PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST & TRAFFIC CALMING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ... · PDF filePEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST &...

PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST & TRAFFIC CALMING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, 24 APRIL 2012, AT 1.30PM

A G E N D A

1. Apologies 2. Disclosures of Interest 3. Matters arising from Council’s resolution on the Pedestrian, Cyclist & Traffic Calming Advisory Committee minutes of 27 March 2012

4. Agenda Items SECTION “A” - TOWN PLANNING MATTERS No Items in this Section. SECTION “B” - TRAFFIC MATTERS Item No. Particulars Page No

B1.

Marrickville Road, Marrickville (South Ward) Options for a pedestrian crossing near Frampton Avenue

3

B2. Safe walking routes to Ferncourt Public School, Marrickville Marrickville South LATM Scheme (South Ward)

17

B3. Cavendish Street, Stanmore (North Ward) Proposed street tree planting in parking reserve

29

B4. Renwick Street, Marrickville (South Ward) Temporary road closure for Sewerage works

33

B5. Bellevue Street, Tempe (South Ward) Proposed ‘No U-Turn’

39

SECTION “C” - PARKING MATTERS Item No. Particulars Page No

C1. C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5

Mobility Parking applications 32 Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill (Central Ward) 51 Charles Street, Marrickville (Central Ward) 17 Warburton Street, Marrickville (West Ward) 33 Holmwood Street, Newtown (North Ward) 67 Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill (West Ward)

42 47 52 57 62

C2. Holmwood Street, Newtown (North Ward) Request for a Resident Parking Scheme – Parking survey results

67

C3. Terminus Street, Petersham (North Ward)

Request for a Resident Parking Scheme – Resident survey results

72

C4. Llewellyn & Juliett Streets, Marrickville (South Ward) Request for a Resident Parking Scheme – Resident survey results

77

C5. Belmore Street, Enmore (North Ward) Proposed statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at Phillip Street

84

5. Late Items 6. General Business 7. Close of Meeting

Pedestrian, Cyclist & Traffic Calming Advisory Committee

24 April 2012

3

SECTION "B" - TRAFFIC MATTERS

Item No: B1

Subject: MARRICKVILLE ROAD, MARRICKVILLE (SOUTH WAR D)

OPTIONS FOR A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING NEAR FRAMPTON AVENUE

File Ref: S3210-04

Author: Ramy Selim – Engineer, Traffic Services

SYNOPSIS Concept design plans for options to provide a pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road, east of Frampton Avenue, Marrickville have been prepared and are presented in this report for the Committee to consider. It is recommended that Council endorse the proposed at-grade marked foot crossing (Option B) as the preferred option. Funding for the proposed pedestrian crossing would be considered as part of future Capital Works Program. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; 1. The concept design plans for options to provide a pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road,

east of Frampton Avenue, Marrickville be received and noted; and

2. Council endorse the proposed at-grade marked foot crossing (Option B – ATTACHMENT - Design Plan No. 5781) as the preferred option and consider allocating funding for the proposed pedestrian crossing in a future Capital Works Program.

BACKGROUND

A request was received from the proprietor of a business on Marrickville Road, Marrickville for the provision of a raised pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road, directly east of Frampton Avenue. The applicant advised that businesses on Marrickville Road are being affected by the lack of safe and easy pedestrian access between the Frampton Street car park and shops on the south side of Marrickville Road. The applicant stated that the existing fence running along the footpath on the south side of Marrickville Road restricts pedestrians from crossing the street and gaining easy and safe access to some of the shops (Refer to the attached locality map). Traffic and pedestrian counts were undertaken by Council on Marrickville Road at either side of Frampton Avenue, Marrickville in February 2011 and the results were considered by the Local Traffic Planning and Advisory Committee on 15 February 2011. The recommendations of the Committee were considered by Council at its meeting held on 8 March 2011, where it was


24 April 2012

4

resolved that “Council investigate a new pedestrian crossing in Marrickville Road near Frampton Avenue, Marrickville”. Concept design plans for options to provide a pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road, east of Frampton Avenue, Marrickville have been prepared and are presented in this report for the Committee to consider. It should be noted that currently there are no funding allocated to this project. The project will be listed in Council’s Traffic Facilities Capital Works priority program for future budget consideration. DISCUSSION

Marrickville Road is a Regional Road and the subject location is within the Marrickville Road shopping strip. At present, there is a central median island along Marrickville Road with gaps at intersecting local streets. The intersections of Marrickville Road with Victoria Road and Gladstone Street are controlled by traffic signals with pedestrian crossing facilities. The subject location of the requested pedestrian crossing at Frampton Avenue is approximately half way between these two sets of traffic signals and a pedestrian fence is installed along the footpath on the south side of Marrickville Road to protect people at the outdoor café and dining areas. Traffic volume and pedestrian counts Traffic and pedestrian counts were undertaken on Marrickville Road at either side of Frampton Avenue, Marrickville in February 2011. The counts were conducted between the times of 8.00am – 9.00am, 12.00pm – 1.00pm and 3.00pm – 4.00pm (Refer to the attached copy of the results of these counts). • In the morning period, there were 41 pedestrians and 1,244 vehicle movements. • In the midday period, there were 112 pedestrians and 850 vehicle movements. • In the afternoon peak period, there were 58 pedestrians and 1,131 vehicle movements. The RTA’s normal Warrant for the installation of a pedestrian crossing is for P (Pedestrians) to be ≥ 30 and V (Vehicles) to be ≥ 500 in any three separate one hour period on a typical day, with the product of the two figures to be equal to or greater than 60,000. The results of the counts indicated that the warrants for the installation of a pedestrian crossing have been met. Pedestrians The subject location has high pedestrian activity with pedestrians travelling between shops on both sides of the Marrickville Road. Three years ago, Council submitted a blackspot funding application to the RTA to address pedestrian accidents concern along Marrickville road and the suggested solution at the time was to place a pedestrian fence along the central median island to force pedestrians to cross the road using available crossing facilities at traffic signals. This application was not successful at that time.


24 April 2012

5

CONCEPT DESIGN OPTIONS • Option A – Raised pedestrian crossing (150mm high & flush with footpath)

Description: Raised marked crossing 150mm high - to accommodate gutter flow (75mm thick grate + 75mm high orifice for the runoff flow) and to be flush with the footpath in accordance with RMS Technical Direction: TDT 2001/04a – Use of Traffic Calming Devices as Pedestrian Crossings - Figure 4 (attached), , with 2.25m long ramps – grade 1:15. Existing street lighting will need to be upgraded in accordance with Australian Standards AS1158.4:2009 – Part 4: Lighting of Pedestrian Crossings. Comments from the RMS: The following comments were provided by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for this option: - This is on a bus route and the raised threshold should be total length of 9m (with 6m

platform), - The ramps should be 75mm in height, - Ramp grade 1:20, - The position of the W5-10 signs will obscure the R3-1A signs, and - Concerned with the removal of the existing fence at the crossing location with outdoor

dinning in close proximity. Constraints: - Non compliance with the RMS requirements for a maximum 75mm high raised traffic

device on bus routes. - Impact on existing drainage - overland/gutter flow will be obstructed if the proposed

raised platform has a maximum height of only 75mm. - Outdoor dinning area on footpath will need to be removed or relocated to provide

adequate space for pedestrians using the proposed crossing. Cost estimate: Approximately $55,000.

• Option B – At-grade marked foot crossing

Description: At-grade marked foot crossing (at existing road level) – saw cut and demolish 4m long section of existing central median island to accommodate a new pedestrian crossing. Provide new kerb ramps on both sides of the road.


24 April 2012

6

Existing street lighting will need to be upgraded in accordance with Australian Standards AS1158.4:2009 – Part 4: Lighting of Pedestrian Crossings. Constraints: - Outdoor dinning area on footpath will need to be removed or relocated to provide

adequate space for kerb ramps and pedestrians using the proposed crossing. Cost estimate: Approximately $35,000.

• Option C – Raised pedestrian crossing (75mm high with side ramps)

Description: Raised pedestrian crossing - saw cut and demolish 6m long section of existing central median island to accommodate a new raised pedestrian crossing, 6m wide flat top, 75mm high with four ramps, 1.5m long ramps – grade 1:20; Provide new kerb ramps on both sides of the road, flush with the side crossing ramps. Existing street lighting will need to be upgraded in accordance with Australian Standards AS1158.4:2009 – Part 4: Lighting of Pedestrian Crossings. Constraints: - The proposal does not comply with the RMS Technical Direction: TDT 2001/04a – Use of

Traffic Calming Devices as Pedestrian Crossings - Figure 4 (attached) which requires that the raised pedestrian crossing be flush with the footpath and gutter drainage to be provided.

- It should be noted that with this option that the wheel path for vehicles will be affected with one wheel being in contact with the top of the flat platform and the other wheel in contact with the inclined ramp. This type of arrangement is not safe for motorists.

- Outdoor dinning area on footpath will need to be removed or relocated to provide adequate space for kerb ramps and pedestrians using the proposed crossing.

Cost estimate: Approximately $50,000.


24 April 2012

7

• Option D – Raised pedestrian crossing (75mm high – flat top flush with kerb ramps)

Description: Raised pedestrian crossing - saw cut and demolish 6m long section of existing central median island to accommodate a new raised pedestrian crossing, 6m wide flat top, 75mm high, 1.5m long ramps – grade 1:20; Provide new kerb ramps on both sides of the road, flush with the raised crossing flat top. Extension of a DN450 pipe from the trunk drain in Victoria Road 100m up and 10m across Marrickville Road to the upstream side of the proposed crossing and installation of two kerb inlet pits and two junction pits to accommodate a runoff flow (Refer to attached sketch showing proposed drainage works for this option). Existing street lighting will need to be upgraded in accordance with Australian Standards AS1158.4:2009 – Part 4: Lighting of Pedestrian Crossings. Constraints: - Outdoor dinning area on footpath will need to be removed or relocated to provide

adequate space for kerb ramps and pedestrians using the proposed crossing. - Works to relocate drainage are very expensive in comparison to the type of facility

provided. Cost estimate: Approximately $50,000 (traffic facility) + $200,000 to $250,000 for the

associated drainage works.

Public Consultation Consultation on the preferred concept design plan will be undertaken with all businesses and residents on both sides of Marrickville Road, between Victoria Road and Garners Avenue, once funding has been allocated. CONCLUSION

In reviewing the investigated options it is considered that an at-grade marked foot crossing (Option B) is the preferred option. This option has far less constraints in comparison with the other options presented and complies with the RMS Technical Directions. The option to provide a raised pedestrian crossing, that would be suitable for the existing bus route and satisfy the requirements of the RMS Technical Directions, will impact the gutter flow. The resulting connection to the nearest pit has very high construction costs in comparison with the type of facility to be provided. Therefore, such a proposal is not considered feasible.


24 April 2012

8

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; 1. The concept design plans for options to provide a pedestrian crossing on Marrickville Road,

east of Frampton Avenue, Marrickville be received and noted; and

2. Council endorse the proposed at-grade marked foot crossing (Option B – ATTACHMENT - Design Plan No. 5781) as the preferred option and consider allocating funding for the proposed pedestrian crossing in a future Capital Works Program.

Locality map – Marrickville Road, Marrickville

MARRICKVILLE

LANE

CENTRAL

FRAM

PTO

N

LAN

E

VIC

TOR

IA

LAN

E

GLADSTONE LANE

VIC

TOR

IA

R

OAD

LANE

LAN

E

SEYMOUR LANE

GAR

NER

S

LANE

FERNBANK STREET

MARRICKVILLE

FRAM

PTO

N A

VENU

E

33

35

31

29

264

262

260

5250

48

54

58

7068

6664

6260

5653

6967

74

72

6361

5957

55

65

4951A

5147

37

5149

47

4341

39

32

69

65

63

6159

57

48

42-4

6

113

109-111

11511

7

310

306308

312

314316318320

170

322

324

123

11912

116

8

17217

4

176

139

125-135

137

198-204

303

14114

314514

714915

1

214

208

15315

520

621021

2

5

9

3

7

220

21621

8

22222

4226228230

1715

131126

2422

2018

16

28

21

2927

2325

1934

31

4038

36

3230

3335

10

4-8

253

266

267

276

274

272

270

268

280

288

286

284

282

278

290

265

261

255257

259

263

302

292294

296298

300

304

279

269271

273275

277

293

281283

285287289

291

295

167

16116

316516

9171

15715

9

240

179

173-177

23223

423623

8

64-68

248-250

18718

9191

19920

1

185

193

244-246

242

51

203

2

25225

8260

5553

67

KEEP

[

w

�

w

w

w

w

w

ww

ww–

�

w

�w

��

�

�{[

w

w

w

w

[

w

w

ww

w

wïï

ïw

w

wwww

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

å}–

w

�π

w

y

wïï

–ïw

ww��

ww

w

ww

w

w

�

www

www

é

�

w

w

–

ww

www

ww

�é

�

�

��

ww–

ww

w

ww

é

ïw

w–

ïw

–

ww

w

ww

w

w

w

w

ww

w

ï

ïw

ww

ww

w

w

�w

ww

�ww �

ww{

w�

é

[

ww

w

w�

w

w

åå�

wé

w

�w

–

w

ww

w

ww

w

w

w

ww

[w

ww

w

�

www

w

w

w

w

w

w

�

w

w

w

ww

w

wwπ

w

[

w

–�–ww

�

ww

ww

ww�

w

w

w

éé

–

wï

�

{

ww

w

é

wïï

{

ww é

�ww

ww

w

w

–

–

–

–

–

w

w

ww

w

N

Suggested location for a pedestrian

crossing

Pedestrian, Cyclist and Traffic Calming Advisory Commmittee

24 April 2012

9


24 April 2012

10

Option ‘A’


24 April 2012

11


24 April 2012

12

Option ‘B’


24 April 2012

13

Option ‘C’


24 April 2012

14

Option ‘D’


24 April 2012

15

Drainage works for Option ‘D’


24 April 2012

16

RMS – Technical Direction TDT 2001/04a – Figure 4


24 April 2012

17

Item No: B2

Subject: SAFE WALKING ROUTES TO FERNCOURT PUBLIC SC HOOL, MARRICKVILLE - MARRICKVILLE SOUTH LATM SCHEME (SOUTH WARD)

File Ref: 2726

Author: Jenny Adams – Road Safety Officer

SYNOPSIS In response to Council’s resolution of 14 June 2011 Council has conducted further consultation with Ferncourt Public School. In relation to this a submission has been received from the Principal and P&C representative regarding proposals to improve the safety of walking routes to the school in Premier Street, Marrickville. This report details the results of investigations undertaken. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The proposal to install a pedestrian refuge at Excelsior Parade and Premier Street, as

adopted at Council meeting on 14 June 2011 as part of Marrickville South LATM Review, be noted;

2. The incidence of speeding traffic in Renwick Street and Richardsons Crescent, Marrickville, be referred to the NSW Police for enforcement action;

3. That the installation of speed cushions (1.8 m wide) on all the approaches to the

roundabout intersection of Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade, the provision of Edge-line marking along the length of Renwick Street (2.5 metres in from the kerb), and “SLOW” pavement markings be approved subject to detailed design;

4. The Principal of Ferncourt Public School and the P&C be advised in terms of this report;

and

5. Council incorporate these works into its priority program for Traffic Facilities Capital Works.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on the 14 June 2011, Council considered the Marrickville South LATM Scheme (South Ward) Review of the Existing Scheme – Survey Results report - and resolved that: “ in line with Council’s 15 December 2009 resolution on safe walking routes to school ('Council Infrastructure Investment for Healthy, Safe and Happy Children's Home/School Journeys'), Council conduct a further consultation with Ferncourt P&C/parents, children and parents and


24 April 2012

18

school community to identify measures to improve the quality and safety of walking routes for children and parents to and from school and that the needs of local residents around the school be taken into account.” and that “a report be made to Council via the Traffic Committee following this consultation.” In considering the Scheme recommendations Council also resolved to delete Item H being the installation of: h) “A pedestrian refuge in Richards Avenue at Premier Street to improve pedestrian safety be

endorsed and prioritised within Councils Traffic Facility Capital Works program.” It is noted that this recommendation was not adopted because of resident opposition to the loss of parking outside adjacent residents. It is also noted that the refuge would have alleviated corner cutting at this intersection and would have aided pedestrians crossing the road at this location. This report details the results of the further consultation with Ferncourt Public School community in relation to the question of identifying measures to improve the quality and safety of walking routes for children and parents to and from school. DISCUSSION

Council wrote to the Principal of Ferncourt Public School in August 2011 requesting input from the school community and the P&C in relation to Council’s resolution above and safe walking routes to the school.

In response Ferncourt Public School P&C made a submission, in September 2011, and nominated, as an immediate priority, three on-the-ground works to improve Safe Walking Routes;

1. “Construction of at least two safe crossing points on Cary and Renwick Streets; North−south pathways across the area are impeded by the fact that there are no safe crossing points on these streets. Renwick Street, as noted above, is of particular concern.

2. Eastern entry point - There is no safe crossing point for pedestrians entering from Tempe

who need to negotiate Carrington Road and Richardsons Avenue. Given the strong relationship between Ferncourt as a feeder school for Tempe High School, and the need to use the recently renovated facilities at Mackey Park, this is of particular concern.

3. Western entry point - The existing crossing point at Illawarra Road near Hill Street has

been identified as a concern by a number of parents. The heavily used sporting facilities at Steel Park and the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Centre increase pedestrian traffic here.”

The P&C requested that Council consider their proposals and provide a formal response as to the degree which Council would support these proposals, and the extent to which they can be developed further and ultimately implemented.

Council’s Road Safety Officer met with the Principal and P&C representative in November 2011 and undertook several site visits to Ferncourt Public School between September 2011 and February 2012 to monitor the pedestrian and traffic conditions surrounding the school.


24 April 2012

19

The following are comments and recommendations corresponding to the issues raised in the P&C’s submission(s):

1. Renwick Street, Marrickville

The school expressed concern in relation to adequate safe crossing points on Cary and Renwick Streets for students and others travelling from Renwick Street to Ferncourt Public School. Following discussions with school representatives the resulting proposal was for the enhancement of the current splitter islands at the roundabout of Renwick Street / Excelsior Parade by increasing their size and investigating further traffic calming for vehicles entering the roundabout with signage, narrowing the entrance etc. Also, the running of an anti-speeding campaign using an electronic radar speed advisory display, displaying the legal speed limit and/or warning drivers if they are speeding, followed up with police enforcement at a later date. Pedestrian safety It is considered that a reasonable pedestrian path for students and others going to and from Renwick Street to Ferncourt Public School in Premier Street, Marrickville, would travel along Excelsior Parade, crossing over Cary Street, then crossing over Premier Street. (Refer to Figure 1). It is noted that laneways run parallel either side of Excelsior Parade; however, due to their isolation the Principal has inferred that these are not preferred routes to Ferncourt Public School from Renwick Street. At present there are roundabouts at each of the intersections of Renwick Street / Excelsior Parade and Cary Street / Excelsior Parade, with splitter islands, with gaps for pedestrians, on the southeast and northwest sides which facilitates safe crossing at these locations. These splitter islands provide some protection for pedestrians. In addition there is a raised pedestrian crossing over Premier Street outside the school. A formal pedestrian crossing facility in the locality would have to meet Roads and Maritime Services’ (RMS - formally Roads and Traffic Authority – RTA) warrants. Two preliminary observational surveys have indicated that marked foot crossings on Cary and Renwick streets at Excelsior Parade at this stage would not meet RMS’ warrants. A count of pedestrians and vehicles on Excelsior Parade undertaken on 22 November 2011 during the school am and pm peak periods revealed:

- am peak – 29 pedestrians and 96 vehicles - pm peak – 37 pedestrians and 123 vehicles.

The RMS’s pedestrian crossing warrant as prescribed in the Guidelines for Traffic Facilities is 500 vehicles (V) and 30 pedestrians (P) per hour in each of three (3) one-hour periods on a typical day, and where the PxV is also greater than 60,000; and/or the RMS’s reduced pedestrian crossing warrant is 200 vehicles and 30 pedestrians per hour in each of two (2) one-hour periods on a typical day, and where the proposed crossing is to be used by a high proportion of children or elderly pedestrians. At its meeting on the 14 June 2011, Council considered the Marrickville South LATM Scheme (South Ward) Review and resolved to:

f) “Install a pedestrian refuge in Excelsior Parade at Premier Street to improve pedestrian safety;”


24 April 2012

20

This provides a link between the northern and southern footpaths in Excelsior Parade at Premier Street. This project currently awaits funding within the Traffic Facilities Capital Works Program. In addition, to further enhance pedestrian safety and promote safe road crossing practices in the vicinity of Ferncourt Public School, Council recently applied to Roads and Maritime Services and was successful in obtaining extra funding to install ‘LOOK’ stencilling around the school. (LOOK stencils are applied on the pavement to remind pedestrians of their responsibility to watch out for vehicles before crossing the road. These markings also help identify the direction of traffic flow.) This work has been completed. Speeding Renwick Street is a wide (12.8 metres) mainly residential street running east-west between Illawarra and Carrington Roads and forming an intersection with Excelsior Parade at its mid point (Refer to Figure 2). The street, which parallels Warren Road to the north and Cary Street to the south, has a downhill gradient to the east for almost its entire length. It is classed as a local road and the urban default speed limit of 50km/h prevails. Several traffic management devices have been installed in Renwick Street including a ‘seagull’ (left in /left out treatment) island at its intersection with Illawarra Road, a roundabout at its intersection with Excelsior Parade and a pedestrian refuge island at its junction with Carrington Road. Speed humps and/or mid-block thresholds are installed in both adjacent streets, namely Warren Road and Cary Street. These devices were installed as a result of an early LATM scheme for the South Marrickville Area (2002). At that time, residents were opposed to the provision of speed control devices in Renwick Street. Similarly, in the recent Marrickville South LATM Review (2010) speed humps were proposed for Renwick Street, near property numbers 13, 29, 53, 79 and 40m west of Carrington Road, however again resident opposition resulted in the proposal not proceeding. Traffic volume data for Renwick Street is as follows: Date of count AADT 85th Percentile speed between Carrington Road and Excelsior Parade May 2000 4671 58.1km/h between Carrington Road and Excelsior Parade Mar 2007 4131 61.6km/h between Illawarra Road and Excelsior Parade Aug 2005 3883 55.8km/h between Illawarra Road and Excelsior Parade Oct 2009 4192 54.7km/h (Note: The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85 percent of vehicles travel at or less than and is used as the design criteria for traffic facilities.) In the past Council has conducted public speed education programs that have targeted streets throughout the LGA with speed issues and/or a speed related crash history, including Renwick Street. In Mid December 2009 a radar speed advisory trailer was located in Renwick Street, between Illawarra Road and Excelsior Parade, Marrickville (Westbound).


24 April 2012

21

This road safety education campaign, Speeding Prevention Program, was repeated in Renwick Street, in both directions, during March 2012. The speed trailer display gives vehicle controllers' real-time feedback on their vehicle speed in relation to the designated speed limit. (Refer to Figure 3 which shows a photograph of the speed display trailer in Renwick Street). Police enforcement of the speed limit in the street after the speed advisory trailer has been displayed was requested as part of the program. Speed is a concern in Renwick Street and Council Officers will continue to address the incidences of speeding on Renwick Street through NSW Police enforcement and public speed education programs. Traffic calming Although, traffic volumes in Renwick Street have remained relatively stable, speed levels are still of some concern. A 50km/h default urban speed limit applies in the street, yet the measured 85 percentile speed is above 50km/h. A check of RMS’ latest reported crash records for the period 2006 to 2010 revealed a total of seven (7) crashes along the length of Renwick Street (excludes any intersection crashes at Illawarra Road and Carrington Road with Renwick Street). Of the seven crashes recorded along Renwick Street five (5) were out of control crashes (RUM Codes 70 – 80) indicating that speed is a causal element in crashes along this section of road. Six (6) of the crashes were tow-away crashes and there was one injury crash. One crash occurred at the roundabout intersection of Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade, the remainder were all midblock crashes. One injury, cross traffic, crash occurred at the Cary Street and Excelsior Parade roundabout intersection in the five year reported period. A recent accident, which is not yet recorded in RMS data, occurred at the roundabout intersection of Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade at 9.14am on Thursday 5 April 2012. NSW Police released some details of the crash however causal factors are not definitive and at this stage they have said that it is undetermined whether speed was a factor in the crash. A car travelling north along Excelsior Parade entered the roundabout and was hit by another car travelling east on Renwick Street. The car hit overturned and the driver was conveyed to hospital with minor injuries, the other driver was not injured. There are a number of solutions available in relation to the issue of speed along Renwick Street. One solution would be to reintroduce the proposal of installing speed humps in Renwick Street as per Council’s latest LATM review of South Marrickville or Council installs speed cushions (1.8 m wide) on all the approaches to the roundabout intersection of Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade and also install Edge-line marking along the length of Renwick Street (Refer to Figure 4). As an initial step the latter options are recommended. Marking the road with the road marking ‘SLOW’ on the carriageway approaching the speed cushions on all approaches to the roundabout at Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade is also suggested. Edge-line markings in Renwick Street would be 2.5 metres from the kerb. The proposed Edge-line marking will physically and visually ‘narrow’ the carriageway in aid of reducing the speed. It is anticipated that vehicles will be encouraged to slow down significantly on the approaches to the roundabout at Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade when speed cushions are in place. The proposed devices will not result in the loss of any on-street parking spaces on Renwick Street or Excelsior Parade. Vehicular access to all residential properties will be retained.


