Attachments of Ordinary Council Meeting

Hornsby Shire Council

Attachment to Report No. GM15/09 Page 1

General Manager's Report No. GM14/09

General Manager Division

Date of Meeting: 9/09/2009

3 ORGANISATION STRUCTURE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 332 of the Local Government Act, requires that a Council must determine an organisation structure and Section 333 requires the Council within twelve months of an ordinary election to re-determine its organisation structure.

Following the introduction of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council has determined and subsequently confirmed, an organisation structure consisting of six Divisions.

Consideration of principles of organisation design and the priority areas of the current Management Plan shows that Council’s existing structure can be fundamentally confirmed.

As a consequence of a review of the organisation structure undertaken by the previous Council following the 2004 Ordinary Election, cross divisional work teams were instituted to address customer service, asset management, recreation services, economic development and compliance issues. Following these reviews, one structural variation is proposed being the amalgamation of the strategic oversight of customer service functions under one Division.

Particular attention is given to the Strategy Division where two significant resignations have provided an opportunity to consider the future of this Division.

Following this review the Strategy Division could be dissolved with the functions of economic development and the development contribution plan being allocated to the Planning Division and the General Manager assuming direct management control of the Corporate Strategy and Human Resources Branches.

The Council will continue to adapt the organisation structure to meet changing circumstances and to ensure an improvement in the provision of services to the residents of the Shire.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

It is proposed that Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 review and determine its organisation structure and affirm the organisation structure.

DISCUSSION

Introduction

Following the introduction of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council determined and subsequently confirmed, an organisation structure consisting of six Divisions being:

General Manager;

Strategy;

Corporate & Community;

Works;

Planning; and

Environment.

No definition is given within the Local Government Act of an organisation structure. Council therefore, has determined its structure based upon these Divisions and functional responsibilities within each Division. This has permitted the organisation to evolve and adapt to meet the requirements of a changing shire community.

Current Structure

The structure previously adopted by Council has involved the following rationale:

Strategy

This Division was established to focus on the management of the strategic and forward planning aspects of Council in association with the other Divisions, in particular, to fulfil the expanding statutory requirements for future planning e.g., Management Plan. In addition to providing a strategic focus, the other functions which have been incorporated into this Division assist Council with implementation of human resource planning and work place reforms.

Works

The divisional focus for the Works Division has been the construction and maintenance of the physical built public infrastructure and structures within the Shire.

Such structures include: roads, footpaths, drainage, public offices and community buildings.

Traffic management, road safety, strategic property issues and the operation of Council’s Aquatic Centres and Indoor Sports Stadium are also within this Division.

Planning

This Division was established to shape the natural and built environments of the Shire through the management of the approvals and strategic land use planning functions under the EPA Act. This Division undertakes strategic land use planning and processes development applications and construction certificates enabling a work team approach to application processing.

Corporate & Community

The Corporate & Community Division is a service provider, providing internal services e.g., administration, finance and information and technology services to the organisation and community services e.g., library, child care and aged services, to the community.

Environment

This Division when created was a new approach representing a key priority of the Council and demonstrated a commitment to environmental issues. Its functional responsibilities predominantly address the care, protection and maintenance of the natural environment and include waste services.

Principles of Organisation Design

Mercer (HR Consultants) and Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell from the Ashridge Business School have discussed the 6 principles of good organisation design which they consider will assist in addressing the most difficult challenges faced in ensuring organisational effectiveness.

They consider that having selected a basic organisation design, these six principles help address the key limitations or difficulties arising from any design and are useful to consider in a review:

· The specialisation principle- unit boundaries should be defined to achieve the most important benefits available from specialisation (with a particular focus on what autonomy needs to be afforded to an organisation unit to allow it be effective against the predominant organisational culture)

· The coordination principle – units should be defined so that the activities that most need to be coordinated fall within unit boundaries (with an ensuing focus on identifying and managing difficult links that fall across organisational boundaries)

· The knowledge & competence principle – responsibilities should be allocated to the person or team best placed to assemble the relevant knowledge and competence at reasonable cost

· The control & competence principle – units should be formed to facilitate effective, low cost control and commitment to appropriate goals

· The innovation and adaptation principle – organisations should be structured so they can innovate and adapt as uncertainties become clarified and environments change

· The complexity principle – the organisational design needs to sufficiently account for the complexities inherent to the business yet remain simple enough to allow capable people to work effectively.

Management Plan

When considering issues of organisational structure review, it is also important to contemplate that structure follows strategy. It is relevant therefore, for Council to contemplate how the existing organisation structure can implement Council's adopted Management/Strategic Plan.

The Management Plan for 2009/10 – 2011/12 contains the following priority areas identified by Councillors at their Strategic Planning Workshop in February 2009:

· Ensuring the financial sustainability of the organisation so it can respond to future challenges

· Balancing the growing recreational and cultural needs with Council’s ability to provide

· Maintaining infrastructure

· Managing the Hornsby Quarry site

· Increasing the commercial activity in Hornsby and the other town centres

Consideration of these priority areas shows that Council can accommodate the elements of the current and proposed Management Plans into the existing organisation and indicates that the existing structure can be fundamentally confirmed, giving each Division a chance to report difficulties, canvass issues to be resolved, etc.

Management Plan reviews provide the basis for reporting progress against targets for each action. With the assessment of progress for each action, ExCo and the Council can determine whether any further organisation structure review would be beneficial.

2005 Review

As a consequence of the review of the Organisation Structure undertaken by the previous Council following the 2004 Ordinary election, the Council resolved inter alia that cross divisional work teams be instituted to address on a progressive basis the following:

- customer service

- asset management

- recreation services

- economic development

- compliance

A brief summary is provided in respect to each review.

Customer Service Review

The Customer Service Review team was convened to evaluate the current customer service functions provided by Council, with a particular emphasis on services located in the Administration Building and to suggest enhancements in order to improve customer satisfaction when accessing information, processing transactions or requesting service.

The following broad recommendations were suggested by the review team, taking into account constraints such as the limited ability to change the layout of the Administration Building and staffing limitations.

1. Develop, emphasise, reward and reinforce customer service culture

2. Improve telephone protocol and demand adherence

3. Re-design the website to be more user friendly and easier to navigate

4. Reconfigure the layout and signage of current customer service points

5. Explore management and reporting arrangements that will focus customer service issues in the organisation and allow escalation of issues where necessary

6. Develop a single customer service policy that includes complaints handling

7. Promote the functions of Council both internally and externally

8. Review the customer service interface for the Traffic section.

Each of these recommendations has been addressed internally with recommendation 5 being the recommendation with an organisation structure potential impact.

During the review, the review team was of the opinion that customer service needed to cut across the traditional professions within Council and customers are often unaware of which customer service business location they need to contact.

It is considered that there would be significant benefit in amalgamating the strategic oversight of customer service functions under one Division. Customer services frontline staff would not include library, waste or child care staff. It would be proposed that the strategic oversight of customer service come under the management authority of the Manager, Corporate Strategy within the General Manager’s Division. It is anticipated that this position would be responsible for establishing programs that:

a. Facilitated the sharing of information, personnel and practices between the various decentralised customer service units; and

b. Established a common set of performance requirements for customer service within Hornsby Shire Council.

Recreation Services

The provision of recreation services in Council was reviewed by a Project Group, drawn from each of the Divisions responsible for the provision of leisure services. For the purposes of the exercise, leisure was defined to include open space resources, aquatic and indoor sport facilities and community and cultural facilities/services (Youth and Senior Citizen Centres, Galleries and Libraries, Performing/Visual Art facilities).

The Project Group canvassed some structural variances to the one currently operating within Council, including:

· Amalgamation of leisure activities in one area of responsibility

· Partial amalgamation – e.g. Aquatic/Indoor facilities and outdoor open space

· Separation of strategic and operational matters.

The Project Group identified that the current structure, where outdoor recreation resides within the Environment Division; Aquatic, Indoor activities and cycleway provision reside with the Works Division; and Community and Cultural Activities reside with the Corporate and Community Services Division, functions because of the good co-operation that exists between the various Divisions. It was considered that the current functional structure provided the best support to the various types of leisure services provided and encourages increased dialogue between Teams and Divisions which in itself is a desirable benefit.

The Project Group did however identify that there are certain shortcomings that would be common with any structure. The existence of the Leisure Strategic Plan (Adopted in 2002) which identifies leisure needs across the Shire in all asset classes was seen as its strength. The plan was formulated under the guidance of a Steering Committee made up of Managers of the various leisure/recreation classes within Councils. It has directed the efforts of the various Division for the last few years.

The review has concluded that there are no pressing reasons to alter the current structure. Notwithstanding, the Project Group is of the opinion that the provision of leisure services across the Shire, could be improved through an improved understanding of councillor and community expectations and an agreed understanding of the priority for the provision of leisure/recreation facilities.

Economic Development

Following the meeting of 9 March 2005, when the Organisational Structure Review was previously considered, economic development became a strategic focus of the Council. Subsequently, reports were submitted to Council on 25 May 2005, 8 February 2006 and 8 November 2006, at which the economic development framework and economic development strategy for the Shire were considered and developed by Council. Although not specifically stated, it was intended that during the period of the development of an economic strategy, relevant staff would be retained within the Strategy Division. Following the establishment of the strategy, the placement of operational aspects within the organisation structure was to be reviewed.

Further comment is provided under the heading “Strategy Division”.

Compliance

A Compliance Review Team was established to explore whether approvals and compliance functions should be separated to ensure compliance with Council’s requirements. Areas included approvals for development, food shops, waste management facilities, construction certificates and related inspections. It had been suggested that by separating the approvals function from the compliance function, greater compliance could be achieved. Consequently, the purpose of the review is to determine whether the separation of the approvals and compliance functions had the potential benefits that would warrant structural reform.

The Team appreciated that the expertise of staff is shared between approvals and enforcement matters. To separate these functions could necessitate a duplication of resources and may frustrate the communication of changes in legislation and best practice between staff.

With respect to the importance of communicating best practice and legislative changes to staff managing enforcement, it was considered that rather than separating approvals and compliance, there was a greater need for multi-skilling.

It was noted by the Review Team that assessment and inspection functions had been split within Assessment Team 1 of the Planning Division, to reduce the opportunities for corrupt behaviour. To ensure that requirements are met and standards observed, in some circumstances it is necessary to separate the inspection and approval roles.

The Team also considered information published by the NSW Ombudsman and Planning NSW Practice Note on exercising discretion which included advice on overcoming problems associated with the exercise of discretion by:

· Being aware of the legal limitations of discretion

· Identify and avoiding conflicts of interest

· Using clear and unambiguous controls

· Carefully using performance based controls

· Separating assessment and decision making functions.

Reading the enforcement guidelines for Councils published by NSW Ombudsman, it was apparent that enforcement had many discretionary facets. Such discretion should be exercised in consideration of the intent of the law, fairness, equity and environmental outcomes.

Consideration has also been given to the Department of Local Government’s ‘Reform Program – Promoting Better Practice’. Upon recent investigation of like sized councils, the Department has noted the merits of creating a specialist compliance section that enables it to deal with a range of compliance initiatives.

Applying the above principles to the Hornsby context, it is considered that there would be benefit in exploring a separation of compliance functions within multi-skilled teams along the lines of ‘natural environment’ and ‘built environment’. This aspect will be pursued but is not anticipated to impact upon organisational design at the macro level.

Asset Management

Asset management consists of a series of actions that, taken together, lead to the provision of infrastructure that is relevant to the community’s needs, appropriately maintained, and for which replacement or renewal arrangements have been made. Financial decisions relating to assets form part of the asset management process, as does consultation that leads to the determination of a level of service appropriate to the community’s needs.

Asset management in Hornsby is based on plans prepared for the following key asset classes: roads, stormwater drainage, foreshore facilities, public buildings, open spaces and leisure facilities. Effective financial management underpins the actions taken in respect of the commissioning, operation, maintenance, renewal and eventual disposal of an asset. These decisions are based on parameters that experience has shown to be largely unique to each asset class. On this basis, the approach adopted by Council is that those with the expertise undertake the various actions relating to the management of an asset. Branch Managers in the Corporate and Community Services (Administration Services, Community Services), Environment (Bushland and Biodiversity, Parks and Landscapes, Water Catchments) and Works Divisions (Aquatic and Recreation Facilities, Assets, Design and Construction, Engineering Services, Property Development) currently have the skills and/or the responsibility for such tasks.

One option for organisation structure could involve the separation of some of the various asset management tasks, currently undertaken within individual Divisions, and their incorporation in a single “assets” Branch or Division. Separation in such a manner has the risk of loss of the synergy that comes from a detailed knowledge of the asset and its management (especially in determining where in the asset management cycle that any separation should occur), less effective supervision and management as managers who are not familiar with or have the requisite technical expertise to make decisions are required to do so, and increased costs of doing business as resources are duplicated to cover the increased skill acquisition, communication and consultation that may be required.

Key recommendations/decisions relating to the acquisition or disposal of an asset are seen to be the responsibility of the asset “owner” (within the Works, Environment or Corporate and Community Services Divisions), who commissions the subsequent maintenance or other actions from within the organisation (usually the Works or Environment Divisions), or externally to the organisation. This can occur within an organisation structure that has been determined on principles other than purely asset management.

Experience has shown that the existing co-operative arrangements where decisions are made in consultation with the Branch Managers across Divisions, who have that expertise, have been effective in ensuring that Council’s assets are effectively managed. Intentional consultation via inter-Divisional working parties and specific project management teams has been effective in ensuring the successful delivery of individual projects, and has also assisted in fostering communication generally across the organisation.

Review Questionnaire

During late 2008, an Organisation Review e-questionnaire was distributed to all staff that had access to a computer. The participation rate was approximately 73% of whom 86% fully completed the Questionnaire.

A review of the responses received, indicates that of the issues raised, the majority are more related to the micro, rather than the macro level of organisation design and these will be determined by ExCo. They do not however suggest an alternative divisional structure for Hornsby, but more imply a need to continue to review and consider the allocation of functional responsibilities amongst divisions.

Similarly, Councillors were invited to submit issues for consideration, in the Organisation Structure Review. The responses received have been considered and incorporated into this Review.

Strategy Division

Within the Strategy Division, there have been two significant resignations, which have provided the opportunity to give particular consideration to the future of this Division.

The Strategy Division coordinates change within council, including the development of the three year Management Plan, the blueprint for council operations. Through quarterly reviews, the Division also works to ensure council is meeting industry standards, community expectations and its own objectives in providing services to Hornsby Shire.

The Human Resources Branch facilitates and leads changes in workplace reform. The Branch also encourages staff to enhance their individual and professional skills through training and development, which works to promote leadership and teamwork skills in their contact with council and the community.

Under the Development Contribution Program (Section 94), the Division coordinates the expenditure of funds collected to provide playing fields, playgrounds and parks, bushland regeneration, community facilities and roadworks required as a result of new development in the Shire.

Strategy also assists council in economic development and tourism, with an emphasis on revitalising and strengthening employment in the shire’s commercial and industrial sectors.

The substantive issues of the Development Contribution Plan and Economic Development were initially under the umbrella of the Strategy Division to establish the strategic framework for these two functions. Having now established the strategic focus, both have become more operational and are able to be transferred to the Planning Division.

The Development Contribution Plan review has already been allocated to the Strategic Planning Branch of the Planning Division and its responsibility should now be formally transferred. Operational issues in relation to the granting of approvals for expenditure from the plan can be allocated to the Finance Branch of the Corporate & Community Division.

Similarly with respect to Economic Development, the Economic Development Strategy has been approved by Council and the function is now more focussed upon liaising with the business community, overseeing the operations of the Visitor Information Centre and marketing and promoting the Shire generally.

The Strategy Division could therefore be dissolved, but its functions remain as two distinct Branches which are re-allocated to other Divisions.

It is therefore necessary to consider to which Division or Divisions the two remaining distinct Branches should be re-allocated. Both retain to a certain extent, a strategic focus, but also have an impact upon the whole organisation. There is also greater importance being placed upon the role of Management Planning, with the introduction into State Parliament of the Local Government Amendment (Planning & Reporting) Bill 2009.

Under these circumstances, it is proposed that both the Human Resources Branch and the Corporate Strategy Branch come within the direct management control of the General Manager. Additionally it is proposed that the Corporate Strategy Branch Manager accept the strategic oversight of customer service functions.

BUDGET

There are no budget implications in this Report.

POLICY

There are no direct policy implications in respect of the recommendations contained within the Report.

CONSULTATION

This Report has been prepared following consultation with Councillors and the Executive Managers.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

As this Report substantially provides Council with information related to investigations and surveys, and does not propose any significant actions, it is considered that no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply which require a sustainability assessment.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The General Manager, Mr Robert Ball.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT <<Insert the recommendation within the box…>>

1. The Organisation Structure be determined to consist of five (5) Divisions being:

· General Manager

· Corporate & Community

· Works

· Planning

· Environment.

2. The General Manager’s Division include a Corporate Strategy Branch and a Human Resources Branch.

The Manager, Corporate Strategy within the General Manager’s Division assume responsibility for the decentralised Customer Service function in accordance with the requirements set out in this report.

Robert Ball

General Manager

General Manager Division

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Reference: F2005/00087

Document Number: D01229745

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received a number of requests for changes to traffic and parking management in the area broadly defined by Greenway Park, the Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre Purchase Road and Shepherds Drive. Forty-one requests for improvements to the operation of the roundabout at the entry to Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre have been received by way of submissions to the draft Management Plan 2009/10 – 2011/12.

Recent developments have increased parking utilization and traffic generation, and future development is expected to further increase activity and demand. However, the planning of the road and parking network in Cherrybrook is essentially sound with recent surveys confirming prescribed traffic management standards are being met. Relatively minor changes are required to ensure road safety and traffic flow standards continue to be met, and that equitable access to parking continues.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

This report has been prepared to review the operation of traffic and parking facilities in the area broadly defined by Greenway Park, the Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre, Purchase Road and Shepherds Drive. Issues considered in this report are:

· The operation of the roundabout at the intersection of Shepherds Drive and Kenburn Avenue.

· Cherrybrook Shopping Village access and parking.

· Parking in Shepherds Drive on the approach to the roundabout.

· Parking within Greenway Park.

· Parking displaced onto local streets.

· Pedestrian access to shops.

· Parking near The Manor.

· Traffic at schools on Purchase Road.

· Intersection of New Line Road and Shepherds Drive/County Drive.

DISCUSSION

The area of Cherrybrook referred to in this report was identified as the service centre for the precinct when it was planned and subdivided over thirty years ago. Since then Cherrybrook has been subject to steady increases in activity as infill development has increased the population to levels able to sustain locally based services. Until recently Cherrybrook residents have experienced the benefit of forward planning where roads, parks and other facilities have operated at reduced capacity. Now that the population and traffic are reaching ultimate planned levels, some residents are concerned that Cherrybrook is being over developed. However, ongoing monitoring has verified that the road and parking networks are operating within prescribed standards. Traffic flow on local roads during peak periods meets traffic management performance standards for the Sydney metropolitan area. Parking is available within the range considered desirable by pedestrian planning guidelines during parking peaks.

· Roundabout at the intersection of Shepherds Drive and Kenburn Avenue.

The redevelopment of Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre in 2005 resulted in increased traffic delays in Shepherds Drive. Traffic attempting to enter Cherrybrook Shopping Village from the direction of New Line Road is now delayed by vehicles slowing to access parking spaces within the centre. However, while queuing did occur during traffic peaks, the extent and duration of the queuing fell below the level justifying major reconstruction according to prescribed traffic management standards. Despite site observations and traffic modelling confirming that Shepherds Drive was operating satisfactorily, Council, at the Ordinary Meeting of 8 August 2007 (WK49/07), resolved to investigate improvements to the roundabout.

The Local Traffic Committee considered two proposals to provide a left turn slip lane from Shepherds Drive into the shopping centre in May 2008 (LTC Item 12/2008) and recommended that the low cost left turn lane proposal using minimum design standards was acceptable and should be provided. A full report on the roundabout design options and related issues are included in Attachment 1.

The approved design was developed using Australian Standard vehicle templates and allows two cars to enter the roundabout at slow speed. The additional left turn lane was provided to store vehicles waiting to enter the shopping centre car park without obstructing through movements during traffic peaks. The lane widths in and approaching the roundabout are sufficient to allow through vehicles to slowly pass stopped vehicles. Where the left turning vehicle does not keep left, or either vehicle is larger than the design vehicle, the other vehicle has the option of using the mountable portion of the roundabout which is designed specifically to allow vehicles to cross at slow speed. This creates a low speed environment which is appropriate for the level of traffic congestion and pedestrian conflict occurring during peak periods. Whether or not the queue forms is dependant on motorists behaviour within the car park. Observation of the roundabout operation also shows through traffic is delayed by vehicles queuing in the roundabout when queues in the shopping centre car park limit entry opportunities. This in turn delays south bound vehicles. There is not a design solution possible on Shepherds Drive or the roundabout which can influence queuing within the car park.

There are two identified options to increase the road width. Firstly, further widening of the roadway (refer to Attachment 2) and secondly, narrowing of the roundabout island (refer to Attachment 3), have been investigated. However, neither option is considered suitable as such work would decrease the deflection path of the kerbside lane to the point where through vehicles may travel at an unrestricted speed through the roundabout, thus negating the road safety benefits of the roundabout when traffic is light. In addition, through vehicle speeds in the area of the pedestrian refuges at the roundabout would increase during peak periods if the lanes are wider. Such action cannot be supported on road safety grounds.

A comparison of typical queue lengths before and after the roundabout improvements completed in August 2008 are shown in Attachment 4. Further details of traffic count data are provided in Attachment 1. The lines shown in Attachment 4 represent the end of queues resulting from traffic travelling at less than 10 km/h, not necessarily stopped. The longer queue represents Level of Service C and the shorter Level of Service B. Level of Service C is considered acceptable for new traffic facilities in the Sydney Region. Observations of queuing at this roundabout consistently show that queues form readily at times of high activity in the car park, but also dissipate relatively quickly.

Other options would be to signalise the intersection, either by signalising the roundabout or removing the roundabout and reconstructing the intersection. The cost of either option would exceed $200,000. Neither option is recommended as queues entering the car park would continue to form back into the intersection, preventing vehicles from entering the intersection. In addition, signals would result in vehicle delays occurring outside of peak periods as well as during peak periods. Signals may however, improve pedestrian access during peak periods. As the roundabout does not have an established crash history and the Level of Service is better than F, the site does not meet the RTA threshold for traffic signals. Consequently, the RTA would not contribute towards the work.

The Traffic Officer, Eastwood Police advises that the Police would not support providing a wider circulating roadway as it would result in higher speeds through the roundabout. Other sections of Shepherds Drive have a history of after hours speeding complaints and the roundabout in its current form has proven to be an effective speed management device with only one significant collision reported in the last 12 months.

Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre management has advised that it is currently unable to consider financially contributing to further roadworks as it considers the left turn slip lane has reduced delays and complaints significantly. However, centre management will consider further changes to the internal layout of the car park to improve circulation and further reduce queuing into Shepherds Drive, as detailed later in this report. Council staff will continue to work with centre management on this issue.

Changes to the roundabout or approach lanes are not recommended as the roundabout is operating in accordance with the design brief and meets prescribed traffic flow and road safety standards. Widening the roadway at the roundabout would decrease road safety without improving access to the shopping centre and is also not supported.

· Cherrybrook Shopping Village access and parking.

As stated above, the key to improving traffic operation at Kenburn Avenue roundabout relies on preventing queuing in the car park extending back into Shepherds Drive. To manage the problem, Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre has retained a traffic consultant to investigate and recommend changes to the layout of the car park to reduce delays and queuing. As a result, a number of changes have been made in consultation with Council since late 2005. Angle parking at the shopping centre car park entry was removed and replaced with a community bus stop. Later, diverging aisles near the entry were blocked off. Parking restrictions introduced earlier this year created more on site parking by removing commuters. Staff parking has been consolidated in specific areas. The traffic consultant is continuing to develop proposals involving low cost changes to pavement marking and pedestrian access to improve traffic flow within the car park.

Centre management has also attempted to influence driver behaviour by giving away shopping vouchers to attract customers into the underutilized multi-deck section of the car park. However, the initiative has only had moderate success as many motorists appear to prefer to wait for a space to be vacated near the main entry rather than drive further into the car park to access a vacant space.

While the changes to the car park have collectively provided useful improvements, many residents writing to Council have suggested a second entry via Greenway Park, near the Caltex Service station. Centre management has stated they will consider a second access over the longer term, however, recognize that it will be an extremely expensive project involving a long time frame to deliver. This matter was considered in more detail in Report WK2/09 considered by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 11 February 2009. In that report Council’s Manager Parks and Landscapes Team supported a shared pedestrian bicycle link however was unable to support a vehicle link due to its greater adverse impact on the operation of Greenway Park. Those comments highlighted concerns regarding the loss of community open space and lack of alternative sites available to relocate affected sport facilities.

In addition to considerable construction costs, a second entry proposal would require extensive public consultation to determine whether the community would support changing the Plan of Management, reclassifying Community Land and subsequently rezoning the land. Council could fast track the process by initiating public consultation and reclassification, however, this would involve considerable Council resources. As the Centre management has stated that it is unable to consider funding a second entry in the short term, Council would have to bear the full cost of consultation and reclassification with no guarantee that current or future property owners would complete the process. A second access driveway would follow a similar alignment to the proposed pedestrian cycleway as shown in Attachment 5, however, due to the greater width, it would have a greater impact on Greenway Park.

A review of the traffic data indicates that a second entry/exit to Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre may not completely solve nor sufficiently improve the queuing problem occurring at the Kenburn Avenue roundabout. Of particular concern is the volume of traffic entering the shopping village from the direction of the County Drive roundabout (300 vehicles per hour), and returning the same way (242 vph) during peak periods. Furthermore, substantial promotion and financial inducements by shopping centre management failed to attract motorists to use the underutilized multideck car park. Therefore the likelihood of motorists entering the area from the County Drive roundabout changing their behaviour to use the second entry to access the multideck car park area is unknown and cannot be reliably estimated. Committing Council to a relatively expensive course of action of a second car park entry, that involves rezoning and the loss of public open space and sports facilities, cannot be recommended where the benefit or outcome is uncertain.

The relatively minor changes to the operation of the car park made by Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre have resulted in significant reductions to delays. Additional proposed internal works also appear feasible. While a second vehicle entry via Greenway Park may be seen as an improvement, it could be difficult to justify given current traffic volumes and the loss of open space and recreational facilities. Due to the costs of public consultation and reclassification of land, the need to plan for a second entry is effectively a decision for the Centre management unless Council is prepared to fund advance planning consultation and rezoning, which would in turn require Council to consider the budget implications. This work is currently unfunded.

· Parking in Shepherds Drive on the approach to the roundabout.

Some residents have requested that parking restrictions in Shepherds Drive on the approach to the Kenburn Avenue roundabout be extended to allow more queuing during peak periods. When the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) considered the roundabout design in 2008, the extent of parking restrictions required to allow the roundabout to operate properly was assessed using traffic data. The LTC was concerned that excessive removal of parking would result in higher speeds in the vicinity of Shepherds Lane, the main access to Greenway Park. Therefore, peak period parking restrictions were only provided for approximately 60 metres between Shepherds Lane and the roundabout and about five vehicle parking spaces now remain during peaks. With parking removed all the way to Shepherds Lane, two lanes may queue across this intersection, making ingress and egress from Greenway Park more difficult as turning traffic would be required to judge the intentions of two lanes of moving traffic. Removing more parking from Shepherds Drive will also result in those vehicles relocating elsewhere in other sections of Shepherds Drive, Kenburn Avenue or Greenway Park and should only be implemented after assessment of these implications. This is discussed elsewhere in this report.

Site observations confirm that the duration of queuing falls short of the warrant required to provide an “It is Illegal to Queue Across Intersections” pavement marking, which cannot be installed without RTA and Police approval. As queues across Shepherds Lane are almost constantly moving such a facility would be unworkable and unenforceable.

The extent of queuing in Shepherds Drive will continue to be monitored and if queues increase to levels experienced prior to the changes to the roundabout in August 2008, changes to traffic or parking management will be further considered and proposals referred to the Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

Given the volumes of traffic accessing Shepherds Drive during peak periods, and the relatively infrequent queuing past this point, it is recommended that the current parking restrictions be maintained. The current delays in Shepherds Drive meet prescribed performance standards and removing parking to achieve a slight reduction in delay does not justify the increased road safety risk of having two lanes queuing across Shepherds Lane.

· Parking within Greenway Park.

The Manager Parks and Landscapes Team, is responsible for the outdoor facilities in Greenway Park and has provided the following comments.

“Greenway Park is a large park with a number of facilities each capable of drawing high levels of visitors. Facilities and activities occurring in the park include a community centre and a soon to open attached child care centre, an aquatic centre, sportsgrounds for AFL/baseball, and rugby league/cricket/athletics, netball courts, a tennis court, a skate facility, a dog off leash area and a surrounding path for cycling and walking. Greenway Park is, however, better provided with off-street parking than any other park in Hornsby Shire. There are times when this parking capacity is exceeded but this appears to occur on only about 12 days each year and then for only a part of these days.

In other words, the parking capacity at Greenway Park is adequate more than 95% of the time, which is likely to be better than the performance of most busy car parks whether in public reserves or elsewhere. The problem is that, as at most car parks, drivers seeking parking feel inconvenienced if they cannot find a parking spot very close to the particular facility that they wish to use. Most of the users of Greenway Park co-exist well despite times when parking demand stretches the park’s capacity.

The parking is divided between unlinked upper and lower sections accessible by separate entrances to the park off Shepherds Drive. The most sought after area for parking spots is the car park in the upper section to the east of the community centre and to the south of the AFL/Baseball field known as Greenway number 1 oval. (‘the middle car park’) Even so, most of the time this car park has the capacity to cope with the demand. This middle car park reaches capacity when:

· AFL has a home game on Sundays (up to 12 per year)

· AFL weekday evening training coincides with heavy use of Cherrybrook Aquatic Centre and Cherrybrook Community Centre ( up to three evenings a week from March to August )

· Cherrybrook Probus Club’s Thursday morning meetings attract large numbers (several Thursdays per year).

Observations by the Parks and Landscape Team show that this middle car park is also used by various groups using the community centre (but particularly the Anglican Church congregation), overflow parking for the aquatic centre, and some parking probably associated with the shopping centre. Most of the time when this middle car park is full, there is still capacity in the lower car parks accessed by a second (northern) entrance to Greenway Park off Shepherds Drive. The problem for drivers seeking parking is that in order to access this parking, drivers are required to exit the park via the same southern entrance that they used and re-enter the park after travelling along Shepherds Drive.

It would be possible to link the upper and lower car parks to allow movement between them at times of high parking demand but this would be undesirable from the viewpoint of preserving the amenity of the park. A road would need to pass through a pinch point that already contains a popular pathway for walking and cycling and also contains the surrounds to the skate facility. A road here would create user conflicts and result in more hard surfaces in this already highly-developed park.

Alternatively it may be possible to install advisory signage at the southern entrance to the park advising motorists of the capacity of the car parks however this would be expensive to install and maintain.

The lower car parks are mainly for the use of visitors to the lower Number Two Oval – cricket, athletics and rugby league and the adjoining netball and tennis courts and skate facility This oval generates lower peak traffic demand than the much larger Number One Oval. The parking patterns for the users of the two ovals seems to indicate that users of Number One Oval use the middle car park accessed from the southern park entrance and the Number Two Oval visitors use the northern park entrance and associated car parks. These car parks reach capacity less often than the upper car parks though it does occur for part of the day when both AFL and rugby league host home games on a Sunday. This occurs only about five days per year. They may become close to capacity when both rugby league and netball training is on during midweek evenings between March and August.

Another problem that has been brought to Council’s attention is the difficulty posed for some community centre users when they cannot find parking close to the community centre at busy times ie during Sunday church services that coincide with AFL home matches and during Probus Club meetings. Many of these visitors are elderly and some also frail. Due to repeated representations made by the church congregations and supported by former Councillor Horne, in 2008 the church was given informal permission to reserve up to 30 car spaces near the community centre by placing witches hats and providing a parking marshal to oversee the use of these spaces. Such reservation does not and cannot have any official status as the parking in Greenway Park and other reserves should be equally available to all members of the public. The procedure is an imperfect solution and has led to:

· occasional objections by AFL visitors in which case the church representatives do not resist parking in the reserved space by the objecting AFL visitor

· unconfirmed reports of AFL protecting or attempting to reserve its own parking spaces at the expense of other visitors such as aquatic centre visitors

This demonstrates that any steps to reserve spaces for a particular class of visitor to the park is likely to lead to resentment and an expectation from other classes of visitors that they too should have reserved parking. Any trend towards more widespread reserved parking would be likely to cause very inefficient use of parking capacity in the park and a breakdown of regard for the reserved parking. Already there is an issue of parking contrary to ‘no parking’ notices around the internal roads in the park and this can impede traffic movement and pedestrian safety in the park.

Investigations together with the Traffic Branch during 2007 showed that there is capacity to increase the number of parking spaces within Greenway Park by 15 spaces in the area between the community centre and aquatic centre. This would come at a cost both financially and to the amenity of the park. Because the additional spaces would be in an area of high demand they would be likely to be well utilised however most of the time this would result in less utilisation of existing spaces elsewhere in the park. The marginal benefit of the additional spaces would not justify the expense estimated at over $80,000 and amenity impact.

Regarding the proposal to develop a school sportsground for community use, Council has commissioned a traffic and parking consultant who investigated the capacity of the school car parks to meet sportsground parking needs. The report found that despite existing regular after hours use of various school facilities there would be sufficient capacity in the car parks and in the bus bays on Purchase Rd to meet sportsground needs, except on about 20 weeknights per annum when training would not be possible because larger school events would require all the parking. The schools would advise Council of these dates early each year and the sportsground would be unavailable to sports clubs on those occasions. Apart from that, it is expected that all parking needs can be accommodated without the need for additional parking spaces at Greenway Park.

In conclusion, while parking at Greenway Park is such that not all users can always find the parking space most convenient to their particular needs, it is nevertheless adequate for all users to find a space within the park almost all the time, and allowing for a little inconvenience. To overcome this inconvenience would impact on the budget available for Parks capital works, the amenity of Greenway Park, and equity among visitors to the park. Therefore, the Parks and Landscape Team does not support measures to provide greater parking convenience for visitors to Greenway Park that would involve creating more parking spaces, linking upper and lower car parks, creating reserved parking or providing technology to advise of parking capacity.

There may be potential to reduce some of the congestion with better coordination of scheduling at the various sportsgrounds, aquatic centre and community centre but the reality is that for the most part, each has the same or similar period of peak demand on weekday evenings and weekends.”

Following comments from the public that commuters are parking near the community centre in Greenway Park, surveys were undertaken during May 2009, comparing vehicles parked prior to 9.00am with those vehicles parked after 3.00pm. The number plate surveys indicate that commuter parking is insignificant with fewer than seven vehicles (other than construction workers engaged with the child care centre) parking all day out of the 113 spaces. The survey confirmed that the number of vacant spaces is more than adequate to service the proposed child care centre at the times they will be required by parents, which is before 9.00am and after 4.00pm.

On one Thursday a month, the Probus Club almost completely fills the carpark between 9.00am and 12.00pm. Buses parking illegally across parking bays have on occasion reduced parking availability in that car park, however, other parking is available within 400 metres. Disabled community centre patrons have access to disabled parking spaces or a parking exemption permit issued by the community centre enabling patrons to use the “No Parking” Zone adjacent to the centre. Council’s Traffic Rangers regularly patrol the car park to ensure that vehicles park in marked spaces and buses do not park on site.

Before bookings at the community centre are taken it would be appropriate for community centre management to liaise with Council’s Parks and Landscapes Team to ensure that large groups that are seeking to use the community centre are aware of other activities. Advice regarding such likelihood can be readily provided if required.

· Parking displaced onto local streets.

Residents in Shepherds Drive, Kenburn Avenue and Tallowwood Avenue have contacted Council concerned by the number of vehicles parked in their streets. It appears that within the last twelve months bus patronage has increased, particularly on the Citybus service, resulting in commuters parking near the bus stops. To deter commuters from parking within Cherrybrook Village, Council commenced enforcement of 3P restrictions, displacing commuters and workers without dedicated parking spaces on to local streets.

Roads throughout Cherrybrook are designed to allow the safe movement of traffic concurrently with on street parking in accordance with their status in the road hierarchy. For example, Shepherds Drive, Purchase Road and other collector roads allow two directions of traffic to travel unconstrained with both parking lanes occupied. Minor roads such as Kenburn Avenue require reduced speeds when both sides of the road contain parked vehicles. Therefore, given that planning requirements do not generally provide for all parking to occur on site, it is appropriate that visitors have the option of on street parking near schools, recreation facilities and shops.

Local streets are regularly patrolled to ensure parking regulations are obeyed to maintain the safe movement of traffic. In addition, when bus companies experience running problems with traffic or parking, Council is contacted and requested to take action. Currently there are no outstanding issues regarding bus access in Cherrybrook.

Regarding commuters using Greenway Park, the Manager Parks and Landscapes Team comments that:

“Greenway Park would appear to have some capacity to receive commuter parking on most Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The Probus Club make heavy use of the carpark on Thursdays at present. This appears to have been a recent development and a rise in parking demand from other activities on other weekdays cannot be ruled out. The users of the facilities of Greenway Park should have first call on parking without the need to compete for parking with non-visitors to the Park.

There is nothing preventing non-visitors to Greenway Park using car park spaces at present. However, anecdotally, such use appears to be low, indicating a lack of demand from commuters and others probably because of the ready availability of more convenient alternative car parking capacity.

I would be concerned if a measure was introduced to encourage the use of Greenway Park for parking for non-visitors. This would tend to reduce the parking available to genuine park visitors. It would require a change to the Plan of Management for Greenway Park to allow the facilities to be used for off-park purposes. This may be in contravention of the legislated core objectives for the relevant categories of community land in the Local Government Act 1993. These core objectives strictly prescribe the uses to which community land may be put.”

While there is some evidence that commuters are using Greenway Park, to promote or otherwise manage commuter parking within the park will require a review of the Plan of Management. In any event, it is unlikely to resolve the operation of the Kenburn Ave roundabout. As the road network is designed to allow safe on street parking there will be no net benefit for residents, motorists or commuters if commuter parking is relocated.

In summary, the local road network was designed to provide on street parking concurrently with anticipated traffic volumes, and recent investigations have confirmed no specific road safety problems. Although Greenway Park appears to have excess capacity suitable for commuter parking, encouraging certain categories of users to park in set locations would be difficult to manage as regulations used to enforce parking on road and in public areas do not distinguish between categories of users. Currently, parking appears to be managing itself, even during peak periods, and further management by way of parking restrictions or information signage is not appropriate as it would benefit one group over another.

· Pedestrian access to shops.

Report WK02/09 considered by Council on 11 February 2009 dealt with issues relating to providing a shared pedestrian bicycle access from Greenway Park near the Caltex service station. Council resolved not to contribute to this facility and it remains a matter for Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre management to consider. The same report considered a direct connection between the bus stop on Shepherds Drive and the shopping centre, however, due to the level difference and requirement to provide disabled access a direct connection would not be any shorter than the current arrangement via the shopping centre driveway.

Pedestrian refuges have been provided to cross Shepherds Drive at the Kenburn Avenue roundabout, and about 150 metres east of Kenburn Avenue. Pedestrian volumes currently do not meet the RTA requirement for the safe operation of marked foot crossings, therefore zebra crossings cannot be provided as the RTA is the consent authority for these facilities. The relatively low speed environment and congestion during peak periods creates opportunities for pedestrians to cross using the median islands on the roundabout.

Pedestrian access could be improved by signalising the intersection of Shepherds Drive and Kenburn Avenue. However, as stated above, the cost would exceed $200,000 and would have adverse impacts on traffic flow and residential amenity outside of peak periods. Currently, signalising the intersection is not justified given the relatively low demand pedestrian demand, number of alternative pedestrian crossings and the overall expense.

A direct shared pedestrian/bicycle connection through Greenway Park is feasible. This matter was considered in more detail in Report WK2/09 considered by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 11 February 2009. Council resolved that should this project proceed, it should be fully funded by the shopping centre. The concept design report prepared for Council has been referred to Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre management for their consideration as per Council’s resolution.

· Parking near The Manor

On 18 June 2009 Council, received a petition organised by the Strata Manager of The Manor, signed by residents representing fifty households, requesting that Council provide parking restrictions near the driveway to The Manor similar to that provided at intersections. The petitioners appear unaware that Glamorgan Way is a private driveway and not a public road. As such, the operation of the driveway cannot be compared with a public road as different design guidelines and traffic regulations apply. Generally, Councils do not provide parking restrictions at private driveways unless there is a documented crash history or the site characteristics indicate the location is a high risk.

Under traffic regulations, the driveway crossing is effectively a ’Stop‘ facility, requiring motorists entering and leaving driveways to stop and give way to all road traffic, as well as pedestrians on the footway. In recognition of the driveway’s status in the traffic regulations, the developer has provided a gutter crossing and footpath crossing to reinforce the need for motorists to give way to pedestrians as well as traffic on Shepherds Drive. The need to stop to check for approaching traffic is an integral part of managing speeds across a footway area. Council has investigated the location a number of times in recent months and determined that parking near The Manor occurs sporadically and when it occurs, sight distance remains satisfactory. This has been checked by reversing into the exit driveway when large vehicles have been parked nearby. Sight distance at driveways cannot be compared with intersections, which unless signposted otherwise are considered to be ‘Give Way’ facilities.

Nevertheless the driveway to The Manor is exceptionally wide, over 15 metres at the kerb, with separate carriageways. Sight distance at this driveway without parking restrictions is superior to most in the Shire, and easily exceeds that of a typical 6 or 7 metre driveway serving a medium density development with one adjacent parking space restricted. At 12 metres width, Shepherds Drive allows over a metre clear space between a parked car and a travelling vehicle, which again provides additional sight distance. Random surveys at various times, including weekends and after hours, has confirmed that parking near The Manor occurs sporadically and when it does sight distance is satisfactory for the speeds encountered on Shepherds Drive. Overall, the driveway at The Manor poses a relatively low risk compared to other driveways serving medium or high density developments in the Shire which experience almost constant on street parking.

This year, Council’s Traffic and Road Safety Branch will develop a draft policy regarding parking restrictions at driveways. If adopted, this will be a new policy which will require liaison with other councils, the Police and the RTA, review of driveway related crash data across the Shire, the development of a risk assessment matrix, consideration of benefits and disbenefits including costs. The policy will provide guidelines on whether Council should provide parking restrictions at private driveways, and if so, how to rank priorities given the large number of driveways involved. On adoption, this access will be assessed and any action considered appropriate in terms of the policy will be further considered.

· Traffic near schools on Purchase Road.

Council has received requests from residents concerned about traffic congestion in Purchase Road outside the schools. Requests include additional pedestrian crossings near Hancock Drive roundabout and more parking enforcement.

Each year Council writes to all school principals in the Shire with road safety information for distribution and provides the contact numbers for Council’s Traffic Rangers and the Road Safety Officer. Each school principal is the responsible contact for road safety matters around their school and Council refers all school related road safety requests to principals for comment.

Following a request from the Cherrybrook Technology High School Principal about four years ago, Council met on site with the principal, the RTA, the Police and the bus operator to discuss the operation of the roundabout and parking management. All at the meeting agreed that providing pedestrian crossings at the roundabout (including the school driveway) would lead to Purchase Road grid-locking during school peaks and as a result cause other problems further reducing pedestrian safety. Council’s Manager Traffic and Road Safety telephoned the Principal in May 2009 to discuss this issue. While road safety outside the school is a concern, it was agreed that the traffic congestion is typical of schools and there are no specific issues with either traffic or parking management that require further consideration by Council.

As of May 2009, Council's Traffic Rangers have attended Purchase Road thirteen times this year and issued a moderate amount of infringements compared to other schools. The Police have also attended a number of times and state that driver behaviour and congestion is typical of a school environment. Both Council Rangers and Police need to balance their limited resources across the Shire to ensure all areas are treated equitably and neither agency considers that the problem in Purchase Road is significant enough to withdraw patrols at other schools to resource extra patrols at this school as this time.

Purchase Road is one of the busier school precincts in the Shire. However, the available crash data, regular enforcement patrols and monitoring indicate no unusual problems compared to other schools. Council will continue to monitor the location and provide the school with parking and road safety information.

· Intersection of New Line Road and Shepherds Drive/County Drive

Requests continue to be received regarding pedestrian access across New Line Road near the Shepherds Drive/County Drive roundabout. New Line Road is a State Classified Road and therefore operation of the road and its intersections is the responsibility of the RTA. Council has written to the RTA on a number of occasions in recent years requesting that pedestrian access near the roundabout be improved. In addition, on 3 May, 2006, a delegation from Hornsby Shire Council and The Hills Shire Council, together with the Member for Hawkesbury, met with the (then) Minister for Roads, the Hon Eric Roosendaal MP, to urge progress implementing the recommendations of a Route Development Strategy for Old Northern Road and New Line Road, completed in 1998.

Council wrote to the Regional Manager of the RTA again in 2007, urging progress on the matter, and continues to refer letters from the public to the RTA endorsing the requests. In addition, Council wrote to the Local Member for Hornsby in April 2009 requesting representations to the Minster for Roads regarding the status of the Route Development Strategy. Council received a response from the Local Member in June 2009, enclosing an acknowledgement letter from the Office of the Minister for Roads. To date, no substantive response has been received from the Minister or the RTA.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing monitoring and data collection indicate that generally traffic flow, road safety and parking provision in Cherrybrook meets the required standards for local road management used throughout the Sydney metropolitan area. A summary of the outcome of the investigations into the issues follows.

Operation of the roundabout at the intersection of Shepherds Drive and Kenburn Avenue

Changes to the roundabout completed in August 2008 improved operation from Level of Service C to Level of Service B, and there are no design deficiencies requiring further attention. Council will continue to review the traffic flow and crash data in consultation with the RTA and Police.

Cherrybrook Shopping Village access and parking

A second entry cannot be justified at this stage but should be considered with any major refurbishment in the future. The need to rezone part of Greenway Park may need to be considered however this may not be required if the refurbishment involves significant changes to the car park layout. Council staff will continue to work with the Shopping Village management to further improve traffic flow within the car park.

Parking in Shepherds Drive on the approach to the roundabout

Complete removal of parking between Shepherds Lane and the roundabout will have an adverse impact on the operation of the driveway to Greenway Park. Given that delays are currently of short duration, removal of parking during peak periods cannot be justified.

Parking within Greenway Park

Sufficient parking is available within Greenway Park to cater for other than infrequent instances of heavy multiple useage, in which case additional parking is available within convenient walking distance. Recent parking surveys confirm that parking is available during the times required by the Child Care Centre. Additional parking management is not considered necessary, however co-ordination between Branches when taking bookings for activities in the community centre and the park (including the proposed use of the school ovals) will ensure major events are staggered to ensure access to parking on site where possible.

Parking displaced onto local streets

Shepherds Drive, Kenburn Avenue and other local roads are designed to allow safe parking on street and the amount of parking now occurring reflects the range of services and facilities attracting patronage. Council will continue to monitor on street parking to ensure traffic flow and road safety remains at acceptable levels.

Pedestrian access to shops

Crossing facilities and paved paths provide a variety of pedestrian routes to local schools, Greenway Park, bus services and Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre. A direct pedestrian/bicycle connection through Greenway Park into the multideck area of the shopping centre is feasible and the concept report prepared for Council in February 2009 has been referred to Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre management for their consideration.

Parking near The Manor

The matter of whether it is appropriate to provide parking restrictions at private driveways, and what factors should be considered, will be the subject of a new “Parking near driveways” policy to be prepared later this year in consultation with the RTA and Police. The issues raised by the residents of The Manor will be considered when preparing and/or implementing the policy.

Traffic near schools on Purchase Road

Additional marked foot crossings near Cherrybrook Technology High are not considered appropriate. Council will continue to maintain contact with the principals of John Purchase Public School and Cherrybrook Technology High School to ensure road safety matters are dealt with and Traffic Rangers will continue to visit this school in accordance with the school patrol roster.

Intersection of New Line Road and Shepherds Drive/County Drive

The operation of this intersection is the responsibility of the RTA however Council will continue to lobby for improved pedestrian access.

BUDGET

There are no budget implications if the recommendations are adopted.

POLICY

A new policy for the management of parking at private driveways will be developed by Traffic and Road Safety Branch. There are no other policy implications in this report.

CONSULTATION

The Executive team, Manager Design and Construction, Manager Parks and Landscapes Team, Traffic Officer Eastwood Police, Principal Cherrybrook Technology High School and Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre management were consulted in the preparation of this report.

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY

Triple Bottom Line is a framework for improving Council decisions by ensuring accountability and transparency on social, environmental and economic factors. It does this by reporting upon Council's strategic themes.

As this report simply provides Council with information and does not propose any actions which require a sustainability assessment, no Triple Bottom Line considerations apply.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

This report was prepared by Council’s Manager Traffic and Road Safety, Mr Lawrence Nagy telephone 9847 6524.

RECOMMENDATION

Hornsby Shire Council

Attachment to Report No. WK75/09 Page 199

CHERRYBROOK TRAFFIC AND PARKING

STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES

Venue Cherrybrook Community Centre, Greenway Park.

Time 9 am Wednesday 2 September 2009

Chair – Councillor Bruce Mills (BM)

Attendance

Mayor Nick Burman (NB)	Max Woodward – EM Works (EMW)
Councillor Michael Hutchence(MH)	Bob Stephens – EM Environment (EME)
Councillor Robert Browne (RB)	Scott Phillips – EM Planning (EMP)
Councillor Steve Evans (SE)	Lawrence Nagy – Manager TRS (LN)
Jay Broughton – Mirvac (JB)	Kurt Henkel – A/Manager Parks and Landscapes
Anita Woolrych – Mirvac (AW)	Adam Wilson – A/Snr Traffic Engineer

1. Welcome

BM - Purpose of meeting is to gain an understanding of existing traffic and parking problems, agree on possible solutions and future directions and where possible seek co-operative approach between Mirvac and Council.

RB - Need to also confirm future plans for shopping centre.

2. Introductions

3. Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre Car Park

JB - Current status of car park works – improvements include changes to entry priority, new wombat crossings, removal of angle parking to create bus parking area, 3P restrictions provided and NRT at aisles near entry. Traffic consultant being retained to develop improvements.

JB - Proposed car park works – monitor effectiveness of improvements and may further consider changes to angle parking along main frontage. Time frame for evaluation is 3 to 6 months.

JB - Merits of reducing number of parking spaces if necessary to reduce queuing in Shepherds Drive – to be considered as a last resort if current improvements are not effective.

LN – Driver behaviour within car park makes determining solutions difficult therefore any changes should be trialled and evaluated before being permanently adopted.

EMP – S96 application would not be necessary to trial relatively minor changes to car parking as long as T&RS Branch concurs with individual proposals.

4. Second Vehicle Entry to Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre

(Note: The Mayor arrived at the beginning of discussion of this item)

BM - Merits of 2^nd entry – alternative entry proposals need to take into account future expansion plans.

EME – Open space in Greenway Park is required to service the high demand for recreation/sport facilities in the locality. Outlined preference that a range of options for a 2^nd entry should be developed and evaluated. These solutions should address private and public land holdings to enable the community to make an informed decision.

LN - Details of intersection counts provided to meeting – unclear how many vehicles would relocate to second entry if provided. More detailed investigation required.

MH – Suggested entry and exit could be separated to improve traffic flow within car park and on Shepherds Drive.

SE – A small redistribution in traffic to a new entry will result in big improvements at existing roundabout.

RB – Operation of Macquarie Drive and Kenburn Avenue need to be considered as part of second entry proposal.

JB - Commitment from Mirvac for 2^nd vehicle entry not possible at this stage – no immediate plans to expand shopping centre or provide 2^nd Entry and none likely in foreseeable future due to current economic climate. Mirvac will continue to improve existing car park and access where possible.

BM - Progression of Planning Proposal – is an issue for Mirvac but Council will assist where possible by providing input into developing proposals.

5. Commuter Parking

LN - Results of number plate survey – indicates overflow car park has sufficient capacity to cater for all day parking currently occurring on street.

AC – Recent changes to parking management within car park has resulted in employees relocating on site and off road - all can be accommodated on shopping village site.

EME – So far Council has not restricted commuter parking from occurring within Greenway Park overflow car park. However if it is to be encouraged the Plan of Management looks like it will need to be amended. This will take about 6 months due to the requirement for public consultation and public hearings. Due to sporting demand commuter parking must be limited to business hours, Monday to Friday and be restricted only to the lower overflow car park.

JB - Centre can assist in promoting commuter car park and bus services.

SE – Bus company may need to consider relocating stops.

BM – Bus stop outside Doctor’s surgery could be located to fire station and shelter provided to attract patronage in that area. Footpaving from Caltex to pedestrian refuge (in 2009/10 Footpath Improvement Program) will improve pedestrian access.

LN – Lighting – Police have requested Council upgrade lighting in overflow car park if it is used by commuters (currently unfunded).

(Note: The Mayor left at the completion of discussion of this item)

6. ACTIONS

6.1 - Stakeholder group to meet again in February or March 2010 to review progress and any developments that may have occurred.

6.2 – Stakeholders acknowledge Mirvac’s efforts in improving car park efficiency to date and encourage more parking management trials, especially over Christmas period.

6.3 – Mirvac requested to share results of monitoring shopping centre car park improvements or any changes made with Council prior to next meeting.

6.4 – Mirvac offered to assist with promoting bus services and parking management with customers in partnership with Council. Possible website promotions.

6.5 – While Mirvac has no short or medium term proposals to develop second entry or acquire part of Greenway Park, if this eventuates Council to assist with evaluation of any Planning Proposal subject to other second entry options having been considered and that any facilities lost within the park as a result of the proposal are replaced.

6.6 - Council to verify footpaving between Caltex Service Station and pedestrian refuge near fire station is in current program (Note: EMW advises that this work is confirmed).

6.7 – Council to report on formalising commuter parking in the lower overflow car park, off Shepherds Drive including:

a. Provision of a bus shelter outside the fire station.

b. Provision of lighting in the over flow car park.

7. OTHER BUSINESS

RB requested Mirvac also consider providing a direct pedestrian access between the second deck and the shops to encourage more use of this area in any future development.

Meeting closed at 11:30 am

Hornsby Shire Council

Attachment to Report No. WK75/09 Page 202

ATTENTION MRS JUDY HOPWOOD - Member for Hornsby

EASTWOOD POLICE STATION – Sergeant Tara Phillips

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY – Mrs Divna Cvetojevic

THE MAYOR AND ALL COUNCILLORS - For your information

COUNCILLOR MICHAEL HUTCHENCE – Council’s representative

EXECUTIVE MANAGER WORKS – For your information

Road Shepherds Drive Suburb Cherrybrook

Location Between Lemongrass Place and Kenburn Avenue

File Ref F2004/09848 LTC No. 25/2009

Electorate Hornsby UBD Ref. 152-A9

______________________________________________________________________

REFERRAL OF TRAFFIC MATTER FOR COMMENT OR OBJECTION, IF ANY

________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This report details the traffic implications for the proposed extension of “No “Parking” restrictions near Shepherds Lane and a new “No Parking” restriction near Glamorgan Way, Cherrybrook.

SUBJECT

SHEPHERDS LANE

Attached is an extract from report WK34/09 considered by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 8 July 2009. Council resolved to refer the matter to the Local Traffic Committee for a recommendation.

Site observations confirm that the duration of queuing falls short of the warrant required to provide an “It is Illegal to Queue Across Intersections” pavement marking, which cannot be installed without RTA and Police approval. As queues across Shepherds Lane are almost constantly moving such a facility would be unworkable and unenforceable.

Council seeks the Committee’s advice regarding the road safety implications of removing the six parking spaces between Shepherds Lane and Kenburn Avenue during peak periods.

GLAMORGAN WAY.

On 18 June 2009 Council, received a petition organised by the Strata Manager of The Manor, signed by residents representing fifty households, requesting that Council provide parking restrictions near the driveway to The Manor similar to that provided at intersections. The petitioners appear unaware that Glamorgan Way is a private driveway and not a public road. Hornsby Council does not provide parking restrictions at private driveways unless there is a documented crash history or the site characteristics indicate the location is a high risk. At the Ordinary Meeting of 8 July 2009, Council resolved that the matter be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for a recommendation.

There are 52 residences within The Manor. Assuming each residence has 2 off street parking spaces results in a total of 104 parking spaces. AS/NZS 2890.1 recommends that a driveway serving 101 to 300 parking spaces accessing a non arterial road should have a width between 6 and 9 metres without separation for driveways. Glamorgan Way is 12 metres wide at the boundary and 15.3 metres wide across the wings at the kerb and has separate ingress and egress carriageways. Council seeks input from the Committee regarding the extent of parking restrictions required.

The Committee is advised that later this year Council’s Traffic and Road Safety Branch will develop a draft policy regarding parking restrictions at driveways. If adopted, this will be a new policy which will require liaison with other councils, the Police and the RTA, review of driveway related crash data across the Shire, the development of a risk assessment matrix, consideration of benefits and disbenefits including costs. The policy will provide guidelines on whether Council should provide parking restrictions at private driveways, and if so, how to rank priorities given the large number of driveways involved.

CONCLUSION

Both items to be determined following an on site meeting.

SITE MEETING

Local Traffic Committee representatives met on site at the intersection of Shepherds Lane and Shepherds Drive at 3.00 pm on Wednesday 12 August 2009. Mrs Judy Hopwood, Member for Hornsby sent apologies and was unable to attend. Snr Constable Keith Skinner from Eastwood Highway Patrol attended on behalf of Sgt Tara Philips. David Lance from the RTA attended on behalf of Mrs Divna Cvetojevic. Councillor Michael Hutchence also apologised for being unable to attend and participated in the Committee’s on site discussions via mobile phone set on loudspeaker.

The Committee spent over half an hour observing the school afternoon traffic peak flow out of Shepherds Lane and traffic flow in Shepherds Drive. All agreed at removing parking on the northern side of Shepherds Drive between Kenburn Avenue and Shepherds Lane would make leaving or entering Shepherds Lane more difficult due to the need for turning motorists to judge gaps across two lanes of traffic. Currently on street parking in Shepherds Drive limits through traffic into one lane which provides safer movement during traffic peaks. Queuing from the Kenburn Avenue roundabout was not extensive enough to effect the operation of Shepherds Lane during this visit however the Police and RTA representatives are aware that queuing occurs sporadically through peak periods.

The Committee is also aware that Council is working with Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre Management to improve traffic flow within the shopping centre car park to reduce the frequency of queuing in Shepherds Drive. The need for further changes to parking and traffic management in Shepherds Drive should only be considered after Cherrybrook Village Shopping Centre management completes its review of pedestrian crossing points and aisle operation within the centre.

No vehicles were observed parked near Glamorgan Way and about 6 vehicles were observed entering and leaving the The Manor in the half hour. The Committee considers that the need to provide parking restrictions at this driveway to be a low priority compared to other driveways within the Shire. The Committee agreed that if Council was to change its procedure and provide parking restrictions at private driveways it should start by prioritising locations based on crash history, frequency of parking and traffic density.

RECOMMENDATION THAT

1. The peak period parking restrictions from Kenburn Avenue to Shepherds Lane not be extended as removal of parking will make ingress and egress from Shepherds Lane more difficult during school and sports peaks.

2. Parking restrictions not be considered at Glamorgan Way until Council completes its Shire driveway review.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Lawrence Nagy

Chairman

Date __________

1.	Roundabout Review Report
2.	Plan - roundabout Option 1
3.	Plan - roundabout Option 2
4.	Plan - queue lengths
5.	Plan - carpark second driveway alignment