The 4445 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 19 August 2014 at 2pm

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

File number: 137/220/701/192

My Mayo, you have five minutes; please proceed when ready. You may sit or stand.

Mr John Mayo: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR, Councillors: afternoon. My theme is simple, and it is simply this: if you deny access to members of the community to be able to participate in that community, in the broader sense it has both social and economic impacts. I am drawn here today because of the publicity that's occurred with regard to people receiving infringements for parking over driveways and parking on walkways and verges in residential streets, and somehow believing that they should not have received that infringement.

I just want to bring the case for those sections of the community who want to have a quality of life in this city but are sometimes denied that quality of life because of either the unthinking or the blatant actions of people who have denied them the opportunity, particularly in residential streets.

We do have a society now that has large numbers of people with what you might call diminished functionality in addition to children who are still learning about how and when to be safe. But we do have populations of people with a medical condition that exceed 20 per cent of the population; we have a disability statistic of 18.5 per cent of the population; and an over 60s statistic of 17 per cent of the population. We have temporary injury at any given time sitting at about 13.2 per cent of the population, and we have parents with prams—that's children aged one to four, about six per cent of the population, and we also have children five to 12—and I don't have an ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) figure for that group.

When people in residential streets are denied access in their streets, they are forced into unsafe situations where they have to move off footpaths or verges onto the road. Parents will think that is highly unsafe when that happens to children. Those who are ageing, those who have some form of mobility difficulty often being forced onto the road is not actually an option for them. They just may not be able to manage it.

There are also people who have balance issues, which are often associated with ageing, and the moment that you block their normal path of travel, it may well create discontinuance, if you like, of their journey. So I am simply making the point that this Council has moved to develop an access and inclusion policy, an action plan, and my understanding is that every Councillor has shown leadership in endorsing that policy, and perhaps it is time for the wider community to partner Council in meeting the vision of that plan, and perhaps a campaign is required to achieve that.

I have identified some of the issues for residents in their streets. We do have increasing numbers of people with vision impairment, and we do have many instances of people who, for various reasons, are struggling with their mobility as pedestrians. So I would hope that Council might consider some sort of community campaign, an education campaign that identifies the safety issues and the discrimination issues that occur when unthinking actions stop people from being able to have accessible paths of travel in their residential streets.

Some of the remedies that might be considered, apart from an educational campaign are the introduction of what I call lipless driveways. These are driveways which the Redlands Shire Council developed in particular in the early 2000s and received an award for it, so that's a driveway that does not have the 50-millimetre lip at the front of the driveway. It won't solve the problems for all people using mobility devices, but it will certainly allow children on bicycles and many others to make the road to footpath transition easily and safely.

Another consideration would be installing kerb ramps strategically in streets, particularly those residential streets which do not have a footpath on either side. That allows people to make that transition again from walkway, footpath, to the road, a distance of 150 millimetres; most of the kerbs in Brisbane are 150 millimetres high.

It might also be the case that Council's development approval department decides that it might more stringently assess the footpath and walkway intentions of proposed developments.

Councillors interjecting.

Mr John Mayo: Can I move now from residential to CBD and—

Chairman: Mr Mayo, I am sorry, your five minutes has expired.

Mr John Mayo: Thank you.

Chairman: Thank you. Can I call on the DEPUTY MAYOR to respond?
Response by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you for coming in, Mr Mayo. We really appreciate your time this afternoon and your input. It is very timely that you have come in to talk to us about these issues, particularly when it comes to people parking over driveways or on footpaths and blocking access. This is something that Council also cares a great deal about and something that is consistent with the Access and Inclusion Plan that you mentioned. We want a city that is accessible for all. To be accessible for all, as you have correctly pointed out, we need to make sure that the unthinking actions of people don't cause a problem for others getting around the city.

One of the situations that we do have quite often in the suburbs is people parking on the nature strip or on the footpath, and they often claim, well, there was no one around; I wasn't causing a problem for anyone. In many cases, that may be correct at that particular time. But the reality is that it has always been illegal to park on the nature strip. There are many reasons for that. The law needs to be applied correctly and consistently, because ultimately one of the challenges for Council is if we give approval for people to do that in certain circumstances, or turn a blind eye to it, then it simply causes an even wider problem across the city where people think that they can ignore the law. That law exists for a reason.

You pointed out the accessibility reasons, and they are very clear, not only for people in wheelchairs or with mobility problems, but families with strollers; there's a whole range of situations where clear access to the nature strip or the footpath is required.

The other reason also is that that's where the underground infrastructure generally lies. Vehicles repeatedly parking on that section of property can cause damage, and that is also a cost to ratepayers as well. Even situations where people are repeatedly parking with two wheels up on the kerb over time damages that kerb and cause a cost to ratepayers.

So, I think you have raised some very fair points. We do need to have a strong stance on this issue in Council. It is about accessibility; it is about safety, and the last thing we want is for people, particularly those with mobility problems, to be forced out on to the road in a very unsafe situation. We know that, as the city grows, there's going to be more pressure in terms of parking right across the city. At the moment we have a parking taskforce which is currently looking at submissions from the public on the matter of parking, particularly on-street parking, and this is certainly one of the issues that the taskforce is considering. So thank you very much for that feedback.

I can also say in relation to your suggestions, we are happy to have those looked at. I know, in terms of driveways, for example, there are some situations where Council requires a lip, particularly if the property is downhill from the road, so that water doesn’t flow down the driveway. But I am sure that there are other situations where we can encourage those flatter entry points to the driveways. Council is also progressively, across the city, upgrading its network of footpaths and kerb ramps as well, and installing new kerb ramps.

There is a situation at the moment where money that is generated from parking meters that were installed in recent years is going to fund footpath improvements. Each local councillor gets a share of that money. They can invest it in footpath improvements across their area, so that is spread across the city in an equal manner and I think it is a very positive thing. During my time as a councillor, in the early days there was often very limited funding for footpaths available. That is certainly not the same situation now. We are spending something like $35 million a year on footpaths across the city, both new and maintaining and improving footpaths as well.

That is in addition to the money that we are putting into bikeways and shared paths as well. So thank you very much for your time; really appreciate your feedback, and look forward to keeping in touch.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr Mayo. Thank you, Orderly.