AGENDA R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

 

THURSDAY 5 OCTOBER 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

5 October 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                                                                                                                             

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

T1017 Item 1       Heighway Avenue, Ashfield - Annual Road Occupancy   (Christmas Street Party) On Saturday 2 December 2017 (Ashfield Ward/ Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)          5

T1017 Item 2       Temporary Road Closure To Carry Out Restoration Works On Wemyss Street, Marrickville
(Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Marrickville LAC)                             9

T1017 Item 3       Fotheringham Lane, Marrickville – Proposed Raised Entry Threshold (Marrickville Ward/Newtown Electorate/Marrickville LAC)                                             16

T1017 Item 4       Australia Street, Eliza Street, Lennox Street & Mary Street, Newtown – Temporary Full Road Closures For Newtown Festival On Sunday 12 November 2017 (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Newtown LAC)                                                20

T1017 Item 5       Temporary Road Closure To Carry Out Installation Of Stormwater Pipes In Lilydale Street, Marrickville (Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Marrickville LAC)           26

T1017 Item 6       Temporary Road Closure To Dismantle A Tower Crane Across Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill
(Marrickvilleward/Summer Hill Electorate / Marrickville LAC)                   30

T1017 Item 7       Wharf Road, Lilyfield - Road Occupany (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)                                                                                          33

T1017 Item 8       Carlisle Street, Leichhardt - Road Occupancy (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)                                                                                          49

 

Parking Matters

 

Item                                                                                                                                     Page

T1017 Item 9       South Avenue At Palace Street, Petersham – Proposed ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions (Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Marrickville LAC)                       57

T1017 Item 10     Extended ‘No Stopping’- Removal Of Parking At Corner Of Clissold Street And Tintern Road, Ashfield, And Improved Stop Control Facility
(Ashfield Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)                                  60

T1017 Item 11     Edgeware Lane, Enmore  - Proposed 'No Parking' At Rear Of 71&73 Metropolitan Road, Enmore (Ward Stanmore/Electorate Newtown/ LAC)                               65

T1017 Item 12     Sydenham/St Peters Parking Implementation Review 2016/2017 (Ward- Marrickville/Electorate-Marrickville And Summerhill/LAC)                        68

T1017 Item 13     Extension Of ‘No Stopping’ Restriction - Corner Of Private Laneway And Brown Street, Ashfield                                                                                                      208

T1017 Item 14     Catherine Street, Leichhardt – Resident Parking Scheme
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)                                                       212

T1017 Item 15     Alfred Street, Rozelle – Resident Parking Scheme
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)                                                       216

T1017 Item 16     Hartley Street, Brent Street, Mansfield Street, Mackenzie Street, Starling Street, And Moore Lane, Rozelle – Resident Parking Scheme 
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)                                                       220

T1017 Item 17     William Street, Annandale – Resident Parking Scheme
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)                                                       225

T1017 Item 18     Balmain Road, Leichhardt – ‘No Parking – Buses And Coaches Excepted Zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)                                               229

T1017 Item 19     West Street, Petersham – Relocation Of Existing ‘Bus Zone’ & ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions (Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Marrickville LAC)                         233

T1017 Item 20     ‘No Parking’ Restrictions – Bradford Street, Balmain (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)                                                                       236

T1017 Item 21     Minor Traffic Facilities (Leichhardt & Balmain Wards/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)                                                                                                          239

T1017 Item 22     ‘No Parking’ And ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions – Unnamed Laneway Between Flood Street And National Street, Leichhardt (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)     241

T1017 Item 23     Thompson Street, Marrickville - Proposed Statutory ‘No Stopping’ Restriction Signage At Thompson Street And Farr Street Road Intersection (Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Marrickville LAC)                                                                   244

T1017 Item 24     Request For ‘Works Zone’adjacent To Construction Sites (Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate/ Newtown & Marrickville LAC)                                                247

T1017 Item 25     Requests For Mobility Parking Spaces
(Marrickville & Stanmore Wards/Newtown & Heffron Electorates / Marrickville & Newtown LACS)                                                                                       251

 Late Items

 

Nil At Time Of Printing.

 

6          Part C – Items For General Advice

 

Item                                                                                                                                     Page

 

T1017 Item 26     4 - 12 Mcgill Street, Lewisham - Proposed Mixed Use Development (Central Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Marrickville LAC)                                             272

T1017 Item 27     728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe – Proposed Hardware & Building Supplies Store (Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Newtown LAC)            284

 

 

7          General Business

 

8          Close of Meeting   


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 1

Subject:              Heighway Avenue, Ashfield - Annual Road Occupancy   (Christmas Street Party) On Saturday 2 December 2017 (Ashfield Ward/ Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Boris Muha - Traffic and Projects Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council seeks the support of the committee for a temporary full road closure of Heighway Avenue, Ashfield, between Walter Street and Frederick Street, to conduct an annual Christmas Street party on Saturday, 2nd December 2017 as recommended below.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

Support be provided for the temporary full road closure of Heighway Avenue, Ashfield, between Walter Street and Frederick Street, to conduct an annual Christmas Street Party on the Saturday 2 December 2017, from 5.00pm - 9.00pm, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.  The organiser is responsible to erect the signs and barricades in accordance of the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) attached, and arrange the management of the closure with RMS accredited traffic controllers;

 

2.  Council Rangers be requested to oversee the event to assure that the traffic control arrangements are correctly in place;

 

3. The event would only entail the placement of tables and chairs upon the public footway or street, and be covered under Council (Casual Hire) insurance;

 

4.  A clear passage of at least 4.0m must be provided for emergency vehicle access as required by Police;

 

5. The organiser is to arrange waste bins for litter control and make the area neat and tidy prior to the re-opening of the road;

 

6. The organiser is to arrange the dismantling of the temporary signs and barricades, and place the material in a designated area for Council to pick up after the completion of the event;

 

7.  The organiser be responsible for notifying the residents in the area at least one week prior to the event;

 

8. Council will arrange notification of the temporary full road closure of Heighway   Avenue in the local newspaper, for a period of at least 28 days prior to the event.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Correspondence has been received from Ms Julia Pokorny on behalf of residents in Heighway Avenue, requesting the temporary full road closure of Heighway Avenue, between Walter Street and Frederick Street, to conduct an annual Christmas Street party on the Saturday, 2nd December 2017. 

This event is held annually with road closure arrangements being no different to past years. The road closure is a category type “Class 3” minor event under the RMS format for special events. Concurrence is only required from the Council and Police and that RMS be only notified of the event.

 

Heighway Avenue between Walter Street and Frederick Street is a narrow one-way Local Road, which carries low volumes of traffic in the easterly direction from Walter to Frederick Street. Detouring can be made via the surrounding streets of Thomas Street and Frederick Street. Local traffic access can be maintained in the adjoining section of Heighway Avenue and Walter Street.

 

Resident access through the closed easterly one-way section of Heighway Avenue can be maintained from the Walter Street end.-see the attached Traffic Control Plan

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Supply of material (signs and barricades) to the event organiser

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

This event is of similar arrangements as in previous years and approved by the Traffic Committee. Police and RMS have raised no objection in the past to the above special event road closure.

 

For this type Class 3 minor event the main conditions of the road closure are:

 

·  Council supplies material (signs and barricades) to the event organiser. The organiser is responsible to erect the signs and barricades according to the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) below, and arrange the management of the closure with RMS accredited traffic controllers. Council Rangers would be requested to oversee the event to assure that the traffic control arrangements are in order.

 

·  The event only entails the placement of tables and chairs upon the public footway or street, and is assessed as a low risk event to have it covered under Council (Casual Hire) insurance.

 

·  A clear passage of at least 4.0m is provided for emergency vehicle access. (Police condition)

 

·  The organiser is responsible to arrange bins for litter control, and make the area neat and tidy following the re-opening of the road.

 

·  The organiser is responsible to dismantle the signs and barricades and place the material in  a designated area for Council to pick up after the completion of the event.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The organiser is responsible for notifying the residents in the area at least one week prior to the event. Council will arrange notification of the temporary full road closure of Heighway Avenue in the local newspaper, for a period of at least 28 days prior to the event.

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that support be provided for the temporary full road closure of Heighway Avenue, Ashfield, between Walter Street and Frederick Street, to conduct an annual Christmas Street Party on Saturday, 2 December 2017, from 5.00pm - 9.00pm. The closure will be subject to relevant conditions as imposed by Council together with any other conditions from the RMS and Police.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Traffic Control Plan (TCP) for Heighway Avenue, Ashfield - Christmas Street Party

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 2

Subject:              TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE TO CARRY OUT RESTORATION WORKS ON WEMYSS STREET, MARRICKVILLE
(STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

An application has been received from Sydney Civil for the temporary full road closure of Wemyss Street, Marrickville, (between Stanmore Road and Newington Road) 7:00am to 5:30pm from Monday 30th October 2017 to Friday 3rd of November 2017 and from Monday 6th November 2017 to Friday 10th November 2017, in order to do restoration works for Sydney Water on Wemyss Street, Marrickville. It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed  temporary full road closure of Wemyss Street, Marrickville, (between Stanmore Road and Newington Road), 7:00am to 5:30pm from Monday 30th October 2017 to Friday 3rd of November 2017 and from Monday 6th November 2017 to Friday 10th November 2017, in order to do restoration works for Sydney Water on Wemyss Street, Marrickville, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       A fee of $1,540.00 for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

2.       The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

3.       A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted by the applicant to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval;

4.       A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

5.       A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime Services’ Transport Management Centre;

6.       Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

7.       Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

8.       All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

9.       Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress;

 

10.     Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

11.     The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $20,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

12.     The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

13.     Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way for extended periods when not in operation under this approval;

14.     The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

15.     All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

16.     The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An application has been received from Sydney Civil for the temporary full road closure of Wemyss Street, Marrickville, (between Stanmore Road and Newington Road), 7:00am to 5:30pm from Monday 30th October 2017 to Friday 3rd of November 2017 and on Monday 6th November 2017 to Friday 10th November 2017, in order to do restoration works for Sydney Water on Wemyss Street, Marrickville.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under Council’s Fees & Charges, the applicant is to pay a fee of $1,540.00 for the temporary full road closure. This fee includes advertising the proposal in accordance with the Roads Act 1993.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed full-road closure of Wemyss Street, Marrickville (between Stanmore Road and Newington Road) is currently advertised in the newspaper for a period of 28 days. The advertising period commenced on 26 September 2017 and will conclude on 23 October 2017. The applicant is to notify the all affected residents and businesses in writing at least 7 days prior to the commencement of works.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closures be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

      Traffic Control Plan submitted by the applicant – Wemyss Street, Marrickville

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 3

Subject:              FOTHERINGHAM LANE, MARRICKVILLE – PROPOSED RAISED ENTRY THRESHOLD (MARRICKVILLE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Emilio Andari - Civil Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

A detailed design and signage plan has been finalised for the proposed raised entry threshold treatment on Fotheringham Lane, Marrickville as part of the adjacent proposed development site at 23-29 Addison Road, Marrickville. The proposal to install a raised entry threshold with associated signs will improve traffic conditions at this location as a result of the future development.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.    The detailed design and signage plan of the raised entry threshold treatment and associated signs in Fotheringham Lane, Marrickville (as per the attached plan No. 120578 C001 Rev. D) be APPROVED, in order to improve traffic conditions at this location as a result of the future development; and

 

2.    The costs of the supply and installation of the associated parking signage are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Tembor Investments Pty Ltd have undertaken construction works at 23-29 Addison Road, Marrickville to build a six-storey mixed-use development with residential units and commercial tenancy at ground level with a ground level carpark. The driveway crossing is located at the rear of the property via Stevens Lane.

 

As stated in their DA Consent for the construction works at 23-29 Addison Road, Marrickville (DA 201300025), Condition No. 53 includes;

 

In order to provide satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access to the site the person acting on this consent must widen and construct Stevens and Fotheringham Lanes to allow for 6 metre road reserves. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted to Council’s satisfaction before the issue of a Construction Certificate and must include the following details:

 

a)      A detailed road pavement design for the widened sections of Stevens and Fotheringham Lanes;

b)      Construction of a roll kerb and footpath for the full frontages along Stevens and Fotheringham Lanes;

c)      Detailed long-sections along the new roll kerbs and centre line of the Lanes including kerb return details;

d)      Detailed cross-sections at every 10 metres along the lanes. The cross sections must include natural and design levels;

e)      Installation of a raised entry threshold treatment and associated line marking and signage at the Addison Road entry to Fotheringham Lane;

f)       40mm Asphaltic re-sheet of Fotheringham Lane (full width) adjacent to the site and the repair of any road pavement damage resulting from the building works.

g)      The construction of heavy duty concrete vehicular crossings at the proposed vehicular access locations;

h)      The reconstruction of the footpath for the full frontage of Addison Road in accordance with Council’s Standard Footpath Plans F3, F7 and R1; and

i)        All new or adjustments to public utilities required by these works including lighting.

 

Tembor Investments Pty Ltd have approached Council to seek approval for the proposed raised entry threshold treatment with associated signs located in Fotheringham Lane, Marrickville located north of its intersection with Addison Road. These works include the proposed statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions in Fotheringham Lane and Stevens Lane as well as ‘No Parking’ restrictions surrounding the development site in these lanes.

 

The detailed signage plan has been finalised for the proposed raised entry threshold treatment with associated signs and is presented in this report for consideration.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the associated parking signage are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Site location & road network

 

Street Name

Fotheringham Lane

Section

Between Addison Road and Stevens Lane

Carriageway Width (m)

4.7

Carriageway Type

Two-way road with one travel lane in each direction.

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

Unrestricted parking on both sides of the road.

 

Design & Signage Plan (No. 120578 C001 Rev. D)

 

The proposed scope of work includes the following:

 

·    Construct a raised entry threshold treatment in Fotheringham Lane, north of its intersection with Addison Road as per design plan.

·    Resurface the road in Fotheringham Lane and Stevens Lane.

·    Install two statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the western side of Fotheringham Lane 10 metres south of its intersection with Stevens Lane and 10metres north of its intersection with Addison Road.

·    Install ‘No Parking’ restrictions along the southern side of Stevens Lane, adjacent to property 23-29 Addison Road, Marrickville.

·    Install ‘No Parking’ restrictions along the western side of Fotheringham Lane, adjacent to property 23-29 Addison Road, Marrickville.

 

The proposed treatment will not result in the loss of legal on-street parking spaces in Fotheringham Lane (refer to the attached signage plan No. 120578 C001 Rev. D). All current vehicular access to adjoining properties will be retained.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation/notification with the applicant and surrounding affected properties was undertaken by Council’s Development and Planning Services as part of the development application and approval process.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the detailed design and signage plan of the proposed raised entry threshold treatment with associated signs on Fotheringham Lane, Marrickville be approved, in order to improve traffic conditions at this location as a result of the future development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 4

Subject:              AUSTRALIA STREET, ELIZA STREET, LENNOX STREET & MARY STREET, NEWTOWN – TEMPORARY FULL ROAD CLOSURES FOR NEWTOWN FESTIVAL ON SUNDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2017 (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Emilio Andari - Civil Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

A Section 96 (2) application has been received from the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre in relation to modifying conditions in holding the annual 'Newtown Festival' for the remaining 2 years assented, Sunday 12 November 2017 and Sunday 11 November 2018.  The applicant has requested the temporary full road closures, between the hours of 5.00am to 8.00pm, of Australia Street (between Lennox Street and Alton Lane), Eliza Street, Lennox Street (between Australia Street and the exit of Lennox Street car park) and Mary Street, Newtown.

 

It is recommended that Council support to the temporary road closures on Sunday 12 November 2017 between the hours of 5.00am to 8.00pm; apply to the RMS for consent to close the subject roads, subject to the event being advertised, a Traffic Management Plan be submitted to the RMS for approval and advice of the proposed event being forwarded to the appropriate authorities, including the Transport Management Centre.

 

Comments of the Local Traffic Committee will be referred to Council’s Development Assessment Section for consideration in determining the Section 96 Application.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The proposed temporary full road closures of Australia Street (between Lennox Street and Alton Lane), Eliza Street, Lennox Street (between Australia Street and the exit driveway of Lennox Street car park) and Mary Street, Newtown on Sunday 12 November 2017, between 5.00am to 8.00pm, for the holding of the 39th annual 'Newtown Festival' (Class 2 event under the RMS Special Events Guide), be APPROVED subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions;

 

a)   the temporary road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days notice for submissions;

 

b)   a Traffic Management Plan be submitted to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval; and a Road Occupancy License application be submitted to the Transport Management Centre;

 

c)   notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the N.S.W. Police, State Transit Authority, Newtown Local Area Commander, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

 

d)   advance notifications signs for the event be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

 

e)   "No Stopping - Special Event" signs be affixed over all existing timed parking restriction signs within the sections of streets to be closed on the afternoon of the day prior to the event;

 

f)    a 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

 

g)   the applicant is to consult with all affected residents and/or businesses in the area in writing and to conduct a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two weeks prior to event; and

 

h)   adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging.  Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition.  This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads.

 

2.   the Festival Director, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre be advised in terms of this report and that all costs for advertising the event and implementation of the road closures are to be borne by the applicant; and

 

3.   the applicant be advised that an annual application needs to be submitted to Council for the temporary road closures associated with the festival.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The ‘Newtown Festival’ is a free community event which has been held for the last 38 years and attracts thousands of attendees every year. In recent years, the Festival attracted around 90.000 people throughout the day with a maximum of 20,000 at any given time.

 

This annual event is held mainly in the grounds of the Camperdown Memorial Rest Park. In previous years, Lennox Street, Mary Street, Eliza Street and Federation Road, Newtown were temporarily closed to through traffic for the duration of the festival.

 

In 2015, a Development Application (DA 201500078) was submitted to Council by the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre to hold the annual 'Newtown Festival' for the next 4 years, on Sunday 8 November 2015, Sunday 13 November 2016, Sunday 12 November 2017 and Sunday 11 November 2018. The applicant requested the temporary road closure of Lennox Street, Mary Street, Eliza Street and Federation Road, Newtown.

 

A Local Traffic Committee report was prepared and submitted to the meeting on 9 April 2015. Council agreed to the temporary road closures on Sunday 8 November 2015 subject to conditions which were similar to those of previous years. An application has now been received for the temporary road closures for the 2017 Newtown Festival.

 

In addition, an application has also been received under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify Determination No.201500078 dated 15 July 2015 to no longer use a portion of Federation Road. Therefore, Federation Road will no longer be temporarily closed during the event however, part of this new application will include the temporary road closure of Australia Street, between Lennox Street and Alton Lane, to provide additional pedestrian safety during the event. Newtown Police have been advised of this proposal and support the additional road closure. It should be noted that the emergency access from Australia Street to King Street will remain open at all times for the Newtown Police Station and Newtown Fire Station.

 

The application is required to be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

This year's festival will be held on Sunday 12 November 2017 and the following streets will need to be temporarily closed between 5.00am and 8.00pm on the day of the event (Refer to the attached Road Closure Plan):

 

·    Australia Street - between Lennox Street and Alton Lane.

·    Eliza Street - between King Street and Lennox Street.

·    Lennox Street - between Australia Street and the exit driveway of Lennox Street car park.

·    Mary Street - between King Street and Lennox Street.

 

Appropriate advance warning signs will be strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event. Barricades will be used to affect the closures and a 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access will need to be maintained through the area during the course of the festival. Security personnel trained in traffic management will manage traffic into and around the festival to ensure safety and reduce congestion.

 

It is noted that the event location is situated near public transport facilities and has operated for numerous years in the past without significant traffic and parking issues, therefore the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Section 96 (2) application

 

In relation to the new Section 96 (2) application it is noted that the applicant has requested to temporarily close Australia Street, between Lennox Street and Alton Lane, to provide additional pedestrian safety during the event (refer to the attached Road Closure Plan). Federation Road will no longer be temporarily closed during the event and there will be no activities undertaken within this section of the roadway. The event will be held entirely within Camperdown Memorial Park. It is noted that the Section 96 (2) submission states that ‘emergency access will remain open’. 

 

Parking provision is not mentioned in any of the submitted documents. Closing the four local streets effectively takes away a significant number of on-street parking spaces so any increase demand for parking compounds the inherent lack of parking in the area during event activities. As Federation Road is proposed to be kept open for this year’s Festival, the on-street parking will be available to the public as well as the Lennox Street car park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road Closure Plan – Temporary Road Closures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Site Plan – Newtown Festival

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed full-road closures of the event are to be advertised in the local papers for a period of 28 days by the applicant. Council officers have been advised that the advertising period will commence late September 2017. A Traffic Management Plan is to be submitted to the RMS for consideration and approval and a Road Occupancy License application is to be submitted to the Transport Management Centre.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council agree to the temporary road closures on Sunday 12 November 2017; apply to the RMS for consent to close the subject roads, subject to the event being advertised, a Traffic Management Plan be submitted to the RMS for approval and advice of the proposed event being forwarded to the appropriate authorities, including emergency services and the Transport Management Centre.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 5

Subject:              TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE TO CARRY OUT INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER PIPES IN LILYDALE STREET, MARRICKVILLE (MARRICKVILLE WARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

An application has been received from Cherrie Civil Engineering for the temporary full road closure of Lilydale Street, Marrickville, (between Marrickville Road and Stanley Street) for a period of one (1) month from 7am till 5:30pm on Wednesday 1st of November 2017 to Thursday 30th of November 2017, in order to install Stormwater pipes in Lilydale Street, Marrickville servicing Marrickville Library and Community Hub development. It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Lilydale Street, Marrickville, (between Marrickville Road and Stanley Street) for a period of one (1) month from 7am till 5:30pm on Wednesday 1st of November 2017 to Thursday 30th of November 2017, in order to install Stormwater pipes in Lilydale Street, Marrickville, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       A fee of $1,540.00 for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

2.       The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

3.       A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted by the applicant to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval;

4.       A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

5.       A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime Services’ Transport Management Centre;

6.       Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

7.       Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

8.       All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

9.       Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress;

10.     Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

11.     The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $20,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

12.     The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

13.     Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way for extended periods when not in operation under this approval;

14.     The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

15.     All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

16.     The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An application has been received from Cherrie Civil Engineering for the temporary full road closure of Lilydale Street, Marrickville, (between Marrickville Road and Stanley Street) for a period of one (1) month from 7am till 5:30pm on Wednesday 1st of November 2017 to Thursday 30th of November 2017, in order to install Stormwater pipes in Lilydale Street, Marrickville servicing Marrickville Library and Community Hub development..

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under Council’s Fees & Charges, the applicant is to pay a fee of $1,540.00 for the temporary full road closure. This fee includes advertising the proposal in accordance with the Roads Act 1993

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed full-road closure of Lilydale Street, Marrickville, (between Marrickville Road and Stanley Street) is currently advertised in the newspaper for a period of 28 days. The advertising period commenced on 26 September 2017 and will conclude on 23 October 2017. The applicant is to notify the all affected residents and businesses in writing at least 7 days prior to the commencement of works.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closures be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

Traffic Control Plan submitted by the applicant – Lilydale Street, Marrickville

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 6

Subject:              TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE TO DISMANTLE A TOWER CRANE ACROSS LEWISHAM STREET, DULWICH HILL
(MARRICKVILLEWARD/SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE / MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

 

 

SUMMARY

An application has been received from Hadd Group Pty Ltd for the temporary full road closure of Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill (between New Canterbury Road and The Boulevard) on any one (1) day only from 7:00am till 5:30pm between Monday 30th of October 2017 and Friday 3rd of November 2017 (weather permitting), in order to stand a mobile boom crane on Lewisham Street to dismantle the tower crane across Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill. It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closure be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill (between New Canterbury Road and The Boulevard) on any one (1) day only from 7:00am till 5:30pm between Monday 30th of October 2017 and Friday 3rd of November 2017 (weather permitting), in order to stand a mobile boom crane on Lewisham Street to dismantle the tower crane across Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       A fee of $1,540.00 for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges;

2.       The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

3.       A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be submitted by the applicant to the Roads and Maritime Services for consideration and approval;

4.       A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

5.       A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime Services’ Transport Management Centre;

6.       Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

7.       Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

 

 

8.       All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

9.       Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress;

10.     Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

11.     The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $20,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

12.     The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

13.     Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way for extended periods when not in operation under this approval;

14.     The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

15.     All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

16.     The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

An application has been received from Hadd Group Pty Ltd for the temporary full road closure of Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill (between New Canterbury Road and The Boulevard) on any one (1) day only from 7:00am till 5:30pm between Monday 30th of October 2017 and Friday 3rd of November 2017 (weather permitting), in order to stand a mobile boom crane on Lewisham Street to dismantle the tower crane across Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under Council’s Fees & Charges, the applicant is to pay a fee of $1,540.00 for the temporary full road closure. This fee includes advertising the proposal in accordance with the Roads Act 1993.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed full-road closure of Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill (between New Canterbury Road and The Boulevard) is currently advertised in the newspaper for a period of 28 days. The advertising period commenced on 3 October 2017 and will conclude on 30 October 2017. The applicant is to notify the all affected residents and businesses in writing at least 7 days prior to the commencement of works.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closures be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

      Traffic Control Plan submitted by the applicant – Lewisham Street, Dulwich Hill

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 7

Subject:              Wharf Road, Lilyfield - Road Occupany (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received an application for approval of a temporary road closure in Wharf Road north of Balmain Road on Sunday, 19th November between 7am and 10:30am.


The road closure has been requested to facilitate the Balmain Fun Run through Callan Park.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

The temporary road closure of Wharf Road, Lilyfield north of Balmain Road be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 4.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Wharf Road, Lilyfield;

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed;

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure;

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event;

e.   The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

f.    That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense;

g.   That Fire and Rescue NSW (Leichhardt) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant;

h.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

(a)  Barrier Boards;

(b) ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs; and

(c)  ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs.

i.    All traffic controllers must hold RMS certification;

j.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs.

k.   That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;

l.    Copies of approvals from Council, NSW Police, RMS and the approved Traffic Management Plan must be available on the site for inspection by NSW Police, WorkCover Inspectors, RMS Inspectors, or Council Officers;

m.  Council and RMS must be indemnified against all claims for damage or injury that may result from either the activities or from the occupation of part of the public way during the road closures.  The applicant must produce evidence of public risk insurance cover (under which the Council and RMS are indemnified) with a minimum policy value of at least $20,000,000;

n.   That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time;

o.   That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

p.   That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A request for approval to conduct the Balmain Fun Run on Sunday 19th November 2017 between 7:00am and 10:30am has been received from the organiser of the event, Buzz Events.

 

This event involves the temporary closure of Wharf Road north of Balmain Road. It should be noted that only the first 170m of Wharf Road, north of Balmain Road is public road. After this point Wharf Road forms part of Callan Park.

 

In accordance with the RMS “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events V3.4 August, 2006”, and based on information supplied by the organiser, the event is classified as a Special Event Class 3.

 

A Traffic Control Plan and Traffic Management Plan are attached in Attachment 1.

 

Detour Routes

Residential access will be maintained. Access into Callan Park is possible through the signalised intersection at Balmain Road/Cecily Street.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil, the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

All affected businesses, residents and other occupants will be notified of the road closure, activities, parking changes and changes to public transport arrangements. The notification will be distributed at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the event. The proposed information, distribution area and distribution period will be reviewed and approved by Inner West Council’s Traffic Section one week prior to distribution.

The proposed temporary full-road closure is currently advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the temporary closure of Wharf Road north of Balmain Road be supported subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Traffic Control Plan

2.

Belle Property Balmain Fun Run Traffic Management Plan

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 8

Subject:              Carlisle Street, Leichhardt - Road Occupancy (Leichhardt Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received an application for approval of a temporary road closure in Carlisle Street between Norton Street and the Unnamed Laneway adjacent to No.2 Carlisle Street to be held on Saturday, 18th and Sunday, 19th November 2017 between the hours of 12pm-8pm and 12pm-6pm respectively.


The road closure has been requested to facilitate the Royal Hotel Inner West Beer festival.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

The temporary road closure of Carlisle Street, Leichhardt between Norton Street and the Unnamed Laneway adjacent to No.2 Carlisle Street on Saturday, 18th and Sunday, 19th November 2017 between the hours of 12pm-8pm and 12pm-6pm respectively be supported, subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   That an unencumbered passage minimum 4.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Carlisle Street, Leichhardt;

b.   The occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed;

c.   That the organiser be advised to arrange accredited traffic controllers to manage the road closure;

d.   That the applicant notifies all affected businesses, residents and other occupants of the temporary road closure prior to the event.  Any concerns or requirements in relation to the road closure raised by business proprietors, residents and other occupants must be resolved or accommodated. The notification shall involve at the minimum an information letterbox drop distributed one week prior to the commencement of the event.  The proposed information, distribution area and period must be submitted to Council’s Traffic section for approval two weeks before the event;

e.   The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 28 days’ notice for submissions, in accordance with the Roads Act;

f.    That the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense;

g.   That Fire and Rescue NSW (Leichhardt) be notified of the intended closure by the applicant;

h.   That the applicant provide and erect barricades and signs, in accordance with the current Australian Standard AS 1742.3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads.  As a minimum the following must be erected at both ends of the road closure area:

(a)  Barrier Boards;

(b) ‘Road Closed’ (T2-4) signs; and

(c)  ‘Detour’ (T5-1) signs.

i.    All traffic controllers must hold RMS certification;

j.    That the areas to be used for the activities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of Council’s Group Manager Roads & Stormwater, or else the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for any extraordinary cleaning costs;

k.   That the conduct of any activities or use of any equipment required in conjunction with the road occupancy and temporary road closure not results in any ‘offensive noise’ as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;

l.    Copies of approvals from Council, NSW Police, RMS and the approved Traffic Management Plan must be available on the site for inspection by NSW Police, WorkCover Inspectors, RMS Inspectors, or Council Officers;

m.  Council and RMS must be indemnified against all claims for damage or injury that may result from either the activities or from the occupation of part of the public way during the road closures.  The applicant must produce evidence of public risk insurance cover (under which the Council and RMS are indemnified) with a minimum policy value of at least $20,000,000;

n.   That Council reserves the right to cancel the approval at any time;

o.   That the applicant complies with any reasonable directive from Council Officers and NSW Police; and

p.   That the applicant be advised of the Committee’s recommendation. 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A request for approval to conduct the Royal Hotel Inner West Beer festival on Saturday 18th and Sunday 19th November 2017 between the hours of 12pm-8pm and 12pm-6pm respectively has been received from the organiser of the event, the Licensee of The Royal Hotel.

 

This event involves the temporary closure of Carlisle Street between Norton Street and the Unnamed Laneway adjacent to No.2 Carlisle Street.

 

In accordance with the RMS “Guide to Traffic and Transport Management for Special Events V3.4 August, 2006”, and based on information supplied by the organiser, the event is classified as a Special Event Class 2.

 

A Traffic Control Plan and Traffic Management Plan are attached in Attachment 1.

 

Detour Routes

All traffic is expected to detour via Cromwell Street and Marlborough Street as shown on the attached TCPs.

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil, the supported Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be implemented at the applicant’s expense.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

All affected businesses, residents and other occupants will be notified of the road closure, activities, parking changes and changes to public transport arrangements. The notification will be distributed at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the event. The proposed information, distribution area and distribution period will be reviewed and approved by Inner West Council’s Traffic Section one week prior to distribution.

 

The proposed temporary full-road closure is currently advertised in the local newspaper for a period of 28 days.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the temporary closure of Carlisle Street between Norton Street and the Unnamed Laneway be supported subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Traffic Control Plan

2.

Traffic Management Plan

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 9

Subject:              SOUTH AVENUE AT PALACE STREET, PETERSHAM – PROPOSED ‘NO STOPPING’ RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD / NEWTOWN ELECTORATE / MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Jennifer Adams - Traffic and Road Safety Officer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

A concern has been raised with regard to the difficulties being experienced in accessing South Avenue due to vehicles parking at the bend at the southern end of Palace Street blocking access into Station Avenue, Petersham.

 

It is proposed to install ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the bend along the southern boundary of South Avenue at Palace Street, adjacent to the railway line, for a distance of 20 metres and install statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the bend on the north side of South Avenue and west side of Palace Street, Petersham to provide unobstructed access into and out of Station Avenue, Petersham. Surrounding local residents have been consulted on the proposal. It is recommended that this proposal be approved.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The installation of 20 metres full-time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions along the southern boundary of South Avenue at Palace Street, at the bend adjacent the railway boundary (from the existing ‘No Parking’ sign eastward to the first large palm tree) and the installation of full-time statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the bend on the north side of South Avenue and west side of Palace Street, Petersham be APPROVED to provide unobstructed access into and out of South Avenue, Petersham; and

2.       The applicant and Council Rangers be advised in terms of this report.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A concern has been raised with regard to the difficulties being experienced in accessing South Avenue due to vehicles parking at the bend at the southern end of Palace Street blocking access into Station Avenue, Petersham. It has been advised that vehicles are often parked at the entrance of Station Avenue blocking access and making it impossible for residents to access their properties.  (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the supply and installation of the signage associated with the recommended ‘No Stopping’ restrictions is approximately $900 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

South Avenue is a narrow dead-end street running west off the far southern end of Palace Street for a distance of approximately 92 metres, and parallel to the main western railway line. The street mainly provides rear access to several properties which front Searl Street although one private residence has its frontage on South Avenue, Petersham.

 

The street has a varying width of between 4.6 and 5.0 metres. A 1.2 metre wide footpath is provided along its northern side and a slight bend occurs approximately 18 metres west of Palace Street. The narrowest section of street occurs at the bend. Consequently, if vehicles park in close proximity to the bend, other vehicles have difficulty in passing.

 

In 2003 parking restrictions were installed for a distance of approximately 29 metres on the northern side of South Avenue, west from Palace Street, and also along the entire southern side of the street in an effort to improve vehicular access in South Avenue, Petersham.

 

Palace Street is two-way local road in a residential area running north-south between Parramatta Road and Brighton Street, Petersham. Palace Street is approximately 12.8 metres in width and parking is currently unrestricted on the western side with residential parking restrictions on the eastern side.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A notification letter was sent to 19 properties fronting South Avenue, Petersham regarding the proposal to install full-time ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the bend in South Avenue at Palace Street, Petersham to improve access in the street. The closing date for submissions ended on 20 September 2017. No responses were forthcoming.

 

CONCLUSION

The proposed ‘No Stopping’ restrictions will provide unobstructed access into and out of Station Avenue, Petersham.  

 

 

Proposed ‘No Stopping’ restrictionsSearl StreetSouth AvenuePalace StreetTerminus St

 

Plan – showing location of proposed ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the junction of South Avenue and Palace Street, Petersham

 

 

 

 

Locality Map – South Avenue, Petersham

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 10

Subject:              Extended ‘No Stopping’- Removal Of Parking At Corner Of Clissold Street And Tintern Road, Ashfield, And Improved Stop Control Facility
(Ashfield Ward/Strathfield Electorate/Ashfield LAC)

File Ref:              /         

Prepared By:     Boris Muha - Traffic and Projects Engineer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Committee support is sought for the removal of the one parking space to the northern corner of Clissold Street, east of the intersection with Tintern Road, Ashfield. This will increase the No Stopping distance to 15 metres from the corner for improved sight line view and traffic safety at the intersection. No further parking should be amended in Clissold Street, between Victoria Street and Prospect Road until such time other recommended treatments for Clissold Street are investigated under the former Ashfield Council’s Traffic Management Strategy.

Added signage and line marking is also recommended for improvements to the ‘STOP’ control at the intersection, together with driveway line marking to No.3 Clissold Street for the remaining controlled parking in Clissold Street.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Committee support be provided for the following:

 

1.   Remove the one parking space on the northern side of Clissold Street, east of the intersection with Tintern Road, Ashfield, and increase the ‘No Stopping’ distance to 15 metres from the corner.

 

2.   That the existing ‘STOP’ sign on the north-east corner of Tintern Road and Clissold Street, be repositioned for improved viewing of the sign.

 

3.   That double white lines and triangular median (with associated RPM’s), be painted  on the Victoria Square approach to Clissold Street and that a supplementary  ‘STOP’ sign be placed to the south east corner of Clissold and Victoria Square.

 

4.   That the existing ‘STOP’ holding lines on Tintern Road and Victoria Square and the existing double white lines in Tintern Road, be remarked.

 

5.   That driveway lines be painted approx. 2 metres either side of the driveway to No. 3 Clissold Street.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council is proposing to extend the existing ‘No Stopping’ restriction in Clissold Street, east of Tintern Road, to improve sight view lines and increase the safety for motorists turning out of Tintern Road. This follows complaints received by motorists and residents in regard to the safe exit of vehicles from Tintern Road..

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The estimated cost for signs and line marking of approx. $2000 will come from Council’s operating budget.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

The proposal involves the removal of one parking space on the northern corner side of Clissold Street. This will allow the extension of the ‘No Stopping’ restriction a distance of 15 metres east of Tintern Road, to improve sight lines for motorists turning out of Tintern Road.

 

Clissold Street, is a narrow 2-way street measuring approximately 6.5m wide kerb to kerb from Victoria Street to Prospect Road. It carries relatively moderate- high volumes of traffic over 3000 ADT (average daily traffic), and is a major east to west link road through the suburb of Ashfield. It also serves as a major bus route in both directions.

 

The former Ashfield Council undertook action a few years ago to reduce parking within Clissold Street. This was to rationalise and control the parking in Clissold Street from Holden Street to Prospect Road and resolve traffic and bus conflict/congestion in the street. As it currently stands, traffic in one direction is held aside to give-way and allow opposing traffic to pass at locations where parking is permitted to the one side of the street.

 

Council and Police officers inspected the site and given the nature and geometry of the intersection with the hill rise and narrowness of Clissold Street, it is considered that the one parking space to the left hand side when exiting Tintern Road onto Clissold Street should be removed. This would improve the sight line view and prevent vehicles excessively encroaching onto Clissold Street when exiting out of Tintern Road.

 

The sight line view to the right hand side coming out of Tintern Road onto Clissold Street is considered adequate with parking set back 15 metres from the corner of the intersection.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Residents in the near vicinity of the intersection were letter boxed dropped on the proposal to remove the one parking space at the corner of Clissold Street and Tintern Road, Ashfield –see locality plan for letter distribution area.

 

Some 22 letters were issued and seven (7) responses were received.

 

Resident comments

Officer Response

Six (6) responses were received in support of removing the one space, but were of the view that further and all parking be removed in Clissold Street, mainly between Victoria Street and Prospect Road to allow for safe and proper sight line view and 2-way traffic and bus movement through this narrow width roadway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The signage on this intersection is not visible and effective to those motorists not familiar with the intersection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cars are parked right up to the sides of our driveway [No. 3 Clissold Street]. There is risk to coming out in viewing the traffic. Request if the added parking space to the west side of the driveway be removed.  

1. The question of removing further parking in the street would need to be investigated as an alternate option in recommendation and investigation to having Clissold Street made one-way under the Ashfield Council’s Traffic Management Strategy (ATMS). Traffic calming may also need to be considered in Clissold Street in conjunction with either making Clissold Street one-way or removing all parking to maintain 2-way traffic. 

 

The capacity to allow for parking in the side streets would also need to be investigated in line with the ATMS. 

 

2. Signage will be altered, and supplemented at the intersection. It is proposed that additional double white line marking be installed at the Victoria Square approach to the intersection to further emphasise the presence of the STOP control and guidance of traffic around the intersection. Other exiting double white line marking and the STOP holding lines will be remarked.

 

 

3. It is proposed that driveway lines be painted approximately 2.0 metres either side of the driveway. This will assist to control the remaining parking between Tintern Road and the driveway to No. 3 Clissold Street. 

 

One (1) response was received in objection to the proposal primarily on grounds that the removal of parking would impact on the amenity needs of parking for residents. Parking is of premium. Current developments has posed limited parking opportunity on-street, and removal of parking would encourage increase greater speed and inappropriate driver behaviour and road noise –traffic calming would be required in the street. Pedestrian/cyclist and vehicular safety would be reduced. There should not be any further removal of parking, unless it could be replaced elsewhere in the street. 

 

The sight distance available for car turning out of Tintern Road are similar to those available at numerous intersections through Ashfield and the inner west. Due care can be taken with vehicles coming out of Tintern Road if traffic in Clissold Street is travelling at appropriate speeds.   

 

 

 

 

4. See officer’s response item 1 above.

 

The proposal of removing one parking spot at the corner of Clissold Street and Tintern Road addresses a particular road safety issue at this intersection. This proposal is considered in isolation to other treatments as recommended for investigation in Clissold Street under the former Ashfield Council Traffic Management Strategy. 

 

 

 

 

 

The intersection in question is a cross street with STOP control in Tintern Avenue and Victoria Square. Many of the cross streets have or are being examined for any further extension to No Stopping.

 

 

 

Apart from the proposed removal of the one parking space at the intersection of Tintern Street and Clissold Street, further measures to improve the ‘STOP’ control facility are also considered at the intersection as outlined in the Officers Response items 2 and 3.

 

 

CONCLUSION

That Committee support be provided for the removal of the one parking space to the northern corner of Clissold Street east of intersection with Tintern Road, Ashfield. This will increase the No Stopping distance to 15 metres from the corner for improved sight line view and traffic safety at the intersection.

Added signage and line marking is also recommended for improvements to the STOP control at the intersection, together with driveway line marking to No.3 Clissold Street for the remaining controlled parking in Clissold Street.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Locality plan showing the location of the intersection and letter box distribution area

2.

Plan identifying recommended removal of parking and extension of the No Stopping restriction at the intersection of Clissold Street and Tintern Road, and improved STOP control facility.

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 11

Subject:              EDGEWARE LANE, ENMORE  - PROPOSED 'NO PARKING' AT REAR OF 71&73 METROPOLITAN ROAD, ENMORE (WARD STANMORE/ELECTORATE NEWTOWN/LAC NEWTOWN)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

 

SUMMARY

Council has received representation from the community to consider the implementation of a short section of ‘No Parking’ opposite the rear of 74 Edgeware Road to allow for access to off-street parking.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

A section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions be APPROVED  at the rear of property nos. 71 and 73 Metropolitan Road, Enmore

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council received a representation from a resident seeking parking restrictions in Edgeware Lane, Enmore to allow for access to off-street parking associated with their dwelling, which is in the section of Edgeware Lane between Cross Lane and Sara Street.

 

Following consultation with affected properties it is proposed to implement a 10 metre section of ‘No Parking‘ opposite the resident’s property to allow for access to off-street parking.

 

Previous proposals by Council to restrict parking for the length of Edgeware Lane from Cross Street to Sara Street had not received support from residents. In order to allow for maximum access to off-street parking and allow for parking where there is no blocking of driveways, it is proposed to convert a 10 metre section of the laneway to ‘No Parking’. See Figure 1 for an illustration of the proposed restrictions.

 

 

Figure 1: Map showing proposed restrictions

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended ‘No Parking’ restrictions are approximately $200 and can be met from Council’s operating budget.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

N/A

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A letter box drop was undertaken for the closest to eight (8) households and there was one (1) response seeking to have the length of the proposed ‘No Parking’ restriction reduced to 6 meters. It is not recommended to reduce the length of the ‘No Parking’ as it is deemed that this would not allow for access and egress from the subject off-street parking. Also, the one resident that commented raised a concern that removing parking in the laneway may contribute to Edgeware Lane becoming a ‘rat run’. This is not considered to be a significant factor and insufficient grounds to overturn the proposal.

 


 

CONCLUSION

The proposal to restrict parking at the rear of 71 and 73 Metropolitan Road will allow for access to off street parking for the affected resident. The restriction will allow for access to off-street parking in an area where there is only one permit per household allowed under the permit parking scheme. There was no objection based on the grounds of removal of parking opportunity. It is recommended to proceed with the proposal to implement the ‘No Parking’ restriction.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 12

Subject:              SYDENHAM/ST PETERS PARKING IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 2016/2017 (WARD- MARRICKVILLE/ELECTORATE-MARRICKVILLE AND SUMMERHILL/LAC-NEWTOWN)

File Ref:              /         

Prepared By:     Mary Bailey - Parking Planner 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

 

SUMMARY

In 2012 Council commissioned GHD to carry out a parking study for the Sydenham Parking Precinct. As a result of the study, permit parking was implemented in a number of streets mainly in association with the Sydenham railway station. Starting in late 2016, Council undertook a review of that implementation. Due to a variety of factors including commercial, and residential development, and the impact of WestConnex/New M5; the scope of the review was extended to include the St Peters area.

 

A series of recommendations are made to extend permit parking in streets where it already exists in the Sydenham area. A number of streets have also been added to the existing permit parking schemes in both Sydenham and St Peters. The draft recommendations have been to public exhibition and the final recommendations in the Sydenham/St Peters Parking Implementation Review 2017(attached) are based on community consultation and parking occupancy and length of stay surveys.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The recommendations for parking restrictions in the Sydenham/St Peters area as detailed below be APPROVED.

 

 

 

Table 1.

 

Location

Proposal

Parking Type

1.  Alfred Street, St Peters

 

Convert ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pm Monday to Friday Area M4’ between Albion Lane and Rolfe Lane (southern side)

Permit

2.  Barwon Park Road, St Peters

 

Convert ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘2P permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M12 ‘from southern boundary of property no. 51 Barwon Park Road to northern boundary of property no. 47 Barwon Park Road.

Permit

3.  Bridge Street, Tempe

 

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

Unrestricted

4.  Brown Street, St Peters

Convert ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pm Monday to Friday Area M12’ (eastern side) between Campbell Street and Conway Place

Permit

5.  Church Street, St Peters

Convert ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pm Monday to Friday Area M12’

a.   between Campbell Street and the cul de sac at the southern end of Church Street (eastern side)

b.   western side - outside property nos. 75-81 inclusive

Permit

6.  Crown Street, St Peters

Convert ’unrestricted’ parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6pm Monday to Friday Area M12’

a.   from the driveway of property no. 59 Crown Street to immediately south of the driveway of property no. 75 Crown Street (11 spaces)

b.   from the driveway of property no. 25 to outside property 31 Crown Street (3 spaces)

Permit

7.  Edith Street, St Peters

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

Permit

8.  Edith Street, St Peters

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

Permit

9.  Frederick Street, Sydenham

 

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

Permit

10.       George Street, Sydenham

 

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

Permit

11.       Grove Street, St Peters

Convert ‘unrestricted’ parking to ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pm Monday to Friday Area M4’ (southern side) from western property boundary of 96 Grove Street (opposite Albion Lane) to Henry Street

 

Permit

12.       Grove Street, St Peters

Convert ‘2P Permit Holders Excepted 8:30am-6:00pm Monday to Friday Area M4’ (northern side) to ‘unrestricted’ parking from Rolfe Lane to Bakers Lane

Unrestricted

13.       Leslie Street, Tempe

 

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

Permit

14.       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

Permit

15.       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

16.       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

17.       Park Road, Sydenham

 

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

No Stopping

18.       Roberts Street, St Peters

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

Permit

19.       Sutherland Street, St Peters

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

Permit

20.       Yelverton Street, St Peters

 

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

Permit

21.       No Stopping

Implement Statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones in association with parking restrictions as appropriate

No Stopping

 

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.

 

In order to consider community feedback and account for changes in the area a review was started in late 2016 and carried through into 2017. This 2017 review addresses the original study area as well as an additional area in St Peters. The expanded study area is shown in Figure 2.

 

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

 

Figure 2: Map showing expanded Sydenham/St Peters Study Area of 2017 review

 

OFFICER’S COMMENTS

Council has undertaken this review of the implementation of the GHD study bearing in mind more recent developments. The study area has been expanded to cover areas north of and including Mary St, St Peters to deal with changes in commercial and residential developments as well as respond to potential and existing impacts of the WestConnex New M5.

 

The draft recommendations all pertained to the M4 permit parking area; however, the final recommendations encompass streets in the M12 area as well.

 

This review has comprised a community survey, review of any correspondence to Council, parking surveys. The review report with the draft recommendations was placed on public exhibition for 28 days and final recommendations developed following submissions from the public.

 

Table 1 (above) shows all recommendations arising out of the review.

 

Table 2 shows the streets which are subject to recommended parking restrictions and highlights those streets that were included following the public exhibition.

 

All of the draft recommendations referred to streets within the Sydenham parking precinct and not the St Peters area. The streets in the St Peters area were added following the public exhibition and analysis of updated parking surveys. The main rationale for recommending additional streets in the St Peters area is the impact of WestConnex and possible flow on effects from restrictions in surrounding streets.

 

M4 Permit Area

The streets proposed for permit parking in the draft report include; Bridge Street and Leslie Street; and extensions of resident parking in Frederick, George, Sutherland and Yelverton Streets. Edith, Mary and Roberts Streets were also recommended within the M4 resident parking area due to a number of factors including resident concern about managing the impact in the growth of commercial activities and knock on effects from recommendations in nearby streets.

 

As a result of feedback received during the public exhibition a number of streets were added as permit parking areas. Parts of Alfred Street and Grove Street are also recommended for changes in parking restrictions as a result of resident feedback and concerns over impacts of nearby commercial operations and possible knock on effects of restrictions in nearby streets.

 

M12 Permit Area

There are currently a number of streets within St Peters which have resident parking (M12 area). The final report includes an analysis of the streets highlighted to Council by residents and those affected by the WestConnex New M5 works. Following updated parking occupancy surveys and submissions by residents, recommendations are made for the M12 permit parking to be extended into Barwon Park Road, Brown Street, Church Street, Crown Street.

 

 

Table 2: Streets where parking restriction changes are recommended

*Alfred Street, St Peters

 

*Church Street, St Peters

 

George Street, Sydenham

 

Park Road, Sydenham

 

*Barwon Park Road, St Peters

 

*Crown Street, St Peters-

 

*Grove Street, St Peters

 

Roberts Street, St Peters

 

Bridge Street , Tempe

 

Edith Street, St Peters

 

Leslie Street, Tempe

Sutherland Street, St Peters

 

*Brown Street, St Peters

Frederick Street, Sydenham

Mary Street, St Peters

Yelverton Street, St Peters

**Recommendations added following public exhibition

 

There was some concern expressed by residents regarding the use of local streets for long term parking by airport users but a detailed analysis of length of stay parking surveys and the community feedback indicates that this issue if neither significant or widespread at this time. There are no recommendations made with respect to this issue. There is a detailed analysis of this issue in the full report.

 

 

For illustration purposes the recommendations are mapped below in Figures 3, 4 and 5.

 

Figure 3: Map of proposed restrictions northwest of study area (Area 1)

 


Figure 4: Map of proposed restrictions in southeast of study area (Area 2)

Figure 5: Proposed parking restrictions in the northeast of the study area (Area 3).

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The approximate cost of implementing the recommendations in the review report is $5,000 and this is covered under budget allocation for parking review implementation projects in the  2017/2018 financial year.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

N/A

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Initial Community Survey

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 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 3 below.


 

Table 3: Type of parking preferred by residents (community survey)

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


In conclusion, since the response rate was very low with only 60 responses from 5,000 letters it can be inferred that parking is not an issue for many people. Following analysis on the comments and correspondence to Council a set of draft recommendations were endorsed by Council and put to public exhibition.

Public exhibition

The draft recommendations which had been endorsed by Council were publically exhibited for four (4) weeks throughout June 2017. There were a total of one hundred and thirty nine (139) submissions via the Council web portal during the public exhibition.

Ninety five (95) supported the recommendations and forty four (44) did not support the recommendations. There were comments for and against.

Those who did not support the proposals cited reasons including; multiple car households, boat trailers not being eligible, and needing all day parking for commercial/factory workers. Twelve (12) of the objections  were from residents of Alfred Street, Brown Street and Crown Street who objected because they had not been included in the permit parking recommendations. All those streets have been included in the final recommendations.

 

CONCLUSION

The Sydenham/St Peters Parking Implementation Review 2017 recommendations are based on comprehensive community consultation and parking survey analysis. The recommendation addresses residents’ concerns regarding the demand for parking in residential streets. Implementation of the review recommendations is a balanced approach providing additional opportunities for residents while also allowing for those who do not wish to participate in the permit scheme or are ineligible, visitors, businesses and commuters.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Sydenham/St Peters Parking Implementation Review 2017 - Final report

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 13

Subject:              Extension of ‘No Stopping’ restriction - Corner of Private laneway and Brown Street, Ashfield

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Boris Muha - Traffic and Projects Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

 

SUMMARY

Recent complaints have been received in regard to the safe exit of vehicles from the private laneway coming off Brown Street adjacent to the apartment block of No.1 Brown Street, Ashfield.

 

It is recommended that one (indented) parking space be removed on the eastern corner of Brown Street, north of the private lane outside No 1 Brown Street.  The ‘No Stopping’ restriction would in turn be increased at this corner from 4 to 10.5 metres north of the laneway to clear and improve the sight view of traffic.

 

The parking space in question, currently restricted as 1 hour period parking to be removed, would also be painted with hatched line marking to prevent parking.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       The one (indented) parking space on the eastern corner side of Brown Street, north of the private lane outside No 1 Brown Street, Ashfield, be removed and the ‘No Stopping’ restriction at the corner be increased in length from 4-10.5 metres;

2.       The existing 1 hour period parking restriction in the space be removed in lieu of providing the extended ‘No Stopping’ restriction; and

3.       The removed parking space be painted with hatched line marking.      

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A request has been received from the business occupant of 213 Liverpool Road, on behalf of all businesses with private rear lane access off Brown Street, Ashfield, to improve the sight view of traffic for vehicles exiting out of the lane onto Brown Street.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The estimated cost for the proposed signage and line marking will be funded from Council’s operating budget.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

Brown Street from Liverpool Road to Bland Street/Elizabeth Street is a local (collector) road in the Ashfield CBD and fronts along the south side of the Ashfield Railway Station. It carries relatively high volumes of traffic around 6000 vehicles per day. Brown Street adjacent to the apartment block has one lane of traffic each way with parking to the western side of the street and parking of indented nature to the eastern side. The parking on both sides is restricted to 1 hour period parking 8.30am-6.00pm Mon-Sun.

 

The curve alignment and hill rise of the road on the northern approach to the lane leads traffic near to the corner of the lane. Sight view is impaired by the indented parking of vehicles on the eastern side of the street. Vehicles needing to exit out of the lane are required to encroach onto Brown Street, particularly when attempting to turn right.

 

It is considered that the removal of one parking space to the north of the lane will improve visibility and prevent cars from excessively encroaching onto Brown Street whilst exiting the lane.

 

The ‘No Stopping’ restriction shall be extended to cover over the parking space and the area will be painted with hatched line marking. 

 

Parking is still adequately provided for on-street and off-street for the public and customers to businesses and shops in the area. The railway commuter carpark to the north of No 1 Brown Street is currently under construction for a multi-storey carpark, and will provide some further 95 parking spaces in the area.

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Liverpool Road businesses with rear access to the lane and shops along the Apartment Block of No.1 Brown Street were letter boxed dropped to seek their comments on the proposed removal of the one parking space to the north of the lane.

 

Only 1 response with a petition of 16 signatures (4 Liverpool Road businesses) was received in support of the proposal.

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is therefore recommended that the one (indented) parking space on the eastern corner side of Brown Street, north of the private lane outside No 1 Brown Street, Ashfield, be removed and that the ‘No Stopping’ restriction at the corner be increased in length from 4-10.5 metres.

 

The existing 1 hour period parking restriction in the space would be removed in lieu of providing the extended ‘No Stopping’ restriction, and that the space be painted with hatched line marking to reinforce and prevent the parking of vehicles in the space.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Locality plan showing location of the private lane off Brown Street and proposed parking space to be removed

2.

Diagram showing the proposed removal of the parking space and extension of the No Stopping restriction from the corner of the private lane off Brown Street

  


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 14

Subject:              Catherine Street, Leichhardt – Resident Parking Scheme
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     David Yu - Traffic Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council received correspondence from a number of residents of Catherine Street, raising concerns regarding increased parking demands generated by residents and commuters.

 

This report provides the results of a residential parking scheme investigation in Catherine Street, Leichhardt.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Catherine Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A number of residents of Catherine Street, Leichhardt requested the implementation of residential parking scheme in their street. Consequently, parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in Catherine Street, Leichhardt in accordance with Council’s Resident Parking Scheme Policy. The survey results indicated high parking occupancy levels (equal to or over 85%) in the street.

 

It should also be noted that currently in Catherine Street (between The Avenue and Redmond Street) there are ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sat, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ restrictions in front of selected properties to assist residents to park. There is also ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ restrictions in Emily Street (between Catherine Street and Hearn Street).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

A residential parking proposal was prepared for the installation of a resident parking scheme in Catherine, Leichhardt. The proposal was for the following:

·    Installation of 2P 8am-10pm, Mon-Sat, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1 on the eastern side of Catherine Street (between The Avenue and Emily Street) be extended to outside property No. 53 to No. 101.

 

As shown on the following map.

 

 

 

Consultation

A letter outlining the above parking proposal options was mailed out to the affected properties (24 properties) in Catherine Street, Leichhardt as indicated on the attached plan, requesting residents’ views regarding the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table below shows some of the comments raised by the residents who did not support the proposal and the officer’s comments.

 

Comments from residents objecting to the proposal

Residents’ Comments

Officer Comments

I object to the restrictions applying only to the eastern side of this part of Catherine St, it will cause terrible parking problems for the opposite western side where I live. Either implement on both sides or none at all, parking on our side of the street is difficult enough as is.

At this stage, it is proposed that the Resident Parking Scheme in Catherine Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents. However, it is noted for future reinvestigation.

 

I have not noticed any issues with street parking that would justify the need for the introduction of restricted parking. If a scheme is introduced, the 10PM end time extends far beyond the end of the workday and interferes with our ability to host guests at our property.

There are existing ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Sat, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ restrictions in Catherine Street (between The Avenue and Redmond Street) in front of selected properties to assist resident parking. It was proposed that the restrictions be in line with the existing restrictions along Catherine Street as business activities near Parramatta Road could have higher parking demands at night and on a Saturday.

It is also our view that all houses affected by any new parking restrictions outside their house be compensated with resident parking permits regardless of the number of off street parking spaces available. This is because off street parking spaces can occasionally be inaccessible.

Resident Parking permits are issued to eligible households based on the type of RPS proposed and off-street parking space available on-site. The maximum number of permits issued to a household can be one or two.

 

It should be noted that it is illegal for a vehicle to park across a driveway. Council rangers can be notified for enforcement should this occur.

CMR Motors uses a lot of parking around the area for all the cars that they service - All the time - The boys are moving cars out, parking them and then moving cars in to service them. So it is on all day long. This is one of the main reasons that this has come about.

At this stage, it is proposed that the Resident Parking Scheme in Catherine Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents. However, it is noted for future reinvestigation.

 

 

Consultation survey results are summarised as follows:

 

Catherine Street, Leichhardt

Number of properties                                  -           24                   

Number of properties responded                -          11

Number of properties supported                 -          11        

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           46%

Overall Support Rate                                -           46%

 

According to Council’s Resident Parking Policy, a minimum of 50% support based on all properties in the subject section of the street is required to consider the proposal favourably.

Based on the above results and the comments provided as part of the consultation process, less than 50% of the residents of Catherine Street, Leichhardt support a resident parking scheme in their street at the present time.

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above results, the RPS proposal in Catherine Street, Leichhardt not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 15

Subject:              Alfred Street, Rozelle – Resident Parking Scheme
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     David Yu - Traffic Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents of Alfred Street (between Denison Street and Gordon Street), raising concerns regarding increased parking demands generated by residents and commuters.

 

This report provides the result of a resident parking scheme investigation in Alfred Street, Rozelle.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT the proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Alfred Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A number of residents from Alfred Street, Rozelle requested the implementation of a resident parking scheme in their street. Consequently, parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in Alfred Street, Rozelle in accordance with Council’s Resident Parking Scheme Policy that indicated high parking occupancy levels (equal to or over 85%) in the street.

 

It should also be noted that currently in Gordon Street (between Quirk Street and Lilyfield Road) and Burt Street (between property No. 42 and Gordon Street), there are ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ restrictions to assist residents to park.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

A Resident Parking proposal was prepared to install the following resident parking scheme in Alfred Street, Rozelle.

·    Installation of ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ on both sides of Alfred Street, Rozelle (between Denison Street and Gordon Street).

 

As shown on the following map.

 

 

 

 

 

Consultation

A letter outlining the above parking proposal options was mailed out to the affected properties (83 properties) in Alfred Street, Rozelle as indicated on the attached plan, requesting residents’ views regarding the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table below shows some of the comments raised by the residents who did not support the proposal and the officer’s comments. 

Comments from residents objecting to the proposal

Residents’ Comments

Officer Comments

We disagree with the methodology for allocating resident parking spaces and see it as 'out of step' with the needs of families and community values for our carbon emissions and for greater use of public transport. Our household of 4 people with one vehicle will be penalised whilst neighbours with more cars and smaller households will benefit. Perversely, if this was to be instituted we would need to get a second car to get the street allocation. This proposal needs to be revised before we could support it. We would appreciate council providing a longer consultation period in the future too, given we were on holidays when this arrived.

The Council Resident Parking Policy and parking permit eligibility criteria has been developed with careful consideration of various factors. Council also applies the RMS Permit Parking Guidelines. This allows for the permits to be fairly distributed to the residents, while considering the limited supply of on-street car parking spaces available.

 

To provide a timely resolution of our investigation, a two week consultation period is used. Sometimes late responses are considered for our assessment. Consulting residents during the school holidays is avoided.

This initiative is welcomed, a 4P will still deter commuter parking but make it more practical for the street residents and visitors, service providers, tradesmen, etc The statutory 10m No Stopping restrictions at intersections is a great idea and should be applied also on Denison Street opposite house 56 Denison st and at the intersection with Cheltenham street opposite house 65 Denison st.

The request for the 10m ‘No Stopping’ at Denison Street and Cheltenham Street will be listed for a separate investigation.

The RPS needs to be extended to include Alfred Lane as well. A number of cars park in the lane and this will become very overcrowded if it is not included in the scheme. Can you please consider putting in a line marking / no parking signage near our garage on the Alfred Street side only (side of our property). This is to prevent cars parking too close to our garage door which makes it very difficult to get in and out.

At this stage, it is proposed that the Resident Parking Scheme in Alfred Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents. If a Resident Parking Scheme is reinvestigated in the future, we will include Alfred Lane as part of the investigation.

 

Linemarking near the garage will be listed for investigation.

We request three modifications:

- all townhouses in Alfred Street are limited as all have offstreet parking

 - the restriction is also imposed on Alfred Lane as this is also essential resident parking

 - the restriction is extended to 10pm

Multi-unit dwellings and the strata subdivision of residential flat buildings approved after January 2001 are not allowed to participate in a RPS as off-street parking should be provided in accordance with Council’s parking DCP.

 

At this stage, it is proposed that the Resident Parking Scheme in Alfred Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents. If a Resident Parking Scheme is reinvestigated in the future, we will consider investigation restrictions up to 10pm.

The parking is not that bad, I agree that commuter parking is an issue, but it is still difficult to park at night, so it is not just commuter parking that is the issue. Further to this taking 40m of parking away from the street is not an acceptable solution, this will completely negate the effect of removing commuter parking from the street as all of the other cars will now be pushed up the street. Maybe a review of the amount of disability parking in the streets should be undertaken, this is rarely used and is excessive for the location.

The on-street disabled parking spaces have been allocated and implemented based on a thorough investigation. This investigation deemed these disabled spaces were warranted and would not be removed as part of the implementation of a Residential Parking Scheme (RPS).

 

 

Consultation survey results are summarised as follows:

 

Alfred Street, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           83

Number of properties responded                -          30

Number of properties supported                 -          24        

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           36%

Overall Support Rate                                -           29%

 

According to Council’s Resident Parking Policy, a minimum of 50% support based on all properties in the subject section of the street is required to consider the proposal favourably.

Based on the above results and the comments provided as part of the consultation process, less than 50% of the residents of Alfred Street, Rozelle support a resident parking scheme in their street at the present time.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Start typing the “public participation” section here.  Please enter “Nil.” if public participation did not occur, or “Not applicable.” if public participation does not apply.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above results, the RPS proposal in Alfred Street, Rozelle not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 16

Subject:              Hartley Street, Brent Street, Mansfield Street, Mackenzie Street, Starling Street, and Moore Lane, Rozelle – Resident Parking Scheme 
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     David Yu - Traffic Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents of Hartley Street, Brent Street, Mansfield Street and Moore Lane, requesting the extension of Area R1 Residential Parking Scheme (RPS) restrictions into their streets to deter commuter/long stay parking.

 

This report provides the result of a resident parking scheme investigation in Hartley Street, Brent Street, Mansfield Street, Mackenzie Street, Starling Street and Moore Lane, Rozelle.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

1.   ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ parking restrictions be installed in the following streets:

·   East side of Starling Street, Rozelle between Brent Street and Mansfield Street; and

·   East side of Moore Lane, Rozelle.

 

2.   The proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Mackenzie Street, Brent Street, Hartley Street, and Mansfield Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A number of residents from Hartley Street, Brent Street, Mansfield Street, and Moore Lane, Rozelle requested the implementation of a resident parking scheme in their street. Consequently, parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in the above mentioned streets in accordance with Council’s Resident Parking Scheme Policy that indicated high parking occupancy levels (equal to or over 85%) in the street.

 

As any changes to parking in Hartley Street and Brent Street could impact the parking availability in the adjoining streets (Mackenzie Street and Starling Street); resident parking restrictions was proposed for all six streets.

 

Parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in all six streets in 2017 and they indicated high parking occupancy levels. The parking occupancy level was shown to be over 85%.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

A Resident Parking proposal was prepared for the installation of ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ restrictions into the following locations:

·    Both sides of Hartley Street between Victoria Road and Brent Street, and west side of Harley Street between Brent Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle

·    Both sides of Brent Street between Evans Street and Joseph Street, and north side of Brent Street between Joseph Street and Crescent Street, Rozelle

·    Both sides of Mansfield Street between Evans Street and Mullens Street, Rozelle*

·    Both sides of MacKenzie Street between Brent Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle

·    East side of Starling Street between Brent Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle

·    East side of Moore Lane, Rozelle (3 parking spaces)

 

* - This proposal excludes three parking spaces on each side of Mansfield Street (total of six parking spaces) closest to the intersection with Mullens Street (see attached plan).

 

As shown on the following map.

Consultation

A letter outlining the above parking proposal options was mailed out to the affected properties (153 properties) in Hartley Street, Brent Street, Mansfield Street, Mackenzie Street, Starling Street and Moore Lane, Rozelle as indicated on the attached plan, requesting residents’ views regarding the proposal. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table below shows some of the comments raised by the residents who did not support the proposal and the officer’s comments. 

 

 

 

 

Comments from residents objecting to the proposal

Residents’ Comments

Officer Comments

We do not think it is needed at this point. There are always spots to park in the evening. During the day you may need to walk a bit further, but not much.

Noted. RPS only supported in Starling Street and section of Moore Lane.

I don't want my visitors to be inconvenienced when they visit me by having to move their cars every two hours. By erecting these signs it will not help the fact that many local residents park their trailers, boats and large vans in the neighbouring streets which is what I believe to be the issue causing a shortage of parking. We will also have fewer parking spaces due to the implementation of the 10m 'No Stopping' zones.

One Visitor parking permit per eligible property will be issued. RPS only supported in Starling Street and section of Moore Lane

 

10m ‘No Stopping’ zones must be installed at all intersections (as per NSW Road Rules) with the installation of the proposed 2P restrictions. The ‘No Stopping’ zones provide improved safety for pedestrians and drivers.

There is no problem with parking in the street between 8 am and 6 pm on weekdays. It is too difficult to access off street parking as the road is too narrow with cars both sides. this scheme would cause significant disadvantage to us (Hartley Street resident).

RPS only supported in Starling Street and section of Moore Lane.

This is the 3rd or 4th time we have got a survey like this in the last 10 years and every time it gets voted down. Please check your records. Whilst I do not disagree that some residences are having issues with parking the majority are not and want the current situation left alone. Do this survey every 5 years as you really are starting to annoy all of us here because small group of residences are wasting your time and mine! Survey only every 5 years and provide results of previous surveys.

In accordance with Council’s Resident Parking Scheme Policy, a Resident Parking scheme (RPS) is listed for investigation when a minimum of three enquiries or a petition signed by three or more residents from different properties in the street within a year is received.

 

If a RPS is not supported, Council can reinvestigate the scheme in the subject street after one year when three requests for the scheme are received again.

We would only consider voting yes for this proposal if the 'No Stopping' zones in Hartley Street and the corners in the streets that intersect with Hartley Street namely Brent and Mansfield Streets were installed a maximum of 3m from each corner. Otherwise we would end up losing about 4 to 6 parking spaces in Hartley Street between Brent and Mansfield and up 12 spots on the adjacent corners. We can see no reason why this could not be accommodated in our area where parking spots are always at a premium.

10m ‘No Stopping’ zones must be installed at all intersections (as per NSW Road Rules) with the installation of the proposed 2P restrictions. The ‘No Stopping’ zones provide improved safety for pedestrians and drivers.

I think it is ridicules to even consider this without looking at the bigger area (surrounding areas) and full consultation of residents bordering these areas. I am also surprised of the stupidity of the process that resident can be 10 metres from this impacted area and still not be granted a resident parking sticker. Although we live in Collins Street we regular park in Mansfield street due to unavailability of parking spaces, with this new proposal we would no longer be entitled to park in Mansfield street, the lack of foresight in not realising this shows that your processes do not work and need to be reviewed.

Council considers the on-street car parking impact of a proposed Residential Parking Scheme (RPS) on the wider area as part of the RPS investigation.

 

It should also be noted that a separate RPS for Collins Street, Rozelle is currently under investigation.

 

Consultation survey results are summarised as follows:

 

Hartley Street, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           34

Number of properties responded                -          28

Number of properties supported                 -          10        

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           82%

Overall Support Rate                                -           29%

 

Brent Street, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           16

Number of properties responded                -          9

Number of properties supported                 -          5          

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           56%

Overall Support Rate                                -           31%

 

Mansfield Street, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           77       

Number of properties responded                -          36

Number of properties supported                 -          30        

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           47%

Overall Support Rate                                -           39%

 

Mackenzie Street, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           16       

Number of properties responded                -          8

Number of properties supported                 -          7          

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           50%

Overall Support Rate                                -           44%

 

Starling Street, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           6

Number of properties responded                -          5

Number of properties supported                 -          5          

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           83%

Overall Support Rate                                -           83%

 

Moore Lane, Rozelle

Number of properties                                  -           4

Number of properties responded                -          3

Number of properties supported                 -          3          

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           75%

Overall Support Rate                                -           75%

 

Overall Support

Number of properties                                  -           153

Number of properties responded                -          89

Number of properties supported                 -          60        

 

Overall Response Rate                             -           58%

Overall Support Rate                                -           39%

 

 

According to Council’s Resident Parking Policy, a minimum of 50% support based on all properties in the subject section of the street is required to consider the proposal favourably.

Based on the above results and the comments provided as part of the consultation process, more than 50% of the residents of Starling Street and Moore Lane, Rozelle support a resident parking scheme in their street.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Start typing the “public participation” section here.  Please enter “Nil.” if public participation did not occur, or “Not applicable.” if public participation does not apply.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above results, the RPS proposals in Starling Street and Moore Lane, Rozelle received more than 50% support from the residents. As such, it is recommended that the proposed ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area R1’ restrictions be supported for implementation.

 

The proposed Resident Parking Scheme in Mackenzie Street, Brent Street, Hartley Street, and Mansfield Street not be supported at the present time due to less than 50% support received from the consulted residents.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 17

Subject:              William Street, Annandale – Resident Parking Scheme
(Leichhardt/Balmain/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     David Yu - Traffic Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents of William Street, Annandale (between The Crescent and Rose Street), raising concerns regarding increased parking demands generated by residents, commuters, and the employees/patrons of Tramsheds Harold Park to the east.

 

This report provides the result of a resident parking scheme investigation in William Street, Annandale.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT '2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area A1’ parking restrictions be installed on both sides of William Street, Annandale (between The Crescent and Rose Street).

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

A number of residents from William Street, Annandale requested the implementation of a resident parking scheme in their street. Consequently, parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in William Street, Annandale in accordance with Council’s Resident Parking Scheme Policy that indicated high parking occupancy levels (equal to or over 85%) in the street.

 

William Street operates as a one-way street in the northbound direction from Rose Street to The Crescent, Annandale.

 

It should also be noted that currently in Nelson Street, between The Crescent and Rose Street, there are ‘2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area A1’ restrictions to assist residents to park.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

 

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

A Resident Parking proposal was prepared to install the following resident parking scheme in William Street, Annandale.

·    Installation of ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area A1’ on both sides of William Street, Annandale (between The Crescent and Rose Street).

 

As shown on the following map.

 

 

Consultation

A letter outlining the above parking proposal options was mailed out to the affected properties (12 properties) in William Street, Annandale as indicated on the attached plan, requesting residents’ views regarding the proposal. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table below shows some of the comments raised by the residents who did not support the proposal or supported the proposal with modifications and the officer’s comments. 

 

Comments from residents in regards to proposal

Residents’ Comments

Officer Comments

This needs to be done in conjunction with similar restrictions in Rose St, (east of Trafalgar St) otherwise it will greatly exacerbate an already critical daytime parking situation in Rose St

It should be noted that other streets in the vicinity of William Street, Annandale including Rose Street have been listed for future wider area Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) investigation.

It has been very testing and frustrating for the last three years since Harold Park Units and Tramsheds were built as traffic from workers has meant limitations for us especially with elderly grandparents and children having to walk long distances to and from the cars and the safety issues. Could we please request this 2P restrictions for Saturday and Sunday too please as there are still construction workers parking (on Saturdays) and also the tramshed employees who park there everyday of the week including weekends.

The proposal has been revised to install ‘2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area A1’, which allows for the 2P restrictions on a Saturday and Sunday.

While it is true that parking is often at a premium in William Street during the day, this is NOT commuter parking but primarily tradesmen employed on the Mirvac Harold Park site. I believe the last building is currently under construction. Importantly, on rostered days off there is generally ample parking available. The proposed introduction of 2P parking restrictions for non residents is, therefore, premature at this stage, given that the building work is in its last stages. Consequently, I object to any RPS restrictions at this time and suggest it be reconsidered when the building works are completed.

The parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in the subject street in 2017 and they indicated high parking occupancy levels over 85%. It is expected that some construction vehicles would have been captured in the survey.

 

However, it is expected that patrons from these newly constructed developments could potentially create additional on-street car parking demand once fully constructed. This is anticipated to offset the car parking demand associated with the current construction activities.

 

Consultation survey results are summarised as follows:

 

William Street, Annandale

Number of properties                                  -           12       

Number of properties responded                -          8

Number of properties supported                 -          8

 

Overall Response Rate                               -           67%

Overall Support Rate                                -           67%

 

According to Council’s Resident Parking Policy, a minimum of 50% support based on all properties in the subject section of the street is required to consider the proposal favourably.

Based on the above results and the comments provided as part of the consultation process, more than 50% of the residents of William Street, Annandale support a resident parking scheme in their street.

 

REVISED PROPOSAL

Based on the analysis and the feedback from consultation, the Resident Parking Restriction has been revised from a Mon-Fri restriction to 7 days.

 

Therefore, it is proposed to install '2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area A1’ parking restrictions on both sides of William Street, Annandale (between The Crescent and Rose Street), as shown in the following plan.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above results, the RPS proposal in William Street, Annandale received more than 50% support from the residents. As such, it is recommended that the revised proposed '2P 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area A1’ restrictions be supported for implementation.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 18

Subject:              Balmain Road, Leichhardt – ‘No Parking – Buses And Coaches Excepted Zone (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     David Yu - Traffic Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received a request from the Italian Forum Centre Manager for a coach layover area on the western side of Balmain Road, adjacent to the Italian Forum (between Dot Lane and the Italian Forum car park access).

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT:

 

1.   48m ‘No Parking – Buses and Coaches Excepted 8am-10pm Mon-Sun; No Stopping At Other Times" restriction be installed on the western side of Balmain Road, adjacent to the Italian Forum (between Dot Lane and the Italian Forum car park access);

2.   10m ‘No Stopping’ signage be installed from Dot Lane and the car park exit driveway;

3.   A linemarked "Bus and Coach" parking bay be installed within the above proposed parking restriction; and

4.   Advisory signage for drivers to switch off their bus/coach engine and to reduce noise be installed in this area.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received a request from the Italian Forum Centre Manager for a coach layover area on the western side of Balmain Road, adjacent to the Italian Forum (between Dot Lane and the Italian Forum car park access).

 

PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed that a 48m ‘No Parking – Buses and Coaches Excepted’ restriction be installed on the western side of Balmain Road, adjacent to the Italian Forum (between Dot Lane and the Italian Forum car park access).

 

A traffic related matter was raised reporting potential sight visibility issues along Balmain Road when a vehicle exits the car park with buses and coaches parked at this location. A site investigation identified that with the implemenation of ‘No Stopping’ zone 10 metres from the car park access and Dot Lane and with the installation of coach/ bus layover line marking, it is expected that there would be sufficient sight lines for vehicles exiting the car park.

 

Other issues raised by residents was noise and air pollution from the coaches parked at this location. It is proposed that appropriate signage informing drivers of coaches/ buses to turn off the engine while parked at this area and keep noise down signage be installed to mitigate the concerns raised in regards to the noise and air pollution.

 

The proposed ‘No Parking – Buses and Coaches Excepted’ zone would replace the existing ‘No Stopping’ zone on this section of Balmain Road. Therefore, the proposal is not expected to result in any loss of on-street car parking spaces.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the above proposal was mailed out to the affected properties (399 properties) in Balmain Road, Leichhardt.

Responses were received from seven properties, residents of the Italian forum with five not in support of the proposal, and two in support of the proposal subject to minor modifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table below shows some of the comments raised by the residents who did not support or supported the proposal with modifications and the officer’s comments.

Comments from residents objecting to the proposal

 

Residents’ Response:

Officer’s Comment:

As the road is so wide there, could there be provision for council to create just a couple of garden beds out from the gutter a metre or so into the road surface, so a street tree or two could be planted?

Maybe the bus parking could then be between the garden beds/street trees, as the section of Balmain road in question is so lengthy.

May I also suggest that there is signage attached to any bus parking which stipulates “Please turn off engine while parked”. The proximity of bus exhaust pipes to residential windows and doors for the units along Balmain road is a bit of a concern.

This would encroach into the existing bicycle lane and is not supported.

 

It is proposed that appropriate signage informing drivers of coaches/ buses to turn off the engine while parked at this area.

I believe this is an absolute abomination to even consider turning our street into a bus and coach zone. Our unit opens up onto our balcony busses have now for over two months been parking already illegally in the no standing zone parking across driveways, and business owners carparks.

Blocking all vision for any person leaving the carpark on Balmain road. The exhaust fumes from coaches and buses blow diesel fumes directly into our units. Noise pollution is also an issue for any residents on Balmain Road.

It is proposed that appropriate signage informing drivers of coaches/ buses to turn off the engine while parked at this area and keep noise down signage be installed to potentially mitigate the concerns raised in regards to the noise and air pollution.

 

It is proposed to retain ‘No Stopping’ signs 10m from the corner of Dot Lane and car park exit driveway and coach/ bus layover area line marking be installed for delineation and to keep buses parked kerbside, which is expected to improve vehicle sight visibility.

At peak times buses and coaches have parked on both sides of the road in the proposed area at the same time. They often let their engines run with fumes and noise issues for local residents.

This causes significant traffic flow and safety issues in Balmain Road.

Balmain Road is a major route for through traffic with regular traffic issues including seeming to be a “race track” for cars and motor bikes.

The section of the road between Parramatta and Marion Road already has several issues.

·    Difficulty turning left from Parramatta Road due to cars or delivery vans parking close to the corner. This is hard for cars and a major issue for larger vehicles.

·    The road is already narrow.

·    The current building work being done in Dot Lane.

·    The access to the Italian Forum car park… this is an entry as well as the only exit from the Forum Parking

·    The access and exit to the customer parking of the Italian Plaza

·    The access to the Italian Plaza loading dock

·    The narrowing of the road just past the Italian Forum.

·    The Bike lane on the left hand side of Balmain Road, which appears to be bi-directional.

The proposal will dramatically add to the existing restriction of the flow through the section of Balmain Road, cause bike riders out on to the main area of the road and be a dramatic and dangerous handicap to the sight lines for vehicles leaving the Italian Forum carpark.

I strongly request that this proposal is not passed and that a recent habit of the buses park in the Italian Forum loading dock be encouraged or enforced.

Raised concerns in regards to other issues unrelated to the proposed coach layover have been listed for separate investigation. If issues require additional investigation, a separate item will be prepared as part of a future Local Traffic Committee Agenda.

 

The loading area has been considered. However, it was identified that there could be potential coach/bus manoeuvrability issues, pedestrian safety issues and also have a potential impact on the operations of the existing loading arrangement for the premises.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the proposed signage and linemarking will be funded from Council's Operational Budget.

 

CONCLUSION

In order to formalise the coach layover arrangements and mitigate the issues raised by residents, it is recommended that a 48m ‘No Parking – Buses and Coaches Excepted 8am-10pm Mon-Sun’ and ‘No Stopping at other times’ restrictions be installed on the western side of Balmain Road, adjacent to the Italian Forum (between Dot Lane and the Italian Forum car park access).

 

In addition, it is proposed that coach/ bus layover area line marking, appropriate signage informing drivers of coaches/ buses to turn off the engine while parked in this area and to reduce noise down signage be installed.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 19

Subject:              WEST STREET, PETERSHAM – RELOCATION OF EXISTING ‘BUS ZONE’ & ‘NO STOPPING’ RESTRICTIONS (STANMORE WARD/NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Emilio Andari - Civil Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

A detailed signage plan has been finalised for the proposed relocation of the ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on West Street, Petersham as part of the adjacent proposed development site at 1-15 West Street, Petersham. The proposal to relocate the existing ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions will improve traffic conditions at this location as a result of the future development. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.    The detailed signage plan of the ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ relocation on the eastern side of West Street, Petersham near its intersection with Brighton Street (as per the attached signage plan (No. LC1541201 C1 Rev. D) be APPROVED; and

 

2.    The costs of the supply and installation of the associated parking signage are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

P & N Sleiman Pty Ltd have undertaken construction works at 1-15 West Street, Petersham to build a residential flat building with a basement level carpark with a new driveway access point constructed on the eastern side of West Street. The existing driveway located adjacent to this development site will be made redundant and reinstated into new footpath with a new kerb and gutter.

 

As part of the DA Consent (DA 201400678 – Condition No. 73), P & N Sleiman Pty Ltd have approached Council to seek approval for the proposed ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ relocation on West Street, Petersham adjacent to their development site. These works include the relocation of the existing ‘Bus Zone’ and existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

 

The detailed signage plan has been finalised for the proposed relocation of the ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions and is presented in this report for consideration.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the associated parking signage are to be borne by the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Site location & road network

 

Street Name

West Street

Section

Between Station Street and Brighton Street

Carriageway Width (m)

12.8

Carriageway Type

Two-way road with one travel lane in each direction, in addition to kerbside parking lanes.

Classification

Regional

85th Percentile Speed (km/h)

52.9

Vehicles Per Day (vpd)

13,159

Reported Crash History

(July 2011 – June 2016)

No crashes recorded.

Heavy Vehicle Volume (%)

5.6

Parking Arrangements

Unrestricted parking on both sides of the road.

 

Signage Plan (No. LC1541201 C1 Rev. D)

 

The proposed scope of work includes the following:

 

·    Shift the existing ‘Bus Zone’ signage adjacent to 1-15 West Street, Petersham, towards the south, approximately 12.8 metres from its existing location as per signage plan.

·    Shift the existing ‘No Stopping’ sign adjacent to 1-15 West Street, Petersham, towards the north, approximately 6.6 metres from its existing location as per signage plan.

 

The proposed treatment will not result in the loss of legal on-street parking spaces in West Street (refer to the attached signage plan No. LC1541201 C1 Rev. D). All current vehicular access to adjoining properties will be retained.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation between Council Officers, P & N Sleiman Pty Ltd, Adshel (Bus Shelter provider) and the State Transit Authority (STA) was undertaken prior to finalising the signage plan proposal. The STA and Adshel have been notified of the final signage plan proposal. It should be noted that the proposed changes to the ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions adjacent to the development site has no direct impact on any adjoining residential or commercial properties. The development site is bounded by Petersham Park to the north and Brighton Street to the south.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the detailed signage plan of the proposed relocation of the ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on West Street, Petersham be approved, in order to improve traffic conditions at this location as a result of the future development. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 20

Subject:              ‘No Parking’ Restrictions – Bradford Street, Balmain (Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Concerns have been raised regarding vehicles obstructing pedestrian access to the stairs on the southern side of Bradford Street, directly in front of No.18 Bradford Street, Balmain.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

THAT a 1.5m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the southern side of Bradford Street across the pedestrian stairs in front of No.18 Bradford Street, Balmain.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Concerns have been raised regarding vehicles obstructing pedestrian access to the stairs on the southern side of Bradford Street, directly in front of No.18 Bradford Street, Balmain.

 

Properties Nos.18-30 Bradford Street (southern side) are accessed by a footpath which is at a significant level difference below the carriageway. Therefore, pedestrian stairs have been provided outside No.30 and No.18 Bradford Street to provide access between the street and footpath.

 

The stairs outside No.30 Bradford Street leads directly to the southern footpath and the stairs outside No.18 Bradford Street lead directly to the street.

 

Residents have advised that vehicles frequently park across the stairs outside No.18 Bradford Street and obstruct pedestrian access.

 

Linemarking has been provided in the past but residents are requesting signage to ensure motorists are aware of the stairs.

 

 

PROPOSAL

In order to allievate this issue, it is proposed to install a 1.5m ‘No Parking’ zone on the southern side of Bradford Street, across the pedestrian stairs in front of No.18 Bradford Street, Balmain.

 

This proposal is shown on the plan below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the above proposal was mailed out to the affected properties (13 properties) in Bradford Street, Balmain.

Three responses were received supporting the proposal.

 

 

Resident Comment

Officer Response

A longer-term solution is to relocate the stairs so they lead to the sidewalk that is between Nos.16 and 18 Bradford Street. Pedestrians would not have to walk onto the road and could continue along the footpath.

This would increase parking and improve safety.

This request will be forwarded to the assets team for consideration.

 

 

 

Obstructed access not only makes it difficult for residents but is a nuisance for the garbage collection and would make it almost impossible for emergency services or ambulances to reach residents.

A 'No Parking' restriction across the top of the stairs in Bradford Street is proposed.

A few years ago Council was proposing to make the ‘No parking’ currently in front of number 24 a ‘bike parking’ area. This would allow for bikes to park without obstructing the garage opposite and would remove the issue of bikes taking up valuable car space.

 

The last report on the ‘No Parking’ area opposite No.29 Bradford Street was considered in the October 2014 Ordinary Council Meeting; it was recommended that the ‘No Parking’ area opposite No.29 Bradford Street be reduced from 8.0m to 6.3m, following the relocation of the guardrail.

 

Motorbike parking was not considered as it could interfere with the swept path of a vehicle exiting the off-street parking space of No.29 Bradford Street.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that 1.5m of ‘No Parking’ signage be installed on the southern side of Bradford Street, across the pedestrian stairs in front of No.18 Bradford Street, Balmain

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 21

Subject:              Minor Traffic Facilities (Leichhardt & Balmain Wards/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt LAC) 

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.31 Edith Street, Leichhardt (extending across No.29 Edith Street by 2m);

2.   A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No.60 Darling Street, Balmain East (including the property's driveway) for 12 weeks;

3.   A 14m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in Thornley at the rear of No.38-40, Leichhardt for 5 weeks, temporarily replacing the existing resident parking restrictions (extending south from the northern boundary of the property);

4.   A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in North Street in front of No.23 North Street, Balmain (extending over No.21 North Street) for 12 weeks, temporarily replacing the existing metered parking restrictions, subject to concurrence being received from No.21 North Street; and

5.   A 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.22 Foucart Street, Rozelle.

 

 

 

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 ‘Disabled Parking’ Restriction – Edith Street, Leichhardt

Council Ref: DWS 4389058

 

The resident of No.31 Edith Street, Leichhardt 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; however, a ‘Disabled Parking’ zone would overhang No.29 Edith Street by 2m and so this property has been consulted in regards to this application. No response was received.

 

The applicant does not require the use of a wheelchair.

 

It is recommended that a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.31 Edith Street, Leichhardt (extending across No.29 Edith Street by 2m).

 

2  Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – Darling Street, Balmain East

Council Ref: DWS 4512478

 

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' in front of No.60 Darling Street, Balmain East (including the property’s driveway) for 12 weeks.

 

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No.60 Darling Street, Balmain East (including the property's driveway) for 12 weeks.

 

3  Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – Thornley Street, Leichhardt

Council Ref: DWS 4519529

 

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 14m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' in Thornley Street at the rear of No.38-40, Leichhardt for 5 weeks (extending south from the northern boundary of the property).

 

It is recommended that a 14m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in Thornley at the rear of No.38-40, Leichhardt for 5 weeks, temporarily replacing the existing resident parking restrictions (extending south from the northern boundary of the property).

 

4  Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – North Street, Balmain

Council Ref: DWS 4519395

 

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' in front of No.23 North Street, Balmain.

 

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am - 5.00pm Mon-Fri, 7.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No.23 North Street, Balmain (extending south from powerpole LE16714) for 12 weeks, temporarily replacing the existing metered parking restrictions, this restriction will extend over the driveway of No.21 North Street.

 

 

5  Installation of ‘Disabled Parking’ Restriction – Foucart Street, Rozelle

Council Ref: DWS 4412190

 

The resident of No.22 Foucart Street, Rozelle has requested the installation of a ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of the resident’s property.

 

A site investigation has revealed that the property has off street parking; however, the effective driveway width is 2.0m and is below standard. The applicant does not require the use of a wheelchair.

 

It is recommended that a 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No.22 Foucart Street, Rozelle.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 22

Subject:              ‘No Parking’ And ‘No Stopping’ Restrictions – Unnamed Laneway Between Flood Street And National Street, Leichhardt (Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Parking Engineer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns from residents of Albert Street, Leichhardt requesting signage to prevent vehicles from blocking access to their off-street parking facilities.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

A 27m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the northern side of the unnamed laneway between Flood Street and National Street, Leichhardt with statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones on the northern side of the laneway at its intersections with National Street and the Unnamed Lane aligned north-south between Flood Street and National Street.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Council has received correspondence from a number of residents requesting the installation of ‘No Parking’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions in the unnamed laneway system between Flood Street and National Street, Leichhardt.

 

This issue was exacerbated due to the high parking demand in the area caused by large scale development works at the nearby construction sites in George Street, Leichhardt.

 

An investigation was carried out to remove all parking in the laneway system between Flood Street and National Street, Leichhardt; however, upon consultation, residents expressed concerns regarding the loss of parking but continued to support removal of parking at selected locations in the laneways.

 

Based on the feedback, a modified proposal was presented to the August Traffic Committee to implement ‘No Parking’ and ‘No Stopping’ in the unnamed laneway adjacent to Wangal Nura Park.

 

Subsequently, Council has received additional concerns from residents of Albert Street, Leichhardt regarding vehicles parking on the northern side of the unnamed laneway between Flood Street and National Street (rear of Nos.37-47 Albert Street), Leichhardt and subsequently obstructing rear driveway access.

 

The previous modified proposal did not capture this section of the laneway section in the recommendation.

 

PROPOSAL

The subject laneway is only wide enough to support parking on one side of the lane and therefore it is proposed to signpost the northern side of the laneway as a ‘No Parking’ zone, including installation of the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones on the northern side of the laneway at its intersections with National Street and the Unnamed Lane aligned north-south between Flood Street and National Street, Leichhardt.

 

On-street parking will be retained on the southern side of the laneway.

 

This proposal is shown on the following plan.

 

 

CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the above proposal was mailed out to the affected properties (8 properties) in Albert Street and National Street, Leichhardt.

Two responses were received supporting the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Include comments from other staff here.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Start typing the “public participation” section here.  Please enter “Nil.” if public participation did not occur, or “Not applicable.” if public participation does not apply.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that ‘No Parking’ signage be installed on the northern side of the unnamed laneway between Flood Street and National Street, Leichhardt with statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones on the northern side of the laneway at its intersections with National Street and the Unnamed Lane aligned north-south between Flood Street and National Street.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 23

Subject:              THOMPSON STREET, MARRICKVILLE - PROPOSED STATUTORY ‘NO STOPPING’ RESTRICTION SIGNAGE AT THOMPSON STREET AND FARR STREET ROAD INTERSECTION (MARRICKVILLE WARD / SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE / MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Jennifer Adams - Traffic and Road Safety Officer  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

It has been brought to Council’s attention that on occasions trucks have difficulty traversing the intersection at the junction of Thompson Street at Farr Street, Marrickville adjacent to Marrickville Public School.  It is recommended that statutory 10 metre “No Stopping’ restriction signage be installed on both sides of Thompson Street at Farr Street and on the west side of Farr Street south of Thompson Street, Marrickville to improve accessibility for all vehicles at this intersection.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   Statutory 10 metre  ‘No Stopping’ restriction signage be installed on both the north and south side of Thompson Street at Farr Street and on the west side of Farr Street for 10 metres south from Thompson Street, Marrickville to improve access for turning vehicles and increase safety; and

 

2.   Council Rangers be advised of Council’s decision and requested to include this location in their patrols, once the ‘No Stopping’ signage has been installed.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

Several incidents have been reported to Council of trucks having difficulty traversing the intersection at the junction of Thompson Street at Farr Street, Marrickville adjacent to Marrickville Public School. Site observations confirm that it would be beneficial manoeurving of for larger trucks at this intersection if vehicles were not illegally parked within the statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ zones. The proposal will also help improve both vehicle and pedestrian safety at this intersection by improving sight lines.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the supply and installation of the signage for the proposed ‘No Stopping’ zones is approximately $800 and can be met from Council’s operating budget

 

OFFICERS COMMENTS

Thompson Street is a local two way street running west east between Illawarra Road and Farr Street, Marrickville. Kerbside parking is allowed on both sides of the street and on the northern side mid-way there is a section of school drop-off zone time restricted parking adjacent to Marrickville Public School. The general area is residential to the west and industrial to the east. The street carries around 450 vehicles per day with around 9% being trucks. Speed is not an issue with the 85th percentile speed being around 35.7km/h.

 

Farr Street is a local, mostly industrial, street running between the cul-de-sac at Marrickville Public School in the north and Sydenham Road to the south. It carries around 610 vehicles a day with around 8.5% trucks and an 85th percentile speed of 39.6km/h. Kerbside parking is allowed on both sides of the street in between driveways.

 

Site observations backed up by aerial maps show that heavy vehicles park on Farr Street facing northward and unload on-street then depart Farr Street via Thompson Street onto Illawarra Road. Some businesses have off street loading docks where the larger trucks have the opportunity to turn around and exit southward in Farr Street onto Sydenham Road.

 

The site inspections also revealed that vehicles were illegally parked on Thompson Street within 10 metres of the Farr Street intersection and also on Farr Street within 10 metres south of its junction with Thompson Street, Marrickville. These parked vehicles hinder large vehicles turning movements into Thompson Street from Farr Street. (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs).

 

Technical issues

 

In accordance with the Australian Road Rules, a ‘No Stopping’ zone is mandatory for a distance of 10 metres from an intersecting road.  Pursuant to the RMS’ Technical Directions, it is stated that signposting at an unsignalised intersection (without pedestrian crossing) “should only be required where there is a compliance problem or there is adjoining signposting”.  In this case it is shown to be a compliance problem which is causing difficulties for some larger vehicles to maneouvre easily and safely in the locality.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation was undertaken with the immediate affected properties. Notification letters were hand delivered to 9 properties including Marrickville Public School on 13 September 2017. The closing date for submissions was 27 September 2017. No responses were forthcoming.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the statutory 'No Stopping' restrictions be installed on both the north and south side of Thompson Street at Farr Street for 10 metres  and on the west side of Farr Street for 10 metres south from Thompson Street, Marrickville to improve access for turning vehicles and increase safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locality map – Thompson Street at Farr Street, Marrickville

 

Sydenham Road

 

 

Marrickville Public SchoolFarr StreetThompson StreetProposed statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction signage on both sides of Thompson Street at Farr Street and on the west side of Farr Street south of Thompson Street, Marrickville 

 

 

 

Thompson Street – looking east – towards intersection with Farr Street, Marrickville

  

 

Farr Street – looking north – towards intersection with Thompson Street, Marrickville

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 24

Subject:              REQUEST FOR ‘WORKS ZONE’ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION SITES (STANMORE WARD / NEWTOWN ELECTORATE/ NEWTOWN & MARRICKVILLE LACS) 

File Ref:              /         

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

A number 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 meters in length) on the southern side of Gladstone Street adjacent to property 39 Phillip  Street, Newtown be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction works; and

2(a). The installation of a ‘Works Zone 10am-3.00pm Mon- Sat’ (total of 14 meters in  length) on the east side of Audley Street, adjacent to 31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham (commencing 20m north of the traffic signal post) be APPROVED for a period of twelve (12) months, for the proposed construction works; and

 

2(b).   ‘No Stopping All Other Times’ restrictions to apply at all other times.

 

3.   The costs of the 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 applicants.

 

 

BACKGROUND

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

Subject Location

Classification of Road

Road Description

Gladstone Street, Newtown

Local road

Two-way street, 10.3m in width that runs west- east between Liberty Street and Wilford Street.

Phillip Street, Newtown

Local road

Two-way street, 10.1m in width that runs north- south between Gladstone Street and Thurnby Street.

Audley Street

 

Local Road

Two-way street, 10.5m in width that runs North – South between New Canterbury Road and Chester Street, Petersham.

 

39 Philip Street, Newtown

 

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

At present, there is unrestricted parking on the northern side of Gladstone Street and ‘1P 6pm-10pm’ restrictions on the southern side of the Street. The parking spaces in the subject section of Gladstone Street 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.

 

31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham

 

The subject development site is located on the south side of 31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham. The proposed ‘Works Zone’ will be 14 metres in length and located on the east side of Audley Street, adjacent to 31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham. It will be required for a period of approximately twelve (12) months, to be utilised by construction vehicles during deliveries and loading and unloading activities (refer to the attached locality map and photographs).

 

At present, there are ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on both sides of Audley Street. Due to development site constrains, RMS has approved ‘Works Zone’ to be erected 20m from the traffic light at the intersection of New Canterbury Road and Audley Street, Petersham. The installation of a ‘Works Zone 10am-3.00pm Mon-Sat’ and ‘No Stopping All Other Times’ (total of 14metres in length) on the east side of Audley Street, adjacent to 31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham would provide a safe facility for loading and unloading activities at the subject site during the construction period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locality Map – Gladstone Street, Newtown (adjacent to 39 Phillip Street, Newtown)

 

Proposed 10m Works Zone
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Photographs – Gladstone Street, Newtown (adjacent to 39 Phillip Street, Newtown)

 

10 metres

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

 

On-street parking in Gladstone Street outside of the construction site

 

 

 

Locality Map – 31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham

 

Proposed 14m Works Zone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Photographs – Audley Street, Petersham (adjacent to 31-33 New Canterbury Road, Petersham)

 

14 metres

 

The proposed location of the ‘Works Zone’ in Audley Street

 

 

On-street parking in Audley Street outside of the 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

To better facilitate construction deliveries and allow the parking of construction vehicles during loading and unloading activities the installation of the 'Works Zone’ locations listed in this report is recommended for approval. 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 25

Subject:              REQUESTS FOR MOBILITY PARKING SPACES
(MARRICKVILLE & STANMORE WARDS/NEWTOWN & HEFFRON ELECTORATES / MARRICKVILLE & NEWTOWN LACS)


File Ref:              /          

Prepared By:     Idris Hessam - Graduate Civil Engineer Traffic Services  

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

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 warrant the provision of the space and they have constrained or no off-street parking opportunities.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.       Southern side of Beach Road, Dulwich Hill in front of property no. 46 Beach Road, Dulwich Hill; and

2.       Eastern side of Bright Street, Marrickville in front of property no. 2 Bright Street, Marrickville; and

3.       Southern side of Salisbury Road, Stanmore in front of property no. 99 Salisbury Road, Stanmore.

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 $1500.

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

Beach Road, Dulwich Hill

Local Road

Two-way mixed-use street, 12.8m in width that runs north-south from Durham Street to MacArthur Parade.

Bright Street, Marrickville

Local Road

Two-way mixed-use street, 12.9m in width that runs north-south from Newington Road to Addison Road.

Salisbury Road, Stanmore

Local Road

Two- way Street, 12.9m in width that runs east-west from Myrtle Lane to Durham Street.

 

46 Beach Road, Dulwich Hill   

The applicant’s property is located on the southern side of Beach Road, Dulwich Hill and it has no off-street parking facility.

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

The applicant advised the council officer that due his multiple medical conditions he is unfit to walk more than 100 meters and this is supported by his medical certificate. As a result he requires parking availability close to his property. The applicant does drive a vehicle and currently there is no existing mobility parking space within close proximity to the applicant’s property.

 

2 Bright Street, Marrickville

The applicant’s property is located on the eastern side of Bright Street, Marrickville and the property has no off-street parking facility.  At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of Bright Street. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces in Bright Street were moderately utilised. However the applicant advised the Council officer that the parking availability will be reversed when residents return back to their homes at evening.

There are no existing mobility parking spaces in close proximity to the applicant’s property. He does drive a vehicle however, due to his current condition he requires parking availability close to his property.

 

99 Salisbury Road, Stanmore

The applicant’s property is located on the southern side of Salisbury Road, Stanmore and the property has no off-street parking facility.

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

There are no existing mobility parking spaces in close proximity to the applicant’s property. The applicant does drive a vehicle however, due to his current condition he requires parking availability close to his 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 Marrickville LGA, 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.

 

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

 

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.

 

Locality Map – 46 Beach Road, Dulwich Hill

N

The applicant’s property
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Photographs – 46 Beach Road, Dulwich Hill

The frontage of the applicant's property in Beach Road, Dulwich Hill

 

On-street parking Beach Road, Dulwich Hill

 

 

 

Locality Map – 2 Bright Street, Marrickville

N

 

 

The applicant’s property

 

 

 

 

 

Photographs – 2 Bright Street, Marrickville

 

The frontage of the applicant's property in Bright Street, Marrickville

 

On-street parking in Bright Street, Marrickville

 

 

Locality Map – 264 Addison Road, Petersham

N

 

 

 

The applicant’s property
 

 

 

 

 

 


Photographs – 264 Addison Road, Petersham

 

The frontage of the applicant's property in Addison Road, Petersham

On-street parking in Addison Road, Petersham

 

 

 

Locality Map – 99 Salisbury Road, Stanmore

 

N

 

 

 

The applicant’s property
 

 

 

 

 


Photographs – 99 Salisbury Road, Stanmore

The frontage of the applicant's property in Salisbury Road, Stanmore

On-street parking in Salisbury Road, Stanmore

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 26

Subject:              4 - 12 MCGILL STREET, LEWISHAM - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (CENTRAL WARD / SUMMER HILL ELECTORATE / MARRICKVILLE LAC)

File Ref:              /         

Prepared By:     Jennifer Adams - Traffic and Road Safety Officer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

An application has been received to demolish the existing buildings and construct a mixed use development consisting of an 8 storey building (Building A) fronting McGill Street and an 8 storey building (Building B) fronting the light rail line containing a total of 92 dwellings and 1 commercial tenancy within Building A with 2 basement car parking levels and associated landscape works.

 

Comments of the Local Traffic Committee will be referred to Council’s Development Assessment Section for consideration in determining the Development Application.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

BACKGROUND

An application has been received to demolish the existing buildings and construct a mixed use development consisting of an 8 storey building (Building A) fronting McGill Street and an 8 storey building (Building B) fronting the light rail line containing a total of 92 dwellings and 1 commercial tenancy within Building A with 2 basement car parking levels and associated landscape works.

 

The application is required to be referred to the Pedestrian, Cyclist & Traffic Calming Advisory Committee for consideration under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

A previous development application (DA2015/00682) was approved by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel on the 28th July 2016. The scheme then included 80 residential units across two buildings with similar opportunities and constraints as imposed on this proposal.

According to the applicant’s Statement of Environmental effects (SEE) report following the previous development approval the land owner gave thought to the approved design concept and decided that they would like to revisit the design regarding the potential for additional floor space to be realised specifically with regard to acceptable levels of overshadowing to adjoining sites. It is noted that in its current form the proposed development exceeds floor space ratios.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

DISCUSSION

Site location & road network

 

The site is located in Lewisham, an established residential suburb of Sydney’s inner-west. The site is located within a precinct which is presently transitioning from light industrial uses to higher density residential and mixed–use developments.

 

The site is located approximately 50m from the Lewisham West light rail stop and approximately 350m from Lewisham railway station. The site’s locational context is shown in the map below.

 

 

The site lies within the precinct bordered by Old Canterbury Road, Longport Street and the recently completed Dulwich Hill Light Rail Line and is subject to specific development controls as part of the McGill Street precinct masterplan. Access and egress from the proposed development would be via McGill Street. The area generally has limited on-street parking.

 

     New Canterbury Road                       McGill Street                               Toothill Street

 

The site, known as 4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham comprises four separate allotments that together form the larger single landholding. The site has a combined area of 2,659.9m2. The site is irregular in shape and has a frontage length of approximately 52m to McGill Street and depth of between 39m and 59m to the light rail line corridor running along the rear of the site.

Surrounding land uses comprise a mixture of older style semi-detached type dwellings, some remnant industrial uses and new mixed use developments comprising multi-storey buildings (under construction) that are located to the north end of McGill Street, at Hudson Street and to the southern end of McGill Street at its intersection with Old Canterbury Road.

 

The proposed mixed use development is located on the western side of McGill Street, Lewisham and is approximately 60 metres north from its intersection with Old Canterbury Road. Nearmap views of the intersections of McGill Street and Hudson Street (respectively) with Old Canterbury Road are shown below. 

 

Intersection of McGill Street and Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham

Intersection of Hudson Street and Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham

 

McGill Street and Hudson Street are local roads which provide access to the surrounding development in the immediate vicinity of the site. The urban default speed limit of 50km/h applies to both streets.

 

 McGill Street is a two-way local road with a roadway width of 5.5 metres and Hudson Street is a one-way local road with a roadway width of 5.0 metres. At present, McGill Street consists of unrestricted parking along the western side of the road and ‘2P 8.30-6pm Mon-Sat, Permit Holders Excepted Area M10’ along the eastern side of the road. Hudson Street consists of unrestricted parking along the northern side of the road and sections of ‘No Parking’ restrictions are located along the southern side of the road.

 

It should be noted that McGill Street can either be accessed through Old Canterbury Road or Hudson Street. Hudson Street is to be widen and made two-way under the Meriton development as its currently one-way westbound traffic flow.

 

Old Canterbury Road is a State Road with two lanes each way and carries some 23,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the site. It serves as a north-south link between Parramatta Road and Canterbury to the south. It is 12.8 metres wide and the posted speed limit is 50km/h.

 

Old Canterbury Road in the locality presently experiences extensive queue lengths and extended delays during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The left and right turns from McGill Street (and Hudson Street) have poor Level of Service and there is limited spare capacity at the intersection(s) during the peak periods.

 

It is noted that, as a consent condition imposed on the Meriton development, there is a pending investigation of the provision of both a Right Turn Bay from Old Canterbury Road into McGill Street and a Seagull Treatment (ie. right turn into McGill Street and right turn out of McGill Street) at the intersection of McGill Street and Old Canterbury Road. Refer to diagram below. Left in / left out restrictions along with ‘Give Way’ controls are pending also for Hudson Street at its intersection with Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham.

 

Proposed development

 

According to the applicant’s Statement of Environmental effects (SEE) report the Development Application (DA201700310) seeks approval for a Mixed Use Development at 4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham including:

 

 Demolition of all existing structures, tree removal and site preparation;

 Construction of a mixed-use development comprising:

– An 8 storey building (Building A) fronting McGill Street;

– An 8 storey building (Building B) fronting the light rail line;

– 92 residential apartments in a variety of configurations;

Number of apartments (19 adaptable):

-     1 Studio

-     27 one (1) bedroom

-     53 two (2) bedrooms

-     11 three (3) bedrooms

– One commercial tenancy within Building A, with use as an art education and café space;

-     GFA Residential – 7478m²

-     GFA Art Education & Café – 189m²

– Two level basement containing 101 car parking spaces, loading area, ancillary storage and building plant; and

-     Residential car parking spaces – 86 (including 19 adaptable)

-     Visitor car parking spaces – 12 (including 5 accessible)

-     Non-residential car parking spaces – 3 (including 1 accessible)

 – Separate ground level and rooftop communal open space areas.

 Landscaping upgrades and embellishments, including the provision of a publicly accessible through-site link and a public shared zone along the rear boundary of the site, plantings throughout the site and various public art installations.

 

The proposed commercial tenancy is located at ground level of Building A directly adjoining the through site link. It has been moved from the previously approved DA, to directly adjoin McGill Street and provide ‘suitable street activation’. It is proposed that this space will be used by the Australian Fujian Association as an art space. The space will also be used as an education / learning facility for a maximum of 50 students, a performance space and as a café.

 

Figure 9 – Photomontage as seen from Light Rail corridor - Source: PTW (from SEE report)

Figure 10 – Photomontage of the proposed development from McGill Street - Source: PTW (from SEE report)

Off-street car parking is proposed for a total of 101 car parking spaces in two levels of basement car parking. Of these 101 car parking spaces, 86 spaces are allocated for residential parking spaces (19 accessible), 12 for visitor parking spaces (5 accessible) and three for commercial use. All vehicular access to the site will be provided from McGill Street directly to a driveway ramp down to the two basement levels of parking. The primary public pedestrian access points into the site are from McGill Street and via the future shared zone leading from the termination of Hudson Street and the Lewisham West light rail station. The rear of the subject site is completely bounded by the Inner West Light Rail Line (refer to the attached development plans provided by the applicant).

 

Discussions have apparently been undertaken with the owners of 2 McGill Street regarding future access. Similar to the previously approved DA, the design of the Basement Levels 1 and 2 within the site allows for an extension of the basement within 2 McGill Street, to provide an interconnected parking area. This will allow parking spaces to be associated with the redevelopment of 2 McGill Street to be accessed via the basement for 4-12 McGill Street. This strategy was devised to avoid site isolation issues and allows for a suitable amount of parking for any future development of 2 McGill Street.

 

Public Transport

 

The subject site has access to public transport services with Lewisham Railway Station being located approximately 400 metres north-east from the site, and bus routes (Route 413) operating along Old Canterbury Road. The Lewisham West light rail stop is immediately west to the site with pedestrian and cycle access to the light rail provided via Hudson Street. 

 

Parking Provision

 

Council's DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment 4) requires the provision of off-street parking as follows for Parking Area 2:

 

·   Residential flat building (non-adaptable units) – 73 units requiring  73.8 parking spaces (74)

 

-  0.4 parking space per studio                                                  (1 studio – 0.4 spaces)

+ 0.5 parking space per 1-bedroom unit                                    (16 units – 8 spaces)

+ 1 parking space per 2-bedroom unit                                       (45 units – 45 spaces)

+ 1.2 parking spaces per 3-bedroom unit                                  (11 units – 13.2 spaces)

+ 0.1 visitor parking pace per unit                                              (72 units – 7.2 spaces)

 

·   Residential flat building (adaptable units) -19 adaptable units requiring 23.75 spaces (24)                                                               

 

-  1 mobility parking space per unit (regardless of size)               (19 units – 19 spaces)

+ 0.25 visitor mobility parking space per unit                              (19 units – 4.75 spaces)

                                               

·   Business / Retail (up to 500m2)  Art education & café –

                       

- 1 per 80m2 GFA for customers and staff.               (189 m² commercial - 2.4 spaces)

 

and/or Tertiary educational establishments – 50 students – requiring 3 spaces (3)

 

- 1 per 4 staff for staff + 1 per 25 full-time students for students

                                   

Therefore, to comply with Council’s current DCP the proposed development should provide a total of 101 car parking spaces as follows:

 

-     86 spaces for residents parking (including 24 accessible parking spaces),

-     12 spaces for visitor parking (including 5 accessible parking space), and

-       3 spaces for retail/commercial parking (one commercial use as an art gallery, education space and café).

 

A total of 101 spaces are provided along with one servicing space for the commercial development and one loading zone for the residential component. Refer to basement plans. Interestingly, the applicant’s traffic report asserts application of Council’s required parking provision for the development indicates the ‘maximum’ provision (of 101 spaces) whereas Council’s parking provision requirements are the minimum for Parking Area 2.

It is noted that there is no systematic layout of the accessible car parking provision being located adjacent to access entry / exits.

 

Basement Level 2

Basement Level 1

It should be further noted that residents of the proposed development, if approved, will not be eligible to participate in any existing or future Permit Parking Schemes in adjoining streets.

 

Bicycle and motorcycle parking

 

Council's DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment No.4) requires provision of bicycle parking for a Residential flat building of ‘1 per 2 units for residents + 1 per 10 units for visitors’. The development would thus require providing bicycle parking of 46 spaces for residents and 9 spaces for visitors, a total of 55 bicycle spaces for the residential flat buildings.

 

The provision of bicycle parking for an Education establishment is ‘1 per 20 staff for each staff + 1 per 10 students for each student’ requiring the development to provide bicycle parking of a total of 6 bicycle spaces for the education establishment (1 space for staff and 5 spaces for students). The provision of bicycle spaces for business premises is ‘1 per 300m² GFA for staff’ requiring the development to provide one bicycle parking space. The development proposes 59 bicycle spaces across the two levels of the basement car park.

 

Council's DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment No.4) requires motorcycle (and motor scooter) parking to be provided at a rate of 5% of the car parking required for the development. The total car parking requirement for the proposed development is 101 spaces therefore 5 motorcycle spaces are required to be provided. The development proposes 5 motorcycle parking spaces on-site located on the first level of the basement car park.

 

Vehicular Access and Internal traffic circulation

 

Proposed vehicular access to the off-street parking spaces will be from a proposed driveway via McGill Street, Lewisham. The proposed driveway is to be 5.5m wide and is considered satisfactory. It is noted that this has been reduced from the previous application when the driveway was proposed to be 6 metres wide. The internal layout for manoeuvering allows for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction and is considered to be moderately tight but satisfactory. Refer to ‘Swept Path’ diagrams for various areas from the applicant’s traffic report reproduced below.

 

 

 

 

It is noted that the layout of the proposed basement car parks associated with the subject development must be fully compliant for user class 3a under  AS 2890.1 – 2004 and AS2890.6 – 2009 and all bicycle parking must be fully compliant with AS 2890.3.

Waste Management (Collection) and Service Vehicles

 

The applicant’s traffic consultant’s report stated that Council’s garbage collection service of residential waste will occur from the kerbside section out front of the proposed development on the western side of McGill Street. On collection days, the building caretaker will transfer full garbage bins, via the vehicle ramp using an incliner bin tug, to the bin holding room located off McGill Street. Council will service the bins by pulling up adjacent to the bin holding room on McGill Street and service all bins via a wheel-in/wheel-out arrangement. Once serviced, the caretaker will transfer all bins back to their allocated waste rooms. A private contractor will be engaged to collect retail/commercial garbage and recycling.

 

Council’s DCP controls require the following service and delivery vehicle areas:

 

Commercial premises – one truck space per 4,000m² GFA – 1 truck space

 

Residential component – one service vehicle space per 50 units (above the first 50)

 

One commercial loading space ‘Artspace Loading’ is provided in basement level 1 along with one ‘Residential Loading’ space, however neither is considered suitable for a truck. Small service vehicles will only be able to manoeuvre on-site to enter and exit the off-street loading facilities adequately.

 

The applicant’s traffic report states that “occasional larger services vehicles will use the on-street parking available in the area as is normal for small residential apartment development of this nature.” However the report does not elaborate where such vehicles will park if there are no available on-street parking spaces and/or whether this may lead to possible illegal parking of larger service vehicles. As noted on-street parking is limited in the area.

 

RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments notes provision of areas for delivery and service vehicles for commercial premises (50% of spaces adequate for trucks) for developments <20,000m² as ‘1 space per 4,000m² GFA’ and for residential flat buildings

(50% of spaces adequate for trucks) for <200 flats or home units as ‘1 space per 50 flats or home units’.

 

Estimated Traffic Generation

 

The applicant's traffic report states that the estimated traffic generation from the proposed multi-storey residential flat building would be 21 vehicle trips per hour during the AM Peak and 17 vehicle trips per hour during the PM Peak. The report also states ‘traffic generation to the site will be very similar to that generated by the existing industrial uses (potentially)’ and that it is apparent that the traffic generation of the proposed development will not result in any unsatisfactory traffic implications.

 

RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments gives a peak hour rate for medium density residential flats of 0.5-0.65 vehicle trips per dwelling and the peak hour rate for commercial premises of 2 trips per 100m2 GFA. Therefore, with 92 proposed units, this calculates to be 46-60 vehicle trips per peak hour and with a proposed total of 189m2 GFA for the commercial (including retail) tenancies, this calculates to be 4 vehicle trips per peak hour. The proposed multi-storey residential and commercial components of the development proposal thus yield a traffic generation potential of approximately 50-64 vehicle trips per peak hour.

 

It is noted, however, that Technical Direction TDT 2013-4b now specifies a revised peak traffic generation for residential units with convenient access to public transport services of 0.19 vehicle trips per hour per unit for the AM peak and 0.15 vehicle trips per hour per unit for the PM peak. Thus, under this Technical Direction, 92 units yields a reduced traffic generation for the AM peak of 18 vehicle trips per hour per unit and 14 vehicle trips per hour per unit for the PM peak in addition to the commercial (including retail) tenancy rates of 4 vehicle trips per peak hour (22 and 18 vehicle trips per hour respectively).   

 

These reduced estimated traffic generation rates are considered to be acceptable and can be accommodated with the surrounding road network, however it is noted that any additional traffic in the locality exacerbates traffic congestion experienced on Old Canterbury Road. As previously noted, Old Canterbury Road in the locality presently experiences extensive queue lengths and extended delays during the morning and afternoon peak periods and, contrary to the applicant’s traffic report, there is limited spare capacity now at the intersections of McGill Street and Hudson Street with Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham. In particular the right turn into McGill Street from Old Canterbury Road experiences significant delays and operates at a poor Level of Service for both peak periods. It is noted that proposed future works may alleviate this somewhat.   

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation/notification regarding the proposal would normally be undertaken by Council's Development and Planning Services as part of the development application process.

 

CONCLUSION

The submitted development application has been reviewed and is not supported in its current form as concerns are raised in relation to on-site loading provisions. No adequate truck loading area is provided on-site. Parking of trucks on-street may not be feasible in the locality as the area already has limited on-street parking and demand is high.

 

Further, in its current form the development exceeds allowable floor space ratios and most requirements are just met and/or are at absolute minimum provision, such as parking provision, parking space dimensions, driveway width and internal manoeuvring space in the basement carparks. There is no systematic layout of the accessible car parking provision being located adjacent to access entry / exits.

 

It is noted that any additional units will affect parking demand in the locality and any additional traffic generated will add to congestion and delay already experienced at the intersections of McGill Street/Old Canterbury Road and Hudson Street / Old Canterbury Road, roads that will have to be used by future tenants/owners of the units, to access the wider road network. 

 

On-street parking is limited in the locality already and any additional demand will impact residents in surrounding streets. Should the development be approved future prospective owners/tenants need to be informed appropriately that they will not be eligible to participate in any existing or future Permit Parking Schemes in adjoining streets. 

   

It is recommended that the comments of the Local Traffic Committee be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.


Header Logo

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

5 October 2017

 

Item No:              T1017 Item 27

Subject:              728-750 PRINCES HIGHWAY, TEMPE – PROPOSED HARDWARE & BUILDING SUPPLIES STORE (MARRICKVILLE WARD/HEFFRON ELECTORATE/NEWTOWN LAC)

File Ref:              /         

Prepared By:     Emilio Andari - Civil Engineer 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

A Development Application has been received to partially demolish the rear of the existing building, with the construction of a new building form and adaptively reuse the site for use as a two level hardware and building supplies store with undercroft  car parking at ground level, erection of signage, boundary adjustments to provide a slip lane from Princes Highway into Smith Street and the widening of Smith Street on the north-eastern side adjacent to the proposed development site at 728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe.

 

Comments of the Local Traffic Committee will be referred to Council’s Development Assessment Section for consideration in determining the Development Application.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

This development application is required to be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

 

OFFICER COMMENTS

Site location & road network

 

Street Name

Princes Highway

Smith Street

Union Street

Foreman Street

Subject Section

Between Union Street and Foreman Street

Between Princes Highway and South Street

Between Unwins Bridge Road and Princes Highway

Between Unwins Bridge Road and Princes Highway

Carriageway Width (m)

18.3

11.0

6.4

6.4

Carriageway Type

Two-way road with three travel lane in each direction.

Two-way road with one travel lane in each direction, in addition to kerbside parking lanes.

One-way road with one travel lane in a westbound traffic flow, in addition to kerbside parking lanes.

One-way road with one travel lane in an eastbound traffic flow, in addition to kerbside parking lanes.

Classification

State

Local

Local

Local

85th Percentile Speed (km/h)

-

33.1

32.4

35.3

Vehicles Per Day (vpd)

-

1,337

1,189

765

Reported Crash History

(July 2011 – June 2016)

23 crashes recorded. All crashes resulted in either tow away or injury.

No crashes recorded.

No crashes recorded.

No crashes recorded.

Heavy Vehicle Volume (%)

-

13.3

2.1

2.9

Parking Arrangements

Unrestricted parking on the northern side of the road outside of weekday morning ‘clearway’ restrictions

Unrestricted parking on both sides of the road.

Unrestricted parking on both sides of the road.

Unrestricted parking on both sides of the road.

 

The proposed development site is located on the north-eastern corner of Princes Highway and Smith Street, Tempe at 728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe and is immediately adjacent to the existing IKEA. Surrounding land uses comprise of residential single-dwelling properties along the southern side of Smith Street, a mixture of residential single-dwelling and commercial properties (including IKEA) along both sides of Princes Highway, Tempe High School and Tempe Public School at the western ends of Union Street and Foreman Street which are all located within close proximity to the subject site. The subject site is the former ‘Pretty Girl Fashion Group’ which is a clothing retail company and included offices and a warehouse with an existing driveway crossing located in Princes Highway and two existing driveway crossings located in Smith Street. The current on-site parking is at ground level with approximately 150 car parking spaces located both at the front and rear of the premises (refer to the attached locality map and photographs).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locality map – 728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe

 

N

Proposed Bunnings development site
 

 


Subject site 

 

Princes Highway, at Brooklyn Street, viewing the subject site (facing east)

 

Subject site

 

Princes Highway, at Union Street, viewing the subject site (facing east)

 

 

Subject site

 

Smith Street at the eastern end of the subject site (facing north-west)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed development

 

The proposed development site is for use as a two level hardware and building supplies store, known as Bunnings, with undercroft car parking at ground level located. It is proposed to demolish much of the existing building structure retaining the heritage western part along the Princes Highway frontage and excavate for the undercroft car parking. The retained section of the building will be extended over two levels towards the eastern boundary of the site where a large loading dock area will be enveloped on the ground level.

 

The Nursery/Bagged Goods will be located on the western side while the Timber Trade area will be on the eastern side. The two level warehouse will occupy the central section of the site with a travellator linage to the carpark level below on ground floor. The proposed development site comprises of 14,103m2 of Warehouse; 2,492m2 of Timber Trade; and 3,218m2 of Nursery & Bagged Loading. The total retail gross floor area (GFA) is 19,813m2.

 

A total of 424 undercroft car parking spaces will be provided with an access ramp connection to the existing driveway crossing on Smith Street at the eastern end of the site. The existing driveway crossing on Smith Street at the western end of the site (near Princes Highway intersection), will be closed and reconstructed with a new kerb and gutter alignment to incorporate the proposed slip lane along Princes Highway into Smith Street. The existing driveway crossing on Princes Highway will be converted to a traffic signal controlled access (refer to the attached development plans).

 

As part of the proposal, there will be road works involved along Princes Highway and Smith Street. It is proposed to undertake road widening along the eastern side of Princes Highway, adjacent to the development site to provide a left turn deceleration lane ‘slip lane’ for the turn into Smith Street. It is also proposed to provide a right turn bay for the turn into the proposed traffic signal controlled access driveway crossing at the northern end of the site’s boundary (adjacent to existing IKEA site). As for Smith Street, it is proposed to undertake road widening along the northern side of the road to provide an additional egress wider lane and wider northern footway (refer to the attached development plans).

 

Public transport

 

The subject site has access to public transport services, with both Sydenham Railway Station and Tempe Railway Station being located approximately 1km and 600m, respectively, from the site and bus routes (Route 357 City to Tempe, Route 422 Bondi Junction to Sydenham, Route 425 Dulwich Hill to Tempe) operating along the Princes Highway located adjacent to the site.

 

Given that the proposed site is a hardware and building supplies store, it is envisaged that majority of customers would travel to site by vehicle. However, given the number of public transport services provided within the vicinity, it is envisaged that a portion of the employees would use buses and/or trains to and from work.

 

Parking provision

 

Council's DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment No.1) requires provision of off-street parking as follows for Parking Area 3:

 

· Industry & Warehouse – Bulky goods premises

- 1 parking space per 100m2 GFA for customers and staff (19,813m2 GFA)

 

To comply with Council’s current DCP the proposed development should provide a total of at least 198 car parking spaces for the development:

 

The proposal provides for a total of 424 off-street car parking spaces for the development:

 

· 410 car parking spaces for customers and staff;

· 10 accessible parking spaces; and

· 4 car parking spaces with trailer bays included.

 

The proposed number of car parking spaces provided for the development site rates are considered to be acceptable.

 

Council's DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment No.1) requires the provision of off-street bicycle parking for bulky goods premises as follows:

 

1 bicycle parking space per 150m2 GFA for staff + 1 bicycle parking space per 1000m2 GFA for customers.

 

Therefore to comply with Council’s current DCP, the proposed development having 19,813m2 GFA should provide a total of 152 off-street bicycle parking spaces as follows:

 

-     132 bicycle spaces for customers; and

-     20 bicycle spaces for staff.

 

The undercroft car parking area for the hardware and building supplies store provides only 8 bicycle parking racks at the western end of the car park near the entrance to the travelators.

 

Given that the development site is a hardware and building supplies store and most goods purchased are of significant size, it is envisaged that most customers would be visiting the store with a vehicle. It is noted that there is a significant shortfall of bicycle parking for the development site but from a practical sense, it should be considered that at the least, the required number of bicycle spaces equivalent for staff (with accordance to Council’s current DCP) should be required to facilitate and encourage more bicycle users to work. It should also be considered that due to the significant shortfall in bicycle spaces on-site, the applicant should include to the on-site parking that the site proposes Council authorised car-share parking spaces and liaise with relevant car-share company as part of the development of a transport plan to encourage a bicycle and car-share vehicle scheme. Therefore, the provision of at least 20 on-site bicycle spaces and 4 on-site car-share parking spaces to make for the balance of on-site bicycle parking shortfall is required.

 

Council's DCP 2011 requires the provision of off-street motorcycle parking for the proposed development as follows:

 

Motorcycle parking shall be provided at a rate of 5% of the car parking required.

 

Therefore, the proposed development should provide a total of 10 motorcycle parking spaces. The development proposes 17 motorcycle parking spaces within the undercroft car parking area. The number of motorcycle parking spaces for the proposed development is acceptable.

 

Council's DCP 2011 requires the provision of service and delivery vehicle parking for the proposed development as follows:

 

One truck space per 4,000m2 GFA up to 20,000m2 GFA plus one truck space per 8,000m2 thereafter.

 

Therefore, the proposed development should provide a total of 5 service/delivery truck parking spaces. The traffic consultant’s report does not specify the number of parking spaces allocated for service vehicles or delivery trucks. The attached plans indicate that there is only 1 truck space allocated for the ‘dropping-off’ of goods located on level 1 at the western end of the site. Therefore, it should be noted there is a short fall of 4 allocated delivery truck parking spaces. It is also identified that there is uncertainty on whether the site will be able to accommodate for more than 1 truck delivery, simultaneously, without queuing on the proposed ramp via the Smith Street access point.

 

Vehicular Access, waste management (collection) & internal traffic circulation

 

The traffic consultant’s report states that the internal circulation system for trucks will be independent of the system for cars. The trucks will ingress through the access on Smith Street (trucks will be coming along Princes Highway southbound to turn left into Smith Street) and then into the delivery area and depart along the northern side of the site through the new access intersection on Princes Highway to head southbound once again.

 

Proposed vehicular access to the off-street car parking spaces will be from an existing driveway crossing via Princes Highway which will include a new traffic signal control which will only allow right-turn-in movements from Princes Highway and left-turn-out movements from the existing driveway. There will be a second vehicular access point from Smith Street at the existing driveway crossing located at the eastern end of the site and will accommodate access for customers to the car parking area as well as the delivery trucks to the loading area on level 1 of the site. As part of the proposal, it is proposed to widen the roadway along Princes Highway and Smith Street, adjacent to the site, to accommodate a ‘left only’ turning lane from Princes Highway into Smith Street and maintain a wide egress traffic lane with three ingress traffic lanes at the intersection.

 

The internal layout for manoeuvring allows for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction and is considered to be satisfactory. Table 1.1 of AS2890.1:2004 assigns a user class 3A for facilities with short-term, high turnover parking at shopping centres and therefore the car parking space size and parking aisle combination must be in accordance with Figure 2.2 of AS2890.1:2004. Figure 2.2 provides for user class 3A spaces for 90 degree angle parking with a car parking space width of 2.6m with aisle widths of 6.6m. The proposed aisle widths vary between 6.6m to 7.3m with a proposed car parking space width of 2.6m for all car parking spaces (with the exception of the mobility parking spaces). The internal layout for the widths of the car parking spaces to the carpark is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Information on the general waste and recycling generated within the development site has not been provided and there is uncertainty on the locality of where the collection point will be for the waste area. It is recommended that a general waste management plan illustrating the proposed location of the waste pick-up area and the directional method of vehicles to collect the waste be provided. 

 

Estimated traffic generation

 

The applicant's traffic consultant report does not state clearly the traffic generated impacts of the proposed development site with no projected figures. The traffic consultant’s report states that; ‘detail traffic projections for this project are not available at this time, however, it is apparent that the project (see extract of relevant details overleaf) would significantly reduce the traffic demands along the highway through Tempe’. The extract of relevant details refers to the proposed traffic signals on Princes Highway at the entrance to the driveway crossing located on the northern end of the site and the proposed road widening of the Princes Highway as well as Smith Street to accommodate an additional ‘left turn only’ lane from Princes Highway into Smith Street.

 

Based on the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Technical Direction - Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Updated Traffic Surveys (August 2013), the total estimated traffic generation from the proposed hardware and building supplies store development would be 832 vehicle trips per hour (weekday peak) and 1109 vehicle trips per hour (weekend peak). These estimated traffic generation rates are considered to be heavily impacting on the existing local roads adjacent to the site. Smith Street currently has an average of 1,337 vehicles per day and with accordance to the RMS Technical Direction, an increase of approximately double the traffic volume will be generated into this street.

 

Bicycle Route – Local Route 7 (LR7)

 

Currently, there is a wide concrete footpath along the eastern side of Princes Highway, Tempe adjacent to 728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe. As part of the applicant’s proposed development, it is included that a 3.5m wide continuous footpath be constructed as part of the set back of the development site and road widening of Princes Highway. It is acknowledged that a continuous footpath be included along the northern side of Smith Street adjacent to the development. It is noted that there appears to be a pinch point with the continuous footpath in Smith Street near the Princes Highway intersection with a width of 1.9m which will have an impact on a proposed bicycle route.

 

Council officers are currently investigating the proposed bicycle route within the precinct known as Local Route 7. The bicycle route is envisaged to be located on the eastern side of Princes Highway within the footpath as a shared path and then continuing into Smith Street and then into South Street. Since the footpath improvements along the northern side of Smith Street are proposed, it is recommended that a continuous concrete footpath width of 2.5m (minimum) be provided to allow a continuous shared path in Smith Street.

 

Traffic Signals & Road Widening

 

As part of the proposed development site at 728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe, the applicant has included changes to the road width of both Princes Highway and Smith Street, Tempe adjacent to the development site. Part of the proposed works on Princes Highway includes changes to the traffic signaled intersection at Smith Street with a slip lane from Princes Highway into Smith Street. Princes Highway will have seven lanes immediately north from its intersection with Smith Street with a new median island to provide a transition of four southbound lanes into three lanes and vice versa for the northbound lanes on Princes Highway. It is also proposed to provide a right turn only northbound lane on Princes Highway into the driveway crossing of the development site. At this driveway crossing intersection, it is proposed to include traffic signals which will allow right turning movements into the site and left turning movements out of the site only (refer to attached proposed traffic signal plans).

 

It is proposed to widen the roadway Smith Street, adjacent to the site, to accommodate a ‘left only’ traffic lane from Princes Highway into Smith Street and maintain a wide egress traffic lane with three ingress traffic lanes in Smith Street near the intersection.

 

All existing turning movements at Princes Highway and Smith Street, Tempe remain. Currently, there is an existing ‘No Right Turn’ restriction from Princes Highway into Union Street and Union Street has a 3 tonne limit.

 

It is acknowledged that the future impacts of the development site has been accommodated by making changes to the road geometry and with the request of an additional set of traffic signals at the driveway crossing on Princes Highway. It should be noted that these proposal will have concerning impacts to other surrounding streets and will also require the approval from the RMS given that Princes Highway is a State Road. The proposed extension of the median island along the centre of Princes Highway will restrict right turning movements from Foreman Street into Princes Highway. Currently, Foreman Street is a local road which provides local access to the Princes Highway southbound. All other nearby local roads to the west of the Princes Highway are restricted of this turning movement. The next available streets to turn right onto Princes Highway that are west of this corridor are Gannon Street, Tempe and Railway Road, Sydenham.

 

It should be noted that the RMS informed Council, dated 30 May 2017, that Roads and Maritime does not support the provision for traffic signals into the site from Princes Highway (see attached copy of letter from RMS).

 

In conjunction to this statement, there are concerns with the further delay that will impact on the traffic flow along the Princes Highway corridor, particularly during peak periods. It is recommended that the northbound ‘right turn’ traffic lane on Princes Highway be located at the existing signalised intersection at Smith Street and that four northbound traffic lanes be maintained on Princes Highway and not increase further delay by proposing additional traffic signals at a new location.

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation/notification regarding the proposal would normally be undertaken by Council's Development and Planning Services as part of the development application process.

 

CONCLUSION

It is proposed that the following traffic and parking related comments be forwarded to Council’s Development Assessment section.

 

The submitted development application for the proposed development site at 728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe has been reviewed and in its current form cannot be supported in its current form based on the concerns raised below;

 

1.    As per Council’s DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment No.1), it should be considered that due to the significant shortfall in bicycle spaces on-site, the applicant should include to the on-site parking that the site proposes Council authorised car-share parking spaces and liaise with relevant car-share company as part of the development of a transport plan to encourage a bicycle and car-share vehicle scheme. Therefore, the provision of at least 20 on-site bicycle spaces and 4 on-site car-share parking spaces to make for the balance of on-site bicycle parking shortfall is required. The applicant is also to liaise with relevant car-share company as part of the development of a transport plan to encourage a bicycle and car-share vehicle scheme;

 

2.    As per Council’s DCP 2011 (incorporating Amendment No.1), it should be required that a total of 5 service/delivery truck parking spaces be provided on-site and that the applicant supply evidence that there are parking spaces allocated for service vehicles or delivery trucks. There is uncertainty on whether the site will be able to accommodate for more than 1 truck delivery, simultaneously, without queuing on the proposed ramp via the Smith Street access point;

 

3.    Information on the general waste and recycling generated within the development site is required. A general waste management plan illustrating the proposed location of the waste pick-up area and the directional method of vehicles to collect the waste is to be provided;

 

4.    Due to a proposed bicycle route to be located on the eastern side of Princes Highway within the footpath as a shared path and then continuing into Smith Street, it is recommended that a continuous concrete footpath width of 2.5m (minimum) be provided to allow a continuous shared path in Smith Street; and

 

5.    The proposed road widening of Princes Highway and Smith Street with changes to the traffic signals at this intersection and additional traffic signals at the driveway crossing on Princes Highway, it is recommended that the traffic modelling be reviewed and that consideration be made for a northbound ‘right turn’ traffic lane on Princes Highway at the existing signalised intersection with Smith Street and that four northbound traffic lanes be maintained on Princes Highway to maintain the traffic flow along Princes Highway and to not increase any further delay with the additional traffic signals. The applicant should also implement a proposal which looks at the dedicated right turn bay into Smith Street from the Princes Highway and compensates for the loss in kerbside parking (on the western side of Princes Highway) with purchase of property/land along this section of the highway with access to Zuttion Lane. The purchase of property/land be converted into usable off-street parking area with direct access to the Princes Highway to make up for the parking loss along the Princes Highway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.