Agenda of Local Traffic Committee - Monday, 9 December 2024

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 18 November 2024

Meeting commenced at 11:07AM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY BY CHAIRPERSON

I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

Victor Macri	Councillor –Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward (Chair)
Graeme McKay	Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill
Eleanor Nurse	Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown
Nina Fard	Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

NON VOTING MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

Col Jones	Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition (IWBC)
Michael Takla	Representative for Transit Systems
Manod Wickramasinghe	IWC’s Traffic and Transport Planning Manager
Felicia Lau	IWC’s Traffic Engineer
George Tsaprounis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (South)
Jason Scoufis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Investigations & Road Safety
Predrag Gudelj	IWC’s Coordinator Roads and Stormwater Projects
Nick Poulos	IWC’s Project Manager/Project Engineer
Amir Falamarzi	IWC’s Traffic Engineer
James Nguyen	IWC’s Traffic Engineer
Christy Li	IWC’s Business Administration Officer

VISITORS

Liam Fitzgerald	Public Speaker (Item 6)
Neil Tonkin	Public Speaker (Item 6)
Brendan Farquhar	Public Speaker (Item 8)
Van Dimitri	Public Speaker (Item 9)
Christian Wahl	Public Speaker (Item 16)
Shirley Gwynn	Public Speaker (Item 18)

APOLOGIES:

Liz Atkins	Councillor – Damun - Stanmore Ward
Sgt Charles Buttrose	NSW Police – Leichhardt Police Area Command
Ben Walters	NSW Police – Inner West Police Area Command

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee held on Monday, 21 October 2024 be confirmed.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 16 September 2024 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 12 November subject to the following:

Item 1 - The Boulevarde, Lilyfield – Proposed Streetscape Improvements and Civil Works be deferred pending further community consultation and
Item 4 - Newtown South LATM Final report, paragraph (i) to read as follows: “That subject to TfNSW approval, a 10km/h Shared Zone be installed in Alice Lane between Walenore Avenue and Holmwood Street and Alice Lane be converted to one way eastbound between Pearl Lane and Walenore Avenue. The One Way restrictions in Alice Lane between Walenore Avenue and Pearl Lane include “Cyclist Excepted” signposting, subject to a convex safety mirror being installed at the Pearl lane/Alice Lane 90 degree road bend.”

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 21 October 2024 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 12 November subject to the following:

That Council report back by February 2025 about the feasibility, costs, and timeline of potential works to upgrade power at Tempe Reserve to facilitate the installation of electric vehicle chargers at this location.

LTC1124(1) Item 1 Illawarra Road, Wharf Street and Thornley Street, Marrickville – Traffic safety review of streets around Steel Park (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward /Summer Hill Electorate /Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

At the Council Meeting held 25 June 2024 a Notice of Motion (NoM) for Steel Park Dog Off-Leash Area and Amenities (Item C0624(2) Item 22) was resolved. Part 2 was for consideration of determining whether any additional traffic calming measures are required in the busy area bounded by Thornley and Wharf Streets. This report provides an assessment of the locality and also lists recent and future works completed or planned.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That this report be received and noted.

2. That the following works to be completed in 2024/25 be noted:

a) Upgrade of pedestrian crossing on Illawarra Road, immediately west of Thornley Street to a raised crossing facility; and

b) Reduction to a 40 km/h speed limit for Thornley Street and other local streets in the Marrickville area as part of the InnerWest@40 project rollout (Area 6 Enmore & Marrickville East; Area 7 Marrickville & Tempe).

3. That Police be requested to undertake regular Police patrols/enforcement of Illawarra Road in the vicinity of Steel Park.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1. That this report be received and noted.

2. That the following works to be completed in 2024/25 be noted:

a) Upgrade of pedestrian crossing on Illawarra Road, immediately west of Thornley Street to a raised crossing facility; and

b) Reduction to a 40 km/h speed limit for Thornley Street and other local streets in the Marrickville area as part of the InnerWest@40 project rollout (Area 6 Enmore & Marrickville East; Area 7 Marrickville & Tempe).

3. That Police be requested to undertake regular Police patrols/enforcement of Illawarra Road in the vicinity of Steel Park.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 2 Station Street, Marrickville - Proposed bicycle Excepted signage (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

As part of the TfNSW Southwest Metro project, the T3 Bankstown Line from Sydenham to Bankstown is being converted to Metro standards to improve the reliability of Sydney’s transportation network. To aid affected commuters along the T3 Line, TfNSW has implemented temporary bike riding routes as part of its Temporary Transport Plan (TTP) to encourage people to travel by bike during the conversion of the T3 Bankstown Line.

To assist with active transport users, the TTP provides a cycleway route between Hurlstone Park to Sydenham via Dulwich Hill and Marrickville, see Attachment 1.

Council has received concerns from active transport users and residents about the route through Station Street, Marrickville.

Officers Recommendation:

That the installation of ‘Bicycle Excepted’ signage at the entry of Station Street and Leofrene Avenue from Schwebel Street, Marrickville as well as Leofrene Avenue at Station Street (below the existing ‘One Way’ and ‘No Entry’ signage) be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the installation of ‘Bicycle Excepted’ signage at the entry of Station Street and Leofrene Avenue from Schwebel Street, Marrickville as well as Leofrene Avenue at Station Street (below the existing ‘One Way’ and ‘No Entry’ signage) be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 3 Le Clos Lane, Marrickville - Proposed 30 Tonne weight limit on the Le Clos Lane Bridge (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the current structural engineering concerns associated with the Le Clos Lane bridge in Marrickville and proposes the appropriate traffic treatments to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge following the completion of maintenance works.

Officers Recommendation:

That a ‘Bridge Load Limit 30T Gross’ weight limit at the entry to Le Clos Lane and at the Le Clos Lane bridge in Marrickville be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for Transport for NSW requested that recommendation be amended to include subject to the Transport Management Plan (TMP) being approved by Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That a ‘Bridge Load Limit 30T Gross’ weight limit at the entry to Le Clos Lane and at the Le Clos Lane bridge in Marrickville be approved, subject to the Transport Management Plan (TMP) being approved by Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 4 Illawarra Road at Thornley Street, Marrickville – Proposed raised pedestrian crossing - Design Plan 10304 (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has prepared a design plan to construct a raised concrete pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Illawarra Road and Thornley Street, Marrickville. The proposal aims to improve safety for pedestrian and motorist and will help address concerns with pedestrian and motorist behaviour at this location, particularly during busy times.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed new raised pedestrian crossing on Illawarra Road at Thornley Street, Marrickville and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10304) be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Chair noted that there is a tree near the proposed new raised pedestrian crossing that often makes it hard for motorists to spot pedestrians wanting to cross the road and questioned if Council could investigate potential treatments for the tree such as pruning to improve the sightlines of motorists.

Council Officers advised that previously the plantings in the kerb blisters were overgrown and that Council has cut down the vegetation to improve visibility for motorists and pedestrians and noted that Council Officer have noted the Chairs concerns and can also investigate pruning back the tree to improve visibility.

The proposed pedestrian crossing is to be constructed 1.3m south of the existing pedestrian crossing which will also improve visibility of approaching pedestrians.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed new raised pedestrian crossing on Illawarra Road at Thornley Street, Marrickville and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10304) be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 5 Illawarra Road at Warburton Street, Marrickville - Proposed 'Zig Zag' line marking for the pedestrian crossing (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines current sight distance issues at the Illawarra Road pedestrian crossing at its intersection with Warburton Street, Marrickville and proposes the appropriate traffic treatments to improve the safety of the community.

Officers Recommendation:

That the installation of ‘Zig Zag’ line markings on both approaches to the pedestrian crossing of Illawarra Road near the intersection with Warburton Street, Marrickville be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for Transit Systems requested that Transit Systems be notified with lead notice on any work on Illawarra Road.

Council Officers noted the request.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the installation of ‘Zig Zag’ line markings on both approaches to the pedestrian crossing of Illawarra Road near the intersection with Warburton Street, Marrickville be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 6 St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works - Part 1 (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the design development of the St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works – Part 1 and notes key changes from the concept design. It also provides a summary of the community consultation that was completed. Accordingly, the design is to progress to construction.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design (WCX M5 – St Peters Interchange: Active Transport Works Community Consultation Plan, Sheets 1-8) prepared by COMPLETE URBAN for the St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works be approved.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Liam Fitzgerald entered the meeting at 11.11am.

Mr Fitzgerald supported the St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works however raised concerns regarding the plans at Sydenham Station. Mr Fitzgerald noted that no other residents he had spoken to previously had seen the original consultation sent out in 2020 including himself. Mr Fitzgerald noted that the plan for Burrows Road in front of Sydenham Station has not taken into consideration how people get to and from George Street through to the station. He noted that people will head for the bicycle parking in front of the station and advised that this does not connect well with the proposed cycle path. Mr Fitzgerald disagreed with the comments made by Transport for NSW in the report to have the cycleway placed on the opposite side of the station to minimise impact to existing parking restrictions and arrangements noting that the impacts would be minimal due to low traffic and that the proposed cycleway on the opposite of the station may cause conflict with pedestrians accessing the pub and café. Mr Fitzgerald also raised concerns that the proposed cycleway on the opposite side of the station will also result in loss of parking for motorists in the area.

Public Speaker Liam Fitzgerald left the meeting at 11.15am.

Public Speaker Neil Tonkin entered the meeting at 11.16am.

Mr Tonkin spoke on behalf of the Inner West Bicycle Coalition and supported the St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works however raised concerns that Council has not given north-south priority on the intersections of Henry Street and Bakers Lane. Mr Tonkin noted that the area is bounded by Princes Highway, Campbell Street, Unwins Bridge Road, and Railway Road which are major collector roads, and noted residents should not be burdened by rat-running through this residential precinct and that the north-south cycle route should not be compromised by continual stopping. Mr Tonkins noted that the Inner West Council and Transport for NSW both subscribe to the new road use hierarchy which prioritises walking and cycling over private car use and suggested that the ‘Stop’ priority be reversed. Mr Tonkins suggested that the cycle lane placement at the proposed George Street crossing of Unwins Bridge Road be amended to ensure the safety and convenience of people cycling through this intersection as per his previous submission to Council.

Public Speaker Neil Tonkin left the meeting at 11.20am.

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition suggested that the item be deferred for further review noting concerns about the crossing of Unwins Bridge Road and the conflict between vehicles turning left and cyclists heading straight on. The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition noted that the issue Mr Tonkins raised regarding Henry Street, and the reasoning behind the inability to change the signage was due to traffic volume. The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition noted that the side streets that lead to Princes Highway all had signage preventing people from using the side streets from entering Princes Highway during certain times and wondered if those streets were being used as rat runs to illegally access Princes Highway. The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition questioned if there are enforcement measures put in place to prevent people from illegally entering Princes Highway. The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition noted that data was not provided to indicate whether traffic on the side streets was during the blackout period or if it was continuous throughout the day.

Council Officers advised that consultation for this project was first conducted in 2019. The feedback and comments gathered from that consultation were then included in an updated set of plans being sent out for consultation in 2020. It was noted that those plans were recommended for approval and adopted for tendering and construction at the Traffic Committee and Council meeting shortly after. Council Officers advised that what was adopted in the Traffic Committee previously is in essence what is presented in the current Local Traffic Committee report. It was advised at that time traffic signals had not been approved by TfNSW, so approval had to be obtained from TfNSW for 3 signalised intersections. Council Officers advised there were minor changes implemented to the original plans regarding movements of the lane and footpath widths. Council Officers advised that they have decided to go out for consultation for this project again due to the time that has lapsed between the last approval and the changes made around Sydenham Station since the construction of Metro. Council Officers advised that there is no loss of parking as a result of these works noting that although there will be loss of parking on the opposite side of the station, there will be an additional 3 spots further down where the new proposed pedestrian crossing is and an additional 4 spots on the station side. It was noted that what was currently proposed for George Street between Burrows Avenue and Unwins Bridge Road was found to be the most suitable for this situation due to the different phases of implementation for pedestrians, cyclists, and traffic and that pedestrians and cyclists will be implemented during the same phase. It was also noted that TfNSW have considered this to be the safest option for this particular intersection.

Council Officers advised that in terms of the priorities of the intersections between Henry Street and adjacent side streets have been investigated and found that 2 of the 3 intersections do not meet the requirement for the change of priority and that they are currently investigating the 3^rd intersection. Council Officers advised sight line concerns plus traffic volume investigations into changing priorities will need to be carefully reviewed otherwise it may create a safety issue for all types of traffic utilising these intersections.

Council Officers also advised that Council has received funding for this project from Transport for NSW and that the funding was received 5 years ago. Council Officers noted that if there were further delays on this project, there may be a chance we may lose the funding for this project which may result in the project not being delivered as Council does not have additional funding for this project.

The Chair advised that it is important to move ahead with this project before we do not have the capability to do so. The Chair also advised that issues with the intersections can be reviewed once the project has been completed and can be brought back to the Committee if required.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design (WCX M5 – St Peters Interchange: Active Transport Works Community Consultation Plan, Sheets 1-8) prepared by COMPLETE URBAN for the St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 7 Abergeldie Street at Arlington Street, Dulwich Hill – Proposed installation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ continuous yellow line marking restrictions at the intersection (Djarrawunang - Ashfield Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns regarding vehicles obstructing sightlines and traffic movement by parking within the statutory ‘No Stopping’ zones at the intersection of Abergeldie Street and Arlington Street, Dulwich Hill.

In order to alleviate this issue, it is proposed to install 10-metre statutory “No Stopping’ yellow line zones on all legs of the intersection at Abergeldie Street and Arlington Street, Dulwich Hill.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That unbroken yellow lines (statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ lines) be approved for installation on both sides of all approaches to the intersection of Abergeldie Street at Arlington Street, Dulwich Hill as follows in order to deter illegal parking, increase safety and improve motorist visibility and access for turning motorists:

a) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (northern side) for a distance of 10 metres west of Arlington Street,

b) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (northern side) for a distance of 10 metres east of Arlington Street,

c) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (southern side) for a distance of 10 metres west of Arlington Street,

d) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (southern side) for a distance of 10 metres east of Arlington Street,

e) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (western side) for a distance of 10 metres north of Abergeldie Street,

f) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (eastern side) for a distance of 10 metres north of Abergeldie Street,

g) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (western side) for a distance of 10 metres south of Abergeldie Street,

h) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (eastern side) for a distance of 10 metres south of Abergeldie Street.

2. That Council Rangers be advised in terms of this report.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1. That unbroken yellow lines (statutory 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ lines) be approved for installation on both sides of all approaches to the intersection of Abergeldie Street at Arlington Street, Dulwich Hill as follows in order to deter illegal parking, increase safety and improve motorist visibility and access for turning motorists:

a) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (northern side) for a distance of 10 metres west of Arlington Street,

b) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (northern side) for a distance of 10 metres east of Arlington Street,

c) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (southern side) for a distance of 10 metres west of Arlington Street,

d) Install solid yellow line marking on Abergeldie Street (southern side) for a distance of 10 metres east of Arlington Street,

e) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (western side) for a distance of 10 metres north of Abergeldie Street,

f) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (eastern side) for a distance of 10 metres north of Abergeldie Street,

g) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (western side) for a distance of 10 metres south of Abergeldie Street,

h) Install solid yellow line marking on Arlington Street (eastern side) for a distance of 10 metres south of Abergeldie Street.

2. That Council Rangers be advised in terms of this report.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 8 Carrington Street, Lilyfield - Construction Traffic Management Plan (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Inner West City Council has received a Temporary Road Closure (TMP) application from Modscape (Attachment 1) seeking an in-principal approval for delivering a modular building at No.12 Carrington Street, Lilyfield in the week commencing 24 March 2025. As part of this road closure, there will be full road closure on Carrington Street (between Joseph Street and Balmain Road), The Boulevarde (between Joseph Street and Balmain Road) and partial temporary on-street parking removal along Balmain Road (between Helena Street and Grove Street).

Officers Recommendation:

That the temporary full road closure of Carrington Street (between Joseph Street and Balmain Road), The Boulevarde (between Joseph Street and Balmain Road) and partial temporary on-street parking removal along Balmain Road (between Helena Street and Grove Street) be approved for the purpose of the installation of a modular building at No.12 Carrington Street, Lilyfield for a 2 day period in the week commencing 24 March 2025, with a four week contingency, subject to the following conditions and all standard Council conditions for temporary full road closures:

a) A Road Occupancy License application be obtained from the Transport Management Centre for road closure on Balmain Road.

b) Road, footpath and car park occupancy permit to be obtained from the Council for road closure on The Boulevarde.

c) Temporary parking arrangements must be provided for the existing disabled parking bays on Balmain Road, Carrington Street and The Boulevarde which will be affected during the work and should be located as close as possible to their original locations.

d) NHVR permit to be obtained prior to the work.

e) Notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Transit Systems, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services.

f) All residents and businesses in and around the affected area are to be notified of the temporary road closure in writing by the applicant in advance (at least 7 days prior to the event) with the applicant making reasonable provision for stakeholders.

g) On-street parking to be maintained for local residents along the east side of The Boulevarde (between Joseph Street and the laneway south of Balmain Road).

h) Vehicular access to the laneway south of Balmain Road to be maintained within the road closure zone.

i) Authorised pilot vehicles to accompany and manage the trucks at major intersections including City West Link Road at Balmain Road, Balmain Road at Perry Street, Balmain Road at The Boulevarde and Balmain Road at Carrington Road.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Brendan Farquhar entered the meeting at 11.33am.

Mr Farquhar advised he represented Modscape and was here to answer questions from the Committee members regarding the application to close Carrington Street for the purpose of installing a modular building at 12 Carrington Street, Lilyfield.

The Representative for Transport for NSW questioned what stage the Road Occupancy Licence (ROL) at with the Transport Management Centre (TMC).

Mr Farquhar advised that as the works are scheduled to be undertaken in March 2025, the Transport Management Centre has not provided any feedback as of yet due to the project being scheduled a while from now. It was advised that the Transport Management Centre will look into their Road Occupancy Licence application closer to the date and that the company’s Traffic Management consultant has advised them that this was standard procedure for the Transport Management Centre.

The Representative for Transport for NSW advised that Network and Safety have concerns regarding the movement of vehicles on the City West Link into Balmain Road however that was something for the Transport Management Centre to review and place conditions on.

The Representative for Transport for NSW requested that Mr Farquhar reach out to the Transport Management Centre to get in-principle support for the Road Occupancy Licence.

Mr Farquhar advised that the Transport Management Centre review the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) licenses which have been approved and included in the paperwork provided. Mr Farquhar also noted that as part of the NHVR permits for oversized vehicles and loads, they assess the trucks based on standard conditions and that they are within the standard process of operations.

Council Officers noted that there are plans to take parking from The Boulevard for resident use and questioned if those spaces would be available for use for residents of Carrington Street and The Boulevarde.

Mr Farquhar advised that the spaces would be available for residents of Carrington Street and The Boulevarde and noted that there are plans to setup 45-degree angled parking with traffic control to maintain the maximum number of parking spaces possible to prevent them from having to park too far away from their residences.

Public Speaker Brendan Farquhar left the meeting at 11.45am.

The Representative for Transport for NSW requested that the recommendation be amended so that Council and Transport for NSW- Network and Safety are provided with a copy of the ROL before proceeding with works.

