Concord West Parking Precinct – Council Resolution of 21/3/6

The Resolution as moved was somewhat different from the Recommendation:

1.THAT a Working Group be established to develop a detailed policy on Residential Parking Scheme for the City based on the following principles:
a)Fairness
b)Equity
c)Simplicity of administration
d)Consistency across the City
e)Cost neutral as a minimum
f)Non-transferability
g)To achieve an effective sustainable solution for our residents.

2. THAT the members of the Working Group be the Mayor Councillor
Tsirekas, Councillors McCaffrey, Rooney, O’Hara and Kenzler.

3. THAT a detailed design be prepared for the Traffic Committee regarding treatment of the intersection of Hospital Road and Fremont Street.

4. THAT the feasibility of parking meters or park and display be examined in Hospital Road from Nullawarra Avenue to the cul-de-sac and a further report be brought back to Council on this proposal.

5. THAT line marking be carried out by Council at each property’s driveway in the streets of Concord West that were included in the parking survey.
6. THAT the ’silent cop’ at Loch Maree Parade and Killoola Street be removed.

As can be seen, Council is proceeding with a number of the proposed solutions and hopefully this will address soon some of the problems.

The issue that has caused the most vexation and which will be addressed by the Working Group has been parking permits and the number of permits that can be issued. Officers have investigated the matter and reported back, as is shown in the Agenda. It seems clear to me that the maximum any household can get is three Permits, less the number of onsite parking spaces they have. If this is accepted to be the case, then a Resident Parking Scheme, while useful in some respects, is somewhat less attractive than might have been earlier thought.

A point was made by one speaker that some side driveways are too narrow for their cars to traverse. If correct, then there is somewhat less actual onsite parking spaces in the area than indicated in the report, and therefore correspondingly more Permits allowed. In the report the RTA spokesman Mr Chui calculated that 188 Permits could be issued. If 200, or 250 or even 300 Permits were ultimately issued, bearing in mind that the total number of household in the area is 363, this is still an average of less than one permit per household. Many households would have none.

In a previous report it had been mentioned that different solutions for different streets and areas could be achieved, for example if residents of Loch Maree Parade (or another street) do not want a RPS, they should not have one. I would expect that ultimately this outcome is possible.

Canada Bay Council Rejects Radical Pro-Developer Legislation

Media Release 22/3/6

Canada Bay Council at its meeting of 21 March 2006 passed a motion opposing the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006, which concentrates development controls in the hands of the Minister for Planning.

This Bill was rushed through the Lower House on 9 March 2006 following a media release from the Minister’s office dated 23 February 2006. The Bill is now before the Upper House.

Council’s motion calls on the Opposition and the non-government members of the Upper House to to refer the Bill to committee at the very least.

Cr Rooney, who moved the motion, says the Bill disenfranchises the community of control over developments. “The Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, and the State Member for Drummoyne, Ms D’Amore, who spoke enthusiastically in favour of the Bill in Parliament, are out of touch,” said Mr Rooney.

“This Bill is pro-developer, pure and simple. It gives them what they want. There is no call in the community for this kind of legislation, which gives the Minister arbitrary power to strip Councils and communities of development controls. This Bill will effect Councils across NSW for years to come. Under this legislation communities will find to their cost and dismay that they have lost control over the development consent process.” he said.

Text of Council Resolution 21 March 2006:

THAT Council:

Noting that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006 gives the Minister the power to direct a council to make, amend or repeal a Section 94 contributions plan or a development control plan without any clear criteria for such a decision and potentially without any requirement for public exhibition, enables the Minister to remove Council planning powers without providing any reasons for doing so or any consultation, allows the Minister at his discretion and without appeal to strip Councils of Planning powers in part or in whole, and appoint an Administrator or Panel to control developments, further centralising planning power in one person and reducing transparency and accountability thereby disenfranchising communities and their elected local government representatives:

1. opposes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006;

2. calls on the State Government to enter into dialogue with local government on the proposals;

3. believes that at the very least the Bill should be referred to a Legislative Council Parliamentary Committee for detailed scrutiny and public consultation, or as a last resort amended to ensure transparency and accountability; and

4. express its concerns in writing immediately to the Local Government Association of NSW, calling on the Association to also oppose the Bill; and also write expressing concerns to the State Member, the Minister for Planning, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, and the non-Government Members of the Legislative Council.

Planning Powers – Councils and State Government

Planning and development is one of the major issues of concern for residents in our City area and no doubt throughout the State.

The State Government has made and is making some major changes to Planning legislation which will effect us for years to come. The effect of these changes overall is to disenfranchise and disempower communities and Councils and concentrate planning powers in the hands of the Minister for Planning.

My concern is that this will inevitably result in developer-friendly decisions at the expense of communities and their rights to determine the shape of development in their local area.

Canada Bay Council Rejects Radical Pro-Developer Legislation – Media Release 22/3/6 A Council Resolution expressed opposition to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006, which concentrates development controls in the hands of the Minister for Planning (currently Mr Frank Sartor).

Concord West – Hospital Precinct Parking

My summary and commentary on the issue up to the date of the 21/3/06 Council meeting is here. This includes a discussion of the staff report included in the Agenda covering the vexed issues of the eligibility of Residents for a Resident Parking Permit Scheme under RTA guidelines and the amount of discretion which Council actually has.

Council Resolution of 21/3/6 – and some comments of mine on this.

Agenda Item 21/3/6 – Concord West – Hospital Precinct Parking

Council has produced a detailed report on the traffic and parking issue which is included in the agenda for tonight’s meeting and can be found on Council’s website here (pdf 530kb).

I believe there are a few areas where there is agreement and we can proceed:

1. Line marking of driveways. This will provide an indication of where to park which of itself should reduce overparking of driveways.

2. Enforcement. Council Rangers do patrol the area and issue fines for parking breaches and this should continue or be expanded. In the event of illegal or obstructive parking residents may call the customer services centre on 9911 6555, the request can be logged and sent to Council enforcement staff.

3. Merville and Fremont Sts. These streets are considered too narrow for parking on both sides of the street and thus the current restrictions will continue.

4. Hospital Rd and Fremont St intersection. A plan will be prepared to improve safety and visibility by designing traffic islands at the approaches to this intersection.

5. Hospital Rd restricted parking. Where restricted parking already exists on Hospital Rd, a study will be conducted on the feasibility of parking meters.

The chief area of disagreement is the question of a Restricted Parking/ Resident Parking Permit Scheme (RPPS) for the area. Some residents and an action group have been campaigning for this to be introduced. It has been suggested that ‘up to 3′ permits per household be issued and that Council has discretion in the matter.

In response to the resident requests and campaigning on the issue the Recommendation at tonight’s meeting is to proceed with Resident Parking Permits by referring the matter to the Traffic Committee and requesting the RTA approve the permits.

However, I would like to foreshadow my concern that, based on the detailed information in the report, the RTA may not in the end approve exactly what the residents are requesting. Assuming the information in the report is correct, the RTA will be making its determination based on the same or similar information and analysis.

According to the report, it is correct that a maximum of three permits per household may be issued but there is limited council discretion on the matter, as well as practical and physical limitations on the total number of parking spaces. (In addition, Council policy under RTA guidelines allow one visitor permit per household where there is no on-site parking.)

As the report makes clear, RTA guidelines on the following point are mandatory and may not be altered by Council: A maximum of three Resident Parking Permits per household less the number of off-street parking permits may be issued.

Mr Wayne Erickson representing the State Member for Drummoyne Angela D’Amore has stated that “the RTA guidelines are simply that, and not mandatory, and I believe should therefore be waived to permit a scheme to operate which meets the needs of residents” (p.17). Of course, it is possible that the Minister or indeed Parliament may issue a direction or alter the legislation, but by my reading of the report the statement from Ms D’Amore’s office is incorrect and holds out a prospect for residents that cannot be delivered.

Over 90% of dwellings in the area have at least two spaces on site, while data from the Department of Transport showed an average of 1.6 vehicles per household.

By my reading of the report (p.14), about 60% of households (211 out of 363) would receive nil (zero) resident parking permits under the scheme, and Council may not exercise discretion in this. A further 30% would receive one only permit.

Less than 10% of households would receive 2 or more permits, and Council may not exercise discretion.

In Merville St by way of typical example, 23 out of 36 households would receive ZERO Parking Permits (essentially because of the existence of off-street parking); 12 households would receive 1 permit; and one household would receive two permits. NO ONE would be entitled to 3 permits.

I am sure that a number of residents would be satisfied with this outcome but Council must bear in mind whether the majority of residents would regard the situation as an improvement. Once the RTA via the Traffic Committee has defined the number of permits to be issued, Council must then make a final decision to proceed.