Agenda of Local Transport Forum - Monday, 20 April 2026

Local Transport Forum Meeting

20 April 2026

Minutes of Meeting held on 16 March 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)
Kyrellos Habib	Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
Julius Villanueva	Representative for Transit Systems
Manod Wickramasinghe	IWC’s Traffic and Transport Planning Manager
Predrag Gudelj	IWC’s Roads Manager (Acting)
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
Nathan Nguyen	IWC’s Graduate Traffic Engineer
Christy Li	IWC’s Business Administration Officer

VISITORS

Daniel Sanchez	Public Speaker (Item 6)
Anita Staunton	Public Speaker (Item 6)
Beatrice Claflin	Public Speaker (Item 7)
Wayne Thong	Public Speaker (Item 11)
John Nicholas	Public Speaker (Item 11)
Christine Tylee	Public Speaker (Item 11)
Hall Greenland	Public Speaker (Item 11)

APOLOGIES:

Nil.	Nil.

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Local Transport Forum held on Monday, 16 February 2026 be confirmed.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the Local Transport Forum held on 08 December 2025 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 17 February 2026 with the following amendments:

Add as point oo. the following to the recommendations for Item 1: Annandale LATM Study Final Report:

oo. Install raised pedestrian crossing in Booth Street between Taylor Street and Wigram Road.

LTF0326(1) Item 1 Inner West LGA - Proposal for Flexicar car share parking spaces (All wards, all electorates, all PACs)

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.

Officers 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.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill questioned whether the ‘Fees and Charges’ regarding Carshare spaces were adopted at the Council meeting. Council Officers advised that the proposed ‘Fees and Charges’ have not yet been adopted by Council, and this will be considered as part of the annual budget process.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

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.

LTF0326(1) Item 2 Victoria Street, Ashfield - Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing (Djarrawunang - Ashfield Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety for pedestrians in Victoria Street at Robert Street, Ashfield by converting the existing splitter island and kerb blister crossing to a raised pedestrian crossing. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian and motorist safety by better defining safe pedestrian crossing points, improving sight distances, reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan (10376) for a proposed raised pedestrian crossing treatment on Victoria Street intersecting with Robert Street, Ashfield be approved.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan (10376) for a proposed raised pedestrian crossing treatment on Victoria Street intersecting with Robert Street, Ashfield be approved.

LTF0326(1) Item 3 Oxford Street & Park Street, Rozelle - Proposed One-Way Traffic Proposal (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

On 17 February 2026, Council adopted the Iron Cove Traffic Review which included the introduction of one-way traffic on Park Street and Oxford Street, Rozelle. This proposal received strong levels of support during the community engagement undertaken in 2025. Following Council’s approval, a detailed signage and linemarking plan for the one-way traffic arrangement has been prepared for approval and implementation.

Officers Recommendation:

That the proposed signage and linemarking plan for the one-way (bicycles excepted) northbound traffic on Park Street, Rozelle and one-way (bicycles excepted) southbound traffic on Oxford Street, Rozelle between Darling Street and Moodie Street be approved.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Member of Balmain noted her concerns regarding future rat running on Oxford Street and Park Street, Rozelle and questioned when the other recommendations from the Iron Cove Traffic Review would be implemented. Council Officers advised that the projects have not been scheduled yet, and that all adopted projects will be added to Council’s works program and prioritised accordingly.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the proposed signage and linemarking plan for the one-way (bicycles excepted) northbound traffic on Park Street, Rozelle and one-way (bicycles excepted) southbound traffic on Oxford Street, Rozelle between Darling Street and Moodie Street be approved.

LTF0326(1) Item 4 Spring Street, Birchgrove - Revised 'No Stopping' Zones (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/ Balmain Electorate/ Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received requests to review the recent installation of 10m ‘No Stopping’ zones in Spring Street, west and east of Thomas Street, with a view to improving on-street parking opportunities in the area.

A risk assessment has been undertaken at this location, and reduced 6.4m and 5m ‘No Stopping’ zones are proposed on Spring Street, west and east of Thomas Street respectively. This provides appropriate sight distances for drivers exiting Thomas Street while also retaining some kerbside parking for the local community. This proposal was consulted with the affected residents in January and February 2026, with the feedback outlined in Table 1.

Officers Recommendation:

1. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ zone on the northern side of Spring Street west of Thomas Street, Birchgrove be reduced to 6.4m.

2. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ zones on the northern side of Spring Street east of Thomas Street, Birchgrove be reduced to 5m.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ zone on the northern side of Spring Street west of Thomas Street, Birchgrove be reduced to 6.4m.

2. That the existing ‘No Stopping’ zones on the northern side of Spring Street east of Thomas Street, Birchgrove be reduced to 5m.

LTF0326(1) Item 5 Drynan Street at Prospect Road, Summer Hill – Proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing – Design Plan 10377 (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve safety for pedestrians in Drynan Street at Prospect Road, Summer Hill by providing a raised pedestrian crossing approximately 6.3m away from the intersection. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian and motorist safety by better defining safe pedestrian crossing points, improving sight distances, reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing in Drynan Street at Prospect Road, Summer Hill and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10377) be approved.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed Raised Pedestrian Crossing in Drynan Street at Prospect Road, Summer Hill and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10377) be approved.

LTF0326(1) Item 6 Marrickville Road East, Marrickville - Cycle Path (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

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.

Officers 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.

LTF Advice:

Public Speakers Daniel Sanchez and Anita Staunton entered the meeting at 11.03 am

Mr Sanchez and Ms Staunton raised concerns regarding the current proposed plans noting the lack of a safe turning area and swept paths for larger vehicles, as well as blind spots for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

Mr Sanchez and Ms Staunton requested that further consideration be given to improve access for trucks on the eastern side of the driveways by implementing ‘No Stopping’ or ‘No Parking’ restrictions to ensure there is sufficient clearance space for heavy vehicle access as well removing potential blind spots to improve the safety of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Council Officers noted the concerns raised by Mr Sanchez and Ms Staunton and advised that their comments will be taken into consideration for the detailed design and that Council Officers will continue to work and liaise with the affected businesses to address their concerns.

Public Speakers Daniel Sanchez and Anita Staunton left the meeting at 11.20 am

Council Officers noted they received comments from another business owner expressing similar concerns to those raised by Mr Sanchez and Ms Staunton.

Council Officers noted that they intend to keep the current layout of the cycleway but will investigate the points raised by the speakers in the detailed design stage and make adjustments as needed.

The Representative for Transit Services queried if Council plans to close the road when they enter the construction phase of the project, as Transit Systems has bus services that run down Marrickville Road. Council Officers noted that they do not intend to close the road during the construction stage of the project; however, further details will be determined once a contractor is engaged for the project and the construction methodology is finalised. Council Officers noted that once the contactor is onboarded and the plans are finalised, Council will notify Transit Systems.

The Chairperson requested that Council write to Utility companies within the area to advise them that Council is looking to reconstruct the footpaths as part of this project and request that they take the opportunity to underground their current overhead cables whilst the footpath upgrades are happening.

The Representative for the Member of Summer Hill raised concerns from a constituent regarding the proposed cycleway design requiring the cycleway to ‘dip’ at each driveway causing a bumpy ride along the cycleway. It was suggested that the driveway ‘dips’ could be avoided by creating two laybacks at each driveway, one adjacent to the road and another between the cycle path and footpath. It was noted that this stepped approach would solve the car scraping challenges and ensure that both the footpath and cycleway do not have needless bumps.

The Representative for the Inner West Bicycle Coalition agreed with the points raised by the Representative for the Member of Summer Hill.

Council Officers indicated that the double laybacks are not feasible in this design as the cycleway is directly adjacent to the road and the cycleway will be at the same level as the footpath. Council officers indicated that they would design around driveways so that the 'dip’ along the path is minimised or eliminated to ensure a smoother cycling experience at driveways.

No further advice provided by the LTF members.

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.

3. That Council write to the relevant Utility companies to advise them of Council’s intention to reconstruct the footpaths along Marrickville Road as part of the Marrickville Road East Cycle Path project and request that they underground their cables during the construction.

LTF0326(1) Item 7 Curtis Road and McDonald Street, Balmain - Proposed Pedestrian Crossing, Continuous Footpath and One-Way Treatment (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

The Local Transport Forum previously considered the detailed design and consultation outcomes of a proposed pedestrian crossing and continuous footpath in Curtis Road, Balmain, including a partial road closure and one way in McDonald Street, Balmain. This design was supported by the Local Transport Forum in December 2025 and adopted by Council at its meeting held in February 2026.

Following further review, changes to the initial design plan have been proposed to enhance the safe operation of the pedestrian crossing. This includes a speed cushion on the western approach to the crossing and the relocation of a ‘No Stopping’ sign on the southern side of Curtis Road by approximately 5m to improve sightlines, which will result in the loss of one existing parking space.

The changes are shown within the attached plan.

Officers Recommendation:

That installation of an additional speed cushion on Curtis Road west of Thames Street and extended ‘No Stopping’ zone on the south side of Curtis Road, west of McDonald Street, Balmain as shown in the attached detailed design plan (No.10358) be approved.

LTF Advice:

Public Speaker Beatrice Claflin entered the meeting at 11.20 am

Ms Claflin supported the proposed addition of the speed cushions; however, raised concerns regarding the drainage issues and road safety issues that may arise due to the location of the pedestrian crossing on Curtis Road. Ms Claflin noted her concerns regarding the removal of a parking space near property No.12, as cars that park in the space help to narrow the width of the street and slow down the traffic going down Curtis Street. Ms Claflin suggested that the existing pedestrian refuge island be retained and made bigger, as the island currently helps prevent collisions between pedestrians and vehicles. She also suggested that if Council looked into how many times the poles on the island were replaced and the number of times the island has been repaired, it would show the importance of retaining the island for its safety benefits. Ms Claflin also noted that the proposed pedestrian crossing will require additional lighting and that the lighting may negatively impact the neighbours., as the crossing is proposed to be built adjacent to her property. She alleged that that she had not been consulted about this proposal.

Public Speaker Beatrice Claflin left the meeting at 11.32 am

The Chairperson questioned whether Curtis Road was a high pedestrian area. Council Officers noted that there is a nursey and preschool at Thames Street and that a formalised pedestrian crossing would assist the children crossing Curtis Road.

The Representative for the Member of Balmain questioned if the crossing could be relocated. Council Officers noted that the proposal for the crossing was previously discussed at the December 2025 Local Transport Forum, and that was recently adopted by Council. It was noted that this proposal had come back to the forum to consider the additional proposed speed cushion and removal of a parking space. Council Officers noted that consultation was only undertaken with the properties that would be directly affected by the noise from the proposed speed cushion and the loss of the parking space. Council Officers noted that retaining or extending the existing island was not possible due to the width of the road and width required for a compliant pedestrian refuge, it was noted that a pedestrian crossing will prioritise pedestrians at this location and would reduce vehicle speeds noting the crossing is raised.

The Representative for the Member of Balmain noted Ms Claflin’s concerns regarding the potential for cars to speed up due to the removal of the parking space and questioned if it would be possible for Council to install a kerb extension to maintain the narrowness, which will assist with controlling motorist speeds along the street. Council Officers advised that although it was not part of this plan, it is something that could be investigated. Council Officers also noted that there were additional pits and pipes proposed to account for the drainage concerns.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

LTF0326(1) Item 8 Lennox Street, Newtown – Proposed Pedestrian Safety and Stormwater Improvement Works – Design Plan 10362A (Damum-Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve pedestrian safety and stormwater drainage in Lennox Street, Newtown, by modifying the existing at-grade pedestrian crossing and installing additional stormwater pits and pipes. The proposal aims to enhance safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, address concerns regarding pedestrian safety, cyclists and driver behaviour in the area and improve overall stormwater management.

Officers Recommendation:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed pedestrian safety and stormwater improvement works in Lennox Street at its intersection with Mary Street, Newtown and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10362A) be approved.

LTF Advice:

No advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the detailed design plan for the proposed pedestrian safety and stormwater improvement works in Lennox Street at its intersection with Mary Street, Newtown and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10362A) be approved.

LTF0326(1) Item 9 Curtis Road, Balmain - Proposed Pedestrian (zebra) Crossing (Baludarri-Balmain Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is planning to improve pedestrian safety in Curtis Road north of Darling Street, Balmain by constructing a new raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian safety and address concerns about pedestrian safety and driver behaviour in the area.

The proposal will not make any changes to the existing parking signs and parking spaces in this section of Curtis Road and result in no loss of parking.

Officers Recommendation:

That the attached detailed design plan (No.10390) for the proposed raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Curtis Road near the intersection of Darling Street, Balmain be approved.

LTF Advice:

The Representative for the Member of Balmain questioned whether it would be possible to retain part of the existing traffic island on the side of the proposed pedestrian crossing. Council Officers noted that keeping the existing island will impede the residents' ability to access their driveway. It was also noted that retaining the existing island will also create confusion and potential safety issues.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the attached detailed design plan (No.10390) for the proposed raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Curtis Road near the intersection of Darling Street, Balmain be approved.

LTF0326(1) Item 10 St Peters Station Parking Study (Midjuburi-Marrickville and Damun-Stanmore Wards / Newtown & Heffron Electorates / Inner West PAC)

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.

Officers Recommendation:

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

LTF Advice:

The Chairperson questioned the outcome of the parking study. Council Officers advised that the St Peters Station Parking Study was the third part of the parking studies conducted around Sydenham Station, St Peters and Tempe Stations. It was noted that after reviewing the data received for each study, it was determined that the area around Sydenham Station had been impacted, and so Council are preparing consultation letters for community feedback with the proposals raised in the previous LTF meetings.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

LTF0326(1) Item 11 Leichhardt West Stage 2 Marketplace and Stage 3 Taverners Hill Precinct - Resident Parking Scheme Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/Balmain Electorate/Leichhardt PAC)

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.

Officers 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.

LTF Advice:

Public Speaker Wayne Thong entered the meeting at 11.35 am

Mr Thong supported the proposal as he and his wife have a young family and that it is often difficult to find parking near their home and as their street currently does not have any parking restrictions. It was noted that often cars would take advantage of the lack of restrictions and park for long periods of time, making it difficult for residents on the street.

Public Speaker Wayne Thong left the meeting at 11.37 am

Public Speaker John Nicholas entered the meeting at 11.39 am

Mr Nicholas supported the proposal and noted that some residents on Elswick Street may not have been consulted during the consultation process.

Public Speaker John Nicholas entered the meeting at 11.42 am

Public Speaker Christine Tylee entered the meeting at 11.43 am

Ms Tylee acknowledged Council’s proposal to improve parking availability for residents; however, raised concerns regarding the possible effects the proposed Resident Parking Scheme would have on businesses in the area. Ms Tylee advised that her business is located in Ruess Street, Leichhardt, having of both residential and business use. She advised that the business has 10 staff members on a day-to-day basis. It was noted that the business has been allocated 3 business permits, which is the maximum allowed; however, if the streets were to be changed to restricted parking, her staff will lose the ability to park within a reasonable distance from their workplace. Ms Tylee noted that the proposed changes will cause a significant disruption to business operations and affect productivity as staff would need to move their vehicles every 2 hours to comply with the new restrictions. Ms Tylee noted that some staff members have mobility limitations and that having to park further away would not be practical or inclusive. Ms Tylee requested that Council consider the needs of businesses when implementing the proposal parking schemes and requests that alternative solutions be considered for businesses in the area, such as allocation of additional permits, implementing longer stay parking such as ‘4P’ restrictions, carpooling initiatives or any other practical solutions to ensure businesses can operate effectively.

Public Speaker Christine Tylee left the meeting at 11.48 am

Public Speaker Hall Greenland entered the meeting at 11.49 am

Mr Greenland questioned how many parking permits would be allocated for the eligible properties. Council Officers advised that eligible properties would be entitled to 2 resident parking permits and 1 visitor parking permit, with the resident permit reducing for those with off street parking.

Mr Greenland questioned if parking restrictions could be ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Sun’ instead of ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri.’ Council Officers noted that when introducing new restrictions into an area, it was preferable to introduce less aggressive restrictions in the first instance to allow people to adjust. It was also noted that once restrictions are introduced, post-implementation reviews are undertaken, where changes to the restrictions can be considered.

Public Speaker Hall Greenland entered the meeting at 11.55 am

Council Officers tabled in comments from a resident noting their concerns that the proposal does not adequately reflect several concerns and practical issues raised by residents during consultation. It was noted that tradespeople and service providers could still be fined for undertaking work, and that obtaining trade parking permits is sometimes not feasible for jobs that arise on short notice and for small businesses without the administrative capacity to organise permits in advance. This is then likely to discourage trades from servicing the area and increase the costs for servicing in the area which would affect the residents and businesses in the area. Additionally, the proposal does not address the issues regarding properties not utilising their garages for vehicle storage which will increase the enforcement footprint without improving parking availability for residents. It was noted that there were concerns with the reliability and consistency of the parking studies used to support this proposal, noting that the original study noted that parking permits were not necessary, contradicting the proposal to implement parking permits. It was noted that residents were also concerned regarding the monetisation of permits in the future if Council wishes to do so. It was noted that Elswick Street also experiences rat running, speeding and vehicle collisions, and that traffic calming measures should be reviewed for the street.

No further advice provided by LTF members.

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.

General Business:

Item 12- Update on proposed kerb blisters at the intersection of Bland Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield

The Chairperson requested an update on proposed kerb blisters at Bland Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield. Council Officers noted that the proposed kerb blisters were built at the intersection of Bland Street and Charlotte Street, Ashfield last year.

Item 13- Request for ‘Local Traffic Only’ signage in Brooklyn Street, Tempe

The Chairperson requested that a ‘Local Traffic Only’ sign be implemented in Brooklyn Street, Tempe. Council Officers advised that ‘Local Traffic Only’ signage is not supported as it not an enforceable sign however, with the implementation of the IW@40 project, School Lane will be signposted with a ‘40km/h Local Traffic Area’ sign. Council Officers also noted that all the streets surrounding the Tempe Bunnings will be reviewed 6 months after the opening of the new Bunnings.

Item 14- Repainting of the Lilyfield Road Cycleway linemarking

The Representative for the Member of Balmain requested that the Lilyfield Road Cycleway linemarking be repainted, as the current linemarking has faded significantly. Council Officers advised that they would investigate the matter.

Meeting closed at 1.00pm.

CHAIRPERSON

Clr Victor Macri

Local Transport Forum Meeting

20 April 2026

Item No: LTF0426(1) Item 2

Subject: Seaview Street at Yeo Avenue, Ashfield – Proposed Raised Threshold – Design Plan 10380 (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Burwood PAC)

Prepared By: Jennifer Adams - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Sunny Jo - Acting Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the detailed design plan for the proposed Raised Threshold in Seaview Street at Yeo Avenue, Ashfield and associated signs and line markings (as per Design Plan No.10380) be approved.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is proposing to improve safety for pedestrians in Seaview Street at Yeo Avenue, Ashfield

by constructing a Raised Threshold. The proposal aims to improve safety by reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting on the 5 March 2024 approved in principle, subject to detailed design, a series of proposed pedestrian marked crossings and kerb extension treatments for improved pedestrian and road safety around and near to the Cardinal Freeman (Retirement) Village, Ashfield after initial concept designs were submitted to the December 2023 Local Traffic Committee.

This report focuses on the detailed design plan of one of the proposed threshold treatments in Seaview Street, west of Yeo Avenue with pedestrian fencing. The report details the design plan for the improvement works and its related consultation results. These works are programmed and envisaged to be constructed in the 2025/2026 financial year, subject to funding.

Other Staff Comments

The following works are proposed for Seaview Street at Yeo Avenue, Ashfield and are illustrated on the attached Consultation Plan (Plan No. 10380). The proposed works aim to improve safety by reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

Specifically, the proposed scope of work includes the following:

· Construct a new concrete Raised Threshold (speed hump) to improve traffic safety by controlling traffic speed in the street.

· Provide new pedestrian fencing in the footpath on either side of the raised threshold to comply with TfNSW standards to prevent pedestrians using the device as a crossing facility.

· Install new signage and line marking associated with the works as required and where shown on the Plan.

No changes are proposed to the existing on-street parking signage and arrangements. Therefore, the proposal will result in no loss of on-street parking spaces.

The existing lighting is deemed adequate and therefore there will be no changes to the existing street lighting due to the proposed works.

Public Consultation

Consultation was conducted between 18 February 2026 and 6 March 2026. A letter along with a copy of the design plan was sent to residents and businesses in the immediate locality as shown in the following distribution plan. A total of 8 letters were distributed. At the close of the consultation, five (5) responses were received and tabled below.

Resident’s Comments

Officer’s response

Relocate the proposed raised threshold to the eastern side of Yeo Avenue.

Many motorists already use Yeo Avenue as a 'shortcut' to access Queen Street when coming from Victoria Street/Seaview Street. Adding a speed hump with a lower speed limit immediately after Yeo Avenue will further incentivise motorists to use Yeo Avenue instead of continuing along Seaview Street to access Queen Street.

My request is for the first speed hump to be placed immediately before the Yeo Avenue turn off (not immediately after). This will still result in speed calming effects but should not lead to diverting motorists through Yeo Avenue

This device was approved as part of a masterplan for an overall package of traffic calming works and devices to improve general road safety around the Cardinal Freeman Village. The package of works obtained overall support from the community.

The proposed location for the raised threshold does not yield any constraints to prevent the proposal being built in the location as originally intended. Further, there are no impacts to existing on-street parking spaces which is always a major consideration when proposing any new traffic measures throughout the area.

Relocating the threshold to the eastern side of Yeo Street is not supported as:

· The device is not intended to divert traffic down Yeo Avenue. Traffic if wanting to divert down Yeo Avenue would do so irrespective which side of the street the device is placed.

· If the threshold if placed to the eastern side of Yeo Avenue, it would interfere more with driveway access to the Village and with on-street parking spaces.

Concerns regarding narrower footpath.

As a resident of the Cardinal Freeman Retirement Village (CFRV), I use the footpath daily …..
I am concerned that the installation of pedestrian fencing on the footpath as part of this project would further impinge on the narrow footpath for me and my guide dog.
This narrowing of the footpath could also impact residents who use walkers .

The proposed pedestrian fence will not impact the overall width of the footpath to an extent that would prevent safe pedestrian movements past the location. The clear footpath width is expected to be at least 1.4m which is more than sufficient to allow safe pedestrian access. The proposed fence will be located behind the existing kerb but in front of any existing street signage thus it will not narrow the footpath any more than locations where street signs on posts and timber power poles exist

Request for Traffic Mirror.

I am a resident of the retirement village and have received your notice regarding the addition of a speed hump. From your plan this appears to be almost outside the gate that is used by residents who have a garage or use the parking spaces accessed by Gate 8.For some time now I have thought that due to the constant traffic passing on Seaview Street, it would be helpful to have a ‘traffic mirror’ near Gate 8 to help when cars leave the parking area and enter Seaview Street.

It is noted that Council does not install traffic mirrors, as convex mirrors provide a distorted image of on-coming vehicles, possibly leading to misinterpretation by the reliant motorist. Also, at night, the lights from travelling vehicles and other sources, being reflected from these types of mirrors can cause confusion for motorists as to the location of oncoming traffic. This is exacerbated by the unnatural way these convex mirrors reflect images.

Concern regarding interference with access to driveway (Gate 6)

I am a resident of the Cardinal Freeman Retirement Village and I have a concern about the fencing planned in conjunction with the raised speed bump planned on Seaview Street in Ashfield. I currently rent the Garage #9 which is located adjacent to Gate number 6 in Seaview Street. Looking at the map with the location of the speed hump, I'm concerned that the new speed hump and fencing may well impinge on the access to my garage.

The proposed raised threshold and fencing has been placed to ensure that clear access will be maintained for vehicles using this driveway. This is supported by turn path tests which show the proposed threshold has sufficient clearance from the edge of this driveway (ie approx. 1m clearance) to not impact any access into or out of this driveway.

Proposed raised threshold very close to Victoria Street.

I intend to object to this structure depending on from Victoria Street end its distance from Yeo Avenue you able to help.
According to the map supplied the scale is 1:100, giving a distance of 500mil is that correct

Conclusion

Having considered the feedback from the community, it is recommended that the detailed design plan of the proposed traffic treatment and associated signs and line markings be supported to improve safety by reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project is listed on Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works budget for works to be carried out in 2025/2026, subject to funding. The work is estimated to be around $35,300.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

303402-10380-Consultation Plan

Local Transport Forum Meeting

20 April 2026

Item No: LTF0426(1) Item 4

Subject: Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield - Lilyfield Road Cycleway and Angle Parking (Baludarri - Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt PAC)

Prepared By: Amir Falamarzi

Authorised By: Sunny Jo - Acting Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That design for the Lilyfield Road Cycleway and angle parking between Maliyawul Street Lilyfield and Victoria Road, Rozelle, including a new bidirectional cycleway, shared path, raised crossings, kerb buildouts and blisters, speed cushions, a roundabout, and angle parking, be approved as per Attachment 1.

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 summarises the engagement outcomes from the public exhibition of the Lilyfield Road Cycleway detailed concept design. The project aims to deliver a separated cycling infrastructure along Lilyfield Road, improving pedestrian and bicycle connections between the Bay Run, Green Way and Sydney CBD via Anzac Bridge, while introducing traffic calming and revised parking arrangements. Public consultation was conducted from 9 March to 6 April 2026 through YourSay Inner West, stakeholder correspondence and a face‑to‑face community session, with feedback indicating majority support for the proposed cycleway and associated safety improvements.

BACKGROUND

Cycling participation is increasing in Sydney and housing growth under the Our Fairer Future initiative is expected to shape how people move around the Inner West and surrounding areas. This highlights the importance of safe and space efficient transport options, with high quality cycling infrastructure supporting more people to choose cycling as a viable travel option.

Council and Transport for NSW have identified strategic cycle connections between Five Dock, Lilyfield and The Bays as part of the Strategic Cycleway Corridors network, which aims to provide safe and continuous links between centres and key destinations.

The proposed Lilyfield Road Cycleway aligns with this network and addresses a critical missing link between Haberfield and Rozelle and improves connection between GreenWay, Bay Run, Rozelle Parklands and Sydney CBD.

Furthermore, the Rozelle Parklands Master Plan 2024 has proposed an angle parking configuration along the south side of Lilyfield Road along the parkland frontage, and a new roundabout at Denison Street and traffic calming elements to support a safer and lower speed road environment.

DISCUSSION

The following works are proposed and are illustrated in the attached detailed concept plan (Attachment 1). The proposed works aim to deliver a bidirectional cycleway along Lilyfield Road to improve safety for both cyclists and pedestrians and provide additional on‑street parking opportunities adjacent to Rozelle Parklands.

The proposed scope of works generally includes:

· Modification of the existing speed hump on Lilyfield Road west of Maliyawul Street.

· Construction of a two‑way separated cycleway along Lilyfield Road between Maliyawul Street and Victoria Road.

· Installation of green pavement with bicycle logos at transitions, driveways and intersections.

· New kerb buildouts with continuous footpath treatment at the intersections of Lilyfield Road with Maliyawul Street, Henry Street and Derbyshire Road.

· New kerb buildouts on Lilyfield Road at Charles Street, Hubert Street, Francis Street, Rayner Street, Trevor Street, Grove Street, Halloran Street and Norton Streets, including kerb blisters and upgrades to the existing median island at Norton Street.

· Closure of the Mary Street left turn slip lane to Lilyfield Road, subject to Transport for NSW approval and traffic modelling.

· New kerb buildout at Catherine Street with raised entry treatment at the intersection with Lilyfield Road.

· Installation of kerb blisters and speed cushions along Lilyfield Road.

· Removal of the existing raised crossing opposite Steward Street and construction of a new wombat crossing east of Norton Street incorporating a bidirectional cycleway.

· Modification of the existing raised crossing east of Catherine Street to accommodate the bidirectional cycleway.

· Replacement of the existing speed hump east of Gordon Street with a raised crossing and bidirectional cycleway, including kerb extensions.

· Installation of a new raised crossing with a bidirectional cycleway west of Victoria Road, including kerb blisters.

· Establishment of a new shared path on the eastern side of Balmain Road between Lilyfield Road and City West Link.

· Construction of a new roundabout at the intersection of Lilyfield Road and Denison Street, including median islands and kerb blisters.

Parking Changes

The Cycleway project will result in a net gain of 47 on-street parking spaces on Lilyfield Road with the following breakdown:

· Loss of 4 on-street parking spaces between Canal Road and Balmain Road.

· Loss of 18 on-street parking spaces between Balmain Road and Ryan Street (Rozelle Parkland).

· Gain of 69 on-street parking spaces between Ryan Street and Victoria Road.

Street Lighting

The new raised pedestrian crossings will require additional lighting to meet minimum safety and compliance standards. This may involve one or two new floodlights installed on either side of the crossing, using existing or new power poles. Final pole and light locations will be confirmed during the lighting design phase by a Lighting Design Consultant.

Public Consultation

Council undertook public exhibition in March 2026 through YourSay Inner West website, a face‑to‑face drop‑in session, emails, letters and social media, with invitation letters mailed to stakeholders and residents within the study area.

A total of 2,122 letters were delivered to affected property owners, residents and businesses. Emails were sent to local bicycle user groups, Local Democracy Group members and 1,469 registered YourSay Inner West users. The project page recorded 434 document downloads and 244 completed online surveys.

A face‑to‑face drop‑in session was held at Rozelle Parklands 5pm-7pm on 16 March 2026, attended by approximately 70 community members.

Overall, 340 participants provided feedback via the YourSay project page, email or phone. Of these, 249 supported the proposed bidirectional cycleway, 54 opposed it and 37 were unsure.

Feedback on the proposed angle parking and traffic calming measures was received from 116 participants, with 70 in support, 21 opposed and 25 unsure.

Key themes and feedback raised during consultation are summarised in the table below, along with Council officer responses.

Community feedback provided

Council Officer response

Support for the proposal

· Lilyfield Road is a key missing cycling link from GreenWay to Sydney CBD.

· Current cycling conditions are unsafe.

· The proposal supports mode shift and safe access from the west to the city.

Transport for NSW has identified strategic cycling connections between Five Dock, Lilyfield and The Bays. The proposed Lilyfield Road Cycleway aligns with this network by addressing a missing link between Haberfield and Rozelle, improving connections between GreenWay, Bay Run, Rozelle Parklands and Sydney CBD.

Safety Concerns of Bike Path Width, Dooring, Driveway, Steep Gradient, Overtaking & Road Users

Council acknowledges concerns about cyclist speed, overtaking, downhill behaviour and e‑bikes, and confirms the final design will address these through a 2.4 m wide bidirectional cycleway compliant with Austroads and TfNSW guidelines, including surface markings to moderate downhill speeds.

Lilyfield Road will remain an alternative on‑road option for confident, higher‑speed downhill riders, with a westbound exit point from the cycleway before Norton Street supported by on‑road cyclist markings and wayfinding signage.

The design includes a 0.4 m buffer between parked vehicles and the cycleway to improve sightlines and reduce conflicts at driveways, noting cyclists will be within the forward field of view of parked and exiting vehicles.

Traffic counts show tidal cyclist movements, with strong eastbound flows in the AM peak and westbound in the PM peak, creating natural gaps that support safe overtaking. Where feasible, driveway access widths will be increased, and cyclist storage and queuing areas near driveways, including at the Balmain Road intersection, will be assessed, with driveway interfaces further refined during detailed design to ensure safe resident access.

Parking Impacts - Loss, Angle Parking, Oversized Vehicles, Resident Parking Pressure and Overflow into Side Streets

· Requests for resident parking schemes.

· Long‑term parking of oversized trailers and boats.

· Potential congestion from angle parking turnover.

· Safe access for loading, deliveries and servicing.

The proposal results in a net gain of 47 on‑street parking spaces on Lilyfield Road. While acknowledging concerns about potential spill‑over parking, requests for a Resident Parking Scheme may be considered separately if multiple requests from different properties are made to Council in writing.

Following implementation, Council will monitor parking demand and behaviour, including special‑event impacts, with enforcement of oversized or long‑term vehicle parking managed in accordance with the Public Space Unattended Property Act.

No changes are proposed to existing loading or delivery arrangements.

Traffic Flow Impacts (including slip lane removal, congestion, buses)

· Concern that the removal of the Mary Street left‑turn slip lane may increase traffic congestion.

Council seeks to maintain efficient traffic movement while improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposal includes a dedicated left‑turn lane to improve intersection efficiency while enhancing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, who would otherwise require an additional crossing point.

Traffic modelling will be undertaken during detailed design to confirm acceptable impacts. Any changes to traffic signals would require separate approval by Transport for NSW, as the relevant authority.

Detailed consultation outcomes are detailed in the Engagement Outcome Report (Attachment  2).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Estimated project cost, funding source and delivery timeframes are tabled below.

Project component

Estimated cost

Funding source

Lilyfield Road cycleway

West of Ryan Street, Lilyfield

Raised crossing east of Gordon Street and west of Victoria Road, Rozelle

Detailed design for the remaining sections of the cycleway is estimated at $150,000 and planned to be undertaken during 2026/27.

Construction is estimated between $4M and $6M and is planned to commence early 2027/28 subject to grant funding.

Transport for NSW funding for detailed design has been approved.

Council will seek funding from Transport for NSW Get Active Program for construction.

Denison Street roundabout, median islands and angle parking arrangement in Lilyfield Road, Rozelle

Construction is estimated at $400,000.

Funding provided by NSW Government for works associated with the Rozelle Parklands.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Lilyfield Road Proposed Cycleway and Angle Parking Plan
2.⇩	Lilyfield Road Cycleway Engagement Outcomes Report

Local Transport Forum Meeting

20 April 2026

Item No: LTF0426(1) Item 5

Subject: McGill Street at Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham – Proposed Kerb Extensions – Design Plan 10374A (Damum-Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: Jennifer Adams - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Sunny Jo - Acting Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the detailed design plan (No.10374A) for the proposed kerb extension works in McGill Street at Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham as attached, be approved.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is proposing to improve safety for pedestrians in McGill Street at Old Canterbury Road, Lewisham by constructing a landscaped kerb extensions (and narrowing the road pavement) at the intersection. The works aim to improve pedestrian safety by narrowing the width of road to be crossed, better defining pedestrian crossing points and reducing conflicts with traffic movements by slowing traffic as they enter the street.

BACKGROUND

The location was identified within Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility (PAMP) study requiring pedestrian safety improvements by reducing the crossing distance across McGill Street through the provision of kerb extensions and kerb ramps to better align and define the crossing point and improving sight lines for both motorists and pedestrians

This report details the design plan for the improvement works and its related consultation results. It is noted that the original community consultation plan has been amended by adding two (2) additional on-street parking spaces so there are now three (3) legal on-street parking spaces (instead of only one on-street parking space as per the original proposal). The intersection entry into McGill Street was also widened to allow vehicles to enter and leave the street in a safe manner.

Other Staff Comments

The following works were proposed and are illustrated on the attached Consultation Plan (Plan No. 10374). The proposed works aim to improve pedestrian safety by narrowing the width of road to be crossed, better defining pedestrian crossing points and reducing conflicts with traffic movements by slowing traffic as they enter the street.

Specifically, the proposed scope of works includes the following:

· Construct one landscaped and one non-landscaped kerb extension either side of McGill Street (at its intersection with Old Canterbury Road);

· Provide suitable low level native landscaping within the new kerb extension as determined by Council to enhance the area (final species to be finalised);

· Construct new concrete kerb ramps and footpaths within the kerb extensions to allow pedestrian access;

· Reconstruct sections of concrete footpaths, kerb and gutter;

· Resurface the road pavement with new asphalt (subject to final funding allocations);

· Adjust the existing “No Stopping” signage and zone on Old Canterbury Road;

· Adjust existing street signage to their new locations to accommodate the new works as required; and

· Install associated pavement edge line marking (to define parking spaces) and new Give Way line markings.

The community consultation plan was amended by adding two (2) additional on-street parking spaces so there are now three (3) legal on-street parking spaces (not one) and the intersection entry was widened for safer and smoother traffic interaction. It now also provides a new concrete path adjacent to the new parking spaces for access to and from these new parking spaces.

Both original Design Plan 10374 and revised Design Plan 10374A are shown in Figure 1 and 2 below respectively.

Figure 1: Design Plan 10374

Figure 2: Design Plan 10374A

The proposal will require an adjustment to the existing on-street parking arrangements in Old Canterbury Road. It is proposed to remove parking in Old Canterbury Road east of McGill Street to accommodate the new works, which will result in the loss of one (1) existing legal on-street parking space in Old Canterbury Road in front of No.118. Refer to the attached Plan for details.

The existing lighting is deemed adequate and therefore there will be no changes to the existing street lighting due to the proposed works.

Public Consultation

Consultation was conducted between 18 February 2026 and 6 March 2026. A letter along with a copy of the design plan was sent to residents / businesses in the immediate locality. A total of 341 letters were distributed. There were six (6) responses.

There were six responses. The main concerns raised were related to loss of on-street car parking spaces; concerns regarding width of entry into McGill Street and access and lack of pedestrian safety improvements. These issues will be dealt with separately.

. Resident’s Comments

Officer’s response

Loss of on-street parking spaces

…plan and drawings suggest the removal of 1 parking bay when there are never fewer than 4 cars parked in this area along Old Canterbury Road. Legal or not, council is actually removing 3 regularly used spots, not just 1, and should be communicating that that is the case. The plans’ suggest that only 1 spot out of 2 is being removed is incorrect, it’s 3 spots out of 4………asking council to consider making 3 spots out of 6, out the front of 120 Old Canterbury Road, untimed, to offset the loss in parking…..The 6 spots…. all timed 30 mins on weekdays and Saturday morning…. timing seems strange considering the childcare business needing no longer than a 15min drop off,….

This section of road currently contains four car spots, meaning that three would be lost under this plan. There have been several changes to parking in this area in recent months:- removal of parking on the south side of Old Canterbury Road between McGill and Edward Street to accommodate the Greenway - changes to parking restrictions on the north side of the same stretch of road from 2hrs to 30mins, effectively making this parking unusable for residents - the addition of parking restrictions on Summer Hill st/Old Canterbury Road - the extension of the clearway opposite Hudson Street to accommodate the new right turn.

Considering the number of parking spaces already recently lost in this area and the high number of apartment buildings on McGill and Hudson Streets, the loss of even more parking spots will have a detrimental effect to residents and visitors.

Loss (of on-street parking) must be assessed cumulatively with the removal of multiple on street parking spaces along both sides of Old Canterbury Road following the installation of the concrete median at the McGill Street intersection in November 2025, together with the existing signalised intersection at Old Canterbury Road and Edward Street approximately 100 metres away. Council has not identified any mitigation measures, replacement parking, or management strategy to address the permanent and cumulative reduction in on street parking supply in this locality. …impact is further intensified by the approved eight storey mixed residential and commercial development at 18 McGill Street by build to rent developer Alt Living…..whom typically provide limited on site parking, often no more than one space per dwelling. Any additional vehicles will inevitably rely on on-street parking, increasing demand on an already constrained supply. This represents a materially worse outcome than existed prior to November 2025, when the local residential population was lower.

… concerned by the steady reduction of parking spaces ……against the changes. The loss of parking alongside Old Canterbury Rd due to the construction of the Greenway has made an already scarce parking situation even more difficult……

After consideration of all submissions received the original plan was subsequently amended by adding two additional on-street parking spaces so that there are now 3 legal on-street parking spaces (instead of only 1 on-street space as per the original proposal).

It is noted that in accordance with the Road Rules, a ‘No Stopping’ zone is mandatory for a distance of 10 metres from an intersecting road. Pursuant to TfNSW’s Technical Directions, it is stated that signposting at an unsignalised intersection (without pedestrian crossing) “should only be required where there is a compliance problem or there is adjoining signposting”. Thus, legally there were only two (2) legal on-street parking spots in front of the Luxe building at 118 Old Canterbury Road now there will be three (3).

Requests for changes to existing parking restrictions is out of the scope of this report.

The recent traffic changes on Old Canterbury Road were part of the Green Way missing links project aiming to help create a safe and continuous shared path for the community.

Noting that old Canterbury Road is a State Road under the jurisdiction of Transport for NSW (TfNSW). TfNSW called for the changes to be incorporated into the design of the new signalised crossing (traffic lights) to address safety issues regarding the future right turns from Old Canterbury Road into Edward Street.

Council identified the need for a signalised intersection with a right-hand turning lane for vehicles to turn into Edward Street as part of the development at the corner of Edward Street and Snith Street.

TfNSW advised that a right turn lane/bay would be only possible if the merge taper from two lanes into a single lane (then into a through lane and right turn lane/bay) occurred prior to the rail overbridge. This would help reduce the high risk of rear end collisions as well as better manage queuing traffic along Old Canterbury Road. Alternate options for the intersection were proposed by Council with the aim of reducing the impact to the community. These options were deemed to be unworkable by TfNSW.

Council is unable to amend the approved design and recognises that this may impact locals in surrounding streets.

Council will monitor traffic flow at the intersection and surrounding streets and report any findings back to TfNSW.

Concerns regarding width of entry into McGIll Street and access

…as a resident of McGill Street and parent of two children who attend the Learn & Laugh Childcare Centre…I formally object to the proposed kerb extensions at the intersection of McGill Street and Old Canterbury Road (Plan No. 10374). The…. plan is most likely to have a detrimental impact on the daily traffic flows through that intersection and also risks making that intersection less safe for residents and for people using services such as the childcare centre or gym on either side of the McGill Street entrance…....McGill Street effectively operates as a single-lane two-way street for much of its length. Vehicles travelling in opposite directions regularly meet head-to-head and must manoeuvre carefully to pass one another…. The wide road mouth at the Old Canterbury Road intersection is a critical feature that allows this to function as it provides the space cars need to pull aside and make room for vehicles exiting McGill Street. Reducing this width through kerb extensions would eliminate this buffer and worsen an already constrained situation…. also make the left hand turn into McGill Street sharper and tighter, requiring drivers to carry more speed through the turn. Combined with the presence of the bridge immediately behind, which obstructs clear lines of sight to faster-moving traffic on Old Canterbury Road, this creates a materially increased risk of collision, especially as cars may now have to halt on Old Canterbury Road to make way for cars exiting McGill St.

The reduced road width presents a challenge for sanitation vehicles, which stop at that intersection. This completely blocks traffic flow, particularly for vehicles entering and exiting the area. While an alternative exit via Hudson Street exists, it does not alleviate congestion for vehicles attempting to access Toothill Street from the McGill Street exit. The constricted roadways already contribute to traffic congestion, making navigation difficult for vehicles entering McGill Street. Further narrowing the streets is likely to exacerbate this issue

The location was identified within the PAMP study requiring pedestrian safety improvements by reducing the crossing width across McGill Street through the provision of kerb extensions and kerb ramps to better align and define the crossing point and improving sight lines for both motorists and pedestrians

After consideration of all submissions received the original plan was subsequently amended by widening the intersection entry into McGill Street to better allow for vehicles entering and leaving the street and also now provides a new concrete path adjacent to the new parking spaces for access to and from these new parking spaces.

Lack of Pedestrian Safety Improvement

The proposal fails to deliver any improvement to pedestrian safety at the McGill Street crossing. The crossing location remains unchanged and the proposed works do not introduce any traffic calming measures, visibility improvements, or design interventions that would enhance pedestrian safety

The proposed works aim to improve safety by reducing the length of road needed to be crossed by pedestrians, properly aligns the pedestrian crossing point and improves overall sight distance available for motorists and pedestrians. These objectives are achieved through the proposal.

Conclusion

Having considered the consultation responses, it is recommended that the detailed design plan for the proposed pedestrian safety improvement works and associated signs and line markings be supported to improve pedestrian and road safety at this location.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project is listed on Council’s Capital Works Program 2026/27 for construction and estimated cost is $80,000.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

McGill Street, Lewisham 10374-A-Amended Detailed Design Plan

Local Transport Forum Meeting

20 April 2026

Item No: LTF0426(1) Item 6

Subject: Norton Street and Lapish Avenue, Ashfield - Proposed at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing. (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electrorate/Burwood PAC)

Prepared By: Boris Muha - Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Sunny Jo - Acting Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the attached concept plan for an at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing with kerb extension in Norton Street at Lapish Avenue, Ashfield, be supported in-principle and listed in Council’s Traffic Facilities Program subject to detailed design and community consultation.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is proposing to improve safety for pedestrians by introducing an at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing with associated kerb extension in Norton Street at Lapish Avenue, Ashfield. The proposal aims to improve pedestrian and motorist safety by better defining safe pedestrian crossing points, improving sight distances, reducing traffic speeds and conflicts with traffic movements at this location.

BACKGROUND

The proposed crossing results from various community requests either direct or via representations to facilitate and improve pedestrian safety and access in Norton Street between Carlisle Street and Milton Street.

Major traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements are currently being implemented throughout Norton Street between Holden Street and Carlisle Crescent with funding made available under the NSW Road Safety Program.

DISCUSSION

The following information is provided in discussion.

Figure 1. Locality Plan

Street Name	Norton Street
Carriageway width (m) kerb to kerb	Aproximately 6.5m
Carraigeway type	One-way west
Classification	Regional Road
Speed Limit km/h	50km/h, and proposed to be reduced to 40km/h under InnerWest@40 Program
85^th percentile speed km/h	46km/h
Vehicles per day (vpd)	Approx. 5,000-6,000
TfNSW available reported crash history (last 5 years)	NIL in the vicinity of the intresection in last 5 years. In vicinty of intersection in Norton Street prior to 2015, 1x 2013 RUM 1- pedestrian emerging behind parked car outside 177A- 60m west of Lapish Avenue, west of – minor/other injury. 1x 2010 RUM 87, west of King Street, off left/left bend into object – non-casualty (towaway).
Parking arrngements	Unrestricted parking to the northern side. No stopping to the southern side
Side intersecting street	Lapish Avenue

Table 1. Road Network detail

The following works are proposed and are illustrated on the concept plan in Attachment 1.

· Construct a new at-grade (zebra) marked foot-crossing;

· Construct kerb blister island with ‘gutter bridge’ extended out 2.5m in width from the kerb and gutter line. Kerb extension can be integrated into footpath if drainage permits. Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSI) and <LOOK> pavement marking is proposed on both sides of the new pedestrian crossing;

· Construct kerb access ramps or in line kerb ramps to either side of the crossing;

· Reconstruct portions of kerb and footpath and resurface the road as required under final design; and

· Install all required signage and line marking associated with the works under final design.

One (1) on-street parking space is envisaged to be removed in Norton Street to the corner of Lapish Avenue for required clearance and the safe sight view of pedestrians at the crossing under Transport for NSW (TfNSW) guidelines. The kerb extension is widened out to 2.5m to minimise the loss of on-street parking.

Street lighting is to be provided at the location as required under Australian Standards for marked-foot crossings.

Observation on site reveal that adults predominately cross at this location, with 22-30 pedestrians as factored in per hour (i.e. each child and elderly equating as 2) in the AM (7.30am-8.30am) and PM (2.30pm-3.30pm) peaks of the day.

Traffic volumes account and can vary around 260-580 vehicles per hour in the AM and PM periods of the day. The location qualifies in warrant under Council’s pedestrian crossing policy. The policy requires that 2 periods of one hour of the day requires 20 or more pedestrians (as factored in) to be equal or be greater than 20 per hour and that volumes are equal or greater than 200 vehicles per hour.

Pedestrians are generally observed to cross on the eastern side of the intersection in connectivity and desire path movement on the eastern side of Lapish Avenue to and from Liverpool Road, and to the north and south sides of Norton Street.

Reason to provide an at-grade over that of a raised crossing

Council normally proposes raised crossings, if they can be supported with kerb build outs with drainage allowed to flow to the back of kerb, or that the road is wide enough to extend raised crossing platforms kerb to kerb without interfering with drainage, or the danger of vehicle wheels running into the open gutter if ‘gutter bridging’ is incorporated.

Norton Street is a regional road approx. 6.5m wide kerb to kerb allowing parking to the northern side of the road and one-way traffic movement westbound along the southern side of the road.

A pit to the western side of crossing, if raised, and a major drainage line (in cooperating the re-building of kerb and gutter and the restoration of footpath and road pavement) would need to be included on the southern side of Norton Street. The line would need to extend approximately 130m east towards Carlise Street to connect into a Sydney Water main. This can be expensive and time delayed needing Sydney Water approval. The cost for this added measure with raising of the crossing would be estimated to be around $280,000- $320,000, as compared to an at-grade crossing under this proposal to estimate around $82,000.

It is considered in this case that the crossing be built at-grade allowing drainage to naturally flow along the southern side. Consideration can be made to retrofit and raise the crossing, with drainage and kerb and gutter reconstruction to any future Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) traffic calming or road re-construction program for Norton Street between Carlisle Street and Milton Street.

Norton Street is proposed to have its speed limit reduced from 50km/h to 40km/h under the InnerWest@40 Area 10 works. Edge line marking to the northern side of the road from Carlisle Street to Milton Street (State Road) as shown in diagram Attachment 2 was approved by the Local Transport Forum at its meeting on 16 February 2026.

Consultation

No consultation is provided in this report for the concept of the crossing, as the work is not allocated of funding and programmed for construction in the short term. The project will be listed under the Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works program for final design and consultation once work is funded and programmed to be carried out.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project is listed in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works program to be carried out in as and when funding can be allocated and work can be programed. The work for the proposed at-grade crossing with kerb extension (to one side) and associated restoration of kerb and gutter, footpath and road pavement with inclusion of flood lighting around the crossing is estimated to be $82,000.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Concept plan of at-grade crossing in Norton Street at Lapish Avenue, Ashfield.
2.⇩	Linemarking and signage in Norton Street, between Milton Street and Carlisle Street, Ashfield.

Local Transport Forum Meeting

20 April 2026

Item No: LTF0426(1) Item 7

Subject: Australia Street, Newtown - Proposed Parklet to support food businesses in Australia Street

Prepared By: Daniel Li - Student/Graduate Traffic Engineer

Authorised By: Sunny Jo - Acting Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

RECOMMENDATION

That the proposed temporary parklets at Australia Street south of Weeks Lane, Newtown be approved.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

2: Liveable, connected neighbourhoods and transport

3: Creative communities and a strong economy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In November 2025 Council resolved to investigate opportunities for additional parklets in Australia Street Newtown. Council completed a feasibility review of possible locations in December 2025 and completed targeted consultation with key stakeholders in January 2026.

In March 2026 Council resolved to proceed with the installation of two accessible parklets in Australia Street, Newtown by June 2026.

The targeted stakeholder engagement relating to the proposed parklet locations included direct engagement with local businesses and residents, NSW Police and NSW Fire and Rescue. Engagement found strong support from nearby businesses, citing improved pedestrian movement by shifting outdoor dining from narrow footpaths and benefits to local trade and community cohesion. Residents and some businesses generally supported parklets provided they are located only in front of cafes or restaurants, remain accessible and include greening. Key concerns raised related to on-street parking impacts and an objection from NSW Police regarding potential impacts to emergency and operational access.

Council is now progressing with the installation of two accessible parklets in Australia Street by June 2026, subject to design and the endorsement of the Local Transport Forum. The parklets are proposed to be located in front of existing cafes or restaurants within existing parking bays fronting 206–208 and 243–245 Australia Street.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting held on 17 March 2026, Council resolved the following in part:

8. That Council receive a report to the April 2026 Meeting on installation of parklets in Australia Street with the intent to have all trial parklets installed by June 2026.

At the Council meeting held on 18 November 2025, Council resolved the following in part:

1. That Council investigates opportunities for a trial installation of additional parklets on the southern end of Australia Street and engages with businesses and residents on timing and locations, including through door knocking and letterboxing.

Parklets are a temporary structure providing opportunity for outdoor dining, gathering and public seating, greenery for local businesses by reallocating on-street parking areas. This initiative helped many businesses during the Covid pandemic and has generated much needed interest and local spend across the Inner West precincts and villages. This has a positive effect for the entire economy, not just hospitality businesses, as people are enticed back to their local precincts to enjoy in a safe and accommodating manner. Parklets adopted by councils in Sydney have utilised a rigid structure (either concrete or similar) with opportunities for street furniture and landscaping.

DISCUSSION

Following on from the resolutions of the November 2025 Council meeting, Council officers undertook investigations on the feasibility of installing additional parklets on the southern end of Australia Street, Newtown. In accordance with the recommendations of Council these investigations included tailored engagement with local businesses, residents and other identified stakeholders including the NSW Police and Fire Service. Council’s Traffic, Health, Building and Compliance teams were also engaged.

Figure 1 highlights the two optional areas identified for additional parklets in Australia Street. It is noted that one local business already successfully operates a parklet immediately adjacent to 277 Australia Street.

Figure 1: Potential Locations for Additional Parklets in Australia Street Newtown

The proposal depicted in Figure 1 requires the replacement of four (4) ‘2P 8am – 10pm Permit Holders Excepted Area M1’ spaces with temporary parklets to accommodate outdoor dining, gathering and landscaping elements.

Tailored Community Engagement

Councils Public Domain Team undertook tailored engagement involving the following works:

1. Doorknocking local businesses on 14 January 2026 and seeking individual feedback on a proposal for additional parklets. (Seven businesses were in support of the proposed parklets)

2. Correspondence and letter box notification with local businesses, emergency services and residents within a 400m radius of the proposed parklet locations. (Six responses received, five in support and one objection from NSW Police)

The outcomes of the tailored community engagement, along with key community feedback is outlined in the following table.

Community Feedback	Officer’s Response
Pedestrians can move more freely without dining tables on the footpath and that the proposed works would be supported as they would support local business trade and community cohesion.	Noted.
Two businesses raised concerns about illegal parking in the area and lack of loading zones in Australia Street which they feel has exacerbated this issue	Council is currently not proposing the provision of any loading zones within Australia Street noting the loss of on-street parking. Further consultation would be required if Council were to investigate dedicated loading zones.
The respondent raised concerns in relation to the loss of parking in front of their property and noted that their business would have limited benefits from the provision of a parklets Requested the parklets to be limited only in front of restaurants/cafes.	Council is able to adjust the length of the parklet where necessary. Generally, these parklets are installed at locations with high pedestrian foot traffic and within commercial areas with restaurants.
There would be an increase in congestion, noise and food waste if the parklets were introduced.	Council acknowledges that the issues identified could be exacerbated with parklets being installed. However, it is unlikely to be a significant increase in noise, waste and congestion from existing conditions.
The comments below were made by NSW Police: · Australia Street is routinely accessed by commercial delivery vehicles. These vehicles frequently stop or double-park, resulting in partial road obstructions. Any further reduction in on-street parking is expected to compound these issues. · Emergency vehicles, particularly fire trucks require sufficient road width to manoeuvre safely.	According to the NSW Road Rules, vehicles are prohibited from double-parking or obstructing driveways and can be enforced. Council officers have accounted for fire trucks requiring additional road width and have reduced the size of the parklets.

Next Steps

The proposed parklets will be to be confined to the car spaces which front 206-208 Australia Street and 243-245 Australia Street respectively. These locations are located and limited to the frontage of existing restaurants and cafes. Given that the local businesses at these two locations will be directly benefiting from the provision of the parklets it is also recommended that outdoor dining licenses be applied for by the local businesses prior to any Parklet use. As part of the design process the parklets will be made fully accessible, however any outdoor dining furniture would be provided for by local businesses.

In response to the feedback from NSW Police, Council will ensure that, as part of the design process, that any future parklet provision is not wider than the current parking bay and will not intrude into any operational NSW Police parking areas. The parklets will have a concrete jersey kerb installed to delineate and make safe the parklet. The parklet will be constructed with a timber base and accessible ramps to ensure all design requirements are met.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council have resolved to install additional Parklets in Australia Street, Newtown by June 2026. Following the March 2026 Council Meeting, $60,000 has been set aside for the delivery of the parklets.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Marrickville Road at Sydney Street, Marrickville – Weekday Count
Count Type	AM Count (8am–9am)	PM Count (4pm–5pm)	Pedestrian Crossing Warrant	Warrant Met
Pedestrians	55	31	≥20	Yes
Vehicles	1204	991	≥200	Yes

1.⇩	McRae Street and Livingstone Road, Marrickville - Detailed Design Plan
2.⇩	McRae Street and Livingstone Road, Marrickville - Swept Path Assessment