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

 

 

3rd June, 2003

 

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, 10TH JUNE, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

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, 13TH MAY, 2003.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Works

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 22/2003 - PAINTING OF HOUSE NUMBERS ON KERBING AND GUTTERING.

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 23/2003 - RANDWICK PARKING STUDY - MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PLAN.

5

 

5.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 24/2003 - RAINWATER TANKS FOR WATERING OF GARDENS AT RANDWICK TOWN HALL.

7

 

5.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 25/2003 - GARDENERS LANE, KINGSFORD - PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND ONE WAY TRAFFIC FLOW.

10

 

5.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 26/2003 - AVOCA STREET, KINGSFORD - REQUEST FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.

13

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 22/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

PAINTING OF HOUSE NUMBERS ON KERBING AND GUTTERING

 

 

DATE:

14 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0822

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Letters have been received by Council on 4 November 2002 from Neighbourhood Awareness and 4 April 2003 from Mr Thanh Ly, requesting Council’s permission to be able to provide house numbering on the kerb to the residents of the City of Randwick. 

 

ISSUES:

 

At a meeting of the Finance, Works and Services Committee held on 2 December 1997, Council considered an application to paint house numbers on the kerb and resolved that the applicant be advised that there are no objections to the proposal, subject to the following conditions. Condition 5 is an additional condition and relates to Council’s resolution at the Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting held 13 March 2001, adopting the Policy on Street Address Re-Numbering.

 

1.         The applicant noting that the approval by the Council is not an approval to act as a sole operator for this type of entrepreneurial activity within the City of Randwick.  Any new applications by private companies or citizens would be the subject of a report to Council following which, if acceptable, these applicants would also be allowed to participate in this entrepreneurial activity within the City of Randwick.

 

2.         The applicant agreeing that Council will not be liable for any arising claims as a result of the proposed house numbering system within the City of Randwick.

 

3.         The applicant having a written agreement with each householder advising the householder that Council is not responsible in any way for the house numbering on the kerb and/or any claims which may arise as a result of this house numbering.  This agreement shall also advise that should Council and/or any public utility authority wish to remove the section of kerb where the house number is attached, any re-installation of this house number would be carried out at no cost to either Council or any of the involved public utility authorities.  It should also be noted that the provision of a house number does not remove the onus on any householder to provide a house number on the property fence or the front wall of the house at a much more visible location on private property.

 

4.         The applicant being advised that Council requires that the colour scheme to be used is Randwick green (corporate colour adopted by Council) background and a white number.  (Any other contractor shall be advised of the approved colour scheme.)

 

5.         Council policy states that street address numbering and re-numbering will not be undertaken for cultural, social, religious or superstitious reasons. Consequently, kerb numbering shall be in accordance with the existing street address numbering system.  

 

6.         The applicant advising Council in writing of his compliance with conditions (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) above prior to the installation of any house numbering at the kerb within the City of Randwick.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There are no objections to the current applications provided that the applicants comply with the  relevant conditions.  In compliance with Council’s previous resolutions on this matter, the applications are reported to Council for its consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Neighbourhood Awareness and Mr Thanh Ly be advised that there are no objections to their proposals to provide house numbering on the kerb to the residents of the City of Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant noting that the approval by the Council is not an approval to act as a sole operator for this type of entrepreneurial activity within the City of Randwick.  Any new applications by private companies or citizens would be the subject of a report to Council following which, if acceptable, these applicants would also be allowed to participate in this entrepreneurial activity within the City of Randwick.

 

2.         The applicant agreeing that Council will not be liable for any arising claims as a result of the proposed house numbering system within the City of Randwick.

 

3.         The applicant having a written agreement with each householder advising the householder that Council is not responsible in any way for the house numbering on the kerb and/or any claims which may arise as a result of this house numbering.  This agreement shall also advise that should Council and/or any public utility authority wish to remove the section of kerb where the house number is attached, any re-installation of this house number would be carried out at no cost to either Council or any of the involved public utility authorities.  It should also be noted that the provision of a house number does not remove the onus on any householder to provide a house number on the property fence or the front wall of the house at a much more visible location on private property.

 

4.         The applicant being advised that Council requires that the colour scheme to be used is Randwick green (corporate colour adopted by Council) background and a white number.  (Any other contractor shall be advised of the approved colour scheme.)

 

5.         Council policy states that street address numbering and re-numbering will not be undertaken for cultural, social, religious or superstitious reasons. Consequently, kerb numbering shall be in accordance with the existing street address numbering system.  

 

6.         The applicant advising Council in writing of his compliance with conditions (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) above prior to the installation of any house numbering at the kerb within the City of Randwick.”

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 23/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

RANDWICK PARKING STUDY - MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PLAN

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As part of its Strategic Plan, Council commissioned ARUP Transportation Planning to review the resident parking requirements within the Randwick City Council area.

 

This review has now been completed.

 

ISSUES:

 

Councillors have previously received a copy of the ARUP report. 

 

The executive summary sets out a number of phases in the implementation of parking control and also identifies the trigger points for these controls.

 

Due to the demands on road infrastructure in the Randwick study area, and in particular Area 6, ‘The Spot’ has been identified as the first priority in implementation of this plan.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The report recommends:

 

1.         A staged process for controlling parking allocation and demand.

 

2.         A change from street based resident parking schemes to area based schemes.

 

3.         A general tightening of enforcement within the city.

 

4.         A future review to assess the need for extension of pay parking in the Coogee area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         The findings of the report be adopted by Council.

 

2.         Area based Resident Parking Zones be progressively introduced.         

 

3.         All permit parking to be introduced in line with RTA directions.

 

4.         All proposed schemes be returned to Traffic Committee for approval before implementation.

 

5.         Council develop an employment strategy for enforcement officers to maintain an appropriate ratio of personnel to on-street enforcement needs.

 

6.         A resident parking scheme in the Randwick study area be implemented first with ‘The Spot’ (Area 6) being the priority area initially.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN OSLAND

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 24/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

RAINWATER TANKS FOR WATERING OF GARDENS AT RANDWICK TOWN HALL

 

 

DATE:

28 May, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1736 xr 98/S/0178

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 25 March, 2003, Council resolved -

 

that the matter of the installation of rainwater tanks at Randwick town Hall be deferred for a report to Council on this issue that Council

 

a)         Purchase and install a rainwater tank of suitable capacity to collect rainwater from the roof of the Randwick Town Hall;

b)         Purchase and install a suitable watering system to use the rainwater so collected for the watering of gardens and lawns around the Town Hall;

c)         The purchase and installation of the items be paid for from the budgeted maintenance costs of the gardens and lawns.”

 

The feasibility and costs associated with such a proposal were discussed on-site with an irrigation consultancy firm on 12th May 2003, the details of which are provided below.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council’s Heritage Officer was consulted and advised that under SEPP4 the exemptions for rainwater tanks do not apply to heritage items such as the Town Hall. A Development Application would be required including plans, Statement of Environmental Effects and a Statement of Heritage Impact.  The costs involved in submitting the application are therefore estimated at $2,500.

 

The installation costs and feasibility of this proposal were also discussed with an irrigation consulting firm.

 

The majority of landscaped areas at the Town Hall are already irrigated, with a ‘nozzle spray’ system used for the carpark garden at the rear of the building, and a sub-surface drip system for the gardens at the Frances Street frontage .These systems are only operated a few times a year as the plants are already well established and adjusted to the climatic conditions and no longer require regular watering to maintain their health and appearance.

 

The lawn on the northern side of the Town Hall adjacent to Randwick North High, the display bed fronting Avoca Street and the two small rockeries in the southern corner of the carpark are the only landscaped areas not irrigated however, adequate water is still provided by taps located nearby.

 

A site assessment revealed the most suitable location for the installation of a rainwater tank would be on the western side of the building (between the Town Hall and the Administrative Centre) for both operational and aesthetic purposes and would require the diversion of all downpipes to the tank at a cost of approximately $5,000. It would also be necessary to have a structural engineer certify the suspended slab’s ability to support a tank at this location and the cost of this assessment is included in this sum.

 

For the size of the area to be irrigated a 10,000 litre tank as well as a pump and pressure system are required at an approximate cost of $6,000.

 

Providing a new irrigation system to all non irrigated areas, as well as connection to existing systems would involved trenching and undergrounding of the services at an estimated cost of $6,000.

 

Peak usage of irrigation is experienced during the summer months and for the size of the area that is to be watered the tank would run dry without regular rainfall if used more than 2-3 times per week which is a likely scenario. Conversely in times of heavy rain, overflows would have to be diverted back to the stormwater system, which could cost approximately $4,000.

 

Based on the amounts detailed above, it is fair to assume that the cost to Council for the establishment of a rainwater collection and irrigation system, including labour would be in the order of $23,000.

 

Rainwater tanks are an environmentally friendly approach to water usage minimisation  and should be considered at all locations where the water usage demand (volumes) and subsequent cost savings can justify the initial installation costs and future maintenance costs for such a facility. However, in these circumstances, current water usage costs no more than about $400 a year and since only a small rarely used area of lawn and a few small gardens will be the only areas to benefit, it is difficult to justify such a proposal, especially considering that all costs would be funded from an already budgeted maintenance allocation.

 

It should also be noted that as with all such systems this system will need to be maintained on a regular basis after the initial warranty period expires which means that there will virtually be no cost savings involved as part of this project.


 

CONCLUSION:

 

Although rainwater tanks are an environmentally friendly approach to minimising water usage, such a system is not considered appropriate for use at the Town Hall due to the high costs associated with conversion the lack of any real cost savings in future years.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council not proceed with the installation of a rainwater tank and irrigation system due to the high costs involved and the lack of financial benefits to be gained by such a proposal.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 25/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

GARDENERS LANE, KINGSFORD - PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND ONE WAY TRAFFIC FLOW

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0321/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s Assets Co-ordinator, Mr John Earls, has forwarded a request from a resident of No. 50 Gardeners Road, requesting a change to the existing parking restrictions in Gardeners Lane, between Bruce Street and Houston Road.

 

This matter was considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 13 May 2003.

 

ISSUES:

 

Both sides of the lane are not signposted, with the exception of the southern side signposted as ‘No Standing’ for approximately 25 metres, opposite Bruce Lane.  However, vehicles tend to park on the southern side of the lane and leave the northern side clear for traffic.  The resident has requested that this configuration be switched, and formalised so that parking is allowed unrestricted on the northern side and ‘No Stopping’ installed on the southern side.  The southern side of the lane has a 600mm wide footpath, whilst the northern side does not have kerb and gutter, and is largely an uneven surface, and the resident feels that it will ease pedestrian movement along the lane if the side with the path is signposted as ‘No Stopping’.  Council’s Assets Co-ordinator advised that kerb and gutter was to be constructed on the northern side of the lane, however, funds were currently unavailable to complete the works.

 

At the meeting the NSW Police representative raised the point that Gardeners Lane was recently considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee, at its May 2002 meeting, at which time it was recommended:

 

 

“That:

 

1.         Gardeners Lane be converted to a one-way westbound movement between Houston Road and Bruce Street.

 

2.         All residents with access off Gardeners Lane be informed of the outcome.

 

3.         The action of converting Gardeners Lane to a one way westbound movement requires Council to prepare a Traffic Management Plan as described in the Delegation to Councils-Regulation of Traffic. Under these circumstances the advice of the RTA representative is offered without prejudice and will not be construed as embodying the concurrence of the Roads and Traffic Authority.”

 

At the time of the meeting, the RTA was considering this request.  It was expected that the request for the lane to be converted to one-way would be approved, and therefore this change meant that parking would have to be banned on the northern side of the lane.

 

Shortly after the meeting, Council was notified by the RTA regarding the request to convert Gardeners Lane to a one-way movement in a westerly direction, from Houston Road to Bruce Street.  The RTA’s recommendation read:

 

‘It is recommended that approval be given to the proposal considering that a minimal number of vehicles will be diverted into other streets.’

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given that RTA approval has been received to convert Gardeners Lane, between Houston Road and Bruce Street, to a one-way westbound movement, parking restrictions should be installed on the northern side of the lane.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be installed on the northern side of Gardeners Lane, between Houston Road and Bruce Street, to maintain vehicular access through the lane.

 

2.         The existing ‘No Standing’ restrictions on the southern side of Gardeners Lane, opposite Bruce Lane, be converted to ‘No Parking’.

 

3.         Gardeners Lane be converted to a one-way westbound movement between Houston Road and Bruce Street.

 

4.         All residents with access off Gardeners Lane be informed of the outcome.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

STEVE CALDERON

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 26/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AVOCA STREET, KINGSFORD - REQUEST FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0048/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Council has received representations from the NSW Premier, on behalf of a resident of Ainslie Street, Kingsford requesting a pedestrian crossing in Avoca Street, between Bundock Street and Burbong Street.

 

This matter was considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 13 May 2003.

 

ISSUES:

 

The resident stated that there is no safe crossing area along this section of Avoca Street, and she and other residents cross this road to attend the army base and Bundock Street playgroups.  A 2.1 metre wide concrete median strip lined with large trees exists along Avoca Street, and the resident states that it is difficult to wheel a pram or wheel chair onto the median.

 

Pedestrian counts have been completed and the results are shown below.

 

TIME

N/B vehicles

S/B vehicles

Pedestrians

8.00am – 9.00am

1087

742

6

3.00pm – 4.00pm

630

786

11

 

A number of observations were made during the counts, including pedestrians using the 2.1 metre wide concrete median as a refuge, enabling them to concentrate on one direction of traffic at a time, regular breaks in the traffic in both directions to allow ample crossing time, ample sight distance in both directions and a relatively safe environment for the pedestrians that did cross the road.  These points, together with the relatively low observed pedestrian volumes do not warrant the installation of a pedestrian crossing facility. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

At the meeting, the low pedestrian volumes were discussed and as such the installation of a pedestrian crossing was considered to be unsuitable.  However, it was suggested that given the relatively safe environment that existed, the installation of pram ramps and the removal of a section of the 2.1 metre wide central median, to allow an ease of access for pedestrians using prams or wheel chairs, be implemented.     

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         The request for a pedestrian crossing in Avoca Street, between Bundock Street and Burbong Street, be denied, based on the fact that the warrant for the installation of such a crossing has not been met.

 

2.         The construction of two pram ramps on either side of Avoca Street, in the vicinity of Sturt Street, together with the removal of a section of the existing 2.1 metre wide concrete median, to assist pedestrians when crossing Avoca street, be referred to Council’s Assets section for consideration in a future works program.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

STEVE CALDERON

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER