The dozen of so residents of a small stretch of Rupert St, North Katoomba, had not been bothered that their road is “unformed”.
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
In fact, they would regularly buy some gravel from Tunks to fill in the odd pothole.
But after council approved two new dwellings, both with attached granny flats, at the end of the cul de sac, the increased number of cars has seen the road rapidly deteriorate.
One resident, Sally Stevens, said the added traffic was ripping up the road surface.
“If they hadn’t put them [the new houses] in, it wouldn’t matter but because there are eight new cars now, it’s got so much worse.”
Cr Kevin Schreiber said “it is a concern when residents are paying rates to have no sealed road access to their properties”.
“Houses have been approved with granny flats but still no sealed road access to six properties. When bad weather arrives it means mud into their homes and, with the constant use, this unmade road is only going to get worse.”
A council spokeswoman said that section of Rupert St was classed as an “unformed road” (not to be confused with an unsealed road).
“‘Unformed roads’ are roads that are shown as entities on the map but which have not been constructed to standard and are not accepted as a council asset. This means they are not recognised nor maintained as public roads by council,” she said.
The case of Rupert St was “a historical situation that has developed over time”.
She said the current owners in the street “have had the benefit of not having to contribute to the considerable cost of road construction”.
“Should residents of this section of Rupert St wish to formalise the access road, this would require an application and approval under the NSW Roads Act for a public road to be constructed to standard, and at their expense. Once classified as a formal road, council would maintain the road as part of its road network.”
When asked why council would approve new houses on an unformed road, the spokeswoman said: “If proposed access arrangements are demonstrated to be adequate and, in particular, if there are existing dwellings utilising that same access, it is unlikely that access alone could be used as a reason to refuse the development.”