It was noted that this construction methodology is quite new for the Inner West and that the learnings and outcome from this application will assist Council with future applications and approvals.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the temporary full road closure of Carrington Street (between Joseph Street and Balmain Road), The Boulevarde (between Joseph Street and Balmain Road) and partial temporary on-street parking removal along Balmain Road (between Helena Street and Grove Street) be approved for the purpose of the installation of a modular building at No.12 Carrington Street, Lilyfield for a 2 day period in the week commencing 24 March 2025, with a four week contingency, subject to the following conditions and all standard Council conditions for temporary full road closures:

a) A Road Occupancy License application be obtained from the Transport Management Centre for road closure on Balmain Road and a copy be provided to Council, Transport for NSW – Network and Safety and NSW Police prior to works commencing.

b) Road, footpath and car park occupancy permit to be obtained from the Council for road closure on The Boulevarde.

d) NHVR permit to be obtained prior to the work.

e) Notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Transit Systems, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services.

g) On-street parking to be maintained for local residents along the east side of The Boulevarde (between Joseph Street and the laneway south of Balmain Road).

h) Vehicular access to the laneway south of Balmain Road to be maintained within the road closure zone.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 9 Balmain Road, Lilyfield - Orange Grove Raised Pedestrian Crossing (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the proposed public domain works to support the upgrade of Orange Grove Public School by NSW Department of Education – School Infrastructure. With the school upgrade, the Department has requested a pedestrian crossing at Balmain Road between Point Street and Edward Street, to cover walking catchment areas predominantly to the east of the school and to improve road safety for school children and pedestrians. The proposal also includes closure of the slip lane in front of Orange Grove Hotel, public domain improvements, and new angle parking arrangement.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing at Balmain Road between Point Street and Edward Street, Lilyfield including the closure of the slip lane at the intersection of Point Street and Balmain Road from Point Street to the crossing, and introduction of angle parking on the east side of Balmain Road be supported in principle and included for consideration in Council’s Capital Works Program and that Grant funding opportunities be sought for delivery of the crossing.

2. That the detailed design for the proposed works be brought back to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Van Dimitri entered the meeting at 11.28am.

Mr Dimitri opposed the recommendation noting that the proposed location of the raised pedestrian crossing is within an area of 300m from the signalised crossings on Balmain Road at Perry Street and Lilyfield Road and advised that signalised crossings were a safer alternative to raised pedestrian crossings. Mr Dimitri noted that over the past 25 years he has been in the area there has been no incidents that have caused concern, and that the addition of the proposed crossing may create safety issues. Mr Dimitri noted that the proposed recommendation to include the closure of the slip lane, further ‘No Parking’ areas, and further ‘Restricted Parking’ and installation of angled parking does not seem to take into consideration the needs of the community. Mr Dimitri noted that the report estimates the installation of the raised pedestrian crossing to cost approximately $400,000 and questioned whether there was a real need for the crossing at the proposed location due to there being a signalised crossing 100m from the proposed crossing. Mr Dimitri believes that the proposed angled parking will generate traffic issues which will worsen during peak hour traffic. Mr Dimitri noted that the angled parking will also affect the entrance to the Orange Grove Hotel which also includes a loading zone. This loading zone is used by trucks to load and unload items for the hotel and Mr Dimitri is concerned that cars trying to overtake the truck when it reverses out causing further safety issues.

Public Speaker Van Dimitri left the meeting at 11.32am.

Council Officers advised that Council has been sitting with a working group including representatives of Orange Grove Public School, Department of Education, Council and Transport for NSW and noted that Orange Grove Public School plans to expand the capacity of their school. It was noted that a large part of the school catchment is to the east of the school and that there is a gate to the south of the school which means residents wishing to access the school will need to head north and then come back around in a ‘U’ shape or alternatively they may choose to jaywalk across Balmain Road. It was advised that through this working group, it was proposed that an additional crossing point be implemented on Balmain Road south of the school to allow for better pedestrian network connectivity for pedestrians wishing to access the school or the childcare centre next to the school.

Council Officers advised that it was only the concept design that has been put to the committee today and that the detailed design will need to be completed subject to funding being provided through grant funding applications. Council Officers advised that obtaining approval from the committee for the concept design will assist with expediting the grant funding application process. Council Officers noted that there will be a loss of 4 parking spaces and that the proposed angled parking was to minimise as much loss of parking as possible.

The Representative for Transport for NSW noted that the concept plan may appear to be unsafe to a person who may not be too familiar with design plans and noted that the detailed design will usually address the issues raised by residents. The Representative for Transport for NSW also advised that this was the best location for the proposed crossing as it did not interfere with the traffic signals and fit between existing driveways.

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill agreed with the speaker's concerns regarding rear to kerb angled parking and the proximity of the proposed pedestrian crossing to the rear access of the hotel. The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill raised concerns regarding trucks reversing into the driveway and the possibility of vehicles wanting to overtake the trucks compromising pedestrian safety at the proposed crossing.

The Representative for Transport for NSW noted that overtaking may not be physically possible once the proposed kerb extensions are installed.

Council Officers advised that concerns regarding the delivery access for Orange Grove Hotel will be addressed in the detailed design and the proposal for angled parking will be revisited noting that the design can be implemented with parallel parking however may result in greater loss of parking.

Council Officers advised they will take the comments provided into the detailed design.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

2. That the detailed design for the proposed works be brought back to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 10 Curtis Road, Balmain - Proposed Pedestrian Improvement Works Curtis Road, Balmain - Proposed Pedestrian Improvement Works (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received requests for consideration of pedestrian crossing points at Curtis Road, Balmain between Thames Street and Darling Street, to give pedestrians priority when crossing the road. To improve pedestrian safety and deter speeding in this area, it is proposed to install the following treatments:

1. Raised pedestrian crossing on Curtis Road, north of Darling Street as shown in Attachment 1

2. Raised pedestrian crossing on Curtis Road between McDonald Street and Thames Street, as per Attachment 2

3. Continuous footpath treatment on Thames Street at Curtis Road, as per Attachment 2.

Furthermore, it is proposed that McDonald Street from Curtis Road to Hoffmans Lane, be converted to one-way northbound as shown in Attachment 2 which is required to accommodate the pedestrian crossing. A tree will need to be removed in front of No. 31 Curtis Road as detailed on the plan to accommodate the crossing.

Officers Recommendation:

That the following treatments be approved in principle for inclusion in Council’s Traffic Facility Capital Works Program and that a detailed design including consultation be brought back to the Committee for consideration:

a) Raised pedestrian crossing on Curtis Road, north of Darling Street as shown in Attachment 1.

b) Raised pedestrian crossing on Curtis Road between McDonald Street and Thames Street, continuous footpath treatment on Thames Street at Curtis Road, and conversion of McDonald Street from Curtis Road to Hoffmans Lane to one-way northbound (subject to approval of a TMP by TfNSW) as shown in Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the following treatments be approved in principle for inclusion in Council’s Traffic Facility Capital Works Program and that a detailed design including consultation be brought back to the Committee for consideration:

a) Raised pedestrian crossing on Curtis Road, north of Darling Street as shown in Attachment 1.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 11 Emmerick Street, Lilyfield - Proposed New Kerb Blister (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety in Emmerick Street, Lilyfield at Perry Street by constructing kerb blister islands with integrated kerb ramps at this location. The works aim to improve road safety by better defining the pedestrian crossing points, reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the overall crossing distance for pedestrians crossing Emmerick Street.

Officers Recommendation:

That the attached detailed design plan (Design Plan No. 10306) for the proposed kerb blisters in Emmerick Street at the intersection with Perry Street, Lilyfield be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the attached detailed design plan (Design Plan No. 10306) for the proposed kerb blisters in Emmerick Street at the intersection with Perry Street, Lilyfield be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 12 Darling Street Between Mort Street and Booth Street, Balmain - Road Occupancy - Anzac Day Dawn Service (Baludarri - Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

In preparation to mark the ANZAC Day Dawn Service 2025 on Friday, 25 April 2025, Inner West Council is organising the ANZAC Day dawn Service at the Loyalty Square War Memorial, Balmain. To facilitate the event, it is proposed to close Darling Street between Mort Street and Booth Street between 2:30am and 9:30am.

Officers Recommendation:

That the temporary road closure of Darling Street (Mort Street to Booth Street), Balmain on Friday, 25 April 2025 between 2.30am – 9.30am be approved, subject to the following conditions be approved:

a) all affected residents and businesses, including the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Fire & Rescue NSW and NSW Ambulance Services be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the proposed temporary road closure at least 14 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for stakeholders;

b) that an unencumbered passage minimum 3.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Darling Street, Balmain; and

c) the occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

b) that an unencumbered passage minimum 3.0m wide be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section of Darling Street, Balmain; and

c) the occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 13 Audley Street, Audley Lane, Sadlier Crescent, Fisher Street, and eastbound parking lanes on New Canterbury Road Petersham – Temporary Full Road Closures For Special Event On Saturday 22 March 2025 – Petersham Festival Bairro Portuguese (Damun - Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Inner West Council will be presenting Petersham Festival - Bairro Portuguese on Saturday 22 March 2025 from 3:00pm until 9:00pm on Audley Street and Fisher Street, Petersham. This event celebrates the very best of Portuguese culture with entertainment, music, dance, cultural activities, and traditional and contemporary foods. To facilitate the event, areas of Petersham will be closed and there will be road closures necessitating some road detours and bus diversions in surrounding streets.

Roads affected include Audley Street (between New Canterbury Road and Trafalgar Street), Sadlier Crescent (between Audley Street and Abel’s Lane) and Fisher Street (between Audley Street and Regent Street), Audley Lane north of New Canterbury Road (resident access excepted) as well as the eastbound parking lane on New Canterbury Road (between Audley Street and Audley Lane), Petersham from 6.00am Saturday 22 March 2025 until 2.00am Sunday 23 March 2025. It is recommended that Council agree to the temporary full road closures subject to all standard Council conditions for a temporary full road closure (ENRC/2024/0064). This report outlines the traffic management plan for the 2025 event.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposed temporary road closure of Audley Street (between New Canterbury Road and Trafalgar Street), Sadlier Crescent (between Audley Street and Abel’s Lane) and Fisher Street (between Audley Street and Regent Street), Audley Lane north of New Canterbury Road (resident access excepted) as well as the eastbound parking lane on New Canterbury Road (between Audley Street and Audley Lane), Petersham on Saturday 22 March 2025, from 6:00am until 2.00am (Sunday), for the holding of ‘2025 Bairro Portuguese Petersham Festival’, be approved subject to the applicant complying with but not limited to the following conditions:

1. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is submitted to and approved by Transport for NSW; and an application for a Road Occupancy Licence and a temporary Speed Zone Authorisation is forwarded to and approved by the Transport Management Centre.

2. Notice of the proposed event is forwarded to all affected residents and businesses, including the N.S.W. Police / Inner West Local Area Commander, Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Ambulance and Transit Systems.

3. Transit Systems – Inner West Bus Services be requested to implement a revised routing for scheduled bus services in Audley Street on the day of the event and install temporary bus stops as required.

4. A minimum four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section.

5. The occupation of the road carriageways must not occur until the roads have been physically closed.

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for Transit Systems questioned if bus services are able to make the right-hand turn from Gordon St into New Canterbury Rd during the proposed temporary road closure as the ‘Buses Excepted’ signposting has been removed.

The Representative for Transport for NSW advised she will investigate the removal of signage and will advise and confirm the outcome with the Representative for Transit Systems.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

4. A minimum four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section.

5. The occupation of the road carriageways must not occur until the roads have been physically closed.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 14 Bruce Street, Ashfield - Proposed 'shared path' (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

This report identifies bicycle improvements at an existing missing link on Bruce Street adjacent to the on-road bicycle path along Grosvenor Crescent and Elizabeth Street, Ashfield. The proposed ‘shared path’ will improve bicycle connectivity to the existing on-road bicycle path.

Officers Recommendation:

That the concept plan for the ‘shared path’ along the existing footpath between Bruce Street and Hume Highway, Ashfield (as detailed in Attachment 1) be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the concept plan for the ‘shared path’ along the existing footpath between Bruce Street and Hume Highway, Ashfield (as detailed in Attachment 1) be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 15 Lackey Street & Smith Street (between Moonbie Street and Nowranie Street), Summer Hill-ENRC/2024/0062 Temporary Full Road Closure- 'Summer Hill Social' event on Sunday 9 March 2025 (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Inner West Council is presenting a ‘Summer Hill Social’ on Sunday 9 March 2025 from 11am until 5pm on Lackey and Smith Street, Summer Hill.

This is a free, family friendly long-lunch style event with an array of food and drinks on offer from local cafes and restaurants, captivating performances by local artists, exciting stalls from the Summer Hill businesses and a fun kids’ activity area.

The setting up of the site will start from 4am and will be removed 10pm, after the event.

To facilitate the event, areas of Summer Hill, i.e. Lackey Street and Smith Street (between Moonbie Street and Nowranie Street) will be closed between 4am and 11pm Sunday 9 March 2025. Hardie Avenue will only be open for carpark access off Smith Street.

Officers Recommendation:

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Lackey Street & Smith Street (between Moonbie Street and Nowranie Street) Summer Hill, be approved for the purpose of holding a ‘Summer Hill Social’ event on Sunday 9 March 2025 between 4.00am to 11.00 pm as per the submitted TMP and TGS, and subject to the following conditions and all standard Council conditions for a temporary full road closure:

a) That a Road Occupancy License application be obtained from the Transport Management Centre.

b) That notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Transit Systems, the NSW Fire Brigade and the NSW Ambulance Services.

c) That all residents and businesses in and around the affected area are to be notified of the temporary road closure in writing by the applicant in advance (at least 7 days prior to the event) with the applicant making reasonable provision for stakeholders.

d) That a minimum four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed sections.

e) That the occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the proposed temporary full road closure of Lackey Street & Smith Street (between Moonbie Street and Nowranie Street) Summer Hill, be approved for the purpose of holding a ‘Summer Hill Social’ event on Sunday 9 March 2025 between 4.00am to 11.00 pm as per the submitted TMP and TGS, and subject to the following conditions and all standard Council conditions for a temporary full road closure:

a) That a Road Occupancy License application be obtained from the Transport Management Centre.

b) That notice of the proposed event be forwarded to the NSW Police Local Area Commander, Transit Systems, the NSW Fire Brigade and the NSW Ambulance Services.

d) That a minimum four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed sections.

e) That the occupation of the road carriageway must not occur until the road has been physically closed.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 16 Mackey Park and Carrington Road Survey Area, Marrickville - Request for extension of M2 Residential Parking Scheme - Resident Parking Questionnaire Survey Results (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Following a Notice of Motion being raised, Council resolved to undertake a community consultation for a proposed three-month trial to extend the Resident Permit Parking Scheme Area M2 to the industrial precinct around Carrington Road, Cary and Renwick Streets. This report presents results of the parking surveys and community consultation completed in the following streets:

· Thornley Street, south of Premier Street

· Richardson Crescent, east of Carrington Road

· Carrington Road between Premier and Richardson Crescent

· Cary Street between Carrington Road and Johnston Lane

· Renwick Street between Carrington Road and Johnston Lane

· Warren Road between Carrington Road and Johnston Street

· Ruby Street between Carrington Road and High Street

· Junction Street between Ruby Street and Schwebel Street

The parking surveys completed indicate high utilisation surrounding Mackey Park and the nearby streets perpendicular to Carrington Road, and households with no or limited off-street parking may be affected by current parking conditions, and any future potential parking restrictions on Mackey Park.

The results from the community consultation indicate a low response rate from residents for a three-month trial of the extension of the M2 permit parking area despite those responding generally in support of the scheme. Given the low response rate, Resident Parking Scheme restrictions are not recommended at this time.

It is recommended to proceed to install timed parking restrictions on the western side of Richardson Crescent, south of Carrington Road to prevent long-term parking adjacent to the park and improve parking opportunities for park users during the weekday evening and weekend daytime periods.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the proposed three-month trial of timed permit parking restrictions on Thornley, Cary, Renwick, Ruby and Junction Streets, and Warren Road not proceed due to the lack of community response and support.

2. That the proposed ‘2P 3pm-9pm Mon-Fri; 4P 8am-6pm Sat-Sun’ restrictions on the western side of Richardson Crescent south of Carrington Road be installed as shown in Attachment 2.

3. That the current on-going enforcement of unattended and unauthorised vehicles under the Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Act 2021 by Council’s Parking Officers to improve parking conditions for households that are affected by current parking behaviours on the local streets be noted.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Christian Wahl entered the meeting at 11.21am.

Mr Wahl opposed the recommendation made to the Traffic Committee and suggested that Council proceed with the proposed three-month trial of timed permit parking restrictions on Thornley, Cary, Renwick, Ruby and Junction Streets, and Warren Road. Mr Wahl noted that the figures shown on the report stated that the survey was sent to 347 households however only 110 households were impacted by the proposal. Mr Wahl noted that in order for Council to meet the 30% response rate, almost all households impacted would have to provide a response which would be unfair. Mr Wahl noted that the report shows that the households impacted by the proposed trial are meeting the 30% response rate. Mr Wahl noted that his household as well as some of his neighbours had issues accessing the survey link to provide their responses. Mr Wahl also noted that he has also seen an increase in boats and trailers and taxis being parked on residential streets, increases in vehicles per household and an increase of motorists using the streets for long-term parking causing parking issues in the area. Mr Wahl suggested that Council proceed with the initial proposal for timed permit parking trials and from that trial gather data and information from the community regarding the outcome.

Public Speaker Christian Wahl left the meeting at 11.21am.

Council Officers advised that as part of surveys, Council always consult the beyond the area of the affected residences, however when writing the reports and gathering statistics, Council focuses on the responses of the affected residences. Council Officers also noted that that is reflected in the report with results broken down into each individual street.

Council Officers tabled in a submission sent in by a resident opposing the recommendation for parking restrictions to be implemented advising that parking issues are not around Mackey Park but rather in the streets surrounding Mackey Park. The Resident raised concerns that restricted parking around Mackey Park will have a knock-on effect on the existing parking issues in the nearby streets.

Council Officers advised that the objective of the proposal of timed parking around Mackey Park is to improve parking opportunities for people wanting to use the park noting spaces are sometimes parked out by nearby businesses parking and other long-term users. Council Officers have advised that Council’s enforcement team has been responding to requests to assist with managing unattended vehicles and redistributing parking to residents. Council Officers noted the speaker's comments regarding affected residents meeting the response 30% response rate and advised that Council would have liked to see the affected resident response rate a little higher noting that if 50% of eligible properties did respond, that would then push the overall response rate up to 30% showing that 1 in 2 households without off-street parking are being affected.

The Chair noted that there is an existing issue of people parking in the area for extended periods while they go overseas and the dumping on boats and trailers and questioned if the implementation of 9P or 10P parking zones in certain streets will help promote the movement of vehicles in streets and deter non-residents from long-term parking and people from dumping vehicles on the streets.

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill advised that although residents are split half for and against the recommendation however noted that the parking of trailers and boats is also a common complaint from residents who do not support the recommendation.

Council Officers noted that enforcement is being undertaken under the Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Act that assists Council with moving unattended vehicles, however it was noted that this process can take some time.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

2. That the proposed ‘2P 3pm-9pm Mon-Fri; 4P 8am-6pm Sat-Sun’ restrictions on the western side of Richardson Crescent south of Carrington Road be installed as shown in Attachment 2.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 17 Tempe Reserve - Parking Study (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the parking investigation completed to assess parking conditions at Tempe Reserve and the surrounding adjacent streets. It presents the parking survey results completed on the weekday evening and weekend peak periods. The results indicate there is adequate parking supply in the streets adjacent to Tempe Reserve, and that parking demand generated from park-users at Tempe Reserve during the evening weekday and weekend peak period has minimal impact to parking to the adjacent residential streets. Accordingly, a resident parking scheme in these streets is not recommended.

Officers Recommendation:

That the request for consideration of timed permit parking restrictions on streets surrounding Tempe Reserve not be implemented due to adequate parking capacity within the Tempe Reserve car parks.

DISCUSSION:

Council Officers tabled a submission sent in by a resident opposing the recommendation noting that the report references Smith Street throughout the report and advised that it was Station Street they wanted to have assessed. The resident also advised that 1 peak night and 1 peak weekend were not sufficient for a parking study and noted that sports and training days/events were not the only cause for parking concerns as people often use the unrestricted parking around the oval to park and go to work at the nearby airport, as well as use the available parking for their boats and trailers leaving insufficient parking for residents to park nearby. The resident also questioned whether any stakeholders such as sporting clubs in the areas, airport operators, and residents were consulted during the parking study.

Council Officers advised that the parking study assessed parking utilisation on all residential streets south of Princes Highway that are adjacent to Tempe Reserve which included Station Street and the surrounding streets from Holbeach Avenue to Smith and Wood Streets. It was advised that parking surveys during the peak season were completed on training and game days and that Council Officers obtained booking dates scheduled for training and game day and Tempe Reserve and received advice from Council’s Parks Planning team during the peak season to ensure parking surveys were completed on days which would provide reliable data for assessment. Council Officers advised that the parking surveys completed during the peak period shows the worst-case scenario with the car parks closest to Holbeach Avenue close to capacity. It was noted that parking although parking spillover may occur from these car parks, there was still parking capacity in the adjacent residential streets for residents to utilise and that spillover from these carparks is likely to be minimal as data collected during the evening peak period indicates there is adequate parking capacity at Tempe Reserve with no spill over in adjacent streets. Council Officers advised that community consultation with sporting clubs, airport operators, or residents would have commenced should the parking surveys completed reveal high levels of utilisation in the car parks adjacent to Tempe Reserve however due to there being adequate parking capacity, further community consultation was not undertaken. Council Officers noted that the unrestricted parking spaces are prone to unattended vehicles, boats and trailers and advised that the enforcement of unattended vehicles is recommended to be managed via the Unattended Property Act 2024 and enforced by Council’s Parking Services team.

Council Officers noted that the carpark closest to Holbeach Avenue has a capacity of 70 spaces, the carpark nearest to the park has a capacity of 13 spaces and there is a carpark further down the reserve with 200 spaces. It was noted that the carpark with 70 and 13 spaces is more commonly occupied compared to the carpark with 200 available spaces. Council Officers advised that the data provided from the study shows that even when the busier carparks are used there is still minimal spillover to the residential streets nearby.

Council Officers noted that there is not much wayfinding signage to the larger carpark and suggested that Council investigate implementing wayfinding signage as it may assist with providing more options for users parking in the area and alleviate parking issues due to the other carparks being at capacity and the potential spillover it may have on surrounding residential streets.

The Chair noted that the issues seem to arise due to a lack of off-street parking for properties in that area due to small property frontages, narrow streets and households owning more than one vehicle, and noted that the parking unavailability on Smith Street is having a knock-on effect on nearby residential streets. Council Officers noted that due to the current construction of the Bunnings, parking has been compromised in Smith Street and noted that once construction is completed, that should relieve some of the parking issues on the street.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the request for consideration of timed permit parking restrictions on streets surrounding Tempe Reserve not be implemented due to adequate parking capacity within the Tempe Reserve car parks and that Council Officers develop a way finding scheme to better indicate parking areas around the reserve

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 18 Leichhardt West - Proposed Residential Parking Scheme Expansion (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the outcome from the Community Consultation and the recommended treatment for the expansion of the existing Leichhardt West Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) on section of Burfitt Street, Flood Street, Edith Street and Elswick Street, Leichhardt.

It is recommended that the RPS ‘2P 8AM-6PM, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ be expanded into the rest of Burfitt Street, eastern side of Edith Street and Elswick Street from the existing RPS boundary to Marion Street.

Officers Recommendation:

That the installation of Resident Parking Scheme ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ zone be approved as shown in Attachment 1:

a) Western and Eastern side of Burfitt Street, Leichhardt – Between No.2 to No.48 and No.1 to No.45 Burfitt Street

b) Eastern side Edith Street, Leichhardt – Between No.37 to No.65A Edith Street

c) Western and Eastern side of Elswick Street, Leichhardt – Between No.118 to No.162 and No.105 to No.141 Elswick Street

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Shirley Gwynn entered the meeting at 11.24am.

Ms Gwynn supported the recommendation advising that due to the current unrestricted parking on sections of Burfitt Street, Flood Street, Edith Street, and Elswick Street, Leichhardt, vehicles are parking for long periods to access the local shops and cafes or to head into the CBD via bus causing residents to experience difficulty finding parking near their residences. Ms Gwynn advised that due to difficulty finding parking near her area, she often parks in the 2P and 4P areas but noted this was quite hard to do as she has to care for her young children and leaving them to move her vehicle periodically is difficult. Ms Gwynn noted that the implementation of 2P parking in the area will be beneficial to Council’s enforcement team as that will allow them to book overstaying vehicles as well as assist with overstaying vehicles in the area adding to existing parking issues in the area.

Public Speaker Shirley Gwynn left the meeting at 11.27am.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the installation of Resident Parking Scheme ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ zone be approved as shown in Attachment 1:

a) Western and Eastern side of Burfitt Street, Leichhardt – Between No.2 to No.48 and No.1 to No.45 Burfitt Street

b) Eastern side Edith Street, Leichhardt – Between No.37 to No.65A Edith Street

c) Western and Eastern side of Elswick Street, Leichhardt – Between No.118 to No.162 and No.105 to No.141 Elswick Street

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1124(1) Item 19 Traffic Committee Schedule 2025

SUMMARY

To assist Committee members with forward planning, the schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for 2025 is detailed below.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposed schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2025

calendar year be received and noted.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2025

calendar year be received and noted.

For Motion: Unanimous

General Business

Item 20 – Request for mobility parking to be implemented on the frontage of St Brigid’s Catholic Church

Clr Marci advised he received a request from Father Giltus Mathias from St Brigid’s Catholic Church requesting the implementation of mobility parking on Livingston Road as their carpark is a long way away from the entrance to their Church and makes it hard for Churchgoers with mobility issues to access the vicinity. Council Officers requested that the correspondence be forwarded to Council for review and investigation.

Meeting closed at 12.57pm.

CHAIRPERSON

Clr Victor Macri

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 3

Subject: LGA-Wide High Pedestrian Activity Area (HPAA) Investigations - Final Report (All Wards / All Electorates / All PACs)

Prepared By: Zara Helal - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That:

a) The proposed 40 km/h High Pedestrian Activity Areas and subsequent treatments listed in the 40 km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Investigations report be supported in principle as per the attached report in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, subject to approval from TfNSW.

b) That the proposed 40 km/h High Pedestrian Activity Areas and subsequent treatments listed in the 40 km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area Investigations report on State roads be forwarded to TfNSW for their consideration.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) prepared in 2021 recommended the implementation of High Pedestrian Activity Areas (HPAAs) in 10 areas throughout the LGA. Stantec was subsequently engaged by Council to develop proposals to implement HPAA schemes in these 10 areas.

This report seeks to improve pedestrian safety in town centres through the provision of traffic management treatments and by lowering speed limits for vehicles it will further improve bicycle safety within the overall proposed safety improvements.

This proposal seeks to lower the speed limit to 40km/h at all times within the proposed HPAA areas. Changes to the local road environment have been designed and proposed to alert drivers to the lower speed limit and make them aware of the presence of pedestrians.

BACKGROUND

The PAMP prepared in 2021 recommended the implementation of HPAAs in 10 areas throughout the LGA. Stantec was subsequently engaged by Council to develop proposals to implement HPAA schemes in these 10 areas with the report provided in Attachment 1.

The table outlines the 10 proposed HPAA areas:

Location	Description	Road Classification	Existing Speed Limit (km/h)
Booth Street, Annandale	From Alfred Street to Alexandra Drive	Regional	50 excluding existing HPAA
Brown Street, Ashfield	Full length	Local	50
Elizabeth Street, Ashfield	From No.46 Elizabeth Street to No.84 Elizabeth Street	Regional	50
New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill	From No.575 New Canterbury Road to No.393 New Canterbury Road	State	60
Illawarra Road, Marrickville	From Broadleys Lane to south of Harnett Avenue	Regional	50 excluding existing HPAA
Audley Street, Petersham	From New Canterbury Road to Trafalgar Street	Local	50
Darling Street, Rozelle and Balmain Road, Rozelle	From Victoria Road to Park Drive	State / Regional (north of Victoria Road)	40
Percival Road, Stanmore	From Douglas Street to north of Myrtle Street	Local	50
Hardie Avenue, Summer Hill	Lackey Street, Hardie Avenue, Smith Street between Summer Hill Community Garden and south of Nowranie Street, Morris Street south of Smith Street and Moonbie Street south of Smith Street.	Local	50
Railway Road / Gleeson Avenue, Sydenham	Marrickville Road from Buckley Street to Railway Parade, Railway Parade, Burrows Avenue, Railway Road from Burrows Avenue to Gleeson Avenue, Wright Street, Gleeson Avenue, Railway Road from Gleeson Avenue to south of Rowe Lane, and Unwins Bridge Road from west of Park Road to Memory Reserve.	State	50

The traffic management treatments to reduce the speed environment include the provision of gateway treatments, traffic calming devices, pedestrian crossing facilities and associated signage and pavement markings.

Traffic tube counts and intersection counts were collected at various sites, and crash history was reviewed to assist the study.

Concept designs have been produced by Stantec for the proposed treatments as detailed in Attachment 2. Detailed design is to be undertaken by Council after in-principal support is gained.

DISCUSSION

Booth Street, Annandale

A HPAA scheme currently exists on Booth Street between Collins Lane and No. 27 Booth Street. It is proposed that the scheme be extended from Alfred Street to Alexandra Drive to encompass the entire commercial precinct where pedestrian movements are high.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Booth Street / Young Street intersection (northern leg).

· Raised zebra crossing to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Booth Street / Young Street intersection (eastern leg).

· Modified refuge islands with compliant dimensions at Booth Street / Annandale Street intersection (northern and southern legs).

· Continuous footpath treatment across side street at Booth Street / View Street / Johnston Lane intersection (southern leg).

· Modified refuge islands with compliant dimensions at Booth Street / Trafalgar Street intersection (northern and southern legs).

· Continuous footpath treatment across side street at Booth Street / Wells Street intersection (southern leg).

· Widening of existing refuge island at Booth Street / Nelson Street intersection (northern leg).

· Kerb blisters on both sides at Booth Street / Nelson Street intersection (southern leg).

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Booth Street / Taylor Street intersection (northern leg).

· Raised zebra crossing to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Booth Street / Wigram Road intersection (southern leg).

· Speed cushion on approach to the refuge island crossing, on the southbound lane approach to the intersection at Booth Street / Wigram Road intersection (north-eastern leg).

Brown Street, Ashfield

The proposed HPAA zone spans along Brown Street between Bland Street and Liverpool Road, and in Fox Lane between Brown Street and The Esplanade.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Continuous footpath treatment at Brown Street / Orchard Crescent intersection

· Continuous footpath treatment at Brown Street / Fox Lane intersection.

Elizabeth Street, Ashfield

The proposed HPAA zone spans along Elizabeth Street between No.46 Elizabeth Street and No.84 Elizabeth Street. It also extends into Nixon Avenue, Bland Street from its intersection with Brown Street to No.12 Bland Street, Charlotte Street from Elizabeth Street to No.21 Charlotte Street, and Grainger Avenue.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Continuous footpath treatment at Elizabeth Street / Nixon Avenue intersection (southern leg).

· ‘Give Way to Pedestrians’ hatched pavement marking between Bland Street and Charlotte Street.

· Extension of 10 km/h shared zone at Charlotte Street south of Elizabeth Street, and Station Street and Wood Street. Includes flush threshold treatment at Station Street, Charlotte Street and Wood Street, south of Elizabeth Street.

· Kerb extension on the eastern side at Elizabeth Street / Wood Street intersection (western leg).

New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill (State Road)

The proposed HPAA zone spans along New Canterbury Road between No.575 New Canterbury Road and No.393 New Canterbury Road.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Kerb extension on the northern side at New Canterbury Road / Herbert Street intersection (eastern leg).

· Modified refuge island at Pigott Street / New Canterbury Road intersection (northern leg).

· Continuous footpath treatment at Lewisham Street / New Canterbury Road intersection (northern leg).

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Kintore Street / New Canterbury Road intersection (southern leg).

· ‘Give Way to Pedestrians’ linemarking on footpath at New Canterbury Road between Kintore Street and Dulwich Grove Light Rail Station.

· Kerb extension on eastern side at Denison Road / New Canterbury Road intersection (northern leg).

· Associated signage and linemarking installed on New Canterbury Road at entry points to the HPAA zone.

Illawarra Road, Marrickville

A HPAA zone currently exists on Illawarra Road between Broadleys Lane and east of Petersham Road. This is proposed to be extended from east of Petersham Road to south of Harnett Avenue.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Convert existing crossing to raised zebra crossing at Calvert Street / Illawarra Road intersection (eastern leg).

· Continuous footpath across side street at Tuohy Lane / Illawarra Road intersection (western leg).

· Raised zebra crossing at Tuohy Lane / Illawarra Road intersection (southern leg).

· Continuous footpath treatment at Arthur Street / Illawarra Road intersection (eastern leg).

· Continuous footpath treatment at Blamire Lane / Illawarra Road intersection (eastern leg).

· Kerb extensions on both sides to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Greenbank Street / Illawarra Road intersection (western leg).

· Convert existing crossing to raised zebra crossing at Illawarra Road between Greenbank Street and Grove Street.

· Kerb extensions on both sides to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Grove Street / Illawarra Road intersection (southern leg).

· Kerb extensions on both sides to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Church Street / Illawarra Road intersection (northern leg).

· Raised zebra crossing to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Harnett Avenue / Renwick Street / Illawarra Road intersection (northern leg).

· Modified refuge island at Harnett Avenue / Renwick Street / Illawarra Road intersection (western leg).

· Kerb extension on the northern side at Harnett Avenue / Renwick Street / Illawarra Road intersection (eastern leg).

Audley Street, Petersham

The proposed HPAA zone spans along Audley Street from New Canterbury Road to Trafalgar Street.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Fisher Street / Audley Street intersection (eastern leg).

· Raised zebra crossing at Fisher Street / Audley Street intersection (northern leg).

· Continuous footpath across side street at Audley Street / Sadlier Crescent intersection (western leg).

· Raised zebra crossing to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Trafalgar Street / Regent Street intersection (southern leg).

Darling Street / Balmain Road, Rozelle (State Road)

A ‘40 km/h Local Traffic Area’ scheme is currently present throughout Balmain peninsula and includes the full length of Darling Street north of Victoria Road. The proposed HPAA zone will encompass the southern part of Darling Street from Victoria Road to Balmain Road, and Balmain Road from Darling Street to Park Drive.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Matilda Street / Darling Street intersection (southern leg).

· Kerb extension on western side at Oxford Street / Darling Street intersection (northern leg).

· Kerb blisters on both sides at Cambridge Street / Darling Street intersection (northern leg).

· Continuous footpath treatment across side street at Red Lion Street / Darling Street intersection (southern leg).

· Kerb extension that ties in with Council’s proposed wombat crossing (from Rozelle North LATM) at Merton Street / Darling Street on the southern side (eastern leg).

· Kerb blister on the northern side at Merton Street / Darling Street (western leg).

· Kerb extension that ties in with Council’s proposed adjacent accessible parking space and kerb extension design (from Rozelle North LATM) at Nelson Street / Darling Street intersection (eastern leg).

· Kerb extension on the northern side at Norman Street / Darling Street intersection (western leg).

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Thornton Street / Wisbeach Street / Darling Street intersection (eastern and western legs).

· Associated signage and linemarking on Balmain Road at the entry point to the HPAA zone.

· Investigate opportunity for a raised intersection at Waterloo Street / Darling Street intersection.

Percival Road, Stanmore

The proposed HPAA zone will encompass Percival Road from Douglas Street to St Michael’s Catholic Primary School, Temple Street from Percival Lane to Percival Road, and Salisbury Road from Percival Road to Percival Lane East.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Kerb blister on the northern side at Percival Road / Myrtle Street intersection (western leg).

· New refuge island with compliant dimensions; kerb extension on the northern side at Percival Road / Myrtle Street intersection (eastern leg).

· Continuous footpath treatment across side street at Percival Road / Temple Street intersection (western leg).

· Convert existing crossing to raised zebra crossing at Percival Road / Salisbury Road intersection (northern leg).

Lackey Street / Hardie Avenue / Smith Street, Summer Hill

A HPAA zone currently exists in the Summer Hill town centre precinct south of Summer Hill Station, and includes Lackey Street, Hardie Avenue, Smith Street between Summer Hill Community Garden and south of Nowranie Street, Morris Street south of Smith Street and Moonbie Street south of Smith Street. The HPAA areas are proposed to be upgraded with the implementation of the proposed treatments.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Convert existing crossing to raised zebra crossing at Hardie Avenue / Lackey Street intersection (western leg).

· Convert existing crossing to raised zebra crossing at Hardie Avenue / Smith Street intersection (northern leg).

· Kerb blister on western side and kerb extension on eastern side at Moonbie Street / Smith Street intersection (southern leg).

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Nowranie Street / Smith Street intersection (southern leg).

Railway Parade / Gleeson Avenue / Railway Road, Sydenham (State Road)

The proposed HPAA zone will encompass all three station entries to Sydenham Station and the surrounding pedestrian-generating land uses. This includes Marrickville Road from Buckley Street to Railway Parade, Railway Parade, Burrows Avenue, Railway Road from Burrows Avenue to Gleeson Avenue, Wright Street, Gleeson Avenue, Railway Road from Gleeson Avenue to south of Rowe Lane, and Unwins Bridge Road from west of Park Road to Memory Reserve.

It is proposed the following treatments be implemented as part of the HPAA scheme:

· Kerb extensions on both sides at Railway Parade (lower section) / Sydenham Road intersection (western leg).

· Convert existing crossing to raised zebra crossing at Railway Road / Gleeson Avenue intersection (western leg).

· Speed cushions on side street at Rowe Lane / Railway Road intersection (eastern and western legs).

· Kerb extensions on both sides to replace existing pedestrian refuge at Park Road / Unwins Bridge Road intersection (southern leg).

· Associated signage and linemarking on Sydenham Road and Marrickville Road at the entry points to the HPAA zone.

· Proposed signalised intersection at the 3-legged intersection of Marrickville Road and Buckley Street.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation will be undertaken once the concept designs are further refined to detailed designs for each proposed HPAA location.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Further details of cost estimates will be provided in subsequent reports relating to each proposed HPAA.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	LGA-Wide HPAA Investigations - Final Report
2.⇩	LGA-Wide HPAA Investigations - Concept Designs

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 8

Subject: Clissold Street, at Holden Street, Ashfield- new at-grade (road level) Pedestrian (zebra) crossing (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

Prepared By: Boris Muha - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the detailed design plan (10301) for a proposed new at-grade (road level pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Clissold Street at the intersection with Holden Street, Ashfield, with associated signs and line marking as shown in Attachment 1 be approved.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council at its meetings on the 18 March 2024 approved in principle, subject to detailed design, a series of proposed pedestrian (zebra) crossings and kerb extension treatments (under concept) with other auxiliary works (i.e. relocation of bus stops, inclusion of raised platform thresholds) for improved pedestrian and road safety around and near to the Cardinal Freeman (Retirement) Village, Ashfield.

This report describes the detailed design plan for the proposed treatments involving the placing of a pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Clissold Street, at the intersection of Holden Street, Ashfield.

This work is programmed and is envisaged to be constructed in the 2025/2026 financial year, subject to funding.

BACKGROUND

The Cardinal Freeman Village (currently known as Levande Cardinal Freeman) is bounded by Clissold Street to the north, Victoria Street to the east, Seaview Street to the south and Queen Street to the west.

The village caters to an independent living lifestyle however as the average age is over 82 years old there are a significant number of residents with mobility issues that hinder their ability to move around freely.

Many of the elderly residents are capable, and desire to walk to and from various destinations outside of the village, and/or take other forms of public transportation (e.g., bus and train) to travel to other parts of Sydney.

This has prompted a general request from the elderly residents to improve pedestrian safety around and near the village to enable them to walk to various desired destinations and take public transport within the area.

Other Aged care facilities such as the Ashfield Baptist Homes, Bethel Nursing Homes, Ashfield Terrace Care Community, and other community facilities are also located adjacent or near to the Cardinal Freeman Village.

The proposed treatment in this report was part of an initial concept of proposing two (2) pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Holden Street and Clissold Street. One crossing was initially proposed in Clissold Street, some 20 metres in from Holden Street so that buses turning left from Holden Street would not affect the crossing. The other was in Holden Street, just south of Clissold Street.

No strong objection were raised to the crossing being constructed in Clissold Street, with some concerns noted that it may generate noise if raised. The other crossing in Holden Street, south of Clissold Street, ended up receiving strong objections from affected residents.

As Holden Street, south of Clissold Street borders Canterbury-Bankstown Council (CBC) and Inner West Council (IWC), it was resolved that the initial proposed crossing in Holden Street, south of Clissold be separated from the overall scheme in providing safe road crossings around/near the Cardinal Freeman Village. IWC would independently investigate with CBC if it would support a crossing at this location or a location further south in Holden Street.

The proposal in this report only involves proceeding with the crossing in Clissold Street, east of Holden Street.

DISCUSSION

The following information is provided in discussion.

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Locality Plan

Street Name	Clissold Street at Holden Steet
Carriageway width (m) kerb to kerb	Approx. 6.4m.
Carriageway type	Two-way, one travel lane each direction.
Classification	Local
Speed Limit km/h	50
85^th percentile speed km/h	<40 leading up to the intersection.
Vehicles per day (vpd)	2100
Last available 5 years of TfNSW recorded crash history	NIL in last 5 years in Clissold Street at the intersection with Holden Street.
Parking arrangements	‘No Stopping’ exits to both sides of the street near to Holden Street.
Side street(nearest or along)	Holden Street.

Table 1. Road Network detail.

The Plan

The following works are proposed and are illustrated on the attached plan:

Clissold Street, Ashfield (Plan No. 10301):

· Resurface the road pavement with new asphalt and provide new pedestrian crossing markings and associated signage to formalise a new pedestrian crossing.

· Remove old kerb ramps and construct new concrete kerb ramps on either side of the new pedestrian crossing in Clissold Street at its intersection with Holden Street.

· Reconstruct some kerb and gutter with new concrete kerb & gutter (generally were shown on the plans).

· Remove some damaged concrete footpaths and construct new concrete footpaths.

· Undertake some minor returfing works in the grass verge area to match new works.

· Install new signage associated with the works.

Parking Changes

The works are fully contained within the existing No Stopping zones of Clissold Street Therefore, the proposal will not result any loss of parking.

Streetlighting

The new pedestrian crossing will require new lighting for it to meet the minimum lighting safety and compliance standards. This may involve either 1 or 2 new flood lights provided on either side each of the new raised pedestrian crossings (on either existing or new power poles). The attached plans indicatively show the locations of the proposed new flood lights and power poles, with the final location to be confirmed during the lighting design development phase of the project by qualified electrical consultant.

Other Information

The proposed crossing under detailed design is moved closer to the intersection to cater for all pedestrian desire path movement north, south and east of the intersection, and avoid obstruction with driveways located further in from Holden Street.

Clissold Street is a bus route with buses turning left into Clissold Street from Holden Street and right out from Clissold Street into Holden Street.

Council would normally raise pedestrian (zebra) crossings for ease of pedestrian access; however, buses require the full width of the road to negotiate safe turning in and out of Clissold Street at Holden Street, without running off a raised (crossing) platform. The existing underground drainage and utilities in the vicinity of the proposed crossing raises the concern of additional excavation works and re-adjustments which are deemed to be complex. Hence in this case an at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing is proposed.

Furthermore, the plan has been amended to include in line kerb ramps for narrow footpaths permitted under Australian Standards in lieu of proposed pram ramps which were shown in the original consultation plans. The footpath on either side of the ramp is transitioned down to a lower path level onto the crossing, allowing improved landing and turning in and off the crossing.

Utilities right at the corner and issues with traffic movement has resulted in the crossing being located approximately 5m from the intersection.

The proposed crossing links up with other proposed crossings to connect walking path movements to various desired destinations (e.g. Herman Lewis Reserve and Ashfield CBD). Refer to figure 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project is listed in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works program to be carried out in 2025/2026, subject to grant funding approval. The work is estimated to be around $65,000.

CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the proposal was mailed out to (21) properties (26 letters) in Clissold Street, between Holden Street and Queen Street, Ashfield, requesting residents’ views regarding the proposal. (see also map of consultation area Figure 2).

A map of a neighborhood

Description automatically generated

Figure 2. Map on Consultation Area.

(1) Resident response was received with the concerns raised by the residents outlined in the table below, and officers’ response provided.

Residents Comments

Officers Response

The position of the pedestrian crossing that close to Holden St would create a number of problems.

- Heavy traffic on Holden St (particularly in the school drop off and pick up time) results in traffic backing up Clissold St while cars wait for a break in traffic flow to safely make a turn. Those cars will be stopped across the proposed crossing.

- Cars stopping on Clissold St before the pedestrian crossing be unable to clearly see the traffic on Holden St, which is essential to make a safe turn left or right.

- Cars slow down to make a left or right turn, making a pedestrian crossing at that position unnecessary. Unaware of any pedestrian accidents occurring at this location.

-Traffic making a left turn off Holden St into Clissold will be required to make a rapid stop for a pedestrian at the crossing resulting in rear end collision.

- Unconvinced that a pedestrian crossing is required on this block.

- Priority should be made for a pedestrian crossing on Holden St to enable people to cross the much busier street (with vehicles travelling at faster speeds) to access the cafe and shop on the corner of Holden and Trevenar Sts.

- Would encourage someone from council come and observe the traffic patterns at this corner between 8.15 to 9.15 and 2.20 to 3.20 pm to understand the likely problems.

The crossing was originally proposed under concept in Clissold further in from the intersection and was examined under detail design to be bought closer to the intersection in view of all traffic, and appropriately cater for pedestrian desire path movements at the intersection.

It is not uncommon for pedestrian crossings to be placed at the corner of an intersection. The crossing is set back sufficiently for a vehicle to move up to the Give way line, and not wholly obstruct the pedestrian crossing, or give-way first to a pedestrian and then move up to the Give-way line. Traffic turning left can stop at the crossing in view of rear approaching traffic which would either wait or pass by along the travel lane area of Holden Street.

Irrespective of any accident history, the crossing forms part of an improved pedestrian facility to link up with other crossings in the area and provide a walking connectivity for all pedestrians to reach out to various destinations (e.g. Ashfield CBD, Herman Lewis Reserve, schools and transport.) The proposed crossing in Clissold Street near/at Holden Street is well supported by the general community.

It is observed that vehicles must ‘yield’ i.e. give-way to opposing traffic in Clissold Street, particularly with buses needing to negotiate wide turns around the intersection in and out of Clissold Street. It is considered that the crossing will have minimal impact upon the traffic movement in the area.

As Holden Street is a boundary line between Inner West Council Canterbury Bankstown Council, co-agreement has been made to investigate a crossing in Holden Street, south of Trevenar Street which would best cater for pedestrian desire path movement in all directions around the intersection.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the detailed design plan (10301) for a proposed new at-grade (road level pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Clissold Street at the intersection with Holden Street, Ashfield, with associated signs and line marking as shown in Attachment 1 be approved.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Amended Plan-At-grade (road level) pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Clissold Street at Holden Street, Ashfield.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 9

Subject: Queen Street, between Hillcrest Avenue & New Street, Ashfield-Pedestrian Safety & Traffic improvement works.
(Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

Prepared By: Boris Muha - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the detailed design plan (10303-sheets 1 to 5) for a proposed corridor treatment of new raised pedestrian (zebra) crossings, new raised platform thresholds, new kerb blister islands/extensions to intersections, bus stop relocations and associated signposting and line marking in Queen Street between Hillcrest Avenue and New Street, Ashfield, as shown in Attachment 1 be approved.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the detailed design plans for proposed corridor treatments along Queen Street between Hillcrest Avenue and New Street. The works involve placing in new raised platform thresholds and raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Queen Street, at/near the intersections with Seaview Street and Clissold Street; kerb blister island/extensions to the intersections of Queen Street at Seaview Street and Clissold Street; relocation of Bus Stops away of the proposed crossings; and removal of existing horizontal chicanes to provide additional parking in the area.

This work is programmed and is envisaged to be constructed in the 2025/2026 financial year, subject to funding.

BACKGROUND

The village caters to an independent living lifestyle however as the average age is over 82 years there are a significant number of residents with mobility issues that hinder their ability to move around freely.

This has prompted a general request from the residents to improve pedestrian safety around the village to enable them to walk to various desired destinations and take public transport within the area.

The proposed treatment in this report received a major (79-83% rate) support under a general community engagement consultation conducted through Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ back in October 2023. The facility is viewed in benefit and supported by the community at large, and not only for the elderly of the Cardinal Freeman Village.

DISCUSSION

The following information is provided in discussion.

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Locality Plan

Street Name	Queen Street (between Hillcrest Avenue and New Street)
Carriageway width (m) kerb to kerb	Approx. 10.5m between Hillcrest Avenue to Clissold Street, Approx, 12.8m between Clissold Street and New Street.
Carriageway type	Two-way, one travel lane each direction.
Classification	Local
Speed Limit km/h	50
85^th percentile speed km/h	44.9-50
Vehicles per day (vpd)	6000
Last available 5 years of TfNSW recorded crash history	(3) in last 5 years in Queen Street, between Hillcrest Ave and New Street 2019, 1xRum 0, ped near side(Clissold St)-moderate injury. 2020, 1xRum 87, off- left/Left bend into object (Hillcrest Ave) - moderate injury. 2023, 1XRum 49, other manoeuvring (parking/U-turns) (north of Seaview Street)-minor other injury..
Parking arrangements	Parking is permitted to both sides of Queen Street..
Side street(nearest or along)	Under the corridor length- sides streets are Hillcrest Avenue, Seaview Street, Clissold Street and New Street.

Table 1. Road Network detail.

The Plan

The following works are proposed and are illustrated on the attached plans.

Queen Street (Hillcrest Avenue to New Street), Ashfield (Plan No. 10303 (sheets 1 to 5):

- Queen St (north of Hillcrest St):

o construct a new raised concrete speed threshold with garden beds within the grass verge.

- Queen St at Seaview St:

o construct a new landscaped kerb blister island and adjust the ‘STOP’ holding lines to improve sight distance for vehicles;

o construct a new raised pedestrian crossing with landscaped kerb blister islands and heel safe gutter bridge crossings; and

o relocate the existing bus stop (on west side) from its existing location northwards and construct a new bus boarding platform within the grass verge area. Adjust the ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘Parking’ signage to suit the new works.

- Queen Street (outside No. 77)

o Remove the existing speed chicane kerb blister islands and associated line markings, reinstate on-street parking and the road pavement with asphalt.

- Queen Street at Clissold Street

o construct 2 new ‘at-grade’ (flat) concrete median islands in Clissold Street, reconstruct the kerb returns kerb ramps for better alignment and adjust the ‘STOP’ holding lines to improve sight distance for vehicles;

o construct a new raised pedestrian crossing (south of Clissold St) with landscaped kerb blister islands and heel safe gutter bridge crossings; and

o relocate the existing bus stop (on west side) from its existing location southwards and construct a new bus boarding platform within the grass verge area. Adjust ‘Bus Zone’ and ‘Parking’ signage to suit the new works.

- Queen Street between Clissold St & New St

o construct a new raised concrete speed threshold with garden beds within the grass verge outside No 76A/96; and

o Remove the existing speed chicane kerb blister islands and associated line markings, reinstate on-street parking and the road pavement with asphalt.

Parking Changes

It is proposed to adjust the existing ‘No Stopping’, ‘Bus Zones’ & ‘Parking’ signs in Queen Street to facilitate implementation of the works. This will mean some existing parking spaces will be lost in the vicinity of the new works whilst new parking spaces will be created in new locations i.e. mainly in the vicinity of the removed speed chicanes. Overall, the proposal will result in the net gain of 9 on-street parking spaces in Queen Street between Hillcrest Street & New Street.

Streetlighting

The 2 new raised pedestrian crossing will require new lighting for them to meet the required lighting standards. This may involve up to 2 new flood lights provided on either side each of the new raised pedestrian crossings (either on existing or new power poles). The attached plans indicatively show the locations of the proposed new flood lights and power poles, with the final location to be confirmed during the lighting design development phase of the project by qualified electrical consultant.

Other Information

The combination of raised platform thresholds and raised pedestrian crossing east and west of the intersections of Queen Street with Seaview Street and Clissold Streets provides traffic calming on both approaches leading in the cross- street intersections. Both cross-street intersections have been prone to accidents or near miss incidences, particularly with cross-traffic movements.

The existing mid-block chicane in Queen Street between Seaview Street and Clissold Street will be removed. Raised crossings at both ends of Queen Street between Seaview Street and Clissold Street will act to calm the traffic in this section of Queen Street in place of the chicane. The removal of the chicane will allow added parking in the area and provide appropriate lead in distance towards the Bus Stop, which will be relocated south of the proposed crossing near Clissold Street.

Similarly, the existing chicane in Queen Street, just south of New Street, will be removed to provide for more parking. The proposed raised threshold, a short distance south of the chicane will act to traffic calm the area in place of the chicane.

Both bus stops, as shown on the plans, are required to be relocated to conform to current TfNSW directorate for sight view clearance of pedestrian(zebra) crossings.

The bus stop on the Seaview Street end is required to be relocated away of the crossing for appropriate sight view clearance and moved further north (outside No.99 Queen Street) to provide appropriate lead in distance for a bus to approach into the stop under the current ‘State Transit Bus Infrastructure Guide’ for new and re-located bus stops. The Bus stop is to be constructed of a raised platform to attain a safe level of boarding onto the bus and cleared of any obstructions for patrons to move, circulate and board/alight from the bus essentially from the front door. This is required in accordance to the ‘Guideline for promoting compliance of bus stops with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport’.

Two large trees that are marked on the plans outside 99 Queen Street are to be removed to attain the necessary Bus Stop requirements above. 2 new trees of appropriate species will be planted in the vicinity to replace the removed trees.

The plan as shown in Attachment 1 has been amended over that of the original plan (issued out to consultation) to reposition warning tactiles within the kerb blistered path just before the start of the crossing. Grass verged areas exist or are provided either side of the crossings to guide pedestrians into the path leading up to the crossing. Directional tactiles will also be requested to be added under detailed plans for construction to further assist visually impaired pedestrians from the footpath over to the crossing.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project is listed in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works program to be carried out in 2025/2026, subject to grant funding approval. The work is estimated to be around $475,000.

CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the proposal was mailed out on the 15 October 2024 to (29) properties (106 letters) in Queen Street between Hillcrest Avenue and New Street, Ashfield, requesting residents’ views regarding the proposal. (see also map of consultation area Figure 2). Submissions closed on the 8 November 2024.

A copy of the letter was also sent directly to the Manager of the Cardinal Freeman Village to distribute amongst its residents inviting them to comment also.

Figure 2. Map on Consultation Area.

(2) Resident response was received from the Cardinal Freeman Village. The comments are shown tabled below with officer’s response.

The bicycle group representative raised concerns about car doors opening out onto bicyclists traveling along the road, and the parking of vehicles over the raised thresholds.

The Transport Systems Australia (bus operator) representative raised concerns about insufficient lead in distance to the Bus stop after the crossing, north of Seaview Street, and buses needing to disembark pedestrians from the second door onto concrete or grass verge footway and not over any driveway, in case of emergency.

The above concerns raised are tabled below with officer’s response.

Residents/Traffic Committee Representative’s Comments

Officers Response

Resident of the Cardinal Freeman Village.

Request that 1-2 spaces be removed on the eastern side of Queen Street, north of the main gate No.9. of the Cardinal Freeman Village. Sight view is claimed to be inadequate whilst exiting from the driveway.

This is not part of the Scope of Works. Council did remove a car parking space north of the driveway of Gate No.9 through earlier requests. The distance in sight view clearance to the north side of the (wide) driveway is approximately 12 metres, and some 15 metres from the viewpoint of the driver exiting the driveway in the forward direction. It is considered that there is adequate sight view distance from the driveway, in length exceeding what is typically for a road intersection.

It is further considered that the removal of the chicane (outside No. 77 queen Street) may improve the straight view of traffic to the north of the driveway. No intention is made to remove any further parking north of the driveway to Gate No. 9 of the Cardinal Freeman Village.

Visually impaired (with guide dog) resident of the Cardinal Freeman Village.

The crossings show continuous blended flush pathways from the footpath to the raised platform of the crossing. This is not in line from a workshop meeting outcome claiming that continues blended flush pathways over crossings do not serve as safe queues for owner guide dogs to recognise before crossing.

Pram ramps (as recognised by the guide dogs) should be allocated to the crossings, or the crossings be made at-grade with pram ramps and speed humps/speed cushions provided either side of the at-grade crossing.

The plans issued under consultation are detailed design concept plans identifying type and location of crossings proposed.

Council typically raises new pedestrian (zebra) crossings on local roads in benefit and ease for pedestrians to transverse over the crossing. These are normally at continuous flush level. Existing road reserve constraints and design of the crossing can dictate whether there is opportunity to apply ramp slope variation over the crossing. Ramp slope variation will be looked at, if possible, with the crossings in Queen Street under the detailed design plans for construction. Otherwise tactiles and the inclusion of turfed verges to the sides of the paths leading onto the crossings have been applied under the amended detailed concept plans in Attachment 1. This is in effort to provide alternate queue and guidance for visually impaired pedestrians onto the crossing.

Council’s Access and Inclusion Planning Leader has suggested that directional tactiles (leading from the footpath to the warning tactiles) at the crossings be added. This will be examined for inclusion under ‘detail plan design for construction’ to guide visually impaired pedestrians onto the crossing.

Establishing speed humps/cushions either side of an at-grade crossing only doubles up on raised treatments. Drivers can be inconvenienced and concentrate on mounting the speed humps and could lose focus on the crossing. Increase noise and pollution (decelerating and accelerating) is also a concern. Raised crossings are considered safer in this case, where higher traffic volumes and speeds occur, and where pedestrians can cross over at ease.

Transport Systems Australia (TSA)- (bus operator) representative

I believe the location of the raised pedestrian crossing [north of Seaview Street] falling within the bus stop wouldn’t meet transport regulations. Similarly, concern is raised with the Bus Stop south of Clissold Street having its rear door opening onto a driveway, which would be unsafe with passengers disembarking in case of emergency.

Discussions between Council officers and the bus operator representative were undertaken to clarify on plan, that the Bus stop with associated bus zone signage, is moved north of the crossing from Seaview Street with sufficient lead-in (‘No Stopping’) distance for a bus to enter the Bus Stop after the crossing.

The Bus stop to the south of the crossing near Clissold Street, will be amended to move a few metres south to enable rear door access upon the grass verge footway and not upon the driveway to No.73 Queen Street. No objection was raised by TSA thereafter.

Bicycle group representative

Maybe we should show the cars with open driver doors so we can see the extent of the door zone on traffic including bikes.

In relation to thresholds the chamfer edge down to the gutter tilts the cars parked on a threshold. This adds to the load experienced by drivers as they open doors invariably leading to drivers flinging doors open with little care being

shown to traffic, including bikes, passing by.

Car doors fully open out by 900-1000 mm. This

would only be a concern if the bike path is forced closer to the shoulder or kerb lane area. However, bicyclists follow the path in line with the traffic, with the symbols marked in the travel laneway or path. No changes are made to existing conditions.

Regarding camber, the added height of 75mm to the threshold would have little impact on camber changes. The cross-section (kerb side area) of Queen Street for the proposed threshold south of Seaview Street is not considered steep.

The proposed threshold to the north of Clissold Street, where Queen Street widens out, has widened shoulder or kerb side area, and is edge lined with car doors not typically opening onto the travel lane.

Bicyclists and traffic are not made to travel down the marked shoulder or kerb side area. The intention is to provide the opportunity to park over the threshold if the motorists desire to do so or not.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the detailed design plan (10303-sheets 1 to 5) for a proposed corridor treatment comprising of new raised pedestrian (zebra) crossings, new raised platform thresholds, new kerb blister islands/extensions to intersections, bus stop relocations and associated signposting and line marking in Queen Street between Hillcrest Avenue and New Street, Ashfield, as shown in Attachment 1 be approved.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Proposed corridor treatments in Queen Street, between Hillcrest Avenue and New Street, Ashfield.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 10

Subject: Norton Street, Ashfield (between A'Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street) - Proposed improved Pedestrian Facility and Traffic Calming Works (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Burwood PAC)

Prepared By: Boris Muha - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the detailed design plans (10262 Sheets 1 to 4) for proposed corridor treatments comprising of raised thresholds, raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing, kerb-blister islands and pedestrian refuges and lane delineation markings with associated signposting along Norton Street between A’Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street, and the intersections of Carlisle Street, Miller Avenue and Knox Streets, as shown in Attachment 1, be approved.

2. That the detailed design plans (10262 Sheets 5-8) as approved by Council at its meeting on 10 October 2023, be noted.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve pedestrian and motorist safety in Norton Street, Ashfield from A’Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street, by constructing various traffic calming facilities including raised thresholds, raised pedestrian crossing, landscaped kerb blister islands, pedestrian refuge islands and lane delineation markings. The proposal aims to improve safety for pedestrians and motorists by better defining crossing points, reducing conflicts with traffic movements and reducing traffic speeds. This will help address concerns with pedestrian and motorist behaviour in this area, particularly during busy periods.

BACKGROUND

Norton Street, between Holden Street and Carlisle Street, Ashfield and the intersections of Carlisle Street, Miller Avenue and Knox Street, have been recognised under the Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP) 2022 requiring improvements to pedestrian safety.

Community concerns on traffic speeding and a recent report under the InnerWest@40 study identifying a history and/or potential risk of accidents along the above section of Norton Street, has also prompted proposed traffic calming works as shown in the plans in Attachment 1.

The section of works in Holden Street, between Holden Street and A’Beckett Avenue was approved by Council at its meeting on the 10 October 2023.

DISCUSSION

The following information is provided in discussion.

Figure 1. Locality Plan

Street Name	Norton Street (A’Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street)
Carriageway width (m) kerb to kerb	6.3m to 9.0m
Carriageway type	One-way westbound lane with remaining carriage way width divided and hatched off in road markings to prevent parking to the north and south side of the road.
Classification	Regional Road. By-pass through Ashfield CBD.
Speed Limit km/h	50
85^th percentile speed km/h	41.0-49.9
Vehicles per day (vpd)	4700-7500
Reported crash history in last 5 years	Six (6) accidents have been recorded from TfNSW available accident statistics in the last 5 years in Norton Street between Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street. One (1) X 2019, Norton St, east of Knox Street, RUM 83, off right/right bend into object, moderate injury. One (1) X 2019, Norton St at Knox Street, RUM 19, non-casualty (towaway), vehicle from adjacent direction right off carriageway into object in northbound direction. One (1) X 2022, Norton St at Carlisle Street, RUM 16, serious injury, left near. One (1) X 2021, Norton St at Carlisle Street, RUM 85, non-casualty (tow-away), off right/ left bend into object in Norton Street. One (1) X 2021, Norton St at Knox Street, RUM 0, pedestrian near side. One (1) X 2019, Norton St at Knox Street, RUM 0, pedestrian near side.
Parking arrangements	Full-time ‘No Stopping’ and/or ‘No Parking’ to both sides.
Side streets	A’Beckett Avenue, Knox Street, Miller Avenue and Carlisle Street.

Table 1. Road Network detail.

The Plan

The following works are proposed and are illustrated on the attached plan.

Norton Street, Ashfield (from Carlisle Street to A’Beckett Avenue) (Plans No. 10262 sheets (1 to 4):

In Norton Street (A’Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street)

· Near No. 80: Construct a new concrete raised threshold (100mm high, flat-top to be terracotta colour) together with landscaped kerb blister islands on either side.

· Near No. 90 – replace the existing at-grade pedestrian crossing with new concrete raised pedestrian crossing (100mm high, flat-top to be terracotta colour) with landscaped kerb blister islands on either side.

· West of Miller Avenue – construct a new concrete raised threshold (100mm high, flat-top to be terracotta colour).

· Near No. 129/131 – construct new landscaped kerb blister islands at the bend in place of the line marked non-traffic lane to calm traffic as they travel through the bend.

· Resurface the road pavement with new asphalt (generally from A’Beckett Ave to Hugh St).

· Provide new edge line marking, chevron markings and direction al arrows to delineate the traffic lane from the parking and non-parking lanes.

In Knox Avenue

· Construct a new integrated landscaped kerb extension together with a new pedestrian refuge island to improve pedestrian access and safety across the road at this location.

· Resurface the road pavement with new asphalt (final extent subject to detail design and budget allocations).

In Hugh Street

· Construct 2 new integrated landscaped kerb extensions at the intersection to improve pedestrian access and safety across the road at this location.

· Resurface the road pavement with new asphalt (final extent subject to detail design and budget allocations).

In Miller Avenue

· Construct 2 new integrated landscaped kerb extensions at the intersection to improve pedestrian access and safety across the road at this location and remove the existing narrow central median island.

· Resurface the road pavement with new asphalt (final extent subject to detail design and budget allocations)

In Carlisle Street

Norton Street (Holden Street to A’Beckett Avenue, including in A’Beckett Ave)-Plans No. 10262 sheets 5-8)

· The works shown on these plans within the section of Norton Street between Holden Street and A’Beckett Street have been previously approved by the Traffic Committee in September 2023 and Council in October 2023. These works will also be included in the overall scope of works when construction is undertaken.

Parking Changes

Most of the existing parking arrangements will remain unchanged. However, it is proposed to convert the existing ‘No Parking’ signs and zones to ‘2P Parking’ permit holders excepted signs and zones in Norton Street (south side between No.82A and No.88). These changes will result in a gain of 8 new conditional parking spaces.

Streetlighting

The existing street lighting at the location is deemed adequate. Therefore, no changes are proposed to the existing street lighting due to the works. Please note however that Ausgrid is progressively replacing all existing streetlights throughout the Local Government area with new energy efficient and environmentally friendly LED streetlights, and this will be completed independent of this project.

Other Information

Proposed resident parking restrictions on the southern side of Norton Street (between No.82A and No.88) will read ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area 1’. These proposed restrictions are similar to the approved resident parking restrictions on the south side of Norton Street, between Holden Street and A’Beckett Avenue (outside premises’ No.50 to 60) per plan 10262 sheet 5 and 6. The resident parking restrictions along Norton Street are similar and consistent with the existing resident parking restrictions in the adjoining streets.

Attachment 1 is an amendment to plan as originally issued out under consultation. Inclusion or changes have been made after consultation as follows:

1. All one-way signs off intersections and major driveways (i.e. Ashfield Mall exit from Norton Street) are increased in size to better identify and enforce the one -way west in Norton Street;

2. A pedestrian safety fence is provided to the back of kerb on the northern side of the proposed raised threshold east of Carlisle Street (west of Miller Avenue) to prevent pedestrians from using the threshold as a crossing. The narrow width of the footpath to the south side would not appropriately accommodate a fence. Hence no fence is placed to the south side; and

3. Centerline markings are provided in Miller Avenue and Carlisle Street at Norton Street to control and guide traffic around the intersections.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project is listed in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works program to be carried out in 2025/2026 and is funded under the NSW 2024/25 - 2026/27 Towards Zero Safer Roads Program up to the amount of $840,000.

CONSULTATION

A letter outlining the proposal was mailed out to (32) properties (98 letters) in Norton Street, between A’Beckett Street and Carlisle Street, and in Miller Avenue and Carlisle Street at the intersection with Norton Street, requesting the residents’ views regarding the proposal (see map of consultation area Figure 2). Letters were sent out on 17/10/2024 with closure of submission on 8/11/2024.

Figure 2. Map on Consultation Area.

Resident responses received with the concerns raised by the residents are outlined in the table below with officer’s responses provided.

A petition signed by (26) residents from (18) households requesting the retention of a convex mirror located opposite Carlisle Street in Norton Street to view west bound traffic coming around the bend in Norton Street from Carlisle Street.

Residents Comments

Officers Response

Resident 1:

Issues in Norton Street.

· Ashfield Baptist Church Traffic Management (adjacent to 48 Norton Street)-consideration needs to be given for traffic entering and leaving the church carpark and community facility. Increase community use of this facility is expected in the future.

· Further consideration needs to be given to re-align the curve at the bend outside 129/131 Norton Street due to an adverse camber resulting in past accidents.

· Some allowance also need to be made for future traffic emerging from the unit blocks currently under construction on the sites of 133/135 Norton street, which as I understand it will also add

considerable traffic movements to this immediate area.

· The current post-mounted mirror facing Carlisle Street must not be removed (as per your plan).

The nature of the curve on Norton Street means that any traffic aiming to turn left on to Norton Street westwards simply cannot see other traffic approaching along Norton Street. To remove

this mirror would be inviting accidents to happen.

A petition has in turn been signed by (26) residents from (18) households and received by Council requesting the retention of the convex mirror to view west bound traffic coming around the bend in Norton Street from Carlisle Street.

Issues in Knox Steet

· The movements of goods vehicles to

and from the Ashfield Mall loading bays and car parks should be accounted for. An exit into Norton Street that is too restrictive for goods vehicles will simply add to congestion elsewhere in the vicinity.

· The landscaped kerb on the western side could be shaped in a such a way as to favour traffic

turning right into Knox Street from Norton Street and to deter motorists who may attempt to

‘short-cut’ the intersection from Hugh Street by illegally cutting across the westbound traffic on

Norton Street into Know Street northbound.

Issues in Hugh Street

· The landscaped kerb on the west side could be shaped to ‘direct’ traffic to turn left (see

above). Also there could be a shaped medians trip to line of Norton Street for the same purpose, and clear ‘left -turn’ arrows stencilled on the street surface at this point.

Issues in Miller Avenue

· Traffic moving south bound through Miller Avenue either deliberately or through ignorance attempts to turn left into Norton Street against the one-way

traffic flow. As previously, shaping of the kerbs, better signage and stencilled arrows in Miller Avenue (in this case ‘turn right only’) would help make this

intersection safer.

· Make sure the access from Norton Street is wide enough for emergency vehicles transferring

from Norton Street to Liverpool Road through Miller Avenue.

· Stencilled left turn signs on the road surface approaching the Norton Street intersection

form the south … most importantly, re-instatement of the mirror to provide motorists on Carlisle

Street with a view of whatever may be approaching from their right through what is very much a

blind corner at that point.

· The proposal will not affect the existing traffic movements/management for the church near to Holden Street.

· This is not in the Scope of Works. Existing constraints on the road reserve prevents any correction to the road alignment (e.g. major utilities and drainage re-adjustments, and land acquisition, all of which may not be feasible, and cost prohibitive. The proposal involves the use of raised threshold (speed hump) and kerb blister islands to physically narrow the travel path and reduce the speeds. It is expected the traffic calming at this location will adequately control the traffic movement and reduce traffic speeds down to acceptable levels and improve safety for road users in the area.

· The development is not considered to be an issue which would prevent the proposal from being implemented or warrant any additional measures at this location regarding the development.

· **Convex mirrors on public roadway/footpath distort the reflected image and impact on a motorist’s ability to accurately judge speed and distance and pedestrian movement. They can be damaged and rotated rendering ineffective.

They can pose a hazard as a reliant motorist will leave a side street on the assumption that the road is clear. NSW Police, Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) and Council’s no longer favour these devices and stopped recommending them within public roadways.

The above proposed traffic measures to slow vehicle speeds down and reduce the safe sight distance for viewing aims to phase the mirror out. A road safety audit will be carried out to assess the effect of the works once implemented.

· The proposal has been checked and will not affect any existing movements of goods vehicles into or out of Ashfield Mall. All major goods deliveries to loading docks are to the north of Knox Street with trucks coming in and out of Liverpool Road. No comments were received from the Ashfield Mall.

· The change requested cannot be made as it will adversely impact on the required traffic movements into and out of the street. One-way arrow (west) road marking are proposed and larger size one-way signs are placed opposite Hugh Street to deter illegal wrong way movement from Hugh Street into Knox Street.

· This cannot be accommodated due to the existing tree positioned on the wester corner. Any change to the island as suggested would cause a constriction for traffic movements past this tree. The kerb is extended out to better view and provide safe pedestrian movement across Hugh Street over a shorter distance.

A median strip or island in Hugh Street may constrict larger vehicle (garbage truck) from turning left in from Norton Street. A centreline is marked to guide and direct traffic. Larger one -way signs and one-way arrow markings in Norton Street direct vehicles to turn left from Hugh Street into Norton Street.

· The reshaping of the islands as suggested cannot be accommodated without adversely affecting required traffic movements into and out of the street. A larger One- Way sign will be provided (in place of the existing) to help reinforce this restriction to vehicles coming out of Miller Avenue.

· The central median island in Miller Avenue is removed and replaced a with a painted centreline. Emergency vehicles can cut over the centreline to negotiate the turns or go to the wrong side of the road.

· The proposed one -way arrow road markings, and larger one-way signs are considered sufficient. A centre line is marked in Carlisle Street to guide traffic to turn left. However, this can be reviewed after the proposal is implemented to ascertain any need for additional road markings.

See above point with double Asterix ** regarding the mirror.

Resident 2:

· Consideration should be given to closing Carlisle Street at the intersection with of Norton Street for safety reasons, due to a bend in Norton Street. Lack of indicators turning into Carlisle Street-comes upon drivers on Norton Street too quickly. Unit development of 314 Liverpool Road with access off Norton Street will have issues with drivers turning onto Norton Street from Carlisle Street. Drivers cannot see traffic coming along Norton Street. Drivers are required to stop and wait for pedestrians including elderly leading to traffic issues. Bin collection from the development will lead to congestion.

· Agree to the raising of the crossing in Norton Street at Knox Street.

· Consideration should be made to widen the footpaths-introduction of trees has severely limited the pedestrian access. Instead of green space, provide extended footpath between Carlisle Street to Knox Street to encourage resident and visitors to walk.

· Council neglects to maintaining its green space-should be used for footpath instead.

· Design does not take into account the new development 314 Liverpool Road. Bin collection of red green and yellow bins will lead to congestion.- more reason to request closure of Carlisle Street for safety reasons for traffic turning into Norton Street from Carlisle Street and the driveway into and out of the development.

· Severely disagree to the removal of the mirror on Norton Street at Carlisle Street, due to safety reasons. If Carlisle Street is closed to a cul-de sac, then mirror is not required.

· Consideration should be made to naming the laneways in-between Hugh and Carlisle Streets and Carlisle and King Streets, as the majority of lanes in the Inner West are named.

· Painted arrows on roadway, too many vehicles observed going the wrong way in Norton Street, especially between Holden Street and Hugh Streets.

· This is not in the Scope of works. There is no intention under any current traffic management program to close off Carlisle Street, any road closure would divert traffic to other streets and limit access for the residents in the street and so must be considered in a LATM study.

· Noted.

· The existing kerb & gutter and footpath assets are in quite good condition and the reconstruction of these assets in order to form a wider footpath is not warranted at this time., giver the costs involved and the limited budget available.

· It should be noted the integration of landscaping and green space is a priority for Council when new works are being implemented across the Local Government Area. These locations will be added to Councils existing maintenance programs for periodic maintenance according to Council’s existing service standards.

· The development 314 Liverpool Road has an approved waste management plan where bins are stored in an internal area at the rear of the site at Norton Street and wheeled out directly to an awaiting waste collection vehicle on street or within the property, and wheeled back directly into the holding area, minimising any impact or conflict/obstruction to pedestrian and traffic activity in the area.

It is considered this proposal will not impact the ability for these services to be provided.

The design does not interfere with the vehicular access to the driveway of the development.

· See above point with double Asterix ** regarding the mirror.

· Naming of lanes is not a design or traffic related matter and is therefore outside scope of this current project. Residents can write separately regarding this request to Council’s Engineering Services Manager.

· The plans will be amended to replace all existing One- Way signs (opposite Carlisle Street, Miller Street, Hugh Street & Knox Street) with new and larger signs to reinforce this restriction. The proposed painted arrows on the road pavement, as shown on plan, are considered appropriate and therefore no additional painted arrows are proposed at this stage.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the detailed design plans (10262 Sheets 1 to 4) for proposed corridor treatments comprising of raised thresholds, raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing, kerb-blister islands and pedestrian refuges and lane delineation markings with associated signposting along Norton Street between A’Beckett Avenue to Carlisle Street, and the intersections of Carlisle Street, Miller Avenue and Knox Streets, as shown in Attachment 1, be approved.

It should be further noted that the detailed design plans (10262 Sheets 5-8) were approved by Council at its meeting on 10 October 2023.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Proposed plans- pedestrian facility improvements and traffic calming works in Norton Street, Ashfield.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 11

Subject: Burrows Avenue and Railway Road, Sydenham - Proposed Bus layover and parking changes (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Hefron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: George Tsaprounis - Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (south)

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the detail design drawing for the on-road changes associated with the proposed construction of a bus layover area in Burrows Avenue, west of Gleeson Avenue, Sydenham (as per attached drawing “Sydenham Station Bus Layover Burrows Avenue and Railway Road Signs and line marking plan” by Aurecon, dated 4/7/24, drawing no. 520212-AURC-038-RW-DRG-002001, sheet 10 of 41) be approved, subject to the following conditions:

a) TfNSW monitor the interaction between buses and vehicles along Railway Road (one way) and Burrows Road over the next 12 months and implement further traffic control measures should they be required.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report follows a previous report to an Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting on Monday 3 June 2024 in which the proposed bus layover and parking changes along Burrows Avenue and Railway Road, Sydenham were detailed. At the meeting the Transport for NSW representative requested this item be deferred on the basis that the proposed layover will be going to a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) process and once the REF had been determined, Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) would again request that this matter be brought back to the LTC for consideration. The Traffic Committee therefore recommended that “the Burrows Avenue and Railway Road, Sydenham - Proposed Bus layover and parking changes, be deferred”.

Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) has approached Council with regards to a proposal for the construction of a bus layover area in Burrows Avenue, west of Gleeson Avenue, Sydenham. The designated bus layover area is required at Sydenham Station to cater for the growing number of bus services in this area. Prior to picking up passengers, buses currently park along Burrows Avenue which creates congestion and safety issues for pedestrians and drivers. The bus layover area will store up to 6 buses. The existing unrestricted parking spaces (approximately 11 spaces) on the south side of Burrows Avenue (adjacent to the vacant property) and six (6) 90-degree angle parking spaces on the north side of Burrows Avenue will be lost as a result of the proposal. In response to this loss of parking it is proposed to convert the parallel parking on the east side of Railway Road to 45-degree rear to kerb parking to lessen the impact from the loss of parking because of this proposal.

Community engagement was initially undertaken on Friday 24 November to Friday 8 December 2023. Community notifications, letterbox dropped, and nearby properties door knocked on Railway Road, Burrows Avenue and Wright Street were part of the consultation process. Results of this community engagement process and related parking study (Parking Data Report) were table in the report that was presented to the Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting on Monday 3 June 2024. Subsequently a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) report was completed in July 2024, and this has been provided to address issues arising because of both operational and construction matters from this project (refer to attachment 1 - Sydenham Bus Layover - Review of Environmental Factors July 2024).

It is recommended that Council approve the signs and line marking plan (drawing no. 520212-AURC-038-RW-DRG-002001, sheet 10 of 41 dated 4 July 2024)

BACKGROUND

Sydenham Station is an important junction with the Bankstown Railway Line (T3), Illawarra and Eastern Suburbs line (T4) and Airport and South line (T8) and interchange with east-west bus routes. It continues to be a logical bus terminus for passengers interchanging with rail services from Sydney’s Inner East and Inner West. This interchange function is expected to intensify in coming years with:

· The opening of the City & Southwest Metro between Chatswood and Bankstown. Increased Illawarra Line services

· Increased bus service levels and patronage to and from Sydenham Station. Population growth in surrounding precincts

· Sydenham being identified as the terminus for future new bus routes under the Greater Sydney Bus Network Strategy.

Given the importance of Sydenham Station as a multimodal transport interchange, buses servicing this major hub don't have enough room to terminate and layover between services. This creates congestion on Railway Road, Burrows Avenue and Gleeson Avenue (a freight corridor to the Airport and Port Botany). The limited bus layover options in the area results in buses idling in these streets, causing obstruction to pedestrians and cars, in active bus zones and surrounding streets. Transport for NSW representatives have advised of safety issues, delays to passengers and bus services which are currently being experienced as a result. To resolve this issue, Transport for NSW is proposing to construct a bus layover facility at the corner of Railway Road and Burrows Avenue in Sydenham (refer to figure 1 below)

BURROWS AVENUE AND RAILWAY ROAD

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

DISCUSSION

Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) is proposing a new bus layover facility at the corner of Railway Road and Burrows Avenue as part of the Bus Priority Infrastructure Program (BPIP) to improve the reliability and efficiency of bus services. Prior to picking up passengers, buses currently park along Burrows Avenue which creates congestion and safety issues for pedestrians and drivers.

The proposed bus layover would give bus drivers a place to park safely between services and improve bus travel times and service frequencies, increasing reliability for passengers. Sydenham requires a bus layover area to cater to the growing number of bus services in this area. At present, prior to picking up passengers, buses park along Burrows Avenue and Railway Road creating congestion and impacting bus operations.

The proposed bus layover facility at the corner of Railway Road and Burrows Avenue in Sydenham will include the following changes (refer to figure 2):

· Six 16m-long angle bus parking spaces on the southern side of Burrows Avenue with manoeuvring space at the northern end of Railway Parade for egress, replacing a total of 11 parallel parking spaces.

· A dedicated drivers amenity block with a lunchroom and toilets.

· The 8 parallel parking spaces along the eastern side of Railway Road converted into 13 45-degree angle car parking spaces.

· A reduction in 90-degree angle car parking spaces along the northern side of Burrows Avenue from 12 to 6.

· Create a path for pedestrians, passengers, and the community to safely walk to and from Railway Road to Gleeson Avenue.

· Build a noise wall to separate the nearby homes from the new bus layover facility and minimise noise impacts from the bus layover facility.

· Install driveways for buses to enter from Railway Road and leave through Burrows Avenue.

Figure 2 – Bus layover proposal

The above changes result in a net loss of 17 unrestricted parking spaces across the two streets. The impacts of the proposed changes to the current parking arrangements along Burrows Avenue and Railway Road are provided in table 1 below.

Road Name	Parking Restrictions	Parking supply	Impact	Justification
Burrows Avenue – East *	Unrestricted	11	- 11	Required for the buses to exit from the new layover into Burrows Avenue
Burrows Avenue – West	Unrestricted	12	- 6	Required for buses to safe turning movements
Railway Rd -East	2 P	10	+5	Changing to angle parking
Railway Rd -West	1P, 2P	23	zero	No change

Table 1 – Proposed changes to parking

Given the loss of parking Council requested that parking data be collected by TfNSW to determine the impact of the proposed loss. The objective of the parking investigation was to provide TfNSW and Council with data, its analysis including assessment and recommendations on parking restriction changes and identify the parking impacts of the proposed layover area at the corner of Railway Road and Burrows Avenue (‘Proposal Footprint’) and on alternative parking areas within a 400m radius of the proposal area (‘Side Streets). This information was detailed in the Parking Data Report attached to the previous report (Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting on Monday 3 June 2024).

A site inspection was undertaken by the traffic consultant on Tuesday, 5 September 2023 between 12:30pm and 1:30pm to gain an understanding of the current parking conditions and constraints. Some of the key conclusions are listed below.

· Surplus parking in addition to the parking supply was observed in Buckley Street, Railway Parade, Railway Road (one-way), Hogan Avenue and George Street.

· The occupancy results show that there was some surplus parking in Burrows Avenue, Buckley Street and Hogan Avenue.

· The duration of stay results showed that on the peak weekdays and weekend days:

- Most vehicles stayed for one hour and only four to six vehicles parked during the whole 13-hour surveys.

- The average vehicle stays were six hours in Burrows Avenue and 3 to 3.5 hours in Railway Road (one-way).

· A total of 131 properties in Railway Road, George Street, Swain Street, Gleeson Avenue, Park Road and Yelverton Street were identified as not having onsite parking capacity. Of the 21 properties within the proposal footprint (all in Railway Road and none in Burrows Avenue), only seven had onsite parking.

· Under TfNSW’s proposal, there is mostly insufficient parking across Burrows Avenue and Railway Road between Monday and Friday. The occupancy across all streets ranges between 55% and 80% and therefore there is still sufficient parking in surrounding streets.

To address the shortfall in parking, TfNSW have proposed that the current parking spaces along the eastern side of Railway Road be converted from 2P parallel parking spaces to 2P 45-degree, (rear to kerb) parking spaces. It has been calculated that this will result in a net gain of 5 timed parking spaces. It should be noted that the majority of the spaces lost as a result of the proposed works will be unrestricted spaces and adjacent to railway land. From the data analysis, it does seem that spare capacity does exist within a 400m radius to cope with the transfer of these spaces. It should also be noted that most residential streets within close proximity to Sydenham Station have been treated with 2P resident parking restrictions.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Initial community engagement on the proposal occurred from Friday 24 November to Friday 8 December 2023, with community notifications letterbox dropped and nearby properties doorknocked on Railway Road, Burrows Avenue and Wright Street. Feedback was invited in person, on the phone, via email and through the Sydenham bus layover project web page, the Transport Your Say website, and the NSW Government Have Your Say portal. (Refer to the attached Community Engagement Report). At the end of the engagement period, feedback was received from 18 individuals. The local community supported the proposed bus layover in principle but had concerns around parking and the proposed location. This feedback was included in the Community Engagement report attached as part of the previous report to the Extraordinary Local Traffic Committee Meeting on Monday 3 June 2024. Issues arising from community engagement were also addressed within the same report.

Discussed below is a summary of the outcomes of community engagement as a result of the REF process.

The Sydenham Bus Layover REF was publicly displayed between Monday 12 August 2024 and Monday 9 September 2024 on the Transport for NSW project website (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/sydenham-bus-layover).

The REF was also displayed on the NSW Government have your say portal (https://www.nsw.gov.au/have-your-say) and the Inner West Portal at https://caportal.com.au/tfnsw/inner-west/news-and-updates.

In addition to the public display, a letterbox drop notification was provided to nearby residents inviting their comment on the REF. An email notification was also sent directly to those community members who subscribed during initial community engagement undertaken in November 2023.

Three (3) submissions were received – one in support and the other two offered no position. The submissions received have not resulted in any changes to design or construction methodology as the submissions either sought clarifications or provided suggestions received which already comprise part of the proposal.

A summary of issues raised during the REF engagement process and responses from TfNSW is provided below.

	Issue raised	TfNSW response
Parking	• Will the six currently unmetered 90-degree parking spaces on Burrows Avenue remain unmetered? Will the parallel parking spots on Railway Road become unmetered too?	The parking on local road is managed by Inner West Council. Transport for NSW do not propose to change current parking time restrictions as part of the proposal. The six 90-degree spaces on Burrows Avenue would remain unmetered. The angled parking on Railway Road which would replace the existing two-hour parking (2P) parallel parking along the northern kerb would have the same 2P restrictions. The existing 2P parking restrictions along the southern kerb of Railway Road would be maintained.
Traffic and Transport	The right-hand turning lane on Burrows Avenue is not needed as there is already a multi-turning lane.	Changing the configuration of lanes on Burrows Avenue is not part of the proposal, however this feedback was forwarded to the relevant team within Transport for NSW for consideration.
Accessibility	Will there be public information systems at the bus bays? Will the bus bays have level boarding?	Sydenham bus layover is intended to provide a place to rest for bus drivers between services and would not be used to pick up passengers. As there would not be public use of the layover, no public information systems or level boarding provisions are proposed.
Noise wall	What is the proposed height of the noise wall? What will the noise wall be made of? The top half should be transparent to ensure afternoon sunlight is not blocked out ?	The proposed noise wall is 3.5 metres high, with the top section made from transparent acrylic panelling to allow light to pass through while still providing noise mitigation. The transparent panels would make up the top one metre of the noise wall for most of its length, however, the transparent panels would be reduced to the top 0.5 metres of the noise wall when adjacent to the driver amenities building. This helps ensure views into neighbouring residences are blocked for privacy.

CONCLUSION

The new bus layover facility project will benefit Sydenham Station as a multimodal transport interchange and support public transport infrastructure within the Inner West area. However, this will come at a cost to the adjoining residents with possible noise and exhaust impacts from the additional buses laying over and loss of overall parking. The creation of 45-degree angle parking will help ease the burden for resident as the additional spaces will be posted as 2P RPS area. It would also seem like the loss in unrestricted parking spaces can be accommodated in the adjacent street network. Issues of additional buses along Railway Road and their impacts are addressed within the REF. However, given the increase in buses, the interaction of buses and vehicles should be monitored over a period of time and that TfNSW be responsible implementing further traffic control measures should they be required in future.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications associated with the implementation of the proposed recommendations outlined in the report.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Sydenham Bus Layover - Review of Environmental Factors July 2024
2.⇩	Sydney Roads Asset Performance Contracts Sydenham Station Bus Layover

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 12

Subject: Wardell Road railway overbridge in Dulwich Hill - proposed modification to the existing delineation for associated footpath and barriers works (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: George Tsaprounis - Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (south)

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the proposed changes to the road widths along Wardell Road rail bridge from 7.8m to 6.6m for footpath widening and road safety barrier works be approved (including adjustment to associated travel lane linemarking).

2. That Narrow Bridge (W4-1) signs be installed in Wardell Road (both north and southbound) and in Dudley Street (southwest bound), prior to approaching the railway overbridge.

3. That Sydney Metro (TfNSW) undertake all necessary actions (including preparation of a Traffic Management Plan) for the installation of a “No Left Turn; Vehicles under 6.5m and Council Waste Vehicles Excepted” sign on the southbound approach of Dudley Street from Wardell Road.

4. That Sydney Metro (TfNSW) monitor the changes made to the bridge over a 12 month period and report back to Council with the outcome of this monitoring including a Post Construction Road Safety Audit. Any costs related to addressing the outcomes of the monitoring period and a Post Construction Road Safety Audit be borne by Sydney Metro.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of Sydney Metro, Sydenham to Bankstown project works to road over rail bridges are being upgrade with barriers (for errant vehicles) and throw screens to meet current safety standards for such bridges. Wardell Road railway bridge amongst other bridges in the LGA is proposed to be upgraded.

This report seeks Council approval to re-adjust existing line markings on Wardell Road Railway overbridge and to undertake necessary road safety barrier works and improvement to the existing footpath widths (by reducing/removing existing road shoulder).

It is recommended that the following changes to the bridge travel lane, shoulder and footpath as well as changes to the line marking be approved. It is also recommended that a ‘’No Left Turn’’ ban for vehicles over 6.5m with the exception of Council Waste vehicles be installed for left turning vehicles from Wardell Road into Dudley Street. Finally, that TfNSW monitor the changes made to the bridge over a 12 month period and report back to Council with the outcome of this monitoring including a Post Construction Road Safety Audit. Any costs related to addressing the outcomes of the monitoring period and a Post Construction Road Safety Audit be borne by TfNSW.

BACKGROUND

To mitigate any potential errant vehicle entering the rail corridor, which are also Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI), it is proposed to implement protection measures. In addition, Sydney Metro Trains are driverless trains, hence not able to see/observe errant vehicles in the rail corridor. To overcome the above concern a barrier design has been developed which includes upgrade works to the overbridge, providing errant vehicle mitigation solution to protect the rail corridor. The kerb line positioning ensures compliance with the carriageway width, minimising impact on the existing bridge while optimising footpath width for improved pedestrian access. A cross section of the bridge with proposed changes have been provided in Figure 1 below. Proposed works will involve modification of existing Traffic Control Signal (TCS) design at Wardell Road and Dudley Street intersection.

The civil and structural design works for the Wardell Road overbridge at Dulwich Hill Station site include:

· Upgrading existing footpaths and kerbs to accommodate regular performance traffic barriers.

· Kerb and footpath reconstruction, and level tie-ins.

· Installation of HVM PAS 68 rated bollards.

· Line marking/delineation.

Figure 1: Cross section of the Wardell Road Railway Over-bridge in Dulwich Hill

DISCUSSION

Wardell Road is a regional road which provide general access to vehicles (including buses), the subject section of Wardell Road overbridge, the section between Dudley Street and Bedford Crescent, consists of two-lane and two-way traffic. These lanes are situated within an 8.4 m wide carriageway. On either side of the carriageway, there are approx. 1.9m wide footpaths.

The intersection of Wardell Road and Dudley Street has been upgraded to a signalised intersection part of Inner West Council recent 40km/h HPAA (High Pedestrian Activity Area) and Public Domain upgrade works that consists of a raised intersection arrangement. Below Traffic Control Signals (TCS) diagram illustrates the existing intersection arrangements at the subject location.

Figure 2: TCS design/ diagram for Wardell Road, Dudley Street intersection at Dulwich Hill

Proposed Changes

The existing footpaths and kerbs are proposed to be replaced to provide structure to support the new bridge barriers. The new reinforced concrete footpath/deck has been designed with a reduced thickness to accommodate the required reinforcement while maintaining or improving the girder rating. The impact on the bridge is minimal due to the slight increase in the wearing surface. Waterproofing will be applied under the new surface between the relocated kerb lines on the bridge.

The proposed relocation of the kerb line toward the centre of the carriageway on both sides is designed to ensure that the traffic barrier is supported by two girders rather than just one. The primary design intent is to maintain both the width and the position of the existing traffic lanes, ensuring minimal disruption to the current lane configuration and clearances.

All new kerbs, traffic barrier transitions, and terminals will tie into the existing kerbs of the bridge (Refer to figure 1).

Key width dimensions have also been documented in the table 1 below.

Location	Existing (m)	Proposed (m)	Difference (m)
NB Lane	3.06	3.20	0.14 addition
NB Shoulder	0.80	0.20	0.60 reduction
Western footpath	1.92	2.29	0.37 addition
SB lane	3.41	3.20	0.21 reduction
SB Shoulder	0.58	0.00	0.58 reduction
Eastern footpath	1.96	2.28	0.32 addition

Table 1 – Summary of changes to travel lane, shoulder and footpath arrangements

Load Limits

The existing bridge is rated to accommodate a 44-tonne, 19-meter semi-trailer. Check vehicle movements are illustrated in the images below.

The new kerb and barrier arrangement on the bridge would not affect the check vehicle turning movements. However, the existing movements remain constrained and may require traffic control measures to ensure safe execution.

Figure 3: Wardell Road northbound heavy vehicle movements

Figure 4: Wardell Road southbound heavy vehicle movements

Bus Routes

Currently the bus service 412 travels through Dulwich Hill via Wardell Road and Dudley Street but do not go over Wardell Road bridge (refer to figure 5). Therefore, the proposed barrier does not have any impact to this regular bus route services.

Figure 5: Bus Route No. 412 route plan

However, there are school bus services which travel over Wardell Road bridge which operates only during school terms and 1-2 service per day during school days.

In addition, there are bus services during Light Rail track possessions which also use Wardell Road railway overbridge as their movement route. Potential impact to the buses is discussed below.

Turn Paths

Turn paths have been assessed for all types of vehicles travelling north and southbound on Wardell Road overbridge and turning in/out of Dudley Street. The turn paths included but not limited to 5.2m cars/vans (B99 vehicles), 8.8m long service vehicles and 12.5m long vehicles/ buses. From the turn path analysis, it was identified that the existing road configuration following Council’s recent road, public domain and traffic signal works, vehicles over 6m long are having difficulties turning left into Dudley Street from Wardell Road overbridge, due to the vehicles crossing the centreline of the roads and/or encroaching to the opposite travelling lane.

Figure 6: Turn paths on existing road configuration for buses travelling north-south direction on Wardell Road over the railway bridge.

Figure 7: Turn paths with proposed road barriers for buses travelling north-south direction on Wardell Road over the railway bridge.

Figure 8: Turn paths with proposed barriers for buses travelling north-south direction on Wardell Road over the railway bridge while making left turn into Dudley Street from the overbridge and bus movements between Wardell Road and Dudley Street.

Figure 9: Turn paths with proposed road safety barriers for 8.8m long service vehicles turning left into Dudley Street from Wardell Road the overbridge.

Figure 10: Turn paths with proposed road safety barriers for 5.2m long vehicles turning left into Dudley Street from Wardell Road the overbridge.

TfNSW contractors have stated that the proposed road safety barriers works on Wardell Road overbridge will not have any adverse impact on vehicle turn paths. Instead, the proposed design (with safety barriers) will minimise the overlap and slightly improve the existing situation.

The proposed Wardell Road turn path movements, compared to the existing turn path, reduce encroachment into the southbound lane. This is due to the minor shift of the proposed centre line towards the east. However, the proposed arrangement results in minor shoulder clearance reduction on the northbound approach to the bridge barrier terminal. If the existing centreline overhang is applied, the clearance to the barrier terminal is similar to the existing offset to the kerb. A summary of the encroachment based on a 12.5m bus is provided in table 2 below

Limiting the vehicles which can turn left into Dudley Street from Wardell Road to around 6.5m (small rigid truck) with the exception of Council Waste vehicles should be undertaken regardless of any other proposals within this report based on the vehicle analysis undertaken.

Location	SB encroachment Existing (m)	SB encroachment Proposed (m)	NB lane encroachment existing (m)	NB lane encroachment proposed (m)
Wardell Road	0.91	0.76	0.00	0.00
Wardell Road from bus stop	0.96	0.74	0.00	0.00
Wardell Road + Dudley Street	0.91	0.74	0.71	0.91
Wardell Road + Dudley Street from bus stop	0.96	0.76	0.71	0.91

Table 2 – Summary of encroachments based on a 12.5m bus

Road Safety Audit

A pre-construction road safety audit was conducted on 11th September 2024. This report presented the findings based on the Preliminary Design Drawings. The audit reviewed the design information provided for the section of Wardell Road near Dulwich Hill Train Station, which was impacted by the planned changes outlined in the design.

The purpose of the audit was to verify the implementation of documentation and planning for works within road-related areas, particularly within the project’s specified impact zone. It evaluated the application of the ‘safe system’ approach to road design, focusing on identifying and mitigating roadside hazards. These hazards included, but were not limited to, signage and pavement markings, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, delineation, sight distances, intersection controls, and safety barriers.

The following items were identified, designer responses are provided below in figure 11.

Figure 11 – Exerts from the pre-construction road safety audit.

As this section of Wardell Road has a 40 km/h speed limit, it is expected that most vehicles would approach the bridge at lower speeds which reduces the chances of incidence. Larger vehicles such as buses and or trucks passing would be a rare occurrence and, on such occurrences, the low-speed approach would likely result in one vehicle giving way to another.

Proposal

The proposed line marking scheme shows minimal impacts compared to the approved TCS design. A minor adjustment to the centreline is proposed to accommodate the revised alignment. Additionally, the reinstatement of edge lines will further delineate the newly proposed kerb, enhancing road clarity and safety.

Figure 12: proposed delineation on Wardell Road overbridge between Dudley Street and Bedford Crescent.

Community Engagement

The above barrier design and existing safety turn path issues with buses have been discussed with CJP (Bus Operations team), TfNSW (Network & Safety representatives) and Inner West Council. Following extensive discussion with these relevant stakeholders TfNSW advised Sydney Metro to restrict left turn movements for vehicles over 6.0 metre with a discretion for “Buses & Council’s Waste Collection Vehicles Excepted” condition. This will prevent all above 6.0m long vehicles to turn except buses and Council’s service vehicles when/if needed.

It should be noted that as a result of the turn path analysis above, limiting the vehicle size to around 6.5m (i.e., small rigid vehicle) with the exception of Council Waste vehicles would provide better access for deliveries to the nearby shops without compromising safety.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications associated with the implementation of the proposed recommendations outlined in the report.

CONCLUSION

The proposed Wardell Road turn path movements and line marking adjustments are acceptable and generally in line with existing conditions. Given the minimal changes to the existing lane configurations and necessity for vehicle protection to the rail corridor it is recommended that the following changes to the bridge travel lane, shoulder and footpath as well as changes to the line marking be approved. It is also recommended that a ‘’No Left Turn’’ ban for vehicles over 6.5m with the exception of Council Waste vehicles be installed for left turning vehicles from Wardell Road into Dudley Street. Finally, that Sydney Metro (TfNSW) monitor the changes made to the bridge over a 12 month period and report back to Council with the outcome of this monitoring including a Post Construction Road Safety Audit. Any costs related to addressing the outcomes of the monitoring period and a Post Construction Road Safety Audit be borne by Sydney Metro (TfNSW).

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 13

Subject: Dulwich Hill Station Precinct - Proposed parking changes (Djarrawunang-Dulwich Hill Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: James Nguyen - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the following parking changes within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct be approved:

1. the reallocation of three (3) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ to ‘P30 minute 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.am-4pm Sat’ on the western side of Wardell Road north of Ewart Street,

2. the reallocation of four (4) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ to ‘1P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat’ on the western side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street,

3. the reallocation of 4.5 metres of the existing ‘Bus Zone’ to ‘1P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri;8am-4pm Sat’ on the western side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street,

4. the reallocation of the 18 metre ‘Bus Zone’ to ‘P30 minute 9.30am-2.30pm, 4pm-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat, Bus Zone 8am-9.30am,2.30pm-4pm Mon-Fri’ on the western side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street,

5. the reallocation of 16 metres of the existing ‘No Parking’ restriction on the eastern side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street to ‘P30 minute 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat’,

6. the reallocation of five (5) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ to ‘1P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat’ on the eastern side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street,

7. the reallocation of two (2) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ to ‘P30 minute 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat’ on the eastern side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street,

8. the reallocation of the ‘Loading Zone 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the northern side of Dudley Street, west of School Parade to ‘1P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat’,

9. the allocation of three (3) motorcycle parking spaces to the 3.6 metre unallocated kerb length on the southern side of Dudley Street, west of School Parade

10. the reallocation of eight (8) metres from the existing temporary bus zone on the southern side of Dudley Street to ‘Loading Zone 8am-6pm’

11. the 26-metre-long temporary bus zone on the southern side of Dudley Street, west be made a permanent bus zone (there are no changes to the ‘Bus Zone’ signposting);

12. the reallocation of four (4) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘1P 9am-5pm Mon-Fri’ to ‘1P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8am-4pm Sat’ on the western side of Wardell Road, north of Bedford Crescent,

13. the reallocation of one (1) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘1P 9am-5pm Mon-Fri’ to ‘P30 minute 8am-6pm Mon-Fri on the western side of Wardell Road, north of Bedford Crescent; and

14. the reallocation of two (2) timed parking restrictions signposted as ‘2P 9am-5pm Mon-Fri’ to ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri;8am-4pm Sat’ on the northern side of Bedford Crescent, west of Wardell Road.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

This report supports the following strategic directions contained within Council’s Community Strategic Plan:

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report outlines the parking investigations completed in the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct following the completion of the Public Domain Improvement works. The proposed parking changes seek to provide more flexible parking options and improve turnover of parking in the morning and on Saturdays, particularly within the Precinct along Wardell Road. Furthermore, parking adjustments are also proposed on Dudley Street to provide more parking and improve loading and unloading operations.

BACKGROUND

Council received a petition from local businesses seeking a review of the existing parking restrictions on Wardell Road, and nearby streets in the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct. This request noted the following:

· More timed parking within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct;

· The existing one (1) hour time restriction does not provide quick turnover of parking spaces, whilst some businesses require two (2) hour time limits;

· Commence the time restricted parking on Wardell Road at 6am as opposed to 8.30 am (the existing starting time); and

· Extend timed parking restrictions to include Sundays.

Following the completion of the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct Public Domain Improvements, Council officers have subsequently commenced an assessment of the current parking restrictions within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct. This report highlights key findings and a proposed suite of parking changes to improve parking operations within the Precinct, particularly on Wardell Road.

DISCUSSION

Parking surveys and assessment

Parking occupancy surveys were completed to assess whether timed parking restrictions should commence at 6am; be extended to Sunday; and whether additional short-term parking and 2-hour parking is required. The parking surveys were completed on Wednesday 15 May 2024 between 6am and 10am, and Sunday 19 May 2024 between 8am and 12noon.

The parking survey identified the following:

· Parking space utilisation within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct on a weekday increases at approximately 7am, with utilisation reaching its morning peak at 9am as shown in Figure 1 below. Accordingly, commencing the timed parking restrictions at 6am, may have limited benefit as activity within the Precinct in the morning reaches its peak at approximately 9am. Commencing the parking restrictions from 8am as opposed to the existing 8.30am time would be more appropriate, as the first turnover of parking would ideally occur at 9am as opposed to 9.30am.

Figure 1 - Weekday morning parking occupancy rates - Dulwich Hill Station Precinct

· Figure 2 below shows that the parking duration of stay on Wardell Road varies between three (3) time frames: less than one (1) hour; two (2) hours; and more than four (4) hours. Vehicles parked for more than four (4) hours are likely to be those recorded on the eastern side of Wardell Road between Bedford Crescent and Wilga Avenue which is currently unrestricted. Furthermore, there may be some instances of motorists overstaying the one (1) hour limit. Accordingly, the parking survey shows parking needs along Wardell Road vary between less than an hour and up to two hours, and current timed parking restrictions on Wardell Road may need to be adjusted to suit.

Figure 2 - Weekday morning duration of stay - Wardell Road

· Figure 3 below shows there is available parking capacity within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct, with an average of 64 per cent between 9am and 12pm. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the parking occupancy rates on Wardell Road during Sunday, with parking capacity available along the southern part of the Precinct. This survey indicates that there is parking capacity along the southern portion of Wardell Road and the broader Precinct, with some locations having higher utilisation. Extending the timed parking restrictions on Wardell Road is not recommended given the available parking capacity, particularly on the southern end.

Figure 3 - Weekend parking occupancy rates - Dulwich Hill Station Precinct

Table 1 - Parking occupancy rates - Wardell Road

Street	Between	Side	Restriction	10am (peak) (%)	Average (%)
Wardell Road	Ewart Street and Dudley Street	Eastern	1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat	57%	40%
	Ewart Street and Dudley Street	Western	1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat	55%	36%
	Dudley Street and Keith Street	Eastern	Unrestricted	100%	100%
	Dudley Street and Keith Street	Western	1P 9am-5pm Mon-Fri	86%	86%

Proposed parking changes

The parking surveys completed revealed the following deficiencies of the existing parking network within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct:

· A lack of short-term timed parking to accommodate parking durations less than an hour

· Timed parking restrictions may be commencing too late to enable earlier turnover of parking for businesses, with parking utilisation reaching its morning peak at 9am.

· Parking overstay of the existing one (1) hour time limit. Vehicles may be parked between two (2) to three (3) hours or greater than four (4) hours.

In addition, Council officers also identified additional opportunities to adjust existing parking restrictions to maximise the use of kerbside parking in locations which have some flexibility for partial or merit for full time timed parking restrictions.

This includes the following locations:

· The existing bus zone on the western side of Wardell Road, adjacent to Dulwich Hill Town Centre, the existing ‘No Parking’ restriction on the eastern side of Wardell Road, north of Ewart Street, and the existing ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Dudley Street, west of School Parade.

· Relocating the loading zone from the northern side of Dudley Street to the southern side is recommended as businesses and residents are location on the southern side.

· Adjusting the temporary bus zone on the southern side of Dudley Street from 33.8 metres to 26 metres. This bus zone is proposed to also be made a formal bus zone. This will allow for the relocation of the loading zone to the southern side.

· Signpost a short section of kerb as ‘Motorcycle parking only’ with marked bays perpendicular to the kerb, as the kerb length is approximately 3.6 metres long and inadequate for a passenger vehicle to use.

Accordingly, the following parking changes were proposed for consultation with the community:

· Convert some 1P timed parking restrictions to 30-minute restrictions on Wardell Road.

· Additional 1P and 30-minute timed parking restrictions on Wardell Road.

· Additional 1P timed parking restrictions on Dudley Street.

· Relocating the ‘Loading Zone’ to the southern side of Dudley Street.

· Install motorcycle parking on the southern side of Dudley Street.

· Extend the timed restrictions from 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday, and extend the restriction on Saturday from 8 am to 4 pm

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council consulted with affected businesses and nearby residents on the proposed parking changes between 21 October 2024 and 18 November 2024. There were 207 letters sent and the proposed parking changes were exhibited on Council’s YSIW page. There were three (3) responses received supporting and one (1) response opposing the proposal.

Resident/business responses	Officer response
I support some of the proposed changes but not all of them. I support additional 1P and 30min timed parking restrictions on Wardell Rd and Dudley St, relocating the loading zone to the southern side. I do not support converting 1P timed parking to 30min parking and extend the timed restrictions hours (Monday to Friday 8am-6pm and Saturday 8am-4pm). The reason that I'm not supporting some of the proposed changes are because they don't serve train and light rail commuters.	Converting 1 hour timed parking to 30 minute parking is proposed to create quicker turnover of parking spaces. The parking surveys completed revealed there was some demand for parking uses less than an hour. These spaces are proposed on the end/outer parking bays along Wardell Road. In addition, the 1 hour timed parking on Dudley Street offsets some of the loss of 1 hour parking on Wardell Road. The timed parking restrictions on Wardell Road are essential to support businesses by providing acceptable hours of operations, time limits and turnover of parking. There are already existing unrestricted parking spaces on Bedford Crescent, and on the periphery of the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct which provides parking opportunities for commuter parking.
Shorter parking time frames so people can use it as a drop off spot etc - should have better and more bike parking and bike paths connecting to the station for the people who ride there (takes away cars for those who could ride!)	There is an existing ‘No Parking’ restriction on the southern side of Bedford Crescent that has been installed to allow for drop-off and pick-up at Dulwich Hill Station.
It's hard enough as a nearby resident to get parking near my house especially when i have groceries to unload and i also don't want to have to park further away to avoid a fine when i get home from work in the afternoon if you extend the times.	The parking survey completed on the Sunday indicates that there are available parking spaces in the residential streets on the periphery of the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct. This is likely to reflect similar parking trends on the Saturday. Furthermore, some of these streets (Wardell Road, Dudley, Ewart, Bayley, Wilga and Keith Streets) have timed permit parking restrictions (2-hour) which ensures households with limited off-street parking can find a parking space closer to their place of residence. New apartment buildings closer to the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct should have off-street parking and long-term parking on Wardell Road between Ewart and Keith Streets may impact businesses. Particularly those that are operating on Saturday from 8am-4pm.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of installation of new restrictions as recommended can be funded within Council’s signs and line market budget.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Parking plan (final)

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

9 December 2024

Item No: LTC1224(1) Item 18

Subject: Review of proposed resident parking scheme in Croydon (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward & Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwwod PAC)

Prepared By: Boris Muha - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the following streets (or sections of streets) proposed for a Resident Parking Scheme in Croydon, with the one side of the streets as shown in Attachment 1, not be supported.

(a) Walter Street, between Thomas Street and Heighway Avenue,

(b) Heighway Avenue, between Edwin Street (South) and Frederick Street,

(c) Paisley Road, between Edwin Street (South) and Paisley Lane,

(d) Bastable Street, between Elizabeth Street to dead end,

(e) Elizabeth Street, between Etonville Parade and Croydon Road,

(f) Anthony Street, between Croydon Road and Etonville Parade,

(g) Anthony Street, between Edwin Street (North) and Croydon Road,

(h) Croydon Road, between Anthony Street and Hunt Street,

(i) Edwin Street (North), between Anthony Street to dead end,

(j) Edwin Street (North), between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street; and

(k) College Street, between Hennessy Street and Elizabeth Street.

2. That the following streets (or section of streets) proposed for resident parking in Croydon, on the one side of the street, be supported and signposted as ‘2P 8am – 6pm Mon – Fri, Permit Holders Excepted.

(a) Edwin Street (South), between Thomas Street and Paisley Road (west side),

(b) Etonville Parade, between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street (west side); and

(c) Croydon Road, between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street (west side).

3. That the statutory 10 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to corners, and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions of varied lengths to corners extending over driveways, next to carpark exits, or around dead-end locations of streets for sight view and manoeuvrability as shown in Diagram Annexure 2, be supported.

4. That it be noted that no further review will be carried out for at least a period of 24 months for a Residential Parking Scheme in the subject streets of Croydon, unless substantial land use changes occur to re-visit a scheme beforehand, as per the Inner West Council Public Domain Parking Policy 2020.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received requests from residents to review and consider introducing a Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in various streets of Croydon around the Ashfield Aquatic Centre, Croydon Station, and the major school being the Presbyterian Ladies College (PLC).

A recent occupancy survey has identified varied streets or sections of streets, (14 in all as shown in Attachment 1) with high occupancy levels, to be considered under a proposed Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) for Croydon.

Under the current Public Domain Parking Policy for the Inner West Council which identifies eligibility criteria for an RPS; Section 7.20 Parking Scheme Investigations and Development- Level of Support- advises as follows:

Council will generally not proceed with implementation of a parking scheme or changes to an

existing parking scheme in isolation from a precinct wide parking study unless at least 65% of

respondents, from different households within the proposed zone, support the proposal and

provided a minimum response rate of 30% of households is achieved to Council’s survey.

A survey of responses is therefore tabled in Attachment 2. The overall response rate for an area wide inclusion of all the streets under the proposed RPS in this report was low around 17%. Submissions received in support over non-support was around 53%, however the level of support overall was relatively low around 9.1%, showing a low level of support (in the surveyed community) for an area wide RPS. An overall RPS in the area could not be supported.

However, a separate street by street analysis in response and support rate identified that (3) streets or street sections had achieved both sufficient response and support rates or were marginally identified and were weighed up by either a higher response rate or support rate.

These streets, as shown tabled in Attachment 2, namely:

· Etonville Avenue (west side) between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street (having 55% response rate and 60% support rate)

· Croydon Road (west side) between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street having (33% response rate and 83% support rate)

· Edwin Street (South) (west side) between Thomas Street and Paisley Road (having 25% response rate and 75% support rate)

are therefore recommended for resident parking in the Croydon Area.

The above supported street sections of Etonville Avenue and Edwin Street (South) will be captured under and form as part of an extension of an existing RPS Area 6 which currently has two (2) streets to the north of the railway line, that being Horden Parade and Railway Street. Edwin Street South will be captured under RPS Area 2 to the south of the railway Line. Attachment 3 shows the above streets relative to the nearby existing RPS streets.

Furthermore section 7.20 of the policy quotes that:

A minimum of 24 months will elapse before Council revisits consideration of parking scheme proposals, unless substantial land use change has subsequently occurred permanently impacting on-street parking in the neighbourhood.

The proposal also included introducing statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to corners of intersections where such restrictions do not exist.

‘No Stopping’ with varied lengths are also proposed to corners extending over driveways, next to carpark exits, or around dead-end locations of the street for vehicular sight view and manoeuvrability. It is recommended these restrictions proceed to be implemented to control parking in the area irrespective whether resident parking is implemented or not.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting on the 25 February 2020 (through recommendation of its Local Traffic Committee on 3 February 2020) approved not to proceed with an initial proposed introduction of a Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in Croydon, as recommended under a Croydon Parking Study conducted by GTA Consultants in 2019. The final study report was provided and attached to the Traffic Committee report dated 3 February 2020.

Community engagement was carried out in late 2019 on streets recommended for RPS under the Croydon Parking study. Consultation was carried out within the region of Croydon bounded by Parramatta Road, to the north, Frederick Street to the east, Liverpool Road to the south and the council boundary area with that of Burwood Council to the west.

The response results indicated that the community in general did not support the proposed strategy with a 73.6% non-support rate. The views of the community on the proposed RPS areas indicate that whilst there was generally a desire to change the current parking management, concerns were raised with the proposed permit policy which has been used in other RPS areas in the Inner West.

In view of the high level of objections, it was recommended that the proposed Croydon Strategy not be supported at this time and further consideration for street specific RPS for the Croydon area cease for a period of 24 months until February 2022. Additionally, it was recommended that parking conditions be monitored on streets surrounding the Ashfield Aquatic Centre after its reopening in 2020. Any parking review is to be undertaken with reference to the Croydon Parking Study.

Although it is acknowledged that a review of the RPS is well overdue, a parking occupancy survey was carried out early in 2022 in streets as identified under the Croydon Parking Study on a Thursday (20 January& 10 March) and Saturday (22 January) during the summer school holidays (between the hours of 8am-6pm), when a high level of users attended the new Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

The investigation period was still amid covid, with train commuter and schooling activities being affected. The Ashfield Aquatic Centre was going through modifications with timed parking and driveway access within the carparks to properly accommodate and encourage user parking in the carparks. These activities were considered to attribute to abnormal on-street parking behaviour at the time, and it was therefore considered that additional time be required for all activities to settle down prior to a reviewing an RPS in the area.

DISCUSSION

The following points are raised in reference to the current revised methodology and policy guidelines for reviewing a Resident Parking Scheme in Croydon.

· The current Public Domain Parking Policy for the Inner West Council, containing information on eligibility for RPS, was not adopted till 9/6/2020. Prior to this all three former Councils that amalgamated into the Inner West Council (i.e. Ashfield, Leichhardt and Marrickville) had operated on separate RPS policies.

· The survey area for the current proposal has been reduced around the streets proposed for RPS under this report, near to parking generators mainly contributed by the Presbyterian Ladies College (PLC), Croydon Station and the Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

The survey area is bounded by Hunt/Queen Street to the north, Frederick Street to the east, Thomas Street to the south and the boundary line with Burwood Council to the west. This is aimed to limit the number of properties in the survey area, inviting only residents living in streets or street sections proposed for RPS to participate in the scheme, with view to obtaining a higher response and support rate. Non-residing or outer area residents would not be tallied in the responses, but their comments are captured under the heading of CONSULTATION.

· The streets, or sections of streets and sides of the streets with proposed RPS zones under this review are similar as reported under the Croydon Parking Study and shown in Attachment 1. Additional street or street sections next to the Ashfield Aquatic Centre are also included namely:

Ø Etonville Parade, between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street (west side),

Ø Elizabeth Street, between Croydon Road and Etonville Parade (north side) and,

Ø Bastable Street (west side) off Elizabeth Street.

· Statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to corners of intersections where such restrictions do not exist are proposed to control illegal parking in line with the resident parking scheme.

These ‘No Stopping’ zones are shown in Attachment 1.

· The main criteria for permit eligibility were conveyed to residents through the distributed consultation letter (shown in Annexure 4), and with additional information as provided under the ‘Your Say Inner West’ on Council’s website.

It should be noted that permits would only be provided, subject to eligibility to residents residing in the section of street selected and signposted for resident parking, irrespective which side they live on.

· Resident feedback (with officer response) is shown tabled under the heading of CONSULATATION. The list of the streets or section of streets, with results of the survey are tabled in Attachment 2.

· Parking occupancy observations to the Ashfield Aquatic Centre carparks generally established that the carparks together adequately cater for the demand for patronage to the Centre. It was observed that when the carpark next to Frederick Street is near or at full capacity, ample parking is provided at the second carpark next to Bastable Street (up to 60-65 percent occupancy). Any spill over into the streets may be on occasional weekends, with street parking not taken up by PLC or train commuters, and when other restrictions on-street do not operate thereby freeing up parking.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the installation for signposting for streets recommended for resident parking in the Croydon area is to be funded from Council’s operating budget for signs and line marking.

CONSULTATION

528 letters were issued to 362 (council rated) properties within the survey area, with the results in response and support rate, both area wide and street by street shown in Attachment 2.

62 (council rated) property responses were received.

8 responses were received from non-residents (PLC staff inclusive). These were not tallied in under the tabled responses Attachment 2, but comments have been added below and addressed.

Key or common theme concerns raised by the residents in support or non-support, with officer response, are shown in the table below. Certain comments have been grouped under a common theme.

Residents Comments

Officers Response

This scheme has been rejected in the past; it has been proposed in the past; nothing has changed (2 residents).

A review of the RPS has been undertaken in line with the current developments in the area, and the new Ashfield Aquatic Centre since being well-established and in full operation.

· multi-generational living/ large families require off street parking/Off street parking is relied upon (8 residents).

· RPS should be signposted or why aren’t both sides of the street signposted for RPS? (8 residents).

· The proposed RPS will push problem into other streets (2 residents).

The RPS is placed to one side of the street in fairness and balance to provide users ineligible of permits to park longer periods of time in the unrestricted parking side, or they can park short periods of time in the RPS zones. Outside the RPS times, parking is unrestricted.

The provision of RPS to one side of the street is intended also to minimise the push or knock- on affect to parking onto other streets.

· Revenue raising, waste of money. Public funds should be used elsewhere (5 residents).

· There is no parking problem (4 residents).

· Council will create an 'admin burden/nuisance'. Residents will have to apply and reapply for permits (2 residents).

There has been requests from residents for an RPS in the area. Council manages various resident parking schemes in its Local Government Area (LGA), to provide permits to residents with no or lack of off-street parking, in relief to parking on-street. Properties may change in time and residents are required to re-apply for permits. Developmental changes may end up providing off-street parking, or conditions under the policy may result in residents no longer being offered permits.

Council's policy regarding off street parking is disputed, disagree with permit allocation. Allow more permits (2 residents).

The current Inner West Council ‘Public Domain Parking Policy’ takes on similar conditions applied under the Former Ashfield Council resident parking policy in that permits are issued to residents with no or lack of off-street parking. The purpose of the RPS is to prioritise residents that have no or limited access to off-street parking. If eligibility criteria were loosened and applicable to all residents, this would eliminate the purpose of a RPS where the number of permits issued would outweigh the supply of parking spaces.

Residents living in sections of street with a resident parking zone area can view the Public Domain Parking policy for other entitled permits.

RPS will restrict the use of public transport – 2 hours is not enough time to go to city and back- parking will stop people from enjoying the local amenities such as the pool and other businesses.

2-hour period parking is generally the normal period assigned to RPS near to town centres and transport hubs (e.g. Railway stations.) Users’ ineligible for permits can use the side of the street unrestricted of parking. The Ashfield Aquatic Centre is considered to have ample parking capacity offering 2 or 4-hour period parking.

Residents should be able to use their garages how they please (1 resident)

Garages designed and built for the purpose of housing vehicles and used for storage does not serve as a reason to obtaining a permit.

The proposal should have taken place after TOD SEPP changes (2 resident).

The TOD SEPP is a proposal by State Government to increase density around the Croydon Station. (Transit Orientated Development).

The TOD SEPP is currently under review and not confirmed with a commencement date. Due to the lack of imminency and form any future TOD around Croydon Station will take, it is not considered reasonable to await for a future policy of an unknown form for this scheme.

Residents on southern side of Anthony Street are disadvantaged. (1 resident).

The south side of Anthony Street will remain unrestricted.

Unfair that tandem car spaces are considered 2 spaces/disagree with Council's criteria that determines off street parking (3 residents).

Tandem parking (i.e. one vehicle in front of the other) within property driveways of single household dwellings, or property driveways leading up to the front of garages, or other off-street areas, which are capable of parking vehicles in tandem, is deemed to park 2 vehicles.

RPS will cause disruption to existing living arrangements (1 resident).

The RPS is designed to offer relief to those residents with no or lack of off-street parking to park on-street but allows general short- term parking in the resident parking zone, or unrestricted parking to the other side, with intent to minimise disruption to the community living in the area.

PLC carpark has been taken over by demountable classes; PLC should provide their own parking for staff and students (1 resident).

The demountable classrooms would have been approved under the State and Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Transport and Infrastructure, which Council has no control. Parking can be assessed under Council’s Development Control Plan, but no application has been made by the school for additional parking at this point of time.

RPS would only help create a few extra spaces (1 resident).

The side of the street proposed for RPS provides as much parking space as possible. Residents with permits may need to compete for these spaces.

One vote per household unfair (1 resident).

One vote is only counted from each household (e.g. single dwelling and strata units) to spread and equally gauge the overall community reaction (within the survey area) for RPS.

· Heighway Avenue has problems with commuters and illegal parking (1 resident).

· No rangers have ever visited these streets /not enforced (1 resident).

· Place physical barriers at corners (1 resident).

· Ban parking in short distances between driveways and on corners (1 resident).

· Remove no stopping restriction due to loss of parking (2 residents).

· RPS seeks to reduce available parking (1 resident).

· Enforce No stopping to corners as visibility is poor (2 residents).

· 'No Stopping' will further increase parking difficulties/remove or shorten 'No Stopping' due to loss of parking (4 residents)

· Irrespective if the street is selected for RPS or not, council cannot deny commuters from parking on the street, provide they do so legally. Residents can call Council Rangers if there is suspected illegal parking.

· The RPS will have added enforcement in the area.

· Physical barriers (e.g. kerb islands) are not proposed in this case to corners, as there is a need for corners to be used to clearly manoeuvre vehicles around the intersections.

· No Stopping restrictions are required to prevent illegal parking to corners and control parking for sight view and manoeuvring. Short distance between driveways permits smaller cars or other motorised vehicles (e.g. motor scooter/cycles) in using the space.

· No legal parking is removed under the RPS proposal. See also above.

There should be no cost for permits (5 residents).

The first residential parking permit is free and a second permit is at a cost as governed under the Council’s fees and charges.

Council should not expand RPS- The road is not private land (1 resident).

The streets are ‘Public Road’ and Council can carry out RPS inclusion or expansion if there is sufficient support from the community.

The proposal has not considered the cycleway/walkway connection to the bay via canal (bay Run) (1 resident).

Any cycleway/walkway connection is considered of a separate project to work in with any RPS in the area.

Consider line markings/signage at 144 Edwin St- large vehicles block access to driveways (1 resident).

Driveway lines is a separate issue. The resident or building strata manager, in case of a unit property can arrange to paint driveway lines with specification drawings provided by Council. Residents can obtain drawing information via the Council’s website and search for Public domain works – Council standard drawings - Inner West Council (nsw.gov.au).
or call council on 9392 5000.

· Restriction times should be extended e.g. just as with Dawn Fraser Baths Mon-Sun 8am-10pm (2 residents).

· Propose changing restriction to MON-SUN 8am-10pm (2 residents).

· Proposed RPS restrictions should match Ashfield Pool/extend hours Mon-Sun 8am-6pm, to include weekends (2 residents).

· Make signposts seasonal as they do in Olympic Park (1 resident).

· Parking issues derive from PLC and Ashfield Pool/staff from PLC, Ashfield pool and commuters, take most of our parking (7 residents).

· PLC staff and students park from 8am-4pm, during this time parking is available due to residents leaving for work/ plenty of street parking. (4 respondents)

The RPS restrictions are only proposed from 8am-6pm Mon-Fri at times to mainly address PLC, commuter parking and even town centre shopping activity during the day. The Ashfield Aquatic Centre carparks are considered to adequately cater for its pool patrons. These times are consistent with times of other existing RPS zones in the area.

· Residents on Edwin St and Edwin St Nth leave multiple vehicles on street and do not move them (2 residents).

· Businesses in Etonville Parade, use the street as a dumping ground (1 resident).

· Remove boats and trailers/long stay vehicles (2 residents.)

· Apart from illegal parking, Council Enforcement has been given additional powers to take appropriate action for unattended vehicles, boats or trailers parked in the one place for 28 days or more. If this is the case, Council Rangers can be called upon to investigate the matter.

· Council can be called upon if illegal dumping is suspected on the street.

· Residents with driveways should be excluded from the RPS (1 resident).

· See sample consultation letter Attachment 4 or refer to the Public Domain Parking Policy about off-street parking and eligibility of permits.

· Will there be an increase in illegal parking? Will there be an increase in overall traffic? Will PLC or the primary school have sufficient onsite parking for their staff? PLC should add more parking when expanding the site.

· ‘No Stopping’ restrictions will be proposed to corners which do not have such existing restrictions in place to control illegal parking irrespective if RPS goes in or not.

· *The schools should manage any off-street parking for staff. If further expansion is made by the schools, off-street parking is determined either by Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) or the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP).

· Whole of Edwin St Should be included in RPS to make the scheme fair (1 resident).

Edwin Street north of the Railway Station and south back to Thomas Street in vicinity of the town centre, are proposed and have been included under the survey.

Edwin Street further south of Thomas Street is outside of this survey area influenced and affected by the combined activities of the PLC, Station (commuters) and Ashfield Aquatic Centre.

· Croydon Road, between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street, should be signposted on Eastern side-fairer and safer (1 resident).

The western side of Croydon Road, between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street has been factored in to providing added capacity to park vehicles without being interfered by driveways. This side was similarly chosen under the initial proposed RPS under the Croydon Parking Study.

Non-resident or outer area resident comments or concerns.

· PLC Staff believe that the issue that the residents have is with school swimming & gymnastic communities, not with staff and students (2 respondents)

· PLC staff have difficulties commuting to work without a car (3 respondents)

· PLC staff rely on street parking (4 respondents)

· Role of teacher is critical (2 respondents)

· Council has not supported PLC in creating more on -site parking (1 respondent)

· The RPS does not wholly remove unrestricted parking. Unrestricted parking for longer term use by non-residents, or resident’s ineligible of permits is provided to one side of the street. Short term parking up to 2 hours is permitted for non-residents or resident’s ineligible of permits to park in the RPS zones.

· Council cannot insist PLC to create more on-site parking unless expansion of the school requires PLC to do so under the DCP or SEEP. See above *

CONCLUSION

(14) streets or sections of streets were proposed under this Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) for Croydon, is shown in Attachment 1.

The relative response, support/non-support rates received and analysed under the criteria for a RPS in Croydon, are shown in Attachment 2.

The overall response rate for an area wide inclusion of all the streets under the proposed RPS in this report was low around 17%. Submissions received in support over non-support was around 53%, however the level of support overall was relatively low around 9.1%, showing a low level of support (in the surveyed community) for an area wide RPS. An overall RPS in the area could not be supported.

A separate street by street analysis in response and support rate identified that the (3) of the (14) streets sections had achieved both sufficient response and support rates or were marginally identified and were weighed up by either a higher response rate or support rate, shown again in Attachment 2.

These street sections are namely:

· Etonville Avenue (west side) between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street (having 55% response rate and 60% support rate)

· Croydon Road (west side) between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street having (33% response rate and 83% support rate)

· Edwin Street (South) (west side) between Thomas Street and Paisley Road (having 25% response rate and 75% support rate).

These streets will be allocated and form part of an extension to existing RPS AREA 2 and 6 as shown in Attachment 3.

It should be noted that no further review is proposed to be carried out for at least a period of 24 months for a Residential Parking Scheme in the subject area of Croydon, unless substantial land use changes occur to re-visit a scheme beforehand, under the Inner West Council Public Domain Parking Policy 2020.

This report also proposes within the surveyed area statutory ‘No Stopping’ to corners where restrictions do not exist, and ‘No Stopping’ with varied lengths to corners extending over driveways, next to carpark exits, or around dead-end locations of the street for vehicular sight view and manoeuvrability, as shown in Attachment 1.

It is recommended these restrictions proceed to be implemented to control parking in the area irrespective whether resident parking is implemented or not.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Proposed Residential Parking Scheme (RPS) in Croydon.
2.⇩	Results on response and support rates to the Croydon RPS.
3.⇩	Allocation of selected street sections to existing RPS AREA 2 and 6.
4.⇩	Copy of consultation letter sent out to residents.

Community response	Officer response
Provide a line marked area on Edgeware Road which states ‘Do Not Queue Across the Intersection’ as most accidents occur due to cars turning right out of Camden Street	‘Do Not Queue Across Intersection’ or ‘Keep Clear’ signs and line marking are not used to address turning crashes. These treatments are used to improve traffic flow whereby a vehicle storing across an intersection may obstruct a turning vehicle and subsequently affect signal operation. The proposed kerb extensions and adjustment of the ‘Give Way’ line marking will improve sight lines, provide traffic calming and improve safety
Install a ‘No Right Turn’ ban from Camden Street onto Edgeware Road	A ‘No Right Turn’ ban will have impacts on traffic movements as there are currently limited alternatives for vehicles to turn right onto Edgeware Road with Alice Street being the only option. This suggestion is not recommended. The current proposal to install a kerb extension will improve safety for right turning vehicles at this intersection.
Camden Street should be made a one-way street.	Making Camden Street one-way would increase traffic volumes on Clara Street, which is an existing shared zone, and subsequently Alice Street. It is not recommended to investigate this suggestion at this stage, given there is a viable alternative to improve safety at this intersection.
Install CCTV cameras at the intersection of Edgeware Road and Camden Street as cars parked in Camden Street are regularly hit	Council does not generally install CCTV cameras to monitor traffic.
Edgeware Road should have a 50 km/h speed limit given it is the main road near local schools	Edgeware Road is a regional road. The reduction of speed limits from 60 km/h to 50 km/h is subject to further investigation.

Peak	Probability of pedestrian along Jaggers Lane (event 1)	Probability of vehicle along Jaggers lane (event 2)	Probability of event 1 and event 2 occurring at the same time
AM	0.90%	0.39%	0.0035%
PM	7.22%	0.39%	0.0282%

Option	Submissions from properties within the consultation area	Submissions from properties directly impacted
Option 1: A full road closure of Jaggers Lane to all traffic	22 (66.7%)	8 (61.5%)
Option 2: A mid-block road closure of Jaggers Lane	4 (12.1%)	2 (15.4%)
Option 3: No changes to the existing traffic arrangements in Jaggers Lane	7 (21.2%)	3 (23.1%)
Total	33 (100.0%)	13 (100%)

Resident Comments	Officer Comments
- I have no problems with parking in this space and I have had no driveway obstructions over my 20+ years as resident. Extra traffic on the street is infrequent and due to scheduled sport activities at Algie Park for part of year and at specific times. This is a known sporting group and drivers become familiar with the available street parking places and where to park. - I am very concerned about the overall loss of amenity for myself, visitors, and neighbours. This will affect my friends and family with mobility issues. I am particularly distressed by this. - I disagree that the kerb cannot accommodate a ‘standard vehicle’. I can park my car safely on the street without obstructing driveways – as can other visitors and neighbours. On a recent walk, I found 9 cases in other Haberfield streets with viable 4m or less parking spaces between a tree and driveway.	Generally, it is a motorist responsibility to ensure they do not park in such a way that it will obstruct vehicular access. Council has issued this proposal in response to frequent reports of obstructed driveway access for No. 26 Empire Street, Haberfield. It is noted that only a few small passenger vehicle models are shorter than 4m in length.
Other signage options might be: "No Parking" signs across 26 Empire St driveway; or physical barriers (like speed humps) at edges of that driveway; or instead of the Motor Bike Parking sign, " Park in Bays Only" or "No Parking 4pm-7pm School days"	The signposting of ‘No Parking’ across driveways is generally not supported, as a vehicle obstructing a driveway can be enforced under the NSW road rules. Also note Council do not support the installation of physical barriers such as wheel stops as they could become a trip hazard especially at night. The parking bays in Empire Street are currently not line marked and the subject 4m kerbspace does not meet standard parking bay length requirements. A timed ‘No Parking’ restriction will also be ineffective in preventing illegal parking outside of restriction hours.
Can consideration be given for the proposed restriction to be for ‘vehicles under 4m’ or ‘small car only’.	Please note that ‘vehicle under 4m’ or ‘small vehicle only’ parking signage are not approved TfNSW parking signs and are generally installed in private carparks. Also note that ‘small cars only’ signage are ineffective as they are open to interpretation by motorists.

Street Name	Evans Street at Mansfield Street
Kerb to Kerb Width (m)	9.7m
Carriageway Type	Two-way, one travel lane each direction
Classification	Collector
Speed Limit	40km/h
85^th Percentile Speed	38km/h
Average Traffic Volume	5,377veh/day
Available TfNSW recorded crash history last 5 years (2018-2023)	No reported crashes on Evan Street at Mansfield Street Rozelle
Parking Arrangements	Parking permitted on both sides

Street Name	Robert Street at Holden Steet
Carriageway width (m) kerb to kerb	Approx. 6.4m.
Carriageway type	Two-way, one travel lane each direction.
Classification	Local
Speed Limit km/h	50
85^th percentile speed km/h	30
Vehicles per day (vpd)	2500
Last available 5 years of TfNSW recorded crash history	NIL in last 5 years in Robert Street at the intersection with Holden Street.
Parking arrangements	Parking is available in the northern side however there are ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the southern side.
Side street(nearest or along)	Holden Street.

1.⇩	Concept plan - kerb extensions
2.⇩	Concept plan - painted islands

1.⇩	Jaggers Lane - Road Closure Options
2.⇩	Jaggers Lane - Engagement Outcomes Report

1.⇩	Evans Street, Rozelle - Detailed Design
2.⇩	Evans Street, Rozelle - Turning Path Assessment

Street Name	Elizabeth Street (Frederick Street to Nixon Avenue).
Carriageway width (m) kerb to kerb	Approx. 10m.
Carriageway type	Two-way, one travel lane each direction.
Classification	Regional Road
Speed Limit km/h	50
85^th percentile speed km/h	48.3 to 51.9
Vehicles per day (vpd)	11,000-13000
Last available 5 years of TfNSW recorded crash history	(2) in last 5 years within the above section of Elizabeth Street. Any accidents at the Frederick Street signalised intersection are not included. (1) X 2023, west of Alt Street, RUM 41, U-turn into object, (tow away)-non-casualty. (1) X 2023, east of Alt Street, RUM 73,off road right, (tow away)-non casualty.
Parking arrangements	Parking exits to both sides of the street.
Side street(nearest or along)	Frederick Street, Benalla Avenue, Eccles Lane, Alt Street and Nixon Avenue.

1.⇩	Plans 10295-1 sheets 1&2-Elizabeth Street (Frederick Street to Eccles Lane.)
2.⇩	Plans 10295-2, Elizabeth Street at Alt Street, Ashfield.
3.⇩	Plans 10295-3, Elizabeth Street at Nixon Avenue, Ashfield.

1.⇩	Consultation plan
2.⇩	Parking occupancy survey
3.⇩	Final parking proposal

Street	Section	Side	Restriction	Supply	Parking occupancy
Street	Section	Side	Restriction	Supply	7:00	9:00	11:00	13:00	15:00	17:00	Average	Average (%)
Griffiths Street	Station Street and dead-end	E	Unrestricted	18	14	15	15	18	15	14	15	84%
Nicholson Street	Station Street to dead-end	E	Unrestricted	18	11	10	10	8	9	10	10	54%
Nicholson Street	Station Street to dead-end	W	Unrestricted	18	16	15	17	17	16	17	16	91%
Station Street	Griffiths Street to Nicholson Street	N	Unrestricted	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	100%

Parking Space	7:00	9:00	11:00	Possible Parking profile
1	VEH1	VEH1	VEH1	Resident
2	VEH2	VEH2		Resident
3	VEH4	VEH4	VEH4	Resident
4	VEH5	VEH6	VEH6	Commuter
5		VEH7	VEH7	Commuter
6		VEH8	VEH8	Commuter
7	VEH9	VEH9	VEH9	Resident
8	VEH10	VEH10	VEH10	Resident
9		VEH12	VEH12	Commuter
10	VEH13	VEH13	VEH13	Resident
11	VEH14			Resident
12	VEH15			Resident
13	VEH17		VEH17	Resident
14	VEH18	VEH18	VEH18	Resident
15	VEH19	VEH19	VEH19	Resident
16	VEH20	VEH20	VEH20	Resident
17		VEH21	VEH21	Commuter
18	VEH22	VEH22	VEH23	Resident

User	Parking	%
Resident	13	72%
Commuter	5	28%
Total	18	100%

	Street
	Griffith Street	Station Street	Nicholson Street
No. of properties	12	8	12
No. of responses	8	5	4
No. of responses from eligible properties	6	0	0
No. of eligible properties	10	0	0
No. of support	8	0	0
No. of object	0	4	4
No. of neutral	0	1	0
Overall response rate	67%	63%	33%
Overall support rate	100%	0%	0%
Overall oppose rate	0%	80%	100%