Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

 

5th February, 2002

 

 

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY, 2002 AT 6:00 PM

 

Committee Members:               His Worship, the Mayor, Cr D. Sullivan, Crs Backes, Bastic (Chairperson), Greenwood, Schick, Seng and White (Deputy Chairperson) and Whitehead.

 

Quorum:                                   Five (5) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2000, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE WORKS COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 4TH DECEMBER, 2001.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Works

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 1/2002 - WEST KINGSFORD / KENSINGTON TRAFFIC STUDY.

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 2/2002 - COOGEE PARKING TRIAL - PARKING SURVEY

6

 

5.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 3/2002 - ST MARKS LANE, RANDWICK - PARKING CONDITIONS.

13

 


 

5.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 4/2002 - BEAUCHAMP ROAD / PERRY STREET, MATRAVILLE - TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.

18

 

5.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 5/2002 - REMOVAL OF CASUARINAS IN SOLANDER STREET, MATRAVILLE.

21

 

5.6                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 6/2002 - PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION FOR EASTERN SUBURBS BANKSIA SCRUB IN THE SYDNEY BASIN BIOREGION.

23

 

5.7                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 7/2002 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY/RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL.

28

 

5.8                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 8/2002 - ANZAC PARADE BETWEEN GALE ROAD AND STOREY STREET, MAROUBRA, PETITION TO PROVIDE STEPS TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM CARRIAGEWAY TO FOOTPATH.

30

 

5.9                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 9/2002 - REGIONAL WASTE AND RECYCLING PROJECTS.

36

 

5.10                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 10/2002 - 40 KILOMETRE SPEED ZONES - DAY CARE CENTRES.

40

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

…………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 1/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

WEST KINGSFORD / KENSINGTON TRAFFIC STUDY

 

 

DATE:

5 December, 2001

FILE NO:

R/0260/02    98/S/3800    98/S/4405

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the current status of investigations into traffic conditions in the West Kingsford/Kensington area.

 

Council at its Works Committee meeting held on 11 September 2001 considered a report on traffic conditions in Eastern Avenue, Kingsford.

 

Following consideration of the matter, Council resolved that:

 

a)         ‘This matter be deferred in order to call a meeting of West Ward Councillors, other interested Councillors, the Kensington Chamber of Commerce, the Kensington Community Traffic Committee, Council officers and any other interested parties, as appropriate to discuss this matter further; and

 

b)         Council write to the Police Department requesting information regarding speed enforcement by the Highway Patrol in the Kensington area, in particular have the police been doing any speed enforcement in the area and if so, how many infringements have been issued.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Having regard to paragraph (b) above, the Highway Patrol has advised that Cottenham Avenue, Boronia Street, Tunstall Avenue and Gardeners Road receive regular surveillance under general taskings.  Although the exact number of tickets issued cannot be easily determined, it is known that many tickets have been issued in these streets and in particular Cottenham Avenue, north of Day Avenue, received the highest number of infringements.

 

In accordance with paragraph (a) above, a meeting was arranged and held on Monday, 3 December 2001 in the Customer Service Centre meeting room.

The meeting was held in two sessions and Mr Chris Stapleton (Christopher Stapleton Consulting Pty Ltd), the traffic consultant investigating the Kensington Urban Improvement Program, briefed the meeting.  The traffic investigations have been extended from the Kensington town centre to a local area traffic management study.

 

Councillors Peter Schick and John Procopiadis, Mrs D Grusovin MP, Member for Heffron, Sima Truuvert, Melissa Green, Jason Scoufis, John Stephens and Chris Stapleton attended the first session.

 

The second session included the above attendees and local residents - Tim Marwedel, Jan Ryan, Bob Wilson (Kensington Community Traffic Committee), Maria Alexandrou (Kensington Chamber of Commerce) and Spiros Magiros.  An apology was received from Mr Chris Bland.

 

An earlier meeting was also held with the convenor of the Kensington Community Traffic Committee, Dr Terry Lustig on 14 November 2001 as he was unable to attend the main meeting on 3 December 2001.

 

The study area under consideration is generally bounded by Southern Cross Drive – Dowling Street – Dacey Avenue – Alison Road – Doncaster Avenue - Anzac Parade – Gardeners Road.

 

From the above meetings, there was a clear indication that most people were concerned about by-passing traffic using the local residential streets and vehicles speeding in their streets.  Mr Stapleton noted the comments and put forward his views for undertaking a study of the area.

 

The study forms an extension of the Kensington UIP and Mr Stapleton has developed a step process for the investigations and this procedure was generally accepted at the above meetings.  A copy of the proposed study program is attached.

 

The consultant intends to work closely with the Kensington Community Traffic Committee representatives and has requested their assistance with local community polling and feedback.

 

As noted on the attached program, the next task (step 3) is to conduct an ideas workshop in February leading through to the final task (step 14) – adoption of a plan in November 2002.  However, it should be noted that the consultant has raised the need to be aware that during the community consultation process, further feedback may be required depending on the issues raised by various groups in the community and this could extend the time table.

 

Also, Council officers have recently collected a considerable amount of traffic data in the local streets of the study area that will be used in the study.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the proposed process for the study as detailed by the consultant provides for very good community consultation and involvement with a holistic approach.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of the study program

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

JOHN STEPHENS

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 


 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 2/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE PARKING TRIAL - PARKING SURVEY

 

 

DATE:

18 January, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Works Committee at its meeting held on 27th February, 2001, considered a report regarding the revenue sharing agreement between Council and Reino International Pty Ltd for the Coogee Oval Car park and Dolphin Street Car park.

 

It was resolved in part that:

 

“On-street parking in surrounding streets be monitored and a quarterly report be provided to the Works Committee on the impact of the trial scheme.” 

 

ISSUES:

 

Further to the parking survey undertaken in August/September 2001, a further survey of the study area was undertaken in December 2001/January 2002.

 

The time and dates of the surveys were as follows:

 

Weekday Business  -  12.00pm - 1.00pm, Monday 31 December 2001

Weekday  Night      -  7.30pm - 8.30pm, Monday 7 January 2002

Weekend Business  - 12.30pm - 1.30pm, Sunday 23 December 2001

Weekend Night       -  7.30pm - 8.30pm, Sunday 23 December 2001

 

The study area for the impact of the paid parking scheme extended to the following streets:

 

Arcadia Street - full length

Brook Street – between Arcadia Street & Coogee Bay Road

Alfreda Street – full length   

Arden Street – between Coogee Bay Road and Arcadia Street

Ormond Gardens – full length

Bream Street – between Brook Street & Arden Street

Dolphin Street – between Brook Street & Coogee Palace

Hill Lane – between Brook Street & Hill Street

Baden Street – full length

Hill Street – between Dolphin Street & Arcadia Street

 

Surveyed parking vacancy for each street in the survey zone is attached for the four time periods as indicated above. The data for the previous survey is also attached.

           

The overall vacancy rate during the four peak periods surveyed in December 2001/January 2002 ranged from 5% to 8%, which equates to between 26 and 46 vacant spaces in the study area at any given time. This is significantly lower than the vacancy rates for the surveys undertaken in September/October 2001 which ranged from 21% to 27%. 

 

Peak parking vacancy rates vary significantly from street to street ranging from 0% to 33%, with an overall average of 7% vacancies in comparison to an average of 24% from the previous survey.

 

The survey indicates that Baden Street and Alfreda Street have very low vacancy rates with Baden Street having a maximum of 1 parking space available and Alfreda Street a maximum of 4 spaces available.

 

Dolphin Street also had low vacancy rates with their being no available spaces during the weekday business period and weekend night period. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In summary, the December 2001/January 2002 survey indicated that at any given time a total of 26 to 46 spaces were available in the study area which comprises of a  total of 542 on street spaces. In comparison the August/September 2001 survey indicated that a total of 114 to 147 were available in the study area. The difference in available parking is as a result of the significant increase in traffic generation of Coogee Beach which occurs during the summer months.

 

There were no available parking spaces at times in Bream Street, Dolphin Street, Hill Lane and Baden Street. These streets had a significant amount of parking available during the previous survey and are at capacity as a result of visitors to the beach area.

 

A further parking vacancy survey in the study area will be conducted in March 2001, and reported back to a future Works Committee Meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Parking Vacancy Survey December 2001/January 2002

2. Parking Vacancy Survey August 2001 / September 2001  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

JASON Scoufis

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 3/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ST MARKS LANE, RANDWICK - PARKING CONDITIONS

 

 

DATE:

18 January, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0706/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 13th November 2001, considered a report regarding vehicles illegally parking in St Marks Lane restricting access to the resident’s garage at 6 Fraser Street, Randwick.

 

In a memo dated 4 December 2001, Councillors Greenwood, Backes and Tracey have asked that the matter be referred to the Works Committee for determination.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Robert Braid of 6 Fraser Street has written to Council expressing concern that residents of the recently constructed development at 63-65 Market Street are parking in St Marks Lane in front of the resident’s rear driveway.

 

Site inspections have confirmed that vehicles are parking in the lane restricting access into the garage. In order to deter this from occurring it would be beneficial to install a short section of ‘No Parking’ opposite the garage of 6 Fraser Street.

 

At a site meeting held with the resident of 6 Fraser Street, the resident requested the installation of ‘No Parking’ in St Marks Lane along the full frontage of 63-65 Market Street, a length of 14 metres. This is considered excessive and of no benefit.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is appropriate to remove 8.5 metres of parking along the southern boundary of 63-65 Market Street in St Marks Lane thus leaving room for one vehicle to park legally, which would still allow sufficient space to manoeuvre into and out of the garage to 6 Fraser Street.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That a ‘No Parking’ zone be installed in St Marks Lane from 5.5 metres west of the eastern boundary of 63-65 Market Street up to the western boundary of 6 Fraser Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Facsimile from resident

2. Signposting

3. Referral to Works Committee   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

JAson scoufis

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 





Director Asset & Infrastructure Services

Report No. 4/2002 

 

 

SUBJECT:

BEAUCHAMP ROAD / PERRY STREET, MATRAVILLE - TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

 

 

DATE:

18 January, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0071/02    R/0613/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 11th December  2001, considered a report regarding traffic conditions at the Beauchamp Road/Perry Street intersection.

 

ISSUES:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 28 August 2001, Council resolved that:

 

“a)       The RTA be requested to:

 

i)          Investigate and review its previous position regarding the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Perry Street, Matraville; and

 

ii)         Advise Council at an early date of the status of this matter;

 

b)   Council write to the Premier, the Member for Maroubra and the Minister for Transport and Roads requesting that some action be taken to address the problems at the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Perry Street, Matraville.”

 

A response has since been received from the office of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Roads, stating the following:

 

“In response to Council’s concerns, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) undertook a further investigation of the traffic conditions at the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Perry Street, including an analysis of the accident history of the most recent five year data.

 

In terms of safety these investigations do not reveal a current need for traffic signals at this location.

 

However, the RTA will investigate the possibility of improving sight distance for motorists exiting right from Perry Street by reviewing the existing kerb-side parking arrangements on Beauchamp Road, immediately north of Perry Street.”

 

Further correspondence has since been received from Skippen’s Landscape and Building Supplies at 3 Perry Street, Matraville. An extract of the letter follows: 

 

“We feel that the ideal solution to the need for traffic control at this intersection would be the construction of a roundabout.  To do this it would be necessary to reclaim a portion of the unused nature strip on the north-eastern corner of Perry Street.  This portion of the nature strip is totally unused and unnecessary.  Not only would a roundabout allow much more free flow of traffic, it would enable the many southbound semi-trailers turning into Perry Street from Beauchamp Road on their way to the weighbridge in McCauley Street, to do so without having to cross onto the wrong side of Perry Street, which would be the case if traffic lights were installed.  Roundabouts have been a great success as a “traffic calming device” in many other locations and we can see no reason that it would not be a success at this intersection.

 

Our concerns with the installation of traffic lights at this intersection are that it will be extremely detrimental to our business.  Perry Street is an extremely busy thoroughfare with very heavy traffic and, as we are located close to the corner of Perry Street and Beauchamp Road, traffic would queue across our driveway on the red signal and would be a constant flow on the green signal.”

 

At the Randwick Traffic Committee meeting held on 14 August 2001, it was reported, in part, as follows:

 

“A review of Council’s files indicated that the matter had been considered on many previous occasions.

 

In a letter dated 7 August 1997, the RTA replied to Council’s request for the RTA to investigate the feasibility of providing traffic signals or a roundabout at the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Perry Street, Matraville.

 

The RTA advised that traffic signals would improve the traffic conditions that were occurring at that time and also advised that a roundabout would not be feasible as a solution, due to problems relating to sight distances and the type of traffic using the intersection.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority’s most recent investigations have revealed that there is no current need for traffic signals at the Beauchamp Road/Perry Street intersection.

 

Furthermore the RTA is reviewing kerbside parking arrangements at the intersection to determine if any further improvements to road safety are possible. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

JASON SCOUFIS

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 5/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

REMOVAL OF CASUARINAS IN SOLANDER STREET, MATRAVILLE.

 

 

DATE:

16 January, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0684/03

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A petition has been received on 20 December, 2001, from a number of owners/residents of Solander Street, Matraville, requesting the removal of seven mature, healthy Casuarina glaucas (She Oaks) growing intermittently along the length of the street.

 

Residents have expressed, over a number of years, a desire to have these trees removed and have sited a number of problems associated with this particular tree species as reasons to have them taken out.

 

ISSUES:

 

As is the case wherever this tree species is growing, the trees drop an inordinate and ongoing amount of debris (needles) all year round.  These needles continually fall into the windscreen areas of motor vehicles, block residential gutters, block stormwater pits, inhibit the growth of turf, etc.

 

The roots cause damage to driveways, kerb and gutter, roadways, etc, and create a serious trip hazard. They seriously impede the ability to grow annuals and/or perennials and they send up suckers for quite some distance from where the tree may be growing.

 

Residents have sent in a series of photographs, which demonstrate the volume of needles concerned, and the nature of the problems being caused to residents.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Although this tree species grows well in relatively harsh conditions, there are a number of problems associated with them. Even though the problem of needle drop may only be considered an inconvenience, it is ongoing and it may create more serious problems.

 

The roots are extensive and cause structural damage to both public infrastructure and private property.

 

A number of residents are in support of the removal of these trees and have been for quite some time.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT

 

1.         The residents’ request be acceded to and that the seven subject ‘She Oaks’ be removed; and

 

2.         The entire length of Solander Street be subsequently planted out with Cupaniopsis anarcardioides (Tuckeroos), as per Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

3.         Local residents in Solander Street, Matraville be informed of Council’s resolution.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 6/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION FOR EASTERN SUBURBS BANKSIA SCRUB IN THE SYDNEY BASIN BIOREGION

 

 

DATE:

17 January, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0014

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Associate Professor Paul Adam, Deputy Chairperson of the NSW Scientific Committee advising that the Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Preliminary Determination to support a proposal to amend Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act (Endangered Ecological Communities) by listing the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub in the Sydney Basin Bioregion as an endangered ecological community,  and as a consequence to omit reference to the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

 

The Deputy Chairperson enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Determination for information and asked for comment on this Determination by forwarding a submission within the exhibition period as indicated on the Determination.

 

ISSUES:

 

Notification of a Preliminary Determination (see Attachment 1) supporting the listing of this ecological community as endangered on Schedule 1 Part 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 appeared in the “Southern Courier” on 26 December, 2001.

 

If a Final Determination supports this proposal it would replace the existing listing of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub. The closing date has been extended to15 February 2002.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is understood that the new preliminary determination has been proposed in order to better identify this community’s geographical extent i.e. to the Sydney Basin Bioregion.

 

There are not likely to be any consequences for the City of Randwick if a Final Determination supports this proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council has no objection to the proposed listing of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub in the Sydney Basin Bioregion.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Preliminary Determination

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

DANNY HIRSCHFELD

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

BUSH FIELD OFFICER

 

 




 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 7/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY/RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL.

 

 

DATE:

31 January, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1488

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority has forwarded a revised Memorandum of Understanding for Works by Council and Funded by the RTA (MOU) for Council’s consideration.

 

ISSUES:

 

The intent of the revised MOU is to improve the agreed management procedure for Council and the RTA – Sydney Client Services to follow for all Council projects funded wholly or in part by the RTA.

 

The revised MOU records the key requirements of the project management and associated reporting process to be followed by Council and the RTA.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The revised MOU will assist both Council and the RTA by clearly detailing the project management cycle and its reporting requirements.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.   Council agree to the revised Memorandum of Understanding for Works by Council and funded by the RTA: and

2.   The General Manager be delegated the authority to sign documents associated with the Memorandum of Understanding.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Memorandum of Understanding - under separate cover

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

 

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 8/2002

 

SUBJECT:

ANZAC PARADE BETWEEN GALE ROAD AND STOREY STREET, MAROUBRA, PETITION TO PROVIDE STEPS TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM CARRIAGEWAY TO FOOTPATH.

 

 

DATE:

29 January 2002

FILE NO:

P/008094

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION

 

A petition has been received by Council requesting the construction of stairs from the upper level footpath along Anzac Parade to the roadway, between Storey Street and Gale Road, Maroubra. 

 

Ms Margaret Noon, the petition co-ordinator, has three young children and no vehicular access to her property. Pedestrian access to where she parks her car is difficult due to the road cutting / retaining wall adjacent to her property.

 

Ms Margaret Noon has made a number of requests to Council to construct stairs from the upper level footpath along Anzac Parade to the roadway adjacent to her property at 778 Anzac Parade.

 

ISSUES:

 

A 1.8 metre high by 80 metre long retaining wall exists behind the kerb and gutter between 770 and 784 Anzac Parade. An upper level concrete footpath exists behind the retaining wall along the boundary line between Storey Street and Gale Road, Maroubra. The 80-metre section of roadway in front of the retaining wall is currently utilised for parking for approximately 13 cars and approximately 600mm exists between the face of kerb and the retaining wall.

 

Ms Noon has requested the construction of a set of stairs between the upper level footpath and the roadway primarily to allow direct access to the on street parking. Residents currently park in the spaces provided in front of the retaining wall and walk along the road pavement to the nearest pedestrian access to the footway, that being either north to the vehicular access of 770 Anzac Parade or south to the intersection of Gale Road and Anzac Parade. Some residents actually climb up and down the retaining wall (crib wall) and Ms Noon has indicated that this is her preferred way of accessing her vehicle from the house.

 

Ms Noon has also expressed concern regarding the collection of household waste and recycling bins. Currently residents between 772 and 784 Anzac Parade are required to place their waste receptacles for collection either on the nature strip to the north of the raised section of footpath in Anzac Parade or to the south in Gale Road.

 

In response to Ms Noon’s concerns regarding waste collection, previous correspondence from Council stated that access by garbage collection trucks was not possible to the properties in this section of Anzac Parade due to the concentration of parked cars in the kerb lane. As such it is necessary to position garbage and recycling containers either in Gale Road or in Anzac Parade to the north of the property.

 

A set of steps designed for accessibility may necessitate alterations to a major optical fibre cable owned by Telstra which lies behind the retaining wall. Should no alterations be required to this cable it is estimated that the stairs and associated works will cost $15,000-$20,000. However, due to its very close proximity for the works, Telstra have advised that one of their supervisors be present during the works. Should any damage occur to the cable during the excavation or any alterations be ordered by Telstra as a consequence of the works, it will add considerably to the cost of this project.

 

Ms Noon’s request has previously been put forward to Council as part of the business paper entitled “Community Requested Works” at the Works Committee meeting held on the 10th July 2001. No funds were allocated to this proposal under the Councillor Requested Works for 2001/2002 at this meeting of Council.

 

Council’s design was brought before both the October and November 2001 meetings of the Randwick Traffic Committee (Item A2 at both meetings). Whilst the report to the October sitting of the Randwick Traffic Committee recommended that the design be approved, both the Roads & Traffic Authority and Police representatives expressed concern at the installation of the stairs. It was resolved the matter be deferred to an on site meeting of the Traffic Committee.

 

An on site meeting was held on the 7 November 2001, there being present Mr Ken Noad (Roads & Traffic Authority), Sgt. Gary Thompson (Randwick Police – Eastern Beaches Local Area Command) and Mr Jason Scoufis (Randwick City Council). The installation of the stairs was not supported for the following reasons:

           

1.         Concern was expressed that schoolchildren and patrons of Bowen Library will use the stairs to cross Anzac Parade (i.e. the stairs will not only be used by residents accessing their cars parked on the kerb)

 

2.         It is unsuitable to promote pedestrian access across a State Road at an uncontrolled location.

 

3.         If the stairs were to be introduced it would require a loss of at least 2 car parking spaces on the approach side to provide sufficient sight lines. Concerns were also raised in that the stairs would be directly opposite the exit of the car park located in the centre of Anzac Parade.

 

The results of this on site meeting were brought before the November sitting of the Randwick Traffic Committee Meeting Item A2. where it was recommended

 

“THAT the request for the construction of the stairs in front of 774/776 Anzac Parade be not supported on road safety grounds.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s investigations into this matter reveal that the construction of a set of stairs at this location will create a traffic safety problem particularly with children unfamiliar with the dangers of accessing the Anzac Parade road pavement in between parked cars from these stairs. As such the Council’s Traffic Committee does not support the construction of the stairs.

 

The prohibitive construction costs of the stairs due to the possible utility service alterations also reduce the justification for the construction of the stairs. To alert the public to the dangers of climbing the retaining wall to access the footpath from the road pavement an obvious pedestrian fence railing should be constructed to persuade people not to climb the retaining wall at this location. The estimated cost of this fence is $8,000 and will be included in the Draft 2002/2003 Budget for Council’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:    

 

(1)        The petition be noted.

 

(2)        The recommendation of the Randwick Traffic Committee be confirmed and the installation of the stairs not be supported.

 

(3)        A suitable fence be constructed along the top of the retaining wall to alert the public to the existence of a high retaining wall.

 

(4)        The cost of the fence referred to in (3) above be included in the Draft 2002/2003 Budget for Council’s consideration.

 

(5)        The appropriate signatories of the petition be notified of Council’s decision in relation to this matter.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

PETITION

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIMOTHY McCARTHY

JOHN EARLS

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS COORDINATOR

 





 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 9/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

REGIONAL WASTE AND RECYCLING PROJECTS

 

 

DATE:

31 January, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3106  98/S/4106 (4)

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Works Committee meeting on 13 November 2001, Council considered DAIS Report 100/2001 on the regional recycling project and resolved that Council:

 

a)         Note the outcome of the meeting with the ACCC and that Council will be provided with the Draft Determination for comment;

 

b)         Agree to Council participating in the Regional Dry Recyclable Material Project under the same terms and conditions as the Residual Waste Infrastructure Project; and

 

c)             Delegate authority to the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Resource NSW to participate in the tendering process for the Regional Dry Recyclable Material Project, carried out concurrently with tendering processes for the Residual Waste Infrastructure Project.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 October 2001, Council considered DAIS Report 94/2001 on the residual waste infrastructure project and resolved that Council:

 

a)         Note the progress of this project since 28 August 2001;

 

b)         Note the community consultation process will be initiated at the information session to be held on 31 October 2001; and

 

c)         Note the contents of the Information Pack and brochure tabling the information sessions.

 

Officers from the former Southern Sydney Waste Board had coordinated both the Regional Dry Recyclable Material Project and the Residual Waste Infrastructure Project.  With the disbanding of the Waste Boards on 8 October 2001, these projects were subsequently coordinated by Resource NSW.   EPA NSW had recommended that funding for these projects be continued to at least 30 June 2002 and it was understood that the Minister had agreed to this funding. 

 

To maintain the momentum of Council’s participation in these projects, Council Waste Managers agreed to reorganise as the SSROC Waste Management Group.  This Group amalgamated the former SSWB Waste Managers’ Group and the former SSWB Infrastructure Committee.

 

ISSUES:

 

Progress and direction of the projects

 

On 26 October 2001, Waste Service NSW wrote to Councils expressing an interest in sponsoring the Waste Management Group.  The Group declined this proposal, since the recent corporatisation of Waste Service NSW now makes it a competitor for the provision of waste services.   Waste Service NSW subsequently sought to introduce its new CEO Ken Kanofski to the Waste Management Group at its meeting on 11 December 2001.   At the same time, Collex also sought to address the Waste Management Group on its Woodlawn Bioreactor Project.

 

On 6 December 2001, Resource NSW advised that it was withdrawing from the Residual Waste Infrastructure Project and presented its exit strategy to the Waste Management Group on 12 December 2001.   Nolan-ITU consultants presented the outcomes of the community consultation process.  Resource NSW has now terminated Nolan-ITU’s role in this project.  

 

Resource NSW also advised that it has been unable to secure the release of the Draft Determination on the Regional Dry Recyclable Material project from the ACCC.

 

Waste Service NSW organised a presentation to the Waste Managers at the former SSWB offices on 18 December 2001.  The purpose of the presentation was to allow the CEO to meet Waste Managers and outline Waste Services’ proposals for the introduction of alternative waste technologies across the whole-of-Sydney region.

 

Collex made a presentation on the Woodlawn Bioreactor Project to the Waste Management Group at its meeting on 15 January 2002.   The waste transfer terminal at the Clyde railway complex is undergoing development approval and commissioning of the full operation is expected in late 2002.   The operation at Woodlawn has certain environmental merit and Collex will be seeking to secure long-term waste treatment contracts with local governments across the Sydney region. 

 

The SSROC Waste Management Group’s analysis is that Resource NSW is foregoing its involvement in infrastructure projects in order to allow Waste Service NSW to assert a greater role in waste infrastructure and that this may impinge on SSROC Councils’ desire to get competitive outcomes.  The Group views that there are two directions that the integrated waste and recycling projects could take:

 

1.         A long term supply contract through the SSROC Supply Management Group, with the major providers such as Waste Service NSW and Collex Pty Ltd establishing their credentials in alternative waste technologies in accordance with SSROC’s criteria for environmental purchasing; or

 

2.         A tendering process as originally proposed, including an Expressions of Interest process for all competitors in the alternative waste technology and recycling markets.   Local governments in the SHOROC (North Shore Regional Councils) and Hunter regions are currently undertaking this process.

 

The SSROC Waste Management Group intends to meet with Mr Neil Chapman, Director Programs, Resource NSW on 12 February 2002.  The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the role of Resource NSW in developing waste infrastructure policy and the development of programs funded from the Section 88 Landfill Levy.

 

The SSROC General Managers’ Group also intends to meet with the Mr Tim Rogers, CEO of Resource NSW on 14 February 2002.    These meetings should enable a clear direction to be obtained on the future of waste and recycling infrastructure projects and the development of waste and recycling policy in the light of the appointments to the Board of Resource NSW.  These appointments are listed below:

 

David Hartley AM (Chair)                    Colin Whyte

Steve Richards                         Cr Peter Woods OAM

Cr John Clarence                                  Cr Janet Hayes

Cr Genia McCaffery                             Mr Jeff Angel

Ms Jenny Kent                         Mr Tim Rogers (CEO)            

 

Community Consultation

 

The community consultation was undertaken using a two-step process including a public meeting, held at Maroubra on 31 October 2001 and a telephone poll of 60 residents conducted in November 2001.

 

The key qualitative findings from the public meetings and written submissions are:

 

·          Waste avoidance should not be supplanted by a technology-driven approach

·          Aspects associated with the siting of any future facility

·          Additional cost to ratepayers and willingness to pay

·          Greater community education about alternative waste treatment

·          Improvement in current reduction at source, recycling, reuse and composting

·          Projects should be part of a broader strategic and legislative framework

 

The key quantitative findings from the telephone survey are:

 

·          82% of respondents preferred “processing of garbage to remove recyclables that were not originally placed in the recycling bins and conversion of the remainder into a usable product” compared to landfill disposal

·          41% preferred electricity generating techniques; 30% compost generating techniques

·          General quality of life, air pollution from facility operation, waste diversion rate, local employment creation and odour from facility operation were the top 5 aspects in terms of community importance, but cost was of least importance

·          58% of respondents were opposed to treatment options that would have a greater environmental impact than landfilling

·          There were no clear preferences on technology output or centralisation versus decentralisation of processing

·          Majority support for further waste avoidance, including education strategies

·          82% willing to pay an extra $25 per year for appropriate technology

 

The outcome of this consultation program is that information on alternative technologies is being prepared in simpler formats for certain target groups in the population that did not attend the public information session.   Further information on the pricing of waste and recycling will also be included in community education products.   Waste Service NSW will be conducting an information session on waste pricing principles and alternative technology strategies on 5 February 2002.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The withdrawal of Resource NSW from the Regional Waste Infrastructure Project is a disappointment, however this has strengthened the resolve of the SSROC Waste Management Group to seek competitive outcomes for their Councils in the long-term handling of garbage and recyclables.   With the ongoing delay endured by Resource NSW in the securing the release by ACCC of the Draft Determination for the recyclables project, SSROC Councils are now better positioned to pursue an integrated solution for waste and recycling.   Pending clarification of roles with Resource NSW, further work will be carried out in the area of public education and information on alternative technologies and pricing.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

a)         Note the progress on the waste and recycling projects; and

 

b)         Note the key findings from the community consultation and that further information will be provided to the community.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

RUSSELL WADE

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 10/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

40 KILOMETRE SPEED ZONES - DAY CARE CENTRES

 

 

DATE:

18 January, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0974

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 12th June, 2001, considered a report regarding the feasibility of installing 40 km/hr speed zones in front of child care centres.

 

The committee recommended that:

 

1        Council requires the approval of the RTA and under the RTA’s selection criteria, school zones are not appropriate at pre schools. 

 

2.       The view of providing 40km/hr speed zones as a condition of consent in future DA’s regarding Child Care Centres is not supported.

 

ISSUES:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 10 July 2001, Council considered the Traffic Committee report and resolved the following:

 

a)     Council seek advice from the Minister for Transport and Road’s office regarding community concerns about traffic conditions outside of Child Care Centres; and

 

b)     In seeking advice from the Minister, Council draw to his attention the problems faced by parents getting into and out of cars at Child Care Centres.

 

A response has since been received from the office of the Minister for Transport and Roads, which reads as follows:

 

‘I refer to your letter to the Hon. Carl Scully MP, Minister for Roads, regarding traffic conditions outside child care facilities. The Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf.

 

Children attending preschools and childcare centres are not permitted, under the licensing regulation with the Department of Community Services, to arrive at or leave the preschool or childcare centre unattended. Every child must be supervised by an appropriate adult when they arrive or leave the preschool or childcare service. As children attending these services are closely supervised, the installation of a 40km/hr zone would not increase their safety.

 

For those reasons, it is not the policy of the Roads and Traffic Authority to install 40km/hr school zones outside preschools and childcare centres. These zones are installed at infant, primary and high school sites to slow traffic down and increase the safety of children travelling independently to school’.   

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As stated above, children attending preschool and childcare centres are not permitted to arrive or leave the premises unattended and accordingly the installation of a 40km/hr speed zone is not warranted. Their usage in front of infant, primary and high schools is beneficial, as these children are required to cross roads under no supervision.   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

The report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   1. Letter from office of Minister for Transport and Roads

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TIM MCCARTHY

JASON SCOUFIS

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER