One of the council officers missing from the 'walking council meeting' was Mr Eric Braslis, our Planning and Environment Manager. I would have loved to have questioned him about the calibre of planning decisions, especially in view of some of the inconsistencies that have come to my attention courtesy of friends and neighbours.
We could have started with something simple, like crossovers. Some time ago (I have a formal query in to determine exactly when) a decision was made to give the council power to refuse an application for off-street parking and a crossover unless there was a nett gain of on-street car spaces. What it means is, unless you can accommodate two cars on site, one to make up for the loss of kerb space your crossover took and the second to create a 'vacancy' in your street, you won't get your permit.
Most residents who have not applied for a crossover would be unaware of this restriction and its ramifications.
There appears, on the face of it, to be a select group of citizens (and I am amongst their number) who have been told to fence across the access to their on-site parking after an unsuccessful application for a crossover permit.
At the same time, there are some wonderful recent examples of hard surface going down, double gates being installed in fences, openings left in front fences, or frontages being left unfenced so that residents can drive onto their hard surface, all in the absence of a crossover. Perhaps these people have more sense than to go within coo-ee of our beloved planning department and that's the secret of their existing access.
Whatever their motivations, we have amongst the citizenry a select group who cross the 'un-crossovered' footpath with gay abandon.
Given the fact that the only access to my home (for over two years now) is via a roller door into a side lane and that's the only way that anyone can get in to read my water, gas and electricity PLUS the water for the property at the rear of mine, I don't really blame defaulting residents for avoiding 'Eric's Experts' like the plague. The again, I don't see why some people can circumvent the requirement for a nett gain of on-street parking simply by not applying for legitimate access.
One of the other pieces of information I am currently seeking concerns the minimum dimensions of a primary and secondary on-site parking space as set down in our council regulations. If the measurements that I was given back in 2003 were correct, a few lucky developers appear to have been given an exemption. As soon as I have all the information (direct from the horse's mouth, as it were) regarding required dimensions for on-site parking spaces, the date the 'no gain, no permit' by-law came into effect and the definition of what constitutes a legal crossover, I'll be right back with my picture gallery.
And if accessing a property by other than a legitmate crossover and obstructing the footpath because the rear of your station wagon overhangs it, are issues of concern for our by-laws officers, I expect to see some action taken near my favourite chicken shop.
Of course, as always, I won't be holding my breath.