24 April 2012

22

The slowing of vehicles at this roundabout will enhance pedestrian safety in the vicinity making crossing the roundabout approaches easier and safer for pedestrians with the slower vehicle speeds. 2. Richardsons Crescent, Tempe

Concern was expressed that there is no safe crossing point for pedestrians approaching from Tempe (schools) who need to negotiate Richardsons Crescent to get to Mackey Park and/or Carrington Road (and onto Ferncourt Public School). The installation of a pedestrian crossing approximately halfway between the Richardsons Crescent roundabout and the intersection with Carrington Road has been requested. Pedestrian safety and traffic conditions At present there is no formal provision for pedestrians to cross at Richardsons Crescent roundabout itself. Footpaths are provided on both sides of each leg of the roundabout intersection. Pedestrian activity at the roundabout, in the AM and PM peak periods is minimal. Small numbers of pedestrians use the footpaths on each leg of the roundabout intersection, but generally do not cross at or near the roundabout. There is also no formal pedestrian facility over Richardsons Crescent, between Carrington Road and the Roundabout, adjacent to Mackey Park, for pedestrians approaching from Tempe (schools). However, an indirect moderately longer path does exist which provides safe pedestrian crossing points for the journey of pedestrians entering from Tempe wanting to go to Mackey Park. Pedestrians can walk from Unwins Bridge Road across the traffic signalised pedestrian facility and marked crossing at Unwins Bridge Road and Richardsons Crescent intersection, continue up the eastern side of Richardsons Crescent, past the roundabout down to the pedestrian facility at the traffic signals adjacent Tempe Railway Station and cross over and onto Mackey Park. This is a 350 metre diversion however all the pedestrian facilities are in place. (Refer to Figure 5). At present Council is unable to provide a marked pedestrian crossing over Richardsons Crescent adjacent to Mackey Park as this location does not meet the warrant required for a marked pedestrian crossing as specified be the RMS. The mandatory warrant for the provision of a new marked pedestrian crossing is 500 vehicles and 30 pedestrians per hour, measured over three one hour periods during the day. Whereas the vehicle numbers are high, the pedestrian content of the warrant would not be met. Survey results conducted on 13 December 2011 show the number of pedestrians and vehicles midblock on Richardsons Crescent to be:

Pedestrians Vehicles 08.30 – 09.30 18 827 12.00 – 13.00 11 486 15.30 – 16.30 14 743

Observations in the vicinity of the roundabout, especially in the morning peak period, show a significant degree of traffic congestion in the approaches leading up to Richardsons Crescent roundabout from all approaches. In the section of Richardsons Crescent east of Carrington Road


24 April 2012

23

extensive queuing of vehicles occurs and the present traffic conditions would be compounded with the presence of any mid-block pedestrian facility. A review of the accident history for Richardsons Crescent (between Carrington Road and the Roundabout) over the last five years of recorded RMS data (2006-2010) shows that there has been one tow-away crash in this locality. In 2008 the driver of a car travelling east along Richardsons Crescent lost control and run into another vehicle parked on the side of the road. In May 2011 traffic and speed counts were undertaken in Richardsons Crescent, between Carrington Road and the Roundabout, to ascertain the extent of any speed issues. The results showed an average traffic flow of 12,930 vehicles per day and an 85th percentile speed of 55.8km/h. As indicated speed is an issue at this location and has dropped from an 85th percentile speed of 59km/h in October 2009 to the recent 85th percentile speed of 55.8km/h (May 2011). Richardsons Crescent has also been targeted for public speed education programs and a speed radar advisory trailer was located in Richardsons Crescent, between Cooks River and Roundabout, in November 2009 for a one week period. The trailer was also located in Richardsons Crescent at Carrington Street intersection for one week in March 2011. The latter location was repeated in March 2012. It is also recommended that the incidence of speeding traffic in Richardsons Crescent, Tempe, be referred to the NSW Police for enforcement action.

3. Illawarra Road

Concern was raised about the safety of the pedestrian crossing at Illawarra Road near Hill Street and the adequacy and enhancement of pedestrian facilities servicing Steel Park and the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Centre. Pedestrian safety and facilities near Steel Park Several pedestrian facilities (existing and/or in Council’s current Traffic facilities budget) service Steel Park and the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Centre and it is considered that at this time they provide adequate pedestrian crossing facilities across Illawarra Road for surrounding areas. A Marked Foot Crossing is installed on Illawarra Road, between Cahill Place and Hill Street. In April 2000 Council resolved to upgrade the original crossing facility to one with kerb blisters. Zig-zag advance pavement warnings for the crossing were installed in 1993. As part of the refurbishment works in Steel Park in November 2010 Council resolved to upgrade the existing pedestrian refuge island on Illawarra Road, at its junction with Wharf Street. In addition to the upgrading of the existing pedestrian refuge island, new and adjusted line markings are to be installed, along with 'No Stopping' zones on both sides of Illawarra Road at its junction with Wharf Street. Pedestrian facilities in this locality were also subject to an application for BlackSpot funding last year. Council was successful in obtaining funding for an additional pedestrian refuge island on Illawarra Road north of Wallace Street. Kerb blisters are to be installed this year, along with associated signs and road markings, making this location safer for pedestrians.


24 April 2012

24

Essentially there will be three pedestrian crossing facilities within a 355 metre span along Illawarra Road, and these would be sufficient to serve pedestrians wishing to use Steel Park and the Debbie and Abbey Borgia Centre from surrounding areas (Refer to Figure 6). Council has requested the RMS to reduce the speed limit to 50km/h (from 60km/h) on Illawarra Road. Although the RMS supported Council’s application, to date the speed limit is yet to be reduced. 4. Other issues raised

Local ‘Default Speed Limit’ Issues of lack of signage in the vicinity of Ferncourt Public School were raised. It is noted that the local ‘Default Speed Limit’ of 50km/h in urban (built-up) areas is a statutory speed limit that applies in the absence of speed limit signage and does not require signposting. The RMS sets and maintains speed signage.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Ferncourt Public School community and P&C were asked to comment and identify measures to improve the quality and safety of walking routes for children and parents/carers to and from the school and that the needs of the local residents around the school be taken into account.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The estimated cost of works recommended in report is as follows:

a) Pedestrian refuge at Premier Street and Excelsior Parade - $10,000 b) Renwick Street speed cushions at roundabout, line marking and pavement symbols -

$25,000 Should Council wish to consider speed humps in Renwick Street in accordance with original LATM Review proposal – estimated cost $70,000. Council would need to fund these works in future budgets.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The proposal to install a pedestrian refuge at Excelsior Parade and Premier Street, as adopted

at Council meeting on 14 June 2011 as part of Marrickville South LATM Review, be noted;

2. The incidence of speeding traffic in Renwick Street and Richardsons Crescent, Marrickville, be referred to the NSW Police for enforcement action;

3. That the installation of speed cushions (1.8 m wide) on all the approaches to the roundabout

intersection of Renwick Street and Excelsior Parade, the provision of Edge-line marking along the length of Renwick Street (2.5 metres in from the kerb), and “SLOW” pavement markings be approved subject to detailed design;

4. The Principal of Ferncourt Public School and the P&C be advised in terms of this report; and


24 April 2012

25

5. Council incorporate these works into its priority program for Traffic Facilities Capital

Works.


24 April 2012

26

Figure 1 – Pedestrian path(s) from Renwick Street to Ferncourt Public School laneways Excelsior Parade Renwick Street

Existing wombat crossing over Premier Street in front of school Location of new pedestrian refuge to be built at Excelsior Parade and premier Street Figure 2 – Location map showing Renwick Street, Marrickville

Renwick Street Ferncourt Public School

w

w

%%w

ww

w

w

w

w

��

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

�w�

w�

ww

�

w w

w

w

�

w

www

w ww

�

wæ

�

ww

�

w

w

w

w

w

w

www

www

ww

ww

ww

�%

ïw

w

ww

w

w

w

w w

w

w

w

w

�

wï�

%�

��

ww

w

ww

�

ww

ww

w

ww

w

w

w

�ww

ww

wwï

��

ww

ww

ww

wwwww

�}

}

w

wwww

ww��w

w

w

w

}

}

}

w}

�

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

}��ww

ww

w

w

w

ww

w

ww

}

}

wïï

ï

ww

w

MA

IN

SU

BU

RB

AN

R

AIL

WA

Y

JUN

CTIO

N

STR

EET

CA

RRIN

GTO

N

RO

AD

HIG

H

S

TREE

T

SCHWEBEL STREET

RIC

HARDSO

N C

RESCENT

RUBY STREET

WARREN ROAD

FREDE LANE

EXC

ELSI

OR

PAR

ADE

IVAN

HO

E

S

TREE

T

RENWICK STREET

CAR

RIN

GTO

N

RO

AD

ESK

ST

REE

T

RENWICK STREET

WARREN ROAD

RENWICK STREET

PREMIER STREET

CARY STREET

PREMIER STREET

RIC

HAR

DS

A

VEN

UE

MAN

SIO

N

S

TRE

ET

PREMIER STREET

ILLAW

ARRA R

OAD

CARY STREET

HAM

PDE

N

AV

ENU

E

DAY STREET

ROSEBY STREET

11A

15

43

39

417

5

3

10

10B

19

17

6

25A

47

16

49

22

142

152

142

144

148

34

21

23

25

27

29

31

22

24A24

26

WAT

ER B

OAR

D

SCC

31

33

35

37

10

29

2

4

6

27

25

LAN

D

WAT

ER B

OA

RD

23

15B

21

19

50

52

17A

46

11

13

15

15

16

10

12

14

18

17

13

7

811

9

5

3

112

16A

13

2119

1715

11924

22

2018

16

6

8

10

12A

33 4

10A

11

36

32

30

SC

C

SCC

51-55

38

WATER BOARD

LAND(Pumping

101B

97A

97B

99A

99B

101A

103A

103B

106

110

WAT

ER B

OAR

D LA

ND

WAT

ER B

OAR

D LA

ND

86

85

87

89

82

88

90

91

81

83

7981

83

7274

76 78

80

62

77

69

71

7375

60

6466

6870

6769

73

75

77-79

71

74

56

22

24

65

67

5254

58

63A

68

57

5959A

61

65

34

26

28

30

32

36

37

39

41

43

35

33

38

40

64

45

62

2

66

53

55

26

132

139141

143145

147149

134

28-30

WAT

ER B

OARD LAND

1614A

47

43

41

39

37

35

4514

18

20

122120

124126

128

131133

135137

5250

4846

42

4038

25

23

127125

129

116118

100

69

7375

7779

102104

13

10

21

19A

19

17

15

32

3634

105

107

109111

113

92

94

98

112

117119

121123

108110

114

14

22

2018

16

12

65

59

61

9092A

92B

98

94

106

115

100102

104

23

29

27

2530

2826

24

5351

5557

8486

88

76

4547

49

7072

74

39A

41

686666B

99

8789

93

97

101103

88

85

1

3

91

76

4

2

1

3

5

2

90

8

6

4

57

911

13

10

12

66A8031

82

15

39

56

17

1958

6062

64

72

69

71

75

7779

74

78

7358

60

62

61

20

27

25

23

21

14

16

18

65

64

66

6870

63

67

76

8082

84

81

37

86

3335

5052

27

4648

3129

54

25A

4951

53

29

44

1921

23

25

38-4042

40

42

44

46

48

50

47

17

7

9

1315

18

68

1012

1416

24

459

10

5658

608

6

4

2

61A

66A

7

5

3

1

54

56

58

60

4

1

3

5

76

15

13

11

9

12

10

8

47

52

50

3941

4345

49

51

44

46

3333A

3537

20

12

14

16

18

49

5254

51

53

55

5759

3436

38

40

42

47

4345

39

4749

50

40

4244

4648

4738

3739

4143

45

4442

4648

37

3133

34

35

36

40

3638

28-30

2729

3133

35

36

32-34

26

2523

2729

2830

32

3133

35

20

1719

2123

25

2224

26

23A

34

2224

26

3032

25

2931

33

3739

41

36

3843

45

11A

911

1517

1921

26

30

3234

13

57

1618

2022

24

1A

30

2022

24

2628

32

2325

27

29

31

467424

422

420

418

469

465

416

2118

13

11

1719

426

436

434

432

430428

481

473475

477

471

4

14

10

86

2

483

485487489491

68

1012

1416

9

1

35

7

412

4101

1517

1921

1820

2224

27

29

48

25

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð Ð Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ

Ð Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ ÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

ÐÐ

Ð Ð

Ð

ÐÐ

Ð

Ð


24 April 2012

27

Figure 3 – Radar speed advisory display trailer in Renwick Street

Figure 4 – Proposed traffic calming treatment for Renwick Street

JUN

CTIO

N

STR

EET

CAR

RIN

GTO

N

R

OAD

CHA

RLO

TTE

A

VENU

E

HIG

H

ST

RE

ET

SCHWEBEL STREET

GROVE STREET

RUBY STREET

WARREN ROAD

FREDE LANE

EXC

ELS

IOR

PAR

ADE

IVA

NHO

E

ST

REET

RENWICK STREET

ESK

S

TREE

T

STIN

SON

LA

NE

RENWICK STREET

WARREN ROAD

RENWICK STREET

PREMIER STREET

CARY STREET

PREMIER STREET

RIC

HAR

DS

AV

ENUE

PREMIER STREET

ILLA

WARRA R

OAD

CARY STREET

HA

MPD

EN

A

VEN

UE

VIE

W

STR

EET

DAY STREET

ROSEBY STREET

Edge-line markings Speed cushions


24 April 2012

28

Figure 5 – Journey from Tempe to Mackey Park

From Ferncourt Public School From Tempe schools

UNWIN

S

BRID

GE

ROAD

LANE

STREET

LAN

E

UNIO

N

BRO

OKLYN STR

EET

UNION

IXION

LANE

FOREM

AN STREET

STANLEY STREET

STREET

ZUTTION

FARRO

W

STANLEY STREET

TRAMW

AY STREET

RICHARDSON CRESCENT

UNW

INS

BRIDGE

ROAD

EDW

IN S

TREET

EDWIN

STR

EET

EDGAR LANE

MA

IN

SU

BU

RB

AN

R

AIL

WA

Y

CO

LLINS STREET

EDG

AR STREET

UNWIN

S B

RIDGE

ROAD

WELLS

AVENUE

GR

IFF

ITH

S

STR

EE

T

MA

IN S

UB

UR

BA

N R

AIL

WA

Y

GAN

NON STREET

RIC

HARDSO

N C

RESCENT

RIC

HA

RD

SO

N C

RE

SC

EN

T

COOKS

CA

RRIN

GTO

N

RO

AD

ST

RE

ET

Mackey Park Figure 6 – Illawarra Road pedestrian facilities 355 metre length

w

ww

w

ww

w

�

ï

ww

ïw

ï

w

w

}}

w

ï

ï

ww

�

w

ï

ï�

w

w

ï

w

�

�}

�

�

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

ww

RIVER

LIVI

NG

STO

NE

RO

AD

WHARF STREET

ILLA

WA

RRA

RO

AD

ILLA

WA

RRA

RO

AD

WAL

LAC

E L

ANE

CA

HIL

L

WARNE PL

HAM

PDEN

AV

ENUE

HAM

PDEN

AVE

NUE

ILLAWARRA

R

OAD

THORNLEY STREET

DAY STREET

DAY STREET

ROSEBY STREET

WALLACE STREET

HILLTOP AVE

BEA

UCH

AMP

STR

EET

Pedestrian refuge Proposed pedestrian refuge Pedestrian crossing


24 April 2012

29

ITEM No: B3 LOCATION: CAVENDISH STREET, STANMORE (NORTH WARD) SUBJECT: PROPOSED STREET TREE PLANTING IN PARKING R ESERVE FILE REF: S0830-02 AUTHOR: James Lawton – Landscape Architect SYNOPSIS This report outlines a proposal to plant street trees in tree pits located within the road carriageway on either side of Cavendish Street between Liberty Street and Cambridge Street, Stanmore. The proposal aims to reinstate the tree lined character of this section of Cavendish Street following the removal of three large Ficus (Fig) trees from the footpath over the last three years.

