Byron Council will move ahead with its plan to install parking meters in Brunswick Heads after a majority of councillors voted in favour of the scheme last week.
But Byron Shire locals will be entitled to a free permit that will exempt them from having to pay for parking in the town, at least for now.
In a decision that follows nearly a decade of debate over how to address parking issues in Bruns, all but two of the elected councillors voted to endorse a paid parking scheme at last Thursday’s Council meeting.
It will see parking meters charging $3 per hour installed in the centre of town, as well as the beachfront parking area on the other side of the river.
This will reportedly generate around $3 million in revenue for Council each year, though this will be reduced by the offer of a free permit to locals.
Those who work in the town but live outside the Shire will also be entitled to a parking permit. However, it is unclear whether these permits will be free or not.
The decision follows the completion of a parking study, which found that even during the low season the centre of Bruns was still reaching a ‘trigger point’ for further intervention, namely 72 per cent occupancy.
Parking was at capacity on the weekend at all times of year, and well above capacity during the high season, the study found.
It also predicted that parking demand in the centre of town would increase nearly 10 per cent over the next five years.
‘It’s clear to me every time I go to Bruns what the current parking situation is,’ said Mayor Michael Lyon.
‘This is about congestion. The parking studies have been done and they show the congestion, and show that it is going to get worse and it’s going to get worse quickly.’
Speaking in favour of his proposal to grant locals a free parking permit, Cr Lyon said he did not believe it was fair to ‘tax residents for parking in their own town’.
‘I don’t think it’s reasonable in a Shire where we have very little public transport, to be effectively creating a tax on locals,’ Cr Lyon said.
‘If you want to get somewhere in this Shire you have to drive. Until we have an adequate alternative public transport system it’s too much to charge people to park at their local.’
But not everyone was in favour of the paid parking plan.
Bruns chamber of commerce opposed
Earlier, during the public access section of the meeting, former Brunswick Heads Business Chamber president, Kim Rosen, spoke against the proposal.
Speaking on behalf of the Business Chamber, Ms Rosen submitted ten reasons why the matter should be deferred until Council’s February meeting, a move that she said was ‘in the interest of fairness and good process’.
Ms Rosen asserted that there had been no consultation with key stakeholders before the staff report was written, and also claimed that the evaluation of options by Council staff was inadequate.
She questioned the findings of the parking study, and said that paid parking would not fix the issue of vans parking at the beach at night.
Independent councillor, Mark Swivel, said that while he was in favour of paid parking, he did not support giving locals a free permit.
‘I think it’s wrong to characterise paid parking as a tax, and it misleads the community,’ Cr Swivel said.
‘Paid parking is just a service charge, and to characterise it as tax takes us down a rabbit hole that we don’t really need to go down.
‘There should be concessions from the permit charge for seniors, people on the NDIS, Centrelink and so on…
‘But paid parking, if we’re going to apply it, and I think we should apply it across the Shire wherever traffic volume and parking needs demand. It needs to be seen for what it is: it’s a charge for what people use.
‘I understand it’s a popular idea to provide free permits, but it’s just plain wrong.’
Cr Swivel was one of two councillors to vote against the plan, with the other being Independent councillor Alan Hunter, who unsuccessfully moved a motion for the matter to be deferred.
In addition to endorsing the paid parking scheme, Council also voted to examine the possibility of providing a parking discount to those living in neighbouring shires.
It will also receive a report on increasing the area covered by parking restrictions in Bruns in a bid to address the potential impact of visitors parking in residential streets to avoid paying for parking.
Mullum and Bangalow next?
The meeting also heard that Council is in the process of developing a paid parking scheme for Mullumbimby, though this will depend on a range of factors, including plans for a new car park on rail corridor land.
Thank you to Kim Rosen for speaking up for little Brunswick Heads. Yet again Bruns is doing the heavy lifting, it’ll be Mullum next.
Bruns and Mullum got pods for flood refugees, why didn’t caring sharing Byron town find space for some refugee pods? Just saying!
Might have something to do with Real Estate? Just said.
Yeah well you could of had the train along side the rail trail a real fail of public interest and infrastructure unbelievable excuse for paid parking when stamp duty from the sale of houses would generate more revenue and provide for multi story parking that would also be handy in hail season also with no undercover parking anywhere in the shire
A coupla things Alan, how many reports do you need to read that determine that it is infeasible to have both rail and trail? Forgetting that, the possibility of putting the trail alongside, for much greater expense and inferior outcome, does not address the lack of a business case and source of funding for a rail service.
Can anyone update the Byron public on the progress of the degradation study mooted for release this month? Is it scheduled for presentation on any Council agendas in the near future?
You’re right, sales tax generated from this area must be a gold mine to the State Government. Unfortunately there is no fixed formula, that I know of, that reflects any proportional chanelling of these windfalls to Council coffers.
Yes exactly Mr Mosley-the only way to reduce traffic in our towns is to have decent, affordable public transport. That includes trains and local buses to get people to and from train stations to local town where there isn’t a train station. This works well in other small towns (where they don’t have 2.5 million tourists per year) as long as the fares are kept low and timetables match the times people need to travel.
Building more roads and multi story car parks will cost more than getting the trains running-and who’ll pay for them-ratepayers? It’s 2.5 million tourists causing traffic gridlock not 30,000 local residents. We’re paying some of the highest rates in the country but can’t park at our local beaches or shops. Wonderful!!
While Mayor Lyons laments the lack of public transport, instaed of demanding the state government provide the train service we were promised for so long, he supports spending millions of taxpayers’ money digging up a billion dollar train line for a very expensive bike track and ‘cycling tourism’ which is bringing more large gas guzzlers into tiny towns. This will cost taxpayers/ratepayers billions building and maintaining more roads to be filled with more gas guzzlers!! Even if we’re all driving electric cars there’ll still be traffic gridlock.
Crazy. Monty Python couldn’t have dreamt up this expensive farce..
Louise, can you tell us about the progress of the degradation study and report that I think was supposed to be available by now? The business proposals and funding sources?
Don’t know anything about ‘degradation studies or business proposals’. What all locals know is that local pollies promised for many years a16 trains a day government run, affordable public train service on the C-M line as they rightly said ‘we will need more trains and more tourist trains’. But as usual you can’t believe anything pollies say. But we urgently need that service and it’s bloody TIME THEY DELIVERED it in one of the most visited regions in NSW after Sydney with far too many gas guzzlers, gridlock and carbon emissions!!!.
As well as paying some of the highest rates in the country, we also contribute billions every year to state governmet coffers in stamp duty from the sale of expensive real estate-that’s before we start on GST. Time some of it was spent on infrastructure and public train services we urgently need and were promised!!! Even if the service was free it would be cheaper than building and maintaining more roads, multi story carparks and the destruction from the emissions from millions of gas guzzlers.
We pay enough tax and rates taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for trains AGAIN while they waste our money digging up a billions dollar train line for a bike track!!
I’m surprised, Louise, weren’t you at the Council meeting where it was discussed at length? Where some were advocating that a decision on the rail trail be kicked down the road one more time in anticipation of this one more report?
Never mind, I think I’ve found it on the NRCC website:
“Lismore to Yelgun Degradation Study Now Complete”
“After two years of licensing obstacles and six months of an intensive degradation study, the team at Northern Regional Railway Company Pty Ltd (NRRC) are thrilled to announce that the Lismore to Yelgun Degradation Study is now complete.”
I’m wondering where I can find the rest of it.
I’d live Byron Council to have a look at the YouTube video: Why Canadians Can’t Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can) about the difference good cycle infrastructure makes to cycling usage and it’s consequent impact on car usage. Or anyone else who sees bike tracks as frivolous and solely recreational.