Agenda of Local Transport Forum - Monday, 16 March 2026

Local Transport Forum Meeting

16 March 2026

Minutes of Meeting held on 16 February 2026

Meeting commenced at 11:01 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.

FORUM MEMBERS PRESENT

Clr Victor Macri	Councillor –Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward (Chair)
Clr Liz Atkins	Councillor – Damun - Stanmore Ward
Rebecca Fernandez	Representative for Kobi Shetty MP, Member for Balmain
Graeme McKay	Representative for Jo Haylen MP, Member for Summer Hill
Colin Jones	Representative for Inner West Bicycle Coalition (IWBC)
Vinoth Srinivasan	Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
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
Christy Li	IWC’s Business Administration Officer

VISITORS

Kim Shi	Public Speaker – Item 2
Gino Odelli	Public Speaker – Item 17
Stephen Odelli	Public Speaker – Item 17

APOLOGIES:

Miriama Tamata	Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Local Transport Forum held on Monday, 8 December 2025 be confirmed.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Local Transport Forum held on 17 November 2025 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 09 December 2026 with the following amendments:

a) An additional point 4 be added to the recommendations for Item 3: St Peters Triangle- Proposed reversal of traffic flows at Applebee Street and Lackey Street, St Peters that reads, “The General Manager seek an urgent meeting with the NSW Secretary for Transport expressing significant concern at the removal of the right hand turn from Princes Highway to May Street, outlining the adverse impacts for residents in St Peters, and demanding an urgent review that balances road safety improvements with resident access to their neighbourhood.”

b) An additional point 5 be added to the recommendations for Item 4: Schwebel Street - Proposed one-way eastbound treatment at Schwebel Street between Station Street/Leofrene Avenue and Junction Road, that reads, “That Council investigate and consult with residents and businesses about installing angle parking on the north side of Schwebel Street between Station Street and Leofrene Avenue and report back to a future Local Transport Forum.”

LTF0226(1) Item 1 Inner West LGA - Proposal for GoGet car share parking spaces (All wards, all electorates, all PACs)

SUMMARY

A request has been received from a GoGet Car Share representative for the installation of Fifteen (15) on-street dedicated ‘Car Share’ parking spaces for existing floating car share vehicles around the Inner West. Due to community feedback and opposition to two locations only thirteen of the fifteen nominated car share spaces are recommended for installation.

Officers Recommendation:

That the following ‘No Parking Authorised Car Share Vehicle Expected, Area GOGET’ restrictions be approved:

1. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction distance on the eastern side of Young Street north of Reserve Street, Annandale;

2. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction sign on the western side of Trafalgar Street south of Booth Street, Annandale;

3. A 5.5m restriction in the last parking space before the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction sign on the eastern side of Lapish Avenue (southbound one-way) north of Norton Street, Ashfield;

4. A 5.5m restriction in the first legal parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ distance on northern side of Palace Street east of Shepherd Lane, Ashfield;

5. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction sign on the northern side of Hercules Street east of Beach Road, adjacent to side boundary of No.7 Beach Road, Dulwich Hill;

6. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space adjacent to Salvation Army’s driveway on the southern side of Lewisham Street east of The Boulevarde, Dulwich Hill;

7. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space just north of the ‘Bus Zone’ on the western side of Myra Road north of Myra Lane, outside 36-40 Myra Road, Dulwich Hill;

8. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ sign on the northern side of Charles Street west of Phillip Street, outside 36-38 Phillip Street, Enmore;

9. A 5.5m restriction in the first space adjacent to the eastern end of Louisa Lawson Reserve (westward from the power pole) on the northern side of Harnett Avenue, Marrickville;

10. A 5.5m restriction in the first legal parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ distance on the eastern side of John Street north of Lord Street, Newtown;

11. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ sign on the northern side of Trade Street west of St Marys Street, Newtown;

12. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space just east of the speed hump on the northern side of Chester Street adjacent to mid-point of Petersham Reservoir west of Shaw Street, Petersham; and

13. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space on the southern side of Clarendon Road west of Northumberland Avenue, Stanmore (measured back from the power pole to the awning of the adjacent commercial premises). The statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ sign will also be included 10m from the intersection of Clarendon Road and Northumberland Avenue.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill noted that currently Council is not charging Carshare operators a commercial rate for the spots and noted that Council should establish a rate for the carshare spots. The Chairperson advised that a report on car share charging fees will be going to the next Council meeting for consideration.

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill questioned whether placing the Car Share into restricted time parking areas instead of untimed spaces would alleviate the impacts of parking in the area. Council Officers advised that placing them into the unrestricted parking zones has lesser impact to residents as this provides more opportunities for residents in the restricted zones where fewer long stays occur by visitors and others.

Council Officers also advised that they undertake a preliminary assessment on the proposed locations and that theys do provide the Car Share operators with comments on whether they believe the proposed space would be suitable in terms of its possible impact to the surrounding area

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill questioned if Council should have a limit on how many Carshare spaces are allowed in the LGA. Council Officers noted that carshare models have a natural limitator as carshare companies only provide spaces where there is resident demand, as they need usage to offset the cost to maintain their fleet in the area, so they would not usually apply for more spots than they need due to the associated costs.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the following ‘No Parking Authorised Car Share Vehicle Expected, Area GOGET’ restrictions be approved:

1. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction distance on the eastern side of Young Street north of Reserve Street, Annandale;

2. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction sign on the western side of Trafalgar Street south of Booth Street, Annandale;

3. A 5.5m restriction in the last parking space before the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction sign on the eastern side of Lapish Avenue (southbound one-way) north of Norton Street, Ashfield;

4. A 5.5m restriction in the first legal parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ distance on northern side of Palace Street east of Shepherd Lane, Ashfield;

5. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction sign on the northern side of Hercules Street east of Beach Road, adjacent to side boundary of No.7 Beach Road, Dulwich Hill;

6. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space adjacent to Salvation Army’s driveway on the southern side of Lewisham Street east of The Boulevarde, Dulwich Hill;

7. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space just north of the ‘Bus Zone’ on the western side of Myra Road north of Myra Lane, outside 36-40 Myra Road, Dulwich Hill;

8. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ sign on the northern side of Charles Street west of Phillip Street, outside 36-38 Phillip Street, Enmore;

9. A 5.5m restriction in the first space adjacent to the eastern end of Louisa Lawson Reserve (westward from the power pole) on the northern side of Harnett Avenue, Marrickville;

10. A 5.5m restriction in the first legal parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ distance on the eastern side of John Street north of Lord Street, Newtown;

11. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ sign on the northern side of Trade Street west of St Marys Street, Newtown;

12. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space just east of the speed hump on the northern side of Chester Street adjacent to mid-point of Petersham Reservoir west of Shaw Street, Petersham; and

LTF0226(1) Item 2 InnerWest@40 - Area 4 Leichhardt and Annandale; Area 9 Dulwich Hill North and Lewisham; Area 10 South Ashfield and Summer Hill West - Proposed speed limit reduction from 50km/h to 40km/h (Damun - Stanmore, Djarrawunang – Ashfield, Baludarri - Balmain and Gulgadya - Leichhardt Wards / Balmain, Summer Hill, Newtown and Strathfield Electorates / Burwood, Leichhardt and Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

At Council’s meeting on Tuesday 5 March 2024, Council adopted the InnerWest@40 “Investigation in Potential Local Road Speed Limit Reductions” Study and requested that Council officers seek approval and funding from Transport for NSW to expedite the implementation of 40km/h speed limits on local streets within the Local Government Area (LGA).

As part of the Australian Government Blackspot Program (AGBS), Council received funding to implement the reduced speed limits in Area 6 (Enmore & Marrickville East) and Area 7 (Marrickville & Tempe). Both areas were completed in mid-2025 with the subsequent Area 5 (Stanmore & Petersham) and Area 8 (Dulwich Hill South and Marrickville West) being scheduled for implementation in early 2026.

Funding has been approved to continue the implementation of reduced speed limits in 2025/26 with Area 4 (Leichhardt & Annandale), Area 9 (Dulwich Hill North and Lewisham) and Area 10 (South Ashfield and Summer Hill West) currently proposed for a speed limit reduction. The remaining areas of the Inner West including Area 1 (Haberfield), Area 2 (Rozelle and Lilyfield) and Area 11 (Ashfield North) is also scheduled to be reviewed this financial year.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposed signage and line marking plans to support the reduction in posted speed limit from 50km/h to 40km/h in local roads in Areas 4, 9 and 10 of the Innerwest@40 study including areas of Leichhardt, Annandale, Dulwich Hill, Lewisham, Ashfield and Summer Hill, be approved.

LTF Advice:

Mr Kim Shi entered the meeting at 11.11am.

Mr Shi raised concerns that the proposed signage and line marking plans to reduce the speed limit from 50km/h to 40km/h in the South Ashfield and Summer Hill west precincts will cause greater confusion for motorists and will not reduce rat running in the area. Mr Shi noted that the South Ashfield precinct does not have state or regional roads between the North and South of the precinct. Mr Shi believes that the North-South routes in the within the South Ashfield precinct are not self-enforcing and the proposed speed reduction treatments are not sufficient to make them self-enforcing. It was noted that Holden, Armstrong, Queen and Griffith Streets were popular routes for residents in neighbouring areas to get to Ashfield and suggested that Council investigate keeping a designated North-South route in the South Ashfield precinct at 50km/h to establish a primary movement corridor through the precinct.

Mr Kim Shi left the meeting at 11.14am.

Council Officers noted that Council does not consider a 50km/h North-South route to be necessary at this current time. It was noted that Council are also working with Transport for NSW in reviewing whether some regional and state roads within the LGA can have their speeds reduced. Council Officers noted Council will be reviewing the streets after implementation through the usual LATM process to assess whether additional traffic calming measures need to be investigated.

The Chairperson queried how long it usually takes for the old signage to be updated to reflect the new restrictions. Council Officers advised that existing speed control signs in the area will be removed and replaced at the time of the speed limit reduction. Council Officers noted that incorrect signage can be reported to Council, and the relevant team will rectify.

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition questioned whether it was more effective to notify motorists of speed limit changes via road markings or signage. Council Officers advised that the combination of using both road marking and signage was the most effective way, but it would depend on the circumstances.

The Representative for Transport for NSW advised that where you enter a speed zone change, there will often be both road marking and signage to notify motorists of the changes, but after that, signage is usually used to remind motorists of the speed limit.

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill questioned if there would be various speed limits along a street (i.e. a part of Wardell Road is classified as a regional road, and a part is classified as a local road). The Representative for Transport for NSW noted that they are looking to have consistent speed limits along the road where possible to prevent confusion for motorists.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed signage and line marking plans to support the reduction in posted speed limit from 50km/h to 40km/h in local roads in Areas 4, 9 and 10 of the Innerwest@40 study including areas of Leichhardt, Annandale, Dulwich Hill, Lewisham, Ashfield and Summer Hill, be approved.

LTF0226(1) Item 3 College Street, Balmain - Proposed Bicycles Excepted Signage (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received requests from several residents in College Street, Balmain for a ‘bicycle excepted’ signage for the recently implemented one-way westbound restriction within College Street between Cameron and Curtis Road, Balmain. Under the NSW Road Rules, it is illegal for cyclists to travel against the one-way restriction.

Due to the low traffic volume and speeds within College Street, it is proposed that ‘bicycles excepted’ signage to supplement the existing one-way restriction be supported.

Officers Recommendation:

That ‘bicycles excepted’ signage be installed under the existing one-way westbound signs at College Street between Cameron Street and Curtis Road, Balmain as shown in the attached plan.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition noted that the cyclists are supportive of the recommendation.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That ‘bicycles excepted’ signage be installed under the existing one-way westbound signs at College Street between Cameron Street and Curtis Road, Balmain as shown in the attached plan.

LTF0226(1) Item 4 Thornley Street, Leichhardt - Proposed Kerb Extension (Leichhardt-Gulgadya Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve the intersection of Thornley Street at Cary Street, Leichhardt by constructing a kerb extension.

The proposal will improve pedestrian safety by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance and will also provide sufficient space for replacement tree planting at the location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the design plan for the kerb extension on Thornley Street at Cary Street, Leichhardt (Attachment 1) be APPROVED.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Member of Balmain expressed disappointment in Council for cutting down the tree prior to building the kerb extension and urged Council to consider alternative solutions in future plans so that existing trees and vegetation can be retained.

Council Officers noted that the tree was removed to address access issues and that the construction of this kerb extension was not possible whilst the previous mature tree was in place. The kerb extension will be constructed prior to the replacement tree planting to allow for the tree to be planted in the appropriate location, to allow sufficient space for the tree to establish without impacting the footpath in future.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the design plan for the kerb extension on Thornley Street at Cary Street, Leichhardt (Attachment 1) be APPROVED.

LTF0226(1) Item 5 Kingston Street, Haberfield - Proposed Traffic Calming Works (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety for all road users on Kingston Street, Haberfield, at Deakin Avenue by constructing kerb blister islands and pedestrian refuge islands. The proposal aims to enhance safety by better defining pedestrian crossing points, reducing conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and encourages a low-speed environment. These measures will help address concerns regarding pedestrian and motorist behaviour in the area, particularly during busy periods.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposed two (2) pedestrian refuge islands on Kingston Street at Deakin Avenue, including four (4) kerb blister islands, kerb ramps, and signage as shown in the attached design plan No.10382.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed two (2) pedestrian refuge islands on Kingston Street at Deakin Avenue, including four (4) kerb blister islands, kerb ramps, and signage as shown in the attached design plan No.10382.

LTF0226(1) Item 6 Wells Street, Newtown - Proposed Raised Continuous Footpath Treatment (Damun - Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has prepared a design plan to provide a continuous footpath for the intersection of Wells Street and King Street, Newtown. The intention of the proposal is to improve safety for pedestrians and motorists by better defining and prioritising movements across Wells Street whilst also reducing traffic speeds. The proposal will also address concerns regarding pedestrian and driver behaviour at this location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (10366) for a proposed continuous footpath treatment on Wells Street intersecting with King Street, Newtown be approved.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for Transport for NSW noted that Council may want to consider removing the first parking spot on Wells Street at the corner of King Street to provide more room for vehicles to turn into the street.

Council Officers advised that they are comfortable retaining the parking spot as the truck movement was clear of the space and that this design does not affect the existing kerb alignment and turning movement of vehicles.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan (10366) for a proposed continuous footpath treatment on Wells Street intersecting with King Street, Newtown be approved.

LTF0226(1) Item 7 Terminus Street, Petersham - Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing - Design Plan No.10368 - (Danum-Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report details the design plan (No. 10368) for the construction of a raised pedestrian crossing and result of community consultation at the intersection of Terminus Street and Palace Street, Petersham. The Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) study in 2023 for the Petersham North Precinct indicated through collected data that a significant pedestrian desire line exists at this location. The study recommended that a raised pedestrian crossing be installed on Terminus Street to improve pedestrian connectivity to local businesses, Fort Street High School and Petersham Station. The design and construction of the proposed raised pedestrian crossing has received fifty percent contribution from the Federal Government Active Transport Fund and is included in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works Program for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (No. 10368) for the construction of a raised pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Terminus Street and Palace Street, Petersham be approved in order to improve pedestrian safety at this location.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

LTF0226(1) Item 8 Dickson Street at King Street, Newtown – Redesign of existing refuge island - Design Plan 10365 (Damun-Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety of pedestrians and motorists in Dickson Street (at King Street), Newtown by re-constructing the existing pedestrian refuge island to meet current standards. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian safety by providing a more effective and compliant pedestrian refuge island to ensure pedestrian movements across Dickson Street are made safer whilst also reducing traffic speeds. The proposal will address concerns regarding pedestrian and driver behaviour at this location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed redesign of the existing refuge island in Dickson Street at King Street, Newtown and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10365) be APPROVED.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed redesign of the existing refuge island in Dickson Street at King Street, Newtown and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10365) be APPROVED.

LTF0226(1) Item 9 Hardie Avenue (at Smith Street), Summer Hill-Proposed upgrade of an existing at level road crossing to a new raised pedestrian crossing.
(Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC).

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety in Hardie Avenue, Summer Hill by constructing a new Raised Pedestrian Crossing near Smith Street to replace the existing ‘at-grade’ flat pedestrian crossing. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian and motorist safety by better defining safe pedestrian crossing points and addresses pedestrian safety and driver behaviour at this location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (10335) to up-grade an existing road level crossing to a proposed new raised crossing, with associated signs and line marking in Hardie Avenue at Smith Street, Summer Hill be approved.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan (10335) to up-grade an existing road level crossing to a proposed new raised crossing, with associated signs and line marking in Hardie Avenue at Smith Street, Summer Hill be approved.

LTF0226(1) Item 10 Robert Street at Queen Street, Ashfield- Proposed short-term road safety improvements. (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC).

SUMMARY

Council has received varying concerns from residents regarding road safety around the Queen Street Early Learning Child-Care Centre in Robert Street at Queen Street. These concerns/requests range from changed traffic conditions (e.g. one-way), traffic conflict/sight view from the intersection, child/pedestrian safety to that of parking in the area.

The extent of these concerns and requests for improvements for road safety can have a broader wide impact upon the community and would normally be addressed under a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) scheme. It is proposed in the short term that the following safety improvements be implemented in Robert Street as per the recommendation and shown in figure 1.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ on the northern side of Robert Street, east of Queen Street, be extended 6 metres in length to an approximate distance of 19.0 metres east of Queen Street,

2. That ‘No Parking’ be sign posted across the dual driveway of 44 Queen Street and 21 Robert Street,

3. That the existing ‘GIVE WAY’ line marking at the Robert Street (east)/Queen Street intersection be removed and a new ‘STOP’ line be marked out and bought forward from the intersection.

4. That a painted island be marked out on the northern side of the Robert Street (east)/Queen Street intersection to align with the new ‘STOP’ line (item2), and

5. That additional ‘children’ warning signs be provided in Queen Street on the approaches to the intersection of Queen Street and Robert Street (east).

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill questioned why the proposed road safety improvements were short-term.

Council Officers advised that they will also be investigating the potential for a ‘One Way’ restriction in the proposed treatment area.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ on the northern side of Robert Street, east of Queen Street, be extended 6 metres in length to an approximate distance of 19.0 metres east of Queen Street,

2. That ‘No Parking’ be sign posted across the dual driveway of 44 Queen Street and 21 Robert Street,

3. That the existing ‘GIVE WAY’ line marking at the Robert Street (east)/Queen Street intersection be removed and a new ‘STOP’ line be marked out and bought forward from the intersection.

4. That a painted island be marked out on the northern side of the Robert Street (east)/Queen Street intersection to align with the new ‘STOP’ line (item2), and

5. That additional ‘children’ warning signs be provided in Queen Street on the approaches to the intersection of Queen Street and Robert Street (east).

LTF0226(1) Item 11 Arthur Street, Marrickville - Proposed Raised Continuous Footpath Treatment - Design Plan No.10361 (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report details the design plan (No. 10361) for the construction of a raised continuous footpath treatment, redesign of garden beds, adjustment to existing parking arrangements and result of community consultation at the intersection of Arthur Street and Illawarra Road, Marrickville. Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) identified a ‘high’ priority opportunity to install a raised continuous footpath treatment across Arthur Street, Marrickville. The intersection is located along a key pedestrian link connecting pedestrians to the Marrickville Train Station and Marrickville Town Centre. Council has subsequently completed detail design and community consultation for the proposal.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (No. 10361) for the construction of a raised continuous footpath treatment, redesign of garden beds, and adjustment to existing parking arrangements at the intersection of Arthur Street and Illawarra Road, Marrickville be approved in order to improve pedestrian safety at this location.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

LTF0226(1) Item 12 Fishers Reserve, Petersham - Proposed Raised Continuous Footpath Treatment (Damun - Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has prepared a design plan to provide a continuous footpath for the intersection of Fishers Reserve and Palace Street, Petersham. The intention of the proposal is to improve safety for pedestrians and motorists by better defining and prioritising movements across Fishers Reserve whilst also reducing traffic speeds. The proposal will also address concerns regarding pedestrian and driver behaviour at this location.

The design and construction of the proposed continuous footpath treatment has received fifty percent contribution from the Federal Government Active Transport Fund and is included in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works Program for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (10367) for a proposed continuous footpath treatment in Fishers Reserve at its intersection with Palace Street, Petersham be approved.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan (10367) for a proposed continuous footpath treatment in Fishers Reserve at its intersection with Palace Street, Petersham be approved.

LTF0226(1) Item 13 Bunnings Tempe Local Area Traffic Management - Design Plan No. HD202 (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Heffron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

The 2021 Tempe South Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) study was re-exhibited in 2022 due to safety and amenity concerns raised by the community regarding the study and the Bunnings Tempe development. Further examination on alternate access arrangements from the Bunnings Tempe development have been conducted and in September 2022, Council approved the Local Area Traffic Management study. Subsequently, design plans were finalised with consideration of community feedback.

This report details the design plans for traffic treatments in the Tempe South Precinct and recommends approval with changes due to the results of community consultation.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the detailed design plans (No. HD202, revision 4) be approved for the:

a) Construction of landscaped kerb blisters and speed cushions on Holbeach Avenue, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM4).

b) Construction of a raised concrete threshold with the inclusion of bollards and chains (on footpath) near South Street on Wentworth Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM5).

c) Construction of a raised concrete threshold with the exclusion of bollards and chains (on footpath) near Princes Highway on Wentworth Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM6).

d) Construction of a raised concrete threshold and renewal of linemarking with the exclusion of rumble bars on Edwin Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM9 and LATM11).

e) Construction of a raised concrete threshold, installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment, and renewal of linemarking with the exclusion of rumble bars on Tramway Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM10 and LATM11).

f) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Barden Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM12).

g) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Fanning Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM13).

h) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Hart Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM14).

i) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Station Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM15).

2. That Council in principle support a 10km/h shared zone on Union Street, Tempe between Princes Highway and School Lane (Drawing No. LATM7 and LATM8) subject to approval from TfNSW.

LTF Advice:

The Chairperson raised concerns from residents regarding Brooklyn Street and Brooklyn Lane becoming a rat run due to the inability to enter Union Street from Smith Street and requested that Council signpost Brooklyn Lane as ‘Local Traffic Only’. Council Officers noted that a 40km/hr sign will be implemented on Brooklyn Street and Lane and that a review on the Tempe South LATM scheme will be undertaken 6 months after the opening of the Tempe Bunnings development to determine if any additional changes are required. It should be noted that likely “rat runners” are more likely to use Brooklyn Street to School Lane and then the remaining section of Union Street as Brooklyn Street is a much wider street.

The Chairperson also requested that the ‘Left and Right Only to Princes Highway’ sign at the intersection of Princes Highway and Union Street be made larger, and that a green left and right arrows at the existing traffic signals. Council Officers advised that there are two signs advising left and right movements only from Smith Street onto the Princes Highway. The first is at the signals and there is a second on Smith Street some 10m from the traffic signals. In order to further reinforce the left and right only movements Council Officers will be adding signage further south on Smith Street to advise they cannot enter Union Street from Smith Street. Council Officers advised that in relation to the traffic signal lanterns, they have forwarded the suggestion to Transport for NSW for consideration, as they have jurisdiction over the traffic signals.

The Chairperson noted that, should the ‘10km/h Shared Zone’ be approved in Union Street, it will then go into the existing ‘40km/h School Zone’ near School Lane and questioned if it would be possible to make the whole section a ‘10km/h Shared Zone’ instead of having cars driving at 10km/h then 40km/h. Council Officers noted that converting the whole section into a ‘10km/h Shared Zone’, would likely require the removal of the existing pedestrian crossing as well as potential complications associated with cars parking near the school gate blocking access as well as having young students walking between parked vehicles within the shared zone. Council officers will discuss this proposal further with TfNSW to develop a suitable treatment for Union Street.

The Chairperson noted that there were no proposed traffic calming treatments for Stanley Street, Tempe and noted that this may turn the street into a rat run. Council Officers advised that there was low community support, as well as low speed and traffic volumes, which is why traffic calming treatments are no longer proposed. It was also noted that Stanley Street was recently signposted as a 40km/h zone.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the detailed design plans (No. HD202, revision 4) be approved for the:

a) Construction of landscaped kerb blisters and speed cushions on Holbeach Avenue, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM4).

b) Construction of a raised concrete threshold with the inclusion of bollards and chains (on footpath) near South Street on Wentworth Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM5).

c) Construction of a raised concrete threshold with the exclusion of bollards and chains (on footpath) near Princes Highway on Wentworth Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM6).

d) Construction of a raised concrete threshold and renewal of linemarking with the exclusion of rumble bars on Edwin Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM9 and LATM11).

f) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Barden Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM12).

g) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Fanning Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM13).

h) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Hart Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM14).

i) Installation of an at-grade contrasting pavement treatment on Station Street, Tempe (Drawing No. LATM15).

2. That Council in principle support a 10km/h shared zone on Union Street, Tempe between Princes Highway and School Lane (Drawing No. LATM7 and LATM8) subject to approval from TfNSW.

LTF0226(1) Item 14 Wardell Road, Marrickville - Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward and Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

At the Council Meeting held on 18 November 2025, a Notice of Motion (NoM) for “Wombat Crossing or Other Pedestrian Improvements for Wardell Road” (C1025(1) Item 31) was considered. The subsequent resolution stated that Council review pedestrian and cyclist safety at the crossing point on Wardell Road, just north of the Cooks River Bridge, and to assess the feasibility of installing a wombat crossing or other appropriate pedestrian safety measures.

Council has collected traffic, and pedestrian counts at the location, and the results reveal that a pedestrian crossing facility at this location would comply with Council’s Pedestrian Crossing Warrant Policy. The location of the proposal is located along a straight stretch of Wardell Road and there are no geometric concerns with the location. Therefore, it is recommended that a raised pedestrian crossing be approve in principle on Wardell Road, Marrickville just north of the Cooks River Bridge and that a detailed design be undertaken and brought back to the Local Transport Forum for consideration.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That a raised pedestrian crossing be approved in principle on Wardell Road to replace the existing pedestrian refuge island on Wardell Road near Riverside Crescent, Marrickville.

2. That the proposed raised pedestrian crossing on Wardell Road be included for consideration in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works Program for funding in 2026/2027 financial year.

3. That a detailed design for the proposed pedestrian crossing be brought back to the Local Transport Forum for consideration, including the results of community engagement.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That a raised pedestrian crossing be approved in principle on Wardell Road to replace the existing pedestrian refuge island on Wardell Road near Riverside Crescent, Marrickville.

2. That the proposed raised pedestrian crossing on Wardell Road be included for consideration in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works Program for funding in 2026/2027 financial year.

3. That a detailed design for the proposed pedestrian crossing be brought back to the Local Transport Forum for consideration, including the results of community engagement.

LTF0226(1) Item 15 Tempe Station Parking Study (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Heffron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the investigation completed in the residential streets surrounding Tempe Station to assess parking impacts due to the opening of the Metro at Sydenham Station and closure of the T3 Bankstown Line. It provides an assessment of parking occupancy rates on a typical weekday and weekend, and if the results warrant any further parking restrictions in the area.

Officers Recommendation:

That the Local Transport Forum Committee receive and note the report.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition questioned why the Concordia Club car park in Tempe was not included in the Tempe Station Parking Study.

Council Officers advised that this particular study focused on parking in residential streets and whether additional residential parking restrictions needed to be provided. It was also noted that there are existing restrictions within the Concordia Club car park.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Local Transport Forum Committee receive and note the report.

LTF0226(1) Item 16 Mackey Park Resident Parking Scheme (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council resolved to undertake community consultation to extend the Resident Parking Scheme Area M2 to the industrial precinct around Carrington Road, Cary Street and Renwick Street. This report presents the results of the first phase of consultation completed in the following streets:

· Thornley Street, south of Premier Street;

· Richardson Crescent, east of Carrington Road;

· Carrington Road between Premier Street and Richardson Crescent; and

· Cary Street between Carrington Road and Johnston Lane

The results from the community consultation between July and August 2024 indicated a low response rate from the area of consultation with a high support rate for resident parking schemes within the area. Due to the low response rate, the proposed parking restrictions were not recommended for installation. To address concerns regarding the low response rate but high support rate received from the respondents, Council officers have followed up with a separate community consultation that focuses on the streets that provided a high support rate for a resident parking scheme and to ensure that the response rate was not affected by neighbouring streets.

Based on the breakdown of support rate, it is recommended that parking restrictions with angled parking be approved in Cary Street and that no parking restrictions be installed in Thornley Street, Richardson’s Crescent and Carrington Road at this time.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the proposed ‘2P 8am-6pm Monday-Friday, Permit Holders Excepted Area M2’ restrictions on Thornley Street not be supported.

2. That the proposed 90-degree angled parking between no. 89 and no.103a Cary Street with Resident Parking Scheme restrictions stating ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area M2’ on the northern side of Cary Street (between Carrington Road and Johnston Lane) be approved.

3. That the community engagement results for the proposed ‘2P 3pm-9pm Monday-Friday; 6P 8am-6pm Saturday-Sunday’ restrictions on the southern side of Carrington Road be noted and that these results be combined with further community engagement to be undertaken with residents north of Cary Street.

4. That the community engagement results for the proposed ‘2P 3pm-9pm Monday-Friday; 6P 8am-6pm Saturday-Sunday’ restrictions on the western side of Richardson’s Crescent be noted and that these results be combined with further community engagement to be undertaken with residents north of Cary Street.

LTF Advice:

The Chairperson noted a resident's concerns regarding difficulty in finding parking near to drop her children off at the Child Care on Premier Street. Council Officers advised that they could investigate potential short-term parking restrictions specific to the Child Care’s needs.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the proposed ‘2P 8am-6pm Monday-Friday, Permit Holders Excepted Area M2’ restrictions on Thornley Street not be supported.

LTF0226(1) Item 17 Unnamed Laneway, Marrickville rear of Church Street and Warren Road - Adjustment to No Parking Restriction (Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

This report outlines the existing parking challenges within an unnamed laneway at the rear of Church Street and Warren Road, Marrickville. Concerns have been raised regarding access to the rear garage of No.12 Church Street in the northbound direction when cars are parked partially across the driveway No.43 Warren Road. Vehicles parked in this arrangement block access to the rear garage of No.12 Church Street due to insufficient road width to accommodate the turning circle of a car. Two options have been proposed to alleviate the access issue at the location with a preference for Option 1, and further consideration be given to Option 2 should access issues continue. Option 1 proposes extending the existing ‘No Parking’ restriction on the southern side of the unnamed laneway by a further 2m to the rear gate of No.43 Warren Road. Option 2 proposes extending the ‘No Parking’ restriction a further 9m to the power pole at the rear of No.43 Warren Road.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the existing ‘No Parking’ restriction on the southern side of the laneway (at the rear of Church Street and Warren Road, Marrickville) be extended west by 2m, up to the gate of No.43 Warren Road (Option 1).

2. That if access issues continue, further consideration be given to extending the ‘No Parking’ restriction on the southern side of the laneway by a further 9m (Option 2).

LTF Advice:

Mr Gino Odelli and Mr Stephen Odelli entered the meeting at 11.03am.

Mr G Odelli and Mr S Odelli opposed the recommendation, noting that this will compromise their ability to park in the laneway and preferred that no changes be made to the current parking arrangements in the laneway. Mr S Odelli noted that it is difficult to park on Warren Road due to the road being relatively narrow, and oftentimes parking on Warren Road has led to damage to his vehicle. Mr S Odelli noted that the current parking arrangements allow him to securely park his work vehicle, which contains his expensive work tools as well as allows his car insurance premium to remain affordable. Mr S Odelli noted the laneway is tight and narrow, and that all the driveways and garages on this lane have to manoeuvre carefully to access their homes due to the limited space in the area. Mr S Odelli noted that neighbouring properties are still able to access their properties from one direction.

Mr Gino Odelli and Mr Stephen Odelli left the meeting at 11.10am.

Council Officers tabled comments from a resident opposing the recommendation noting that Option 1 will not provide full access to their property, given the activity and parking in the laneway and noted that they would like full access to fulfil their carer role for their parents. It was also queried why the residents of 43 Warren Road are given 2 additional on-street parking spaces when they have off-street parking.

Council Officers also advised that there was an error in the background section of the report, noting that No.19 Church Street, Marrickville should read as No.12 Church Street, Marrickville.

Council Officers noted that there have been reports of residents having difficulty accessing the laneway due to cars being parked illegally right on the corner of the streets as well as cars being parked close to the bend of the laneway, making it difficult to access the lane.

The Chairperson suggested that no changes be made to the existing 'No Parking’ in the laneway at the rear of Church Street and Warren Road, Marrickville, noting that either party would not be satisfied with the proposed option. The Chairperson also suggested that Council Officers review potential ‘No Parking’ restrictions at the bend in the laneway as well as the intersection of Church Street and the Unnamed Lane, to see if that would alleviate the issue without having to remove parking.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That no changes be made to the existing 'No Parking’ at the rear of No.43 Warren Road, Marrickville,
Council Officers investigate upgrading parking restrictions at bend in the laneway as well as the intersection of Church Street and the Unnamed Lane.

General Business

Item 18: Rat Running on Illawarra Road (northern part), Marrickville

The Chairperson noted that many residents have raised concerns regarding rat running and safety issues on Illawarra Road (northern section), noting that cars often get swiped due to the narrowness of the road. It was noted that the resident would like Council to consider putting in parklets on the northern part of Illawarra Road to reduce traffic volumes and alleviate the current issues. Council Officers advised that they would investigate the matter noting that a supporting traffic study would be required to consider the impacts of such a proposal.

Item 19: Investigate the potential for a footpath on South Street, Tempe

The Chairperson noted that there is currently no footpath on South Street that leads to the Tempe Recreation Reserve. It was noted that South Street is quite a narrow street, and that with the upcoming opening of the Bunnings Tempe store, traffic in the area is likely to increase which may create a safety risk for pedestrians in the area. It was also noted that there are some large trees that impede the access of people wanting to walk on the grass verge. Council Officers advised that they would investigate the matter.

Item 20: Electricity pillar on Union Street, Tempe impeding footpath access

The Chairperson advised that an electrical pillar has recently been installed on Union Street, Tempe, blocking access for pedestrians to walk past on the footpath safely. Council Officers advised that they have written to the relevant stakeholder. It was noted that once the area gets redeveloped, Council will write to the developer to seek to get some land dedicated back to Council so that the footpath can be widened.

Item 21: Request for Red Light Camera on Princes Highway, Tempe

The Representative for the Member of Balmain queried if a ‘Red light camera’ could be installed on Princes Highway, Tempe as there was a recent fatality in the area. The Representative for Transport for NSW advised that community members can make a submission to the Centre of Road Safety for review and consideration.

Item 22: Investigate the potential for a pedestrian crossing on Anthony Street at Edwin Street, Croydon

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition requested that Council investigate the potential of a pedestrian crossing on Anthony Street at the intersection of Edwin Street, Croydon, in light of the recently adopted ‘Pedestrian Crossing Warrant Policy.’ The Member for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition noted that motorists often use Anthony Street as a rat run. Council Officers advised that they would investigate the matter.

Item 23: Review of ‘One Way Bicycles Excepted’ signage on John Street, Colgate Street and Little Darling Street, Balmain

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition requested the Council review the suitability of implementing ‘One Way Bicycles Excepted’ restrictions on John Street, Colgate Street and Little Darling Street, Balmain. Council Officers advised they would investigate this matter.

Item 24: Review of the footpath on Victoria Road, between Quirk Street and Robert Street, Rozelle

The Representative for the Member of Balmain raised concerns from a resident regarding the safety of the footpath on Victoria Road, between Quirk Street and Robert Street, Rozelle and questioned if anything can be done to improve the safety of the area such as trimming vegetation. The Representative for Transport for NSW advised the Representative for the Member of Balmain to forward the details to him so he can pass on the information to the relevant team to review.

Item 25: Advertisement flag blocking pedestrian sightlines in Ramsay Street, Haberfield

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill noted that at the intersection of Ramsay Street and Kingston Street, Haberfield, a business has put up an advertisement feather flag in one of the planter boxes on the road and that it is impeding pedestrian sightlines. The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill requested that Council review the signage and request that it be removed. Council Officers advised that they would pass on the information to the relevant team to review.

Meeting closed at 12.41pm.

CHAIRPERSON

Clr Victor Macri

Local Transport Forum Meeting

16 March 2026

Item No: LTF0326(1) Item 1

Subject: Inner West LGA - Proposal for Flexicar car share parking spaces (All wards, all electorates, all PACs)

Prepared By: Jennifer Adams - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the following ‘No Parking Authorised Car Share Vehicle Expected, Area FLEXICAR’ restrictions be approved:

1. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the 10m ‘No Stopping’ zone (near turning area) on the northern side of Orchard Crescent west of Murrell Street, Ashfield.

2. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space after the existing ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Salisbury Road outside No.182-184 Salisbury Road east of Mallett Street, Camperdown.

3. A 5.5m restriction on the eastern side of McGill Street (after the driveway to No.1-3 McGill Street) south of Hudson Street, Lewisham.

4. A 5.5m restriction in the first parking space (after the ‘No Parking’ sign) on the eastern side of Livingstone Road north of Marrickville Road, Marrickville outside No.178-180 Livingstone Road.

5. A 6m restriction in the first parking space between the garden beds on the southern side of Nagurra Place (east of the speed hump and outside the playground), Rozelle.

6. A 5.5m restriction in first parking space after the ‘No Stopping’ sign on the eastern side of Edward Street south of Flour Mill Way, Summer Hill.

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 request has been received from Flexicar to install 6 on-street dedicated ‘Car Share’ parking spaces for existing floating car share vehicles around the Inner West.

BACKGROUND

Car sharing has been well established in the Inner West and provide an additional transport option for the growing population in the Inner West LGA.

One of the benefits of a car share scheme is that one shared vehicle can replace several private vehicles that would otherwise compete for local parking. The scheme also reduces overheads for residents who don't need to own a car. Other benefits align to Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy by supporting sustainable transport as a part of its drive to:

· Reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

· Reduce on-street parking demand;

· Reduce congestion and the competition for parking spaces; and

· Encourage active lifestyles by reducing dependency on private cars.

Users of car share schemes in the Inner West report reduced car ownership and greater use of other transport options including public transport, walking and cycling.

The following hierarchy of preferred locations for designated car share spaces has been applied when assessing suitability of locations: 

a) Within immediate proximity to public transport services such as a rail/metro station/stop;

b) Adjacent to public land such as a park;

c) Adjacent to a public facility such as a leisure centre or library;

d) Within high/medium density residential areas;

e) In or immediately adjacent to retail / commercial streets; 

f) Adjacent to the side boundary of single dwellings;

g) Other locations.   

It should be noted that car share parking spaces located in front of single dwellings are given low priority and avoided in most circumstances. Consultations are also carried out with residents and businesses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed parking space.

Council reserves the right to reject, or determine by refusal, any application for a car share parking space.

DISCUSSION

A report went to Local Traffic Committee at its 16 June 2025 meeting detailing 8 locations for dedicated Flexicar car share parking spaces, 7 locations were recommended by the Committee and installed in late 2025. Those locations were:

1. Regent Street at Trafalgar Street Petersham

2. Railway Avenue at Liberty Street Stanmore

3. 2 Edgeware Road Enmore

4. Salisbury Road at Percival Road Stanmore

5. 26 Seaview Street Dulwich Hill

6. Barwon Park Road at Princes Highway St Peters

7. Guihen Street at Booth Street Annandale

Proposed new Locations

A request has been received from Flexicar for the installation of on-street dedicated car share parking spaces within Inner West. The locations given are:

1. Ashfield - Orchard Crescent

2. Camperdown - 182-184 Salisbury Road

3. Lewisham - McGill Street

4. Marrickville - 159 Livingstone Road

5. Rozelle - Nagurra Place

6. Summer Hill - Edward Street (South of Flour Mill Way)

The nominated Flexicar locations are detailed below:

1. Ashfield - Orchard Crescent

First ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ space after the ‘No Stopping’ zone sign (after turning area) on northern side Orchard Crescent west of Murrell Street (-33.8887, 151.127716). Currently there is no data for usage in Ashfield for the 24 local members.

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A person standing next to a blue truck

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

2. Camperdown - 182-184 Salisbury Road

First unrestricted space after the existing ‘No Stopping’ zone sign (on power pole) on the northern side of Salisbury Road east of Mallett Street (-33.891202, 151.178193). Provided data indicates that there are 7 members in postcode 2048 with an average of 2 bookings per month.

A car parked in front of a building

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

3. Lewisham - McGill Street

Unrestricted parking space on the eastern side (after the driveway to No.1-3 McGill Street) south of Hudson Street (-33.894190, 151.143956). There are 19 members in the postcode 2049 and no data for average bookings per month in the locality.

4. Marrickville – No.178-180 Livingstone Road

First unrestricted parking space (after the ‘No Parking’ zone sign) on eastern side of Livingstone Road north of Marrickville Road (-33.908021, 151.152603). There are 26 members listed for postcode 2204 and no data on bookings in the area.

5. Rozelle - Nagurra Place

First ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Fri’ parking space (between garden beds) on the southern side of Nagurra Place east of the speed hump (-33.861297, 151.168269). There is no data for usage for the 8 members in postcode 2039

An aerial view of a street with cars and trees

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6. Summer Hill - Edward Street (South of Flour Mill Way)

Unrestricted parking space on the eastern side of Edward Street south of Flour Mill Way in first parking space after the ‘No Stopping’ zone sign (-33.893669, 151.141693). There are 7 members in the postcode 2130 and no data for average bookings per month in the locality.

OFFICERS COMMENTS

Community consultation was led by Flexicar representatives between 7 August and 31 October 2025. Letters were distributed to local residents within 100 metres of each proposed space.

A summary of each location is presented below.

Location

Letters sent - Responses

Resident comments

Supported / not supported

Ashfield - Orchard Crescent - northern side Orchard Crescent west of Murrell Street

-33.8887 151.127716

Currently ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ restrictions

Consultation 1-26 September 2025

98 letters sent

0 responses

Response rate = 0%

Proposed site meets Council’s car share Policy – Within immediate proximity to public transport services such as a rail/metro station/stop and within medium high density residential area

Supported – first space after the ‘No Stopping’ sign (after turning area) on northern side Orchard Crescent west of Murrell Street

Camperdown - 182-184 Salisbury Road

-33.891202 151.178193

Currently unrestricted

Consultation 1-26 September 2025

124 letters sent

0 responses

Proposed site meets Council’s car share Policy – within medium density residential area

Supported - First space after the existing “No Stopping’ sign (on power pole) on the northern side of Salisbury Road east of Mallett Street

Lewisham - McGill Street

-33.894190 151.143956

Currently unrestricted

Consultation 7-31 August 2025

210 letters sent

1 response

1 objection (100%)

does not think the proposed car share space is a good idea and viable option for the long term prospects of the neighbourhood as parking on McGill is already incredibly sparse. The installation of a car space would be taking away from some residents ability to park (not all of the residents living in apartments have designated car spaces) and with the building of more apartments on McGill st, the parking is only going to get more limited in the not-too-distant future.

Proposed site meets Council’s car share Policy – within medium high density residential area

Supported - First space on eastern side (after the driveway to 1-3 McGill Street) south of Hudson Street

Marrickville – 178-180 Livingstone Road

-33.908021 151.152603

Currently unrestricted

Consultation 7-31 October 2025

252 letters sent

4 responses

1 support (25%)

3 objections (75%)

this space is already used by vehicles to park illegally; it is the apartment bin collection area; line of sight will be affected for left turning vehicles;busy imntersection;already GoGet spaces nearby; better situated at Robert Street in order not to impede on an intersection

Location is not suitable for carshare;location is currently the buildings rubbish pick up and deliveries;car spaces are limited;already 2 x GoGet spaces in library parking along with uber and lime bikes;too close to driveway; suggest to relocate to centre of Marrickville with lots of open car spaces

The proposal is in the same location as a former 'no'parking' sign, yet to be replaced.The proposal does not provide a benefit for everyone;resident is disabled and unable to drive and required these zones for pick up

Proposed site meets Council’s car share Policy – Adjacent to a public facility such as a leisure centre or  library and within medium high density residential area.

The location will not be within the existing ‘No Parking’ area.

Supported – The location will be the first legal parking space (after the ‘No Parking’ sign) on eastern side of Livingstone Road north of Marrickville Road

Rozelle - Nagurra Place

-33.861297 151.168269

Currently ‘2P 8am-10pm Mon-Fri’ restrictions

Consultation 7-31 August 2025

108 letters sent

5 responses

1 support (20%)

1 support but in alternative location (20%)

3 objections (60%)

I encourage the Inner West Council to approve and actively support the rollout of Flexicar and Carshare services within Rozelle.

The proposed space in my view is permissible in Nagurra Place however the selected space is in the wrong location….position selected is adjacent to the playground and this specific carspace is excellent for parents, young children and strollers.

Parking is difficult enough for the shop, cafe, children’s playground, and restaurants in the street without taking up a permanent place for a car share veichcle which would be better suited in Terry St, maybe closer to the corner of Victoria Rd.

Does not support car share spaces as parking is an absolute premium on Nagurra Place given the retail and residential density. The retail relies on turn over of the parking spaces. There are only 20 limited time parking spaces in the street. (2 similar comments)

Proposed site meets Council’s car share Policy – Adjacent to public land such as a park and within medium high density residential area.

Supported - First parking space in between garden beds on the southern side of Nagurra Place east of the speed hump

Summer Hill - Edward Street (South of Flour Mill Way)

-33.8887 151.127716

Currently ‘1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri 8.30am-12.30pm Sat’ restrictions

Consultation 7-31 August 2025

75 letters sent

4 responses

1 support but in alternative location (25%)

3 objections (75%)

..prefer if the spot was on the other side of the street where it has a 2hr parking limit, not on the all day parking side. It’s hard enough to park in Summer Hill. Around the Flour Mill precinct there is already car share parking. (2 similar comments)

The chosen proposed space…on the wrong side of the Street to begin with. It needs to be on the opposite side of the street being the Mon-Fri 8am-5pm restriction. The proposed space dedicated to a Flexicar would then not reduce the long term parking space that is currently proposed…….

placement of the flexi-car spot would be more suitable in the existing 2-hour times spots of which there are many.

Does not support car share spaces as parking in Edward Street is often impossible, particularly on those Sunday mornings when markets are held on the old Flour Mill’s… Contributing to the problem during the week is the scarcity of patrols by Council’s parking officers, and the apparent impunity with which some business vehicles regularly park in the parking permit areas for well in excess of the 2 hours limit. …parking permits are of limited utility under current parking rules…. There is no need for additional parking reservation for car share businesses, as there are two sites in Flour Mill Drive …. We believe the onus for finding car hire/share sites is the responsibility of the car share business, not council, and certainly not at the expense and inconvenience of residents…. To improve the parking situation in Edward Street, Council should consider making changes to improve resident parking, and two suggestions are put forward • Council to extend the permit area hours for Area 13 to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. • Council to increase regular parking patrols .

Proposed site meets Council’s car share Policy – on side boundary and within medium density residential area.

There are two other car share spaces in the locality one in Flour Mill Way and the other in Wellesley Street.

Supported – first space after statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ sign on the eastern side of Edward Street south of Flour Mill Way

A location map of existing and proposed Flexicar car share parking spaces is provided in Attachment 1.

Concept diagrams of the proposed nominated locations are provided in Attachment 2.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Costs associated with the installation, removal, maintenance and administration of dedicated car share bays/spaces including non-statutory features such as painted road markings will be met by the relevant car share company in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and Charges.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Location map of existing and proposed Flexicar car share parking spaces
2.⇩	Concept diagrams of the proposed car share parking locations

Local Transport Forum Meeting

16 March 2026

Item No: LTF0326(1) Item 6

Subject: Marrickvile Road East, Marrickville - Cycle Path (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: Jackie Ng - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the detailed concept design drawings (drawing no.s 21106-01 to 21106-06 revision H) for the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path between Sydenham Station and Meeks Road be approved.

2. That Council write Transport for NSW to remove the bus zone along Railway Parade between Gleeson Avenue and Marrickville Road following the completion of the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro project.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report outlines the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path project including the findings of the community engagement report. As part of the Marrickville Road East Masterplan, the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path is a project aimed to provide an integrated streetscape which is highly functional, well designed, visually appealing, accessible to all, safe and sustainable.

Council undertook public consultation on the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path through YourSay Inner West between 17 November to 19 December 2025 and the response results indicate that a majority of the community supported the proposed changes.

Detailed design is scheduled for completion by mid-2026, with construction expected to commence in late 2026 and finish by mid-2027, subject to funding approval.

BACKGROUND

The Marrickville Road East Cycle Path between Gleeson Avenue (Sydenham Station) and Meeks Road was publicly exhibited by Council in 2018 as part of the Marrickville Road East Masterplan. Through consultation with the relevant authorities, stakeholders and the community, a detailed concept design has been produced.

The aim of the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path is to provide an integrated streetscape which is highly functional, well designed, visually appealing, accessible to all, safe and sustainable. Once completed, cyclists and pedestrians will have a continuous and safe route to travel along Marrickville Road between Sydenham Station and Meeks Road that is separated from traffic, while managing, access, traffic and parking needs for surrounding businesses and residents.

The path links to the St Peter’s Cycle Path to the east and Regional route 5 plus the proposed South West Active Transport Link to the north as well as the proposed South West Active Transport Link to the south via Meeks Road to Dulwich Hill and Bankstown.

DISCUSSION

Marrickville Road between Gleeson Avenue and Buckley Street is a state road and between Buckley Street and Meeks Road is a regional road. Marrickville Road has a road width that is approximately 12.8m with an average daily traffic volume of 14,164 vehicles per day (2024) comprising of 88.6% light vehicles and 11.4% heavy vehicle, and 85^th percentile speed of 42.8km/h (2024) along this section.

The following works are proposed and are illustrated on the attached detailed concept plan (Project No. 21106). The proposed works aim to provide integrated streetscape, which is highly functional, well designed, visually appealing, accessible to all, safe and sustainable.

Generally, the proposed scope of the works (Attachment 2) includes the following:

· Two-way separated cycle path along the southern side of Marrickville Road between Gleeson Avenue (Sydenham Station) and Meeks Road, Marrickville.

· Pavement to be marked in green with bicycle logos at transition points, driveways and intersections along the cycle path on the southern side.

· Separation kerb to be provided along the cycle path on the southern side between the parking lane and cycle path.

· Parking lanes are to be provided on both sides of the road, 2.2m on the southern side, 2.3m on the northern side, and 3.0m for bus zones.

· Shared path along the northern side of Marrickville Road between Railway Street and Barclay Street.

· New raised pedestrian crossing approximately 75mm in height with landscaped kerb blisters on Gerald Street. This design will cater for truck movements.

· Landscaped kerb extensions approximately 150mm in height at Marrickville Road, Meeks Road, Sydney Street, Gerald Street, Barclay Street, Railway Street, and Railway Parade.

· Shared path areas within the kerb extensions/footpaths at Meeks Road, Sydney Street, Barclay Street, Buckley Street, Railway Street, and Railway Parade.

· Proposed motorcycle parking arrangement along the frontage of 45-49 Marrickville Road, to address access issues to the property and to cater for loading and unloading movements.

· Widening of laybacks as required and where necessary to cater for large vehicle movements into properties.

· New trees and planting to be provided in landscaped kerb extensions.

· Installation of signage and linemarking associated with the works as required and where shown on the plans.

ADDITIONAL RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

An investigation on the merit of a proposed raised pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road at Sydney Street was undertaken based on feedback received by the community. The numerical warrants of Council’s Pedestrian Crossing Warrant have been met and subsequently a concept design has been completed. A separate community consultation will be completed for the proposed raised pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road and will be brought back to a future Local Transport Forum. The proposed height of the crossing will be approximately 75mm designed for buses and trucks.

PARKING CHANGES

Initially there was a total loss of three (3) parking spaces along the length of the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path project. Further analysis of vehicle swept paths for large vehicles entering and exiting businesses was conducted due to concerns raised about delivery and access. There was an additional loss of two (2) parking spaces as a result of associated driveway widening.

Council has requested external designers to modify the plans to include a proposed section of motorcycle parking along the frontage of 45-49 Marrickville Road, Marrickville to minimise the loss of parking.

Additionally, Council will approach Transport for NSW to remove the bus zone along Railway Parade between Gleeson Avenue and Marrickville Road following the completion of the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro project. The bus zone was a temporary arrangement installed to accommodate layover of buses servicing the Sydney Metro buses. It should be noted that a new bus layover area has been constructed in Railway Parade accommodating up to six (6) buses. In this respect, Council will write to Transport for NSW, requesting that the bus zone between Gleeson Avenue and Marrickville Road be returned back to parking to reduce the loss of parking as a result of this project and the bus layover project. There will be a neutral change in parking spaces subject to agreement for the removal of the temporary bus zone from Transport for NSW.

The proposal for a pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road at Sydney Street (if adopted in future), will result in a loss of an additional two (2) spaces.

STREETLIGHTING

The new raised pedestrian crossing will require new lighting for it to meet the minimum lighting safety and compliance standards. This may involve either 1 or 2 new flood lights provided on either side of the new raised pedestrian crossing (on either existing or new power poles). The final location of poles and lights will be confirmed during the lighting design development phase of the project by a Lighting Design Consultant.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council undertook public consultation through Council’s YourSay website, two face to face drop-in sessions, emails, letters and social media with invitation letters mailed out to stakeholders and residents within the study area in November 2025.

Some 732 letters were delivered to all property owners, residents and businesses of Marrickville Road between Railway Ave and Victoria Road, Meeks Road, Garnet St, Sydney St, Barclay St, Buckley St, Lower Railway Ave and Railway Ave. Emails were sent to local bicycle user groups, Local Democracy Group members and 1416 registered members of Your Say Inner West as well as 537 downloads on YourSay and 206 online survey competed. It should be noted that the two face-to-face engagement sessions were also held at the intersection of Marrickville Road and Gerald Street, Marrickville on Monday 1 December 2025 (10am – 2pm) and on Thursday 4 December 2025 (4pm – 7pm) with 45 community members attending the sessions.

A total of 231 participants provided feedback through the YourSay project page or via email. Majority of the participants (210) supported the proposed cycle path, 14 participants opposed and 7 were unsure or didn’t know.

Key suggestions/feedback raised from the community engagement are listed in the table below. A Council officer response is also provided to the suggestions/feedback.

Community feedback provided	Council Officer response
Addition of pedestrian crossings, particularly across Marrickville Road.	Council will be proposing a pedestrian crossing across Marrickville Road east of Sydney St. As a crossing in this location will result in the loss of parking spaces, the immediately impacted community will be consulted separately on this additional proposal. Council has also requested a further pedestrian crossing across Marrickville Road at Buckley Street. However, as this intersection is within a State Road the decision to proceed and the timing to do so is a Transport for NSW matter. Council has advised Transport for NSW of the community’s desire for a crossing in this location. Council is prioritising pedestrian and cyclist movements along the southern side of Marrickville Road where there are fewer side streets for pedestrians and cyclists to cross and where a direct connection can be provided to Sydenham Station rather than prioritising these movements on the northern side of where there are more streets to cross, and these side streets experience higher heavy vehicle volumes, including the very busy intersection of Buckley St. The southern side of Marrickville Road in contrast has one street to cross between Sydenham Station and Meeks Road whereas the northern side of Marrickville Road has four (Sydney St, Barclay St, Buckley St and Lower Railway Parade).
Amending the design as needed to ensure continuation of industrial vehicle access to existing businesses along Marrickville Road.	Swept path analysis has been undertaken for properties along Marrickville Road and on side streets. Swept path analysis for side streets considers semi-trailer movements. Swept path analysis of vehicle movements to the commercial properties along Marrickville Road and in the side streets confirms that large vehicle access will be maintained. Some adjustment to localised parking restrictions may be required. Council is currently sharing this information with businesses and determining where parking restrictions may be needed.
Continuing the cycle path further along Marrickville Road into Marrickville Town Centre and amending the cycle path design at Meeks Road accordingly.	Continuation of the cycle path beyond Sydenham Station and Meeks Road is outside the scope of this project. Community feedback has been noted and will be used to inform future consideration of expansion of the cycle path network.
Widening the cycle path.	The cycle path has been designed to be as wide as possible within the existing constraint of the available road reserve (boundary to boundary) of Marrickville Road while maintaining vehicle lanes, parking and pedestrian access on both sides of Marrickville Road.
Reconsider the amount and use of shared areas and Removal of the shared areas from the northern side of Marrickville Road.	The extent of shared paths has been minimised as much as possible within the constraints of the built surrounds and fixed infrastructure. This condensed urban area creates limited options to provide separation at all locations, and a shared facility is considered acceptable at the bus stop as this is not a high-frequency bus route. At the kerb extension crossing points near Sydney Street and Barclay Street the design will be amended to remove the shared path area, continue the cycle path and give priority to pedestrians crossing the bicycle path through installation of a pedestrian crossing across the cycle path. The shared path on the northern side of Marrickville Road between Lower Railway Parade and Barclay St provides connection between the existing shared path in Lower Railway Parade and the proposed cycle path on the southern side of Marrickville Road. The overall width of the road reserve precludes construction of a separated cycle path on the northern side of Marrickville Road. Should Transport for NSW’s upgrade of the intersection of Marrickville Road and Buckley Street include installation of a crossing across Marrickville Road, the extent of shared path on the northern side of Marrickville Road can be reconsidered.
Reduce the speed limit in Marrickville Road	The speed limit on all local road within the Inner West Council LGA is being reduced to 40kph as part of the InnerWest@40 project. Council will continue discussions with TfNSW on speed limit reductions on Marrickville Road with TfNSW noting this has sections road classified as regional and state.
Longitudinal design of the cycle path, particularly at driveways	The detailed design will investigate and implement as much as possible methods to smooth the cycle path longitudinally, while recognising that access to properties needs to be maintained.

The results of the consultation are included in the Engagement Outcome Report as provided in Attachment 1.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the works is initially estimated at $3,900,000 and a component of funding has been included in Council’s 2026/2027 Capital Work budget for initial works. The project has also been summitted for State Government funding (TfNSW) through the Get NSW Active program.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Marrickville Road East Cycle Path - Engagement Outcome Report
2.⇩	Marrickville Road East Cycle Path - Detailed Concept Design
3.⇩	Marrickville Road East Cycle Path - Swept Path Analysis
4.⇩	Marrickville Road East Cycle Path - Parking Comparison

Local Transport Forum Meeting

16 March 2026

Item No: LTF0326(1) Item 10

Subject: St Peters Station Parking Study (Midjuburi-Marrickville and Damun-Stanmore Wards / Newtown & Heffron Electorates / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: Jackie Ng - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the report of the St Peters Station Parking Study.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report outlines the investigation completed in the residential streets surrounding St Peters Station to assess parking impacts due to the opening of the Metro at Sydenham Station and closure of the T3 Bankstown Line. It provides an assessment of parking occupancy rates on a typical weekday and weekends, and if any further restrictions in the area are required.

BACKGROUND

At Council meeting held on 22 October 2024, Council resolved the following:

That Council urgently undertake parking studies in suburbs around Tempe, St Peters and Sydenham stations with the view to implementing parking controls to better support residents facing additional parking pressures with the opening of the Metro at Sydenham and closure of the T3 Bankstown Line.

The study has been split into areas of investigation, with Area A (Sydenham Station residential side) and Area B (Sydenham Station industrial side) undertaken initially and reported to the Local Transport Forum meeting held on 15 September 2025.

Subsequently, Area C (Tempe Station) and Area D (St Peters Station) were reviewed. This report provides the outcome to the Area D investigation.

DISCUSSION

Area D – St Peters Station

The study assessed parking utilisation on a weekday and weekend on residentials streets near St Peters Station as shown in Figure 1 below, with a 600-metre radius nominated for the extent of the study.

Figure 1 – St Peters Station Parking Study Area

It is noted that most of the streets within the study area have a mixture of timed permit parking, unrestricted parking and other restrictions (e.g., part-time no parking). The current timed permit parking restriction installed consist of ‘2P, 8.30am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12’ for streets south of St Peters Station and ‘2P, 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M14’ for streets north of St Peters Station.

The parking occupancy and duration of stay of these unrestricted parking and timed parking spaces were assessed to determine if these parking spaces were in excess of 85% utilization that would warrant consideration of expanding the existing permit parking schemes - including extension of existing restrictions to include weekends, extending times to include evenings and installing restrictions on both sides of the street.

Weekday parking assessment

Parking surveys were completed on these streets on Wednesday 2 April 2025 between 6am and 10am to assess occupancy and duration of stay to determine if there are high levels of commuter parking in the unrestricted spaces. Commuter parking generation is generally at its highest during 7am-9am, with maximum peak saturation estimated to occur at 10am.

For the weekday assessment, 10am was prescribed as the hour which commuter parking has reached maximum peak saturation (additional commuter parking after this period is likely to be low).

Two (2) key indicators were used to assess whether it is warranted to extend existing timed permit parking spaces:

1. For streets where there are existing timed permit parking restrictions (2P, 8.30am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12 and 2P, 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M14),), the occupancy rate on both sides of the street must be greater than 85% at 10am.

2. There must be a low percentage of vehicles recorded on the section of street, with a duration of stay greater than 4 hours (noting vehicles that stayed within the same parking space between 6am and 10am are likely to be resident parked vehicles).

The parking occupancy rates recorded for the unrestricted and timed permit parking spaces in residential streets are shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2 – Parking occupancy in unrestricted and timed permit parking areas – Wednesday

Figure 2 above indicates that parking occupancy rates in streets with both unrestricted and restricted parking exhibit higher occupancy on the unrestricted side. However, the data also indicates that there is generally still on-street parking available along the timed permit restriction side. Streets with short sections of timed permit parking also experience a high level of parking occupancy but this is expected due to the supply being low.

Streets with parking occupancy rates greater than 85% in Figure 2 have been further analysed to indicate the duration of stay and determine if the long-term parking is caused by residents or commuters. This is shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 – Duration of stay in unrestricted and timed parking spaces with occupancy greater than 85%

Figure 3 above categories the duration of stay surveys into two classifications:

· >4 hours; vehicles that were parked in the same space between 6am-10am and did not move. Vehicles within this category are likely to be residential vehicles which did not move at 6am (before the start of commuter parking generation) and remained within the same space until 10am (the end of the survey).

· 1-2 hours; vehicles that were parked within the space for 1-2 hours and could either be resident vehicles leaving the space, commuters, or other works parking in the space between 8am-10am.

Data collected shows that the southern side of Lord Street between John Street and Princes Highway is the only street that receives any significant volume of commuter traffic. 75% of the vehicles parked at this location at 10am is expected to be commuter parking and correlates to the surrounding land use being directly adjacent to St Peters Station.

Weekend parking assessment

Parking surveys were completed in the study area (Figure 1) on Saturday 5 April 2025 between 8am and 6pm, and Sunday 6 April 2025 between 8am and 6pm at 1-hour intervals, to assess parking utilisation on residential streets near St Peters Station.

The survey seeks to assess whether there is a need to extend existing and new timed permit parking restrictions that are sign posted as ‘2P, 8.30am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12’ for streets south of St Peters Station and ‘2P, 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M14’ for streets north of St Peters Station.

To consider the extension of the permit parking restrictions to weekends and on both sides of the street, a high occupancy rate greater than 85% for either Saturday or Sunday must be recorded within the existing unrestricted and timed permit parking restrictions. The parking occupancy rates used are averages of the 1-hour intervals between 11am-2pm.

Figure 4 – Parking occupancy in unrestricted and timed permit parking areas – Saturday

Figure 5 – Parking occupancy in unrestricted and timed permit parking areas – Sunday

Data collected on the weekends indicates that residential streets near St Peters Station has not experienced a significant increase in parking due to the opening of the Metro at Sydenham and closure of the T3 Bankstown Line. It is noted that residential streets north of St Peters Station have different restrictions those streets south of the station. The northern restrictions (2P, 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M14) encompasses all days and late evenings, whilst the southern restrictions (2P, 8.30am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12) only cover weekdays and early evenings.

It is also noted that Goodsell Street has recently been updated and are signposted as the following:

· ‘2P, 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12’ on the northern side between Council Street and No.1 Goodsell Street, St Peters.

· ‘2P, 8am-6pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12’ on the northern side between No.1 Goodsell Street and May Lane, St Peters.

· ‘2P, 8am-10pm, Permit Holders Excepted, Area M12’ on the southern side between Council Street and May Lane, St Peters.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the parking occupancy and duration of stay surveys collected on a typical weekday and weekends near St Peters Station suggests that the opening of the Metro at Sydenham and closure of the T3 Bankstown Line has had no significant impact on the parking conditions in the study area. It is recommended that Council notes the results of the St Peters Parking Study with no changes to parking controls in the area.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	St Peters Station Parking Study - Parking Occupancy Wednesday
2.⇩	St Peters Station Parking Study - Duration of Stay Wednesday
3.⇩	St Peters Station Parking Study - Parking Occupancy Saturday
4.⇩	St Peters Station Parking Study - Parking Occupancy Sunday

Local Transport Forum Meeting

16 March 2026

Item No: LTF0326(1) Item 11

Subject: Leichhardt West Stage 2 Marketplace and Stage 3 Taverners Hill Precinct - Resident Parking Scheme Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

Prepared By: Jackie Ng - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ be installed in the following streets:

1. both sides of Elswick Street, between Marion Street and Parramatta Road, Leichhardt as shown in Attachment 1.

2. southern side of Albert Street, between Flood Street and Elswick Street, Leichhardt as shown in Attachment 2.

3. southern side of Kegworth Street, between Lords Road and Tebbutt Street, Leichhardt as shown in Attachment 3.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report outlines the investigation and community engagement undertaken on Stage 2 (Marketplace) and Stage 3 (Taverners Hill) precincts of the Leichhardt West Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) area. Previously, Stage 1 (Allen Street) was implemented in October 2023, and following further community requests to expand the RPS, the scheme was expanded further south to Marion Street in March 2025.

As part of the work for Leichhardt West RPS Stage 2 and 3, Council collected parking occupancy surveys, which showed consistently high parking utilisation across most streets in the proposed Stage 2 and 3 areas. In response, Council undertook community engagement on expanding the ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ restrictions through Council’s YourSay Inner West webpage. Feedback received from the community was considered for each street and helped develop recommendations to manage parking in the Marketplace and Taverners Hill precincts.

BACKGROUND

Under the proposed schedule for the Leichhardt West Parking Study, the following was undertaken to date:

· Stage 1 (Allen Street) Leichhardt West Resident Parking Scheme comprised of a ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted Area L1’, implemented on a number of streets in October 2023.

· Stage 1 RPS post-implementation review and expansion to Marion Street, implemented in March 2025.

Detailed assessment and consultation work was recently completed for the Stage 2 (Marketplace) and Stage 3 (Taverners Hill) precincts of the Leichhardt West Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) areas. As part of the investigation work, parking data was collected for both Stage 2 and 3 areas. Parking data showed consistently high levels of parking during different times and days. A map of the staged areas is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Stages 1-3 of the Leichhardt West Resident Parking Scheme

DISCUSSION

During October 2025 and November 2025, Council undertook community engagement inviting residents to provide feedback on the proposed expansion of the Leichhardt West RPS to streets within Stage 2 and 3 areas. Letters were distributed to occupiers and owners within the area inviting to participate in an online survey through Council’s YourSay Inner West webpage.

The community engagement ended with response rates of less than 50% of properties for the majority of streets, and whilst it did not strictly achieve the response and support level required for the former Leichhardt Resident Parking Scheme Policy, some streets met the requirements for the Inner West Public Domain Parking Policy and showed a high support rate for the parking changes.

Street Name	Response Rate	Support Rate	Met required community support level
Albert Street	34%	76%	Yes
Beeson Street	2%	0%	No
Davies Street	27%	86%	No
Edith Street	20%	44%	No
Elswick Street	41%	72%	Yes
Flood Street (north of Marion Street)	14%	62%	No
Flood Street (south of Marion Street)	23%	19%	No
Foster Street	17%	0%	No
George Street	3%	9%	No
Hathern Street	0%	0%	No
Ivory Lane	17%	50%	No
Ivory Street	0%	0%	No
Kegworth Street	35%	78%	Yes
Lords Road	36%	30%	No
Marion Street	6%	71%	No
Myrtle Lane	60%	33%	No
Myrtle Street	33%	60%	No
National Street	32%	50%	No
Parramatta Road	4%	0%	No
Seale Street	26%	50%	No
Tebbutt Street	5%	0%	No
Upward Street	5%	14%	No

Table 1 – Response rate and support rate in the stage 2 and stage 3 study area

Table 1 categorises individual streets with their corresponding support and response rates, and whether it meets the Inner West Public Domain Parking Policy which requires a minimum 30% response rate and 65% support rate, with the following definitions:

· Response rate is defined as the number of valid votes compared to the number of properties for the section of street expressed as a percentage.

· Support rate is defined as the number of valid votes that support the proposal compared to the number of responses received for the section of street expressed as a percentage.

Due to the high support rate from those who responded to the consultation, it is recommended that the ‘2P 8am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted, Area L1’ be installed in the following sections:

· Both sides of Elswick Street, between Marion Street and Parramatta Road, Leichhardt as shown in Attachment 1.

· Southern side of Albert Street, between Flood Street and Elswick Street, Leichhardt as shown in Attachment 2.

· Southern side of Kegworth Street, between Lords Road and Tebbutt Street, Leichhardt as shown in Attachment 3.

It should be noted that the RPS is only being recommended on one side of Albert Street and Kegworth Street due to a higher response and support rate to the proposal from properties on the southern side of the streets. Residents from both sides of Albert Street and Kegworth Street may apply for permits, subject to eligibility criteria outline in Council’s Parking Policy.

A summary of comments from the community engagement has been tabled below.

Resident comments

Council response

Existing Off-Street Parking

There is existing off-street parking on our property, and it seems unfair that our allocation is reduced based on that fact.

Residents should have at least 2 permits regardless of off-street parking arrangement.

Council’s Resident Parking Permits Schemes must balance the number of permits issued to on-street parking available. Permit limits are required to achieve this with priority being provided to residents who do not have off-street parking opportunities. The reduced allocation of parking permits based on off-street parking is a feature of all parking schemes across the Inner West Council.

Long-term Parking

There is a lot of long-term commuters parking in the area that catch the light rail and bus. It is extremely difficult to find parking on my street.

There are also a lot of smash repair businesses parking their customer vehicles in our street taking away parking for residents.

The resident parking scheme aims to address long-term commuter parking in residential areas, which may provide more availability and opportunities for residents and visitors to park near their homes during the day.

Visitor Parking

The parking scheme will reduce the ability for visitors to park and will not be beneficial for people with family and friends visiting the area.

The resident parking scheme allocates one (1) visitor permit for each property subject to eligibility criteria of Council’s resident parking policy. This permit is transferable and can be used for any vehicle visiting the area.

The proposed 2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri restriction provides parking opportunities by allowing visitors without permits to stay after 4pm until 10am next day on weekdays. Parking on weekends will remains unrestricted.

No Parking in Laneways

The laneways are narrow and parked with cars blocking access to garages and waste vehicles. The plans should include no parking in the laneways.

Parking restrictions within laneways are currently not being considered as part of the resident parking scheme proposal.

Further parking controls within laneways can be investigated separately if these are submitted to Council in writing.

Unattended Vehicles

There are many trailers, boats and caravans taking up on-street parking long-term making it difficult to park in our street. They should be subjected to the same restrictions as normal vehicles.

Under the Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Act 2021, Council can remove unattended vehicles from local streets. More information can be found on Council’s website under “Unattended Vehicles”.

Effect on Businesses

The proposal will negatively affect local workers who rely on street parking, and risk pushing businesses out of the area.

Commuters and employees seeking to park in local streets, have a lower priority as local residents and their visitors without off-street parking should be given a higher priority. Businesses located within a street with a RPS may apply for a business parking permit to vehicles registered to the business, subject to the eligibility criteria in Council’s parking policy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Elswick Street - Proposed Resident Parking Scheme
2.⇩	Albert Street - Proposed Resident Parking Scheme
3.⇩	Kegworth Street - Proposed Resident Parking Scheme

Resident concerns	Officer responses
The priority should be toward the installation of ‘No Stopping’ zone on the east side of Thomas Street along the side boundary of 27 Spring Street where high fence is installed and vegetations are overgrown.	The eastern side of Thomas Street at Spring Street feature a high fence close to the intersection that obstructs visibility. As such, restricting parking along the side of Thomas Street would not provide additional safety benefits.
With reference to the revised no stopping zones on Spring Street at Thomas Street Birchgrove, I would like to suggest that it would make more sense to make Thomas Street between Spring Street and Cove Street a one-way street going down the hill. This would solve most of the problems, as well as making that part of Thomas Street safer for everybody.	An ongoing Balmain East & Birchgrove Local Area Traffic Management studies will consider this.
We’re concerned about Council’s proposal to reduce the existing 10‑metre ‘No Stopping’ zones at Spring and Thomas Streets, because the conditions that justified those controls in July 2025 haven’t changed. Parked cars still affect visibility, and the intersection’s geometry, traffic patterns, and sightlines remain exactly the same. Before any reduction is made, we believe Council should provide clear, updated engineering analysis showing that safety will not be compromised. This submission requests that reasoned analysis be visible to those most directly affected, allowing prudence to guide the exercise of discretion without rendering safety provisional.	The proposed amendment maintains an appropriate level of safety while enabling the retention of additional on-street parking for the benefit of the local community. A risk assessment was undertaken to determine the appropriate ‘No Stopping’ distances.
Residents still do not believe any No Stopping zones are needed here. They say there was no evidence of a safety problem to justify removing long‑standing parking. Some nearby intersections have new No Stopping zones, others do not. Residents have relied on this parking for years. No crash history or traffic data has been shared to justify the change.	This installation of the ‘No Stopping’ zones were instigated by resident requests, to remove illegal parking at the intersection. It should be noted that it is illegal to park within 10m of an unsignalized intersection unless otherwise signposted.

1.⇩	Detailed Design Plan (10376)
2.⇩	Swept Path Diagrams