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

 

 

7th October, 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, 14TH OCTOBER, 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 ON TUESDAY, 12TH AUGUST, 2003.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Works

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 54/2003 - WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY.

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 55/2003 - TODMAN AVENUE, KENSINGTON - IMPROVEMENTS TO BICYCLE LANE.

35

 

5.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 56/2003 - REPAIRS TO ROSS JONES MEMORIAL POOL, COOGEE.

40

 

 

 

 

5.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 57/2003 - 2003-2004 ROAD FUNDING.

44

 

5.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 58/2003 - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA, EAST OF FLOWER STREET - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES.

49

 

5.6                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 59/2003 - COWPER AND COOK STREETS - FOOTPATH RECONSTRUCTION AND STREET LIGHT ASSESSMENT.

53

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 54/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

 

 

DATE:

1 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4866

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council provides weekly garbage collection, fortnightly recycling and green waste collection, and two scheduled and two on-call clean-up collection services. Also, Council offers an unlimited waste collection service on a paid for service basis to cater for residents’ special waste disposal needs outside the total waste collection service package.  On average, Council provides 108,000 collection services per week. Garbage and recycling collection services are provided by Council’s contractor “Collex Pty Ltd” and  green waste, clean-up and special paid for waste collection services are provided by Council’s Infrastructure Services. 

 

In compliance with Council’s Management Plan 2003/2006, Micromex Marketing Services was engaged to  carry out a customer satisfaction survey in July 2003. The objective of the survey was to ascertain community satisfaction levels with the range of domestic waste services provided by the Council through either outsourcing or using council resources and compare the satisfaction level against Council’s target of 75%.

 

Performance Improvement Division has collated the consultant’s findings and provided some interpretation of the results.  Findings are analysed for each of Council’s domestic waste service areas including general household garbage, recycling, green waste and clean up.

 

ISSUES:

 

1.         Overall Satisfaction

 

Waste collection services are provided at kerbside. Effectiveness of service delivery depends on the location of the service delivery point, particularly as to whether the wastes are presented properly for collection by the collection trucks and presented waste bins can be accessed by the collection vehicles or not. Difficult terrains often create collection problems. Customer compliance with Council’s collection conditions is crucial for effective collection of waste from residential properties. Non-compliance by the residents such as late presentation of waste, presentation of soiled/contaminated recycling and/or green waste material and presentation of excessive amounts of material for clean-up collection, sometimes result in non-collection of waste. Such non-collections aimed at educating the community are sometimes perceived by residents as unsatisfactory services. Taking into account this complex nature of the delivery of waste services and higher community expectation, 75% overall service satisfaction was targeted in the 2003-2006 Management Plan.

 

The customer satisfaction survey results showed that the efforts aiming at improved service delivery exceeded the targeted satisfaction level and achieved 86.4% of overall satisfaction. This satisfaction level reached up to 90% in the southern suburbs of Chifley, La Perouse, Malabar, Matraville and Philip Bay. Residents of Kensington followed by those of Kingsford were least satisfied. These two suburbs host a large transient population (UNSW students) that sometimes create service difficulties, hence the reduced level of satisfaction. The residents living in single-unit-dwellings (SUD) demonstrated higher satisfaction than those living in multi-unit-dwellings (MUD). Council requirement of shared-bin use in MUDs were not easily accepted by many of MUD residents and this might have contributed to this relatively lower level of satisfaction.    

 

2.         Individual Services

 

Containerised fortnightly green waste collection service introduced in 2002-03 received satisfaction level of as high as 88%. Over 83% of the residents are satisfied with Council’s recycling service delivery.

 

Council has introduced an on-call clean-up service in January 2003 with the objective to help those residents that require disposal of bulky items outside scheduled clean-up calendar. This service has achieved 86% satisfaction. However, 71% prefers scheduled clean-up as compared to 19% preferring on-call clean-up.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council has achieved 87% of customer satisfaction in delivering waste management services exceeding the target of 75%. This is a very high achievement. This target now can be set to 87% for the next management-planning period.

 

The containerised fortnightly green waste collection service has achieved 88% satisfaction rating. On-call clean-up services achieved 86% satisfaction rating and scheduled clean-up service is still preferred.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.         Note the report on ‘Customer Satisfaction Survey’ including the achievement of 87% customer satisfaction on overall waste service delivery exceeding the target of 75%; and

2.         Note that the customer satisfaction target will be increased to 87% for the next management-planning period.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Domestic Waste Services Survey Report

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

Domestic Waste Services

Survey

 

Final Report

 

September 2003


Randwick City Council

Domestic Waste Survey 2003

Final Report


 

1.         Introduction

In April 2003 Micromex Marketing Services was engaged to carry out a Domestic Waste Survey on behalf of Randwick City Council.  The survey was conducted in May 2003 and a final report on the findings was prepared and presented to Council in July 2003.

 

The survey had been identified in the 2003/2006 Management Plan as a key strategy against Council’s corporate objective that ‘customers are satisfied with the range of services and products and the agreed level of service delivery’ with a 75% target.

 

 

2.         Objectives

Broadly the purpose of the survey was to ascertain satisfaction levels with the range of domestic services delivered by Council.  These services comprise of residential waste (i.e. household garbage), recycling, green waste and clean-up services.

 

More specifically the survey was intended to –

 

§ identify the satisfaction of customers with the services available by assessing a range of service delivery dimensions

§ assist in the establishment of baseline data to be used to assess Council’s performance in re-administrations of the survey at later stages

§ allow the exploration of service dimensions that contribute to overall customer satisfaction with services

§ identify gaps in delivery for service improvements

§ assist in the generation of recommendations for service improvements.

 

 

3.         Survey Development and Administration

 

a.         Selection of Service Provider

The Performance Improvement Unit prepared a project brief on behalf of Waste Services and a team of staff across both areas was established to work in collaboration with the selected service provider.

 

A full account of Council’s waste collection was included in the brief as follows –

 

Single unit dwelling

(N=24,000)

§ Garbage - 120 litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly

§ Recycling - 240 litre “split” mobile garbage bin collected fortnightly

§ Green waste - 240 litre mobile garbage bin collected fortnightly (alternate week to recycling collection)

 

Multi unit dwelling

(N=28,000)

§ 240 litre mobile garbage bin collected weekly (1 bin shared between 2 units)

§ 240 litre “split” mobile garbage bin collected fortnightly (1 bin shared between 2 units)

§ Green waste - 240 litre mobile garbage bin collected fortnightly (alternate week to recycling collection) (bins provided on request)

 

Council Contractor

§ 51969 garbage collection services per week

§ 51809 recycling collections per fortnight

 

Assets and Infrastructure Services Department

§ Approximately 23000 green waste collections per fortnight.

 

Note:  The number of single unit and multi unit dwelling cited in the above table are approximate.

 

It was also specified in the project brief that the service provider should consider a number of issues in relation to the local government area, in particular –

 

numbers of single unit (SUD) and multi unit (MUD) dwellings

varying population sizes within the 12 suburbs (6 postcodes) comprising Randwick City.

 

Postcode and suburb information was provided as follows –

 

Postcodes

Suburbs

2031

Clovelly, Randwick

2032

Kingsford

2033

Kensington

2034

Coogee, South Coogee

2035

Maroubra

2036

Chifley, La Perouse, Malabar, Matraville, Phillip Bay

 

Micromex Marketing Services submitted a comprehensive proposal and were selected as the service provider to deliver the survey.  Key in the proposal were the following  -

 

implementation of a randomised telephone survey with 1200 residents using an accepted rigorous system of call back procedures to ensure data collected from a representative sample within the Randwick local government area

application of a quota sampling procedure to ensure that groups within the community fairly represented in the results

use of computer aided telephone interviewing (CATI) to conduct telephone interviews in accordance with Interviewer Quality Control Australia (IQCA) standards and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct

an analysis of the results on a ‘city wide’ basis with a breakdown of response according to dwelling type (i.e.  SUD and MUD)

an analysis of the results on a ‘postcode’ basis.

 

Consultation Process and Survey Administration

The Domestic Waste Survey 2003 was designed in a joint effort between Council’s Survey Team and Micromex Marketing Services.  An initial formal meeting was held in early May 2003 to establish the dimensions to be included in the survey.  Further contact with the service provider was undertaken to refine the questions and format of the survey.  The survey was finalised in mid May and conducted over a period of two weeks from 19 May to 30 May 2003 from 4.30pm to 8.30pm weekdays.

 

A draft report was prepared for Council in early June 2003 and delivered electronically.  Additional consultation was undertaken to clarify the results obtained and to allow Council’s Survey Team to comment and offer suggestions on presentation of the final document.  Micromex presented the final report in a formal meeting to Waste Services and the Performance Improvement Unit on 21 July 2003 at Council.

 

b.         Areas Surveyed

The survey contained twenty-six questions in total.[1]  Twenty-two questions were based on the survey dimensions under study.  The final four questions were demographic.  At the commencement of the survey respondents were asked to indicate whether they resided in a SUD or a MUD.[2]

 

i.          General Household Garbage

Questions 1 to 3 were quantitative in nature and asked respondents to provide information on –

 

satisfaction with how the general household garbage bin is returned after emptied

frequency with which bin not big enough for household waste

whether four or more people living permanently in household.

 

ii.         Recycling

Questions 4 to 9 asked respondents to provide a series of ratings on the following dimensions –

 

§ awareness that Council distributes an annual waste calendar

§ whether reference made to the waste calendar for items to be recycled

§ awareness of what items to be placed in each side of the recycling split bin

§ awareness that the recycling bin may not be emptied if contaminated

§ awareness, utilisation and convenience of Council’s recycling drop off centre at Perry Street

§ overall satisfaction with Council’s recycling services.

 

iii.        Green Waste

Questions 10 to 14 applied only to respondents who indicated they resided in SUD’s.[3]  These questions asked respondents to provide a set of ratings in relation to –

 

§ satisfaction with frequency of the fortnightly green waste service

§ satisfaction with size of the 240 litre green waste bin

§ opinion with respect to whether Council should operate a green waste service

§ awareness, utilisation and convenience of Council’s waste drop off service at the depot

§ overall satisfaction with Council’s green waste services.

 

 

 

iv.        Clean Up Services

Questions 15 to 18 were about clean up services both scheduled and booked.  Respondents were required to provide information about –

 

§ awareness that Council offers two scheduled clean up services per year

§ utilisation of the scheduled clean up service in the last 12 months and action/s taken to dispose of bulky items when scheduled service not utilised

§ satisfaction with scheduled clean up service

§ action/s taken to find out about next scheduled service

§ awareness that Council offers additional booked clean up services

§ utilisation of booked clean up services in the last 12 months

§ satisfaction with booked clean up service

§ preference for scheduled and booked services.

 

v.         Service Problems and Resolutions

Question 19 asked respondents to state –

 

§ whether they had ever experienced any problems with one of the four domestic waste services

§ the nature of the problem with the service

§ action/s taken to resolve the problem experienced

§ satisfaction with Council’s response to the problem where Council was required to take action.

 

vi.        Overall Satisfaction Ratings

Question 20 and 21 asked respondents to rate their level of satisfaction with –

 

§ the information provided by Council on waste services and how information could be improved if dissatisfied

§ the delivery of the four domestic waste services overall.

 

vii.       Suggested Improvements

Question 22 was open ended and asked residents to comment freely on improvements in relation to the delivery of domestic waste services in the local area.

 

viii.      Demographics

The final set of questions asked respondents to provide demographic information in relation to –

 

§ age

§ residential postcode

§ suburb

§ gender.

 

Data Analysis

 

The data was collated and analysed using SPSS, a statistical software package and Microsoft Excel.[4]

 

Report

The report is entitled ‘Domestic Waste Survey 2003:  Final Report’.  This report contains an executive summary of the results and a full set of tables and graphs against each question contained in the survey.[5]

 

4.         Overall Survey Findings

A summary of the overall findings is presented in the following section.  This summary is based on the information supplied in the comprehensive report as cited above.  It should be noted that the results are assessed against the ‘75%’ satisfaction target identified in the 2003/2006 Management Plan for those parameters assessing satisfaction with services, products and / or service delivery.

 

a.   Compliance Rate

A 56% compliance rate was achieved representing a good cross section of the community of Randwick.[6]

 

b.   Sampling Errors

A sample of 1200 residents was surveyed providing a maximum sampling error[7] of 2.9% at 95% confidence.

 

However a breakdown of responses according to dwelling type (i.e. SUD and MUD) provides a maximum sampling error of 3.95% at 95% confidence.  It should be noted that there are approximately 50,000 SUD’s and MUD’s across the local government area according to Council records.

 

c.   General Household Garbage

General household garbage collection is one of the domestic waste services contracted to an external provider.  The results achieved in relation to general household garbage are positive and can be said to reflect a good standard in the delivery of services by the contractor.

 

i.          Satisfaction with how the general household garbage bin is returned after emptied

The figures in the tables below set out the percentages of respondents that answered in the ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ range.  The results are positive and indicate good levels of satisfaction.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Satisfaction with how the general household garbage bin is returned after emptied

74.5%

75.1%

73.8%

 

The results on a postcode basis are consistent with findings in previous community surveys undertaken by Council, where it has been shown that residents in the Southern parts of the city express higher levels of satisfaction compared with postcode areas further north of the city.  Postcode 2034 comprising Coogee and South Coogee was lowest in relation to the other postcodes.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

71.8%

72.4%

76.2%

68.6%

77.8%

83.2%

 

Respondents who indicated they were dissatisfied were further probed on the reason for their dissatisfaction.  The most common response (54%) was ‘bin left in the middle of the road’.

 

ii.         Frequency with which bin not big enough for household waste

Council’s adopted policy with respect to bin size is as follows –

 

·      120 litre garbage bin per occupancy in SUD’s

·      240 litre garbage bin for shared use between two units in MUD’s.

 

Similar trends in percentages have been achieved on a City wide, SUD and MUD basis.  Between 41.9% and 48.9% of respondents indicated they ‘never’ have a problem with the bin.  The next highest percentages within each category were obtained in relation to problems ‘only during festive occasions’ ranging from 16.2% to 20.1%.

 

Whilst the data suggests that problems are infrequent, it should also be noted that some respondent’s experienced ‘weekly’ problems.  The percentages obtained across all levels of analysis vary between 14.7% and 18.6%.  These results are further explored in the additional analyses.  For residents in MUD’s the weekly problems may be related to bin sharing.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Never

45.5%

41.9%

48.9%

Only during festive occasions

 18.1%

20.1%

16.2%

Every three or four months

7.3%

8.7%

5.9%

Monthly

10.3%

9.7%

10.9%

Weekly

16.6%

18.6%

14.7%

 

A breakdown by postcode is tabulated in the comprehensive report.  However it should be stated that respondents in postcodes 2034 and 2036 reported more frequent problems with the size of the bin compared with the other postcodes.  For 2034 the largest percentage (25.2%) indicated this was ‘only during festive occasions’.  For 2036 the largest percentage (27.6%) said this was ‘weekly’.  This suggests that residents in postcodes 2034 and 2036 generate more waste.

 

iii.        Four or more people living permanently in household

The percentages of respondents who indicated ‘yes’ there are four or more people living in the household are shown in the tables below.  It is not surprising that the percentage figure is highest in the SUD category and lowest in the MUD category.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Four or more people living permanently in household

27.8%

41.6%

14.7%

 

The results in each postcode area follow similar percentage trends except in area 2036 where the percentage figure is higher.  There are more SUD’s in postcode 2036 and therefore it is not surprising that 40.8% of respondents in this group indicated ‘yes’ to this question.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

27.1%

24.3%

24.3%

19.6%

31.3%

40.8%

 

d.   Household Recycling

Household recycling is also contracted to an external contractor.  The results achieved in relation to recycling are also positive and indicate a good standard in the delivery of services by the contractor.

 

i.          Awareness that Council distributes an annual waste calendar

Waste Services calendars are developed every year with updated information on waste services and distributed to every household by letterbox drop.

 

The figures in the tables below represent the percentages of respondents who indicated ‘yes’ they are aware that Council distributes an annual calendar.  The results would indicate that awareness levels are very high for SUD residents but lower for MUD residents.  People residing in MUD’s are likely to relocate more often compared with people living in SUD’s and this could account for the results here in terms of access to information.

                       

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Awareness that Council distributes an annual waste calendar

79.7%

90.8%

69.0%

 

The percentage breakdown by postcode shows that there are high levels of awareness except in postcode 2033 where the percentage figure is lower in comparison to the other postcodes.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

81.6%

75.7%

66.7%

83.0%

76.1%

88.8%

 

ii.         Reference made to the waste calendar for items to be recycled

The figures in the tables below are the percentages of respondents who said ‘yes’ they refer to the waste calendar for what can be recycled.  The results are satisfactory however the percentage figure for MUD is lower in comparison to the others.  This is consistent with the findings in the preceding section.  It is interesting that whilst 90.8% of people in SUD’s say they have an awareness of the waste calendar, only 79.0% indicate they actually refer to it.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Reference made to the waste calendar for items to be recycled

72.3%

79.0%

64.1%

 

The analysis by postcode reveals that lower percentages of people report referring to the waste calendar compared with awareness levels.  It is interesting that in postcode 2033 the percentage figure is similar to the other postcodes and similar to the percentage figure on awareness levels.  This could indicate that people in this area who know about the waste calendar also refer to it.  In the other postcodes awareness may not necessarily reflect behaviour (i.e. reference to the calendar).

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

69.0%

70.4%

67.6%

72.3%

77.0%

75.6%

 

iii.        Awareness of items to be placed in each side of the split bin

The percentages in the tables below are the ‘yes’ responses.  Awareness levels are high according to the data.  Residents believe they have a good understanding of what items are to be placed in each side of the split bin and the results are positive.  It should be noted that there is a sticker on the inside section of the yellow lid that depicts the items relating to each side.  This could account for the results here as the sticker may act as a reinforcer of knowledge every time the bin is used.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Awareness of items to be placed in each side of the split bin

93.7%

95.4%

92.0%

 

On a postcode basis the results are also positive with high levels of awareness across the different areas.  2032 was lower compared with the other postcodes.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

92.5%

87.9%

96.4%

94.3%

94.0%

96.7%

 

iv.        Awareness that recycling bin not emptied if contaminated

The percentage figures in the tables below are the ‘yes’ responses of participants.  The figures are lower compared with awareness levels in relation to the waste calendar.  It is interesting that the waste calendar includes information about contamination.  For the SUD category it would appear that high levels of knowledge in relation to the distribution of the calendar by Council does not equate with knowledge of the information that is actually contained in the brochure.  For MUD’s there was a lower level of awareness of the calendar and therefore it is not necessarily surprising that awareness in relation to contamination is also low. In some cases residents in MUD’s may not put bins out, as cleaners employed through strata managers may be responsible for this task.  This may account for the results obtained. 

 

The waste calendar however, is only one means by which information is imparted to the community about contamination.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Awareness that bin not emptied if contaminated

63.6%

67.5%

59.9%

 

By postcode the awareness levels are lower in 2031, 2032 and 2033.  Awareness levels are highest in 2036 and this is consistent with all other recycling results in that the highest percentage levels have been achieved against this postcode.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

58.7%

57.9%

59.5%

65.7%

65.7%

74.3%

 

v.         Awareness, utilisation and convenience of Council’s drop off centre at Perry Street

There are relatively low levels of awareness of the drop off centre at Perry Street.  The awareness percentages in the tables below are the ‘yes’ responses.  SUD’s have higher levels of awareness compared with MUD’s.  The utilisation percentages are also low.  However the convenience ratings are high.  The convenience ratings reflect the responses collated against the ‘convenient’ to ‘very convenient’ range.  Therefore although small numbers of people indicated they had used the centre in the last 12 months it appears to be fairly convenient in the opinion of residents.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Awareness

39.0%

55.0%

23.7%

Utilisation (if stated ‘yes’ aware of drop off centre)

15.8%

17.0%

13.2%

Convenience  (if stated ‘yes’ used in last 12 months)

83.8%

89.1%

68.5%

 

The postcode breakdown by ‘awareness’ shows that residents in 2035 and 2036 are more aware compared with other postcodes.  It should be noted that the drop off centre is located in 2036 and therefore the 68.4% figure is not surprising.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

30.4%

39.3%

27.9%

33.5%

42.2%

68.4%

 

The postcode breakdown by ‘utilisation’ is consistent with the overall results in this section (i.e.  low percentages of residents report having used this centre in the last 12 months).  2036 had the highest percentage of usage.  The drop off centre is actually located in this postcode area.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

10.9%

17.1%

16.1%

11.7%

14.2%

25.0%

 

vi.        Satisfaction with recycling services

The results are very positive and demonstrate good community opinion with respect to these services.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Satisfaction with recycling services

83.1%

87.4%

78.9%

 

The highest level of satisfaction is in 2036 consistent with other finding presented in this report.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

84.1%

77.6%

84.2%

79.3%

84.2%

87.4%

 

 

e.   Green Waste

The questions on green waste services were asked only of residents in SUD’s (see Footnote 3).

 

i.          Satisfaction with frequency and size

Excellent results have been achieved with respect to the frequency and size of the green waste service.  The percentages in the tables below indicate the responses collated against the ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ range.  There is good public opinion with respect to both these elements of service.

 

 

SUD

Satisfaction with frequency of fortnightly service

87.6%

Satisfaction with size of 240 litre bin

88.5%

 

On a postcode basis the results are again very positive with high levels of satisfaction demonstrated in all postcode areas.

 

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Frequency

86.4%

87.5%

79.2%

90.3%

88.6%

89.5%

Size

90.2%

85.0%

87.7%

83.8%

88.6%

90.5%

 

ii.         Opinion with respect to operation of green waste service

The percentages in the subsequent tables are the ‘yes’ responses of participants.  There is  strong opinion from residents in SUD’s that Council should operate a green waste service.

 

 

SUD

Opinion with respect to operation of a green waste service

88.9%

 

An examination by postcode shows that there is also strong opinion about Council operating a green waste service across the various suburbs comprising the local area.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

87.0%

90.2%

88.5%

81.7%

91.0%

93.3%

 

iii.        Awareness, utilisation and convenience of drop off service at the depot

The results show that about 1 in 2 people who participated in the survey were aware of the drop off service at the depot.  The awareness percentages in the tables reflect the ‘yes’ responses of participants.  The utilisation percentage of the drop off is low (i.e.  of the 51.3% of residents who stated they were aware of the drop off only 19.6% used the drop off in the last 12 months).  However the convenience rating is high.  The convenience rating is the total percentage of responses collated against the ‘convenient’ to ‘very convenient’ range.  Therefore although small numbers of people indicated they had used the drop off service it is believed to be fairly convenient.

 

 

SUD

Awareness

51.3%

Utilisation (if stated ‘yes’ aware of drop off service)

19.6%

Convenience  (if stated ‘yes’ used in last 12 months)

83.1%

 

The postcode breakdown shows that residents in 2034 had the highest levels of awareness (63.4%) and residents in postcode 2031 had the highest levels of usage (30.9%).  It should be noted that at the postcode level the percentages reflect small numbers of participants in each group.

 

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Awareness

39.9%

51.2%

46.2%

63.4%

52.9%

56.3%

Utilisation

30.9%

9.5%

25.0%

17.3%

25.6%

6.0%

 

iv.        Satisfaction with Council’s green waste service

A high level of satisfaction (85.5%) with respect to green waste services has been shown.  The percentages in the tables below reflect responses in the ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ range.

                       

 

 

SUD

Satisfaction with Council’s green waste service

85.5%

 

At the level of postcode there is excellent opinion with respect to green waste services for residents in SUD’s across the city.

                       

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

85.1%

90.0%

82.0%

85.4%

86.1%

85.3%

 

 

f.    Clean Up Services

 

i.          Awareness and utilisation of scheduled clean up services

The results show that very high levels of awareness of scheduled clean up services on a City wide, SUD and MUD basis.  The percentages on awareness are the ‘yes’ responses in relation to this question.  The utilisation percentage is lower in the MUD category compared with the SUD category.  This is consistent with the findings with respect to the waste calendar and may be related to issues to do with access to information.  SUD’s displayed higher levels of awareness of the waste calendar compared to MUD’s (noted above), although the waste calendar may not be the only means for finding out about scheduled clean up services.  Residents in MUD’s are a highly mobile population and whilst it may be that existing tenants use clean up services, newer tenants are not aware of these services.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Awareness

92.1%

94.7%

89.6%

Utilisation (if stated ‘yes’ aware of scheduled clean up services)

69.8%

83.6%

55.7%

 

The analysis by postcode follows the same pattern as the overall results in this area.  There are high levels of awareness across each postcode area.  The highest utilisation is in 2036 (79.3%) and the lowest utilisation is in 2032 (58.5%) and 2033 (57.3%).

 

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Awareness

91.6%

87.9%

92.8%

90.9%

91.4%

98.7%

Utilisation

67.4%

58.5%

57.3%

73.2%

73.5%

79.3%

 

Respondents who stated they were not aware of the two scheduled clean up services were also asked how they disposed of bulky items.  71% of respondents in this category reported they would ‘never require this service’.  334 people answered this question, 27.2% were in SUD’s and 72.8% were in MUD’s.  Therefore the reason ‘never require this service’ is skewed in the direction of MUD’s.  As we have previously seen in the data the residents in MUD’s are also less aware of domestic waste services in general.

 

ii.         Action/s taken to dispose of bulky items

If respondents indicated they were not aware of scheduled clean up services they were also asked about how they disposed of bulky items.  There were both positive and negative strategies in the list of actions.  The results are shown below and indicate the percentages where respondents said ‘yes’ they used that strategy to get rid of bulky items.  The percentages are small and it should be noted that they also reflect small numbers of residents within each group.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Positive

‘Take to landfill’, ‘Phone a collection service’ and ‘Order a miniskip’

9%

13.2%

7.4%

Negative

‘Just put it out anyway’ and ‘Dump it elsewhere’

12.3%

13.2%

12.7%

 

On a postcode basis the numbers of respondents in each group are very small and therefore the percentages cannot be interpreted to indicate any trends in terms of residents in each postcode area.

 

 

 

Satisfaction with scheduled clean up services

The responses in the tables below show the collapsed percentages in the ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ range.  The results indicate very good opinion with respect to scheduled clean up services by the community.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Satisfaction with scheduled clean up services

80.7%

79.4%

82.6%

 

The results by postcode also show good opinion with respect to scheduled clean up services by the community.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

72.4%

81.8%

86.2%

80.1%

86.8%

80.5%

 

iii.        Action/s taken to find out about next scheduled service

Respondents were asked to indicate what actions they would undertake to find out about scheduled services from a list.  The vast majority on a City wide basis (74.6%) indicated they refer to the waste calendar.  The SUD and MUD breakdown is also very positive with 75.1% and 73.9% respectively indicating they refer to the waste calendar.  It would appear that the waste calendar is a central source of information about clean up services.  The next largest category is ‘look at what the neighbours are doing’.  This may or may not provide residents with the right information about next scheduled clean up.  On a postcode basis the results are between 73.2% in 2035 and 84.7% in 2033 stating they ‘refer to the waste calendar’.

 

iv.        Awareness and utilisation of additional booked clean up services

The results show average to low levels of awareness of the booked clean up services.  The awareness percentages are the ‘yes’ responses against this dimension.  The awareness levels are higher in SUD compared with MUD.  The utilisation percentages are low and are based on small numbers.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Awareness

46.8%

57.2%

36.7%

Utilisation (if stated ‘yes’ aware of booked clean up services)

13.4%

11.9%

15.6%

 

By postcode it would seem that 1 in 2 people are aware of booked clean up services except in 2032 and 2033.  These areas comprise of Kingsford / Kensington that have high university student populations in MUD’s.  As we have seen consistently in the results, residents in MUD’s have lower levels of awareness of domestic waste services in general.  The level of utilisation of booked services is low across all postcodes except 2031 that comprises Clovelly and Randwick.

 

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Awareness

48.2%

36.4%

36.9%

50.5%

47.4%

52.0%

Utilisation

21.3%

7.7%

7.3%

13.9%

11.0%

6.3%

 

v.         Satisfaction with booked clean up services

Excellent levels of satisfaction with respect to booked clean up services has been shown on a City wide, SUD and MUD basis.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Satisfaction with booked clean up services

86.1%

89.2%

82.8%

 

The results by postcode are not presented in the full report, as the number of residents in each postcode area was small rendering the percentages less meaningful.

                       

vi.        Preference for scheduled and booked services

The results would support a preference for scheduled clean up services as opposed to booked clean up services.  However any change in service should be considered with caution.  Booked services were in place for less than six months at the time of survey administration.  Residents are still unclear of the advantages and disadvantages associated with booked clean ups.  Waste Services should consider promotional activities to assist in educating the community about these services and encourage use.  Best practice in managing the removal of bulky household items should also be considered in addition to the preference ratings achieved.

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Scheduled

71.5%

75.6%

67.5%

Booked

19.3%

18.2%

20.2%

 

g.   Service Problems and Resolutions

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had ever experienced any problems with any of the four domestic waste services, the nature of the problem, what action/s they took to resolve the problem and satisfaction with Council where Council undertook action in relation to the problem.

 

The percentages in the table below set out the ‘yes’ responses (i.e.  a problem with the service had been experienced in the past).  Overall the percentages are not large.  Residents in SUD’s were the highest percentage of respondents who indicated they had a problem with general household garbage.

           

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

General household garbage

16.2%

21.0%

11.6%

Recycling

14.3%

12.3%

16.2%

Green waste

9.9%

9.9%

-

Clean up

15.1%

17.7%

12.6%

 

The majority of problems experienced by people in relation to household garbage were ‘missed service’ (47.4%) and ‘bin too small’ (17.5%).  In the majority of cases these individuals indicated they ‘rang Council to complain’ (49.5%).  However a significant proportion said they ‘ignored the problem’ (35.6%).  Where Council undertook action to resolve the problem the majority of respondents (70.1%) indicated they were satisfied.

 

In relation to recycling a significant number of responses were coded as ‘other’ and included an array of difficulties experienced by respondents.  However the next largest categories were ‘missed service’ (19.9%) and ‘bin too small’ (17.5%).  In the majority of cases individuals indicated they ‘ignored the problem’ (73.1%).  This is a poor result and may indicate apathy or lack of understanding in relation to recycling issues.  Where Council undertook action to resolve the problem the majority of respondents (60.3%) indicated they were satisfied.

 

The green waste results are similar to the two previously reported services.  Again the majority of problems experienced were in relation to ‘missed service’ (24.1%) and ‘bin refused collection because contaminated’ (20.7%).  In the majority of cases respondents indicated they ‘ignored the problem’ (50.9%).  This constitutes 1 in 2 people in this group of respondents.  Where Council undertook action to resolve the problem the majority of responses (58.4%) indicated they were satisfied.

 

Finally for clean up services the majority of respondents said the problem related to ‘late collection’ (56.9%).  In line with the previous results the majority said they ‘ignored’ the problem (67.4%).  Clean up is collected by Council’s outdoor workforce.  Actual data may help to determine whether late collections are truly reflective of community opinion here.  Where Council undertook action in relation to the problem only 42.3% of respondents in this group indicated they were satisfied.

 

h.   Overall Satisfaction Ratings

Two overall satisfaction ratings were included in the survey, one on information and the other on service delivery.

 

i.          Satisfaction with information provided by Council on waste services and improvements to information

The percentages in the tables are the collective figures across the ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ range.  The results are similar to previous findings that point to differences in awareness levels and access to information for residents in MUD’s.

