With regulation comes policing

When Kiama Council decided to introduce parking restrictions in Wilson and Ocean Streets, there was an acknowledgement that the parking restrictions would not be effective without regular policing.

And policing costs money. Ratepayers money.

There appear to be some regular offenders who are continually flouting the parking restrictions.

The owner of the vehicle below, for example, seems to have a strange interpretation of parallel parking. Parallel to what?…

Noes-in parking

Not only is this vehicle parked illegally, it is also protruding onto the road causing a safety hazard.

The white 4WD vehicle below has been parked in this space for at least 24 hours, infringing the 4 hour parking restrictions, as well as being parked facing in the wrong direction. The car behind the 4WD soon followed the example.


(Update – I actually saw the 4WD leaving the following day, having a horn-blasting incident when it nearly collided with an unsighted vehicle leaving the Holiday Park.)

The red vehicle below soon picked up on the idea and parked in the wrong direction overnight.

Wrong way 2

The owner of the vehicle below chose to avoid the hassle of on-road parking restrictions (and a walk down Ocean Street) and parked their vehicle for the day in a driveway – which also happens to be an entrance for emergency vehicle access to the headland.

Parked in Driveway

Some vehicle owners will continue to flout the parking regulations, because there is a good chance that there will be no penalty for doing so – and word will spread quickly amongst their friends.

Of course, the meetings of Council staff and the Traffic Committee to plan the parking restrictions, the sign-posting and marking of the parking zones, the policing of the parking restrictions, the issuing of warnings and infringement notices, the follow-up on unpaid parking fines and the cleaning up of the refuse left behind by BIG4 Easts Holiday Park patrons parked in Wilson and Ocean Streets, is all at the expense of Kiama Council or the NSW government, rather than the business that is generating a financial profit from these holiday makers.

If these vehicles belong to people visiting friends staying in the Holiday Park or, in the case of vehicles parked overnight, belong to Holiday Park patrons, they should be parked within the Holiday Park.

But a parking area costs money to construct and maintain – and the business has managed to move that cost to local ratepayers.

It is a great business model.

This entry was posted in BIG4, Easts Beach, Kiama, Kiama Council, Parking. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to With regulation comes policing

  1. Jason says:

    If you actually took the time to look at the vehicle correctly you would have noticed that the vehicle was the holder of a diabled parking permit so even with your limited knowledge of the road rules would conclude that the vehicle can stay there indefinitely. Because you choose to be your own vigilante making a big issue out of the fact that you dont like tourists parking in “your” street doesnt mean that it is set high on Councils priority list. I have received a warning notice on my vehicle for parking in that street so i know it is being policed.

    • Warren says:

      Hi Jason,

      You are correct – I hadn’t realised that a disability permit provided unlimited parking in areas with restrictions in excess of 30 minutes. (And that is a good thing for those with a disability). Consequently I have removed the photo of that vehicle from the blog, and comments pertaining to it. (See the more recent post regarding disability parking).

      However, I do not agree with your comments regarding my motives for publicising these matters.

      I have seen a number of dangerous incidents this holiday period caused by vehicles double-parked on the street, while moving equipment and people between the double-parked car and a long-term parked vehicle. (There are some photos of such incidents on the blog).

      We are also regularly disposing of rubbish left by those whose cars are parked in Wilson Street. I also put up with the noise, the swearing, the shouting, and the general ‘who gives a stuff’ attitude of some casual visitors to the area. I do note though that these people are in the minority. Most visitors are polite and courteous, here for a relaxing break with their family.

      From the perspective of these visitors, if I was staying at the Holiday Park I would much prefer to have my second vehicle parked where I am staying, rather than on the side of the road ‘up the street’.

      If these vehicles were parked here during the day because their owners were visiting a Council-maintained tourist attraction, such as a beach, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Such a situation goes with the territory of being fortunate enough to be living in a ‘tourist area’. However, this parking isn’t casual day-tripper visitor parking. These vehicles are parked long-term, and as a result are causing safety issues and a loss of residential amenity – 24 hours a day – throughout holiday periods. Some of these vehicles don’t move for weeks at a time.

      Council’s 4P parking restrictions on the residential side of Wilson and Ocean Streets have had a very positive effect. Residents can now park near their homes when returning from the shops, and visitors to our homes can park nearby. Day visitors to Easts Beach can more easily park their cars in Ocean Street, due to the increased turnover of parking spaces.

      The long-term parking issues are the problem. These issues are caused by a private business, and should not need to be addressed by Council imposing and policing parking restrictions. The Holiday Park should be providing adequate parking for their patrons, and their patron’s guests. The Holiday Park claims to have 600 sites – yet they do not have a single ‘guest’ parking space. Not one. Let alone ANY designated parking spaces for those with a disability. Ask a property developer how many guest parking spaces they have to provide for even a small residential development.

      When the Holiday Park accepts their responsibility and spends a relatively small amount of money to provide adequate parking spaces for their patrons, the problem will be solved. It will be a better arrangement for local residents and, most certainly, for patrons of the Holiday Park.

      Which will be a ‘win’ for tourism in Kiama.


      • jason says:

        So on the one hand you criticise council for alledging they dont police it, then you state that the problem should not be addressed by council imposing and policing parking restrictions. The anti social behaviour on the other hand would be a police issue now wouldnt it? how many times have they been called or attended to these alledged incidents?

      • Warren says:

        Hi Jason,

        The preferred option, which Council initially pursued, was for the Holiday Park to provide adequate parking for their patrons. If this had happened, then there would be no discussion about patrons ‘storing’ their spares cars in residential streets. There wouldn’t be a problem.

        Since the Holiday park wasn’t prepared to provide that facility, Council’s Traffic Management Committee recommended that formal parking arrangements be implemented to address residential amenity and safety concerns.

        This process started many years ago, with ‘No Parking’ restrictions imposed on the southern side of Ocean Street. When cars were parked there, the street became a one-way thoroughfare, with cars (some towing caravans) and service delivery vehicles unable to use the street safely. It really was traffic chaos on ‘change-over’ Saturdays.

        Here we had a quiet residential street unable to cope with the demands being placed on it by commercial traffic. It not only became an unpleasant place to live during busy periods, it was unsafe.

        Since then the traffic and the long-term parking has increased in holiday periods, all due to the Holiday Park’s operations. It’s not just the traffic and parking itself that is the issue. As you have pointed out previously, these are public streets and people can drive and park there. However, these streets are not designed for the type of conditions being caused by the Holiday Park’s expanding operations.

        The Council has been forced to implement parking restrictions. And, unfortunately, the only way for those parking restrictions to have an effect is for them to be policed.

        The preferable alternative would be for the Holiday Park to provide adequate parking for their patrons, then Council could remove the parking restrictions from local streets, and not need to worry about policing those restrictions.

        And once there are cars parked long-term, the ‘anti-social’ problems come with them. Move the cars back into the Holiday Park, and those problems move with them. Which is why the Holiday Park is probably happier maintaing the current arrangements!

    • Warren says:

      BTW, I also support the issuing of ‘warning notices’ to first offenders in the 4P areas. Especially since this is a new measure, of which some regular visitors may not be aware.

      I do not support the issuing of a warning notice for the owner of the vehicle that is parked nose-in in the parallel parking area in Wilson Street. (Still there at the time of writing this comment). They should receive an infringement notice. Not only is this behaviour inconsiderate, it is potentially dangerous.


      • jason says:

        I dont think you are in any position to demand when or if infringements notices are issued. Are you in the job of enforcing rules and regulations? It would come down to the severity of the offence and just because you seem to think its severe doesnt mean the enforcing officers believe it to be hence the warning. Those infringements that are issued can be heard in a court of law, everyone has that right, i dont think i want my ratepayers money to go to a court procedure that may return significantly a lesser amount of money than what the cost was to enforce it.

      • Warren says:

        Hi Jason,

        I am not ‘demanding’ anything. I, and other residents in the affected areas, would prefer that there was no need for parking restrictions.

        This can only happen if the Holiday Park provides adequate parking for their patrons, and their patron’s guests.

        Then there would be no further cost to Council ratepayers, and no need to worry about parking restrictions, or policing those restrictions.


  2. feedback says:

    Seems to me that you need a reality check, how serious is this issue? vehicles in a back street parking longer than permitted, Its not a heinous crime by any stretch of the term. The true criticism is the fact that council wasted my ratepayer money for this endeavour in the first place with signposting and road markings for one or two residents that complained in the first place. So you hate tourists i hope you park your car correctly on the street now that you have caused unnescessary attention to this area.

    • Warren says:

      Hi again Jason,

      I get a reality check every day I see Holiday Park patrons’ children walking on the road while their parents move equipment between vehicles. And vehicles swerve to miss each other while passing double-parked vehicles. And when I clean up discarded beer bottles, take-away food packaging, baby’s nappies, etc from the side of my street.

      You are correct about the ‘true criticism’ being of Council’s need to spend money on planning, implementing and enforcing parking restrictions to cater for Holiday Park patrons. This cost would be avoided if the Park provided adequate parking for their patrons. They have successfully shifted a considerable cost from their business to the local ratepayers.

      I definitely don’t hate tourists – I often am one! I always respect local traditions and culture when I travel to what for me is a ‘holiday destination’, but what is a ‘home’ for those who welcome me there.


Comments are closed.