adjacent to residential properties.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The amendment of existing ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1’ restrictions and unrestricted parking to ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1’ restrictions on the northern side of Federation Road, Newtown (between Australia Street and Northwood Lane) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents; and

 

2.   The amendment of existing unrestricted parking to2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1’ restrictions on the northern side of Federation Road, Newtown (between Northwood Street and the cul-de-sac near Church Street) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

It is proposed to introduce Permit Parking on the northern side of Federation Road, Newtown where there is currently unrestricted parking and to introduce extensions to the existing hours where Permit Parking is already in place. The proposed changes are outlined in Table 1 below and illustrated on a map in Figure 1.

 

Location

Current restrictions

Proposed restrictions

1.  Federation Road between Australia Street and Hopetoun Lane

Unrestricted parking (3 spaces).

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1.

2.  Federation Road between Hopetoun Lane and Northwood Lane

2P 8:30am-6pm Mon-Fri Area M1 Permit Holders Excepted (12 spaces).

Convert 2P 8:30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1 to 2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1.

3.  Federation Road between Northwood Lane and Northwood Street

Unrestricted parking (3 spaces).

No change.

4.  Federation Road between Northwood Street and cul-de-sac (Church Street)

Unrestricted parking (3 spaces).

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1.

Table 1: Current and proposed restrictions for the northern side of Federation Road, Newtown

 

Figure 1: Existing and Proposed Parking restrictions northern side of Federation Road, Newtown


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended Permit Parking restrictions are approximately $2,000 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

Residents have expressed concerns that restrictions being introduced as part of the Parramatta Road Corridor/Camperdown Parking study may reduce their options for parking. Council is responding to these concerns by extending the hours of permit parking in Federation Road, Newtown and converting a number of unrestricted parking spaces to permit parking.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

A notification letter was sent on 7 April 2017 to owners and occupiers of the affected properties that are adjacent to the subject sections along Federation Road, Newtown regarding proposed introduction of ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sun, Permit Holders Excepted Area M1’ restrictions to address concerns regarding difficulty for residents to find parking. The closing date for submissions ended on 21 April 2017.

 

A total of twenty (20) letters were sent out to the affected residential properties (Australia Street, Federation Road, Hopetoun Street, Northwood Street and Roberts Street properties). Council received six (6) responses from residents all supporting the proposed permit parking. The responses are detailed below.

 

Residents’ Comments (supporting proposal)

Officer’s Response

One (1) resident of Roberts Street was in favour of the proposal to extend the existing hours of permit parking in Federation Road.

 

Five (5) residents of Federation Road responded in support of the proposal to extend the permit parking hours in Federation Road.

 

One (1) resident of the six (6) responses referred specifically to their support for converting the unrestricted parking spaces between Northwood Street and Church Street to permit parking.

 

Received and noted.

 

 

CONCLUSION

In acknowledgement of the potential impact of knock-on effects from the pending introduction of permit parking in surrounding streets, the proposal to extend the hours of permit parking restrictions in Federation Road, Newtown; and, to convert unrestricted parking to permit parking restrictions in Federation Road, Newtown adjacent to residential properties has been developed and has received sufficient support to proceed with the implementation.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 6

Subject:     EWART STREET, DULWICH HILL - PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC) 

File Ref:     15/5909/37306.17        

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

As part of the Dulwich Hill Parking Strategy, a recommendation to implement permit parking in Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill (between property no. 53 Ewart Street and property no. 71 Ewart Street) was included in the draft report table of recommendations. It was also included within the map showing the recommendations in the final report which was approved by Council. The recommendation was inadvertently omitted from the table of recommendations even though it had been approved via the community process and in the draft report. The purpose of this report is to correct the omission of the permit parking restrictions in Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill to ensure that permit parking is implemented to allow opportunities for local residents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of ‘2P 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions on the northern side of Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill (between property no. 53 Ewart Street and property no. 71 Ewart Street) be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents; and

 

2.   The statutory ’No Stopping’ zones (10 metres in length) be put in place where required as part of the recommended parking changes listed above.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Dulwich Hill Parking Study was approved by Council in September 2016 and has since been implemented. The study recommendations included a section of Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill (see Figure 1 for map showing recommended restrictions from Dulwich Hill Parking Study report). The recommendation for Ewart Street to be designated as permit parking was included in the draft report and supported via the public exhibition.

 

When the final recommendations were summarised for approval by the Local Traffic Committee, Ewart Street was inadvertently excluded from the table of recommendations even though it had been included in the map which went on public exhibition and approved as part of the draft recommendations. The purpose of this report is to formalise the inclusion of Ewart Street in the permit parking scheme for the Dulwich Hill precinct.

 

The proposal is to implement 2P 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions on the northern side of Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill between property no. 53 Ewart Street and property no. 71 Ewart Street. Where the permit parking restrictions are proposed, the statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ zone will be implemented at the affected intersections.

Figure 1: Public consultation map from Dulwich Hill parking Study (2016) showing permit parking recommendations


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended Permit Parking and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions are approximately $1,500 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

The proposed permit parking restrictions have been subject to community consultation and are supported by residents. The current proposal is to formalise the approval as the recommendation was inadvertently omitted from the table of recommendations that were approved by Council.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

During the public exhibition phase of the Dulwich Hill Parking Study a letter was distributed to all residents within the study area.

 

The draft material circulated and displayed for public exhibition recommended permit parking on the southern side of Ewart Street (see Figure 2).

 

Feedback as part of the public exhibition indicated that the preferred side was the northern side and this was then changed for the final recommendations (see Figure 1).

 

The summary of restriction changes was also included in the draft report which went to public exhibition included the changes in Ewart Street. That table is reproduced below (Table 1)

 


 

 

Figure 2: Map showing draft recommendations delivered to letter boxes throughout Dulwich Hill during public exhibition of study

 

 

 

Table 1: Summary Table of parking restriction changes included in Draft report

 

 

 


 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposed permit parking changes to Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill were included in the publically exhibited Dulwich Hill Parking Study draft report map and the summary table of changes and there was resident support for the proposed restrictions. The proposed permit parking changes will be in keeping with the findings of the study.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 7

Subject:     SYDENHAM/ST PETERS PARKING IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (MARRICKVILLE WARD/HEFFRON ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC) 

File Ref:     15/4291/37347.17        

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

Council is carrying out a review of the 2013 GHD Sydenham Parking Study. In addition to the Sydenham parking precinct the review is also considering parking impacts in St Peters. Recommendations have been made to extend resident parking in a number of streets in the Sydenham parking precinct as a result of knock on effects from the 2014 implementation of the GHD report. Also recommendations are being made to implement resident parking in a number of streets in St Peters due to residents’ concerns regarding the impacts of surrounding commercial/industrial uses. Following approval by Council, there will be a 28 day period of public exhibition of the draft recommendations. Public comments will then be incorporated into a final report for approval by Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the draft Sydenham/St Peters Parking Review be approved for public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

GHD was commissioned in 2012 by the then Marrickville Council to undertake a parking management study in the Sydenham area. The study investigated the existing supply and demand for parking in the area and suggested recommendations for improved management of the available parking resources.

GHD report recommended the implementation of a residential parking scheme based on a 400m catchment of Sydenham railway station (see Figure 1). GHD also recommended that Council consider community feedback after the installation of the scheme to determine if expansion was required.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Financial implications in relation to this review will be dealt with in a subsequent report to Council.


 

OFFICER COMMENTS

Council has now undertaken a review of the implementation of that study bearing in mind more recent developments. The review is comprised of a community survey, any correspondence to Council, parking surveys, and, incorporation of any new residential or commercial developments in the area. The draft recommendations within this report will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days following approval by Council. The draft recommendations will be then finalised, incorporating feedback from residents and stakeholders. All the recommendations in this review relate to the M4 permit parking area.

 


Figure 1: Map showing expansion of resident parking areas from 2013 GHD study

 

The recommendations which are being made to streets in the Sydenham parking precinct include changes to the resident parking restrictions in Bridge Street and Leslie Street; and extensions of resident parking, Frederick, George, Sutherland and Yelverton Streets. Due to a number of factors including resident concern about managing the impact in the growth of commercial/industrial uses, resident parking restrictions are recommended for Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets within the M4 resident parking area.


 

 

This report also comments on and provides analysis for additional streets within the St Peters area. There are currently a number of streets within St Peters which have resident parking (M12 area). An analysis of streets which have been highlighted to Council by residents and those which are subject to WestConnex works are further discussed. At this time there is no rationale for implementing any further resident parking in the existing M12 permit parking area.

 

Information on the Sydenham Creative Hub is included. Parking impacts of the Creative Hub development will be managed through the urban development process. Feedback on parking impacts is sought as part of this parking review.

Recommendations

The draft recommendations which are being made are summarised in Table 1 below and illustrated in maps in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

 

Table 1: List of draft recommendations

 

Draft Recommendation

Details

Type

1.       Bridge Street, Tempe

Convert 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted to Unrestricted parking (southern side)

Unrestricted

2.       Edith Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Sat Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between Unwins Bridge Road and the driveway opposite 65 Edith Street

2P Resident

3.       Edith Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between number 52 Edith Street and Roberts Lane

2P Resident

4.       Frederick Street, Sydenham

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street to property no.1 Frederick Street

2P Resident

5.       George Street, Sydenham

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Lee Lane

2P Resident

6.       Leslie Street, Tempe

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (eastern side)

2P Resident

7.       Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Roberts Lane and property no. 71 Mary Street

2P Resident

8.       Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to No Parking (southern side) between Rolfe Lane and the driveway to property no. 60 Mary Street

“No Parking”

9.       Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 4P 8:30am-6pm Monday-Friday (southern side) between Albion Lane and the driveway to property no. 62 Mary Street

4P

(Medium Term)

 

 

10.     Park Road, Sydenham

Implement statutory 10m No Stopping southern side of Park Road at its intersection with Princes Highway

No Stopping

11.     Roberts Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side)

2P Resident

12.     Sutherland Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and property no.1 Sutherland Street

2P Resident

13.     Yelverton Street, St Peters

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Princes Highway

2P Resident

14.     No Stopping

Implement Statutory No Stopping zones in association with parking restrictions as appropriate

No Stopping

Figure 2: Map of proposed restrictions northwest of study area (Area 1)

: Figure 3: Map of proposed restrictions in southeast of study area (Area 2)

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In summary the community engagement consisted of a mail out to all residents and householders in the Sydenham area. For other matters related to St Peters, Council refers to correspondence and petitions that have been received over the past several years.

Further feedback is expected to be received during the public exhibition phase from both Sydenham and St Peters areas.

 

A letter was sent by mail to approximately 5,000 householders and residents in the Sydenham area, pointing to a web page outlining the process for the study review and seeking input via a questionnaire.  The responses are summarised below.

 

·      There were 60 responses received. 

·      There were 43 respondents who were from streets currently with unrestricted parking and 17 who had measures implemented in their street.

·      Of those 17, there were 7 people who were satisfied.

·      Of the 10 people who were dissatisfied 4 related to Park Road and 2 to Terry Street.

 

Several respondents were not satisfied with the extent of parking measures and wanted the hours of resident parking extended to cover evenings and weekends or wanted the extent of resident parking expanded further in the street. The main reasons stated for lack of satisfaction included;

 

·       There is a lot of inconsiderate parking;       

·       There is a lot of commuter parking in my street;    

·       The current time restrictions cause parking problems; and

·       There are not enough permit parking spaces and parking is hard to find.

 

Of the 10 people who said they were dissatisfied, only 2 gave reasons, the first was that there was too much commuter parking and the other that there was insufficient permit parking.

 

There were 59 responses to the type of parking preferred with most preferring resident parking for residents and time restricted for non-residents. Types of parking preferred are detailed in Table 2 below.

 

Table 2: Type of parking preferred by residents (community survey)

 

Type of Parking preferred

Number of respondents

A combination of resident permit parking and unrestricted parking

8

Laneway parking restrictions for access to properties

2

Resident permit parking for residents and time restricted for non-residents

39

Unrestricted parking

10

 

CONCLUSION

In the Sydenham/St Peters areas, there are a number of impacts on parking demand which Council has considered in the development of draft recommendations for parking restrictions. Resident feedback and data from parking surveys have been taken into account in developing the draft recommendations.  The draft recommendations are aimed at providing parking opportunities for local residents while allowing for a balanced approach to parking provision for other users including commuters and commercial/industrial uses.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Sydenham-St Peters Parking Review Report - 2017

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

 

 

Sydenham- St Peters

Parking Review  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft report

April 2017


 

Executive Summary

GHD was commissioned in 2012 by the then Marrickville Council to undertake a parking management study in the Sydenham area. The study investigated the existing supply and demand for parking in the area and suggested recommendations for improved management of the available parking resources.

GHD report recommended the implementation of a residential parking scheme based on a 400m catchment of Sydenham railway station. (See Figure E1). GHD also recommended that Council consider community feedback after the installation of the scheme to determine if expansion was required.


Figure E1:: Map showing expansion of resident parking areas from 2013 GHD study

 

Council is now undertaking a review of the implementation of that study bearing in mind more recent developments. That review has comprised a community survey, review of any correspondence to Council, parking surveys and incorporation of any new residential or commercial developments in the area. This report with the draft recommendations will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days following approval by Council. The draft recommendations will be finalised incorporating feedback from residents and stakeholders. All the recommendations in this review relate to the M4 permit parking area.

The recommendations which are being made to streets in the Sydenham parking precinct include changes to the resident parking restrictions in Bridge Street and Leslie Street; and extensions of resident parking, Frederick, George, Sutherland and Yelverton Streets. Due to a number of factors including resident concern about managing the impact in the growth of Precinct 75, resident parking restrictions are recommended for Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets within the M4 resident parking area

The review report will also comment on and provide analysis for additional streets within the St Peters area. There are currently a number of streets within St Peters which have resident parking (M12 area). An analysis of streets which have been highlighted to Council by residents and those which are subject to WestConnex New M5 works are further discussed. At this time there is no rationale for implementing any further resident parking in the existing M12 permit parking area.

Information on the Sydenham Creative Hub is also included. Parking impacts of the Creative Hub development will be managed through the urban development process. Feedback on parking impacts is sought as part of this parking review.

Recommendations

The draft recommendations which are being made are summarised in Table E1 below and illustrated in maps in Figure E2 and E3.

Table E1: Draft recommendations

Draft Recommendation

Details

Type

1.       Bridge Street , Tempe

 

Convert 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted to Unrestricted parking (southern side)

Unrestricted

2.       Edith Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Sat Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between Unwins Bridge Road and the driveway opposite 65 Edith Street

Resident

3.       Edith Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between number 52 Edith Street and Roberts Lane

Resident

4.       Frederick Street, Sydenham

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street to property no.1 Frederick Street

Resident

5.       George Street, Sydenham

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Lee Lane

Resident

6.       Leslie Street, Tempe

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (eastern side)

Resident

7.       Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Roberts Lane and property no. 71 Mary Street

Resident

8.       Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to No Parking (southern side) between Rolfe Lane and the driveway to property no. 60 Mary Street

No Parking

9.       Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 4P 8:30am-6pm Monday-Friday (southern side) between Albion Lane and the driveway to property no. 62 Mary Street

Medium Term

10.     Park Road, Sydenham

 

Implement statutory 10m No Stopping southern side of Park Road at its intersection with Princes Highway

No Stopping

11.     Roberts Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side)

Resident

12.     Sutherland Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and property no.1 Sutherland Street

Resident

13.     Yelverton Street, St Peters

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Princes Highway

Resident

14.     No Stopping

Implement Statutory No Stopping zones in association with parking restrictions as appropriate

No Stopping


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Figure E2: Map of proposed restrictions northwest of study area (Area 1)


Figure E3: Map of proposed restrictions in southeast of study area (Area 2)


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Table of Contents

 

1.        Introduction. 10

2.        Study Area. 10

3.        Background. 12

3.1        Resident parking. 13

4.        Strategic Context 15

5.        Scope of review.. 16

6.        Review Methodology. 16

7.        Community engagement 17

8.        Recommendations 2016 review.. 18

8.1        Resident parking. 18

8.1.1         Alfred Street 18

8.1.2         Bridge Street and Leslie Street 20

8.1.3         Frederick Street 23

8.1.4         George Street 25

8.1.5         Lymerston Street 27

8.1.6         Park Road. 28

8.1.7         Sutherland Street 31

8.1.8         Yelverton Street 32

9.        Additional Streets (St Peters) 34

8.1        Precinct 75. 35

8.2        Edith Street/Robert and Mary Streets. 35

8.2.1         Edith Street 38

8.2.2         Mary Street 40

8.2.3         Roberts Street 42

8.3        Additional Streets – No recommendations. 44

8.3.1         Brown Street 46

8.3.2         Church Street 46

8.3.4         Crown Street 47

8.3.5         Florence Street 47

8.3.6         Silver Street 47

8.4        WestConnex. 49

8.5        Sydenham Station Creative Hub. 53

10.        Laneways. 54

11.        Enforcement issues. 55

Appendix  A: Key Findings 2013 GHD report 56

Appendix B:- Existing resident parking. 60

Appendix C: Parking Survey Results  - 7 December 2016. 62

Appendix D: WestConnex -  Excerpts from Parking report 79

Appendix E – List of recommendations (2017) 89

Appendix F: – Maps of recommendations (2017) 92

 


 

 

1.  Introduction

In 2011 Council commissioned GHD Consultants to carry out a study of parking in The Marrickville Town Centre. The purpose of the study was to provide information on the current parking supply and demand, the future parking needs and a strategic framework to address parking issues in the Town Centre and surrounding areas.

The study resulted in recommendations consistent with the approach of improving parking for residents, and commercial stakeholders. For further details on the key findings of the 2013 GHD report see Appendix A.

Council is now undertaking a review of the implementation of that study bearing in mind more recent developments. The review has comprised a community survey, review of any correspondence to Council, parking surveys and incorporation of any new residential or commercial developments in the area. This report with the draft recommendations will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days following approval by Council. The draft recommendations will be finalised incorporating feedback from residents and stakeholders. All the recommendations in this review relate to the M4 permit parking area.

2.  Study Area

The Sydenham parking precinct stretches beyond the boundaries of the suburb of Sydenham and includes parts of Marrickville, Tempe and St Peters. Key local sites include

·    Sydenham Station;

·    Sydney’s Portuguese Social Club, Fraser Park and Sydenham Green;

·    Wholesalers precinct;

·    St Peters Branch Library and Council Depot;

·    Tillman Park Child Care Centre

The Sydenham parking Precinct is bounded by

·    The Princes Highway between Mary Street and Foreman Street on the south-eastern boundary, and

·    a combination of Saywell Street between Fitzroy Street and Railway Parade on the western side of the Bankstown and Illawarra/ Eastern Suburbs rail line, and

·    Mary Street between Unwins Bridge Road and Princes Highway on the eastern side of the rail line.

·    Victoria Road between Meeks Road and Sydenham Road and Meeks Lane on the north western boundary; and

·    A combination of Foreman Street, Way Street and Fraser Park form the south-western boundary to the study area.

 

The GHD study referred to seven (7) zones within the Sydenham parking precinct (See Figure 1 below)

 

Figure 1: 2013 Study area and zone description

 

 

Figure 2: 2017 Study and review area

3.  Background

GHD carried out parking surveys and community surveys in late 2011. The study analysis and reporting were completed throughout 2012 and the final report tendered to Council in June 2013. Implementation of the study recommendations was done through 2014.

The primary aims of the parking study were to:

·    provide Council with a set of existing and future parking management strategies considering the centre as a whole.

·    determine the future parking requirements, including the quantum and potential locations, on and off street, should additional parking be required.

Council’s goals as espoused in the Marrickville Integrated Transport Strategy support strategy are that it:

“… provides the rationale and recommended actions for addressing local transport issues and moving Marrickville toward sustainable transport – that is, reducing car use and increasing use of public transport, walking and cycling.”

The main strategies that arose from the study included;

·    Protecting Residential Amenity by expanding the Residential Parking Scheme (Strategy “A”)

·    Improve parking controls generally across the study area – particularly adjacent to Sydenham Station (Strategy “B”)

 

3.1          Resident parking

There were a number of strategic areas identified in the 2012 report particularly in relation to resident parking

 

Strategy A - Protecting Residential Amenity– recommended the expansion of the resident parking permit scheme area to at least cover a 400m catchment area around Sydenham station, which was supported by parking occupancy surveys and community feedback.

 

It was recommended that Council implement a resident parking permit zone that covers a 400m area around Sydenham station within areas classified as residential. This would thus include parts of the following streets being included in as expanded residential parking schemes:

·    Alfred Street

·    Bridge Street

·    Frederick Street;

·    George Street;

·    Grove Street

·    Sutherland Street;

·    Terry Street; and

·    Yelverton Street

 

Over the years through a process of resident feedback, streets which have been designated resident parking in St Peters include;

·    Council Street

·    Hutchison Street

·    Lackey Street

·    May Street

·    Short Street

·    St Peters

 

Existing resident parking in the Sydenham and St Peters area is detailed in Figure 3.and 4 below. (Also see Appendix B)

Figure 3: Existing resident parking restrictions and eligibility 2017 - Sydenham

Figure 4: Existing resident parking restrictions and eligibility 2017 – St Peters

 

It is noted that the majority of residential parking is for 2P 8:30am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday with the exceptions being Railway Road, George Street and Hogan Street (west of Unwins Bridge Road) which operate 2P 8:30am - 10:00pm Monday to Friday.

4.  Strategic Context

All parking decisions and recommendations are made within a strategic context. The context consists of policy and legislative instruments and documents a number of which are outlined below. The basis of developing parking management plans is to contribute to the sustainable management of parking and traffic in the area. The aims are stated in the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011 - to “promote sustainable transport, reduce car use and increase use of public transport, walking and cycling”; and “promote accessible and diverse housing types including the provision and retention of affordable housing”.

A report to Council Infrastructure, Planning and Environmental Services (IPES) Committee on 7 July 2015 provided the following list of “policies that have influenced (or will influence) Council’s current approach to parking provision & management…” (Council’s affordable housing policies have also been included.)

Improving Transport Choice: Guidelines for Planning & Development (2001) – Principle Eight of these guidelines is “manage the supply of parking - use the location, supply and availability of parking to discourage car use”;

Roads & Maritime Services’ (RMS) Guide to Traffic-Generating Development (2002) –includes model parking provision rates which were used in determining MDCP 2011
rates – recognises that model rates can be reduced in middle-inner city areas with ready access to services and public transport;

Final SEPP 65 (to come into force in July 2015) – includes a provision that means Council cannot refuse development consent where parking is provided at or above the lower of either the relevant council’s or RMS rate (but without an upper limit) for areas around railway stations and light rail stops.

Council policies include:

·    Marrickville Community Strategic Plan (2013) – includes strategies to “ensure car parking is well managed”; “support existing and new supplies of affordable housing”; and “provide effective planning controls to ensure that the built environment reflects community expectations and changing needs, conserves heritage and is socially and environmentally sustainable”;

·    Marrickville Integrated Transport Strategy (2007) – includes actions to: “improve the management of private domain car parking in accessible areas by managing supply, improving bicycle parking and encouraging car sharing in private developments …”; and “improve the management of public domain car parking in accessible areas … by managing supply, minimising impacts, protecting resident parking, optimising turnover, giving priority to car sharing and other targeted users …”.

·    Marrickville Affordable Housing Strategy (2009) – includes a recommendation to “Incorporate planning provisions and mechanisms into the LEP and DCP to encourage a diverse and adaptable range of housing in the Marrickville area”;

·    Marrickville Urban Strategy (2007) – includes an action to “review development controls to prioritise walking, cycling and access to public transport”;

·    Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) 2011 - includes aims to “promote sustainable transport, reduce car use and increase use of public transport, walking and cycling”; and “promote accessible and diverse housing types including the provision and retention of affordable housing”; and

·    Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) 2011 – Section 2.10 Parking includes parking provision rates for developments consistent with its objective to “balance the need to meet car parking on-site to avoid excessive spillover onto streets, with the need to constrain parking to maintain Marrickville LGA’s compact urban form and promote sustainable transport”. MDCP 2011 also recognises that parking constraint can assist with affordable housing and reduced business costs.

5.  Scope of review

This review will cover the Sydenham parking precinct and the implementation of recommended measures as a result of the 2013 GHD study, and extend to include matters related to St Peters including WestConnex, Precinct 75 as well as the proposed Sydenham Creative Hub.

The scope of the review includes analysis of parking conditions in the expanded study area (see Figure 2) including;

·    community consultation

·    internal and external stakeholder engagement

·    parking data collection (where required)

·    resident parking

·    laneway restrictions (based on the Laneway Guidelines endorsed by Council in December 2015)

6.  Review Methodology

Council has the approach of reviewing the implementation of parking management  plans within a reasonable period of the implementation. The review consists of community consultation by way of a survey, parking data collection where indicated and development of a draft report based on those outputs. Full details of the parking surveys which were carried out across the Sydenham and St Peters areas are available in Appendix C.

Where the community survey highlights streets and issues of concern recommendations will be made where appropriate and with respect to the guiding principles and relative to available data. Streets that have no comments from the public will not be covered unless there is a rationale for reviewing such as changes in land use, development or proposed changes to restrictions in nearby streets or laneways.

The findings of the current review as drafted in this report will be presented to Council and put on public exhibition for a period of 28 days following which feedback from the community will be incorporated into a final report for Council approval. After the final report an implementation plan will be drawn up as per the recommendations and implementation will take place within the following 12-18 month period. Whatever final recommendations are made, during the implementation phase all those affected by particular recommendations will again be consulted and advised as appropriate

Based on the community feedback, available data and additional reports; the review will make recommendations in keeping with Council’s policy approach of reducing dependence on the private motor vehicle.

The review seeks to update the knowledge base on parking issues in the area and address the concerns of residents and other stakeholders. A set of guiding principles is adhered to in considering how resident parking is assessed and provided; how types of parking work together; and how the parking stock and eligibility of residents for resident parking is best balanced. Some of those considerations are listed below.

·    streets cannot be treated in isolation as any restrictions may have knock on effects in other streets

·    as a rule Council would expect that in streets that are recommended for resident parking restrictions, that there are at least 10% of households calling for that and that there is an 85% parking occupancy.

·    Council  implements resident parking on only one side of the street with the opposite side remaining as unrestricted parking

·    two permits per household maximum (depending on the number of deemed off street car parking spaces)

·    generally not providing for resident parking where there is no residential frontage

·    ensuring that there are sufficient parking spaces for the eligible residents and

·    seeking to ensure those residents who have off street parking, especially rear lane access are able to use it.

(In December 2015 Council endorsed a set of Laneway Guidelines which set out parameters for laneway parking so that access and egress for emergency and service vehicles and for off street parking is maintained.)

7.  Community engagement

In summary the community engagement consisted of a mailout to all residents and householders in the Sydenham area. For other matters related to St Peters, Council refers to correspondence and petitions that have been received over the past several years. Further feedback will be received during the public exhibition phase from both Sydenham and St Peters areas.

A letter was sent by mail to approximately 5,000 householders and residents in the Sydenham area, pointing to a web page outlining the process for the study review and seeking input via a questionnaire.  The responses are summarised below.

·    There were 60 responses received. 

·    There were 43 respondents who had not had restrictions introduced and 17 who had measures implemented in their street.

·    Of those 17, there were 7 people who were satisfied.

·    Of the 10 people who were dissatisfied 4 related to Park Road and 2 to Terry Street.

Several respondents were not satisfied with the extent of parking measures and wanted the hours of resident parking extended to cover evenings and weekends or wanted the extent of resident parking expanded further in the street.

The main reasons stated for lack of satisfaction included;

·    There is a lot of inconsiderate parking           

·    There is a lot of commuter parking in my street       

·    The current time restrictions cause parking problems          

·    There are not enough permit parking spaces and parking is hard to find     

Of the 10 people who said they were dissatisfied, only 2 gave reasons one that there was too much commuter parking and the other that there was insufficient permit parking

There were 59 responses to the type of parking preferred with most preferring resident parking for residents and time restricted for non-residents. Types of parking preferred are detailed in Table 1 below.


 

 

Type of Parking preferred

# of respondents

A combination of resident permit parking and unrestricted parking

8

Laneway parking restrictions for access to properties

2

Resident permit parking for residents and time restricted for non-residents

39

Unrestricted parking

10


Table 1: Type of parking preferred by residents (community survey)

8.  Recommendations 2016 review

Most of the recommendations arising out of this review relate to resident parking. Resident parking restrictions proposed for Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets cover weekdays and Saturday to accommodate the impact of the Precinct 75 retail activity and Saturday markets. The proposed restriction for Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets is 2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday. All other proposed resident parking in for Monday to Friday consistent with the existing streets in proximity to those now further recommended for resident parking restrictions, being 2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pom Monday to Friday.

There is a recommendation to implement No Stopping in Park Road, Sydenham at the Princes Highway and a small section of 4P associated with Precinct 75 in Mary Street, St Peters.

The resident parking restrictions which have been proposed all fall within the Area M4 of the resident parking scheme. For the sake of ease of reference, a list of the recommendations is contained in Appendix E and maps showing the proposed changes are reproduced in Appendix F.

8.1     Resident parking

8.1.1    Alfred Street

Resident parking was introduced to Alfred Street on the eastern side between Rolfe Lane and Bakers Lane.as part of the 2014 implementation of the study

In the community survey, there were 4 responses from 3 households in Alfred Street. Households which had resident parking introduced are satisfied/very satisfied (3) but one  without resident parking (1) expressed lack of satisfaction. That was a resident of the “Grove Street development” which is not eligible for resident parking as per the conditions of consent for the development application.

 

Figure 4: Map showing context of Alfred Street

As part of the conditions of consent for the development DA 200500749, there is a prohibition on granting resident parking to the dwellings now known as 44-77 Grove Street and 60-90 Alfred Street. The wording of the condition of consent is;

 

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

8.1.2    Bridge Street and Leslie Street

Resident parking has been implemented on both sides of Bridge Street and no resident parking was introduced in Leslie Street. Council has received representations from residents of Bridge Street pointing out the difficulty caused by having resident parking on both sides of the street. Also during the 2016 consultation there was support to implement resident parking in Leslie Street noting that there is a knock on effect  from the resident parking in bridge Street,  making parking in Leslie Street more difficult.

The parking surveys undertaken on 7 December 2016 show that there is a high level of occupancy in Leslie Street throughout the day and that Bridge Street has low levels of occupancy. See Table 2.

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Bridge St between End & Unwins Bridge

19

4

21%

8

42%

9

47%

15

79%

7

15

Bridge St between Leslie & End

4

3

75%

1

25%

1

25%

2

50%

1

3

Bridge St between Unwins Bridge & Leslie

10

2

20%

2

20%

1

10%

8

80%

3

8

Leslie St between Bridge & End

7

4

57%

2

29%

3

43%

4

57%

3

4

Leslie St between End & Bridge

8

6

75%

7

88%

7

88%

7

88%

5

7

Table 2: Parking Survey Results Bridge Street and Leslie Street (7 December 2016)

Resident feedback has indicated that having resident parking on both sides of Bridge Street is causing inconvenience. In order of create a more balanced usage of the parking it is proposed to revert to resident parking on one side of Bridge Street only and introduce resident parking on one side of Leslie Street. It is recommended to maintain resident parking on the northern side of Bridge Street (to maximise spaces for residents) and introduce resident parking on the eastern side of Leslie Street. For conditions in Leslie Street see Figures 5 and 6. Figure 7 illustrates the recommendations in Bridge Street and Leslie Street.

Figure 5: Leslie Street eastern side (note vestigial driveways)

Figure 6: Leslie Street (western side) fewer driveways but not outside residences

 

Figure 7: Existing and Proposed restrictions in Bridge Street and Leslie Street

Recommendation: Bridge Street - Convert 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted to Unrestricted parking (southern side)     Unrestricted

Recommendation: Leslie Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (eastern side)


 

8.1.3    Frederick Street

Current restrictions

·    Resident parking on both sides between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street

·    Unrestricted between Henry Street and Princes Highway (Both sides)

Resident parking was introduced to both sides of Frederick Street between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street in 2014.

Parking surveys undertaken on 7 December 2016 showed that of the 52 available parking spaces, occupancy between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street was between 58% and 77% throughout the day peaking at 3pm. This is the section with resident parking, and on both sides.

In the section between Henry Street and the Princes Highway where there are 43 available parking spaces occupancy was between 67% at 8am rising to 100%. See Table ? below)

The section between Henry Street and Unwins Bridge road is functioning to accommodate resident parking, however the occupancies in the eastern end, between Henry Street and the Princes Highway are on the higher end of the scale. Several residents have complained that the street is used for a long term parking area for people travelling to the airport

There are 41 residences fronting Frederick Street in the section between Henry Street and the Princes Highway. There is off street parking for about 12 cars. Despite the high parking occupancy, there were no submissions received from residents of Frederick Street in the section currently without resident parking (Henry to the Princes Highway) In the original 2012 study 5 residents responded, 3 in favour of resident parking and 2 in favour of unrestricted parking.

The occupancy in the eastern section of Frederick Street was at 100% at 8am and 6pm but also was high during the day at 90% at 3pm. (See Table 3)

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Frederick St between Henry & Unwins Bridge (south side)

26

18

69%

18

69%

20

77%

17

65%

15

20

Frederick St between Unwins Bridge & Henry (north side)

26

15

58%

18

69%

17

65%

18

69%

14

18

Frederick St between Henry & Princes (north side)

21

14

67%

19

90%

17

81%

21

100%

14

21

Frederick St between Princes & Henry (south side)

22

22

100%

20

91%

15

68%

19

86%

15

22

Table 3:  Parking survey results  Frederick Street, 7 December 2016

Between Henry Street and the Princes Highway, there are 18 dwellings on the southern side (with 9 driveways and on the northern side 22 dwellings with 7 driveways, making the northern side a more reasonable candidate for proposed resident parking.

One resident has contacted Council seeking an extension of the resident parking to 7 days a week due to a reported demand for parking in Frederick Street by commuters at the rail station. At present there has been no other supporting documentation for this and given that there is a good deal of available weekend parking in areas like Bolton Street and other industrial streets near the station weekend impact in residential streets does not appear to be widespread at present and  there appears to be little community support for any extension of the days for resident parking. If community support increases it could be considered.

As there is a high level of occupancy and recommendations are being made to extend resident parking in adjacent streets and a knock on effect is anticipated; it is proposed to recommend resident parking in the eastern end of Frederick Street (northern side). (see Figure 8 below)

Figure 8:: map showing existing and proposed restrictions Frederick Street

Recommendation: Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street to property no.1 Frederick Street

 

8.1.4    George Street

Current restrictions

·    Resident parking on both sides between Burrows Road and Unwins Bridge Road

·    Resident parking on northern side between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street

·    Unrestricted parking between Henry Street and Princes Highway (Both sides)

Street Section ID

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

89

George St between Unwins Bridge & Burrows

12

8

67%

10

83%

12

100%

10

83%

8

12

88

George St between Burrows & Unwins Bridge

6

3

50%

4

67%

4

67%

4

67%

3

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

George St between Henry & Princes(NR) north side

34

26

76%

25

74%

24

71%

22

65%

19

26

16

George St between Princes & Henry (NR) south side

31

27

87%

26

84%

31

100%

13

42%

19

31

Total

65

53

81

51

81

55

85

35

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

George St between Henry & Unwins Bridge (NR)

27

27

100%

25

93%

21

78%

14

52%

17

27

18

George St between Unwins Bridge & Henry (R)

25

14

56%

9

36%

13

52%

11

44%

9

14

Table 4:  Parking survey results George Street, 7 December 2016

(NR –no resident parking) R resident parking

 

In the section of George Street between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street where there is resident parking on the northern side (see section 18 in Table 4)  there is a capacity throughout the day indicating that the resident parking is effective.

In the section of George Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway the occupancy levels are over 80% throughout the day. (See Table 4). Representations have been received by Council via the community survey and correspondence requesting resident parking in this section of George Street. Given the high occupancy throughout the day it is recommended to implement resident parking in George Street between Henry Street and Lee Lane on one side of the street. (See Figure 9)

Figure 9: George Street – Existing and Proposed Resident Parking

Recommendation: George Street – Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Lee Lane

8.1.5    Lymerston Street

Current restrictions: Unrestricted

There are 38 residences fronting Lymerston Street. There was only one submission to the 2016 community survey. The resident expressed concern that there were people using the street for long term parking for airport travel.

During the initial survey in 2012 there were 7 responses from Lymerston Street and 4 of those favoured Unrestricted parking. Parking surveys conducted in late 2016 indicate that there is capacity throughout the day and in the evening as well with the peak occupancy of 71% at 6pm. See Table 5 below.

There is little support for resident parking in Lymerston Street at this time so there is no rationale for recommending introduction of resident parking at this time.

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Lymerston St between Henry & Laneway

12

6

50%

8

67%

8

67%

8

67%

6

8

Lymerston St between John & Unwins Bridge

8

5

63%

3

38%

5

63%

7

88%

4

7

Lymerston St between Laneway & Princes

3

3

100%

3

100%

3

100%

1

33%

2

3

Lymerston St between Princes & William

15

15

100%

14

93%

12

80%

11

73%

10

15

Lymerston St between Samuel & Henry

20

4

20%

11

55%

10

50%

16

80%

8

16

Lymerston St between Unwins Bridge & Samuel

4

4

100%

4

100%

4

100%

4

100%

3

4

Lymerston St between William & John

8

3

38%

4

50%

1

13%

4

50%

2

4

 Total

70

40

 57%

47

 66%

43

62% 

51

 71%

 

 

Table 5: Parking survey results Lymerston  Street, 7 December 2016 

8.1.6    Park Road

Resident parking was introduced to Park Road in 2014 (see Figure 10 below)

Figure 10: existing resident parking restrictions in Park Road

An occupancy survey carried out on 7 December 2016 showed that the western end of Park Road where there is 2P resident parking on both sides, had a good deal of capacity throughout the day with occupancy staying below 55% until 6pm when a peak occupancy of 68% was reached. This indicates that there is a sufficient supply of resident parking in this section of street. (See Table 6)

In the section of Park Road between Henry Street and Stewart Lane there is resident parking only on the southern side and unrestricted parking on the northern side adjacent to the Sydenham Green Park. The capacity on the south side is 19 spaces. Occupancy on the southern side was lower during the day reaching a peak of 63% at 3pm (See Table ?). On the northern side where the park is, the occupancy was high throughout the day at 96% and 100% at 8am and 12 noon respectively tailing off to 61% in the evening. These results show there is capacity on the side of the street with resident parking but little further capacity throughout the day for those not eligible for a resident parking permit.

 

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Park Rd between Belmore & Henry

19

7

37%

9

47%

12

63%

7

37%

7

12

Park Rd between Belmore & Unwins Bridge

2

2

100%

2

100%

2

100%

2

100%

2

2

Park Rd between Henry & Belmore

20

6

30%

10

50%

7

35%

15

75%

8

15

Park Rd between Henry & Stewart

23

22

96%

23

100%

16

70%

14

61%

15

23

Park Rd between Princes & Belmore

5

4

80%

4

80%

3

60%

3

60%

3

4

Park Rd between Rowe & Henry

20

9

45%

10

50%

9

45%

12

60%

8

12

Park Rd between Stewart Princes

4

2

50%

1

25%

2

50%

2

50%

1

2

Totals

93

52

56%

59

64%

51

55%

55

59%

 

 

Table 6: Parking survey results park Road, 7 December 2016 

Six (6) residents from 5 households in Park Road responded to the community survey. There are about 60 residences fronting Park Road.  Several of the respondents to the survey commented that the development in Unwins Bridge Road had insufficient parking for the number of people living there and that was placing extra demand on parking in their street.

The areas of Park Road where there is resident parking have a significant amount of capacity throughout the day. In the section between Henry Street and Stewart Lane where parking in unrestricted, there is a high demand through the day which falls off sharply into the evening, pointing to this being related to local workers or commuters.

Even given the dissatisfaction of a limited number of residents the parking surveys indicate capacity in the street where there is resident parking. The unrestricted sections of the street are in high demand during the day. Even given the high occupancy in the unrestricted there is still only 64% maximum occupancy at 12noon and less than 60% throughout the rest of the day.. (See Table 6) The parking surveys indicate that there is sufficient capacity and further recommendations for resident parking are not required at this time.

Park Road at Princes Highway
There is currently unrestricted parking in the section of park Road between Stewart Lane and the Princes Highway both sides. As can be seen in Figure 10 below, large trucks are parking up to the intersection with the Princes Highway obstructing the flow of vehicles into and out of Park Road.

Figure 11: Park Road at Princes Highway  (looking east) showing trucks parked near intersection

The parking of trucks on the southern side up to the intersection is a safety issue as vehicles are turning off the Princes Highway where there is a 60km speed limit and high volumes of traffic. To minimise impact on local businesses it is proposed to implement the 10m statutory No Stopping zone on the southern side only. (see Figure 12 below)

Figure 12: Map showing proposed No Stopping restriction in Park Road

Recommendation: Implement statutory 10m No Stopping in Park Road at the Princes Highway (southern side).

 

8.1.7    Sutherland Street

Current restrictions

·    Resident parking on both sides between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street

·    Unrestricted parking on both sides between Henry Street and Princes Highway

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Sutherland St between Henry & Princes

25

22

88%

18

72%

1

4%

21

84%

12

22

Sutherland St between Henry & Unwins Bridge

22

6

27%

8

36%

10

45%

12

55%

7

12

Sutherland St between Princes & Henry

22

14

64%

13

59%

12

55%

17

77%

11

17

Sutherland St between Unwins Bridge & Henry

26

9

35%

11

42%

16

62%

13

50%

10

16

Table 7: parking survey data for Sutherland Street (7 December 2106)

As recommended in the 2013 Sydenham parking study, resident parking was implemented in Sutherland Street between Henry Street and Unwins Bridge Road in 2014.

Parking surveys undertaken in late 2016 indicate that indicate that there is currently moderate demand in Sutherland Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway where there are not any parking restrictions. (See Table 7).

However, it is foreseen that proposed changes to nearby streets such as Frederick Street and George Street and Yelverton Street would result in increased demand and it is therefore proposed to introduce resident parking on the northern side of Yelverton Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway.

It is therefore recommended to implement resident parking in Sutherland Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway on the northern side. (See Figure 13 below)

 

Figure 13: Existing and Proposed resident parking in Sutherland Street

Recommendation: Sutherland Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and property no.1 Sutherland Street

8.1.8    Yelverton Street

Current restrictions

·    Resident parking on both sides between Unwins Bridge Road and Henry Street

·    Unrestricted parking between Henry Street and Princes Highway (Both sides)

As recommended in the 2013 Sydenham parking study, resident parking was implemented in Yelverton Street between Henry Street and Unwins Bridge Road in 2014.

Parking surveys undertaken in late 2016 indicate that indicate that there is currently moderate demand in Yelverton Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway where there are not any parking restrictions. (See Table 8).

 

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Yelverton St between Unwins Bridge & Henry

27

15

56%

7

26%

13

48%

14

52%

10

15

Yelverton St between Princes & Henry

24

16

67%

17

71%

18

75%

21

88%

14

21

Yelverton St between Henry & Unwins Bridge

27

12

44%

9

33%

15

56%

17

63%

11

17

Yelverton St between Henry & Princes

24

20

83%

19

79%

19

79%

24

100%

16

24

Table 8: Parking Survey data Yelverton Street, 7 December 2016

 

However, it is foreseen that proposed changes to nearby streets such as Frederick Street and George Street and Sutherland Street would result in increased demand and it is therefore proposed to introduce resident parking on the northern side of Yelverton Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway.

It is therefore recommended to implement resident parking in Yelverton Street between Henry Street and the Princes Highway on the northern side. (See Figure 14 below)

Figure 14: Map showing existing and proposed restrictions – Yelverton Street

Recommendation: Yelverton Street – Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Princes Highway

9.  Additional Streets (St Peters)

Due to several land use changes the scope of the review has widened to include streets in St Peters including Mary Street which was not included in the original study. Also the works associated with the WestConnex New M5 are now ongoing and issues related to parking have been raised. (see Appendix D for details of WestConnex parking)  for Inclusion of the additional streets may not necessarily result in parking changes in those streets but will provide a means to;

1.   report on investigations and decisions made subsequent in relation to parking in the St Peters area

2.   capture changes in land use particularly in relation to Precinct 75.

3.   detail the forecast and actual impact of the WestConnex works, including consultation, mitigation and monitoring measures

There are existing resident parking restrictions in a number of streets throughout  the St Peters area. (See Appendix B) There has been resident input related to a number of streets including Florence Street, Brown Street, Edith Street Mary Street and Silver Street

Parking surveys were carried out in the St Peters area (See Appendix C)

8.1          Precinct 75

The development of Precinct 75 between Mary and Edith Streets requires the parking issues in the surrounding streets to be addressed. See Figure 15 for the context of the site

Figure 15: Precinct 75 – context of site

8.2          Edith Street/Robert and Mary Streets

Current restriction:

·    Edith Street - Unrestricted parking

·    Mary Street

southern side outside number 60 there are 5 Unrestricted spaces

Northern side from No Stopping zone at Unwins Bridge Road to driveway of Precinct 75 - ½P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday

·    Roberts Street – Unrestricted parking

There are 2 separate issues with regard to the impact of Precinct 75. One is the day to day retail operations and the other is the operation of weekend markets. At the time of writing markets are proposed to be held on a monthly basis with 22 April 2017 being the next advertised. The Precinct 75 building is shown from the Mary Street side in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Precinct 75 site viewed from Mary Street (note x 60 post boxes for tenants)

Residents are claiming that there are also a number of other factors which are creating parking stress and creating a knock on effect into the residential streets particularly Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets.

Council received a petition seeking resident parking from 49 residents of Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets early in 2016.The petition was signed by residents as follows

·    Edith Street 12 residences (16 signatures)

·    Mary Street 15 residences (19 signatures)

·    Roberts Street – 10 residences (14 signatures)

The petition called for resident parking and noted that parking was affected due to the following factors;

·    The narrowing of Edith Street from numbers 33-46 through to the Princes Highway

·    The lack of parking on the eastern side due to

Garages/driveways from existing properties fronting Silver Street

Subdivisions of Silver Street properties have created numerous new residences fronting Edith Street, each in turn adding more cars/reducing the number of parking spots available

·    Patron parking from the cafes and other commercial spaces located on Mary Street

·    The additional cars being parked on Edith Street and Mary Street due to the timed parking restrictions now in force on Unwins Bridge Road

A comment from the community survey noted; “Ignoring the parking limitations we have today due to the traffic that the factory brings - plus the high volume of cars which appear to be dumped in our street - the Sydenham Parking Strategy states that by applying parking restrictions in and around Sydenham train station, it "may cause the need for more extensive resident permit schemes in surrounding zones due to a potential displacement of non-resident demand".

Those residents who live in the closest proximity to Precinct 75 are impacted most directly and for the longest time periods as they are affected by business related parking. There are sections of some streets, and Mary Street and Edith Street in particular that are subject to impact from day to day activities within Precinct 75 and will be further impacted in the event of weekend markets. Proposed resident parking restrictions in Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets will be aimed at reducing the day to day impact of Precinct 75 operations and market days as well as other reported issues such as the impact of the Princes Highway businesses and long stay parkers accessing the airport.

Council carried out parking surveys in Sydenham and St Peters on Wednesday 7 December 2016 including Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets. Note the Precinct 75 markets were not operating at this time so no counts could be taken to determine the impact. The counts undertaken can form a baseline however. Council will carry out parking surveys as appropriate to determine the impact of the market days on resident parking. (See Table 9 for the results of the parking surveys in Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets.

 

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Edith St between Princes & Roberts

4

2

50%

2

50%

3

75%

2

50%

2

3

Edith St between Roberts & Unwins Bridge (s)

40

33

83%

39

98%

32

80%

35

88%

28

39

Edith St between Unwins Bridge & Edith lane (n)

23

15

65%

12

52%

14

61%

13

57%

11

15

Mary St between Princes & Unwins Bridge

34

31

91%

21

62%

30

88%

21

62%

21

31

Roberts St between

6

3

50%

1

17%

2

33%

3

50%

2

3

Roberts St between End & Roberts

19

7

37%

5

26%

10

53%

12

63%

7

12

Roberts St between Roberts & End

10

5

50%

6

60%

7

70%

7

70%

5

7

Roberts St/Ln between Edith & Mary

25

23

92%

23

92%

20

80%

8

32%

15

23

Grand Total

161

119

74%

109

68%

118

74%

101

62%

Table 9: Parking survey data for Edith Mary, and Roberts Streets (7 December 2016)

8.2.1    Edith Street

Edith Street is a not wide enough to allow for parking on both sides along the full length of the street. As well there are a number of properties on Silver Street which have rear access parking off Edith Street. See Figure 17, and 18. On the northern side there is no parking between the Princes Highway and number 27 due to the narrowness of the road, parking tends to occur on the western side only.

Figure 17: Edith Street context. Parking on both sides only from 52 Edith Street to Unwins Bridge Road

Parking surveys undertaken in December 2016 showed that the southern side of Edith Street with a supply of 44 spaces was occupied at over 80% throughout the survey period and peaked at 98% at 12 noon. The parking survey results indicated there was a lower occupancy on the northern side throughout the day with about 50-60% occupancy peaking at 65% at 8am. The combined occupancy for both sides of the street is 74% or more throughout the day and this is deemed a reasonable level to recommend resident parking in Edith Street. (See Table 9)

Figure 18: Edith Street looking east showing garages/driveways

The proposed resident parking recommended at the western end of Edith Street (see Figure 19) is also an option to accommodate residents of Unwins Bridge Road who are subject to afternoon clearways. A number of unrestricted parking spaces are retained near Precinct 75 to allow for a range of uses for residnets and visitors. The proposed residnet parking in edith Street east of Precinct 75 is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 19: map showing proposed resident parking restrictions western end of Edith Street

Figure 20: map illustrating proposed parking restrictions between 52 Edith Street and Roberts Lane

Recommendation: Edith Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Sat Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between Unwins Bridge Road and the driveway opposite 65 Edith Street

Recommendation: Edith Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between number 52 Edith Street and Roberts Lane

 

8.2.2    Mary Street

Mary Street is a one way street (east to west) between the Princes Highway and Unwins Bridge Road. It is not a classified road but nevertheless has a high volume of traffic and forms a key connecting route between those two major arteries. The issue of resident parking has arisen in more recent times with the growth in the Precinct 75. Proposals to increase activity at that site have increased concern amongst residents who have reported traffic and parking issues as a result of activity at that site in particular. (For current restrictions see Figure 21 below)

On the northern side there is unrestricted parking for the length of Mary Street from Roberts Lane through to the  small section of short term parking (1/2P)near Unwins Bridge Road in Mary Street on the eastern side. There is a mobility parking space in the street just outside Precinct 75.

If resident parking were to be considered, since it is largely one side of the street parking only, that would effectively restrict all but eligible permit holders from parking in the street including non eligible residents. The residents of Mary Street have sought resident parking via the community survey, correspondence to Council and via a petition that included residents from Edith and Roberts Street. The first 13-15 houses on both sides of Mary Street south of Rolfe Lane and immediately south of Precinct 75 are well represented in the petition for resident parking as well as the survey.

There were 8 responses to the community survey from 6 households. There are 54 residences fronting Mary Street. Council received a petition for resident parking to be implemented in January 2016 which was signed by 20 residents from 12 residences. In April 2016 a further petition was received in relation to the impact of the Precinct 75 operations, calling for resident parking in Mary Street which  was signed by 19 residents from 15 residences from Mary Street.

Parking surveys across the area in December 2016 showed on the northern side of Mary Street where there is a supply of 34 spaces, the occupancy recorded throughout the day was at a maximum at 8am (91%) and reached 88% at 3pm, reverting back to 62% at 6pm. (See Figure 21)

Considerations for implementing resident parking in Mary Street are that it is one way and there is parking only on one side of the street for a greater part of the street.

There is little off street parking available to Mary Street residents with few driveways and no rear lane access. There are about 12 off street parking spaces for the north and south side combined between 54 residential dwellings fronting Mary Street.

Given the impacts from Precinct 75, the high levels of occupancy experienced throughout the day, and proposals to introduce resident parking in nearby streets (Edith Street and Roberts Street); it is proposed to introduce resident parking in Mary Street.

It is also proposed to convert a number of existing unrestricted parking spaces to 4P to allow for turnover throughout the day. It is proposed to convert a section of (7 spaces) Unrestricted parking to 4P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday.

Recommendation: Mary Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Roberts Lane and property no. 71 Mary Street

Recommendation: Mary Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to No Parking (southern side) between Rolfe Lane and the driveway to property no. 60 Mary Street

Recommendation: Mary Street - Convert Unrestricted parking to 4P 8:30am-6pm Monday-Friday (southern side) between Albion Lane and the driveway to property no. 62 Mary Street

 

Figure 21: Map showing existing and proposed restrictions Mary Street

 

8.2.3    Roberts Street

Current restriction: Unrestricted

Residents of Roberts Street signed a petition for resident parking with residents of Mary and Edith Streets in May 2016, 14 signatures from 10 residences.

Parking surveys undertaken on 7 December 2016 showed that there was capacity in Roberts Street throughout the day with occupancy varying between 50% and 70% and reaching 70% peak at 3pm and 6pm. (See Table 9)

 

There are 21 single unit dwellings in Roberts Street with about 10 viable off street parking spaces. A parking survey done in May 2016 showed that there was a low level of occupancy throughout the day on the north side of the street and a high occupancy on the south side. The occupancy for the whole street never exceeded 80%, however resident parking is recommended as there is a likelihood of a knock on effect from the proposed restrictions in Edith Street and Mary Street.

The proposed restrictions are illustrated in Figure 22 below.

Figure 22: map showing proposed restrictions in Roberts Street

Recommendation: Roberts Street – Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side)


 

 

8.3          Additional Streets – No recommendations

A map showing the context of streets in the St Peters area is shown in Figure 23 below. There has been some representation from residents seeking resident parking but the parking survey data does not support any recommendations at this time. Also, the support from residents has not been strong with only one or 2 residents from a number of streets requesting resident parking.

Figure 23: Map showing context of streets in St Peters

Those streets within St Peters that have already been designated as resident parking are illustrated in Figure 24 below

Figure 24: Existing resident parking in St Peters area

Over the past 12 to 18 months Council has received a number of requests to investigate resident parking in these streets. A number of historic parking surveys have been undertaken and they all show similar parking usage patterns with a medium occupancy throughout the day and a higher occupancy in the evening This indicates that the main demand is from residents and implementing resident parking will not address the demand arising from residents. Results of the December 2016 parking surveys are shown in detail in Appendix ? and detailed below for Brown, Church, Crown, Florence and Silver Streets

Council does not recommend any changes to the current restrictions in these streets at this time.

As far as WestConnex and the impact of parking the construction work impact, according to WestConnex documentation, where parking is taken away for staging of construction it is for shorter periods (5-14 days). WestConnex has indicated that the impact of construction worker parking is to be mitigated via use of shuttle buses and by containing as much as possible parking on site. Council will monitor the impact of construction worker parking and carry out ongoing surveys as well as monitor input from residents regarding impacts on parking. An analysis of each street concerned is provided in the sections below.

Issues related to WestConnex parking including the Conditions of Approval and parking surveys are contained in Section 8.4 of this report as detailed in WestConnex New M5 Construction Parking And Access Strategy (19/12/2016) and excerpts from WestConnex documentation, including for workers on public transport options, is reproduced in Appendix ?.

 

8.3.1    Brown Street

 

Council has investigated resident parking in Brown Street and carried out a number of parking surveys to inform decision making. Parking surveys undertaken in early December 2016 indicated that there was a high occupancy in Brown Street after 6pm but that generally throughout the day there was capacity. (See Table 10 below)

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Brown St between Campbell & Conway

28

18

64%

21

75%

17

61%

24

86%

16

24

Brown St between Conway & Campbell

33

16

48%

28

85%

26

79%

33

100%

21

33

Table 10: Parking Survey Results Brown Street (7 December 2016)

It appears that the main demand in Brown Street is in the evening and it is most likely that that demand is generated by residents. Resident parking restrictions are not likely to address the demand as shown in the recent parking surveys. It is not recommended to implement resident parking in Brown Street at this time.

8.3.2    Church Street

Current restrictions: – Southern side small section of Loading Zone – remainder unrestricted

Northern side -  No Parking 8:00am-9:30am and 2:30pm-4:00pm

There has been a request from one resident to consider resident parking in Church Street. The demand profile in Church Street is mainly affected by the operations at St Peters Public School. Parking surveys in early December 2016 indicate that there is capacity throughout the day. (See Table 11 below).  Since the school hour restrictions prevent commuter parking it is not deemed justified to implement resident parking restrictions at this time.

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Church St between Campbell & Victoria

12

10

83%

9

75%

12

100%

10

83%

8

12

Church St between End & Campbell

12

9

75%

9

75%

8

67%

7

58%

7

9

Church St between Victoria & End

11

5

45%

6

55%

7

64%

9

82%

5

9

Table 11: Parking Survey Results Church Street (7 December 2016)

8.3.4    Crown Street

Crown Street is one way. There is a mixture of newer developments where residents would not be eligible for resident parking and older residential dwellings. Council has received only one request from Crown Street for resident parking. Parking surveys carried out in December 2016 show that the occupancy does not exceed 68% any time of the day. (See Table 12 below) There is not sufficient demand to warrant the implementation of resident parking at this time.

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Crown St between Campbell & Barwon Park

34

21

62%

23

68%

21

62%

24

71%

18

24

Table 12: Parking Survey Results Crown Street (7 December 2016)

8.3.5    Florence Street

Current restrictions: Unrestricted

Council has received some feedback from residents of Florence Street requesting investigation of resident parking. Several parking surveys have been carried out and the results indicate that the demand profile does not meet the requirements for implementing resident parking. The most recent survey results from December 2016 indicate that there is capacity as illustrated below in Table 13. No recommendations are made to implement resident parking at this time.

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Florence St between Campbell & Silver

33

15

45%

15

45%

27

82%

20

61%

15

27

Florence St between Silver & Campbell

34

27

79%

26

76%

26

76%

25

74%

21

27

Table 13:  Parking Survey Results Florence Street (7 December 2016)

8.3.6    Silver Street

Current Restrictions: Unrestricted

The parking demand is Silver Street is highest in the section towards the Princes Highway. There are a number of multiple unit dwellings which accounts for the high demand. In that section most of the single unit dwellings have off street parking. The highest demand is in the evening and resident parking restrictions would not improve this as it is resident related. The demand in the western end towards Unwins Bridge Road is under 70% and there is capacity throughout the day (64% maximum) with the main demand being in the evening (84%).(See Table 14 below) Resident parking would not improve this situation as it is resident related so no further restrictions are recommended at this time.


 

 

 

 

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

6:00 PM

Average Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Max Spaces Occupied 8:00am - 8:00pm

Description

Supply

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Occ

%

Silver St between Edith Lane & Unwins Bridge

56

31

55%

32

57%

36

64%

47

84%

29

47

Silver St between Florence St & Princes Hwy

24

17

71%

20

83%

21

88%

22

92%

16

22

Silver St between Unwins Bridge Rd  St & Florence

20

14

70%

13

65%

10

50%

14

70%

10

14

Table 14: Parking Survey Results Silver Street (7 December 2016)


 

8.4          WestConnex

There are a number of issues that have arisen over the past several years in the St Peters area and more recently the WestConnex new M5 works have been seen to impact the area.

As part of the Conditions of Approval a parking and access strategy was required. The  WestConnex New M5 Construction Parking and Access Strategy (19/12/2016) outlines the impacts on parking and provides strategies to mitigate that impact.  It details results of community engagement and parking surveys, estimates the parking impacts and provides a number of mitigating strategies. Figure 25 illustrates the context of the works. The Conditions of Approval (Condition D50) is reproduced in Figure 26 below. This deals specifically with research, community engagement and information and monitoring of parking impacts from the works and from construction workers.

 

Figure 25: Context of WestConnex works (Source Construction Parking & Access Strategy Project Name: WestConnex New M5, Dec 2016)

 

 

Figure 26: Conditions of Approval - Excerpt from WestConnex New M5 Construction Parking and Access Strategy

Excerpts for the strategy are used below to illustrate the Conditions of Approval, possible parking losses and mitigation measures to minimises parking impact. Parking losses in local streets will be temporary and according to the strategy, minimal, and concentrated on the so called “tie in period” which will be December 2017 to February 2018.

Florence Street, Brown Street and St Peters Street will be affected for less than a fortnight at that time and about 10 parking spaces will be lost in each street. There will be permanent losses of spaces in a number of streets including May Street, Campbell Street and the Princes Highway.  The possible losses of parking are detailed in Table ? below.

 

The report states that in summary “ no impact on parking will occur as a result of construction…” See below for an excerpt from the Strategy report.

A summary of parking impact is reproduced below- Excerpt from WestConnex New M5 Construction Parking and Access Strategy.

The mitigation measures are detailed in an excerpt from the WestConnex parking strategy document.

For detailed information related to the parking surveys undertaken by WestConnex see Appendix ?.

 

Residents and other stakeholders are encouraged to provide feedback on any parking impacts they are experiencing. Further parking surveys can be carried out at intervals to monitor the parking impacts in the area.

 


 

8.5          Sydenham Station Creative Hub

A recent study noted that the Sydenham Station area is already a major contributor to manufacturing in in the area and has very low vacancy rates. The study also found that to remain viable and attractive to businesses, much of the older industrial precincts (like the one in Sydenham) need to modernize, to achieve a balance between providing for traditional industry whilst also meeting the needs of emerging industries, such as creative industries.

Council also explored Sydenham as a home for artists and creative industry in an innovative project called Future Cities. In its Live Music Action Plan, Council identified the potential of Sydenham Station industrial lands as a place to nurture live music particularly because it's a good fit in an area dominated by aircraft noise and industry. (See Figure 27 for the boundaries of the Creative Hub)

Add to this Sydenham's great public transport links, the new Metro train line which will see trains coming every four minutes to the station, the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Strategy and potential population growth nearby in the Victoria Road Precinct, Council believes the time has come to advance this vision.

Council is seeking input through to mid May 2017 from business owners, land owners, residents, visitors, artists, musicians and the wider community on

·    the vision for the area,

·    the rezoning proposal

·    the boundaries of the precinct.

Parking planning will continue in tandem with the development of the area.  Feedback received through the Creative Hub process as well as the parking review will inform future parking management strategies.

Figure 27: Map showing boundaries of Proposed Sydenham Creative Hub

 

10.          Laneways

Council took measures to develop guidelines to assist in the management of laneway parking in general and the Laneway Guidelines were endorsed by Council in December 2015.

The guidelines are intended to provide a framework and parameters for Council to act but not to act proactively. The intent of the guidelines is to ensure that the following priorities are applied to laneway use

·    emergency access

·    deliveries and waste collection services

·    access to off-street parking

·    accessible on-street parking

The guidelines state that if a laneway is less than 5.1m wide (kerb to kerb) there is a case for banning parking on both sides.

Investigations were carried out into each laneway raised by residents in the survey. If the analysis showed that there was a high likelihood that laneway parking was blocking access to off street parking then a recommendation is being made to restrict parking. Not all laneways under 5.1m will have parking restricted and the restrictions are being dealt with on a case by case basis.

There were no laneway matters raised through the community consultation for the Sydenham review. Residents are encouraged to give feedback on any parking issues associated with laneways in the extended study and review area.

11.          Enforcement issues

Council sees enforcement as an important aspect of parking management and there are ongoing enforcement activities throughout the study area. Enforcement was not raised as a significant issue through the community consultation process. There are a number of persistent reports of vehicles parking across driveways and this is being dealt with on a case by case basis by Council rangers. Residents are urged to contact Council with any enforcement related issues and also to give feedback as part of the review process.

Reports of WestConnex parking issues are also being dealt with by Council enforcement officers. All reports are considered in developing recommendations for the area affected by WestConnex and ongoing monitoring will be carried out.

 


 

Appendix  A: Key Findings 2013 GHD report


 

The draft recommendations were considered at the Pedestrian, Cyclist and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee of 13 June 2013, and at the subsequent Infrastructure, Planning and Environmental Services Committee of Council on 2 July 2013, the Council approved the following recommendations:

The draft report was placed on public exhibition on 16 July 2013 for a minimum of 28 days. This included a newsletter being drafted and sent out to all the residents in the study area, inviting residents to view the draft report online or view a hard copy of the report at Council’s Administration Centre, St Peters Library, Dulwich Hill Library or Marrickville Library.

A survey form was provided both online and at the display sites where residents could indicate their support for the draft reports recommendations. Respondents could indicate they were “fully” supportive of the recommendations, “generally” supportive or “opposed” to the proposal. Respondents were also advised to make comment in an open ended question on anything relating to the report.

Marrickville Council and GHD received a total of 56 submissions from local residents and businesses. Based on the submissions received, 59% of respondents support the strategy in some shape or form. 16% support the recommendations, with no changes, and 43% support it with proposed changes.

A detailed analysis of the feedback received during the public exhibition period was undertaken. Common issues that were raised during the community consultation on the draft report included:

·    Protecting Residential Amenity (Strategy “A”) – 38 responses

·    Improve parking controls generally across the study area – particularly adjacent to Sydenham Station (Strategy “B”) – 7 responses

·    Better manage parking through optimising existing assets (Strategy “C”) including:

-     Supply of angled parking in high demand areas (Strategy “C1”) – 14 responses

-     Promote walking and cycling (Strategy “C2”) – 1 response

-     Promote travel by public transport (Strategy “C3”) – 1 response           

·    Commuter parking controls (Strategy “D”) – 1 response

·    Protect access to businesses (Strategy “E”) – 2 responses

·    Deliver targeted and proactive enforcement (Strategy “F”) – 10 responses

 

Note, that a responses might have included multiple issues is the response. 

In relation to where the feedback was received, the majority of feedback was received from residents from area 7, the northern residential area between Unwins Bridge Road and the Princess Highway and from area 5, the southern residential area between Unwins Bridge Road and the Princess Highway. 

The study adopted the approach of protecting resident parking within the catchment of the railway station and designated streets within 400m of the station to have resident parking implemented on both sides of the street. This approach is accepted and will be continued through the current review given that Sydenham station in locally unique being an interchange station.  Further designated resident parking areas outside the 400m catchment of the station will be on one side of the road only. The parking occupancy data which informed the 2012 study showed that in areas around the station there was a high occupancy during the day and this was attributable to a commuter demand. Figure ? below shows the demand scenario that the study recommendations were based on.

 

 

Figure ?: map showing expansion of resident parking areas from 2013 GHD study

GHD report recommended that expansion of the residential parking scheme beyond the 400m catchment might be considered in the medium-to-long term and that Council consider the community feedback from the installation of the scheme after the first year, to see if expansion would be required. It is proposed to monitor the feedback from the community in the area just beyond the 400m catchment area after 12 months and make an assessment if additional residential parking scheme is needed after that.

 


 


Appendix B:- Existing resident parking


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

 

Appendix C: Parking Survey Results  - 7 December 2016



Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Area 1 – Parking Survey



Area 2 – Parking Survey





 

 

Area 3 – Parking Survey


 




Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

 

 

Appendix D: WestConnex -  Excerpts from Parking report


 

Construction Parking & Access Strategy: WestConnex New M5, Dec 2016


 


 

Figure ?: WestConnex public transport information for workers (Source Construction parking and Access Strategy 19/12/16  - WestConnex New M5)

 


 

Appendix E – List of recommendations (2017)

 


 

Draft Recommendation

Details

Type

15.     Bridge Street , Tempe

 

Convert 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted to Unrestricted parking (southern side)

Unrestricted

16.     Edith Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Sat Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between Unwins Bridge Road and the driveway opposite 65 Edith Street

Resident

17.     Edith Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (southern side) between number 52 Edith Street and Roberts Lane

Resident

18.     Frederick Street, Sydenham

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street to property no.1 Frederick Street

Resident

19.     George Street, Sydenham

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Lee Lane

Resident

20.     Leslie Street, Tempe

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (eastern side)

Resident

21.     Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Roberts Lane and property no. 71 Mary Street

Resident

22.     Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to No Parking (southern side) between Rolfe Lane and the driveway to property no. 60 Mary Street

No Parking

23.     Mary Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 4P 8:30am-6pm Monday-Friday (southern side) between Albion Lane and the driveway to property no. 62 Mary Street

Medium Term

24.     Park Road, Sydenham

 

Implement statutory 10m No Stopping southern side of Park Road at its intersection with Princes Highway

No Stopping

25.     Roberts Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side)

Resident

26.     Sutherland Street, St Peters

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and property no.1 Sutherland Street

Resident

27.     Yelverton Street, St Peters

 

Convert Unrestricted parking to 2P 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M4 Permit Holders Excepted (northern side) between Henry Street and Princes Highway

Resident

28.     No Stopping

Implement Statutory No Stopping zones in association with parking restrictions as appropriate

No Stopping

 


 

 

Appendix F: – Maps of recommendations (2017)


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 


Map of proposed restrictions northwest of study area (Area 1)

Map of proposed restrictions in southeast of study area (Area 2)


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 8

Subject:     REQUESTS FOR ‘WORKS ZONE’ ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION SITES (STANMORE & MARRICKVILLE WARDS/NEWTOWN & HEFFRON ELECTORATES/NEWTOWN LAC) 
 

File Ref:     17/6022/40273.17        

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

A couple of requests have been received from builders for the provision of 'Works Zone' to facilitate construction deliveries and permit the parking of construction vehicles during loading and unloading activities.

It is recommended that the 'Works Zone' be approved for the construction works subject to Council fees and charges.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.       the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-5.30PM Mon-Sat’ (total of 10 metres in length) on the northern side of Brown Street adjacent to property no. 65 Brown Street, St Peters be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction work;

 

2.       the installation of a ‘Works Zone 7AM-5.30PM Mon-Sat’ (total of 9 metres in length) on the northern side of Darley Street adjacent to property no. 99 Darley Street, Newtown be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction work; and

 

3.       the costs of supply, installation and removal of the signs and ‘Works Zone’ fees in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges are to be borne by the applicant.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Written applications along with the plans illustrating the proposed locations of ‘Works Zone’ were submitted to Council for consideration.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs of supply, installation and removal of the signs and ‘Works Zone’ fees are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with the Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

Subject Location

Classification of Road

Road Description

Brown Street, St Peters

Local Road

Two-way street, 7.9m in width that runs West-East between Conway Place and Campbell Street.

Darley Street, Newtown

Local Road

One-way street, 6.7m in width that is eastbound traffic flow from Edgeware Road to John Street.


 

 

65 Brown Street, St Peters

 

The subject property is located on northern side of Brown Street, St Peters. The proposed ‘Works Zone’ will be 10 metres in length. It will be required for a period of approximately twelve (12) months, to be utilised by construction vehicles during deliveries, loading and unloading activities (refer to the below locality map and photographs). It is estimated that these works will take twelve (12) months to complete.

At present, there is unrestricted parking on both sides of Brown Street, St Peters. The parking spaces in the subject section of Brown Street, St Peters are highly utilised by local residents. Therefore, the provision of a ‘Works Zone’ would provide a safe facility for loading and unloading activities at the subject site during the construction period.

 

99 Darley Street, Newtown

 

The subject property is located on northern side of Darley Street, Newtown. The proposed ‘Works Zone’ will be 9 metres in length. It will be required for a period of approximately twelve (12) months, to be utilised by construction vehicles during deliveries, loading and unloading activities (refer to the below locality map and photographs). It is estimated that these works will take twelve (12) months to complete.

At present, there is unrestricted parking along the northern side and ‘2P 8am-10pm Permit Holder Excepted Area M14’ restrictions along the southern side of Darley Street, Newtown. The parking spaces in the subject section of Darley Street, Newtown are highly utilised by local residents. Therefore, the provision of a ‘Works Zone’ would provide a safe facility for loading and unloading activities at the subject site during the construction period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Locality Map – Brown Street, St Peters (adjacent to 65 Brown Street, St Peters)

 

N

Proposed 10m Works Zone
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Photographs – Brown Street, St Peters (adjacent to 65 Brown Street, St Peters)

 

10 metres in length,  65 Brown Street, St Peters  (1)

The proposed location of the ‘Works Zone’ in Brown Street, St Peters.

65 Brown Street, St Peters  (2)

On-street parking in Brown Street, St Peters outside construction site


 

Locality Map – Darley Street, Newtown (adjacent to 99 Darley Street, Newtown)

 

N 

 

 

 

 

Proposed 9m Works Zone
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Photographs – Darley Street, Newtown (adjacent to 99 Darley Street, Newtown)

9 metres in length 99 Darley Street, Newtown (1)

The proposed location of the ‘Works Zone’ in Darley Street, Newtown.

99 Darley Street, Newtown (2)

On-street parking in Darley Street, Newtown outside construction site


 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

A notification letter has been sent to the applicants informing them of the application process and as part of the assessment they will be considered at this meeting.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is proposed to install the ‘Works Zone’ restrictions to better facilitate construction deliveries and allow the parking of construction vehicles during loading and unloading activities.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 9

Subject:     KEITH LANE, DULWICH HILL – PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING & NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS (ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC) 

File Ref:     17/6022/41205.17        

Prepared By:     Emilio Andari - Civil Engineer 

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

Requests have been received from local residents of Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill for the installation of permit parking restrictions nearby their properties along Keith Lane and a request has been received from a resident of Keith Street, Dulwich Hill for the installation of ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Keith Lane directly opposite to their off-street car parking space, as vehicular access is often blocked by parked vehicles on the opposite side of the laneway.

 

Residents have been notified of the proposal to install a section of ‘2P 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions on the southern side of Keith Lane nearby their properties as part of the extension to the Area M13 permit parking precinct and a section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the southern side of Keith Lane, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces within the laneway and deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings and maintain parking where feasible for the local residents. It is recommended that the proposal be approved.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The installation of ‘2P 8.30am–6.00pm Mon-Fri, Area M13 Permit Holders Excepted’ restrictions (18 metres in length) at the rear of residential properties (adjacent to the rear of property no. 23 Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill) on the southern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill be APPROVED, in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents; and

 

2.   The installation of full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions (10 metres in length) at the rear of residential properties (adjacent to the rear of property no. 21 Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill) on the southern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill be APPROVED, in order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces, deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings and increase safety.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Concerns have been raised by residents on either side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill, in relation to the proposal for ‘No Parking’ restrictions along both sides of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill which was recommended as part of the final Dulwich Hill Parking Management Plan. The main concern raised by residents is the impact to on-street parking from commuters using the nearby light rail and railway station. Residents have indicated that surrounding streets are heavily utilised by commuters which in turn results in an increase in demand in parking in Keith Lane for the local residents. As a result, the proposed ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Keith Lane were not implemented due to the high level of opposing feedback from the local residents.  

Since implementation of the Dulwich Hill Parking Management Plan precinct for Area M13,


 

Council has received a number of written requests from local residents from Bedford Crescent and Keith Street, Dulwich Hill for the extension of permit parking restrictions nearby their properties along Keith Lane and a request has been received from a resident of Keith Street, Dulwich Hill for the installation of ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Keith Lane directly opposite to their off-street car parking space, as vehicular access is often blocked by parked vehicles on the opposite side of the laneway.

 

Council officers undertook a detailed investigation into Keith Lane to identify whether it was feasible to accommodate parking within the laneway. Results of this investigation are detailed below.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended ‘No Parking’ & Permit Parking restrictions are approximately $1,000 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

Site location & road network

 

Street Name

Keith Lane

Section

Between Wardell Lane and Macarthur Parade

Carriageway Width (m)

Varies between 5.0-6.0

Carriageway Type

One-way road with one westbound travel lane, in addition to a section of kerbside parking along the southern side.

Classification

Local

85th Percentile Speed (km/h)

Vehicles Per Day (vpd)

Reported Crash History

(July 2010 – June 2015)

No crashes recorded.

Heavy Vehicle Volume (%)

Parking Arrangements

Unrestricted parking on both sides of the road and a section of ‘No Parking 5am-10am Wednesday’ restrictions on the south-western side of the laneway adjacent to the light rail and a section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the north-eastern side adjacent to Rowe Playground.

 

Site inspection

 

A site inspection undertaken by Council officers revealed there are several vehicular crossings along both sides of the road to provide rear access to properties fronting Keith Street and Bedford Crescent. It was observed that the off-street parking facilities were utilised. Majority of Keith Lane is approximately 5.0m in width. However, there is a section of Keith Lane, towards the western end of the laneway where the lane is wider and was measured to be 5.7m-6.0m. It was also identified that this small section of approximately 18-20metres consisted of kerb and gutter along the southern side of the laneway. During the site inspection, it was evident that vehicles were utilising this section of the laneway for parking. It should be noted that are a few properties along the southern side of Keith Lane who do not have on-street parking at the front of their properties along Bedford Crescent. It was also noted that there is a high demand for parking in the area and vehicles were parked across driveways in the laneway.

 

 

 


 

Locality Map – Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill

 

 

 

Photographs – Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill

 

 

Subject section of Keith Lane where the road width is 5.7m-6.0m (facing south-west)

 


 

Sign Plan – Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill

 

 

Laneway Parking Guidelines

 

Council’s adopted Laneway Parking Guidelines outline the measures to consider whether the use of the laneway can prohibit on-street parking. The effective use of narrow streets and laneways alleviates parking pressure. Effectively managed laneways allow for adequate access while providing the maximum amount of on-street parking. The Laneway Parking Guidelines outline the priorities for using narrow laneways and the actions and processes that Council will use to manage access and parking. These guidelines have been developed to provide consistency for evaluating the need for parking controls and manage the use of narrow streets and laneways to maintain access and maximise parking. The need for parking controls is based on the width of the laneway shown below in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Laneway Parking Guideline Laneway Width

Laneway Width

(between property boundaries or kerbs/driveways)

 

Parking and Access Arrangements

 

 

5.1 metres or more wide

 

·    Parking allowed on at least one side of the laneway

·    Allows access for emergency, delivery and waste collection trucks at all times

·    Complies with Australian Standards and Road Rule 208(7)

 

Less than 5.1 metres

 

·    Parking NOT permitted in the laneway

·    Allows vehicle access at all times and complies with Australian Standards and Road Rule 208(7)

 


 

For parking to be allowed in a narrow laneway, the Australian Standards require that parallel parking spaces be at least 2.1 metres wide and NSW Road Rules requires that at least 3 metres must be available between a parked car and the kerb or edge of the laneway to allow moving vehicles to pass safely. Therefore, laneway widths that are less than 5.1 metres wide are too narrow to allow parking as any parked vehicle would prevent traffic from using the laneway (see Table 1 above and Figure 1 below).

 

Figure 1: Recommended minimum width of laneway for parking – 5.1 metres

 

 

When vehicles are parked in narrow laneways, near street intersections, sharp bends, across or opposite from driveways, there needs to be enough space for vehicles to travel along the laneway or turn at intersections or into properties. Laneways are an integral part of a sustainable transport system which provides vehicle access to properties and garages.

 

In accordance with the Laneway Parking Guidelines, the laneway access priorities below have been developed to help Council decide whether parking is permitted in a laneway and determine how much space is required for the most important uses. The priorities for the use of the available space in laneways are listed in Table 2 below in order of priority.

 

Table 2: Laneway Access Priorities

Priority (Highest to Lowest)

Description

Emergency access

Provide access according to Australian Standards.

Deliveries and waste collection service

Maintain access for waste collection and delivery trucks where required.

Access to off-street parking

Ensure adequate access to properties along the laneway to maximise use of existing off-street parking.

Accessible on-street parking

Provide accessible parking spaces for people with a disability where appropriate and in accordance with the standards.

On-street parking

Allow parking in laneways where appropriate access is maintained. Parking signs to be installed to manage access where needed.

 


 

 

NSW legislation includes various requirements to manage access and parking on roads as follows:

 

Acts and Regulations Guiding Parking and Access

 

1.   A member of the public is entitled, as of right, to pass along a public road (whether on foot, in a vehicle or otherwise); and

 

2.   The owner of land adjoining a public road is entitled, as of right, to access (whether on foot, in a vehicle or otherwise) across the boundary between the land and the public road.

 

Road Rules

 

1.   A driver must not stop on or across a driveway or other way of access for vehicles travelling to or from adjacent land. Note a driver stops on or across a driveway or way of access if any part of the vehicle is on or across the driveway or way of access; and

 

2.   If the road does not have a continuous dividing line or a dividing strip, the driver must position the vehicle so there is at least 3 metres of the road alongside the vehicle that is clear for other vehicles to pass.

 

Although, Council Officers did receive a negative response through community engagement process, the removal of parking is technically justified and required in order to comply with the relevant Act and Road Rules.

 

Following Council’s Laneway Parking Guidelines and given that a section of the laneway is wider than 5.1m, it is appropriate to provide a section of on-street parking along the southern side of Keith Lane (adjacent to property no. 23 Bedford Crescent for a length of 18 metres) which will also consist of ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri Area M13 Permit Holders Excepted’ restrictions to maintain consistency with the surrounding streets and Permit Parking area. In order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to off-street car parking spaces, deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings and increase safety, it is also recommended that a section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions be installed along the southern side of Keith Lane (adjacent to property no. 21 Bedford Crescent for a length of 10 metres).

 

The proposal addresses concerns regarding vehicles obstructing access to and from residential garages as well as maintaining available parking where possible, and providing these spaces as an opportunity for local residents. It should be noted that ‘No Parking’ restrictions prohibit motorists from parking within the specified zone; however, they can legally stop to load/unload passengers and/or goods.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A notification letter was sent on 24 March 2017 to owners and occupiers of the affected properties that are adjacent to the subject sections along Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill regarding a combination of parking restrictions including a section of ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions and a section of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to address concerns regarding vehicles obstructing access to and from residential garages as well as maintaining available parking where possible, and providing these spaces as an opportunity for local residents. The closing date for submissions ended on 13 April 2017.

 

A total of twenty-two (22) letters were sent out to the affected residential properties (both Bedford Crescent & Keith Street properties). There were two (2) responses received.

 


 

There was one (1) response opposing and one (1) response supporting the proposed permit parking and ‘No Parking’ restrictions received and are detailed below.

 

Residents’ Comments (opposing proposal)

Officer’s Response

A resident of Bedford Crescent opposes the proposed permit parking and ‘No Parking’ restrictions. The resident stated that only residents use the laneway to park their vehicles and respect one another’s access to their off-street parking space. The resident requests that the entire lane be restricted to resident parking only.

 

It was also identified during a site inspection that a small section of approximately 18metres consisted of kerb and gutter along the southern side of Keith Lane and this section of the laneway was measured to be 5.7-6.0m wide. Since this section of the laneway is wider than the majority of Keith Lane, it is appropriate to provide a section of on-street parking which will consist of permit parking restrictions to favor the local residents. This proposal complies with the Laneway Parking Guidelines.

 

The proposal for only a short section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions addresses concerns regarding vehicles obstructing access to and from residential garages as well as maintaining available parking where possible, and providing these spaces as an opportunity for local residents.

 

Residents’ Comments (supporting proposal)

Officer’s Response

A resident of Keith Street supports the proposed permit parking and ‘No Parking’ restrictions. The resident stated that they often have difficulty entering and exiting their off-street parking space. Most times they are to park on-street due to not having access to their garage with vehicles parked directly opposite in the laneway. The resident stated that the changes appear to be a good balanced solution. 

 

Received and noted.

 

 

CONCLUSION

In order to provide unobstructed vehicular access to the residents’ off-street car parking spaces and deter illegal parking across vehicular crossings, it is recommended that full-time ‘No Parking’ restrictions be installed for a section on the southern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill, adjacent to property no. 21 Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill.

 

It is also recommended to install a section of 2P 8.30am – 6pm Mon-Fri, Area M13 Permit Holders Excepted’ restrictions for a section on the southern side of Keith Lane, Dulwich Hill adjacent to the rear of property no. 21 Bedford Crescent, Dulwich Hill Dulwich Hill in order to provide parking opportunities for local residents.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 10

Subject:     REQUESTS FOR MOBILITY PARKING SPACES (ASHFIELD & MARRICKVILLE WARDS/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC) 
  

File Ref:     17/6022/41230.17         

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services  

Authorised By:  Joe Di Cesare - Manager Design and Investigation

 

SUMMARY

A number of requests have been received from residents for the provision of dedicated mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that the following 'Mobility Parking' spaces be approved as the applicants current medical conditions warrants the provision of the space and they have constrained or no off-street parking opportunities

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The eastern side of Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 6 Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill;

2.       The northern side of Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 25 Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill;

3.       The western side of Richards Avenue, Marrickville in front of property no. 13 Richards Avenue, Marrickville;

4.       The southern side of Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 3 Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill; and

 

be APPROVED as a ‘mobility parking’ space, subject to:

a)      the operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of installation;

b)      the applicant advising Council of any changes in circumstances affecting the need for the special parking space; and

c)      the applicant is requested to furnish a medical certificate and current mobility permit justifying the need for the mobility parking space for its continuation after each 12 months period.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

A copy of the RMS disability parking permit and a medical certificate in support of the applications was submitted to Council

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended mobility parking space is approximately $2,000.


 

It should be noted that Council normally signposts on-street mobility parking spaces and does not line mark these spaces. Should the applicant require the provision of kerb ramps, this can be provided at their cost.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

 

Subject Location

Classification of Road

Road Description

Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

Local Road

Two-way residential street, 12.8m in width that runs north-south from Marrickville Road to Beach Road.

Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill

Local Road

Two-way residential street, 12.8m in width that runs west-east from Wardell Road to Challis Avenue.

Richards Avenue, Marrickville

Local Road

Two-way residential street, 12.2m in width that runs north-south from Premier Street to Holts Crescent.

Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill

Local Road

Two-way residential street, 12.8m in width that runs west-east from Wardell Road to Railway lands.

 

Unit 5/6 Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

 

The applicant’s property is located on the eastern side of Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill. The applicant’s property has no off-street parking facility.

At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of Canonbury Grove. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces in Canonbury Grove were moderately utilised.

The applicant does not drive a vehicle however she is driven by another family member.

Currently there is no existing mobility parking space within close proximity to the applicant’s property. Due to her current medical condition, she requires parking availability close to her property.

 

25 Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill

 

The applicant’s property is located on the northern side of Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill. The applicant’s property has one off-street parking facility which is too narrow (2.3m in width) to be used as off street parking space.

At present, ’2P 8.30am–6pm Mon–Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions is permitted on the northern side and unrestricted parking is permitted on the southern side of Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces in Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill were moderately utilised.

The applicant does drive a vehicle and currently there is one existing mobility parking space in close proximity to applicant’s property (refer to locality map). Due to his current medical condition, he requires parking availability close to his property.

 

13 Richards Avenue, Marrickville

 

The applicant’s property is located on the western side of Richards Avenue, Marrickville. The applicant’s property has one off-street parking facility which is narrow (2.5m in width) to be used as off street parking space. It should be noted that the applicant’s condition does warrant the use of a wheelchair.

 

 

 

At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of Richards Avenue, Marrickville. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces in Richards Avenue, Marrickville were moderately utilised.

 

 

The applicant does drive a vehicle and currently there is one existing mobility parking space in close proximity to applicant’s property (refer to locality map). Due to her current medical condition, she requires parking availability close to her property.

 

3 Wilga Street, Dulwich Hill

 

The applicant’s property is located on the southern side of Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill. The applicant’s property has one off-street parking facility which is too narrow (2.2m in width) to be used as off street parking space.

 

At present,’2P 8.30am–6pm Mon–Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M13’ restrictions is permitted on the southern side and unrestricted parking is permitted on the northern side of Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces in Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill were moderately utilised.

 

The applicant does drive a vehicle and currently there is no existing mobility parking space within close proximity to the applicant’s property. Due to her current medical condition, she requires parking availability close to her property.

 

 

Technical Standards

 

Australian Standard AS2890.5-1993 “On-Street Parking” states the following in regards to the provision of parking for people with a disability:

 

Parallel parking spaces shall not be marked as disabled spaces, nor included in the count of spaces available for people with disabilities unless –

i.          A 3.2m wide space can be provided, e.g. by indenting the space into the footpath area; and

ii.          Kerb ramps as shown in Figure 4.2(a) are also provided”.

 

 

It should be noted that due to the limited width of streets around the Inner West Local Government Area, it is often difficult to comply with these requirements for the parking space dimensions. This may also result in the loss of some adjacent on-street parking spaces.

 

Mobility parking spaces are primarily intended for on-street and off-street parking at destinations, such as in commercial/retail areas and public car parks near hospitals, schools and public transport facilities where multiple usages can be expected. They were generally not intended for points of origin such as reserving on-street parking.

 

A mobility parking space is not intended for the sole use of one applicant, but rather a shared facility that can used by all authorised persons having an RMS mobility permit.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

 

A notification letter has been sent to the applicants informing them of the application process and as part of the assessment they will be considered at this meeting.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended that ‘Mobility Parking' spaces be approved as the applicant’s properties do not have an off-street parking facility and/or the applicants condition warrants the provision of the space.

 

It should be noted that the proposed mobility parking spaces are not for the sole use of the applicant and may be used by other authorised persons.

 


 

Locality Map – Unit 5/6 Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

 

N

The applicant’s property
 

 

 


 


Photographs – Unit 5/6 Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

The frontage of the applicant's property in Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

 

On-street parking in Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill


 

Locality Map – 25 Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill

N

 

The applicant’s property

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Photographs – 25 Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill

The frontage of the applicant's property in Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill

 

On-street parking in Kays Avenue West, Dulwich Hill

 


 

Locality Map – 13 Richards Avenue, Marrickville

N  

The applicant’s property
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Photographs – 13 Richards Avenue, Marrickville

The frontage of the applicant's property in Richards Avenue, Marrickville

 

On-street parking in Richards Avenue, Marrickville


 

Locality Map – 3 Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill

N  

The applicant’s property
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Photographs – 3 Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill

The frontage of the applicant's property in Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill

On-street parking in Wilga Avenue, Dulwich Hill

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 11

Subject:     PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS - Outside 34-36 and 25-27 Lackey Street, Summer Hill
(Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/41910.17        

Prepared By:     Helal (Henry) Uddin - Assistant Engineer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received a request to extend the length of parking restrictions outside 34-36 Lackey Street (Commonwealth Bank) and 25-27 Lackey Street (Da Vinci’s restaurant), Summer Hill. The existing length of parking restrictions in this section of Lackey Street does not permit two standard vehicles to park at the same time. The existing parking space between signposts outside the Commonwealth Bank is 10m and outside Da Vinci’s restaurant, opposite to Commonwealth Bank is 8.5m.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Extend the “½P 8.30am to 6pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am to 12.30pm Sat” and “No Stopping” parking restrictions signs by 1m north towards the pedestrian crossing outside of 34-36 Lackey Street, Summer Hill.

 

2.   Extend the “½P 8.30am to 6pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am to 12.30pm Sat” and “No Stopping” parking restrictions signs by 2.5m north towards the pedestrian crossing outside 25-27 Lackey Street, Summer Hill.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The current length of parking restrictions – “½P 8.30am to 6pm Mon-Fri, 8.30am to 12.30pm Sat” and “No Stopping” - outside 34-36 Lackey Street (Commonwealth Bank) is 10m and outside 25-27 Lackey Street (Da Vinci’s Restaurant, opposite to Commonwealth Bank), is 8.5m. Customers are facing problems to park cars within the parking restrictions length because the length of parking restrictions does not permit two standard cars to park at the same time.

A request has been received for the extension of current parking restrictions signs to the north towards the pedestrian crossing outside the Commonwealth Bank and outside Da Vinci’s restaurant, opposite to the Commonwealth Bank. The proposed extension of parking restrictions would allow two standard cars to park within the parking restrictions length

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposal will be funded from Council's operating budget.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

Council officers have undertaken site investigations and observed that two standard cars cannot park at a time within the existing length of parking restrictions. Two smaller sized vehicles may be able to park within the current parking restrictions: however, larger vehicles may incur infringement notices for encroaching into the 'No Stopping' zones.


 

 

The proposed extension of the parking restrictions as outlined in the recommendation does not impact on sight lines to the pedestrian crossing.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation letters have been distributed to local residents/shops inviting them to provide feedback to Council noting their support or objection to the proposal.  Any feedback will be tabled at the meeting.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Start typing the “conclusion” section here.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

LTC 4 May 2017 - Attachment to report on Proposed extension of parking restrictions - Lackey St Summer Hill

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 12

Subject:     92 CHARLOTTE STREET ASHFIELD - Request for Disabled Parking Space
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/41917.17        

Prepared By:     Anca Eriksson - Traffic Officer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

The resident of 92 Charlotte Street, Ashfield has requested the installation of a Disabled Parking space near her property. The resident holds a Mobility Parking Permit and is having difficulty in parking near her property. Her disability limits her walking to short distances.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT  a Disabled Parking zone be installed outside No. 90 Charlotte Street, Ashfield.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The resident has supplied Council with copies of her mobility parking permit, a letter from her doctor supporting the need for a disabled parking space and a letter from the property owner requesting the allocation of a space outside/near this property.

 

There is an existing ¼P parking zone on the western side of the street and outside the boundary of No.90 (residential units with off-street parking) and No.92 Charlotte Street (mixed business and residence).

 

On-street parking is unrestricted on the eastern side of Charlotte Street (the opposite side) and parking is difficult to obtain within reasonable proximity of the subject property. There are no existing disabled parking spaces in close proximity to the resident.

 

The above suggests that a disabled parking space is warranted.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of installing the signs can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

It has been observed during a site inspection that the on-street parking spaces in Charlotte Street were highly utilised during the day. The resident also does not have an off-street parking space at her property.

 

The resident has been informed that a disabled parking space, if approved, will not be for her sole use and that any person holding a valid mobility parking permit may park in the space.

 

Due to the narrow width of the street, adjustments to the kerb are not possible in order for the parking space to be installed at the 3.2m width proposed as per Australian Standard AS2890.5.  Kerb ramps are also not proposed in this space, as there is a driveway behind the proposed parking space.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council has written to nearby residents of Charlotte Street and Alt Street within the vicinity of the proposed disabled parking space informing them of the proposal and inviting comment.

Resident consultation on this matter closed on 24th April 2017. To date there have not been any submissions from residents. Any further information will be tabled at the meeting.

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the 'Disabled Parking' space be supported as the resident’s property does not have an off-street parking facility and the resident’s mobility condition warrants the provision of the space.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Photographs - proposed extension of parking restrictions

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 13

Subject:     REMOVAL OF MOBILITY PARKING ZONE - Outside 9 Somerville Avenue Ashfield
(ASHFIELD WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/ASHFIELD LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/41981.17        

Prepared By:     Anca Eriksson - Traffic Officer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has recently consulted with residents in Somerville Avenue regarding the removal of the mobility parking space outside 9 Somerville Avenue, Ashfield. Under Roads & Maritime Services guidelines, the need and use of a Disabled Parking zone or space may be reviewed every 12 months or period as determined by Council. Following consultation the mobility parking zone is no longer required and therefore can be removed. The space will be reallocated with 2P resident parking restrictions in line and as similar to the other restrictions in this street.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The Disabled Parking space be removed in front of No. 9 Somerville Avenue, Ashfield.

 

2.   The above space be signposted as “2P, 8:30am – 6:00pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted AREA 7”.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received a request for the removal of a Disabled Parking space outside No.9 Somerville Avenue, Ashfield. This space was previously installed following the request of the owner, who has since moved from the property.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposal will be funded from Council's operating budget.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

The new owner has advised Council that the previous owner, who had originally applied for the zone, has since moved.  The mobility parking space is no longer required and can therefore be removed.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council has written to residents of Somerville Avenue within the vicinity of the Disabled Parking space inviting comment on the proposed removal. No objections to the removal of the space have been received.

 


 

 

CONCLUSION

The Disabled Parking space is no longer required and it is recommended that the space be removed. The space will be signposted with '2P resident parking restrictions', which is currently signposted within the street.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Photograph - outside 9 Somerville Ave Ashfield

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 14

Subject:     MINOR TRAFFIC FACILITIES
(Leichhardt & Balmain Wards/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/41990.17        

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

This report considers minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council, Leichhardt and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Works Zone’ requests.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   That an 18m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of Nos.19 & 21 Percy Street, Rozelle for 10 weeks, temporarily replacing the resident parking restrictions.

 

2.   That a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.7 Glover Street, Lilyfield replacing the existing RPS restrictions.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

This report considers minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council, Leichhardt and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Works Zone’ requests.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The installation of ‘Disabled Parking’ signage is funded from Council’s operating budget and ‘Works Zones’ signage from fees and charges paid by the applicant.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

1   Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – Percy Street, Rozelle

Council Ref: DWS 4293384

 

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 18m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' in front of Nos.19 & 21 Percy Street, Rozelle for 10 weeks. Note, the applicant is conducting building works to No.26 Percy Street; however, there is ‘No Parking’ restrictions across the applicant’s property frontage on the western side of Percy Street. Therefore, it is proposed to provide the ‘Works Zone’ on the eastern side of Percy Street outside Nos.19 and 21 Percy Street. Written concurrence from the residents at Nos. 19 & 21 has been received which support the provision of a ‘Works Zone’ outside their properties.

 


 

Officer’s recommendation

 

That an 18m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of Nos.19 & 21 Percy Street, Rozelle for 10 weeks, temporarily replacing the resident parking restrictions.

 

 

2   Installation of ‘Disabled Parking’ Restriction – Glover Street, Lilyfield

Council Ref: DWS 4279461

 

The resident of No.7 Glover Street, Lilyfield has requested the installation of a ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of the resident’s property.

 

A site investigation has revealed that the property does not have off-street parking.

 

The applicant does not require the use of a wheelchair.

 

Officer’s recommendation

 

That a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.7 Glover Street, Lilyfield.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 15

Subject:     'NO STOPPING' RESTRICTIONS - Palmer Street at Wortley Street and Hyam Street
(Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/42247.17         

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

 

SUMMARY

Residents have raised concerns regarding vehicles obstructing sight lines and manuevering space by illegally parking on Palmer Street too close to the intersections of Hyam Street and Wortley Street, Balmain.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones be installed at the following locations:

 

·    Southern side of Palmer Street, east and west of Hyam Street, Balmain

·    Western side of Palmer Street, south of Wortley Street, Balmain

 

 

BACKGROUND

Residents have raised concerns regarding vehicles obstructing sight lines and manuevering space by illegally parking on Palmer Street too close to the intersections of Hyam Street and Wortley Street, Balmain

 

A review of the 5 year RMS reported crash data indicated that only one collision had occurred in Palmer Street at Wortley Street and no collision at Hyam Street. Both of these side streets have uphill gradients to Palmer Street which does not assist sightlines at Palmer Street.

 

 

PROPOSAL

In order to improve sightlines and left turns it is proposed to signpost the 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone on the southern side of Palmer Street, east and west of Hyam Street, Balmain and on the western side of Palmer Street, south of Wortley Street, Balmain as shown on the plans on the following page.

 

 

 

 

 


 

CONSULTATION

Letters outlining the above proposals were mailed out to the affected properties (174 properties) in Wortley Street, Palmer Street and Hyam Street.

 

3 responses were received for the Palmer Street/Wortley Street proposal, 1 in support, 2 in objection.

5 responses were received for the Palmer Street/Hyam Street proposal, 2 in support, 3 in objection.

 

 

Resident Comment

Officer Comment

Focus is on the wrong junction. The junction at Palmer Street and Beattie Street is far more dangerous with the combination of high street traffic, designated parking spots blocking visibility, pedestrian crossing, Woolworths entry and busy junction - just visit on a Saturday morning.

Council officers will inspect the intersection of Palmer Street and Beattie Street. It should be noted that Council will be upgrading the existing pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Palmer Street and Beattie Street to a raised pedestrian crossing.

We don't need more signs; otherwise we will end up with signs on every corner in Balmain. I live 15 metres from the intersection, and while I see cars parked too close occasionally, it is not as if they are there all day every day. You have your parking inspectors driving around each day, isn't it their job to fine someone if they are incorrectly parked?

‘No Stopping’ signs provide motorists with additional information to prevent the initial offence. Signage also makes it easier for enforcement officers to enforce the road rules. Council typically only installs ‘No Stopping’ signs when there is an identified safety issue.

There is already a huge shortage of free parking in our street, making it almost impossible for our having visitors or family stay because of lack of parking and visitor visas issued, without taking away approximately two spaces. On the high side there is already a red sign. I am not pleased with your decision at all unless the sign is no further away from the corner than the current one on the other side.

The ‘No Stopping’ signs proposed will only remove vehicles already parking illegally.

I think this is a great idea, although it will make parking harder when it comes to finding a space. I also think an even bigger issue is the fact that there is no means of slowing speed of vehicles which drive along Palmer street.

Council recently reviewed speed levels of vehicles along Palmer Street and found that the 85th percentile speed were acceptable for a 40km/h environment.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the signposting will be funded from Council’s operational budget.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 16

Subject:     PROPOSED 'NO STOPPING' RESTRICTION TO INTERSECTION CORNERS - Various Locations
(Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/42258.17        

Prepared By:     Anca Eriksson - Traffic Officer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

Requests have been received from residents for the provision of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to deter illegal parking, improve visibility for motorists and pedestrians and improve access to resident off-street parking at various locations within the Ashfield Ward.

 

Residents have advised that vehicles are regularly parked too close to the following intersections: Hugh Street at Hugh Lane, Ashfield; Hugh Street at Arthur Street, Ashfield; Moonbie Street at Regent Street, Summer Hill; Robert Street at Tintern Street, Ashfield; Robert Street at Prospect Road, Ashfield; Robert Street at Victoria Road, Ashfield; Wellesley Street at Carrington Road, Summer Hill; Albert Parade at Fredrick Street, Ashfield; Albert Parade at Webbs Street, Ashfield and Palace Lane at Holden Street, Ashfield.

 

All requests have been investigated and a summary of these investigations and proposed parking restrictions at various locations are presented in this report.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be installed at the following intersections:

1.   a. Western side of Hugh Street, 8.2 metres north of Hugh Lane, Ashfield.

b. Western side of Hugh Street, 5.5 metres south of Hugh lane.

b. Eastern side of Hugh Street, 8.0 metres north of Hugh Lane.

d. Eastern side of Hugh Street, 6.0 metres south of Hugh Lane.

e. Western side of Hugh Street, 10 metres north of Arthur Street.

 

2.   a. Western side of Moonbie Street, 6.0 metres north of Regent Street, Summer Hill.

b. Western side of Moonbie Street, 10 metres south of Regent Street.

c. Northern side of Regent Street, 10 metres west of Moonbie Street.

 

3.   All corners of Robert Street, 10 metres from all sides of the intersection with Tintern Road, Ashfield.

 

4.    Northern and southern sides of Robert Street, 10 metres west of Prospect Road, Ashfield.

 

5.   a. Northern side of Robert Street, 18 metres east of Victoria Road, Ashfield.

b. Eastern side of Victoria Street, 10 metres south of Robert Street.

6.   a. Southern side of Wellesley Street, 10 metres west of Carrington Street, Summer Hill.

b. Southern side of Wellesley Street, 10 metres east of Carrington Street

c. Western and eastern sides of Carrington Street, 10 metres south of Wellesley Street.

 

 

 

 

7.   a. Southern side of Albert Parade, 10 metres east of Fredrick Street, Ashfield.

b. Northern and southern sides of Albert Parade, 10 metres on both sides of the intersection with Webbs Street.

c. Northern and southern side of Albert Parade, 10 metres west of the N-S section of Albert Parade (western side of Albert Parade Reserve).

d. Western sides of Albert Parade, 10 metres south and north of the E-W section of Albert Parade.

    

8.   Western side of Holden Street, 10 metres south of Palace Lane, Ashfield.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received a number of requests from residents for the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions to deter illegal parking, improve visibility for motorists and pedestrians and improve access to resident off-street parking at various locations within the Ashfield Ward.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The estimated cost of installing the ‘No Stopping’ signs can be met from Council’s operating budget. 

 

 

Illegal parking at intersections can obstruct driver vision and can cause unsafe conditions, especially for pedestrians crossing the road. Parking close to the corners can also obstruct the safe and proper turning manoeuvre of traffic and access at the intersection. The proposed signposting of the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions would assist all road users at the subject intersections.

 

Where proposed ‘No Stopping’ restrictions are less than 10 metres, such as in Hugh Street, this is dictated by the presence of trees within the road shoulder. Due to the large nature of the trees' girth, it is proposed to install the signs between the laneway/road and on the approach of the street tree so as not to obstruct the proposed signage. As the trees are within the road shoulder, vehicles in most of the locations are not able to park within the 10m statutory distance from the corner of the roadway.

 

The length of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions are proposed greater than 10 metres on the northern side of Robert Street (18m east of Victoria Road), Ashfield to prevent vehicles from parking within 3m of the centre linemarkings and from obstructing large vehicles, such as waste and delivery trucks from turning into Robert Street from the roundabout.

Subject Location

Road Classification

Road Description

Hugh Street at Hugh Lane, Ashfield

Local Road

Hugh Street is a two way local road in a residential area, 7.8m in width running north – south between Norton Street and Arthur Street, Ashfield. (Refer to the attached map).

Hugh Street at Arthur Street, Ashfield

Local Road

Arthur Street is a one way local road in a residential area, 6.2m in width running west – east between Waratah Street and Victoria Street, Ashfield. (Refer to the attached map).

Moonbie Street at Regent Street, Summer Hill

Local Road

Moonbie Street is a two way local road in a residential area, 10.2m in width running north – south between Smith Street and Herbert Street Summer Hill. (Refer to the attached map).

Regent Street is a two way local road in a residential area, running west to east between Henson Street and Moonbie Street, Summer Hill.

Robert Street at Tintern Road, Ashfield 

Local Road

Robert Street is a two way local road in a residential area, 6.4m in width running west-east between Holden Street and Prospect Road, Ashfield. (Refer to the attached map).

Tintern Road is a two way local road in a residential area, 7.8m in width running north-south between Norton Street and Clissold Street, Ashfield. (Refer to the attached map).

Robert Street at Prospect Road, Ashfield

Local Road

Prospect Road is a two way local road in a residential area, 10.1m in width running north-south between Carlton Crescent and Old Canterbury Road, Ashfield. (Refer to the attached map).

Robert Street at Victoria Street

Local Road

Robert Street is a two way local road in a residential area, 10.1 m in width running west-east between Holden Street and Prospect Road, Ashfield. (Refer to the attached map).

 

Wellesley Street at Carrington Street, Summer Hill

Local Road

Wellesley Street  is a two way local road in a residential area, 10.1m in width running west-east between Nowranie Street and Edward Street, Summer Hill. (Refer to the attached map).

Albert Parade at Frederick Street, Ashfield

Local Road

Albert parade is a two way local road in a residential area, 12.1m in width running northwest - southeast between Frederick Street and Alt Street (refer to attached map)

Albert Parade at Webbs Street, Ashfield

Local Road

Albert parade is a two way local road in a residential area, 12.1m in width running northwest - southeast between Frederick Street and Alt Street (refer to attached map)

Palace Lane at Holden Street, Ashfield

Local Road

This section of Palace Lane is a 6.4m wide laneway and running east – west between Milton Street and Holden Street, Ashfield.  (refer to attached map).

Holden Street  is a two way local road in a residential area, 10.2m in width running north- south between Princess Street and Liverpool Road (refer to attached map)

 

Concern has been raised by residents stating that vehicles are parking within 10 metres of different intersections in Ashfield and Summer Hill.

At present, there are no formal parking restrictions at the mentioned intersections. Residents have advised that vehicles are regularly parked too close to the subject intersections. This causes a dangerous reduction in the sight lines for both drivers and pedestrians at the intersection (refer to Photos 1 to 8).

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Residents who have brought these matters to Council's attention have been notified in relation to the Traffic Committee process, adjacent residents within 50m of the intersections have been notified of the proposed changes prior to the installation of the signs.

 

Public consultation with affected residents on Robert Street/Victoria Street, Ashfield has been undertaken regarding the installation of an 18m section of ‘No Stopping’ in Robert Street. No submissions had been received up to the date of this report and consultation closed on 27th April 2017. Any further information will be tabled at the meeting.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the proposed 'No Stopping' restrictions be installed at the locations listed within this report in order to deter illegal parking, increase safety and improve visibility and access.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Photos and maps - Proposed no stopping restriction to intersection corners  - various locations

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

4 May 2017

 

Item No:    T0517 Item 17

Subject:     PROPOSED PARKING CHANGES TO LINDSAY AVENUE, SUMMER HILL
(Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Ashfield LAC)
 

File Ref:     17/6022/42297.17        

Prepared By:     Davide Torresan - A/Senior Engineer - Infrastructure Design & Traffic Services 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic Manager

 

SUMMARY

Following the implementation of the Summer Hill Resident Parking Scheme in 2016, the parking restrictions were installed incorrectly in Lindsay Avenue.  Council’s Traffic Engineers introduced interim measures to alleviate the parking issues created.  This report recommends the formalising of these changes to the Traffic Committee and Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the following parking restriction signs be approved in Lindsay Avenue, Summer Hill:

 

1.   10m 'No Stopping zone' on both sides of Lindsay Avenue, at the intersection of Short Street.

 

2.   24m of 'No Parking' zone on the western side of Lindsay Avenue, adjacent to 19 Short Street.

 

3.   19.6m of '2P 8am – 6pm; Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted; Area 13' zone on the eastern side of Lindsay Avenue, adjacent to 21 Short Street.

 

4.   16.4m of 'No Parking' zone on the eastern side of Lindsay Avenue, from the telegraph pole to 2 Lindsay Avenue.

 

5.   6.6m and 22.8m of 'No Stopping zone' on the eastern side of Lindsay Avenue, in front of 2 Lindsay Avenue and rear of 5 Henson Street.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Following support of the Local Traffic Committee, Council's contractor installed the 2P Resident Parking Restrictions Area 13 in Lindsay Avenue as part of the Summer Hill Resident Parking Scheme in 2016.  It was later brought to officers' attention that the signage had not been installed in accordance with the approved plans and created parking issues within the street.  Interim parking restrictions were installed to alleviate these issues.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of installing the parking can be met from Council’s operating budget. The majority of the parking restriction signs have already been installed.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

The former Ashfield Traffic Committee approved the installation of 2P resident parking in the Summer Hill area in 2016.  Unfortunately, the parking restrictions were installed incorrectly which permitted vehicles to park on both sides of the street, blocking off access to the street. Council’s Traffic Engineers introduced interim measures to alleviate the parking issues created.


 

 

As these changes have not been endorsed by the Traffic Committee, Council's Traffic Engineers have consulted with residents on the current parking situation for this report.

A vehicular turning circle movement has been investigated to determine if an indented parking bay can be designed for the southern end of Lindsay Avenue, on the eastern side, in order to provide an additional parking space.  There is inadequate width to design for indented parking without impacting on access to and from the driveway to No. 11 Lindsay Avenue, and was not considered further in the consultation.

 

The parking proposal issued for consultation to residents was based on the current parking situation and the preferred arrangement of residents, based on the petition received by Council from residents in the area, as follows:

 

1.   10m 'No Stopping zone' on both sides of Lindsay Avenue, at the intersection of Short Street.

2.   24m of 'No Parking' zone on the western side of Lindsay Avenue, adjacent to 19 Short Street.

3.   19.6m of '2P 8am – 6pm; Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted; Area 13' zone on the eastern side of Lindsay Avenue, adjacent to 21 Short Street.

4.   16.4m of 'No Parking' zone on the eastern side of Lindsay Avenue, from the telegraph pole to 2 Lindsay Avenue.