bylaws could be introduced locally

The legislation does need to be brought into line but that in itself could be a long process as it’s State Govt legislation. 🙁

If bylaws could be introduced locally, as I understand has been done by other Councils, to provide amnesty in certain areas, this could perhaps be a quicker process.

had a very interesting chat with a prominent builder in these Stockland developments

Just had a very interesting chat with a prominent builder in these Stockland developments and he was sympathetic towards Stockland being over targeted on what he is adamant is a money grab from council.

Yes…. they are the developers and have what we all regard as inadequate parking facilities but they in turn are just doing what the state government legislation is allowing them. And myself being a foundation resident of the first street built in Bells Reach Drive,(by the way…the roads were not even finished when we bought, so had no idea of the parking problem to come), We have watched this whole area progress to this stage.

After walking the streets of the newer sections of Bells Reach, Arbor and Aura TALKING TO TRADIES AND GATHERING THEIR STORIES i have noted that they have definitely improved the situation by way of parking bays on some of the more arterial streets, although they still have a problem with the side streets.

My point being although Stockland are the designers, it is definitely the Council that are taking advantage of the outdated ( 23 YEARS) to be exact legislation. SO MAYBE WE CAN GET THIS UPDATED TO SUIT THE TIMES OF HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS.

QLD Government Department of Transport and Main Roads Technical note 138 – “Verge Parking and Idented Parking

I think the reference at the end of this extract may help – It’s from the QLD Government Department of Transport and Main Roads Technical note 138 – “Verge Parking and Idented Parking”:

1 Purpose and scope of this technical note

The purpose of this technical note is to provide guidance on the use of verge parking and indented parking. This parking is typically provided between the kerb line and property boundary, and can be a cost effective retrofit measure to relocate parking from the road pavement to the verge in order to make space for other use of the road space (such as on-road bicycle lanes).
Currently there is no technical guidance on the provision of verge and/or indented parking, and therefore this parking type may be less utilised as a treatment option. The pavement markings and signage requirements for on-road parking are addressed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 11: Parking, whilst the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 11: Parking addresses many types of on and off street car parking but provision of car parking within the verge is not covered. As well as a parking issue, this is also an issue of the design of the ‘Roadside Environment’. This technical note is a supplement to Section 4.4 of the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6B: Roadside Environment.
1.1 Introduction
Continue reading “QLD Government Department of Transport and Main Roads Technical note 138 – “Verge Parking and Idented Parking”

Word from an Ex-Firey

Hopefully a workable compromise for the community and for Council (noting Council are the community and really should reflect our wishes on this topic) –

Where streets are so narrow that parking fully on the roadway poses an unacceptable risk to other traffic, emergency vehicles or other members of the community, an allowance should be made to permit partial parking on the verge so as to keep the roadway as clear and navigable as possible.
Such partial parking would mean the vehicle is not parked entirely on the verge, but neither is it parked entirely on the roadway. Two wheels on each.

My experience navigating fire appliances around urban streets suggests that any road less than 6 metres in width with cars fully parked on the roadway poses an unacceptable hazard to personnel and the general public and that parking on the verge should be permitted. Continue reading “Word from an Ex-Firey”

The only way to fix the existing situation IMHO, is to work around the regulations as opposed to complying with them

I am with XXXXX with regard to the language used in this letter. There is a lot of “lawful” and “unlawful” innuendo but I believe the crux of it is in the 2nd to last paragraph of the letter which states:

>> enable Council to ensure it determines a best practice approach to parking management on road verges that reflects the best interests of our region, COMPLIES WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND COUNCIL “REGULATORY” FRAMEWORK and supports the ongoing safety of the local community.<<

Very easy to miss but the literal meaning of this is a complete contradiction in terms because it simply isn’t possible to satisfy all these things in existing suburban developments under existing legislation. Even their last bullet point asks if we have any suggestions for road verge parking that are “lawful” and “appropriate”.
Continue reading “The only way to fix the existing situation IMHO, is to work around the regulations as opposed to complying with them”

The Council should liase with the land owners first to try and rectify the problem

The problem with verges is parking on them is illegal under state law.
So we need the changes to come from the enforcement section to only issue fines as a last resort.
The Council should liase with the land owners first to try and rectify the problem.
Ultimately the developers should be forced to fix the problem they created but Council has found a cash cow that it is happy to maintain so is happy to just go with the flow so to speak.
The Council are that busy enforcing this that they are putting poorly qualified criminals out on the streets to issue tickets just to keep the revenue flowing. This isn’t helping but at least it is getting us all together to demand changes.

any care or common sense?

I think the council are the ones that need to be coming up with some ideas.
There have been enough instances of where people have been booked and clearly the fine has been nothing short of ridiculous- breaking a law yes but any care or common sense utilised by the council officers booking these cars, trailers etc – none whatsoever.

widen the parking sections of road or allow verge parking

The first proposal we need to work on is the issue of whether the Council or developers should widen the parking sections of road or allow verge parking for residents.

The second proposal should address residents being able to park in their driveways allowing enough room to open the garage doors and still not blocking the footpath area in these new estates that are having the problems.

As Council is limited by state law with these issues we all need to seek the best solution. The Council has said they couldn’t stop the size of the roads because of state law. Was the option of parking for two cars for every residence on the roadside even considered in court when fighting about the road size?
Council should of ensured parking for all of the residents and their visitors no matter what the road size.
It appears Council failed to argue these issues in the land court with the developers so will now have to review the whole planning scheme.

researched the width of a Land Cruiser, and a Fire Truck

I have just researched the width of a Land Cruiser, and a Fire Truck and allowing for minimum safe clearance, the road needs to be 7 meters wide. So I think we should be pushing for exemptions to all streets under the minimum for safety sake. A point I’ll be pushing strongly for.

Let us put 2 wheels up on the verge as long as not parking on the concrete footpath

Gl Colin. I think we all want the same thing. Just to be able to park our cars safely but at the same time have it safe for pedestrians. Let us put 2 wheels up on the verge as long as not parking on the concrete footpath and future developments to to have wider streets and deeper blocks so people can park on the driveways without being outside the boundary.

I drove down Spinnaker Blvd the other day and thought this is how streets should be. Wide enough for cars to travel safely each way and then ample parking room on both sides of the road. Good old areas

Wise words from a local ex-firey

Hi all, after the tsunami of community backlash the Sunshine Coast Council has agreed to review parking management practices and are holding a workshop on the issue early in the New Year and with Christmas just around the corner (meaning lots of kids playing around our homes and streets) I thought it might be worth teasing out some of the issues before the workshop happens.

For my part, I am sunny coast resident and home owner, a father and grandfather and spent over 15 years in the Fire Brigade, eight years as Captain. These are the foundations of my thoughts on the matter. I also chaired a local District Emergency Management Committee tasked with evaluating emergency vehicle access needs (not here on the Sunny Coast).

It seems to me the main arguments for and against Council actions in this area; being to penalise anyone they see parked on the so-called “Council strip” or verge, or even with just a single wheel or bumper overlapping, run like this:

Council: “There is a risk to children of cars parked on the verge because a child might run out from behind a car and not be seen by drivers on the road” and “Council are obliged to enforce State Government law in this area and penalise vehicle owners who are parked on or partially on the verge”.

The Community: “It is morally improper for an organisation to expect residents to exert funds and effort to maintain a piece of land owned by the organisation yet to then refuse said residents reasonable vehicle access to the land” and “It is improper for Council to enforce regulations that by Councils own development approval standards are not achievable” (insufficient room to properly park on the roadside or within a private driveway etc).

It’s worth noting these are majority opinions and by no means cover all areas of concern. But they are a starting point.

Taking these a point at a time (I have an additional point that I will leave for the end).

1. The risk requiring mitigation of a child being struck by a car is this – a child may be hidden by a parked car meaning the driver of a moving car has insufficient reaction time to avoid the child. These are tragic and horrific circumstances so let’s think through the reality. Driving down a typical coast road we often travel a metre or less away from cars parked on the side of the road. Conversely we are usually two, three or more metres away from a car parked on the verge. It is clear that in most cases we have a greater reaction time for a child appearing behind a car parked on the verge than we do a car parked on the side of the road, for the simple reason we are further away from the car parked on the verge and have more time to react. Council’s assessment of risk in this area clearly requires some clarification and I expect our emergency services and other emergency workers will offer opinion on this point.

2. Local Government exists to promote the interests of the locality for which it is formed. If State Government laws are at odds with local conditions and circumstances it is incumbent on Council to lobby for change. The obligations on Council to enforce State legislation are no greater than Councils obligation to support and lobby for local needs and requirements. Council works for us, not for the State. This point can seem lost in deliberations.

3. Community concerns are legitimised when we consider that any study of morals and ethics teaches the base requirement of equity. There is no equity in Council expecting residents to maintain Council land yet then refusing vehicular access to said land and worse, applying a penalty for non-compliance. It fails the ethics test. We must give something back if we expect someone to freely maintain our property. There are also questions as to where monies being raised by these penalties are spent. More consultation would be beneficial.

4. Roads are primarily constructed for the purpose of vehicle movement. If a requirement exists for parking on both sides of a road due to housing approvals then any development approval should factor this need into road construction. In my view it is improper for Council to approve a road that is not fit for purpose. In this area community concerns also seem legitimised.

The additional point I wish to raise is this:

When tragedy strikes and you need a response from fire, police or ambulance our roads must be capable of allowing access. I would argue this is the most important factor to consider. We cannot expect a 17 ton Fire Appliance to navigate a 4.5 metre wide suburban street with two 1.8 metre wide cars parked on each side of the road. I have been in this scenario numerous times and the mathematics simply doesn’t work. In these scenarios residents must be allowed to park on the verge when need dictates. The alternative is to accept that then when our homes are on fire or our family members are injured, that help will not be able to get to us. Council is quite remiss in not factoring this consideration.

Apologies for the length of this post and my thanks if you have read this far. I certainly accept there are many views on this topic and many legitimate reasons why residents may not want cars parked on the verge. I think the sensible approach is to exercise due diligence and make allowances as and when required. Perhaps a suitable scenario would be to allow parking on the verge on any street less than 6 metres wide. Another might be to allow parking on the verge for resident’s and trade workers vehicles only. It does seem wrong for a Council that allegedly promotes business enterprise to target tradies vehicles parked on a workplace the way they have been doing.

Happy Christmas all.

Continue reading “Wise words from a local ex-firey”

Well isn’t everyone complaining about their unfair Fine’s

Community complaints they say well isn’t everyone complaining about their unfair Fine’s how many people had to complain to get them to start listening and as for safety well no one is putting anyone at risk because they have two wheels touching the grass or because there parked in there own driveway

I think someone has lost thier marbles

My condolences for all the people affected by parking issues as developments have shrunk and helped to cause these issues.One would think if you put a 4 bedroom double storey house on a 300 to 400 block there would probably be more than two cars .I think someone has lost thier marbles.