Agenda of Local Traffic Committee - Monday, 17 February 2025

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

17 February 2025

Minutes of Meeting held on 09 December 2024

Meeting commenced at 11:09 AM

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)
Bill Holliday	Representative for Kobi Shetty MP, Member for Balmain
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)
Ben Walters	NSW Police – Inner West Police Area Command

NON VOTING MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

Col Jones	Inner West Bicycle Coalition (IWBC)
Michael Takla	Representative for Transit Systems
Nalin Rajapaksha	Representative for U-Go Mobility
Manod Wickramasinghe	IWC’s Traffic and Transport Planning Manager
Sunny Jo	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (North)
George Tsaprounis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (South)
Jason Scoufis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic Investigations & Road Safety
Amir Falamarzi	IWC’s Traffic Engineer
Christy Li	IWC’s Business Administration Officer

VISITORS

Ben Peake	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Hassan Kharroubi	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Huw Davis	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Rory Steinle- Davis	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Carmel McDonald	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Dyranda Hortle	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Edward Walsh	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Susan Moxham	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Bob Stephenson	Public Speaker (Item 4)
Sandra Ianitto	Public Speaker (Item 5)
Rosanna Martinello	Public Speaker (Item 5)
Manjur Rahman	Transport for NSW (TfNSW) (Item 11)
Ahsanul Amin	Transport for NSW (TfNSW) - Sydney Metro (Item 12)
Nick Windmiller	Transport for NSW (TfNSW) - Sydney Metro (Item 12)
Imogen Markus	Transport for NSW (TfNSW) - Sydney Metro (Item 12)
Fernando Guerreiro	Public Speaker (Item 14)
Bret Tombs	Public Speaker (Item 14)
Marijke Tombs	Public Speaker (Item 14)

APOLOGIES:

Sgt Charles Buttrose	NSW Police – Leichhardt Police Area Command

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee held on Monday, 18 November 2024 be confirmed.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 18 November 2024 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 03 December subject to the following:

1. Item 16 - Mackey Park and Carrington Road Survey Area, Marrickville: Request for extension of M2 Residential Parking Scheme: that Council write to affected residents explaining the actions taken to date and inviting residents to attend a town hall meeting to be organised in February 2025 and held in South Marrickville; and that council investigate and consult the Marrickville Red Devils on establishing a kiss and ride zone at a location near Mackey Park on Saturdays; and

2. Item 17 - Tempe Reserve - Parking Study: that Council write to affected residents explaining the actions taken to date and inviting residents to attend a town hall meeting to be organised in February 2025 and held in Tempe.

LTC1224(1) Item 1 Robert Street at Holden Street, Ashfield - New At-Grade Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Council at its meeting on the 18 March 2024 (through its Traffic Committee 11 December 2023) approved in principle a series of proposed pedestrian (zebra) crossings and kerb extension treatments (under concept) with other auxiliary works (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 and shows the detailed design plan of one of the proposed treatments involving the placing of a pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Robert Street, at the intersection of Holden Street, Ashfield. This work is programmed and envisaged to be constructed in the 2025/2026 financial year, subject to funding.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (10302) for a proposed new at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Robert Street at its intersection with Holden Street, Ashfield, with associated signs and line marking (as shown in Attachment 1) be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for the Transport for NSW raised concerns regarding the crossing not being entirely at the intersection nor offset from the intersection by a vehicle length (6 metres). Due to this, vehicles could stop partially over the pedestrian crossing which could reduce motorist sightlines to pedestrians wishing to cross.

The Representative for Transport for NSW advised they are still in discussion with Council Officers regarding what adjustments can be made whilst taking into consideration the current constraints of the proposed location.

The Representative for Transit Systems questioned when the works would be implemented and whether buses would be allowed through during construction. Council Officers advised that the project is currently scheduled for construction in the next financial year however it will be subject to grant funding opportunities therefore nothing has been determined as of yet. It was noted that once construction is scheduled, Council will be able to provide further information to the Representative for Transit Systems.

Council Officers suggested that this item be deferred to allow for further investigations regarding the proposed location of the crossing and other potential options.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 2 Edgeware Road and Camden Street, Enmore - Proposed kerb extensions (Damun-Enmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report discusses an assessment completed for the intersection at Edgeware Road and Camden Street, Enmore in response to concerns raised and recent accidents. Kerb extensions and adjustments to the ‘GIVE WAY’ lines are proposed to improve safety at this intersection.

Officers Recommendation:

That:

1. the design plan for the kerb extensions and adjustment of the ‘GIVE WAY’ line marking at the intersection of Edgeware Road and Camden Street, Enmore be approved in principle and a detailed design be bought back to the Committee for consideration.

2. the design for the interim line marking treatment at the intersection of Edgeware Road and Camden Street, Enmore be approved (as detailed in Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition advised that some cyclists tend to ride their bikes in the door zones and if the kerb extensions were to be placed to the edge of the travel lane, some cyclists may diverge around the kerb extensions and into the carriageway causing a potential safety issue. The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition noted that he does not have any issues with the interim treatment noting that cyclists can ride over the markings.

Council Officers advised that they will investigate the possibility of shortening the concrete kerb island and incorporate that into the detailed design.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That:

2. the design for the interim line marking treatment at the intersection of Edgeware Road and Camden Street, Enmore be approved (as detailed in Attachment 2 of the Local Traffic Committee report).

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 3 LGA-Wide High Pedestrian Activity Area (HPAA) Investigations - Final Report (All Wards / All Electorates / All PACs)

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.

Officers 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.

DISCUSSION:

Council Officers advised that this project was completed by a consultant who reviewed potential high pedestrian activity areas within the Inner West Council LGA which Council could raise with TfNSW and apply for grant funding in the future. It was noted that this has not yet been forwarded to Transport for NSW for formal review which means that there will have to be a body of work after the item is noted for TfNSW to review and endorse the HPAAs before Council can commence with the detailed design. It was also noted that speed limit changes are under the jurisdiction of TfNSW and not a matter for the Committee.

To clarify this, Council Officers suggested to amend the recommendation to take into consideration the comments received from TfNSW regarding the approval process for the speed limit reductions.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That:

a) That the 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity areas (HPAAs) investigation report be noted and submitted to TfNSW for formal review prior to HPPA projects being listed in Council's capital works program.

b) That the traffic facilities on local and regional road proposed in the report be supported in principle.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 4 Re-exhibition of proposed permanent road closure Jaggers Lane, Balmain (Baludarri - Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

The previous decision for the closure of Jaggers Lane was deferred at the Council’s Ordinary meeting of 9 April 2024. This was as a result of a pending Land and Environment Court Appeal relating to 4 Caroline Street, Balmain which proposed a modified access to Jaggers Lane for approved onsite carparking.

On 30 August 2024 a Court judgment was handed down in the Appeal making it conditional that unless there was a Traffic Management Committee approval for the Jaggers Lane access to 4 Caroline Street there would be no access permitted to the property. The Court judgment included a permanent road closure with a single bollard along the mid-block of Jaggers lane, including a splay at the intersection of Jaggers Lane at Caroline Street to accommodate vehicular access and appropriate signage at no cost to Council.

As the proposal was different from the previously deferred option considered by Council which included two bollards at either end of Jaggers Lane, three options were put to community engagement, that is Option 1: A full road closure of Jaggers Lane to all traffic; Option 2: A mid-block road closure of Jaggers Lane; and Option 3: No changes to the existing traffic arrangements in Jaggers Lane.

Community Engagement has closed and indicated that Option 1 was the preferred option with 66.7% support rate.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the permanent full road closure of Jaggers Lane, Balmain between Duncan Street and Caroline Street (Option 1) be approved subject to the approval of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) by Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

2. That the closure of Jaggers Lane, Balmain (Option 1) be implemented as per the bollards and signposting plan provided in Attachment 1.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speakers Ben Peake, Hassan Kharroubi, Huw Davis, Rory Steinle-Davis, and Carmel MacDonald entered the meeting at 11.10am

Mr Kharroubi objected to the recommendation as he advised he had previously received a DA approval for restorations and carparking on his property at Caroline Street. He advised that he has also gone to the Land and Environment court and that he has entered into a Section 34 agreement whereby he intends to dedicate part of his land to widen Jaggers Lane and to allow for cars to enter his property. Mr Kharroubi advised that he supported Council’s previous proposal to add a bollard in the centre of the lane to prevent through traffic whilst achieving a balance of allowing residents to use the lane to access their properties. Mr Kharroubi noted that as part of the Section 34 agreement, he is to prepare a submission to the Local Traffic Committee demonstrating that he can access the lane and that he has engaged a traffic consultant to provide all relevant reports. He added that the process has been constantly deferred due to the proposal to close off Jaggers Lane and noted that having onsite parking will help alleviate the off street parking issues in the area. Mr Kharroubi advised that the full closure of Jaggers Lane will impact amenity and accessibility in the area, property values, appeal for potential buyers to purchase in the area as well as affect current and future developments in the area.

Mr Peake spoke in agreement with Mr Kharroubi and advised that a submission was put to the Committee in July by Mr Kharroubi’s traffic consultants and has concerns that their submission was not properly considered. Mr Peake advise that the key issues arising from the meeting could be addressed with having a centrally located bollard in the lane would be able to somewhat satisfy the needs of all residents. It was noted that Mr Kharroubi’s onsite parking has been considered by both Council and the Land and Environment court with minor technical matters that needed to be addressed.

Mr Davies objected to the recommendation and advised his concerns regarding the report being biased to supporting the road closure. Mr Davis noted that the Committee is proposing a road closure that affects 320 people (as per the consultation area) which purportedly can be closed down by 22 people and questioned how many of the 22 people have access to off-street parking. Mr Davis advised that the summaries in the engagement outcomes report seem to be biased towards having the road being closed noting that if 8 people are directly impacted and want the lane closure out of the 320 people consulted in the area. Mr Davis also noted that the original petition to close the road had 47 names and that it has now gone down to 22 submission and suggested that people are changing their minds on the closure.

Mr Steinle-Davis objected to the recommendation and advised that the laneway is an asset to renovation, upgrade, and maintenance projects for neighbouring properties. Mr Steinle-Davis raised concerns that the closure of the lane will cause more traffic on the main road as well as add to existing parking issues in the area. Mr Steinle-Davis advised that he would like a resolution to this matter and that he would not be opposed to having a bollard installed centrally in the lane and advised that it would assist with partially closing the lane and providing pedestrian access. It was also noted that Sydney Water had been consulted in previous engagements and that they had advised that they would require access to the laneway to maintain their assets in the laneway.

Ms MacDonald objected to the recommendation noting she does not see any reason for the proposed closure of the lane as there is not much vehicular traffic on the lane. Ms MacDonald noted that there is limited parking availability on Waterview Street and that residents of Waterview Street should be able to use the lane to access their homes for reasons such as unloading shopping, charging their vehicles or moving furniture.

Public Speakers Ben Peake, Hassan Kharroubi, Huw Davis, Rory Steinle-Davis and Carmel MacDonald left the meeting at 11.33am

Public Speakers Dyranda Hortle, Edward Walsh, Susan Moxham and Bob Stephenson entered the meeting at 11.34am

Ms Hortle, Mr Walsh, Ms Moxham and Mr Stephenson all supported the recommendation as the lane is non-compliant with the Australian Standard for vehicular use. Mr Walsh also noted that cars and pedestrians could not safely coexist in the lane as the lane was too narrow for pedestrians and vehicles to pass each other safety. Mr Walsh advised that the local community often use the lane as a footpath to get to the Balmain ferry as there is no footpath available on a portion of Waterview Street. Mr Walsh noted he disagreed with the reports of there being a low risk of conflicts between cars and pedestrians and that in the previous traffic survey conducted, there were 3 incidents during the survey period, 1 being vehicle-to-vehicle damage, 1 road rage incident and 1 incident where a vehicle almost collided with the residents back gate as they opened their gate onto the lane. Mr Walsh noted that one of the key risks was that some property's back gates open onto the lane which may cause issues if vehicular movements were allowed in the lane.

Mr Stephenson advised that the recommendation aligns with community wishes to future-proof the lane for pedestrian access. Mr Stephenson advised that the lane is a great amenity for the residents and has many environmental and social benefits to the community.

Ms Moxham advised that she uses the lane multiple times daily and many people in the wider community also do so due to the lack of footpaths in the area. Ms Moxham also noted that she did not support the idea of creating private driveways for developers who do not intend to live in the area. Ms Moxham also encouraged Council to investigate developing the lane into a functioning walkway/cycleway as Council is currently doing in other areas of the LGA. Ms Moxham noted that by doing so it will enhance the environment and encourage people to take on active transport.

Ms Walsh noted that the proposal to have a single bollard installed in the middle of the lane would stop through traffic in the lane however his main concern was that by not having the road fully closed, the current DA application would allow for traffic to utilise the laneway for access.

Public Speakers Dyranda Hortle, Edward Walsh, Susan Moxham and Bob Stephenson left the meeting at 11.47am.

The Chairperson advised that he supports the option of having a bollard placed into the laneway so that residents can still access the rear of their property if required. The Chairperson noted the concerns regarding future developments and the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles however with the lack of parking in adjacent streets, residents may still need to access the laneway to service their properties. The Chairperson noted that Mr Kharroubi’s intention to dedicate part of his lane as a footpath will set a precedent for future residents who wish to add off-street parking onto their properties. The Chairperson noted that if the bollard is placed in the lane, the lane will technically become a ‘shared zone’ instead of a through road and suggested that Council investigate the repositioning of the bollard. The Representative for the Member of Balmain suggested having a rules-based arrangement so that cars are secondary to pedestrians and the possibility of implementing ‘No Stopping’ throughout the lane and having the speed limit reduced to a low speed so pedestrians can safely use it. The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill recommended that a bollard be installed in Jaggers Lane. The Chairperson noted that the installation of the bollard can be reversed if it is not a suitable treatment.

Council Officers advised that the original request to close that lane came in as the lane is only 3 metres wide and pedestrians and vehicles cannot safely pass each other in the lane. It was noted that there were issues of illegal parking in the lane which obstructed access for pedestrians. Council Officers noted that in terms of its technical merits, there should be no traffic in the lane. It was noted that there are currently no approved driveways in the lane and that the residents are concerned for the potential for developments to start increasing the number of driveways in the lane. It was noted that historically there have been no approvals for driveways in the lane due to the limited space to access the lane. Council Officers advised that the closure of the lane is essentially formalising the current conditions of the lane.

It was noted that Council had received 40 submissions from the community engagement, 7 were deemed out of the consultation area. Out of the 7 out of area submissions, two were in support of option 1 and 5 submissions were in support of leaving the lane as it is now. Council Officers noted that from the submissions from the consultation area, there was a 66% support rate to close the lane to all traffic and if the statistics were narrowed down to the immediately affected properties, that would still be a 61% support rate to close the lane to all traffic. Council Officers advised that the recommendation put forward to support option 1 was based on the overall community support to close the lane.

The Chairperson noted his concerns regarding the ability for residents to access their properties from the lane due to the existing parking issues in the area.

Council Officers also noted that pictures of the construction vehicles being parked in the lane are technically illegal and that if works did need to happen for the property, Council would suggest the resident apply for a ‘Work Zone’ at the frontage of their property.

The Chairperson noted that he supported the idea of the bollard being installed into the lane and have that reviewed over time.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the permanent full road closure of Jaggers Lane, Balmain between Duncan Street and Caroline Street (Option 2), with a single bollard positioned on Jaggers Lane at the common property alignment of 31 and 33 Waterview Street be approved subject to the approval of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) by Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 5 Empire Street, Haberfield - Proposed Motorbike Parking (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received concerns regarding vehicles obstructing the driveway of No.26 Empire Street, Haberfield. It was reported that the existing 4m kerbspace between No.24 and No.26 Empire Street is insufficient to accommodate a standard sized vehicle without partially obstructing the driveway, and impeding vehicular access to No.26 Empire Steet, Haberfield.

To assist in maintaining vehicular access, Council proposed to install a 4m length ‘Motor Bike Only’ parking zone. Following consultation, concerns were raised regarding the impact of the restriction from the directly impacted resident and hence the proposal is recommended to not proceed at this time.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposed 4m length ‘Motor Bike Parking’ zone between the driveway of No.24 and No.26 Empire Street, Haberfield be not supported due to lack of support from the immediately impacted property.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Sandra Ianitto entered the meeting at 11.48am.

Ms Ianitto supported the recommendation advising she has never had concerns with car parking or driveway access to her property caused by the size or location of the kerb space located in front of her property. Ms Ianitto advised she sympathised with her neighbour's concerns regarding driveway access issues however, noted that there must be other solutions for her neighbour that do not impact her as drastically by removing amenity for herself, her visitors, and other neighbours. Ms Ianitto noted that outside of sporting events at Algie Park, parking levels are low and that her section of Empire Street is a quiet residential street with most residents utilising their off-street parking. Ms Ianitto noted that extra cars on the street coincide with activities on the sports fields and that the regular parkgoers are quite familiar with the available parking spaces and where they can park safely. Ms Ianitto noted that although this may make the street busier at times, it does not have a significant impact on the residents in the surrounding area as these extra cars occur for 2-3 weekdays during the playing seasons from 4pm to 7pm. Ms Ianitto advised she disagreed with the description of the kerb space being too small for vehicles to park as she drives a 5-seat Volkswagen hatchback which fits into the space.

Public Speaker Sandra Ianitto left the meeting at 11.51am.

Public Speaker Rosanna Martinello entered the meeting at 11.52am.

Ms Martinello opposed the recommendation as vehicles who often park in the 4m kerb space between No.24 and No.26 Empire Street, Haberfield often obstruct access to her driveway and property. Ms Martinello advised that Council had previously advised her to install driveway linemarkings to deter people from parking too close to her driveway however, the issue still persists and often she is blocked in and unable to exit her property. Ms Martinello requested that Council continue with the original proposal to implement ‘Motor Bike Parking’ in front of No.24 Empire Street or investigate other potential treatments so that she can safely access her property at all times. Ms Martinello advised that the recommendation noted that the original proposal was not supported due to lack of support from the immediately impacted property which is No.24. Ms Martinello noted that she is also severely impacted at No.26 and has advised that she has reported instances of illegal parking to Council numerous times. Ms Martinello stated that the issue arises from cars parking in the 4m kerb space advising that the 4m space is insufficient for today’s vehicles as the minimum requirement for a car space is 5.4 meters long. Ms Martinello also noted that Council has acknowledged that this kerb space is too small for cars to park in the report. Ms Martinello advised that when cars overhang and obstruct access to her driveway, it causes safety and access issues. Ms Martinello advised that the issue has caused her significant distress with previous instances of her not being able to access her driveway.

Public Speaker Rosanna Martinello left the meeting at 11.58am.

Council Officers suggested deferring the item to allow for further investigations to take place.

The Chairperson suggested investigating the possibility of angled parking to help alleviate some of the parking issues in the area.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed 4m length ‘Motor Bike Parking’ zone between the driveway of No.24 and No.26 Empire Street, Haberfield be deferred for officers to undertake investigation into other options.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 6 Evans Street at Mansfield Street, Rozelle- Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety for pedestrians in Evans Street and Mansfield Street, Rozelle by constructing a new raised pedestrian crossing in Evans Street and kerb extensions in Mansfield Street. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian and motorist safety by defining safe pedestrian crossing points, improving sight distances, reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

This project was one of the recommendations from the Balmain Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) study adopted by Council on 10 October 2023.

It is proposed to adjust the existing ‘No Stopping’ zones in Evans Street to facilitate implementation of the new raised pedestrian crossing. This will result in the loss of two (2) existing on-street parking spaces in Evans Street. The remainder of the works will generally be within the existing ‘No Stopping’ zones of Evans Street and Mansfield Street and therefore will not impact parking spaces at these locations.

Officers Recommendation:

That the attached detailed design plan (No.10307-B) for the proposed new raised pedestrian crossing and kerb extensions on Evans Street at Mansfield Street, Rozelle be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the attached detailed design plan (No.10307-B) for the proposed new raised pedestrian crossing and kerb extensions on Evans Street at Mansfield Street, Rozelle be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 7 Elizabeth Street, Ashfield (Frederick Street to Nixon Avenue)-Pedestrian and Parking facility improvements (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety in Elizabeth Street (between Frederick St to Nixon Avenue), Ashfield by constructing a new kerb realignment, kerb extension and kerb blister islands with in-built kerb ramps along this section of road.

The proposal aims to improve pedestrian and motorist safety by better defining safe pedestrian crossing points, providing more road width for parking, and addressing pedestrian safety and driver behaviour at this location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plans (10295-1 sheets 1-2, 10295-2 & 10295-3) for proposed new kerb realignment, kerb extension and kerb blister islands with in-built kerb ramps, with associated signs and line marking in Elizabeth Street, between Frederick Street and Nixon Avenue, Ashfield, as shown in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively, be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill questioned if the kerb extensions near the roundabout will affect bus services. Council Officers advised that the kerb extension should not affect the buses noting that turning templates were completed to ensure that vehicles could still maneuverer the turns and that the roundabout is mountable to allow for buses to drive straight.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 8 Clissold Street, at Holden Street, Ashfield- new at-grade (road level) Pedestrian (zebra) crossing (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

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.

Officers Recommendation:

DISCUSSION:

Council Officers and Representative for Transport for NSW noted and agreed that they would move the pedestrian crossing back 5.5metres or as far as feasible from the intersection and ‘Give Way’ line.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE 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 of the Local Traffic Committee report be approved subject to the crossing being located by up to 5.5m back from the Give Way holding line.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 9 Queen Street, between Hillcrest Avenue & New Street, Ashfield-Pedestrian Safety & Traffic improvement works.
(Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

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.

Officers 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.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 10 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)

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.

Officers 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.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

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

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 11 Burrows Avenue and Railway Road, Sydenham - Proposed Bus layover and parking changes (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Heffron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

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)

Officers 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.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speaker Manjur Rahman entered the meeting at 12.26 pm.

Mr Rahman advised that Transport for NSW (TfNSW) have been managing the design and development of the bus layover project along Burrows Avenue, Sydenham. It was noted that given the importance of the station as a major transport interchange and that bus operators are missing the ability to layover and terminate between services. Mr Rahman advised in order to address these issues; Transport for NSW is proposing to create a bus layover for the buses to use along Burrows Avenue. Mr Rahman advised that this proposal includes a plan to have 6, 16 metre bus spaces, 1 amenity block and some changes to the current parking arrangements in the area noting this will remove 11 parking spaces on Burrows Avenue. It was noted that removal of those parking spaces will allow for buses to maneuverer and egress safely. Mr Rahman advised that there were plans to convert 8 parallel parking spaces along the eastern side of Railway Road into 13, 45-degree angle car parking spaces to reduce the impact of the parking loss.

The Chairperson queried whether buses would be able to layover at Tempe Depot instead as the depot has all the required facilities and it will cause fewer parking disruptions in the local area. Mr Rahman advised they have considered that possibility however found that the depot did not have the capacity to take on the extra buses and that factors such as time, and traffic were also taken into consideration if buses were to layover at Tempe Depot.

The Chairperson queried if there was a requirement to stack the buses in such a way that would require 11 parking spaces to be removed from the community and whether there would be another way to utilise the site so that there was less of an impact on parking for the community. Mr Rahman advised that various options were explored to ensure minimal impact on parking and that those options were discussed with Council and that this option was concluded to be the optimal option.

Council Officers questioned why there was a need for 6 bus layover spaces. Mr Rahman advised the bus planners have asked for more spaces and that 6 spaces were the maximum Transport for NSW could allocate for the buses. Council Officers questioned if there would be any other opportunities for bus layovers to take place if the area reduces the number of parking spaces taken from the community. Mr Rahman advised that there are currently no other layover locations identified in the vicinity of Sydenham Station, so the current area identified is the best possible location for the layover. Council Officers noted that Burrows Avenue has the capacity for buses to layover on the opposite side of the Gleeson Road intersection, adjacent to the station and questioned whether this option was explored as a possibility. Mr Rahman advised that the option was explored by the team and was deemed to not be a feasible option. The Representative for Transport for NSW added that the reason this was considered not to be a feasible option was due to plans of having a cycleway put in on the opposite side of Burrows Avenue. It was noted that there would be signal upgrades at the intersection of Unwins Bridge Road and Hogan Street to assist with bus access if a bus layover area was placed adjacent to the station on Burrows Avenue and that due to the active transport link along Burrows Avenue the presence of idling buses would cause safety issues.

The Chairperson questioned if the options that were considered by Transport for NSW could be shared with the committee. Mr Rahman advised he will send the options analysis to the Manager of Traffic and Transport to distribute to the Committee. Council Officers questioned where Transport for NSW was with the approval process for the site and when the construction schedule was for this project. Mr Rahman advised that construction is scheduled to begin in January 2025.

Council Officers requested that subject to the approval of the recommendation, that Transport for NSW review the current design to try to minimise the loss of parking in the area.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE 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:

b) TfNSW investigate amending the design to incorporate additional on-street parking spaces along Burrows Avenue.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 12 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)

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.

Officers Recommendation:

That;

1. 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. 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. 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. 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.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speakers Ahsanul Amin, Nick Windmiller and Imogen Markus entered the meeting at 12.18 pm.

Mr Windmiller advised that the proposal will assist with the Sydney Metro works in the area which will assist with upgrading Sydney’s transport network. Mr Windmiller advised that a risk assessment on errant vehicles entering the corridor and as part of mitigating that risk, Sydney Metro is proposing to install bridge and road barriers. Mr Windmiller noted that the lane widths will not change and that there will only be minor adjustments to the linemarking. It was noted that there will be a reduction to the shoulder on the lanes to increase the footpath width however this will not impact the swept paths of vehicle movements on the bridge. Mr Windmiller advised there has been an existing issue identified with longer vehicles turning left on Dudley Street, from the Southbound Lane and advised that there was a condition put in place to implement ‘No Left Turn’ signage. Mr Windmiller advised that this proposal will have a positive impact on transport users, pedestrians, and road safety.

Council Officers questioned if Sydney Metro would be happy to go back to monitor the changes to the bridge over 12 months and report back to Council with the changes. Ms Markus noted the recommendation and advised Sydney Metro would be happy to do so.

Public Speakers Ahsanul Amin, Nick Windmiller and Imogen Markus left the meeting at 12.25 pm.

Council Officers advised that Transport for NSW have requested an amendment to part 3 of the recommendation to include a bus exemption on the ‘No Left Turn’ signage which supports existing bus movements into the street.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That;

2. 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. 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; Council Waste Vehicles and Buses Excepted” sign on the southbound approach of Dudley Street from Wardell Road.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 13 Dulwich Hill Station Precinct - Proposed parking changes (Djarrawunang-Dulwich Hill Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Inner West PAC)

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.

Officers 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.

DISCUSSION:

Council Officers advised that Transport for NSW have issues with parts of the recommendation and has proposed to defer parts 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of the recommendation as well as the reallocation of the ‘Loading Zone 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri ;8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ in part 8 of the recommendation.

Council Officers noted that Transport for NSW have concerns regarding the reduction of the capacity of the ‘No Stopping’ zones near signalised intersections as well as the removal of the existing temporary bus zone on the southern side of Dudley Street in case it may be needed to assist with operations to the train station.

It was noted that Council Officers will further discuss with Transport for NSW and will bring back a separate report on these items for the Committees review and consideration.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

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

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

That the following parking changes within the Dulwich Hill Station Precinct be deferred for further investigation:

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,
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,
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’,
the reallocation of eight (8) metres from the existing temporary bus zone on the southern side of Dudley Street to ‘Loading Zone 8am-6pm’
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)
the reallocation of the ‘Loading Zone 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri; 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 14 Douglas Lane, Stanmore - Proposed 'No Parking' and 'No Stopping' restrictions (Damun-Stanmore Ward/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report discusses parking and access issues in Douglas Lane, Stanmore and proposes parking restrictions in Douglas Lane to improve access and parking for households on Douglas and Temple Streets. In addition, it also recommends further consultation be completed on a proposal to install timed permit parking restrictions on Douglas Street to improve parking opportunities for households with limited or no-off street parking.

Officers Recommendation:

That:

1. ‘No Parking’ restrictions on both sides of Douglas Lane between Percival Lane West and Bruce Lane East, Stanmore be installed,

2. An 8.5 metre ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Douglas Lane, east of Bruce Lane East be installed,

3. A 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Douglas Lane, west of Percival Lane West be installed,

4. A 6 metre ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the southern side of Douglas Lane, west of Percival Lane West be installed,

5. A 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the southern side of Douglas Lane, east of Bruce Lane East be installed,

6. A 10 metre ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the eastern side of Bruce Lane East, south of Douglas Lane be installed, and

7. Council officers carry out a community consultation on a proposal to extend the Area M17 Resident Parking Scheme to the northern side of Douglas Street between no. 40 and no.64 Douglas Street, Stanmore.

DISCUSSION:

Public Speakers Fernando Guerrerio, Bret Tombs and Marijke Tombs entered the meeting at 12.01pm

Mr Fernando, Mr Tombs, and Ms Tombs objected to the recommendation and expressed concerns that the proposed restrictions will create significant challenges for residents who rely on Douglas Lane for essential daily activities. Mr Tombs advised that the proposed changes would severely impact residents who need to temporarily park in the lane to access their homes for reasons such as transporting groceries and supplies to their homes and supporting elderly, disabled, or young family members who require close, safe access to their homes. Mr Tombs noted that forcing residents to park further away from their homes would make these tasks more difficult and unsafe particularly for families with young children or those assisting vulnerable family members. Mr Tombs noted that the proposed restrictions would exacerbate existing parking challenges in the area as Douglas Street residents are currently excluded from the Resident Parking Scheme, leaving them with limited parking options near their homes and that the proximity to Stanmore Station from Douglas Street further adds to parking pressures in the area. Mr Tombs advised that he has spoken to his neighbours regarding his concerns and since the notification of this Local Traffic Committee meeting and he has created a petition opposing the proposed ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Douglas Lane. He explained that his neighbours who are elderly or have English as a second language and face barriers voicing their opinions and are notable to fully participate in the matter. It was noted that due to the limited time, Mr Tombs was only able to visit 14 residences on Douglas Street the previous day, and of the 14 residences visited, 13 had signed his petition. Mr Tombs advised he will continue to visit residences in Douglas and Temple Streets and will submit an updated petition to Council once completed. Mr Tombs suggested that Council abandon the proposal for a blanket ‘No Parking Zone’ as this will take away the resident’s ability to temporarily park in Douglas Lane to do essential activities and consider timed parking to deter long term parking. Mr Tombs also suggested the possibility of extending the Resident Parking Scheme to Douglas Street and that the ‘No Parking Zone’ outside of 26 to 40 Douglas Street be amended so that the ‘No Parking Zone’ is enforceable during peak hours as this will help create additional parking opportunities for residents without affecting the traffic flow during peak hours.

Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (South) questioned whether implementing a Resident Parking Scheme in Douglas Street will make a difference in implementing the proposed restrictions in Douglas Lane and if residents would be more supportive of the proposed restrictions to be implemented in Douglas Lane. Mr Guerrerio advised that there would be no need to implement the restrictions in Douglas Lane if a Resident Parking Scheme was in place there would be no issues in Douglas Lane. Mr Tombs advised he would still not be supportive of the proposed restrictions in Douglas Lane as he often uses the lane to temporarily park to safely access his property.

Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (South) questioned what the speakers’ thoughts were on implementing the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the corners of Douglas Lane. Mr Tombs advised that he understood the implementation of the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the corners however was advised that there was a possibility that the 6 metre ‘No Stopping’ restriction would come the side of his driveway which would still make it impossible for him to unload goods from his vehicle or assist vulnerable family members with accessing the property.

Coordinator Traffic Engineering Services (South) noted that the majority of Douglas Lane provide rear access to properties driveways and questioned if most people park in front of their driveways. Mr Tombs advised this was not the case and that issue seems to stem from a neighbour dispute whereby a neighbour is parking in front of someone’s garage door that has no driveway access. Mr Guerrerio advised that the solution to this issue would be to just implement ‘No Parking’ restrictions in the affected area rather than having the implementing ‘No Parking’ in the whole laneway.

Public Speakers Fernando Guerrerio, Bret Tombs and Marijke Tombs left the meeting at 12.17 pm.

Council Officers suggested deferring the proposed 'No Parking' and 'No Stopping' restrictions in Douglas Lane, Stanmore for further investigation and to also investigate the extension of the Resident Parking Scheme to Douglas Street Stanmore.

The Committee members agreed with the amended recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed 'No Parking' and 'No Stopping' restrictions in Douglas Street, Stanmore be deferred for further investigation.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 15 Griffiths Street, Tempe - Request for extension of existing M18 residential parking scheme - resident parking questionnaire survey results (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward/Heffron Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines a resident permit parking scheme investigation completed in Griffiths Street and surrounding streets near Tempe Station and assesses whether permit parking restrictions can be considered to address commuter/long-term parking problems. The investigation found that parking occupancy rates on Griffiths Street is approximately 85 per cent (84 per cent) with some level of commuter parking. Community consultation revealed strong support for timed permit parking restrictions on Griffiths Street. Concerns were raised by nearby streets such as Station and Nicholson Streets about redistribution of parking. The redistribution of commuter parking is estimated to be low, and adjacent streets can also formally request for Council officers to investigate further timed permit parking restrictions. Accordingly, timed permit parking restrictions are recommended on Griffiths Street to improve parking opportunities for households.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposal to implement Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) Restrictions ‘2P 8.30am-10pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M18’ on the eastern side of Griffiths Street, south of Station Street be approved.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposal to implement Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) Restrictions ‘2P 8.30am-10pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted Area M18’ on the eastern side of Griffiths Street, south of Station Street be approved.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 16 Lincoln Street, Stanmore - Proposed angle parking (Damun-Stanmore Electorate/Newtown Electorate/Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines a parking investigation completed in Lincoln Street, Stanmore to assess parking conditions. The investigation revealed adequate parking capacity in Lincoln Street, however, nearby parking generators such as Bain Playground may affect parking opportunities. Accordingly, the conversion of some parallel parking spaces to angle parking is proposed. Following community consultation, this proposal was further refined to minimise household impact. Subsequently, five (5) angle parking spaces are proposed, gaining two (2) parking spaces on Lincoln Street. In addition, ‘No Stopping’ restrictions are proposed at the dead-end to provide a turnaround area for motorists.

Officers Recommendation:

That the conversion of two parallel parking spaces to five (5) 90-degree angle parking spaces, and the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions (for a length of 15m from Salisbury Road) adjacent to Bain Playground on Lincoln Street, Stanmore be approved as per Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION:

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition requested that proposed parking spaces be made 90-degree angle rear to kerb parking.

Council Officers advised that there are no objections to incorporating rear to kerb parking into the recommendation.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the conversion of two parallel parking spaces to five (5) 90-degree (rear to kerb) angle parking spaces, and the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions (for a length of 15m from Salisbury Road) adjacent to Bain Playground on Lincoln Street, Stanmore be approved as per Attachment 2 of the Local Traffic Committee report.

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 17 Fredbert Street, Lilyfield - Resident Parking Scheme Removal (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

The residents of Fredbert Street, Lilyfield have raised concerns regarding the parking restriction in their street. They have submitted a petition stating that the existing parking restriction ‘2P 8am-1pm Sat, Permit Holders Excepted Area LY’ is too restrictive for their visitors and have requested for the removal of the restrictions.

Officers Recommendation:

That:

1. The removal of ‘2P 8am-1pm Sat, Permit Holders Excepted Area LY’ on both sides of Fredbert Street, Lilyfield be approved.

2. It be noted that a 24-month Resident Parking Scheme investigation moratorium period will be in effect for Fredbert Street, Lilyfield

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That:

1. The removal of ‘2P 8am-1pm Sat, Permit Holders Excepted Area LY’ on both sides of Fredbert Street, Lilyfield be approved.

2. It be noted that a 24-month Resident Parking Scheme investigation moratorium period will be in effect for Fredbert Street, Lilyfield

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 18 Review of proposed resident parking scheme in Croydon (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward & Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

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.

Officers 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,

(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

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 maneuverability 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.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE 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.

(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).

For Motion: Unanimous

LTC1224(1) Item 19 West Street and Railway Terrace intersection, Petersham – Traffic and pedestrian safety review - C0924(1) Item 38 Notice of Motion – (Damun-Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West LAC)

SUMMARY

At the Council Meeting held 3 September 2024 a Notice of Motion for West Street and Railway Terrace Intersection (Item C0924(1) Item 38) was resolved. Part 3 was that Council, noting that both roads concerned are state and regional roads, write to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in relation to a number of traffic and pedestrian safety improvements at the signalised intersection. This report provides TfNSW’s response in regard to Council’s letter sent to TfNSW.

Officers Recommendation:

That the report be received and noted.

DISCUSSION:

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the report be received and noted.

For Motion: Unanimous

General Business:

Item 20: Cars queuing across the pedestrian crossing on Hardie Avenue at Smith Street, Summer Hill.

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition raised concerns regarding vehicles queuing across and blocking the pedestrian crossing on Hardie Avenue at Smith Street, Summer Hill as they wait for a break in traffic causing difficulties for pedestrians to cross safely. Council Officers advised that the area is being looked at as part of another project Council is undertaking near Lackey Street, Summer Hill.

Meeting closed at 1.55pm.

CHAIRPERSON

Clr Victor Macri.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

17 February 2025

Item No: LTC0225(1) Item 11

Subject: Goodsell Street, St Peters - Request for an extension to times and days of the existing residential parking scheme (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Heffron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: Jennifer Adams - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the existing ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri’, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ resident parking restrictions on the northern side of Goodsell Street between Council Street and the units at no. 1 Goodsell Street be amended to ‘2P 8am to 10pm, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ to provide all week parking opportunities for local residents.

2. That the existing ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri’, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ resident parking restrictions on the southern side of Goodsell Street between Council Street and May Lane be amended to ‘2P 8am to 10pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ to provide weekday parking opportunities for local residents and to provide opportunities for other users of local facilities as well.

3. That the ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ parking adjacent to no. 1 Goodsell Street to be amended to ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A petition has been received from 41 residents of Goodsell Street, St Peters for an extension to times and days of the existing Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in their street. Concerns were also raised with possible greater demands for parking in the area after current Camdenville Oval Upgrade works are completed.

This report provides the results of the recent resident parking scheme investigation in Goodsell Street, St Peters and recommends the modification of existing resident parking restrictions from ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ to a combination of ‘2P 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’, ‘2P 8am to 10pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’and ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’.

BACKGROUND

A petition signed by 41 local residents in Goodsell Street has been received for the provision of an extension to times and days of the existing Resident Parking Scheme in their street.

The existing M12 permit parking area in Goodsell Street, St Peters was implemented in 2008 after a petition was received by a number of residents at that time. The head petitioner at the time advised that on street parking spaces is Goodsell Street were heavily utilised by train commuters and the parking situation became more difficult for residents due to the new block of residential units at No.1 Goodsell Street. Subsequently Council adopted the recommendation that ‘2P - 8.30AM-6.00PM Mon-Fri - Permit Holders Excepted - Area M12’ parking restrictions be installed on both sides of Goodsell Street, between Council Street and May Lane, St Peters; Residents of the new development at 1 Goodsell Street were not eligible to participate in the scheme. The RPS was installed in July 2008.

Following the receipt of the current petition, Council Officers have recently carried out a parking utilisation survey in Goodsell Street on a typical Saturday and the results indicated high utilisation of on-street parking, so in late November 2024 a Resident Parking survey was undertaken of all residential properties in Goodsell Street, St Peters between Council Street and May Lane and also of residents in adjoining Council Street (10 Properties). This report details the results of the recent parking utilisation survey and Resident Parking survey.

DISCUSSION

Goodsell Street is a local residential street that runs east-west between Council Street and King Street (Princes Highway) and is in close proximity to St Peters Railway Station. It is 12.8 metres wide with one travel lane in each direction. Both parallel and angle parking is permitted on both sides of the street. At present, resident parking restrictions are in place for the parallel and angle parking on both sides of the street between Council Street and May Lane.

Parking Utilisation Survey:

A parking utilisation survey was undertaken in Goodsell Street, St Peters on a typical Saturday early November 2024 (between 7.00am and 7.00pm) to gauge current on-street parking utilisation. The results of the survey are summarised in the following table:

The results of the weekend parking survey for Goodsell Street showed that the street had an average overall occupancy of 88% which exceeds Council’s 85% threshold for parking occupancy for consideration for implementation or extension of a residential parking scheme.

Subsequently, a Resident Parking questionnaire survey was undertaken in Goodsell Street to gauge resident’s support of an extension of time and days of the existing residential parking scheme.

Council proposed to expand the existing M12 RPS with the following proposal:

· Implement ‘2P 8.30AM - 10PM Monday to Sunday, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12’ on both sides of Goodsell Street between Council Street and May Lane, St Peters.

Council Policy/Guidelines

Council's adopted Policy for the introduction or extension of a Permit Parking Area states "that before implementing a resident parking scheme in any area, a survey of residents be undertaken to ascertain the level of support for such a scheme and that such support should be in excess of 65% of submissions received provided that rate of return of submissions is reasonable (higher than 30%)".

“In completing this analysis Council may differentiate responses from those developments excluded from participation in a Resident Parking Scheme (Table 7.1).” (non-eligible properties).

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A total of 132 consultation letters were hand delivered to owners/occupiers of both eligible and non-eligible properties in Goodsell Street between May Lane and Council Street and also to Council Street residents, St Peters on 29 November 2024. Submissions closed on Friday 20 December 2024.

Distribution of letters are highlighted in the diagram below. Yellow being eligible properties and blue non-eligible.

At the end of the survey period thirty-one (31) responses were received. Twenty (20) were in support of the proposal and eleven (11) opposed the proposal. The overall response rate was 24%, and of that 35.5% opposed the proposal and 64.5% supported it.

Number of properties - 132

Number of properties responded - 31

Number of properties supported - 20

Response Rate - 24%

Support Rate - 64.5%

There are 80 eligible properties in Goodsell Street, St Peters. Even through letters detailing the proposal were delivered to the multi-unit development at 1 Goodsell Street and to 10 residencies in Council Street, in general Council places a higher emphasis on responses from the residents of the single unit dwellings (in Goodsell Street) when making a determination when dealing with resident parking schemes.

The return and support rates of eligible Goodsell Street (eligible) properties are given below.

Number of eligible properties - 80

Number of eligible properties responded - 23

Number of eligible properties supported - 19

Eligible Response Rate - 29%

Eligible Support Rate - 83%

Council guidelines state that there should be a response rate of 30% of households that were surveyed, with 65% of respondents supporting the proposal. In this case, the return rate and support rate of eligible Goodsell Street residents confirm support for an extension to times and days of the existing Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in the street.

Note: In order to best gauge the level of support of directly affected residents, the response-rate analysis in this case was conducted on the basis of considering only single unit dwellings in Goodsell Street.

The return and support rates of residents surveyed in Council Street are given below.

Number of properties - 10

Number of properties responded - 2

Number of properties supported - 1

Response Rate - 20%

Support Rate - 10% (50% of respondents)

The return and support rates of non-eligible residents surveyed at 1 Goodsell Street are given below.

Number of properties - 42

Number of properties responded - 6

Number of properties supported - 0

Response Rate - 14%

Support Rate - 0%

Of the 11 objections it is noted that 6 were received from 1 Goodsell Street residents (non-eligible) and 4 from single dwelling units in Goodsell Street (eligible) and one from a resident in Council Street.

Key concerns / issues raised from the responses of eligible residents in Goodsell Street supporting the proposal have been summarised below:

· As residents, we face significant challenges finding parking during match days and weekends, which makes it incredibly difficult to manage daily routines, especially when returning home from work.

· 2-hour parking restrictions won’t help the lack of parking when football is played in Camdenville Oval. There is a general lack of parking spaces, and it can be extremely difficult to find a parking spot when there are games being played.

· With the current upgrade of Camdenville Oval and its increased usage, the parking situation will no doubt only get worse for residential parking.

· The new Camdenville Oval improvements will worsen the already problematic parking situation on Goodsell Street.

· Request the Council to consider adding dedicated parking spaces for the soccer ground.

· new businesses taking up much of the street parking with their own vehicles or customers' vehicles.

· include the 7 parking spots in Council Street with the new restrictions and the parking spots next to the toilet block at Camdenville oval.

· 3 support marking out of parking to maximise parking spaces through clear parking bays

Key concerns / issues raised by objectors to the proposal (both eligible and non-eligible residents) include the following:

· The proposed changes to the existing RPS are overly restrictive and deny visitors parking flexibility, particularly on the weekends.

· The proposed changes would have detrimental effects on our community and family, friends and partners who want to come and visit us.

· it would be difficult for our guests to visit on the weekends for over 2 hours without the risk of a fine. This area is a residential area and there should be no restrictions to parking times over the weekend as this would hinder our social activities should we choose to have guests over.

· I do not support the proposal in its current form. My view is the proposed expansion of the RPS hours/days needs to be based on evidence. Collect evidence/observations to understand if there is greater demand for parking during the night after 6pm. I am not convinced that there will be a greater demand for parking after 6pm i.e. Camdenville Oval is predominantly used during daytime hours.

· parking around amateur sporting events needs some more patrolling/ attention as this can cause issues of illegal and double parking on the street. Also, illegal parking around Caroline lane of trade vehicles needs attention and is often a more frustrating issue.

· The reason that the parking gets full on some weekdays with people parking and using the station is because overstaying the 2-hour max is seldom monitored by rangers.

As a result of the feedback received, especially concerns with regards to availability of parking on the weekends an adjustment to the final proposal has been made. This looks to address issues of lack of parking as a result of lack of parking in the evenings whilst attempting to find a balance between resident needs and visitors on the weekend. The 2P parking restriction have therefore been extended into the weeknights as well as the weekend for the northern side which will discourage long term parking during weekend periods as well as weekday periods whilst on the southern side the restrictions have been extended into the evening to discourage long term parking during the evenings. There is a small section of 2P parking adjacent to the unit block adjacent to no. 1 Goodsell Street which will remain essentially unchanged.

Concern is valid also that restrictions in Council Street may need to be amended in the near future due to vehicles parking out the available parking on weekends. It is noted that when the original RPS went into Goodsell Street in July 2008 not long after a petition was received from residents in Council Street, St Peters stating that the parking situation had become more difficult for residents in their street following the recent introduction of the RPS in Goodsell Street. Subsequently, RPS – M12 restrictions were installed on the east side of Council Street between May Street and Goodsell Street, St Peters in July 2009.

Resident Parking Schemes are intended to give priority parking to those who may be

disadvantaged by others taking the limited parking spaces available. Eligible residents may obtain a maximum of 2 permits per dwelling house provided they have no off-street parking. This is reduced by one permit for each off-street parking space.

CONCLUSION

Council guidelines state that there should be a response rate of 30% of households that were surveyed, with 65% of respondents supporting the proposal. In this case, the return rate and support rate (29% and 83% respectively) of eligible Goodsell Street residents confirm support for an extension to times and days of the existing Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in the street.

It is recommended to change existing ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ resident parking restrictions on the northern side of Goodsell Street between Council Street and the units at no. 1 Goodsell Street to 2P 8am to 10pm and to change the existing ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ resident parking restrictions on the southern side of Goodsell Street between Council Street and May Lane to ‘2P 8am to 10pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ in order to provide residents with greater opportunities to find parking and also to balance the needs of residents with other users and visitors.

To ensure a consistent start time for Resident Parking restrictions, it is further recommended that the ‘2P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’ parking adjacent to no. 1 Goodsell Street to be amended to ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M12’.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

1.⇩	Sydney Metro report
2.⇩	Road Safety Audit
3.⇩	Design plan
4.⇩	Design plan
5.⇩	Design plan

Day	Time	Right turn movements (total vehicles)
Wednesday 18 September 2024	12noon-1pm	7
Wednesday 18 September 2024	4.30pm-5.30pm	17
Saturday 21 September 2024	12noon-1pm	9

Day	Time	Right turn movements (total vehicles)	Vehicle Queue – average (no. of vehicles)	Vehicle Queue – 95^th percentile (no. of vehicles)
Wednesday 18 September 2024	12noon-1pm	7	0.0	0.1
Wednesday 18 September 2024	4.30pm-5.30pm	17	0.1	0.3
Saturday 21 September 2024	12noon-1pm	9	0.0	1

Day	Time	Right turn movements (total vehicles)	Vehicle Queue – average (no. of vehicles)	Vehicle Queue – 95^th percentile (no. of vehicles)
Wednesday 4 December 2024	4.30pm-5.30pm	11	1.57	5.5

Street Name	Lilyfield Road
Kerb to Kerb Width (m)	9.6m
Carriageway Type	Two-way, one travel lane each direction. Bicycle logo mixed traffic arrangement.
Classification	Local Road
Speed Limit	40km/h
85^th Percentile Speed	35.3km/h
Average Traffic Volume	3,000 veh/day
Available TfNSW recorded crash history last 5 years (2018-2023)	2018 – RUM code 30 (Rear End) – Car - Minor injury - Mullens Street at Beattie Street 2021 – RUM code 49 (Parking/u turn) – Bicycle - Minor injury – Roundabout at Mullens and Beattie Street 2023 – RUM code 21 (Right through) - Bicycle - Minor injury – Roundabout at Mullens and Beattie Street
Parking Arrangements	Parking permitted on both sides

Instance (right turn)	No. of queued vehicles before turn
1	6
2	0
3	0
4	0
5	2
6	0
7	4
8	5
9	0
10	1
11	0

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.

NRL Game	Date	NRL Kick Off	Special Event Parking Scheme Hours
Round 8 - Wests Tigers vs Cronulla sharks	Sunday 27^th April 2025	4:00pm	12:00pm-8:00pm
Round 20 – Wests Tigers vs Gold Coast Titans	Sunday 20^th July 2025	2:00pm	12:00pm-8:00pm
Round 25 – Wests Tigers vs North Queensland Cowboys	Sunday 24^th August 2025	4:00pm	12:00pm-8:00pm

Resident/Stakeholder Comments	Officer’s Response
This will further restrict residents with multiple vehicles to park in the street	The proposed changes are intended to establish a balance for the community to meet the parking needs of both residents and visitors to the area.
Enforcement is required to ensure that measures are effective	Council parking enforcement team will schedule enforcement to all areas with parking restrictions.
Extended hours would assist. Preferably convert the 2 hour parking limit to 1 hour	A 2 hour parking limit provides a better balance to residential areas for visitors. Council do not intend to exclude visitors from parking in the precinct as 1 hour stay would not be practical for visitors to some local businesses. Hence a 1P is not supported at this stage.
Why does the changes not apply to Red Lion Street?	The current proposal is to extend the RPS operational hours to 10pm, and Red Lion Street parking restriction already ends at 10pm.
Prefer the parking restriction to end at 11pm to restrict visitors to the businesses at least till 9pm before restriction ends.	Existing RPS within the LGA’s urbanised areas generally ends at 10pm to ensure consistency with other areas it is proposed that the RPS ends at 10pm.
Parking problem will improve	Noted and Council will monitor the parking conditions after the changes are implemented.
Maney Street is used as a rat run, it should be closed off at Victoria Road	This is not part of the proposal presented at this time. Council officers will investigate this separately and will provide a response when completed.