The tree pits will act as traffic calming devices and will be watered by AG lines running under permeable pavers within the gutter. The proposed tree species is Flindersia australis (Australian Teak).

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the design of the proposed Street Tree Planting Works in Cavendish Street, Stanmore (ATTACHMENT – Draft Design Plan & Draft Tree Pit Details) be APPROVED.

BACKGROUND Design of tree pits within the Cavendish Street road carriageway were included in the 2011-2012 Street Tree Planting Design Program with an intention to finance the construction works within the 2012-2013 Street Tree Planting Capital Budget. The proposed layout and design details of the tree pits are attached. The project aims to reinstate the large canopy trees which were removed from the footpath due to the invasive nature of Ficus tree roots and the close proximity of the trees to adjacent properties. To prevent this issue from recurring a more suitable tree species are proposed to be planted within the road carriageway away from adjacent properties. PARKING IMPLICATIONS Because of the positioning of the tree pits in existing no stopping areas (where possible), losses to parking has been minimised to around three to four parking spaces. This figure may be subject to change following detailed design and a site survey of the existing parking spaces. Preliminary investigations indicate that this area of Cavendish Street is reasonably popular for both resident and visitor parking due to its close proximity to Enmore Road. Five residents have off street parking within this section of the street.


24 April 2012

30

LAYOUT & DESIGN Due to the relatively narrow width of road (i.e 9.4m kerb to kerb) within this section of Cavendish Street, and the width of the tree pits, a single lane of traffic is recommended. The recommended layout is to position the tree pits opposite each other and to reduce the carriageway to 4m at these points to allow for one – way traffic and to provide a buffer between vehicles and the tree pit kerb. This section of Cavendish Street is a low volume, low speed environment. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION A letter inviting residents to a consultation session and outlining the proposal was mailed to the 18 residents within the Liberty Street to Cambridge Street section of Cavendish Street. Consultation was restricted to these residents as they will be most affected by the proposed changes to on - street parking. The consultation session was held on the 8th of March 2011 and no comments were received on the day. One comment was sent in to Council within the consultation period outlining rubbish concerns within the proposed tree pits. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Preliminary cost estimates for the construction of the proposed works including concrete kerb tree pits, permeable paving and planting are within the proposed 2012-2013 Street Tree Planting Capital Works Budget of $60,000. The design and documentation of the works is being completed by Council staff. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the design of the proposed Street Tree Planting Works in Cavendish Street, Stanmore (ATTACHMENT – Draft Design Plan & Draft Tree Pit Details) be APPROVED.


24 April 2012

31


24 April 2012

32


24 April 2012

33

Item No: B4

Subject: RENWICK STREET, MARRICKVILLE (SOUTH WARD)

TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE FOR SEWERAGE WORKS

File Ref: S3970-02


SYNOPSIS An application has been received from Interflow Pty Ltd for the temporary full road closure of a section of Renwick Street between the end of the Woolworths car park and Excelsior Parade, Marrickville, in order to undertake necessary maintenance works on the waste water pipeline in the street, for a period of one week. It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closures be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: The proposed full road closure of Renwick Street (between the end of the Woolworths car park and Excelsior Parade), Marrickville be APPROVED for a period of one (1) week, to undertake necessary maintenance works on the waste water pipeline in the street, Subject to the following conditions;

1. A fee of $1,124.00 (incl. GST) for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant

in accordance with Council's Fees and Charges; 2. The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 7 days notice

for submissions in accordance with Council's Consultation Policy; 3. A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to

be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

4. A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime

Services’ Transport Management Centre;

5. Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

6. Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be

strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

7. All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the

proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;


24 April 2012

34

8. Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking

spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress; 9. Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of

pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

10. The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs

incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $10,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

11. The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and

produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

12. Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way

for extended periods when not in operation under this approval; 13. The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the

Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

14. All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and

15. The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway

areas will be borne by the applicant.

BACKGROUND

An application has been received from Interflow Pty Ltd for the temporary full road closure of a section of Renwick Street between the end of the Woolworths car park and Excelsior Parade, Marrickville, in order to undertake necessary maintenance works on the waste water pipeline in the street, for a period of one week operating 24 hours (Refer to the attached letter and Traffic Control Plan submitted by the applicant). The applicant has not provided exact proposed dates at this stage, due to some external factors. The applicant will need to advise Council of the proposed dates of the temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance and will notify residents.


24 April 2012

35

DISCUSSION

Renwick Street is a local residential street running west-east from Illawarra Rd and ends at the Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Rail lines. The subject section of Renwick Street, between Illawarra Road and Excelsior Parade, has a length of approximately 250 metres and a carriageway width of 12 metres. The applicant advised that the works are scheduled to take place for a period of one week, commence on Late May / early June 2012 (weather permitting). Vehicular access for residents will be maintained at all times during the closure. Certified traffic controllers are to be positioned at the closure points to ensure the safety of motorists and pedestrians. Access to Woolworths will be maintained at all times from the western end of the closure from Illawarra road. Whilst the closure is in operation, local residents will be detoured to Illawarra Rd via Cary Street and Warren Road. As these streets are within close proximity and run parallel to Renwick Street, this will minimise affects to traffic flow. PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The applicant is to notify all affected residents and businesses in writing at least 7 days prior to the commencement of works. The proposed road closure is to be advertised in the local newspaper by the applicant in accordance with Council's Consultation Policy. CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the proposed temporary road closures be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Under Council’s Fees & Charges, the applicant is to pay a fee of $1,124 (including GST) for the temporary full road closure. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: The proposed full road closure of Renwick Street (between the end of the Woolworths car park and Excelsior Parade), Marrickville be APPROVED for a period of one (1) week, to undertake necessary maintenance works on the waste water pipeline in the street, Subject to the following conditions;

1. A fee of $1,124.00 (incl. GST) for the temporary full road closure is payable by the applicant

in accordance with Council's Fees and Charges; 2. The temporary full road closure be advertised in the local newspaper providing 7 days notice

for submissions in accordance with Council's Consultation Policy;


24 April 2012

36

3. A Traffic Control Plan (TCP) which has been prepared by a certified Traffic Controller, is to be submitted to Council for review with a copy of the Traffic Controllers certification number attached to the plan, not less than 5 days prior to implementation of closure;

4. A Road Occupancy License be obtained by the applicant from the Roads and Maritime

Services’ Transport Management Centre;

5. Notice of the proposed closure be forwarded by the applicant to the NSW Police, the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Ambulance Services;

6. Notification signs advising of the proposed road closures and new traffic arrangements to be

strategically installed and maintained by the applicant at each end of the street at least 7 days prior to the closure;

7. All affected residents and businesses shall be notified in writing, by the applicant, of the

proposed temporary road closure at least 7 days in advance of the closure with the applicant making reasonable provision for residents;

8. Vehicular and pedestrian access for residents and businesses to their off-street car parking

spaces be maintained where possible whilst site works are in progress; 9. Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of

pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role, as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads;

10. The holder of this approval shall indemnify the Council against all claims, damages and costs

incurred by, or charges made against, the Council in respect to death or injury to any person or damage in any way arising out of this approval. In this regard, a public liability insurance policy for an amount not less than $10,000,000 for any one occurrence is to be obtained and is to note the Council as an interested party. The holder of this approval shall inform its insurer of the terms of this condition and submit a copy of the insurance policy to the Council prior to commencement of the work the subject of this approval;

11. The operator of any unit exercising this approval shall have this approval with them and

produce it if required along with any other relevant authority approvals granted in the connection with the work;

12. Mobile cranes, cherry packers or concrete boom pumps shall not stand within the public way

for extended periods when not in operation under this approval; 13. The operation of the mobile crane shall not give rise to an "offensive noise" as defined in the

Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997. Furthermore, vibrations and/or emission of gases that are created during its operations and which are a nuisance, or dangerous to public health are not permitted;

14. All work is to be carried out in accordance with Work Cover requirements; and


24 April 2012

37

15. The costs to repair damages, as a result of these works, to Council's footway and roadway areas will be borne by the applicant.


24 April 2012

38


24 April 2012

39

Item No: B5

Subject: BELLEVUE STREET, TEMPE (NORTH WARD)

PROPOSED ‘NO U-TURN’

File Ref: S0440-02


SYNOPSIS A submission has been received from the Salvation Army Store in Bellevue Street, Tempe raising safety concerns with heavy vehicles continuing to use their driveway to make U-turns and damaging ‘Keep Left’ signage on the median island and mounting the footpath on Bellevue Street. It is recommended that a “No U-Turn” sign be installed on the central median island on Bellevue Street, Tempe, located opposite to the Salvation Army Store and facing southbound traffic, in order to deter u-turns currently being undertaken by heavy vehicles and increase safety. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a “No U-Turn” (R2-5A) sign be installed on the central median island on Bellevue Street, Tempe, located opposite to the Salvation Army Store and facing southbound traffic, in order to deter u-turns currently being undertaken by heavy vehicles and increase safety.

BACKGROUND

A submission has been received from the Salvation Army Store located in Bellevue Street, Tempe raising safety concerns with heavy vehicles continuing to use their driveway to make U-turns and damaging ‘Keep Left’ signage on the median island and mounting the footpath on Bellevue Street. The applicant is concerned that this may cause an accident one day with trucks doing u turns and three-point turns, while mounting the footpath at times. DISCUSSION

Bellevue Street is a two-way local street running off Princes Highway in an industrial area. It has a carriage way of approximately 12.8 metres in width (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs). The provision of a ‘No U Turn’ on the central median island at this location would assist in deterring the u-turns currently being undertaken by heavy vehicles. Some minor modifications to widen the existing island will be required in order to accommodate the proposed signage.


24 April 2012

40

Council is also considering undertaking some works on the footpath outside the Salvation Army Store, which would further deter heavy vehicles from mounting the kerb and footpath. CONCLUSION It is recommended that a “No U-Turn” sign be installed on the central median island on Bellevue Street, Tempe, located opposite to the Salvation Army Store and facing southbound traffic, in order to deter u-turns currently being undertaken by heavy vehicles and increase safety. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a “No U-Turn” (R2-5A) sign be installed on the central median island on Bellevue Street, Tempe, located opposite to the Salvation Army Store and facing southbound traffic, in order to deter u-turns currently being undertaken by heavy vehicles and increase safety.

Locality map – Bellevue Street, Tempe

��

�

�

�}

�

�}

w��

w

ww

wï��ww

ï

w

ww

�

w

��

w

ww

w

��ww

w

��

�w

w

wBELL

EVUE STREET

BELLEVUE STREET SUBURBAN RAILWAY

PRINCES

HIGHWAY

1

4

2

34

600

2

7

5

618

543

4

2A

541539

537535

533

614

5

62

531

20

1816

1412

10

23

21

17

9 - 15

Proposed “No U Turn” sign

N


24 April 2012

41

Photographs – Bellevue Street, Tempe

Proposed ‘No U Turn’ sign on existing central median island on Bellevue Street at the driveway to the Salvos store


24 April 2012

42

SECTION "C" - PARKING MATTERS Item No: C1.1

Subject: FRAZER STREET, DULWICH HILL (CENTRAL WARD)

REQUEST FOR MOBILITY PARKING SPACE OUTSIDE PROPERT Y No. 32

File Ref: S1870-03

Author: Emilio Andari – Student Civil Engineer

SYNOPSIS A request has been received from a resident of Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill for the provision of a dedicated mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space not be approved as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a dedicated 'Mobility Parking' space NOT be approved outside 32 Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill, as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility.

BACKGROUND

A resident of 32 Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill has submitted an application for the provision of a 'Mobility Parking' space outside their residence. The applicant is elderly and his condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility. No further information was provided by the applicant. DISCUSSION

The applicant’s property is located on the southern side of Frazer Street, approximately 150 metres west of Wardell Road. The applicant’s property has vehicular access from the front on Frazer Street to a driveway that is approximately 2.6m in width, which leads to an undercover off-street parking space (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs). At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of Frazer Street. The nearest existing mobility parking space is located on the southern side of Frazer Street approximately 110 metres from the applicant’s property. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces on Frazer Street were moderately utilised. It was also observed that a vehicle was parked in the off-street parking space at the applicant’s property at the time of the inspection.


24 April 2012

43

TECHNICAL STANDARDS

Australian Standard AS2890.5-1993 “On-Street Parking” states the following in regards to the provision of parking for people with a disability: “Parallel parking spaces shall not be marked as disabled spaces, nor included in the count of spaces available for people with disabilities unless –

i. A 3.2m wide space can be provided, e.g. by indenting the space into the footpath area; and

ii. Kerb ramps as shown in Figure 4.2(a) are also provided”.

It should be noted that due to the limited width of streets around the Marrickville LGA, it is often difficult to comply with these requirements for the parking space dimensions. This may also result in the loss of some adjacent on-street parking spaces. Outside residences, Council only signposts on-street mobility parking spaces and does not line mark these spaces. Should the applicant require the provision of kerb ramps, this can be provided at their cost. Mobility parking spaces are primarily intended for on-street and off-street parking at destinations, such as in commercial/retail areas and public car parks near hospitals, schools and


24 April 2012

44

public transport facilities where multiple usage can be expected. They were generally not intended for points of origin such as reserving on-street parking. A mobility parking space is not intended for the sole use of one applicant, but rather a shared facility that can used by all authorised persons having an RMS mobility permit. CONCLUSION

It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space not be approved as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility.


There are no financial implications for Council. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a dedicated 'Mobility Parking' space NOT be approved outside 32 Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill, as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility.


24 April 2012

45

Locality Map – Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill

w

��

�

�

}

�}

�

�

ww

�

ï

ïwï

ww�

ïw}

w

�

w

w w

��

w�www

www

w

w

www

w

wwwïw

ï

ïw�

�

��

w

}

}��

w

w

�

��

ww�

�

w�

w

w

w

�

æ

w

w

w�

w

w

w

w

www

��

æ�

w

�

�

w

w

w

w

w

w

��

w

ï

ï

w w

ï

wïï

w

w

w

w

w

w w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

�

w

w w

w

w

ïw

FA

IRF

OW

L

S

TR

EE

T

NE

W

C

AN

TE

RB

UR

Y

RO

AD

MORTON AVENUE

FRAZER STREET

YULE STREET

J AR

VIE

WA

RD

ELL

RO

AD

GOULD

3

5

7

10

14

12

36

48

38

40

42

44

46

47

49

43

45

1921 17 15

84

88

86

90

6151 53 55 57 59

42 44 46

67

66

65

9

11

13

16

18

20

2224

26

21

63

28 15

17

19

30

32

52

7859 61

71

69

67

65

63

23

64

60

62

6870

72

74

76

66

51

54

50

52

56

53

55-57

59

58

5048 83

81

79

77

73

40

5349-51

4846

4755

5149

45

38

39 41

444236

43

5

13

119

7

3

1

38

45

3432A 36

47

4037

3230

35 39 41 43

28

35

24A 2624

29 31 33

3331

39

21 23

49

47

4543

41

37

19

54

222064

6260

17

18

9 11 13 15751

14 168

3

28A38

3028

47 4941 43 45

32 34 36

35 37

343230

33

25 27

2216 18 20 24 26 26A

3127

2422 26 28

25 29

2519 21 23 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

21

3537

19 23

5658

29

3331

27

252321

68

66

1917

15

17

14

15

13

1110 12

11 13

14 20

17

1816

13119 15

5

4A

1 1A 3 7 9

2 86

1210864

316

320

75

323

321

332

326A

330

31

326B

353

327

329

324

326

2 4 6

340

381

379A

342

346

383

2B 2A 4

385

325

319

357

355

363

359

361

334

336

379

375

2373

371

377

338

348

350

387

Applicant’s property

N


24 April 2012

46

Photographs – Frazer Street, Dulwich Hill

The frontage of the applicant's property in Frazer Street

On-street parking in Frazer Street at the applicant’s property


24 April 2012

47

Item No: C1.2

Subject: CHARLES STREET, MARRICKVILLE (CENTRAL WARD )


File Ref: S0970-02


SYNOPSIS A request has been received from a resident of Charles Street, Marrickville for the provision of a dedicated mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space be approved as the applicant's property does not have an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition necessitates the use of a wheel chair for mobility. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; Signposting for a 'Mobility Parking' space on the northern side of Charles Street, Marrickville, outside property No. 51 be APPROVED, subject to: a. The operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date

of installation;

b. The applicant advising Council of any changes in circumstances affecting the need for the special parking space; and

c. The applicant be requested to furnish a medical certificate and current mobility permit

justifying the need for the mobility parking space for its continuation after each 12 month period.

BACKGROUND

A resident of 51 Charles Street, Marrickville has submitted an application for the provision of a 'Mobility Parking' space outside their residence. The applicant’s condition does necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility. No further information was obtained from the applicant. DISCUSSION

The applicant’s property is located on the northern side of Charles Street, approximately 250 metres west of Illawarra Road and does not have an off-street parking facility (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs).


24 April 2012

48

At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of Charles Street. The nearest existing mobility parking space is located approximately 30 metres from the applicant’s property on the northern side of Charles Street. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces on Charles Street were moderately utilised. TECHNICAL STANDARDS


iii. A 3.2m wide space can be provided, e.g. by indenting the space into the footpath area; and

iv. Kerb ramps as shown in Figure 4.2(a) are also provided”.


24 April 2012

49

It should be noted that due to the limited width of streets around the Marrickville LGA, it is often difficult to comply with these requirements for the parking space dimensions. This may also result in the loss of some adjacent on-street parking spaces. Outside residences, Council only signposts on-street mobility parking spaces and does not line mark these spaces. Should the applicant require the provision of kerb ramps, this can be provided at their cost. Mobility parking spaces are primarily intended for on-street and off-street parking at destinations, such as in commercial/retail areas and public car parks near hospitals, schools and public transport facilities where multiple usage can be expected. They were generally not intended for points of origin such as reserving on-street parking. A mobility parking space is not intended for the sole use of one applicant, but rather a shared facility that can used by all authorised persons having an RMS mobility permit. CONCLUSION

It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space be approved as the applicant's property does not have an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition necessitates the use of a wheel chair for mobility. It should be noted that the proposed mobility parking space is not for the sole use of the applicant and may be used by other authorised persons.


The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended mobility parking space is approximately $700. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; Signposting for a 'Mobility Parking' space on the northern side of Charles Street, Marrickville, outside property No. 51 be APPROVED, subject to: a. The operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date

of installation;





24 April 2012

50

Locality Map – Charles Street, Marrickville

��

}

�

w

}

�w

�

�

��

wï

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w�

w

w

w

�

w

www

ww

ww

w

w

w

ww

��w

w

w

YOR

K

S

TREE

T

ME

EKS

LAN

E

SURREY STREET

AMY

STR

EET

CHARLES STREETHORTON STREET

SHEP

HE

RD

S

TRE

ET

CH

APEL LANE

ILLA

WAR

RA

RO

AD

WOODLAND STREET

NE

VILL

E

STR

EET

NORWOOD LANE

CE

NTE

NN

IAL

STR

EET

70

62

68

109

66

87

85

83

81

91

5

119

7

31

68

2

2321

1917

1513

4

6

14

810

12

6

1

3

57

911 10

2830

30A32

32A

36

39-43

34

3840

42

2

47

51

49

53-55

45

5759

44

46

48

52

54

9

13

5

7

4

1113

Sydney Water

2

128

134

132

130

126

124

122

18

16

6

8

10

12

14

20

22

15

140

138

136

54A

34

24

28

30

3653

55

57

63

67

65

71

69

4846

5052

5456

5860

6

3

1315

8

42

10

18

2527

2119

17

20

1614

22

24

21

17

19

2325

27

41

33

2931

3537

39

59

58A

56

4042

44

51

47

4532 43

49

79

62

73

75

77

7966

64

2

4

7

9

5

16

27

25

1210

6

14

18

24-26

27A

23

37

3533

3129

1

2628

20-22

24

22

20

18

19

17 8

30

24

20

32

18

26

1614

1210

3634

37

46

48

50

54

56

27

29

318

6

4

68

72

70

33

35

2340-42

44

19

21

25

2

25

28

26

29

27

21

23

66

58

62

64

17

15

31

61-65

111

231

241

239

237

235

233

229

227

7

5

3

30

28

32

43

5351

4745

4139

49

33A

20

18

16

35

31

29

37

13

33

34

40

1315

119

38

36

15A

63

6765

6159

5755

58

7

9

19

1756

3

69

1

21

5

119

75

3

13

17

15

50

4244

4648

5254

33


N


24 April 2012

51

Photographs – Charles Street, Marrickville

The frontage of the applicant's property in Charles Street

On-street parking in Charles Street at the applicant’s property


24 April 2012

52

Item No: C1.3

Subject: WARBURTON STREET, MARRICKVILLE (WEST WARD)


File Ref: S5040-02


SYNOPSIS A request has been received from a resident of Warburton Street, Marrickville for the provision of a dedicated mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space not be approved as the applicant's property has two off-street parking facilities that are currently used for the parking of other vehicles. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a dedicated 'Mobility Parking' space NOT be approved outside 17 Warburton Street, Marrickville, as the applicant's property has two off-street parking facilities that are currently used for the parking of other vehicles.

BACKGROUND

A resident of 17 Warburton Street, Marrickville has submitted an application for the provision of a 'Mobility Parking' space outside their residence. The applicant has indicated that his condition necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility. The applicant’s carer advised Council Officer that the two off-street parking facilities available at the applicant’s property are both currently utilised by the carer and the property owner. DISCUSSION

The applicant’s property is located on the northern side of Warburton Street, approximately 70 metres west of Illawarra Road and has two off-street car parking facilities. The internal width of the two garages is unknown, however, the applicant’s carer stated that the off-street parking facilities are both utilised for the parking of vehicles belonging to the carer and property owner (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs). At present, time-limit restricted parking is permitted on both sides of Warburton Street. There are no existing mobility parking spaces within the vicinity of the applicant’s property. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces on Warburton Street were highly utilised. It should be noted that the existing off-street parking facilities available on-site should be utilised by the applicant rather than dedicating a space on-street.


24 April 2012

53

TECHNICAL STANDARDS






24 April 2012

54


It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space not be approved as the applicant's property has two off-street parking facilities that are currently used for the parking of other vehicles.


There are no financial implications for Council. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a dedicated 'Mobility Parking' space NOT be approved outside 17 Warburton Street, Marrickville, as the applicant's property has two off-street parking facilities that are currently used for the parking of other vehicles.


24 April 2012

55

Locality Map – Warburton Street, Marrickville

ww

�

�

ww

ww�

�

w

wwww

w

w

w

�

��

w

w

}w

�

w

�ww�

wwww

w

ww

w

w

�

w

��

��

�

ww

ww�

w

�

æ

ïï

�

wwww

ww�

w

w

w

w

��

ww

w

ww

ïw

w

ww

w

ww�

w

�w

��

w

w

w

w

w�w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

wï

ï

ww ww

ïw

www

ww

ww

www

www

ww

w

SCHWEBEL STREET

LEOFRENE AVENUE

BLAMIRE LANE

STA

TIO

N S

TRE

ET

ILLAWARRA ROAD

GREENBANK STREET

WARBURTON STREETWARBURTON STREET

12

8

12

18

22

24

1

3

6

31

911

10

57

42

8

2-6

18

20-22

24

369

12

810

14

1

371

383

346-348

6

3

5

2

4

366

356

350352354

358360362364368370

374

372

1

395393

397

391

387

385

1389

7

5

3

1

2

407

382

380

376

399401

405409411413

1210 1

1715

1311

9

8

6

4

384

27

2018

16

14

29

23

21

19

2B

1517

11A11

97

534

2

2A

53

16

118

29

7

8

17

15

131210

64

2

37

22

39

3533

31

28

26

24 25

25A

6

19

2725

2321

108


N


24 April 2012

56

Photographs – Warburton Street, Marrickville

The frontage of the applicant's property in Warburton Street (two off-street parking spaces)

On-street parking in Warburton Street near the applicant’s property


24 April 2012

57

Item No: C1.4

Subject: HOLMWOOD STREET, NEWTOWN (NORTH WARD)


File Ref: S2470-02


SYNOPSIS A request has been received from a resident of Holmwood Street, Newtown for the provision of a dedicated mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space be approved as the applicant's property does not have an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition warrants the provision of the parking space. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; Signposting for a 'Mobility Parking' space on the northern side of Holmwood Street, Newtown, outside property No. 33, be APPROVED subject to: a. The operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date

of installation;




BACKGROUND

A resident of 33 Holmwood Street, Newtown has submitted an application for the provision of a 'Mobility Parking' space outside their residence. The applicant advised that her husband suffered a stroke and is currently in rehab with limited walking ability and a high risk of falls. His condition sometimes necessitates the use of a wheel chair for mobility. A letter has been submitted by MetroRehab Hospital on behalf of the applicant’s husband and it states that an occupational therapy home assessment was conducted on 27 March 2012 to assess the patient’s safety around the home environment. It indicated that he was unable to independently mobilise safely from the street level parking up the gutter to the footpath. It supported their application for a mobility parking space, as well as providing an access kerb ramp.


24 April 2012

58

DISCUSSION

The applicant’s property is located on the northern side of Holmwood Street, approximately 130 metres west of King Street, Newtown and does not have an off-street parking facility (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs). At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of the street (i.e. 90 degree angle parking on the north side and parallel to kerb parking on the south side). There are no existing mobility parking spaces within the vicinity of the applicant’s property. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces on Holmwood Street were highly utilised. TECHNICAL STANDARDS


v. A 3.2m wide space can be provided, e.g. by indenting the space into the footpath area; and

vi. Kerb ramps as shown in Figure 4.2(a) are also provided”.


24 April 2012

59

It should be noted that due to the limited width of streets around the Marrickville LGA, it is often difficult to comply with these requirements for the parking space dimensions. This may also result in the loss of some adjacent on-street parking spaces. Outside residences, Council only signposts on-street mobility parking spaces and does not line mark these spaces. Should the applicant require the provision of kerb ramps, this can be provided at their cost. Mobility parking spaces are primarily intended for on-street and off-street parking at destinations, such as in commercial/retail areas and public car parks near hospitals, schools and public transport facilities where multiple usage can be expected. They were generally not intended for points of origin such as reserving on-street parking. A mobility parking space is not intended for the sole use of one applicant, but rather a shared facility that can used by all authorised persons having an RMS mobility permit. CONCLUSION

It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space be approved as the applicant's property does not have an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition warrants the provision of the parking space. It should be noted that the proposed mobility parking space is not for the sole use of the applicant and may be used by other authorised persons. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended mobility parking space is approximately $700. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; Signposting for a 'Mobility Parking' space on the northern side of Holmwood Street, Newtown, outside property No. 33, be APPROVED subject to: a. The operation of the dedicated parking space be valid for twelve (12) months from the date

of installation;





24 April 2012

60

Locality Map – Holmwood Street, Newtown

�

www

ww��

ww

www

�wwww

w

w

w

w

w

wïw

ï

ïw

ww��

w

w

ww

��w

w�

ww

www

w

ww

w

w

w

w

}

w

w

ww

w

w

}

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

}

ww}

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

�

w

ww

w

ww

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

ww

ww

w

ï

w

w

ïï

}

w

ï

w

�

�ww

w

w

w

KIN

G

LAN

E

KING

DICKSON

STREETHOLMWOOD

LANE

WA

LEN

OR

E A

VE

NU

E

ALICE

LANE

HOLMWOOD

S

TREET

KIN

G LA

NE

CO

MM

OD

OR

E S

TRE

ET

LITTLE COMMODORE STREET

PE

AR

L STR

EE

T

PE

AR

L LAN

E

579

581

567

573571

569

575

559

561

563

565

1

48 6

9 7 5 3

555A

557

557A

1210

1614

2422

1315A

11

15

2018

262830323436

17192123252729

33

3150

4038

424446485254

35-39

553A

551A

551B

551C

551D

551E

553

555

549547

545543

541539

527

535A535

529A

525

521

523

531

533

529

537

24

68

10

5

6A

8A

13

7

11

16

9

1218

202224

2119

1715

2A

86 4

2528

2630

2927

23

1

357

9

10A

11

394341

3735

3331

18

1926

2422

20

1614

1210

28

29

21232527

30

3133353739

63

13A

36

4846

4442

4038

3432

4341

454749515347

5351

49

45

54

5860

56

5250

59

55576163

64

57

626466

62

66

59

55

687072747667

6563

61

1416

7169

28

3028A

26A26

2422A

21-31

18A18

20

22

12

43

57

69A

36

71-73

7579

6967

65

11

19

131517

79

10

1

5

3

4

1412

108

6

2

31

24

2A

12

8280

7876

74

1921

8583

81A


N


24 April 2012

61

Photographs – Holmwood Street, Newtown

The frontage of the applicant's property in Holmwood Street

On-street parking in Holmwood Street near the applicant’s property


24 April 2012

62

Item No: C1.5

Subject: CANONBURY GROVE, DULWICH HILL (WEST WARD)

REQUEST FOR MOBILITY PARKING SPACE OUTSIDE PROPERT Y No. 67A

File Ref: S0780-02


SYNOPSIS A request has been received from a resident of Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill for the provision of a dedicated mobility parking space outside their residence. It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space not be approved as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a dedicated 'Mobility Parking' space NOT be approved outside 67A Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility.

BACKGROUND

A resident of 67A Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill has submitted an application for the provision of a 'Mobility Parking' space outside their residence. The applicant had a knee replacement and has some difficulties walking, however, his condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility. No further information was provided by the applicant. During the investigations carried out by Council Officers, the applicant was not contactable. The frontage to the applicant’s property indicates an address of 67 Canonbury Grove and Council’s records do not show an address of 67A Canonbury Grove. DISCUSSION

The applicant’s property is located on the western side of Canonbury Grove, approximately 20 metres from Keith Street and has an off-street car parking facility, with a driveway that is approximately 2.7m in width (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs). At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of Canonbury Grove. The nearest existing mobility parking space is located approximately 260 metres from the applicant’s property on the eastern side of Canonbury Grove. It has been observed during a site inspection undertaken in the afternoon period that on-street parking spaces on Canonbury Grove were moderately utilised.


24 April 2012

63

TECHNICAL STANDARDS






24 April 2012

64


It is recommended that a 'Mobility Parking' space not be approved as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility.


There are no financial implications for Council. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT a dedicated 'Mobility Parking' space NOT be approved outside 67A Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill, as the applicant's property has an off-street parking facility and the applicant’s condition does not necessitate the use of a wheel chair for mobility.


24 April 2012

65

Locality Map – Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

æ

�

�

��

w

w

�ï

ï

ï

w

ww

w

w

w

ïwï

ï

��

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

��

}

w

w

w

ww

}

}

��

ww

�

ww

w

�

��

ww

w

w

ww

��

w

w

w ïww

wïï

�

www

��www

w

ww

ww

www

w

w

w w

ww

w

CHALLIS AVENUEWIL

GA LANE

DA

RLE

Y

S

TRE

ET

HA

RN

EY

ST

RE

ET

PINE STREET

WAR

DELL

BEACH ROAD

CHALLIS AVENUE

WAR

DELL

LAN

EKEITH STREET

BEDFORD CRESCENT

CANONBURY

GRO

VE

WAR

DELL

R

OAD

WILG

A AVENUE

KAYS AVENUE WEST

SYDNEY - BANKSTOWN RAILWAY

HE

RC

UL

ES

S

T RE

ET

JOCEL

YN A

VENU

E

BLACKWOOD LANE

MARGARET STREETM

ACARTH

UR

PA

RAD

E

BLAC

KWO

OD A

VENU

E

22

24

26

20

4

3

5

78

12

41

39

31

35-37

33

16

9

15

13

11

14

16

1

10

12

14

16

18

18-20

8

182

184

177

17980

76

78

82

193

195

191

1

29

23

25

27

31

26

28

30

32

3831

33

35

20

10

242 83

5

29

27

25

32

34

36

3

7

119

5

1

2

4

6

19

21

23

24

26

28

30

15

20

16

18

9

11

13

17

22

186

188

181

183

185

187

189

189A

190

42

619

17

8

1513

194-210

197

6

8

10

12

14

7

2940

2

7

218

216

4

3

5

48

211

209

207

205

203

2

214

212

20146

199

29A

3537-37A

34

3639

3

45

38 - 40

42

41

43

44

223

221

219

217

215

213

1

3

5

61

238

47

51

58

56

54

52

50

49

59

61

57

55

53

60

41

33

35

37

39

42

6669

67

65

63

70

68

64

62

12

108

52

43

45

44

46

48

50

56

53 54

58

60

62

47

49

51

53

1

22

20

18

24

14

119

7

13

6463

61

59

57

55

33

36

34

38

40

13

15

17

19

19

12

6

8

10

14

21

23

25

27

18

11

9

13

152

417

2

4

229

2271A 220

222224226

230

228

232

240

231A

241

239

236

234

243

237

235

233

231

245

3

1513

97

6

4

2

1

5

11

71

69

67

65

23

21

19

17

71

75-79

81

71

73

99

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

101

66

64

68

7 2- 7

4

70

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

90

88


N


24 April 2012

66

Photographs – Canonbury Grove, Dulwich Hill

The frontage of the applicant's property in Canonbury Grove

On-street parking in Canonbury Grove near the applicant’s property


24 April 2012

67

Item No: C2

Subject: HOLMWOOD STREET, NEWTOWN (NORTH WARD)

REQUEST FOR A RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME – PARKING SURVEY RESULTS

File Ref: S2470-02


SYNOPSIS A petition has been received from residents of Holmwood Street, Newtown for the provision of a Resident Parking Scheme in their street. Council Officers recently carried out an on-street parking utilisation survey in Holmwood Street. The results are presented in this report for the Committee to consider. Due to the high utilisation of on-street parking spaces, it is recommended that a Resident Parking survey be undertaken in Holmwood Street, Newtown and that the results of the survey be reported to the Committee for consideration. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The findings of the parking utilisation survey be received and noted;

2. A Resident Parking questionnaire survey be undertaken in Holmwood Street, Newtown, as

the results of the parking survey indicated that on-street parking utilisation was high and warrants the consideration of a Resident Parking Scheme;

The proposed scheme would have the following parking restrictions “2P 8.30am – 10.00pm Permit Holders Excepted – Area M14” on the north side of Holmwood Street (i.e. the existing angle parking spaces between Pearl Lane and King Lane); and

3. The results of the Resident Parking survey questionnaire be referred to the Pedestrian, cyclist and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee for consideration.

BACKGROUND

A petition signed by residents of 30 properties in Holmwood Street, Newtown has been received for the provision of a Resident Parking Scheme outside residential properties in their street. The head petitioner stated that on-street parking spaces in Holmwood Street are usually occupied by commuters utilising public transport, backpackers who live in shared accommodation and have multiple vehicles and customers of local businesses on King Street.


24 April 2012

68

The head petitioner further stated that this presents significant difficulties for residents who can’t park their vehicles near their homes and requested that resident parking restrictions be introduced in Holmwood Street, similar to those installed in adjacent streets. Council recently carried out an on-street parking utilisation survey in Holmwood Street in April 2012 and the results of the survey are presented in this report for the Committee to consider. It should also be noted that a similar request for a Resident Parking Scheme in Holmwood Street was previously considered by the Local Traffic Planning and Advisory Committee, at its meeting held on 19 April 2005. The recommendation of the Committee, subsequently adopted by Council, was that:-

1. the findings of the questionnaire survey be received and noted; and 2. as the level of support for resident parking did not meet Council's requirement of 65%

support rate, the resident parking scheme not be introduced in Holmwood Street, Newtown at this time.

DISCUSSION

Holmwood Street is a two-way local residential street, approximately 12.8 metres wide and extending between King Street and Pearl Lane. At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of the street (i.e. 90 degree angle parking on the north side and parallel to kerb parking on the south side). ‘2P 8.30am – 10.00pm Permit Holders Excepted – Area M14’ parking restrictions were installed on both sides of Dickson Street in October 2004 and on the eastern side of Walenore Avenue in July 2010 (Refer to the attached locality map). Parking Utilisation Survey: A parking utilisation survey was undertaken in Holmwood Street on Wednesday 11 April 2012 (between 9.00am and 7.00pm) to gauge on-street parking utilisation. The results of the survey are summarised in the following table:

On-street parking survey results (weekday)

Holmwood Street

(Section & side)

No. parking spaces

Parking Utilisation Rate 9.00 AM

10.00 AM

12.00 PM

3.00 PM

5.00 PM

6.00 PM

6.30 PM

7.00 PM

Average Utilisation

rate between

Pearl Lane & King St (north side)

(angle parking)

70 74% 70% 76% 84% 81% 96% 97% 100% 85%

between King St & Pearl Lane (south side)

33 73% 73% 91% 85% 85% 97% 94% 100% 87%

Total 74% 72% 84% 85% 83% 97% 96% 100%


24 April 2012

69

The results of the parking survey indicate that on-street parking spaces were generally highly utilised during the survey period. Council Policy/Guidelines Council's adopted Policy for the introduction of Permit Parking Schemes state "that before implementing a resident parking scheme in any area, a survey of residents be undertaken to ascertain the level of support for such a scheme and that such support should be in excess of 65% of submissions received provided that rate of return of submissions is reasonable (higher than 30%)". CONCLUSION

Due to the high utilisation of on-street parking spaces, it is recommended that a Resident Parking survey be undertaken in Holmwood Street, Newtown and that the results of the survey be reported to the Committee for consideration. The proposed scheme would have the following parking restrictions “2P 8.30am – 10.00pm Permit Holders Excepted – Area M14” on the north side of the street (i.e. the existing angle parking spaces between Pearl Lane and King Lane). It is suggested that the resident parking scheme in Holmwood Street, if approved, be introduced on the north side only, in order to manage competing parking demands in this area and balance both commercial and residential interests. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The findings of the parking utilisation survey be received and noted;

2. A Resident Parking questionnaire survey be undertaken in Holmwood Street, Newtown, as

the results of the parking survey indicated that on-street parking utilisation was high and warrants the consideration of a Resident Parking Scheme;

The proposed scheme would have the following parking restrictions “2P 8.30am – 10.00pm Permit Holders Excepted – Area M14” on the north side of Holmwood Street (i.e. the existing angle parking spaces between Pearl Lane and King Lane); and

3. The results of the Resident Parking survey questionnaire be referred to the Pedestrian, cyclist and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee for consideration.


24 April 2012

70

Locality map – Holmwood Street, Newtown

Existing ‘2P 8.30am – 10.00pm Permit Holders Excepted – Area M14’ restrictions on both sides of Dickson Street and on the eastern side of Walenore Avenue

N


24 April 2012

71

Locality map – Holmwood Street, Newtown

w

ww

w

w

w

ïw

ww��

w

w

ww

��w

w�

ww

www

w

ww

w

w

w

w

}

w

w

ww

w

w

}

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

}

ww}

w

w

w

w

w

w

�

w

ww

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

ww

w

w

KIN

G

LAN

E

DICKSON

STREETHOLMWOOD

LANE

WA

LEN

OR

E A

VE

NU

E

ALICE

LANE

HOLMWOOD

S

TREET

KIN

G LA

NE

LITTLE COMMODORE STREET

PE

AR

L LAN

E

557A

555A

557

3

4

1210

8 6

9 7 51

1614

22

1315A

1113A

15

2018

242628303234363840

33

1719212325272931

553A

551A

551B

551C

551D

551E

553

555

549547

545

24

68

10

5

8A

13

7

16

9

1218

202224

11

2119

1715

27

282630

3129

25

23

1

3579

10A

11

34

4644

4240

3836

32

41

45

43

3937

3533

50

5856

5452

48

62

57

60

6466

61 59

55

5351

4947

43

47

4145

35-39

72

62646668707476

22A

26A26

24

20

22

7169

6367

36

65

18A

Holmwood Street - 90 degree angle parking on the north side and parallel to kerb parking on the south side


24 April 2012

72

Item No: C3

Subject: TERMINUS STREET, PETERSHAM (NORTH WARD)

REQUEST FOR A RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME – PARKING SURVEY RESULTS

File Ref: S4730-02


SYNOPSIS Following a petition received from residents of Terminus Street, Petersham for the provision of a Resident Parking Scheme on the northern side of their street and a parking utilisation survey undertaken by Council Officers, a resident questionnaire survey was undertaken to obtain the opinion of residents. The results of the survey are presented in this report for the Committee to consider. As support from residents in the study area almost meets Council's criteria for a Resident Parking Scheme and due to the high utilisation of on-street parking spaces, it is recommended that the installation of Resident Parking restrictions on the north side of Terminus Street, between Palace Street and Crystal Street, Petersham, be approved outside residential properties only. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The findings of the resident questionnaire survey be received and noted; and

2. As support from residents in the study area almost meets Council's criteria and due to the

high utilisation of on-street parking spaces, the installation of a Resident Parking Scheme – Area M5 - be APPROVED, as follows:

"2P 8.30am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted – Area M5" parking restrictions be installed on the north side of Terminus Street, between Palace Street and Crystal Street, Petersham outside residential properties only.

BACKGROUND

A petition signed by residents of 11 properties in Terminus Street, Petersham was received for the provision of a Resident Parking Scheme outside residential properties on the northern side of their street. The head petitioner stated that on-street parking spaces in Terminus Street are usually occupied by commuters catching the trains from Petersham Railway Station. This presents difficulties for residents to park their vehicles near their homes on weekdays. Council carried out an on-street parking utilisation survey in August 2011 in Terminus Street and the results of the survey indicated high parking utilisation rates.


24 April 2012

73

DISCUSSION

Terminus Street is a two-way local street running east-west between Palace Street and Crystal Street and directly adjacent to Petersham Railway Station. At present, unrestricted parking is permitted on both sides of the street, with the exception of some sections of ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the southern side (Refer to the attached locality map). Parking Utilisation Survey: A parking utilisation survey was undertaken in Terminus Street on Tuesday 27 August 2011 (between 8.00am and 4.30pm) to gauge on-street parking utilisation. The results of the survey are summarised in the following table:

On-street parking survey results (weekday)

The results of the parking survey indicate that parking spaces were highly utilised throughout the survey period. Council Policy/Guidelines Council's adopted Policy for the introduction of Permit Parking Schemes state "that before implementing a resident parking scheme in any area, a survey of residents be undertaken to ascertain the level of support for such a scheme and that such support should be in excess of 65% of submissions received provided that rate of return of submissions is reasonable (higher than 30%)". CONSULTATION

A total of 36 questionnaire survey forms were distributed to all residential properties in Terminus Street in March 2012 (Refer to the attached questionnaire survey form). At the end of the survey period provided for comments, a total of eighteen (18) submissions were received from residents in the study area, representing a 50% response rate. Of these submissions, eleven (11) were in support of Resident Parking and seven (7) were opposing the

Terminus Street

(Section & side)

No. parking spaces


9.00 AM

2.00 PM

3.30 PM

4.30 PM

Average Utilisation rate

between Palace St & Railway St

(north side)

21 95% 100% 95% 86% 91% 93%

between Railway St &

Crystal St (north side)

18 94% 100% 100% 94% 83% 94%

Between Palace St & Crystal St

(south side)

39 85% 85% 87% 95% 92% 89%

Total 91% 95% 94% 92% 89%


24 April 2012

74

proposed changes to the current parking conditions. Therefore, the support rate for the resident parking scheme from the responses was 61.1%. It should be noted that one of the submissions against the proposal was from the hotel/pub located on the corner of Terminus Street and Railway Street. A couple of other submissions against the proposal indicated that they have multiple cars and would not be able to obtain parking permits for all their vehicles. Collated comments from residents in support of Resident Parking Scheme: • The proposal will be effective if policed regularly. • Commuters and patrons of the adjacent pub regularly park their vehicles on the northern

side of Terminus Street outside residential houses. • Parking near our homes is becoming very difficult. • Parking permits should be free for rate payers. Collated comments from residents opposing Resident Parking Scheme: • I have no problems with parking in our street. People who work in the city need to park

their vehicles near the railway station and catch the trains. • Permit parking will make it more difficult for visitors to park in our street for longer than

two hours, which would be an inconvenience to our friends and guests. • Council should be encouraging people to leave their cars and catch the trains to work. • We have tenants with multiple cars and this proposal will cause more inconvenience to us. CONCLUSION

Parking for residents in Terminus Street is difficult at present and this is due to commuters in the main. Although the support from residents is just short of Council’s policy requirement (i.e. 61.1%), in this case given the high utilisation of parking, it would seem reasonable to introduce the Resident Parking Scheme on one side of Terminus Street. The proposed scheme would have the following parking restrictions “2P 8.30am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted – Area M5”. All eligible residential properties having a frontage with Terminus Street will be entitled to apply for parking permits. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The findings of the resident questionnaire survey be received and noted; and

2. As support from residents in the study area almost meets Council's criteria and due to the

high utilisation of on-street parking spaces, the installation of a Resident Parking Scheme – Area M5 - be APPROVED, as follows:

"2P 8.30am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri Permit Holders Excepted – Area M5" parking restrictions be installed on the north side of Terminus Street, between Palace Street and Crystal Street, Petersham outside residential properties only.

Pedestrain, Cyclist and Traffic Calming Advisory Committee

24 April 2012

75

Locality map – Terminus Street, Petersham

RA

ILW

AY

ST

RE

ET

CR

YS

TA

L

S

TRE

ET

TERMINUS STREET

CARRINGTON LANE

STREET

FISHERS RESERVE

TRAFALGAR

SUBURBAN

RAILWAY

YORK CRESCENT

PA

LA

CE

ST

RE

ET

SOUTH AVENUE

4

2

85

1816

89

95

93

91

259B

259A

259

6

112

116

106

114

11087

20

81

104102

100

83

98

1

63

53555759

65

67

61

50

54

68

58

60

626466

7072

4 2B

9 7 5

2

11 3 1

2A

97

120

122

124

101

99

142A24681012

26 7

261263

26 5

28 26 24 22 20 18 16

279

277

275

273

269271

463036384052 50 48 44 42 34 32

287

297

100

96

9856 54

15

14 6816 1218 10

1319 17

67

616365

69

81

71

73

75

83

8587

89

79

77

88

80

82

84

86

90

9294

78

106

110

102

108

BU

SE

S

EX

CE

PT

é

wé[

w

ππ

w

å {

w

ww

ww

wï

w

ï

wï

�

�w { ��-�π

��

w

w

ww

ww

[

ww

–π

å

}

–π��–

��

�

�w

w

ww��

w

ï

�

ww

ww

www

ww

w

�

{å�

wïï

ï

wïï

ww

w

w

w

��

�

ww

ww

w

w

w w

w

w

www

w

w

�

w

w

w�

��

�

�

�

�

w

ππ

�

ww

�

w

ww

w

w

[ [

N


24 April 2012

76

MARRICKVILLE COUNCIL RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING SURVEY

File No. S4730-02 Private, Confidential and Voluntary 1. Name …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Address ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Please tick or number the answer boxes

3. Dwelling type � House � Self-contained flat � Other (please specify) ……………….................

4. How many vehicles registered to the above address are owned by members of the Household

� Private

� Commercial (under 3 tonne)

5. How many of your vehicles can be parked on your property?

� 0 � 1 � 2 � 3

6. Do you have difficulty finding parking near your residence?

� Never � Sometimes � Regularly

7. When does that difficulty occur? � Day � Night � Day � Night � Day � Night � Day � Night � Day � Night

� Monday - Friday � Thursday, Friday and Saturday � Saturday � Sunday � Seven days per week other (specify)............................................

8. Do you support the introduction of 2-hour parking restrictions (eligible residents excepted) outside residential properties on the north side of Terminus Street, between Palace Street and Crystal Street ?

� Yes � No

9. If resident parking zones are introduced in your street, are you willing to pay a fee for a permit once a year to have exemption from the 2 hour parking limit? (Fees outlined overleaf)

� Yes � No

10. Do you realise that resident parking restrictions may make it more difficult for your visitors to park near your home?

� Yes � No

Comments: ............................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................

Please return this questionnaire when completed in the pre-paid envelope to Council by FRIDAY, 30 MARCH 2012


24 April 2012

77

Item No: C4

Subject: LLEWELLYN & JULIETT STREETS, MARRICKVILLE (SOUTH WARD)

REQUEST FOR A RESIDENT PARKING SCHEME – RESIDENT SURVEY RESULTS

File Ref: S2970-02


SYNOPSIS As part of Council’s determination of a Section 96 application for the Annette Kellerman Aquatic Centre at Enmore Park, Council resolved that an investigation of the current parking conditions in Llewellyn Street, Marrickville be undertaken. Requests were also received from residents in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets for the provision of Resident Parking restrictions. A parking utilisation survey carried out by Council Officers and a resident questionnaire survey was undertaken to obtain the opinion of residents. The result of the residents’ survey is presented in this report for the Committee to consider. As support from residents in the study area is well short of Council's criteria, it is recommended that the installation of Resident Parking restrictions in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets, Marrickville, not be approved at this time. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The findings of the resident questionnaire survey be received and noted; and

2. As support from residents in the study area has not met Council's criteria, the installation of a

Resident Parking Scheme in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets, Marrickville NOT be approved at this time.

BACKGROUND

As part of Council’s determination of a Section 96 application for the Annette Kellerman Aquatic Centre at Enmore Park in 2009, Council resolved: “ THAT Council’s Infrastructure Services be advised of the determination of this application and investigate the resident consultation in regards to no parking in the lane and all day restrictions at Llewellyn Street and resident parking permits”. Requests were also received from residents in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets for the provision of Resident Parking restrictions outside residential properties, in order to maintain on-street parking opportunities for residents around the aquatic centre.


24 April 2012

78

Council also approved and installed ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Llewellyn Lane in July 2010 following consultation with residents of Llewellyn and Scouller Streets, in order to improve vehicular access into the laneway and into off-street parking facilities. Council carried out an on-street parking utilisation survey in early December 2011 in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets, Marrickville and the results of the survey indicated moderate to high parking utilisation rates. DISCUSSION

Llewellyn Street is a two-way local street running east-west between Enmore Road and Edgeware Road. At present, unrestricted parallel to kerb parking is permitted on the north side, while 90o angle parking is permitted on the south side of Llewellyn Street. Juliett Street is a two-way local street running north-south between Enmore Road and Llewellyn Street. At present, a mixture of unrestricted parallel to kerb and angle parking are in place in Juliett Street (Refer to the attached locality map). Parking Utilisation Survey: A parking utilisation survey was undertaken in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets on Tuesday 6 December 2011 (between 8.00am and 6.00pm) to gauge on-street parking utilisation. The results of the survey are summarised in the following two tables:

Llewellyn Street - on-street parking survey results (weekday)

Llewellyn St (Section & side)

No. parking spaces


9.30 AM

5.00 PM

6.00 PM


between Enmore Rd & Juliett St (North side)

(residential side)

37 73% 84% 65% 76% 75%

between Juliett St & Edgeware Rd

(North side) (residential side)

5 80% 60% 60% 60% 65%

between Edgeware Rd & Juliett St (South side)

11 73% 82% 82% 100% 84%

between Juliett St & Black St

(South side)

6 67% 33% 67% 67% 59%

between Black St & Enmore Rd (South side)

(angle parking)

58 54% 79% 86% 90% 77%

Total 69% 68% 72% 79%


24 April 2012

79

Juliett Street - on-street parking survey results (weekday)

The results of the parking survey indicate that parking spaces were generally highly utilised throughout the survey period. The results for Juliett Street indicate that parking issues may be a result of residents parking their own vehicles whilst with Llewellyn Street there does appear to be slight increase in utilisation during the day. Council Policy/Guidelines Council's adopted Policy for the introduction of Permit Parking Schemes state "that before implementing a resident parking scheme in any area, a survey of residents be undertaken to ascertain the level of support for such a scheme and that such support should be in excess of 65% of submissions received provided that rate of return of submissions is reasonable (higher than 30%)".

Juliett St (Section &

side)

No. parking spaces


9.30 AM

12.30 PM

5.00 PM

6.00 PM


between Enmore Rd &

Lynch Ave (East side)

27 93% 93% 85% 82% 93% 89%

between Lynch Ave &

Llewellyn St (East side)

28 71% 68% 75% 75% 82% 74%

between Llewellyn St & Wilcox Lane (East side)

11 64% 55% 55% 46% 36% 51%

between Wilcox Lane &

Llewellyn St (West side)

24 83% 67% 83% 67% 71% 74%

between Llewellyn St &

Scouller St (West side)

11 55% 55% 55% 64% 82% 62%

between Scouller St & Juliett Lane (West side)

43 91% 70% 79% 79% 88% 81%

between Juliett Lane & Enmore

Rd (West side)

19 84% 74% 74% 90% 84% 81%

Total 77% 69% 72% 72% 77%


24 April 2012

80

CONSULTATION

A total of 186 questionnaire survey forms were distributed to all residential properties in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets in March 2012 (Refer to the attached questionnaire survey form).

Street name

No. of responses received

Response rate (%)

No. of responses in

favour of Resident Parking Scheme

No. of responses against

Resident Parking Scheme

No. of responses undecided

Support rate (%)

Objection rate (%)

Llewellyn Street

18 36% 7 10 1 38.8% 55.6%

Juliett Street

47 37.3% 17 30 - 36.2% 63.8%

The results of the surveys indicate that support from residents for a Resident Permit Parking Scheme has not met Council’s criteria. Collated comments from residents in support of Resident Parking Scheme: • We are getting fed up with abandoned cars, trailers and boats being parked for months

making it difficult for residents and visitors to obtain parking. • Multiple cars belonging to the car repair business on the corner of Juliett Street and Enmore

Road being parked in Juliett Street for long periods of time make it difficult to find parking near our homes.

• Parking near our homes is becoming very difficult on nights when events are on at the Enmore Theatre.

• If approved, make the parking restrictions up to 10pm, as Enmore Theatre patrons use parking in Juliett Street.

• Disappointed that the parking problems we are facing were not factored and addressed as part of the planning of the aquatic centre.

• Parking was always difficult but now if it is much more difficult because of the gymnasium at the aquatic centre.

• Council should have built a car park with the redeveloped aquatic centre. • Commuters park all day outside residential properties. • Need “4P” restrictions on parking along Enmore Park on the south side of Llewellyn Street

to stop all day parking. • Parking permits should be free for rate payers. Collated comments from residents opposing Resident Parking Scheme: • Permit parking will make it more difficult for visitors to park in our street. • We never have trouble finding parking. Some residents choose not to park in their garages. • Parking restrictions will not change anything, as spaces will be filled as soon as they

become free. • The aquatic centre was approved with no allowance for additional parking spaces, even

though this was on the residents’ major concerns.


24 April 2012

81

• The aquatic centre seems to have made no difference to parking in this area. • Do not introduce further parking restrictions for a minority of residents complaining. • We strongly opposed the proposal, as the current parking situation does not warrant any

changes. • Why pay for something which we currently have for free. Parking is barely an issue in

Juliett Street. • Parking restrictions would push the parking issues into other streets as well.

CONCLUSION

As support from residents in the study area is well short of Council's criteria, it is recommended that the installation of Resident Parking restrictions in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets, Marrickville, not be approved at this time. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT: 1. The findings of the resident questionnaire survey be received and noted; and

2. As support from residents in the study area has not met Council's criteria, the installation of

a Resident Parking Scheme in Llewellyn and Juliett Streets, Marrickville NOT be approved at this time.


24 April 2012

82

Locality map – Llewellyn & Juliett Streets, Marrick ville

w

w

w

w

w

æ

}

��w

�

www

ww

�

ww

w

ww

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

��

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

�

�

æ

ww

w

�w

w

w

w

�w

w

�

�

�

ww

�

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

�

w

w

w

��

w

w

�

w

w

�

w

�

w

�w

�

w

��

�w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

ww

ww

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

æ

w

w

w

æ

w

w

w

ww

w

w

ww

wïïw

ïw

��ww

w

w

��

ww

w

w

w

�www

��}

wï

ï

ïïw

ïw

ww

ï

w

wï

w

w w

w

w

ww

w

�

w

�

w}

4

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

wwwww

www

ww

wwww

ww

w

�w

} }

w}

}w

ww

w

w

��ww

w

JAMES

STREET

CAMDEN STREET

OC

ON

NO

R

LA

NE

SH

ELLE

YS

LA

NE

BLA

CK

S

TR

EE

T

JULI

ET

T

S

TRE

ETWILCOX

SARAH

STREET

JULIE

TT S

TRE

ET

LLEWELLYN LANE

LYN

CH

LAN

ELYNCH AVENUE

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

SCOULLER STREET

LLEWELLYN STREET

EN

MO

RE

R

OA

D

JULIE

TT

L AN

E

PH

ILP

OT

T

S

TRE

ET

ADDISON ROAD

STEVENS LANE

FOTH

ER

ING

HA

M

L

AN

E

EN

MO

RE

R

OA

D

9

142-166

1761

78180

188

180

182

184

186

190

192

194

178

132

2065

130

128

126

7977

136

134

12

200

246810

196

22

18

14

22A

16

24

30

124

1315

17

6361

67

75

19

2123

25

2773

7169

51

110-14045

4749

6

2A

3B 25

1C

3A

42

176

5

165

151

176A

143

141

149147

145

139

125

127

133

137135

131129

113

123121

119117

115

5

3

1

122

120

107

101

103

111109

105

99

97

95

93

91

89

104

118116

114112110108106

102100

59

92

119

9694

98

90

84

76

82

88

72

74

78

80

86

32

7

9

5

7

3634

38

13

11

13

6

55

57

42

70

58

53

60

62

64

6668

4341

39

23

13

2119

1715

25

5

106104

102100

108

87

85

8 106

4229

27

31

50

52

54

5633

97

37

35

290

13

296

294

292

288

286

284

38

315

301

1A

319

8

3937

3533

1210

3129

27

14

24

53

1

2220

18

16

11

36

3432

3028

26

45

5755

53 5149

47

43

41

6159

316

63

314

312

310

308

321

306

304

302

300

298323

325

349

333

331

341343

345347

351

369

357

353355

359361

363

367

365

371373

1

8

6

RTA

DEPT OF PLANNING

1A

75 1

9375379

3

383

5

10

1113

151719

23

12

14

20-24

2

10

37

33

8

1113151719

35

27

3638

40

3129

252321

45

39

41

47

53-5

5

43

4951

3331

26

1

3-9

391-393

399-403

N

Enmore Park & Aquatic

Centre


24 April 2012

83

MARRICKVILLE COUNCIL RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING SURVEY

File No. S2970-02 Private, Confidential and Voluntary 1. Name …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Address ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Please tick or number the answer boxes

3. Dwelling type � House � Self-contained flat � Other (please specify) ……………….................

4. How many vehicles registered to the above address are owned by members of the Household

� Private � Commercial (under 3 tonne)

5. How many of your vehicles can be parked on your property?

� 0 � 1 � 2 � 3

6. Do you have difficulty finding parking near your residence?

� Never � Sometimes � Regularly

7. When does that difficulty occur? � Day � Night � Day � Night � Day � Night � Day � Night � Day � Night

� Monday - Friday � Thursday, Friday and Saturday � Saturday � Sunday � Seven days per week other (specify)............................................

8. Do you support the introduction of 2-hour parking restrictions (eligible residents excepted) outside residential properties on the north side of Llewellyn Street and both sides of Juliett Street?

� Yes � No

9. If resident parking zones are introduced in your street, are you willing to pay a fee for a permit once a year to have exemption from the 2 hour parking limit? (Fees outlined overleaf)

� Yes � No

10. Do you realise that resident parking restrictions may make it more difficult for your visitors to park near your home?

� Yes � No

Comments: ............................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................

Please return this questionnaire when completed in the pre-paid envelope to Council by FRIDAY, 30 MARCH 2012


24 April 2012

84

Item No: C5

Subject: BELMORE STREET, ENMORE (NORTH WARD)

PROPOSED STATUTORY ‘NO STOPPING’ RESTRICTIONS AT PHILLIP STREET

File Ref: S0450-02


SYNOPSIS A request has been received from a resident of Belmore Street, Enmore for the installation of ‘No Stopping’ signs at the intersection of Belmore and Phillip Streets, Enmore, to deter illegal parking and increase safety. It is recommended that the statutory 'No Stopping' restrictions be installed for a distance of 10 metres at the intersection of Belmore and Phillip Streets, Enmore, to deter illegal parking, improve sight lines for turning motorists and increase safety. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; 1. The installation of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on both sides of Belmore Street,

for a distance of 10 metres from its intersection with Phillip Street, Enmore be APPROVED to deter illegal parking, improve sight lines and increase safety at this intersection; and

2. The installation of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the western side of Phillip Street, for a distance of 10 metres from its intersection with Belmore Street, Enmore be APPROVED to deter illegal parking, improve sight lines and increase safety at this intersection.

BACKGROUND

A request has been received from a resident of Belmore Street, Enmore for the installation of ‘No Stopping’ signs at the intersection of Belmore and Phillip Streets, Enmore, to deter illegal parking and increase safety. The resident advised that parked vehicles at this location make is very difficult for traffic turning from Belmore Street into Phillip Street, due to obstructed sight lines. DISCUSSION

Belmore Street is a local residential street running east-west between London and Phillip Streets. At present, parking is permitted on both sides of Belmore and Phillip Streets (Refer to the attached locality map and photographs).


24 April 2012

85

The provision of ‘No Stopping’ signs at this intersection may deter illegal parking and improve sight lines for turning motorists. TECHNICAL ISSUES In accordance with the Australian Road Rules, a ‘No Stopping’ zone is mandatory for a distance of 10 metres from an intersecting road. Pursuant to the RTA’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”. CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the statutory 'No Stopping' restrictions be installed for a distance of 10 metres at the intersection of Belmore and Phillip Streets, Enmore, to deter illegal parking, improve sight lines for turning motorists and increase safety. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the supply and installation of the signposting associated with the recommended ‘No Stopping’ restrictions is approximately $700 and can be met form Council’s existing signs and line marking budget. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION THAT; 1. The installation of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on both sides of Belmore Street,

for a distance of 10 metres from its intersection with Phillip Street, Enmore be APPROVED to deter illegal parking, improve sight lines and increase safety at this intersection; and

2. The installation of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the western side of Phillip Street, for a distance of 10 metres from its intersection with Belmore Street, Enmore be APPROVED to deter illegal parking, improve sight lines and increase safety at this intersection.


24 April 2012

86

Locality map – Belmore St / Phillip St, Newtown

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

}

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

ww

ww

w

w

�

�

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

ww

w

ww

w

w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

THURNBY LANELANE

PH

ILLIP LA

NE

GLADSTONE

MAIN

AU

GU

ST

US

BELMORE STREET

LANE

CHARLES STREET

STREET

BELMORE

PH

ILLIP S

TRE

ET

LON

DO

N S

TRE

ET

48

4

2D

5

17

9

15

19

21

23

11

13

25

2022

16

24

30 28

57

42636159

5540

79

53

1

12

44

24 22 2026

34

36-38

4042

46

21

2931

27

2523

1917

108642

1311

15

28

39

37

3330

16

26242220

18

14

2315171925 21 2C32

35

14

11 9

201816

1210 8 6 4 2

3

7 5

1

14 10 8 6 4

1

2

24

15 13

302826

22

11 5

1618

37913

21

34

19 17

32

6-85

1-3

25

3327

30 28

312927

232119

32

18

14

16

20

12

535149

47454341

393735

97

1113

1517

1010A

34

3836

3230282624

22

17

11

13

15

19

Proposed ‘No Stopping’ zones


24 April 2012

87

Photographs – Belmore St / Phillip St, Newtown

Illegal Parking at the junction of Phillip Street and Belmore Street

PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST & TRAFFIC CALMING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ... · PDF filePEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST &...

Documents

Transcript of PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST & TRAFFIC CALMING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ... · PDF filePEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST &...