Meeting Resolutions On Hardys Bay Intersection 2011

At a Special Meeting called by the Association on March 14th, G.C.C. representative David Medcalf spoke on and answered questions about the proposal by the council’s Traffic Committee for the the Killcare Rd/Araluen Drive intersection and precinct at Killcare/Hardy’s Bay. Mr Medcalf provided the background to the proposal, noting the work done by Council’s traffic consultants, and listened attentively to all the community discussion.

Overall, the community did NOT accept the Council’s proposal, and instead considered that a much more low key approach would be preferable, reflecting the character of the area, the need for safety for pedestrians, the much higher volumes of traffic and pedestrians in holiday periods, and the need to recognise the location of the rural fire service and its requirements.

Many comments were made by those present, all noting the importance of that area to our local community and its village atmosphere. As Mr Bruce Lay (architect, planner and heritage consultant) noted in his letter to the meeting which he was unable to attend: “The setting of the Heritage item as well as the collective heritage value of the Bay are both important to the approach to the intersection. Looking at the archival photos – it was a simple uncluttered space – and the aim should be to keep this”. Comments from the community supported a low key approach to the area, with minimal signage, minimal loss of parking, without double lines, and a wish to calm the area generally, rather than giving priority to any one ‘through way’. A suggestion of three pedestrian crossings in the existing roads would apparently be overwhelmed by the corresponding regulatory requirements.

Residents questioned the approach by the Council’s consultants and their spot check of traffic movements. There was concern that the time chosen did not reflect the holiday period when many more people visit the area, nor did it reflect local realities of how people cross the road, as all three roads are crossed. In addition, it was pointed out that the fire brigade needed access to all areas of the Peninsula and that this should not be impeded by a throttling at the formal pedestrian crossing and road narrowing as proposed in the current proposals by Council.

Photos of two T junctions in Umina were displayed to illustrate an approach that was felt more acceptable by those present, with a slightly raised surface, hatching, and fewer restrictions than would be required if a formal pedestrian crossing was to be installed.

After extensive discussion, two resolutions were passed by the community:

Motion 1: Passed unanimously
That this meeting does not accept the proposed Council Plan as it introduces features that we do not want. Instead we look for a simpler plan such as a raised area, that does not change road priorities, alter street widths, introduce double lines, and diminishes so much parking. We comment that this is not a traffic intersection. It is our village centre, and this is the atmosphere and practice that we wish to maintain in accordance with our character statements and history.

Motion 2: Passed unanimously
That this simpler plan involve simple signs, such as ‘keep calm’, and the area be painted to give visual attention to this.