27 May 2014

Full Council Meeting May 26th 2014

 Deputations this week were heard form Solomon Farah (173 King William Rd) and  Tom Hester (Brown Hill Creek).
We will then debate the deferred items;
  • 173 King William Rd; Outdoor dining; this is to once again look at the provision of outdoor dining where the footpath is perceived to be too narrow to allow legal pedestrian passage PASSED as a 12 month trial.
  • Proposed changes to the road reserve -King William Rd; non compliance of a building. PASSED
We then debated;
  • Local Area Traffic Management Prioritisation; This suggested an order in which to tackle the rest of the City. We have already approved doing the area north of the tram line. The others are now listed in order of perceived need. The next area will now be what has been known as Precinct J (mostly Goodwood east of Goodwood Rd). As Cr Tipper so accurately stated this has now been waiting for 19 years. PASSED
  • Residential On-Street Parking Policy Review; This describes the conditions that would enable certain areas to be set apart as resident only use, shared with others or for general use. It tries to grapple with Council intention to not make available any onstreet permits for homes built after Nov 2013. While this is a minor issue now, with the prospect of apartments being build with inadequate parking the matter could divide the community in the future if hundreds of residents in apartment buildings could apply for parking permits. PASSEd with some minor changes.
  • Service Improvement Programme;PASSED
  • Section 41 Meeting procedures;This suggests Council makes no changes at the moment but does call for expressions of interest for Independents who may wish to sit on committees after the election in November.PASSED
  • King William Rd Pedestrian Refuge:  The second proposed pedestrian refuge will be deferred for 12 months. PASED
  • Brown Hill Creek Update: Their were many interested residents sitting in the gallery for this one. The most recent report was endorsed. This report outlines the feedback from creek owners about the clearing and/or widening of the creek bed. Surprisingly many owners were unaware that it was their personal responsibility to keep the creek clear of obstructions. Further investigations will now include the feasibility and costing of a dam. PASSED
  • Centennial Park Budget (CONFIDENTIAL)
  • Land Encroachment (CONFIDENTIAL)
  • Tree Damage (CONFIDENTIAL)


  1. Lorraine Burford31 May, 2014 10:00

    Re •Residential On-Street Parking Policy Review - This again highlights the lack of forethought by the State Government in approving re-development zones in areas where traditionally one home was on the property, therefore one could park in front of your own house. Our home, previously surrounded by single residences on each side and the rear, is now "fortified" by two residences either side and at the rear. As there is inadequate off street parking for them we also have cars parked at the front of our home, making it impossible for us to have visitors park close by, let alone put the bins out for collection, other than in the middle of our own driveway. Not Happy Jen!

  2. This was also a concern for the many people that wrote a submission to Council regarding the proposed Development Amendment. At this time there are no residents only parking areas that require a permit. However, if the need arises due to new developments an essential part of the debate was how to prevent new dwellings being entitled to on street permits. This will be of particular concern in your street if any higher rise development is achieved nearer South Rd as proposed.