My voting record‎ > ‎

On-street parking policy to be reviewed

posted 7 Mar 2017, 17:49 by Christel Mex
I seconded the motion to review the city's parking permit policy with the aim to give some relief to local residents who's local streets are full of all-day parkers.  The motion passed 11 to 2 after considering a well-presented deputation by a local resident. Many of our citizens are consistently complaining that visitors, carers and tradespeople can't get access to their properties because more and more commuters are using our streets for all-day parking. In addition, the motion allowed for specific streets to have an urgent review.  Here is what I said:

The current policy seeks to provide a fair and equitable access to street parking, but based on feedback from many of our residents over the years, the policy is clearly not fair. The policy appears to clump together the need for time-restricted car parks with parking permits. As I will explain, in some of our streets where there is high demand, parking permits are not necessarily required but time-limited parking is.  There are many streets, such as Queen Street, Charles St, Phillips St and others where over 50% of houses do have access to off-street parking.  But, importantly, their visitors, carers and tradespeople do not. 

Allow me to read sections of correspondence from a Phillips Street resident, and I quote, “Where the Council is failing, is not listening to residents. The residents want something done about this parking issue we are faced with on a daily basis. They are refusing to do something because they simply don’t want to deal with the issue. Staff continue to tell me it’s because of a ‘policy’ that nothing will be changed due to over 50% of residents having off-street parking.”  And, “Council have undertaken surveys of our street and have agreed that parking is an issue and that it does seem to always be full.  They then refer me back to their policies - I am honestly sick of hearing the same thing said to me”.

These residents don’t necessarily want permits, they just want tradesmen, carers and visitors to be able access their properties for a few hours at a time.  Is that too much to ask? I understand that many of these car parks are being taken up by workers in our city, Burnside and perhaps Adelaide.  Like city workers, they have access to public transport and can pay for parking if they need to drive their car. The Hoyts complex would welcome this business and they appear to have plenty of capacity, charging only $6 for early bird parking – they may even consider a reduced monthly fee if we ask them.

The Tonkin survey clearly showed Queen St, George St, Charles St and Beulah Rd have capacity problems. I note that on the date of the survey 8 Nov 2016 it was a partly sunny day with mild temperatures of about 13 – 15 degrees.  It is well known that the use of cars increases on rainy and hot days, so I suspect that those street would be full on days of bad weather. 

I support the motion to progress timed parking spaces on those named streets with the inclusion of Phillips St in Kensington, which is facing exactly the same issues.

 n regards to the current policy, I have deep concerns regarding the on-street availability criteria of 50%, as it appears to average out the day-time and night-time hours, ignoring the fact that most of the time it is the day-time period that is out of control.

I also disagree that we count the votes of people who toss their ballot in the bin, as an intention to vote against parking restrictions.  Local Government does not have mandatory voting, so I don’t see why people who don’t care about the issue should be included in the voting figures.

I agree that we need to review this issue across the city, but not at the expense of residents who are exasperated and badly affected by this out-dated policy. They deserve our immediate attention and should not have to wait another two years to have their parking issues looked at again.

Comments