[Item on tonight's agenda 16/5/6]: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council is currently reviewing the Permit Parking Policy for the City of Canada Bay, aiming for the policy to apply from 1st July 2006.The review is a result of community consultation which included concerns raised by residents who reside within areas designated for Permit Parking and current holders of parking permits.
REPORT
For the purpose of reviewing Council's existing Permit Parking Policy which was approved by Council in October 2005, a working party was formed comprising of Councillors and Council staff. The proposed revised Permit Parking document aims to cover the whole Canada Bay City in areas where Permit Parking applies. At Councillor's Workshop on 9th May 2006, the following summarised changes to Council's existing Parking Policy were proposed:
That there is a maximum of (3) three permits per property/household.
Where there is stacked parking for the purpose of issuing permits only a maximum of two stacked cars are accepted per property.
All households located within a Resident Parking Area will be entitled to a visitor parking permit upon application.
The number of permits issued for each street will not exceed the available ‘on-street’ car parking spaces. The following assessment criteria will apply when the requests for parking permits exceed the on-street parking: No on – site parking One on –site parking Two or more on-site parking spaces
Canada Bay’s Permit Parking Policy will reflect the above criteria and will be in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority’s (RTA) latest Permit Parking Manual.
A visitors parking permit will not be replaced if lost within the same year. City of Canada Bay Council
Permits are not transferable. If Council considers that there is abuse, permits can be cancelled and that residence excluded from participating in the scheme for a period not exceeding 5 years. No fees will apply for the issuing of Residents Parking Permits. A fee will still apply for Business Permits.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Not determined at this stage.
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council's Permit Parking Policy be changed to reflect the following
amendments:
1. There is a maximum of (3) three permits per property.
2. Where there is stacked parking, for the purpose of issuing permits,
only a maximum of two stacked cars are accepted per property.
For example, if there are three stacked cars within a property, a
permit will be issued for the third car.
3. All households located within a Resident Parking Area will be
entitled to a Visitor Parking Permit upon application.
4. The number of permits issued for each street will not exceed the
available 'on-street' car parking spaces. The following assessment
criteria will apply when the requests for Parking Permits exceed
the on-street parking:
No on-site parking
One on-site parking
Two or more on-site parking spaces
5. Canada Bay's Permit Parking Policy will reflect the above criteria
and will be in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority's
latest Permit Parking Manual.
6. A Visitor's Parking Permit will not be replaced if lost within the
same year.
7. Permits are not transferable. If Council considers that there is
abuse, permits can be cancelled and that residence excluded from
participating in the scheme for a period not exceeding five (5)
years.
8. No fees will apply for the issuing of Residents Parking Permits. A
fee will still apply for Business Permits.
B. Further, that residents from the Drummoyne East Parking Scheme who have already paid for their permits be given a full refund.
2 responses so far ↓
Bernard // June 4, 2006 at 11:59 pm
[Comment 16/5]: The above policy looks likely to be adopted by Council tonight after extensive consultation with residents. In response to some queries from residents I offer the following remarks:
1.If the above motion is carried, a survey of residents will be carried out to see if they want it to apply to their street. I agree the last resident survey was less than ideal in terms of clarity. In principle I’ve no objection to residents reviewing the draft survey bearing in mind that it needs to be fair to all resident opinions and not a few.
I agree also that signs should be kept to a minimum in number, preferably on existing power poles etc. The Hospital Rd eyesore should not be repeated in the otherwise attractive streetscapes in the area. There is a question that signage may be inadequate as guides to motorists. In my view we should go for the minimum number of signs and cross that bridge when we come to it.
2. The process of discussion and consultation has been going on for nearly 2 years now. If we are able to make a decision tonight, I would hope it could then be implemented ASAP – exactly how soon that is is a practical and administrative question.
3. I think it’s pretty clear in tonight’s proposal that if a resident has 2 on site spaces and 2 cars, they dont get a permit. If they have three cars (and 2 spaces), they would get one permit. Basically, you only get a permit if you have a car but no onsite parking for it.
4. I think staff will handle the administrative aspects according to the standards and policies we have discussed. Hopefully this should be satisfactory in the vast majority of cases. If there is disagreement in some cases it could be looked at.
On some other issues raised I can offer the following comments:
Two parking spaces near the shop in Hospital rd – given that the lack of parking spaces is the root cause of the problem, I am reluctant to remove any unless it is assessed as illegal or a safety risk. I would take advice on that. There has been a call for a roundabout at Hospital/Fremont but taking into account the ambulance service, STA and RTA, a series of islands might be better. Again I would take advice.
Hospital parking signage – yes that needs to be clear. We also need to campaign with the State govt to achieve fully adequate parking on hospital grounds, ie a multi level carpark.
No Stopping signs on corners – in the interests of aesthetics I personally would not support this at this stage. When the lines marking the car parking spaces have been painted in, hopefully this should provide a clear enough indication of the point at which the parking is illegal.
Bike lane does need to be refreshed for residents and cyclists.
Traffic calming in some other streets eg, Boronia st, might need to be looked at.
One other point – there was some discussion as to whether the restrictions apply mon-fri or mon-sat. I would think it is only necessary that it apply Mon-Fri. It would be an unnecessary invonvenience to residents on Sat.
Bernard // June 5, 2006 at 12:00 am
[Additional comments 16/5]:
The definition of ’stacked’ parking may need to be clarified:
A resident is considered to have only 2 spaces (not 3 or more) only if the parking is ’stacked’, ie the cars are all parked one behind another in a long driveway. If you can ’stack’ two cars on your site, ie one in the garage and one in front of the garage, that counts as two spaces. A third car would be eligible for a permit. If there are three cars ’stacked’ in a long driveway, it only counts as two spaces, ie the third car is eligible for a permit, even though it can fit onsite on the driveway.
The Hospital rd/Fremont intersection needs attention. I strongly prefer Australian native/indigenous plants for any garden beds.
Comments on fees: the current Council policy has a fee for each Resident and Visitor Permit. These fees were not expected to cover administration costs. However, in response to Resident representations the Working Group has decided to abolish all fees, and this policy is expected to be confirmed tonight.
I think it is worth remarking that a Resident Parking Permit is a privilege and not a right. Streets are Council (public) property. If a resident wishes to buy things like cars, bikes, trucks, trailers, caravans, boats they ought ask themselves where they are to store them, and not assume they can be parked or stored on someone else’s property, eg a public street especially when such streets are already in high demand by the public.
A Resident permit scheme is reasonable and in fact a valuable privilege. To give an idea of how valuable it is, Council insists in all new developments that on site parking is built according to a set formula. In cases where this cannot be done due to site or access restrictions Council requires a payment of $30,000 per space that is not constructed.