 

 

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Satisfaction with information provided by Council on waste services

76.0%

86.3%

66.1%

 

Good results have been achieved on a postcode basis.  Not surprisingly in 2032 and 2033 the percentage figures are lower compared with the other postcodes.  Both postcodes are high MUD areas.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

74.3%

71.1%

70.9%

76.8%

75.0%

87.2%

 

Respondents that indicated they were dissatisfied with Council information were also asked to indicate how information could be improved.  The majority of respondents on a City wide basis (72%) indicated that ‘more information is required’.

 

A qualitative analysis was undertaken on the comments and suggestions made to further explore the data.  Some additional themes emerged and are listed in the table below together with examples.  It should be noted that conflicting comments are reported in the examples listed.  This is characteristic of data that is supplied in open-ended questioning.

 

Seven themes emerged with respect to improvements with Council information as follows –

 

Theme

Example of Comment / Suggestion

Provision and Access

Relates to actually receiving information and being able to obtain information –

§  ‘did not receive calendar’

§  ‘did not know how to find out about services’

§  ‘not enough information provided’.

 

Education and Awareness

Relates to lack of information about existence of services and lack of understanding about how services delivered –

§  ‘did not know some services existed’

§  ‘did not know about scheduled or booked clean up services’.

 

Clarity and Quality

Relates to information being unclear and misleading –

§  ‘information is not clear’

§  ‘should make information less confusing’.

 

Recycling Specific

Relates to specific issues emerging with recycling services in particular –

§  ‘information on recycling needs to be more specific’

§  ‘ensure all residents aware of recycling services’

§  ‘recycling should be improved’.

 

Type and Distribution

Relates to the type of information respondents suggested should be sent out and methods of distribution –

§  ‘notifications of clean ups should be made’

§  ‘Council should do letter box drops and develop leaflets’

§  ‘reminder letters should be sent to residents on services’

§  ‘quarterly distributions of information’

§  ‘ads in the courier’.

 

Calendar

Relates to improvements with respect to the calendar –

§  ‘calendar sent twice:  waste of paper’

§  ‘not happy with the calendar’

§  ‘new residents should receive the calendar and an information pack’.

 

Service Delivery

Relates to statements made beyond improvements to information on service delivery issues –

§  ‘pick up the recycle bin weekly’

§  ‘greater real enforcement of waste issues with residents’.

 

 

ii.         Satisfaction with the delivery of the four domestic waste services

The ‘75%’ satisfaction target set in the 2003 / 2006 Management Plan should be applied here.  In terms of the delivery of domestic waste services the target was exceeded and the results are indicative of high satisfaction levels on a City wide, SUD and MUD basis.  The percentages are those responses in the ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ range in both tables below.

 

 

City wide

SUD

MUD

Satisfaction with the delivery of the four domestic waste services

86.4%

89.9%

82.9%

 

On a postcode basis the target has again been exceeded in every area indicating excellent satisfaction across the city with the delivery of domestic waste services, in particular 2036.  Consistent with previous findings the data would suggest a group of happy residents in the south.

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

87.3%

84.0%

83.6%

85.6%

86.1%

90.0%

 

 

i.    Suggested Improvements

A number of general themes emerged in the comments and suggestions offered by respondents to the final open-ended question on service delivery improvements.  These are as follows –

 

Theme

Example of Comment / Suggestion

General

Relates to all four services –

§  ‘more bins’

§  ‘increase the size of bins’

§  ‘increase the frequency of collections’

§  ‘ensure sufficient bins for families’

§  ‘ensure sufficient bins for units’

§  ‘dedicated bins for units not bin sharing’

§  ‘bigger bins for units’

§  ‘no increases in cost for bigger bins or increases in frequency of services’

§  ‘be on time for collection’

§  ‘be tidy in collection; bins too messy’

§  ‘return bins to the correct location’

§  ‘ensure bin lids are closed’

§  ‘ensure cars not blocking bins’

§  ‘increase amount of information to residents’

§  ‘provide new and existing residents with more information’

§  ‘educate residents on all four services’

§  ‘change pick up times to earlier / later’

§  ‘collect kerbside rubbish’

§  ‘quieter collection’

§  ‘do something about dumped cars’

§  ‘conduct spot checks of areas’

§  ‘provide a compost service and subsidise’

§  ‘number the bins’

§  ‘modifications to trucks to avoid littering’

§  ‘stop illegal dumping’

§ 

Household Garbage

Relates to household garbage services –

§  ‘more bins’

§  ‘bigger bin’

§  ‘increase frequency of service to twice weekly’

§  ‘care in emptying and returning bins’

§  ‘close lid of bins’.

 

Recycling

Relates to recycling services –

§  ‘bigger bins for recycling’

§  ‘paper side of split bin should be bigger’

§  ‘get rid of the split bin’

§  ‘weekly instead of fortnightly pick ups’

§  ‘greater number of options for recycling’

§  ‘more bins for glass’

§  ‘incentives to recycle’.

 

Green Waste

Relates to green waste services –

§  ‘additional green waste services’

§  ‘go back to bundling green waste’

§  ‘increase green waste pick ups’

§  ‘size limit for garden refuse’.

 

 

Clean Up

Relates to clean up services –

§  ‘four scheduled clean ups per year’

§  ‘be more proactive with illegal dumping’

§  ‘be on time for clean ups’

§  ‘pick up things like carpet’

§  ‘three scheduled clean ups per year’.

 

Collection Staff

Relates to collections staff –

§  ‘collection staff abusive’

§  ‘collections staff to pick up rubbish if falls out’

§  ‘train collections staff in customer service’

Footpaths and Pavements

Relates to improvements to footpaths and pavements for bin collection –

§  ‘clean the streets, footpaths and pavements’

§  ‘clean the beach areas and provide more bins’

§  ‘collections staff slow’

§  ‘improve street and gutter sweeping’.

 

Calendars and Information

Relates to the waste calendar and information –

§  ‘ensure households receive calendars / information about services’

§  ‘provide more information on contamination’

§  ‘provide information if different languages’

§  ‘provide more direct access to information’

§  ‘ensure information communicated accurately’

§  ‘have fridge magnets’

§  ‘information on how to dispose of other items e.g.  glass, chemicals’

§  ‘make waste information not look like junk mail’

§  ‘issue reminder letters about services’.

 

Enforcement

Relates to fining and enforcement of rules –

§  ‘fine people who are doing the wrong thing’

§  ‘educate residents to use bins properly and enforce correct usage’

§  ‘charge for not doing the right thing’

§  ‘improve policing’.

 

Environmental Factors

Relates to other issues in the environment impacting on service delivery –

§  ‘consider factors like winds and summer periods; increase frequency of services and sizes of bins in summer’.

 

Advertising and Promotion

Relates to advertising and promotion of services –

§  ‘more advertising on services’

§  ‘improve promotion of services’

§  ‘advertise in a variety of ways’

§  ‘letter box drops and booklets’.

 

General Positive Comments

General positive comments made –

§  ‘good job’

§  ‘service is good enough’.

 

 

 

5.         Additional Analyses

All additional analyses were performed using SPSS, a statistical software package.  These were requested by Waste Services and undertaken by the present author.  A review of the overall data revealed that further exploration on some parameters would assist in clarifying outstanding issues with respect to the delivery of services and guide recommendations for improvements.

 

a.         Satisfaction Ratings as a Group

A series of questions were included in the survey to ascertain community satisfaction with respect to different dimensions of service delivery.  Satisfaction was assessed in terms of the four domestic waste service areas, the information provided by Council on waste services and general satisfaction with the delivery of all four services.

 

The table below sets out the average satisfaction ratings[8] and the confidence intervals[9] against each of the dimensions assessed.  A five-point scale was used to rate satisfaction.  The responses were coded in the analysis such that a score of ‘5’ equates to ‘Very satisfied’, ‘4’ equates to ‘Satisfied’, ‘3’ equates to ‘Neutral’, ‘2’ equates to ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘1’ equates to ‘Very dissatisfied’.

 

A review reveals that the ratings range from 3.78 to 4.19.  Application of the five-point scale would indicate that ratings are between the upper end of the ‘Neutral’ band to the lower end of the ‘Satisfied’ band within the scale.  In general the results are positive.

 

The highest set of satisfaction ratings has been achieved on green waste services.  For the satisfaction dimensions within this category ratings in the lower end of the ‘Satisfied’ band have been achieved.  It should be noted however that the questions on green waste applied only to respondents in SUD’s.  The average ratings are higher based on the fact that fewer numbers of respondents contributed in the calculations.  This is also the case with the average satisfaction rating with booked clean up services.  Whilst in the ‘Satisfied’ band very few numbers of respondents provided a rating as only those individuals who had used the service were asked to comment on their level of satisfaction.

 

The overall satisfaction rating with all four domestic waste services is also high in relation to the others and is in the ‘Satisfied’ band according to the five-point scale.  This is a positive result and demonstrates good community opinion with respect to the delivery of services in general.

 

The lowest satisfaction ratings emerged on the dimensions relating to service problems and resolutions.  In relation to the other satisfaction dimensions these were in the lower end of the ‘Neutral’ band within the five-point scale.  It should be noted that fewer numbers of respondents contributed to the overall ratings on these dimensions as ratings were only provided by those individuals who stated they had experienced a problem with one of the four services.  Regardless of the smaller numbers strategies to increase satisfaction with Council action/s in relation to problems and resolutions should be considered.  It is clear that smaller numbers of individuals may actually report problems to Council.  However anecdotal evidence suggests that the small minority report serious concerns.

 

The data would also suggest that some gains could be made in relation to general household garbage, recycling and the information provided by Council on waste services.  The questions relating to these areas in the survey applied to all respondents and it is therefore disappointing that the ratings approached but did not achieve the ‘Satisfied’ band within the scale.  Strategies to increase satisfaction levels to the ‘Satisfied’ band should be considered and a target set against these dimensions for any re-administration of the present survey at a later date.

 

The confidence intervals provide information on the spread of scores within the lower and upper limit of the five-point scale.  The spread of scores varies between 0.11 points and 1.05 points across the dimensions as shown in the table below.  The smaller the range of scores the more consistent the opinion with respect to satisfaction on a particular dimension.

 

Overall it can be said that public opinion with respect to satisfaction is fairly consistent.  That is, on almost all dimensions the spread of scores is fairly small with few scale points between the lower and upper limits of the cited confidence intervals.

 

The highest spread of scores was on satisfaction with Council action/s in relation to green waste services where it can be seen that public opinion varies between the ‘Dissatisfied’ to ‘Neutral’ band by 1.05 points on the five-point scale.  In fact compared with the other dimensions more variation in opinions emerged on the service problems and resolution dimensions.  This is not unusual given smaller numbers of respondents contributed to the calculations as noted above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension

Average Satisfaction Rating

Confidence Interval

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

General household garbage

Satisfaction with how the general household garbage bin returned after emptied

 

 

3.78

 

 

3.72

 

 

3.83

Recycling

Satisfaction with recycling services

 

3.98

 

3.93

 

4.02

Green waste

Satisfaction with frequency of fortnightly service

Satisfaction with size of 240 litre bin

Overall satisfaction with green waste services

 

4.19

4.15

4.11

 

4.12

4.09

4.05

 

4.25

4.22

4.18

Clean up

Satisfaction with scheduled clean up services

Satisfaction with booked clean up services

 

3.94

4.19

 

3.87

3.97

 

4.00

4.42

Service Problems and Resolutions

Satisfaction with Council action/s in relation to household garbage

Satisfaction with Council action/s in relation to recycling services

Satisfaction with Council action/s in relation to green waste services

Satisfaction with Council action/s in relation to clean up services

 

3.59

3.54

3.37

 

3.12

 

3.63

3.17

2.85

 

2.77

 

3.85

3.96

3.90

 

3.46

Overall Satisfaction Ratings

Satisfaction with information provided by Council on waste services

Satisfaction with the delivery of the four domestic waste services

 

3.89

 

4.01

 

3.83

 

3.98

 

3.94

 

4.05

 

 

b.         Number of People Living in Household

Question 3 asked respondents to indicate whether four or more people were living permanently in the household at the time of survey administration.  As noted in the section on ‘General Household Garbage’ above, only 27.8% of respondents on a City wide basis reported there were four or more people living permanently in the household.  This represents 334 individuals in total.

 

A breakdown by dwelling type reveals that 41.6% (244 people) in SUD’s and 14.7% (90 people) in MUD’s reported that four or more people were living permanently in the household.

 

Waste Services requested that this dimension be explored more fully against ‘frequency of instances with household bin not being big enough’ and ‘satisfaction with recycling services’.  Both household waste and recycling are the two services provided by Council’s contractor.  For this reason more information was sought as the results could be used to guide the future specifications of Council to the contractor in terms of bin sizes.

 

Number of People in Household and Frequency of Instances with Household Bin Not Big Enough

A correlation was conducted between the number of people living in the household and the frequency of instances with the bin not being big enough for household waste.  The correlation was significant[10].  This suggests that when four or more people are living in the household then the greater the frequency of instances with the bin not being big enough.

 

In order to explore this correlation the frequency of instances where respondents reported that the household garbage bin was not big enough for household garbage was tabulated against dwelling type and number of people living permanently in household.  The results are shown in the tables below.  These tables can also be located in the consultant’s report.  When examining the data it should be noted that there are only small numbers of participants in each group.

 

This breakdown reveals that respondents do report ‘weekly’ problems with bin size.  A figure of 18.6% for SUD’s and 14.7% for MUD’s stating ‘weekly’ problems was noted in the overall findings.

 

In the tables below it can been stated that for SUD’s a considerably larger percentage (70.6%) of dwellings with four or more residents had ‘weekly’ instances where the garbage bin was insufficient for the amount of household garbage.  This was not the case for MUD’s where it was shown that a greater percentage (73.3%) of people reporting ‘weekly’ problems had fewer than four people living in the household.  Residents in MUD’s bin share and this might explain the ‘weekly’ problems in relation to this group.  However the reason is unclear.

 

It may be concluded that for SUD’s ‘weekly’ problems may be related to the number of people living in the household.  However for MUD’s ‘weekly’ problems are not necessarily related to a greater number of people living in the household.  An option that is currently be offered to residents in SUD’s is a 140 litre upgrade from the 120 litre bin at no cost to residents.

 

Frequency of instances where household garbage bin not big enough

 

Are there four or more people living permanently in your household?

Total

SUD

 

Yes

No

 

Never

Number of Responses

48

198

246

 

Percentage of Responses

19.5%

80.5%

100%

Only during festive occasions

Number of Responses

57

61

118

 

Percentage of Responses

48.3%

51.7%

100%

Every three or four months

Number of Responses

30

21

51

 

Percentage of Responses

58.8%

41.1%

100%

Monthly

Number of Responses

29

28

57

 

Percentage of Responses

50.9%

49.1%

100%

Weekly

Number of Responses

77

32

109

 

Percentage of Responses

70.6%

29.4%

100%

Don’t know

Number of Responses

3

3

6

 

Percentage of Responses

50.0%

50.0%

100%

Total

Number of Responses

244

343

587

 

 

Frequency of instances where household garbage bin not big enough

 

Are there four or more people living permanently in your household?

Total

MUD

 

Yes

No

 

Never

Number of Responses

31

269

300

 

Percentage of Responses

10.3%

89.7%

100%

Only during festive occasions

Number of Responses

10

89

99

 

Percentage of Responses

10.1%

89.9%

100%

Every three or four months

Number of Responses

3

33

36

 

Percentage of Responses

8.3%

91.7%

100%

Monthly

Number of Responses

18

49

67

 

Percentage of Responses

26.9%

73.1%

100%

Weekly

Number of Responses

24

66

90

 

Percentage of Responses

26.7%

73.3%

100%

Don't know

Number of Responses

4

17

21

 

Percentage of Responses

19.0%

81.0%

100%

Total

Number of Responses

90

523

613

 

 

i.          Number of People in Household and Satisfaction with Recycling Services

It was expected that number of people in the household might be related to overall satisfaction with recycling services as the greater the number of people in the household the greater the impact on bin utilisation.

 

The results are depicted in the graph below.  It is shown that the pattern of satisfaction ratings follows the same trend regardless of the number of people living in the household.

 

 

 

 

6.         Interpretation of the Findings

The present report documents the findings of the Domestic Waste Survey 2003.  The overall objective of the survey was to ascertain satisfaction levels with a range of domestic waste services delivered by Council including household garbage, recycling, green waste and clean up services.

 

More specifically the survey was intended to –

 

§ identify the satisfaction of customers with the services available by assessing a range of service delivery dimensions

§ assist in the establishment of baseline data to be used to assess Council’s performance in re-administrations of the survey at later stages

§ allow the exploration of service dimensions that contribute to overall customer satisfaction with services

§ identify gaps in delivery for service improvements

§ assist in the generation of recommendations for service improvements.

 

The intended outcomes have been achieved.  The results of the survey are positive and suggest that Council is providing a good level of service with respect to the delivery of waste services in general.  There are some differences in opinion with respect to services when the results are compared on an SUD and MUD basis.  Positive results emerged consistently with individuals residing in postcode area 2036.  There are areas of improvement suggested by the data with respect to the provision of information and access to information on waste services.  Service delivery gaps in this case were highlighted by both the quantitative and qualitative data supplied by respondents.

 

Statistically the results can be said to reflect public opinion across the Randwick local government area.  They are also reflective of the opinions of individuals residing in SUD’s and MUD’s.  The compliance rate achieved is positive with more than one in two people contacted demonstrating a willingness to participate in the survey.

 

In reviewing the findings against the first two listed objectives it has been demonstrated that the satisfaction of customers with the four domestic waste services has been fairly assessed against a range of service delivery dimensions.  Baseline data has been established and should be used to assess Council’s performance in later re-administrations of the survey.

 

The satisfaction levels of customers across the four services varied between the ‘Neutral’ to ‘Satisfied’ band with in the five-point scale used in the survey.  There were twelve measures of satisfaction contained in the survey and one overall measure of satisfaction.   A ‘75%’ satisfaction target was set against the overall measure.  Waste Services set this target as an initial benchmark based on knowledge and practical experience in the field.  The target should now be reviewed and set accordingly against the overall measure as it has been shown that an 86.4% level of satisfaction has been achieved that exceeds the target.  The result demonstrated good public opinion with the delivery of services in general.

 

In reviewing the satisfaction ratings obtained on the other twelve measures of satisfaction care should be taken in interpreting the results.  Where it has emerged, for example, that the average satisfaction ratings were highest for green waste services it should also be considered that only individuals in SUD’s contributed to ratings on these parameters.  Higher average ratings were therefore obtained as fewer respondents contributed in the calculations.  In the same way the average satisfaction rating with booked clean up services was also positive, although it should be considered that very small numbers of respondents contributed to these ratings.

 

In reviewing the findings against each of the four services in turn it has been noted that significant percentages of people reported ‘weekly’ problems with bin size and amount of household waste.  This was the case for both individuals residing in SUD’s and those residing in MUD’s.  A closer examination of the data revealed that for SUD’s the problems might be related to more than four people living in the household.  However for MUD’s the ‘weekly’ problems were not related to greater numbers of people living in the household.  Bin sharing may account for the result here as suggested by anecdotal evidence, however the reason for ‘weekly’ problems is unclear.

 

For household recycling a range of service delivery dimensions were assessed that focussed on awareness of and reference to the waste calendar, knowledge of items related to each side of the split bin, knowledge regarding contamination and awareness of the additional service offered at the Perry Street drop off.  The key results for the recycling dimensions include –

 

§   high levels of awareness for both residents in SUD’s and MUD’s with respect to the waste calendar

§   lower percentages of respondents indicating they actually refer to the waste calendar, particularly notable for individuals in SUD’s

§   high levels of awareness of items to be placed in each side of the split bin but lower levels of awareness in relation to contamination (i.e.  bin not emptied)

§   low levels of awareness of the Perry Street drop off, low utilisation levels but high convenience ratings

§   overall satisfaction with recycling services follows the same trend regardless of the number of people living in the household.

 

For SUD’s the findings suggest that high levels of awareness with respect to the waste calendar and belief about what items should be placed in each side of the bin does not equate with knowledge about contamination.  Therefore whilst these residents report high levels of awareness and knowledge they do not realise that the bin may not be emptied if contaminated.  There is a sticker on the inside of the bin depicting the items relating to each side and this is obviously a good source of information.  However there is no information on the sticker relating to what should not go in the bin.  This is found in the waste calendar in written and picture form.  As has been noted lower percentages of respondents actually report referring to the waste calendar.  The data would suggest the need to promote behaviour change as the information has been provided by Council, residents are aware of the calendar yet they appear less inclined to refer to it.

 

With respect to the results on the Perry Street drop off the value of the service should be considered against Council’s experience in operating the service.  Whilst the utilisation levels are low according to the data the drop off service is obviously convenient for a small group of residents.  Waste Services might consider better promoting this additional service to raise awareness levels and encourage usage.  In fact one of the specific themes that emerged in the qualitative data on how information might be improved related to recycling as distinct from the other three domestic service areas.

 

The green waste questions applied only to individuals in SUD’s.  These included opinion about operation of a green waste service in general and awareness, utilisation and convenience of the drop off service at Council’s depot.  The key results include –

 

§   strong opinion with respect to Council operating a green waste service

§   low awareness, low utilisation but high convenience ratings in relation to the drop off service.

 

As above the value of the green waste service should be assessed against Council’s experience in operating the service.  The data highlights the importance of the service for a small group of residents.  Strategies to raise awareness and encourage use might be considered in promotional activities undertaken by Waste Services.

 

Finally clean up services were assessed with respect to scheduled and booked services.  The key findings include –

 

§   high levels of awareness with respect to scheduled services

§   higher utilisation levels for residents in SUD’s compared with residents in MUD’s

§   high percentages of individuals indicating they refer to the waste calendar for information about scheduled clean ups

§   lower levels of awareness and utilisation with respect to booked clean up services

§   larger percentages of individuals reporting a preference for scheduled as opposed to booked services.

 

The booked clean up service has only existed since January 2003 and is not listed as a service in the current waste calendar produced in August 2002.  It is therefore not unusual that lower awareness and utilisation emerged with booked services.  Improved communication about this service and promotional activity might help to alter community opinion especially in relation to preferences about the two types of clean up services.  It is not unusual that scheduled services are preferred given they have been the traditional method of bulky item disposal available to residents.  However if residents were made aware of the benefits of booked services the preference ratings might be altered.  Booked services were introduced to allow residents to dispose of large items in times of need rather than wait for a programmed activity.  Booked clean ups are currently being offered through the Call Centre with many callers having no existing prior knowledge of these services.  Call Centre might be used to both raise awareness levels and educate callers on clean up issues.

 

Comment should be made on service problems and resolutions with respect to the four services.  Collectively the results suggest that most problems related to household garbage, recycling and green waste were based on missed services, bin size and non-collection due to contamination.  It is a drawback in the findings that individuals reported ignoring these problems.  For clean up the results were slightly different in that most problems related to late collections where respondents again reported ignoring the problem.  Management of both contractor delivered services (i.e.  household garbage and recycling) and Council delivered services (green waste and clean up) requires feedback from residents in order to delineate service parameters.  Perhaps some strategies to increase the reporting of problems should be considered.

 

Comment should also be made on the results by postcode.  The following key findings emerged in relation to the four services –

 

§   satisfaction levels with the return of the household garbage bin was highest in postcode 2036

§   awareness of and reference to the waste calendar was lowest in postcode 2033

§   awareness of items to be placed in each side of the split bin was high across all postcodes

§   awareness that bin not emptied if contaminated was lowest in postcodes 2031, 2032 and 2033 and highest in postcode 2036

§   awareness and usage of the Perry Street drop off was highest in postcode 2036 and fairly low across the other postcodes

§   satisfaction levels in relation to frequency of the green waste service and size of the green waste bin were high across all postcodes

§   opinion with respect to the operation of a green waste service was high across all postcodes

§   awareness of the drop off service at the depot was highest in postcode 2034 and highest usage was reported by individuals in postcode 2031

§   overall satisfaction with green waste services was high across all postcodes

§   awareness of scheduled clean up services was high across all postcodes with lower levels of usage in comparison particularly for postcodes 2032 and 2033

§   satisfaction with scheduled clean up was high across all postcodes

§   awareness and utilisation of booked clean up services was low across all postcodes.

 

Positive results have been achieved in postcode 2036 with respect to all four domestic waste services.  In previous community surveys undertaken by Council similar results have emerged with high satisfaction levels reported by residents in the southern suburbs of Randwick.  A review of community facilities is currently being undertaken and the data in this study has demonstrated that population sizes in the northern suburbs of the city have grown at a faster rate compared to population sizes in the southern suburbs.  It could be that residents in postcode 2036 are a more stable population with good knowledge of waste services because they have lived in the area for a longer period of time.

 

Awareness levels in relation to the waste calendar were lowest in postcode 2033.  This postcode area covers the suburb of Kensington.  It also emerged that awareness levels in relation to the waste calendar were lowest in MUD’s.  Anecdotal data suggests that Kensington is an area highly populated by university students who live in MUD’s and appear to relocate more frequently compared with other community groups.  Council has not issued residents kits to the community for almost 12 months, although the Waste Services section used to run a programme with Real Estate agents to ensure that calendars were distributed to residents in MUD’s.  This might be a strategy to both promote and educate residents in relation to waste services thereby increasing awareness levels.

 

The analysis by postcode also supports the need to better promote additional services such as the Perry Street drop off and Council’s green waste service at the depot.

 

Finally in postcodes 2032 and 2033 covering Kingsford / Kensington the lowest levels of usage of scheduled clean ups were reported.  This is interesting as information collected at the Call Centre reveals that very high numbers of illegal dumpings are reported in Kensington / Kingsford, that they are reported on the day following the illegal dump and that in most instances more than one caller reports the same illegal dump.  As noted above high numbers of university students live in the Kensington / Kingsford area in MUD’s who relocate more frequently and who may have limited access to information such as the waste calendar.  They may be unaware of the availability of clean up services and therefore dump items on the street when moving.  Alternatively it may be that residents in Kensington / Kingsford are more proactive in reporting incidents of this nature.  There are also high numbers of illegal dumps in the southern suburbs however, Call Centre note that it may take weeks for residents to report such instances as they often believe a report has been made by another resident.

 

The analysis by postcode also supports the need to better provide residents with information on contamination as low awareness levels were shown across three postcode areas including 2031, 2032 and 2033.  In postcode 2036 high awareness levels in relation to contamination were shown again supporting the conclusion that there is a stable population in this area with good knowledge of waste services.

 

The third objective in the present survey was to explore the service dimensions contributing to overall customer satisfaction with services.  The results in relation to the qualitative questions provide an excellent understanding of the factors contributing to the satisfaction of residents.  Both the qualitative and quantitative results also identify gaps in delivery for service improvements as specified in the fourth objective.

 

Qualitative data was extracted both in relation to improvements with information and service delivery.  Seven themes emerged with respect to enhancing Council information on waste services including –

 

§   better provision and access to information

§   education and awareness about the existence of services

§   clarity and quality of the information presented

§   inclusion of information that is recycling specific

§   various types of information and methods of distribution

§   specific improvements to the waste calendar

§   service delivery improvements (i.e.  how services should be delivered rather than the information itself)

 

It is clear that attention to the above listed factors would increase customer satisfaction.  The quantitative data can be aligned with the listed themes in that it has been shown that there are varying results with respect to awareness levels and knowledge about the four services.  For example, it has previously been suggested that the presentation of information on contamination might be improved.  It has also been suggested that the Perry Street drop off and the green waste drop centre at the depot is better promoted.  Further the quantitative data suggests issues with the education of the community in relation to scheduled and booked clean ups.  It would appear that Waste Service might take a more planned approach to the release of information, that information might be tailored to suit the service being promoted and that a range of distribution methods is considered.

 

In relation to service delivery improvements a number of themes emerged including –

 

§   general service delivery improvements (e.g.  increases in bin sizes, increases in the frequency of services)

§   service specific changes with each of the four services (e.g.  bundling of green waste, four scheduled services per year)

§   improvements in the customer service skills of collection staff

§   attention to cleanliness of footpaths and pavements

§   improvements to the calendar and other types of information (e.g.  reminder letters, magnets)

§   the enforcement of rules with residents

§   attention to environmental factors in the delivery of services

§   enhancements to advertising and promotion

§   general positive comments (e.g.  good job).

 

It should be noted that any consideration of the general service delivery improvements by Waste Services would have implications with respect to Council policy and contractual agreements with external service providers.

 

In line with the data already presented the factors best contributing to customer satisfaction in this set of qualitative responses focuses on the actual delivery of services, the parameters of service delivery and attention to information.

 

 

7.         Recommendations

Based on the interpretations made in the present report and the issues raised in relation to the data the following recommendations are made –

 

1.         That the overall satisfaction target is reviewed and set accordingly for the 2004/2007 Management Plan

 

2.         That waste education strategies are reviewed to address the concerns raised including the specific needs of dwelling types and suburbs

 

3.         That the information made available to residents is easily accessible and clear

 

4.         That the present survey is re-administered in 12 months time to monitor changes and to enable information to be collected over time in order to guide service delivery with both contractors and the outdoor workforce and to assist in the preparation of future tenders with external providers.

 

 

8.         Attachments

A copy of the survey is contained in Attachment 1.

 

Attachment 1

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 55/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Todman Avenue, Kensington - Improvements to Bicycle Lane

 

 

DATE:

2 October, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0724/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a number of concerns regarding bicycle conditions within the Council area.  The intersection of Todman Avenue and Baker Street has been raised due to concerns with the eastbound bicycle lane that runs through the roundabout, which is marked as going into the kerb blister on the approach and out of the kerb blister on the departure of the roundabout. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Eastbound cyclists have been provided with a dedicated 1.5 metre wide marked lane along Todman Avenue’s length, however are forced to join the eastbound traffic stream at a dangerous location, where the carriageway width is significantly reduced by the roundabout ‘squeeze points’.

 

Austroads – part 14 Bicycles recommends that where possible, at three legged roundabouts, it is preferable to provide a bypass of the roundabout for the cyclist movement travelling straight through the intersection.

 

This is possible in this case, where a concrete path and associated pram ramps could be constructed on either side of the roundabout, and eastbound cyclists could leave the on-street bicycle lane, travel along the dedicated concrete path on the nature strip, and re-enter the on-street bicycle lane beyond the roundabout.

 

Numerous site inspections of this location also revealed that westbound vehicles travelling along Todman Avenue regularly ignore the edge line lane marking on the departure of the roundabout.  When the roundabout was constructed, it appears that the proposed concrete blister island located on the south western corner of the intersection, designed to force a deflection through the roundabout and ensure that westbound vehicles maintain a safe speed through the intersection, as indicated on the design plans, was not constructed and instead a painted edge line took its place. 

 

Observations have revealed that approximately 90% of westbound vehicles are ignoring the lane line marking and exiting the roundabout at speed through the 9 metre opening. 

 

This provides a dangerous situation for a number of reasons.  Westbound vehicles are allowed to travel through the intersection at excessive speed, which increases the potential for ‘cross traffic’ accidents, as conflicting vehicles are entering the roundabout at significantly varying speeds.  Westbound cyclists are considered to be at risk when using the painted on-street bicycle lane on the departure side of the roundabout, as vehicles exiting the roundabout regularly drive over the bicycle lane. 

 

Further, a ‘Bus Zone’ exists on the southern side of Todman Avenue, immediately west of Baker Street, and there is a potential for vehicular accidents when buses enter and exit the stop. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is proposed to construct a concrete blister on the departure of the roundabout for westbound vehicles to reduce the speed environment of the intersection, provide protection for cyclists and increase the safety for buses using the existing ‘Bus Zone’.

 

These improvement measures aimed at enhancing the safety of Todman Avenue Bicycle Lane, as suggested by Council’s Traffic Engineers, have been endorsed by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting on 9th September 2003.

 

Funding for these works has been included for consideration in the reallocation of funds for projects, which did not receive RTA funding in 2003-2004 road funding allocation, as reported in the Director of Assets & Infrastructures’ Report No. 47/2003 at the meeting of Council held on 23rd September 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         A dedicated concrete bicycle path and associated pram ramps be constructed on the northern nature strip of Todman Avenue at its intersection with Baker Street, to provide an uninterrupted path of travel for cyclists using the existing on-street eastbound bicycle lane to bypass the roundabout, as detailed on the attached plan; and

 

2.         A concrete island and associated pram ramp be constructed on the south western corner of the intersection, with a 3 metre opening designated as a ‘Bus Lane’ to maintain access to the existing ‘Bus Zone’ located west of the intersection, to deflect westbound vehicles exiting the roundabout and provide protection for cyclists using the on-street bicycle lane, as detailed on the attached plan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Todman Avenue Bicycle Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 56/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

REPAIRS TO ROSS JONES MEMORIAL POOL, COOGEE.

 

 

DATE:

2 October, 2003

FILE NO:

PROJ/0033

 

REPORT BY:                        DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As part of the community consultation for the repairs of Ross Jones Memorial Pool, Council officers prepared an information panel for exhibition, which was pinned up at the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club over the weekend of the AGM for the Club.  

 

The following are the main points raised from the Coogee Huskies and the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club in regards to the proposed works.

 

1.         Request for the deletion of some of the pylons (in particular the three pylons at the northern end of the main pool).  This request comes as some of the pool users dive into the water during competition races.

2.         Request for the deletion of the chain links between the pylons.  They expressed concern as people could get caught up in the chains if a serge or wave forces them into or out of the pool, leading to injuries.  Also by providing the opportunity for people to use them to hang on in big surf conditions.

3.         Concern was also expressed in regards to the thickness of the proposed repairs to the internal concrete wall render, which will decrease the internal dimensions of the pool by 160mm.

 

There are several issues that Council Officers need to address in considering the results of the consultation.  These are; public liability, heritage implications, The Coogee Beach and Foreshore Plan of Management and the overall additional costs which would result if the requests from the community consultation are fully implemented. 

 

ISSUES:

 

1.         Public Liability Issues

 

The following points were raised by Kim Davis - Manager of Purchasing and Contracts and Julie Cowan – Risk and Insurance Coordinator, at a meeting held on 22 August 2003 in relation to the requests from the Coogee Huskies Winter Swimming Club Inc. and the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club.

·          There will be liability concerns if Council is to accommodate the needs of a specific group of users when Ross Jones Memorial Pool is a public pool.  All public safety issues have to be considered for the wider community.

·          The removal of the 3 pylons would encourage people to dive into this pool when the pool depths may vary. The minimum complying depth for diving is 2 metres and at any maximum capacity, the pool depth is under 2 metres. There are also concerns in regards to the algae growth along the areas between the pylons.  Council is not able to remove this growth as often as it would be required for people to be walking over it.

·          Along with allowing the pylons to stay, chains should be installed to further discourage the practice of diving.

·          As Council has been made aware that the swimming club members dive into the pool, should Council carry out repairs which encourage this practice, and injury occur, any claim against Council as a result of such injury would be impossible to defend.

·          Appropriate safety sign(s) are to be installed in the immediate pool area to discourage the practice of diving. There is currently some signage on site but this is faded and out of date. 

·          In order to meet current safety and insurance requirements, the existing signs need to be replaced with a regulation sign, which must also cover other aspects of safety regulations in regards to the usage of the pool. Depth indicator signs will also need to be installed.

·          The Risk and Insurance Co-ordinator stated that in regards to the safety issues of the pool, before any repair works commences, a Safety Audit should be conducted by the Royal Life Saving Society, Australia. The pool needs to comply with all pool safety regulations, standards and legislations in the near future in order for Council’s Insurance Underwriters to cover Council’s Public Liability Insurance. The Safety Audit will focus on issues relating to access and fencing for such pools and may recommend the provision of supervision of pool users. Should a pool be deemed non-compliant following such an audit it is likely that Council’s insurance company will refuse to insure Council for the subject facility.

 

2.         Heritage Significance

 

Mr. Colin Brady (Heritage Consultant) has prepared a Heritage Assessment and Conservation Guidelines for the repairs of Ross Jones Memorial Pool.  He has submitted the following information in regards to the requests from the community consultation:

·          “The recommendation for the safety chain not to be reinstated, is based upon concern that children will use the chain as restraint when heavy seas enter the pool. It is feared that such activity will lead to injury. As the chain installation is a new detail reflective of the previous installation both its installation and deletion will have limited impact upon the heritage significance of the pool” It is assumed this means that the chain has no heritage value but the heritage consultant regards it as improving the safety aspect of this facility.

·          In relation to the removal of the three pylons, “these are an original feature of considerable significance to the pool. The removal of the piers would clearly facilitate movement along the top of the pool wall but would require additional safety barriers to the outer edge. This would require a set of post supports for the proposed chain or similar forms of restraint. This is not a recommended alteration to the pool and would be favoured only where no alternate solution is available”.

 

3.         Coogee Beach and Foreshore Plan of Management (Nov 1997)

 

Consideration should also be given to the Plan of Management, which states on page 35:

‘This pool was built in 1947.  According to the National Trust, the pool is significant because: it has a unique design, which includes concrete piers, which extend beyond the top of the walls resembling crenellations on a sand castle; it has aesthetic appeal due to its siting and relationship to the surrounding elements…..’

 

Note should also be taken to page 56, which states:

‘The pool has no safety fence although it is assumed that chains would normally be placed between the concrete uprights.  These uprights are reminiscent of crenellations likely to be found on a child’s sandcastle, giving the pool a unique appearance’

 

In the ‘Recommendations Schedule’ for Ross Jones Memorial Pool on page 57 of The Plan of Management, it indicates that the damaged piers need to be repaired and that the chain to the pool perimeter is to be reinstated.

 

Other Implications:

 

1.         Other repair works that have been identified as part of the site investigations with Council’s Risk and Insurance Coordinator and through the heritage consultant are the repairs to the small pool, repairs to steps from the Surf Club to the pool and the repairs to the steps in the pool.

2.         Additional costs would be involved if the thickness of the pool wall concrete render cannot be increased by 160mm.  This would mean that the existing concrete walls would need to have to 80mm removed from the inside surface of the pool to ensure that the same internal dimensions continued. Additional costs would be in the demolition and the extra concrete render. As the pool is not a standard competition length, these additional costs are considered extravagant.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that:

 

1.         No pylons should be deleted from the scope of works due to the Heritage Significance, Liability Issues, Aesthetic Character and issues listed in the Coogee Foreshore Plan of Management.

2.         The chains should not be deleted from the scope of works due to Liability Issues and issues listed in the Coogee Foreshore Plan of Management.

3.         The proposed 80mm concrete render thickness of all the internal pool walls should remain as per specification due to additional costs involved and the fact that the pool is not of standard competition dimensions.

 

The liability issues involved are also critical since Council should not be carrying out any works to a pool which will render this facility uninsurable.

 

A decision needs to be made on the above matters so that any required alterations can be carried out to the specifications prior to getting the Lands Department’s consent to submit a D.A. for the project.

 

Due to the unexpected delays caused by the consultation and the requirements to get the Land Department’s consent to submit a D.A. prior to going to tender, it is considered that this project should be listed for construction during the 2004 off season. Council’s decision on the relevant issues is therefore necessary prior to having the Specification altered.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.         No pylons should be deleted from the scope of works due to the Heritage Significance, Liability Issues, Aesthetic Character and issues listed in the Coogee Foreshore Plan of Management.

2.         The chains should not be deleted from the scope of works due to Liability Issues and issues listed in the Coogee Foreshore Plan of Management.

3.         The proposed 80mm concrete render thickness of all the internal pool walls should remain as per specification due to additional costs involved and the fact that the pool is not of standard competition dimensions.

4.         A Pool Audit be carried out on this pool by the Royal Surf Life Saving Society, Australia, to ensure that the refurbished pool will comply with the requirements of Council’s insurers.

5.         Council officers arrange to have the specification altered as required above and to meet the requirements of Council’s insurers and then proceed to liaise with the Lands Department to get consent to lodge the D.A. for the project with a view to carrying out the repair works in the 2004 off season.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letters & emails from Community

Relevant sections from Coogee Beach Foreshore Plan of Management

Heritage Assessment & Conservation Guidelines for Ross Jones Memorial Pool Coogee Beach

Construction Drawings - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 57/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2003-2004 ROAD FUNDING

 

 

DATE:

30 September, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held 23rd September 2003, Council considered the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report No. 47/2003, regarding the acceptance of RTA grants and re-allocation of funds for unsuccessful projects under the 2003-2004 road funding allocation. It was resolved that:

a)         Council accept the proposed RTA grants for 2003-2004; and

b)       Council defer consideration of the works listed on page 10 of the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report No. 47/2003 and a report on this matter be submitted to the appropriate meeting.

 

This report presents a detailed description of the work items listed in the above report.

 

ISSUES:

 

Provision was made in the 2003-2004 budget for the following Local Road amenity and road safety related projects:

 

Project Description

Council

Grant

Undertake provision of bicycle path from Centennial Park to University of New South Wales.

$50,000

$50,000

Pedestrian Refuge near the intersection of Cook Street And Frances Street, Randwick

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge to be constructed on Clovelly Road between Beach Street and Keith Street

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge to be constructed on Clovelly Road between Arden Street and Beach Street

$5,000

$5,000

Roundabout, Clovelly Road/Beach Street Intersection, Clovelly

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Moverly Road/Loch Maree Street Intersection, Maroubra

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Carrington Road/Bream Street Intersection, Coogee

$32,500

$32,500

Roundabout, Boyce Road/Royal Street Intersection, Maroubra.

$30,000

$30,000

Roundabout, Sturt Street/Paton Street Intersection, Kingsford

$40,000

$40,000

Roundabout, Brook Street/Dudley Street Intersection, Coogee

$35,000

$35,000

 

It is proposed that Council’s budgeted allocations to these projects, totalling $237,500, be re-allocated to projects as follows:

 

Project Description

Council

Location:                    Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Facility:                      Round-a-bout

Proposed Treatment: Deep Lift Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation

Origin:                        National Blackspot Programme 2003-2004

 

$30,000

Location:                    Brook Street, Coogee

Facility:                      Round-a-bout

Proposed Treatment: Deep Lift Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation

Origin:                        National Blackspot Programme 2003-2004

 

$30,000

Location:                    Snape Street, Maroubra

Facility:                      Traffic Calming measures

Proposed Treatment: Change of priority and associated MIST site, ‘squeeze points’ and associated kerb blisters.

Origin:                       Traffic Committee Sep ’03 and Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme resolution from Council meeting held 23rd September 2003.

 

$55,000

Location:                    Darley Road/Alison Road, Randwick

Facility:                      Continued Implementation Stage 1 Randwick Bicycle Plan

Proposed Treatment: Construction of off-road cycleway on Darley Road between Centennial Park Randwick Gates and Alison Road to complete section constructed between Avoca Street  and Randwick Gates in 2002-2003 (see attachment No 1), linemarking, signage, and route improvement of connecting off-road cycleway on south side Alison Road between AJC entrance and Wansey Road.

Origin:                   2002-2003 funding for Randwick Bicycle Plan.

 

$55,000

Location:                    Todman Avenue, Kensington

Facility:                      Round-a-bout at Baker St

Proposed Treatment: Construct 1.5m wide bicycle path on footpath and associated pram ramps (2) to allow continued bicycle travel lane, which currently runs into both kerb blisters.  Possible adjustment of Telstra pit required.

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Sep ’03

 

$10,000

Location:                    Todman Avenue, Kensington

Facility:                      Pedestrian crossing immediately west of Carminya St

Proposed Treatment: Construct kerb blister (25m2) on approach to crossing for westbound vehicles, reducing crossing width from 12.2m to 4.5m, providing single westbound vehicular lane and bicycle lane.

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Sep ’03

$10,000

Location:                    Todman Avenue, Kensington

Facility:                      Round-a-bout at Baker St

Proposed Treatment: Construct kerb blister on departure of round-a-bout for westbound vehicles, including break in median for bus to service stop on southern side of Todman Ave, west of Baker St.

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Sep ’03

 

$10,000

Location:                    Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

Facility:                      Traffic calming at 90 degree bend at Addison St

Proposed Treatment: Treatment to prevent corner cutting.

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Sep ’03

 

$8,000

Location:                    Dampier Street & Forrest Street, Chifley

Facility:                      M.I.S.T Treatment

Proposed Treatment: Construct a  Minor Intersection Sign Treatment (M.I.S.T) median island in Forrest Street on the eastern leg of this intersection (with an additional ‘Stop’ sign)

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Feb ’03

 

$8,000

Location:                    Maroubra Road, Maroubra Junction

Facility:                      Pedestrian crossing immediately east of Flower Street

Proposed Treatment: Extend existing kerb blister on northern side of Maroubra Rd on approach to crossing to provide greater protection for pedestrians and reduce vehicle speeds, and construction of small island on northern side of Maroubra Rd adjacent ‘form one lane’ edgeline to force eastbound motorists to merge as indicated by linemarking. 

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Sep ’03

 

$7,500

Location:                    Bowral Street, Kensington

Facility:                      Pedestrian Crossings

Proposed Treatment: Construct kerb blisters on southern side of Bowral Street at existing pedestrian crossings located at Anzac Pde and Doncaster Avenue.  

Origin:                        Traffic Committee Sep ’03

 

$7,000

Location:                    Avoca Street, Kingsford

Facility:                      Pram Ramps

Proposed Treatment: 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.

Origin:                        Traffic Committee May ’03

 

$7,000

 

 

Total

$237,500

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Allocations totalling $237,500, for projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2003-2004, should be re-allocated to the projects listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 14 October 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council re-allocate the $237,500 allocated for projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2003-2004, to the projects listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report dated 14 October 2003.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment No 1 Proposed Bike Plan works  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 58/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Pedestrian Crossing on Maroubra Road, Maroubra, East of Flower Street - Proposed Improvement Measures

 

 

DATE:

2 October, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0503/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A number of local residents and shop keepers have raised concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians using the recently upgraded pedestrian crossing located on Maroubra Road, immediately east of Flower Street.

 

The concern continually raised by the residents/shopkeepers is the danger that is created by eastbound vehicles travelling along Maroubra Road on the approach to the crossing. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Site inspections have revealed that there is a potential for pedestrian accidents at this crossing due to a number of minor design flaws.  The recently installed kerb blister does not have a chevron alignment marker, and due to a slight vertical crest in the road on the approach to the crossing the blister is not visible until motorists reach the crossing.

 

Further, the existing edge line lane marking that guides eastbound motorists from two lanes into one west of Flower Street is being ignored regularly, and observations have revealed a regular occurrence of vehicles travelling at high speed continuing to travel in the ended lane in an attempt to overtake vehicles before arriving at the crossing. 

 

The kerb blister that these overtaking vehicles are faced with at the crossing is concrete for a width of 3 metres and the remaining section of the blister is painted on the road surface.  This leaves a physical crossing width of 6.5 metres, and as such could potentially allow two eastbound vehicles to travel through the crossing together.

 

High vehicle speeds have been observed along this stretch of Maroubra Road, and due to the increased complexity of the driving task that the lane merge and the pedestrian crossing cause for motorists, there is a potential for pedestrian accidents. 

 

Physical measures are considered necessary to calm the eastbound traffic and reduce the speed environment of the intersection and its approach, and hence greatly increase the safety of pedestrians using the crossing. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

With a view to enhancing pedestrian safety, minor changes to the profile of the existing kerb blister at the north eastern corner of the Maroubra Road and Flower Street intersection has been proposed, together with a reduction of the width of the carriageway for eastbound motorists approaching the crossing.

 

A small concrete island with a chevron alignment marker in Maroubra Road to force eastbound motorists to merge into one lane has also been proposed.

 

These proposals have been endorsed by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting on 9 September 2003.

 

Funding for these works has been included for consideration in the reallocation of funds for projects, which did not receive RTA funding in 2003-2004 road funding allocation, as reported in the Director of Assets & Infrastructures’ Report No. 47/2003 at the meeting of Council held on 23rd September 2003.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         The existing kerb blister on the northern side of Maroubra Road, Maroubra, on the approach to the pedestrian crossing located immediately east of Flower Street, be enlarged to reduce the carriageway for eastbound motorists; and

 

2.         A small concrete island be constructed with a chevron alignment marker on the northern side of Maroubra Road, outside premises No. 270, as detailed on the attached plans, to force eastbound motorists to merge into one lane, as directed by the existing line marking.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans showing kerb blister and concrete island.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 




 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 59/2003

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

COWPER AND COOK STREETS  - FOOTPATH RECONSTRUCTION AND STREET LIGHT ASSESSMENT

 

 

DATE:

1 October, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0791

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In a petition that represents residents of Cook Street, Randwick, a request was forwarded to Council to improve the condition of footpaths along Cowper Street (southern side between Cook Street and Avoca Street) and Cook Street (eastern side between Frances Street and Cowper Street).  In addition, residents requested for street light levels on Cook Street to be increased.

 

ISSUES:

 

Residents stated that footpaths on Cook and Cowper Streets are “…dated, patched, lumpy, tree rooted…” and that the street lighting levels on Cook Street are inadequate and do not provide a safe pedestrian environment resulting with some residents utilising the roadway as a footpath.  Residents’ requests stem from concerns over both trip hazards along footpath surfaces and fears of being “attacked” due to insufficient lighting.

 

An Officer of Council inspected the area to determine the serviceability of both the footpaths and the current streetlight configuration.  Several observations were noted.

 

Footpaths

 

Inspection of the full width footpath section on Cook Street revealed signs of uplift from tree roots.  These areas represented trip heights of up to 10 centimetres.  These adjacent trees further obstruct the provision of adequate lighting onto the footpath (from the western side of Cook Street).

 

Along Cowper Street, sections of asphalt footpath were found to contain significant potholes.  Several concrete slabs adjacent to the Open High School entrance were found to be uneven.  The section of footpath adjacent to the Randwick Bowling Club contained large potholes and large exposed aggregates.

 

Streetlights

 

The spacing of streetlights on Cook Street was found to comply with the maximum spacings required by Australian Standards AS/NZS 1158.  Trees on the eastern side of Cook Street appear to be the major cause of obstruction from streetlights and may require tree trimming. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The overall condition of footpaths examined in this report contains trip hazards in the form of potholes, unevenness, large exposed aggregates, undulations and obstruction from adjacent streetlights. Council’s resources, for the next five years, have been dedicated to the construction of new footpaths in central and south wards hence there are no funds available for the reconstruction of aged or damaged footpaths in the current budget.

 

Sections requiring reconstruction include:

 

·          Cook Street eastern side (from Cowper Street to Frances Street)

·          Cowper Street southern side (from Cook St 76 Cowper Street)

·          Cowper Street (adjacent to Randwick Bowling Club)

 

Approximate Total Reconstruction Length = 360 metres

 

Reconstruction of these footpath sections has been estimated to cost $40,000.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

·          Council allocate necessary funds and prioritise footpath reconstruction as part of a future works programme.

·          Council’s maintenance crew be requested to carry out appropriate tree trimming works on Cook Street.

·          Residents listed on the petition be notified of Council’s decision.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Petition from residents of Cook Street 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

Annie Shum

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

Ancillary asset ENGINEER

 



 

 



[1] A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix A.

[2] A SUD was defined in the survey as a free standing, semi detached, row, terrace or town house.  A MUD was defined in the survey as a flat, unit or apartment.

[3] Whilst green waste services are available to residents in MUD’s Council provides them on a needs basis.  Currently the number of total green waste services being provided to residents in MUD’s is less than 50.  A decision was made not to sample responses from this group due to the small number in the total population size.

[4] Raw data has been provided to Council in electronic format and is coded in an SPSS data sheet.

[5] A copy of the final report has been placed on file and additional copies are available for viewing in Waste Services.

[6] The compliance rate represents the percentage of individuals contacted that were willing to undertake the survey.  The compliance rate achieved indicates that more than one in two people were willing to participate when contacted.

[7] Sampling error is the percentage where a result is accepted as true but may not be generally true for the entire population of residents in the Randwick local government area that use domestic waste services.  Based on the 1200 participants this may occur 2.9% of the time in the present survey.  However, overall the results can be said to reflect public opinion with 95% confidence.

[8] The average satisfaction ratings are based on the sum of the ratings for a particular dimension divided by the total number of respondents who provided a rating in relation to that dimension.

[9] A 95% confidence interval was set against the dimensions assessing satisfaction.  Therefore it can be said that that 95% of scores are in the stated range for any given dimension in the above table.

[10] The correlation was (r=0.277, p<0.01[10]).