Anger over laneway closure
Anger over laneway closure
December 06, 2006
Section: News
Shellharbour City Councillor Helen Stewart in the laneway that has been closed by Council that has been part of the Oak Flats landscape for 75 years
SHELLHARBOUR City Councillor, Helen Stewart is angered by Councils decision to close a laneway in her Ward in Oak Flats, saying that she believes Council has a hidden agenda in the closure and that the proper processes were not followed in arriving at the decision.
The decision to close the laneway was originally made at the Council meeting of October 24, with all but four Councillors voting in favour of the recommendation for closure.
Ms Stewart, along with Crs Geoff Rose and Charlie Mifsud then submitted a Recision Motion at the next Council meeting held on November 14, claiming that Ward councillors were not consulted and their opinions and input were not sought and that important facts and relevant information was not presented to all Councillors as to assist them in making an informed decision.
Ms Stewart also moved an alternative motion that the laneway remain open for all residents to access as stated in Option 2 of the Councils Business Papers of October 24.
The Recision Motion and Alternative Motion were defeated by a vote of 4 to 6.
A spokesperson for Shellharbour City Council says that the laneway closure was an operational matter and as such did not require consultation with the Ward councillors.
Council sent out 200 surveys to Oak Flats residents regarding the closure of the laneway, the spokesperson said.
Out of the 55 residents who responded to the survey, 24 were in favour of the closure, 17 were against the closure and 14 said they didnt care if the lane stayed open or not.
Ms Stewart says that the Councils claims of anti-social behaviour in the laneway are exaggerated.
Ive lived this area for 30 years and Ive been a Ward Councillor for the last two and a half years, and Ive never heard of any issue with this laneway, Cr Stewart said.
I firmly believe that the Labor councillors were coached firstly to vote in favour of the closure and subsequently to vote against the Recision Motion.
I dont know yet what Councils agenda on the laneway is, why they are so keen to see it closed or why they would not consider any options other than closure to address the alleged anti-social behaviour in the laneway.
- Feb 9, 2008 @ 07:33am
Rumour has it that a resident who lives alongside the laneway put a large gate in the fence between his back yard and the laneway. This was so that he could get his caravan in and out of his backyard through the side fence. He has since taken to parking the caravan in the laneway long term . Council should never have allowed the gate to be where it is, and should not allow the caravan to be on public land. I suspect that the only reason for closure of the laneway is so that the resident can somehow take ownership of the land & have access to his side gate.
Comment count: 2
More info: it wasn't a gate that he put in the fence; he actually built his double garage in his backyard, situated so that it faced directly onto the laneway. The door to the garage opens directly onto the laneway. The only way he can access his garage is to use the laneway for entry & exit. Same as my previous note, Council should never have allowed the garage to be built in that position.