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

 

 

7 May 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,  14TH MAY 2002 AT6:00 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, 9TH APRIL, 2002.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Works

 

5.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 46/2002 -  KENSINGTON / WEST KINGSFORD LATM SCHEME

2

 

5.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 47/2002 - COOGEE PARKING TRIAL - PARKING SURVEY

5


 

5.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 48/2002 - EUCALYPTUS SPECIES GROWING IN FRONT OF 65 MIRRABOOKA CRESCENT, LITTLE BAY

11

 

5.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 49/2002 - S611 FEES - FEDERAL COURT ACTION BY TELSTRA AND OPTUS

15

 

5.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 50/2002 - MOVERLY ROAD, SOUTH COOGEE- REQUEST TO INSTALL TRAFFIC THRESHOLD AT WOMBAT CROSSING

18

 

5.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 51/2002 - SYDNEY BUSES - BUS STOP INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES

20

 

5.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 52/2002 - BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING

23

 

5.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 53/2002 - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE - OPENING TIMES

26

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 46/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

KENSINGTON / WEST KINGSFORD LATM SCHEME

 

 

DATE:

2 May 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4405

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s Works Committee at it’s meeting held on 12 February 2002 considered a report on the status of investigations into traffic conditions in the Kensington/West Kingsford area.

 

The report advised that an inaugural meeting had been held on 3 December 2001 with the West Ward Councillors, Mrs D Grusovin MP, Chris Stapleton (Council’s consultant), Council officers and five local residents from the study area.

 

A copy of the proposed study program was also attached to the report and it concluded by stating that the proposed process for the study as detailed by the consultant provided very good community consultation and involvement with a holistic approach.

 

Consequently, Council resolved “that the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report No. 1/2002 be received and noted.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Since the inaugural meeting held last December there have been a further 3 workshop meetings held on 21 February, 7 March and 11 April 2002.

 

At the April meeting, Mr Stapleton tabled a draft questionnaire and the group discussed the process for polling residents in each of the identified five precincts within the study area.

 

Councillor Procopiadis has recently received further complaints from residents in the north-west sector of the study area bounded by Lenthall Street – Todman Avenue – Dowling Street about vehicles by-passing the signalised intersection of Lenthall Street and Todman Avenue and using in particular Virginia Street and Baker Street.

 

This movement has been identified by the consultant in his investigations so far and he has proposed that access to Virginia Street, McDougall Street and Milroy Avenue from Lenthall Street be denied and the only access that would be available would be left turn movements into Lenthall Street.

 

The only exception to the above banned movements would be to allow STA route buses to turn right from Lenthall Street into Virginia Street.

 

A copy of the draft proposal is attached.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

At the present time the study program is generally on timetable, however, there has been no community polling held yet to ascertain the views of residents or detailed designs undertaken of the above proposal.

 

Should Council wish to consider treating the north-west sector as a Stage 1 project, it will be necessary to undertake full public consultation in this sector, prepare detailed designs and present the proposal to the Randwick Traffic Committee for approval.

 

Following the above regulatory requirements, any approved scheme will need to be costed for a budget to be considered by Council.

 

Also, it should be noted that this study was proposed from a resident of Cottenham Avenue following Council’s consideration of traffic conditions in Eastern Avenue.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of draft proposal.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN STEPHENS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 47/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE PARKING TRIAL - PARKING SURVEY

 

 

DATE:

23 April, 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.”

 

At the Works Committee Meeting held on 12 February 2002 the quarterly report was submitted regarding the December 2001/January 2002 parking survey and it was resolved in part that:

 

“The next quarterly parking report is to include figures on the vacancy rate in both Council’s pay parking areas and the surrounding residential area at Coogee Beach in order to gauge the effect that pay parking has had on parking in surrounding residential streets.”

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Further to the parking surveys undertaken in August/September 2001 and December 2001/January 2002 the final parking survey for the trial was undertaken in April 2002 and included the Coogee Oval Car Park and Dolphin Street Car Park which are undergoing the trial pay parking scheme.

 

The times and dates of the most recent surveys were as follows:

 

Weekday Business  -  12.00pm - 1.00pm, Tuesday 23 April 2002

Weekday  Night      -  7.30pm - 8.30pm, Tuesday 23 April 2002

Weekend Business  - 12.30pm - 1.30pm, Sunday 21 April 2002

Weekend Night       -  6.30pm - 7.30pm, Sunday 21 April 2002

 

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 surveys is also attached.

 

 

The total vacancy rate during the April 2002 on-street parking surveys ranged from 19% to 39% with a significant amount of parking available at all 4 surveyed times. The Coogee Oval Car Park  was also surveyed and the vacancy rate ranged from 9% during the Weekend business period to 93% vacancy rate for the Weekday business period. Similarly the Dolphin Street Car Park had a range from 2% to 59% vacancy rate.

 

In comparison to the other periods surveyed during the trial scheme, the April 2002 survey indicated that between 104 to 212 spaces were available in the study area significantly more than December 2001/January 2002 survey of 26 to 46 spaces and the August 2001/Septemver 2001 period of 112 to 147 available spaces.

 

The car parks undergoing trial paid parking have high usage during the weekend but have significant spare capacity on weekdays both at day and night.

 

                                                             PARKING VACANCY SURVEYS

 

              Aug01/Sep01                        Dec 01/Jan 02                              April 02

 

 

Weekday business        147(27 %)                                33(6%)                                     212(39%)    

 

Weekday night 136 (25%)                               45(8%)                                    108 (20%)     

 

Weekend business        112 (21%)                               46(8%)                                    159(20%)

 

Weekend Night            114(21%)                                26(5%)                                    104(19%)

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In summary, the April 2002 survey indicated that between 104 and 212 car spaces were available in the study area comprising of 542 on street spaces. A total of  114 to 147 spaces were vacant during the  August/September 2001 survey  and a significantly reduced number of spaces ranging from 26 to 46 were vacant during the December/January 2002 survey. 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 which tapers off significantly in the other periods during the year.

 

Within the overall study area, the surveys indicate that a significant number of vacant spaces are available during most of the year, however during the summer period diminishes significantly.

 

In regard to the usage of the Coogee Oval and Dolphin Street Car Park, the survey undertaken in April 2002 indicates that both car parks have high vacancy rates between 66% to 93% during the week but are heavily used on the weekends where the vacancy rate drops to between 2% and 52%.     

 

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

3. Parking Vacancy Survey April 2002  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JASON SCOUFIS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 





Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 48/2002   

 

 

SUBJECT:

EUCALYPTUS SPECIES GROWING IN FRONT OF 65 MIRRABOOKA CRESCENT, LITTLE BAY

 

 

DATE:

18 April, 2002

FILE NO:

P/005519

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

There is a large Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) growing within the front of 65 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay, that the owner, Mr William Hope, has applied to Council for consent to remove.

 

The tree is approximately 15 metres tall with a canopy spread of around ten metres and is in good health. It is significant in the streetscape and provides an important food source and habitat for native birds and fauna.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Hope first made application to remove this tree on 21 August, 2001, and gave the reasons that it was causing structural damage to his property and that it was overhanging his residence and was too lage for the average suburban situation.

 

An on-site inspection was undertaken at that time in the presence of Mr Hope and he was advised to trench along the front of his residence to ascertain whether any structural damage was being caused by the roots of the tree.

 

Mr Hope declined to go to this trouble and the application to remove the tree was subsequently refused. There was no mention made at that time of any plumbing problems being caused by the tree but Mr Hope expressed his intention to have the tree removed.

 

Mr Hope again made application for permission to remove this tree on 8 March, 2002, and gave as his reasons that the tree was causing structural damage and that the roots were now causing plumbing problems.

 

The tree was subsequently inspected by Council’s Tree Preservation and Maintenance Co-ordinator (South) who again advised Mr Hope to trench along the front of the residence so that a proper assessment of any tree root intrusion could be made.

 

Mr Hope was asked to provide evidence from his plumber that roots from this tree were causing blockages to his sewer pipes and a plumber’s report attached dated 8 April, 2002, asserts that during the previous 12 months blockages have had to be cleared on four occasions. Neither Mr Hope nor the plumber was able to provide invoices for the work that was allegedly undertaken to clear this series of blockages.

 

It was also stated by Mr Hope that there had been a severe branch failure some 20 years previously but there is no visual evidence of this and it could be argued that this is not a compelling reason to grant consent for the removal of a tree of this size.

 

This tree has been professionally assessed by Council staff on both occasions that an application has been made for its removal and it has been found to be structurally sound and in good health. A copy of the latest assessment is attached.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The subject tree is a dominant species within the streetscape that is in good health with no evidence of structural problems of any significance.

 

The evidence provided by Mr Hope’s plumber has not been substantiated with the provision of invoices. The issue of sewer blockages has not been raised previously in relation to this tree even though it is of a reasonable age.

 

Mr Hope has been advised on at least two occasions that the most appropriate way of assessing the extent of any possible tree root damage to his residence is to trench along the front of the building but to this point he has refused to do this.

 

If Mr Hope were to provide more substantial evidence of a history of sewerage blockages and was to trench along the front of the residence so that a proper assessment of any alleged structural damage could be undertaken then perhaps a reasonable case for removal could be presented.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That until a trench along the front alignment of the residence is dug and invoices for any sewer blockages relating to this tree are provided to Council, consent not be granted for the removal of the Eucalyptus robusta growing within the front of 65 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Assessment

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 



Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 49/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

S611 FEES - FEDERAL COURT ACTION BY TELSTRA AND OPTUS

 

 

DATE:

2 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3624  98/S/3575

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has for a number of years, in conjunction with other councils and in conjunction with Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, been attempting to levy Telstra and other organizations under S611 of the Local Government Act 1993 which states –

 

“S611 Annual charge on rails, pipes etc

 

611

(l) (Under or over public place) A council may make an annual charge on the person for the time being in possession, occupation or enjoyment of a rail, pipe, wire, pole, cable, tunnel, or structure laid, erected, suspended, constructed or placed on, under or over a public place.

 

(2) (Treated as a rate) The annual charge may be made, levied and recovered in accordance with this Act as if it were a rate but is not to be regarded as a rate for the purposes of calculating a council’s general income under Part 2.

 

(3) (Based on benefit) The annual charge is to be based on the nature and extent of the benefit enjoyed by the person concerned.

 

(4) (Appeal against amount) If a person is aggrieved by the amount of the annual charge, the person may appeal to the Land and Environment Court and that council may determine the amount.

 

(5) (Error of law) A person dissatisfied with the decision of the court as being erroneous in law may appeal to the Supreme Court in the manner provided for appeals from the Land and Environment Court.

 

(6) (Section does not apply) This section does not apply to

a)             the Crown; or

b)             The Sydney Water Corporation, the Hunter Water Corporation or a water supply authority or

c)             Rail Infrastructure Corporation; or

d)             The owner or operator a light rail system within the meaning of the Transport Administration Act 1988 but only if the matter relates to the development or operation of that system and is not excluded by the regulations from the exemption conferred by this paragraph.”

 

Telstra and Optus have taken legal action against Randwick and a number of other councils in regard to the councils’ rights to levy the above charges on the Telcos.

 

ISSUES:

 

The matter was determined in the Federal Court in December, 2000, in favour of the affected councils and was subsequently appealed by Telstra and Optus.

 

The following letter dated 23 April, 2002, has been received by Council from the LGSA -

 

“On 11 April, 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down its Judgement on an appeal lodged by Telstra and Optus against the decision made in the Federal Court in December 2000, in favour of councils in New South Wales and Victoria being able to charge telecommunications carriers for their use of public land.

 

The Judgement awarded costs against Local Government for the Appeal. Costs for the first hearing are yet to be considered.

 

The decision to take both these actions was only after confidential consultation with Councils, with attendance and agreement to proceed endorsed by all Metropolitan Councils at a meeting called for the purpose of deciding the ability of a council to seek a fair and reasonable contribution to the community for the use of those facilities.

 

It was only at the request of councils that the Association agreed to coordinate the actions, on behalf of the fourteen councils, which had been notified of Federal court action being taken against them.

 

Very significant legal costs have been incurred on behalf of councils, who must take responsibility for funding these actions.

 

The Associations sought legal advice on the likely costs and prospects of success in mounting an appeal to the High Court. A QC and advice from the former Solicitor General for the Commonwealth Sir Maurice Byers believes our case is strong and the Appeal Judges erred.

 

A meeting of Mayors on 16 April, 2002, unanimously endorsed the lodgement of an appeal to the High Court and in light of the benefits to which will flow to all councils a contribution of $5,951 based on the pro rata formula is sought from your council,

 

This issue is not just about telecommunications cables. It is challenge to the legal right of councils to charge for the use of public property by commercial interests. It affects all councils rights to see recompense on behalf of their citizens.

 

In all of these circumstances, I request that Council urgently endorses the action take, and provides me with a letter confirming preparedness to contribute to the costs”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The content of the above letter is self-explanatory. 

 

Council continues to include the levy in its annual Management Plan and Fees and Charges. It is considered that as Randwick is one of the councils chosen by Telstra and Optus to take legal action against, Council should continue with this matter until a legal conclusion to this case is determined.

 

The required funds should be charged to the relevant job number in the Street Lighting Programme.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council advise the LGSA of its support in this matter and send the requested amount of $5,951 required to lodge the appeal and that these funds be charged to the relevant job number in the Street Lighting Programme.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 50/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MOVERLY ROAD, SOUTH COOGEE- REQUEST TO INSTALL TRAFFIC THRESHOLD AT WOMBAT CROSSING

 

 

DATE:

19 April, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0548/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 February 2002, a motion was raised by Councillors’ Andrews and Bastic and Council resolved :

  

“That a report be prepared for the next Traffic Committee Meeting for the construction of a wombat crossing at the pedestrian crossing located at South Coogee Public School located on Moverly Road, South Coogee.”

 

ISSUES:

 

An at grade wombat crossing is located in front of the school in Moverly Road and blister islands were installed at this facility over 10 years ago to reduce the walking times for pedestrians crossing the road carriageway.

 

The at grade wombat crossing is located within a  40km/hr  School Zone, however the proposal to raise the crossing would physically force motorists to slow down as they approach the wombat crossing and further improve conditions for young children and parents crossing the road.

 

Moverly Road is a collector road and forms part of the Route 316 Eastgardens to Bondi Junction bus route and accordingly a raised threshold would need to be designed to accommodate  bus movements.  

 

At the Traffic Committee Meeting held on April 9, 2002, the Police representative advised that as a result of the road geometry of Moverly Road it may be difficult to sight the linemarking if the wombat crossing was raised, in particular for westbound motorists. The traffic engineer advised that the matter will be addressed in the detailed design stage of the raised wombat crossing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The installation of a raised threshold will improve conditions for schoolchildren crossing Moverly Road in front of South Coogee Public School and provide a traffic calming device out of school hours. The proposal detailed above has been investigated and supported by the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the provision of a raised threshold designed to accommodate bus movements at the wombat crossing on Moverly Road in front of  South Coogee Public School be referred to the RTA for inclusion in a future RTA Local Amenity Program.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JASON SCOUFIS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 51/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SYDNEY BUSES - BUS STOP INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES

 

 

DATE:

3 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0959

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 March 2002 it was resolved:

 

“That Sydney Buses be advised that the bus route modifications and removal and installation of bus stops as detailed in its infrastructure requirements for Eastern Suburbs Better Buses is supported subject to:

 

·          The Bus Zone scheduled for removal in Arden Street in front of Clovelly Public School being supported by Waverley Council.

 

·          The Bus Zone on Carrington Road in front of No. 104 being installed across the frontage of 104A to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The Bus Zones scheduled for installation in Garden Street in front of No’s. 57 and 62 being located as close to Storey Street intersection as possible to minimise the loss of kerbside parking.

 

·          The bus shelter in front of La Perouse Public School in Yarra Road, Phillip Bay being removed at Sydney Buses’ expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.

 

·          The JC Decaux bus shelter in front of No.5 Botany Street, Randwick being removed and relocated at Sydney Buses’ expense as a result of the removal of the bus stop.  (Council officers will liaise with JC Decaux for the relocation of this bus shelter to an appropriate site in accordance with the contractual agreement).

 

·          The Bus Zones being installed in Kennedy Street between Bow Lane and Meeks St being located near No’s 43 to 45 Meeks Street and south of the Post Office Box.

 

·          The bus stops in Prince Edward Street, Malabar scheduled for removal being retained.

·          Sydney Buses funding the necessary modifications of the roundabout at the intersection of Arden Street and Clovelly Road for the proposed alteration of the Route 353 bus service.

 

·          The State Transit Authority advising residents adjacent to the new bus stops prior to the installation of the new bus stops.”

 

As a result of recent consultation regarding the Eastern Suburbs Better Buses, the State Transit Authority have advised that there are some amendments required to the approved infrastructure requirements.

 

ISSUES:

 

The State Transit Authority have requested that the following amendments to the Eastern Suburbs Better Buses proposal be provided.

 

·    A bus zone to be installed on the western side of Avoca Street, Randwick north of Stanley Street. This stop is to cater for passengers and school children in this area and to compensate for the loss of the stop on the southern side of Stanley Street near Avoca Street

 

·    A bus zone be installed on the eastern side of Avoca Street, north of Market Street.

 

·    The bus zone on the western side of Botany Street, south of High Street be extended 5 metres south of its existing location to facilitate right turning buses into High Street, on route 357 and 359.

 

Site inspections revealed that the bus zones requested for installation on both sides of Avoca Street north of Stanley Street will require to be located north of the pedestrian refuge in order to keep the area near the refuge clear of obstructions. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed modifications to the Eastern Suburbs Better Buses proposal detailed above have been investigated and considered satisfactory by the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Sydney Buses be advised that the bus stop modifications are supported subject to:

 

·    The bus zone scheduled for installation on the western side of Avoca Street, Randwick north of  Stanley Street be located  north of  the  ‘No Stopping’ required for the pedestrian refuge.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JASON SCOUFIS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 52/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING

 

DATE:

2 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4415  xr  98/S/0178

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 April, 2002, considered the attached Director’s Report No. 36/2002 and resolved that -

 

“this matter be deferred to the next Works Committee to allow the tenants to address Council on the problems being experienced with the Bowen Library building

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the Council’s resolution the tenants have been contacted and invited to address Council regarding the problems they are experiencing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As stated in my previous report the new hoarding was completed in December of last year and whilst it is acknowledged that the project took some time to complete a better solution will ultimately be achieved for Council and its tenants.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services Report No 55/2002 be noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director's Report No. 36/2002

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 36/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY AWNING

 

 

DATE:

17 April, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4415   98/S/0178

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting of the 26th of February, 2002 resolved that -

 

“a report be prepared on the situation of the Bowen Library Awning”

 

ISSUES:

 

In February 2001, Council officers were made aware of a problem with the Bowen Library building. Large portions of render were falling off the building. An inspection of the building by Council’s Engineers indicated that small areas of render had delaminated from the building, however larger areas of render were cracked and displacement of some brick panels was noticed.

 

To provide immediate protection from the public temporary fencing was placed around the effected area.

 

Council officers engaged the architectural firm for the Bowen Library HACC facility to investigate the extent of the problem and to incorporate a solution into the overall Bowen Library redesign.

 

The Structural Engineering Report on the facade indicates a structural problem with  increased deflections of the floor slabs resulting in the delamination of the external render.

 

Council officers and the architects had great difficulty in designing a proper protection system that complied with Work Cover requirements. It was considered that a full construction type awning whilst complying with Work Cover requirements would pose an unacceptable burden on the Bowen Library tenants. It was considered that a better solution would be to incorporate the hoarding into the final building design.

 

While this approach prolonged the initial inconvenience to the tenants the median term benefit is that inconvenience due to the erection of hoardings in front of the shops associated with the repair and future renovations of the Library building will be minimised.

CONCLUSION:

 

The new hoarding was completed in December of last year and whilst it is acknowledged that the project took some time to complete a better solution will ultimately be achieved for Council and its tenants.

 

Council currently has claims for damages from each of the tenants, which are being assessed by Councils legal Counsel. Further investigations are continuing into what action if any Council may be able to take to recover its losses in relation to this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 36/2002 be noted

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 53/2002

 

SUBJECT:

DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE - OPENING TIMES

 

DATE:

2 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2620

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received complaints in recent times regarding the proposed closure of the 50 meter pool during winter and general complaints regarding the cleanliness of the Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

 

ISSUES:

 

Closing of 50m Pool

Council has a current lease agreement with RANS Management to operate the Des Renford Pool. The lease agreement provides that the 50m outdoor pool remain open from October to May each year.

 

As such in accordance with the lease agreement, RANS have proposed that the 50m pool be closed as of the 3rd of May. Historically the pool has always closed at the end of April with minor variation in closing dates depending of the weather at that time of year.

 

RANS have advised that it is not financially viable for them to keep the 50m pool open for a longer period than that specified in the lease agreement. RANS have indicated that based on usage of the 50m pool on poor weather days in summer it is unlikely that the additional cost of keeping the 50m pool open longer that the lease period can be justified.

 

RANS have also indicated that the costs to keep the pool open are as follows;

           

Energy Cost     $8,000 /mth

            Water Cost      $500 / mth

            Staff Cost         $300 / day

 

The indicative cost per month to keep the pool open is approximately $17,800. It should be noted that these costs are based on the use of thermal blankets being used for the pool, which would cost an additional $25,000. There is currently no budget allocation to extend the operation of the 50m pool longer than that specified in the lease agreement.

 

Maintenance:

The lease agreement for the operation of the pool sets out the clear responsibilities of both RANS and Council in the maintenance of the pool. RANS is generally responsible for all day-to-day maintenance and cleaning activities at the pool.

A number of complaints have been received in recent times regarding the maintenance of the ladies toilets. This matter has been raised with RANS who have improved aspects of there cleaning operation. The major problem with the ladies toilets is the condition of the partitioning. The partitioning currently installed is chipboard, which has lost its waterproof covering and as such is in an extremely poor state of repair.

 

The lease agreement with RANS generally does not require them to carry out capital improvements to the centre. It is proposed that as part of the budget allocation for pool maintenance in 2002– 2003 that the partitioning in the ladies toilets will be replaced. This will dramatically improve the appearance and the cleanliness of the facility.

 

In general it should be noted that the Des Renford Aquatic Centre has been run down for a number of years and is in need of a major redevelopment.

 

It should be noted that the primary aim of the short term lease with RANS was to collect financial information on the viability of the centre before going to tender for the redevelopment. It is proposed that a further report will be submitted to Council in June detailing the status of the Master Plan for the Pool complex and the proposed tender schedule.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst the run down nature of the Des Renford Aquatic centre is acknowledged, both Council and the lessee have been working together to ensure maintenance works are carried out and the centre operates safely and effectively. As a result of public requests the lessee has been requested to keep the 50m pool open until a decision by Council has been made as to when the pool should be closed. This will come at a cost of approximately $17,800 for a one-month period.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the 50m pool at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre remain open as per the current lease agreement and any additional cost for the operation of the pool during May 2002 be funded from the existing budget allocation.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS