No sign of help

Council officers have finally responded to a question asked by Cr Lynne Bockholt on September 4 about issues raised by Mr Ed James in a letter about his West St property on August 31.

The response was published in the November 6 council agenda, noting that a reply was sent to the letter on September 10.

The report from the director of development and environment, Mr John Murray, said that Mr James' property accommodated a shop with direct frontage to West St and a detached dwelling located behind.

Mr Murray said Lot 22 DP 8872 Oscar Street and Lot 33 DP 8872 Alfred St were located to the rear of Mr James' land and the other lots fronting West St.

He said that in 1988 the Director of Planning recommended to Council that an application to rezone Lots 22 and 33 from 2(b) Residential to 3(a) Business General not be supported.

The council, however, resolved to support the draft local environmental plan, which was gazetted later in 1988 as LEP 229.

The concept development proposed with the rezoning was a small commercial complex consisting of a shop fronting Alfred Street with four offices behind.

The associated parking area was accessed from Oscar St.

Mr Murray's report continued:

"Lot 45 DP 8577 Wellington Street is located at the northern end of Alfred St where the road ends.

"In March 1985 Council resolved to rezone the lot from 2(a6) Residential to 5(a) Parking.

"Council considered and accepted an offer made by Jewell's Food Store for the transfer of this lot to Council subject to the granting of a credit in respect of parking spaces for the extensions to Jewell.

"This rezoning was gazetted in July as part of LEP 134. It now accommodates a small car parking area in accordance with the zone.

"Mr James claims that many years ago his father saw a plan at Council showing a possible future lane between Alfred and Oscar Sts running directly behind his lot.

"Such a laneway would give rear access to the six lots fronting West St which he sees as beneficial because it would allow trucks to unload goods away from West St and thereby reduce traffic congestion.

"Such a lane would be similar to that already in existence between Alfred and Bullion Sts.

"The formation of a vehicular laneway over Lots 22 and 33 between Alfred and Oscar Sts has not been identified on any statutory planning documents.

"Both lots have been in existence since 1917 and since then have been in private ownership.

"A car parking survey of the Umina Commercial Centre was undertaken by Council in May 2000 and concluded: 'On the basis of this study it would appear that the level of car parking provision in the Umina Commercial Centre is commensurate with the demand generated by the current activities being carried out in the centre.'

"It is envisaged that with the current economic climate it will be some time before the vacant commercial space in the Umina town centre is occupied.

"Following this, it is expected to be some time before parking demand in the Umina town centre reaches critical levels.

"Considering the above, the Transport Advisory Unit, has advised that there is

little demand for the parking spaces proposed by Mr James.

"Even so, the economic benefit of providing parking on Lots 22 Oscar St and 33 Alfred St would be minimal given the elongated shape of the site which would limit the number of spaces able to be accommodated compared to other more regularly configured lots.

"The cost of the land compared to the number of parking spaces able to be provided would reduce the viability of the proposal.

"Furthermore, the creation of a laneway and parking area would result in another intersection on both Oscar and Alfred Sts leading to associated safety concerns.

"Pedestrian movement along the laneway would also occur and compromise safety as there is no walkway through to West St as there is at the Bullion-Alfred St carpark.

"It should also be noted that not all the commercial lots fronting the length of West St have rear lane access.

"Therefore Mr James' situation is not unique.

"Mr James' assertion that a car park is an adequate buffer between commercial and residential uses is an oversimplification of the matter as car parks raise security and lighting issues.

"Car parks permit public access to side property boundaries that previously abutted private land and generate vehicle noise and headlight glare, thus decreasing residential amenity.

"Therefore, a carpark would have to be a facility needed in the area not created purely as a use to buffer commercial development.

"The 3(a)/2(b) zone interface is a consideration to be addressed at the development application stage for such commercial development.

Council agenda CS.202, November 6