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

 

21st November, 2003

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 28TH OCTOBER, 2003.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER, 2003.

4            Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 30/2003 - SEPTEMBER QUARTER REVIEW - 2003/06 MANAGEMENT PLAN

2

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 31/2003 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

4

 

6.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 32/2003 - PRESENTATION - FINANCIAL REPORTS - YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2003.

6

 

6.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 33/2003 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES STUDY AND PLAN.

8

 

6.5                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 34/2003 - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE.

10

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 68/2003 - ST PAULS LANE, ADJOINING TO NO. 13A SOUDAN STREET, RANDWICK.

12

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 69/2003 - BUNNERONG ROAD - KINGSFORD STREET TO COBHAM AVENUE - FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION.

17

 


 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 70/2003 - MAROUBRA JUNCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME, MAROUBRA.

19

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 71/2003 - FRENCHMANS BAY LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION WORKS NO 14/03.

28

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 72/2003 - GRAFFITI CONTROL PROGRAMME

33

 

7.6                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 73/2003 – RTA OFFER FOR 2004-2005 REGIONAL ROAD REPAIR PROGRAMME.

53

 

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 32/2003 - ARRANGEMENTS DURING CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2004.

55

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 94/2003 - PARTY SAFE PROGRAM.

62

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 95/2003 - STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2003.

64

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 96/2003 - DRAFT FOOTPATH DINING AND TRADING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN.

66

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Ellen Street Traffic.

73

11.2

By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Rainbow Street Footpath. 

73

11.3

By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Electoral Boundaries. 

73

11.4

By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Legal Services. 

73

11.5

By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – State Tax on Registered Clubs.

73

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Report

 

13.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 74/2003 - SES CONTROLLER.

74

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

 

 

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

……………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 30/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

SEPTEMBER QUARTER REVIEW - 2003/06 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

19 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2003/06 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the September Quarter Review of the 2003/06 Plan.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Each department has reviewed those targets not being achieved, and comments on those matters are included in the Report. Currently there are six Principal Activities being reported on.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the September Quarter Review – 2003/06 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. SEPTEMBER QUARTER REPORT - 2003/06 MANAGEMENT PLAN under separate cover

 

 

 

..............................................

 

 

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 31/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2003

FILE NO:

P/001994, 89/S/2994, P/001277, P/001277, 98/S/2265, 98/S/5049, P/013148, P/015014

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of agreements between Council and –

 

1.         Coogee Legion Ex-Service Club Limited in relation to a lease of an open space area above the footpath at 266A Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

2.         Maroubra Diggers Junior Swimming Club in relation to a licence to use the Clubhouse at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

3.         Two R’s Pty Ltd (T/As Bar Coluzzi) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 3/66 High Street, Randwick.

4.         Surfing New South Wales in relation to a licence for part of Crown Reserve No. D500382 also known as Arthur Byrne Reserve Trust, more particularly described as Level 1 of the Maroubra Beach Pavilion building.

5.         I & I Varga (T/As Sweet Kiss Cake Shop) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 343 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

6.         K.U. Children’s Services in relation to a lease of Part of Alison Park, more particularly described as a Child Care Centre located within Alison Park Reserve Trust.

7.         Xing Jin Wang in relation to a residential lease of Unit 2/32 Belmore Road, Randwick.

 

CONCLUSION:

As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         Coogee Legion Ex-Service Club Limited in relation to a lease of an open space area above the footpath at 266A Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

2.         Maroubra Diggers Junior Swimming Club in relation to a licence to use the Clubhouse at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

3.         Two R’s Pty Ltd (T/As Bar Coluzzi) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 3/66 High Street, Randwick.

4.         Surfing New South Wales in relation to a licence for part of Crown Reserve No. D500382 also known as Arthur Byrne Reserve Trust, more particularly described as Level 1 of the Maroubra Beach Pavilion building.

5.         I & I Varga (T/As Sweet Kiss Cake Shop) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 343 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

6.         K.U. Children’s Services in relation to a lease of Part of Alison Park, more particularly described as a Child Care Centre located within Alison Park Reserve Trust

7.         Xing Jin Wang in relation to a residential lease of Unit 2/32 Belmore Road, Randwick.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 32/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

PRESENTATION - FINANCIAL REPORTS - YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2003

 

 

DATE:

4 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/0043

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Under the provisions of the Local Government Act Council is required to present its Financial Reports together with the Auditors’ Report to the public.

 

ISSUES:

 

At its meeting held on Tuesday 28 October 2003 the Council, in accordance with Section 418 of the Local Government Act, 1993 fixed 25 November 20031 as the date on which it proposed to present its audited Financial Reports to the public.

 

As required by Section 418, public notice of the meeting as well as a summary of the Financial Reports was inserted in the “Southern Courier”. The public notice indicated, as required by Section 418 (4), that copies of the Council’s audited Financial Reports, together with the Auditors’ report were available for public inspection at Council’s Administration Office and at the Bowen Library.

 

Copies of the Auditors’ Report together with the audited Financial Reports have been forwarded to the Department of Local Government and to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as required by Section 417(5) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

A copy of the Financial Reports together with Auditors Report has been tabled.

 

Members of the public could make written submissions on the reports up until 19 November 2003. No submissions were received

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the General Manager’s Report together with the Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 20032 be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 33/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Community Facilities Study and Plan

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5136

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Community facilities exist to enhance the quality of life of the community through providing venues for individuals and groups to come together for social, cultural and leisure activities.

 

Randwick City Council has prepared a Community Facilities Study and Plan to provide short and long term strategic direction for the provision of appropriate community facilities in Randwick City Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Plan analyses the impact of existing and projected demographic trends on current and future community needs and provides an inventory of existing Council owned and non-Council owned facilities that are available to the community.

 

The demand for community facilities in relation to both the number and type has been forecast using current and projected population figures, the usage patterns of existing facilities, and to a lesser degree, benchmark standards for the provision of community facilities.

 

The application of the above factors indicated some gaps in the provision of community facilities as well as some areas of potential oversupply, especially in the long-term.

 

The report also considered what type of community facilities could be provided and concluded that Council needs to develop some well planned multipurpose facilities that are appropriately located at the neighbourhood or suburb level.

 

As part of the process a number of Council owned properties were identified as either surplus to Council’s needs or as being unsuitable for renovation as community facilities. It is proposed that these properties be sold in order to provide the major part of the funding for the development of the new multipurpose community centres.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick City Council must ensure that the community has access to well designed multipurpose community centres that are accessible, affordable, have good amenity and provide facilities applicable to the needs of specific groups and a range of community, social and cultural issues.

 

This Community Facilities Study and Plan provides an extensive range of background information and data that supports the strategy for the provision of the required facilities including multipurpose and specific facilities. The strategy has been costed and the sources of funding for the strategy are identified.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended:

1.         That Council endorse the direction outlined in the report

2.         That a detailed project plan be prepared for the implementation and that Council be updated on the progress of the implementation on a regular basis

3.         That Council endorse the incorporation of relevant matters into the Section 94 review

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Community Facilities Study and Plan under separate cover

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 34/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2852

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 27 August 2002, Council resolved that“Council undertake to continue management of the Des Renford Aquatic Centre”

 

Randwick Council has been operating the Des Renford Aquatic Centre since July 2002 when it assumed management and operational responsibility after the RANS Management group was placed into voluntary administration.

 

During this period there have been a number of reviews and surveys that have provided valuable information in relation to operations. This report, which outlines the future directions for the Centre is based both on the findings from the various reviews and the knowledge and experience gained from managing and operating the Centre over the past 15 months.

 

ISSUES:

 

The challenge for council in managing and operating the Centre is to provide at a minimum cost to Council quality aquatic recreational facilities that meet the needs of the general community as well as a highly successful swimming program through learn-to-swim and swim squad coaching.

 

The report reviewed current management and operational practices, the staffing process, employment costs and current practices and the Centre’s financial performance. It identified critical issues in relation to coaching and swimming development programs and considered some innovative industry trends.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As a consequence of the review a number of major recommendations have been put forward and these form part of the Des Renford Aquatic Centre renewal project. In identifying the future directions for the Centre, Randwick Council is acknowledging that the Centre is a valuable community resource and that Council intends to further develop the Centre’s potential to create an aquatic centre of excellence for our residents and all users of the Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be noted and that implementation be progressed

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Report On The Future Directions of The Des Renford Aquatic Centre under separate cover.

 

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 68/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ST PAULS LANE, ADJOINING TO NO. 13A SOUDAN STREET, RANDWICK .

 

 

DATE:

19 November, 2003

FILE NO:

P/013052 379

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of No. 13A Soudan Street, Randwick, has applied to purchase a small section of St Pauls Lane adjacent to his property in order to enable him to provide his property with a small outdoor area.  It should be noted that No 13A Soudan Street has no frontage to Soudan Street and only fronts St Pauls Lane. It should also be noted that the section of land which is the subject of this application is unmade at the present time.

 

ISSUES:

 

Number 13A Soudan Street, Randwick, is a very small allotment (approximately 95m²) where almost the entire footprint of the site is taken up by a brick building with a metal roof.  A survey plan showing the allotment of land indicating the dimensions of the allotment, the extent of the existing building and a section of St Pauls Lane which could be consolidated into the site is shown on Attachment A.  Attachment B is a general locality plan indicating the whereabouts of this allotment.

 

A number of site meetings have been held with the owner of the block since the section of land being pursued is in the hammerhead section of St Pauls Lane.  This hammerhead needs to be retained for possible future turning purposes in the laneway, which is the reason that Council officers have agreed to only support the closure and purchase of such a small sliver of this lane.  The turning circle templates indicate that there is enough room for a standard sedan to turn in and out of this hammerhead if the closure proceeds.

 

In order to proceed with sale of the road, a closure would be required.  In the case of a road closure, Council is not the determining authority and must apply to the Department of Lands in compliance with the relevant sections of the Roads Act.  Since Council has no real use for this land it is considered that Council should support the request from the owner of 13A Soudan Street and submit this application to the Department of Lands.

 

Council has a responsibility to dispose of its assets in a responsible manner and it is considered that any disposal of this land (should the closures proceed) should be subject to a sale dependent on a market value of this parcel of land, set by an independent valuer.

 

All costs involved in the application, including survey, legal, application and valuation costs, should be borne by the owner of 13A Soudan Street, Randwick.

 

It should also be noted that there is another potential purchaser of this section of unused road, i.e. No. 15 Soudan Street, although it is unlikely that this land would be of any benefit to this property.  As part of the application process Council will need to consider the objection of any adjoining owners to the closure and sale of this land.  This will involve the property at 15 Soudan Street, which is also adjacent to this land.

 

Prior to lodging the application with the Department of Lands, Council will need to contact the owners of 15 Soudan Street and ensure that they are aware of the closure proposal and have no relevant objection to the closure and sale of this land.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As the section of land involved is only small and will not affect the turning of vehicles at this location, the land could be regarded as surplus to Council’s needs.

 

Any application to close such road must comply with Section 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Roads Act 1993.   Council would need to apply for this closure on behalf of the applicant and the Department of Lands is the determining authority.

 

The Department of Lands could then advertise this proposal as required by the Roads Act, 1993.  It is therefore considered that if the owner of 15 Soudan Street has no objection to the closure and sale of the subject land, Council should proceed by applying to the Department to close and sell the relevant section of land adjoining No.13A Soudan Street.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

i.          That Council write to the owner of 15 Soudan Street and advise the owner of Council’s proposal to close and sell the subject portion of St Pauls Lane to the property owner of 13A Soudan Street.

 

ii.          That should no objection be made by the owner of 15 Soudan Street to the proposal, Council make application to close and sell the section of road shown on the attached diagram, subject to:

 

a                      All administrative, survey and legal costs to be borne by the owner of No. 13A Soudan Street, Randwick.

 

b          Council briefing its own valuer to set a reasonable value for the land in question.


 

c.         The owner advising Council of the acceptance of all of the above conditions and providing Council with payment of the application fee and all other fees required by the Department of Lands prior to Council making application for this closure

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Attachment A - Site Plan.

2.  Attachment B - Locality Plan.    

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ROAD ASSETS CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 




 Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 69/2003

 

SUBJECT:

Bunnerong Road - Kingsford Street to Cobham Avenue - Footpath Construction

 

DATE:

18 November, 2003

FILE NO:

R/0130/01

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The above footpath project has been included in the current budget and will be carried out in the near future.

 

The provision of a footpath at this location has been the subject of discussion with the residents of this area for a number of years due to the low levels of the property boundaries at the subject location.

 

As this report deals with the proposal for Council to carry out works on private property.  Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that the matter be reported to Council for its determination.

 

ISSUES:

 

Due to the difference in level between the kerb and the property boundaries a non-standard footpath has been designed to provide adequate access to pedestrians wishing to get from Kingsford Street to Cobham Street.   There are four (4) properties whose levels are so low that some internal works will be required for vehicular access to be maintained.  These properties are No.’s 335, 337, 341 and 345 Bunnerong Road.

 

At least one of these properties has what appears to be a Council constructed crossing and another is owned by an aged pensioner.  As such it is considered that Council could offer to carry out the internal works as part of the project.  The additional amount of internal work is approximately 52m2 of concrete paving and minor retaining structures and will cost approximately $16,000.00.  An allowance was made for this additional work at the time the project was suggested.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The provision of a footpath along this section of road is necessary and long overdue.  It is considered that Council should cover the costs to provide reasonable concrete access to the properties where the adjacent levels need to be raised.

 

These works should extend from the back of the layback to the boundary and with the owner’s written permission, onto the private property as per the design provided by Council officers.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT:

 

a.         Council resolve to carry out works on property No’s 335, 337, 341 and 345 Bunnerong Road as required by Section 67 of Local Government Act 1993.

 

b.         As part of the notification of Council providing the footpath in Bunnerong Road between Kingsford Street and Cobham Avenue, the residents be advised that:

 

 

i.          Council will raise the level of the properties at the boundary to those levels as shown on Council design plans and as previously advised to the residents.

 

ii.          Council will provide concrete vehicular crossing across the footpath to the property boundary and the necessary internal concrete works to the properties No.’s 335, 337, 341 and 345 Bunnerong Road provided that each resident/owner provide written permission for Council to carry out the work.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER - DESIGN

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 70/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA JUNCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

19 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1654

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting on 23rd September 2003 considered a report on the Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme and approved the plans for the implementation of traffic calming measures in Storey Street and Snape Street. 

 

Council resolved that the above works in Storey and Snape Streets be constructed as soon as practical.  Funding for these works has been allocated in the current budget.

 

In addition, Council resolved that finalisation of design plans for traffic calming measures at the following locations be expedited and such plans be submitted to Council in November 2003:

 

1.         Maroubra Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

2.         Storey Street / Flower Street intersection;

 

3.         Holmes Street / Garden Street intersection;

 

4.         Boyce Road / Royal Street intersection;

 

5.         Boyce Road / Hannan Street intersection;

 

6.         Boyce Road / Cooper Street intersection;

 

7.         Gale Road / Royal Street intersection; and

 

8.         Gale Road / Flower Street intersection.

 

ISSUES:

 

Proposals for traffic calming measures at the locations referred to under items 1 to 8 above were considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meetings held on 14 October 2003 and subsequently on 11 November 2003.

 

A summary of the Traffic Committee’s recommendations are outlined hereunder:

 

1.         Maroubra Road  / Royal Street Intersection

 

The original proposal (1996 Scheme) for a roundabout at this location was mainly to assist with U-Turns in Maroubra Road.  However, the Committee considered that a roundabout might not be the best option at this location for the following reasons: -

 

·          Multilane roundabouts are not generally conducive for motorists;

 

·          Loss of kerb side parking will be greater than other viable treatments;

 

·          Existing right turn bays for the east and west bound traffic have greatly eliminated U-Turn vehicle conflicts at this location.

 

The Traffic Committee has therefore raised no objection to the proposal (as shown on the attached Plan 1) incorporating kerb blisters, pedestrian refuge islands and associated linemarkings.

 

2.         Storey Street / Flower Street Intersection

 

The Traffic Committee has raised no objection to the construction of kerb blisters, associated pedestrian refuge island, intersection guide lines and warning signs at the approach to Flower Street, as shown on Plan 2.

 

The above measures are considered effective to achieve intersection safety and speed control at the location.

 

3.         Holmes Street / Garden Street Intersection

 

The original study recommended that the intersection be monitored for future consideration of a mini roundabout.

 

Investigations revealed that the intersection has had no accident history for the last five years.  The 85th percentile speed experienced at the location is 57 km/hr.

 

On the above basis, provision of ‘squeeze points’ and Minor Intersection Sign Treatments (M.I.S.T. treatments are included in the RTA’s guidelines), as shown on the attached Plan 3, has been recommended by the Traffic Committee.

 

4.         Boyce Road / Royal Street Intersection

 

A review of the recent five years accident data has revealed that this intersection has had six minor cross-traffic crashes.

 

M.I.S.T. (Minor Intersection Sign Treatment) in Royal Street at the approaches to the Boyce Road intersection, together with intersection guidelines in Boyce Road, as shown on Plan 4, have been considered appropriate by the Traffic Committee to alleviate any future minor cross traffic conflicts at the subject location.

 

5.         Boyce Road / Hannan Street Intersection

 

The Traffic Committee has recommended a similar treatment, as proposed for location 4, for this intersection.

 

The proposals, shown on Plan 5, include M.I.S.T. devices in Boyce Road and intersection guidelines in Hannan Street.  It is to be noted that a M.I.S.T. device was proposed for this intersection in the original 1996 Scheme.

 

6.         Boyce Road / Cooper Street Intersection

 

The original scheme recommended that the intersection be monitored for future consideration of a mini roundabout.

 

However, the Traffic Committee has concluded that a review of the most recent five years of accident data, and existing recorded traffic speeds (average 85th percentile speed: 52 km/hour) and traffic volumes (102 vehicles in peak hour) do not warrant introduction of any traffic calming measures at the subject intersection.

 

7.         Gale Road / Royal Street Intersection

 

Similarly, on the basis of accident history, existing speed and volume of traffic at the intersection, the Traffic Committee has recommended that no treatment for traffic calming be introduced.

 

8.         Gale Road / Flower Street Intersection

 

Provision of median islands with signage was proposed in the 1996 scheme for the location.

 

However, nil accident history and low traffic speeds have been observed and the Traffic Committee has advised that the introduction of any traffic calming measures is not warranted.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The primary objective of the Maroubra Junction Traffic Management Scheme was to recommend implementation of traffic calming devices to protect and enhance the residential amenity of the area.

 

Council has already approved two major components of the scheme, viz. the Traffic Calming Measures for Storey Street (west of Anzac Parade) and Snape Street.  Funding for these works has been allocated in the current budget.  Work will soon commence on these projects.  

 

This report seeks Council’s approval for the implementation of Local Area Traffic Calming Measures as recommended by the Traffic Committee at locations 1 to 5, as outlined in the report.  The total cost of these works is estimated at $60,000.

 

Council at its meeting held on 23rd September 2003 resolved that funds for these works be included in the next year’s (2004-2005) budget.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         The plans for the implementation of Local Area Traffic Calming Measures at the intersections of Maroubra Road / Royal Street; Storey Street / Flower Street; Holmes Street / Garden Street; Boyce Road / Royal Street; and Boyce Road / Hannan Street, as shown on the attached plans 1 to 5, be approved and a sum of $60,000 for these works be included in the next year’s (2004-2005) Capital Works Program; and

 

b)         No action be taken in regard to previously considered treatments at the intersections of Boyce Road / Cooper Street; Gale Road / Royal Street; and Gale Road / Flower Street, on the basis of accident history, existing speed and volume of traffic at these locations.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Proposed Traffic Calming Measures - Plans 1 to 5

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 







 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 71/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

FRENCHMANS BAY LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION WORKS NO 14/03

 

 

DATE:

19 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5285

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In October 2003, Lump Sum Tenders were invited from the suitably qualified Contractors to undertake the Frenchmans Bay Landscape Construction Works. These works form a significant component of the works outlined in the 2002 Plan of Management.  The major components of the project include:

 

1.         Site security, demolition works, erosion and sediment control, earthworks and regrading and planting bed improvements

2.         Vegetation clearing and grubbing

3.         Adjustments to existing pine retaining wall

4.         Salvage and reinstallation of park seats

5.         Supply and installation park furniture including BBQ’s, bubbler and taps, bin enclosures, picnic shelters and table seats

6.         Supply and installation of pedestrian timber boarded walkway

7.         Supply and installation of timber car barrier rails

8.         Supply and installation of playground equipment including play items softfall, fencing and shade structure

9.         Supply, laying and establishment of turf areas

10.       Supply and planting of plant material

11.       Maintenance of works for 26 weeks as specified

Tenders closed at 10.00am on Tuesday 28th October 2003 and were opened by a three-person panel. Nine (9) tenders were received, consisting of the following: 

 

1.         Citywide Engineering Pty Ltd

2.         Glascott Group Pty Ltd

3.         GMWURBAN Pty Ltd

4.         Landscape 2000

5.         North Shore Paving Co Pty Ltd

6.         Marsupial Landscapes Pty Ltd

7.         Landscape Solutions Aust Pty Ltd

8.         Landscape Constructions

9.         Civil Systems Engineering Pty Ltd

 

BACKGROUND

 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Specification Part A ‘Conditions of Tendering’ advised that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders would be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 under the NSW Local Government Act 1993. The following mandatory criteria were applied to the tender assessment:

 

(i)         Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s);

(ii)        Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this tender;

(iii)       Must have Public Liability Insurance cover of at least $10 million;

(iv)       Must have Workers Compensation Insurance cover for staff employed.

 

Further to the mandatory criteria the following detailed selection criteria (see below) were applied. This stage of the evaluation required detailed analysis of tenders and preparation of appropriate documentation by the EC:

 

(a)        Price

(b)        Time period to complete the Work

(c)        Experience and ability to complete Work

(d)        Compliance with the Specification.

(e)        Quality Management System of the Tenderer

(f)         Occupational Health and Safety

Evaluation Committee

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing; Ms Kim Davis, Parks & Rec Management Officer; Ms Kerry Colquhoun, Landscape Coordinator: Ms Gigi Lombardi and Project Officer; Tim Lawson.

 

Evaluation Process

The process of evaluation was:

 

1.         An Evaluation Plan was developed and submitted to Manager, Purchasing and Contracts and was approved prior to the close of tenders.

 

2.         The evaluation committee undertook an objective qualitative assessment of the submitted tender schedules (but not pricing information). Information was listed under the relevant criteria and weighted (Refer Attachment 1). The evaluation committee scored the criteria individually with reference to the “Scoring Guideline” structured in the Evaluation Plan.  Individual scores were then averaged and calculated to form a total percentage.

 

3.         The final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Cost / Needs Analysis” sheet (Refer Attachment 1) and the lump sum tendered prices were graphed with the qualitative score to determine the “best value for money” tender submitted.

4.         The results of this assessment are provided in Attachment 1.

 

SUMMARY OF TENDER

 

Lump Sum Price

The pre-tender estimate for the project was estimated to be between $220,000 - $230,000.

 

Tender lump sum prices tendered are as follows: (in apparent order of price):

 

CONTRACTORS

LUMP SUM AMOUNT

1.   GLASCOTT GROUP

$206 589

2.   LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTIONS

$215 749

3.   LANDSCAPE 2000

$225 219

4.   LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS

$251 571

5.   GMWURBAN

$259 794

6.   MARSUPIAL LANDSCAPES

$278 739

7.   CIVIL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

$305 800

8.   NORTH SHORE PAVING

$315 939

9.   CITYWIDE CIVIL ENG.

$322 175

 

Accumulated Scores

The Tenderers accumulated qualitative scores in order of merit were as follows:

 

CONTRACTORS

ACCUMULATED SCORE

1. GLASCOTT GROUP

85.5%

2. MARSUPIAL LANDSCAPES

83.8%

3. NORTH SHORE PAVING

74.2%

4. GMWURBAN

71.3%

5. CITYWIDE CIVIL ENG.

71.1%

6. LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTIONS

70.7%

7. LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS

62.6%

8. LANDSCAPE 2000

61.8%

9. CIVIL SYSTEMS

59.0%

 

Tender précis
Glascott Group

Glascott Group submitted a quality bid, scored the highest in terms of the accumulated qualitative score and were the least expensive the lump sum being  $206 589.00. The Glascott Group has offered a reliable and quality service to Randwick City Council in the recent past being the contractor for the Maroubra Beach Playground.

 

Marsupial Landscapes

Marsupial Landscapes offered a quality submission, scoring the second highest accumulated score. The price offered was in the median range when compared to all Tenders. The lump sum offered was $278739, being  $72,150 above the price offered by the Glascott Group.

 

Northshore Paving Co

Northshore Paving Co submitted a quality bid and scored third highest in terms of the accumulated score. Their high lump sum price of $305 800 made their tender not satisfactory for the reason of high cost.

 

Landscape Constructions

Landscape Constructions submitted an acceptable bid in terms of quality however were not as competitive overall as compared to other tenderers, ranking 6th in their qualitative score. They provided the second lowest sum price ($215749) however this was  $9160 more expensive than the Glascott Group.

 

All Other Tenders

All other tenders submitted either offered high lump sums or low qualitative scores. This assessment has made it unnecessary to consider them further for this project.

 

ISSUES:

Project Funding

The works fall within the scope of the Frenchmans Bay Plan of Management Works for which Council has allocated funds in the 2003-2004 budget. 

 

Project Commencement Date

It is recommended that construction of the works commences in the first week of February 2004; this start date is most appropriate for the following reasons:

 

·          Avoid the busy Christmas school holiday period (Friday 19th December 2003 to 27th January 2004) as the construction works are high risk involving the use of large machinery possibly in conflict with park users. The construction of the landscape works will disrupt pedestrian access to the beachfront and surrounding area.

 

·          It will be extremely difficult to get the Contractors to prepare and obtain materials over the Christmas /New Year period.

 

 The construction period for these works is approximately 6-8 weeks. 

 

CONCLUSION:

The Selection Committee considered six tenderers Glascott Group, Marsupial Landscapes Northshore Paving GMWUrban, Citywide Civil Eng and Landscape Constructions, demonstrated the ability to complete the Frenchmans Bay Landscape Construction Works. However, the tender response of the Glascott Group offered the lowest lump sum price of these tenders and highest quality submission.

Evaluation of Tenders against the specified evaluation criteria concluded that the Glascott Group has submitted the tender representing the best value for money to Council for this project.

 

The Glascott Group has demonstrated experience in landscape works supported by good references; they are best positioned to deliver a quality result for this project.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.         Council accept the tender submitted by Glascott Group Pty Ltd, Unit 4,15-17 Chaplin Drive, Lane Cove NSW 2066 for the completion of the

Frenchmans Bay Landscape Construction Works Tender No 14/03 for the lump sum tender amount of $ 206 589.00 (incl GST).

 

2.         That the commencement date for the project be in early February 2004.

 

3.         The unsuccessful tenderers are notified of the tender result.

 

4.         The General Manager in consultation with the Mayor be authorised to sign the contract and other documents pertaining to the scope of works and that Council’s Seal be affixed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Assessment Matrix - UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

 


  

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 72/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Graffiti Control Programme

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/2143

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 September 2003, the Council resolved that:

 

a)         Council note the report including the programs used in the City of Casey, City of Sydney, City of Gosnells and Auburn City for graffiti control;

b)         Council authorise Council officers to develop and implement a Council funded multi-faceted program including outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services;

c)         Council Officers identify funding for implementation of the program within the existing budget through reprioritisation of other activities; and

d)         A report be submitted to Council in December, 2003 outlining the progress of developing and implementing a Council funded multi-faceted programme;

e)         A report be submitted to the relevant Council Meeting outlining what procedural arrangements have been made to date with the Police in order to carry out point (g) of the Council’s resolution of 12th November, 2002, and, also, the report canvas the issue of the preparation of an information sheet for residents on how to discourage graffiti occurring on their properties, as detailed in part (i) of Council’s resolution of 12th November, 2002

 

The report will summarise the results of the graffiti audit of Randwick, set out the proposed Council funded multi-faceted programme including details of procedural arrangements with the Police to tackle graffiti, identify the funding for the programme and include a draft copy of the information sheet on graffiti control to be distributed to residents.

 

ISSUES:

 

GRAFFITI AUDIT

 

A graffiti audit was carried out from 15 August 2003 to 29 October 2003 by Hydra-Wash Pty Ltd (“graffiti audit”), to understand the size and nature of graffiti vandalism in Randwick, and to create a solid baseline of information that will help in developing an appropriate graffiti management program. A summary of the graffiti audit follows:

 

-     Of the estimated 70% of graffiti in Randwick that was photographed for the audit, approximately 58% of the graffiti is on residential and commercial retail property, 22% of the graffiti is on public or council managed property, 8% is on industrial property (non-retail); 10% on property belonging to public utility companies; with the remaining 1% unknown.

-     The average duration of graffiti, from interviewing the property owners, ranged from 6 months to 2 years.

-     Graffiti offenders are typically young males ranging from 14 years to 25 years old and are motivated by a desire to be recognized by friends and other members of this subculture.

-     It would take approximately 2,100 hours to remove the total amount of graffiti in Randwick. At an estimated cost of $16.50/, the estimated total cost of the initial removal of all graffiti in Randwick is AUD$100,313.60.

-     The estimated cost of a removal maintenance programme (based on one patrol truck operating from Monday to Friday) is in the region of AUD$100,000 per annum.

 

MULTI-FACETED GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

 

The details of the Council funded multi-faceted programme which involves the outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services is attached as Appendix “A”.

 

As per the proposed programme, the overall responsibility for co-ordinating the programme within Council and managing the Contractor will rest with an officer from the Assets and Infrastructure Division (“the Graffiti Supervisor”).

 

The next stage is to develop a performance based contract tender document to invite tenders from interested parties who will be able to fulfill the contract requirements, which would include regular patrolling of the city, recording of graffiti incidents in a database, communicating with the Police, liaising with other stakeholders, rapid removal of graffiti and running education programmes for year 5 and year 8 schoolchildren in Randwick.

 

BUDGET ALLOCATION

 

The graffiti audit estimates an initial removal cost of $100,313.60, with an ongoing removal maintenance programme cost of approximately $100,000 (based on one patrol truck operating weekly from Monday to Friday). These costs do not include the costs of the proposed youth education programme, the printing information leaflets to be distributed to residents, and the maintenance of a graffiti tag register and hotline. A definite idea of the actual cost of the programme will only be available after the tender process is completed. Thus, an appropriate budget will be proposed in next year’s budget to carry out the programme next year.

 

However, to carry out the programme during this financial year, a budget of $150,000 has been re-allocated from the following budget areas:

 

1.   Existing graffiti removal budget - $25,000

2.   South Area Footpath Sweeping  - $20,000

3.   Coastal Litter Bin collection         - $10,000

4.   West Road Pavement Sweeping   - $20,000

5.   South Area Footpath Repairs        - $15,000

6.   Coastal Footpath Repairs              - $30,000

7.   West Footpath Repairs                    - $30,000

        Total = $150,000

 

The Estimated Cost for current financial year

 

1.   Initial removal cost                        -  $100,000

2.   Six month maintenance cost          - $  50,000

         Total $150,000

 

The above budget has been reallocated from asset maintenance to carry out this programme for the remainder of this financial year. This will cause some maintenance programme shifting.

 

PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH POLICE

 

At a meeting between Council officers and the Youth Liaison Officer (“the YLO”) of Maroubra Police Station, who is the police officer responsible for graffiti in Randwick, Council briefed the YLO on the Council’s proposed graffiti management programme.

 

Council and the YLO have agreed to co-operate along the following terms:

1. The YLO has been given a CD-Rom containing digital photographs and details of the location of 876 graffiti tags/blow-ups/pieces in Randwick;

2. Council will ensure that the graffiti register to be maintained by the Contractor under the proposed programme will be accessible by the YLO;

3. Council will ensure that a hardcopy of all fresh tags recorded by the Contractor are supplied to the YLO on a weekly basis;

4. The YLO will liase with the Council’s rangers to visit retailers of aerosol spray paints to educate them on the new laws restricting sale of spray paints to youths below 18 years of age and create awareness that the police and Council will crack down on offenders;

5. The YLO will liase with the Council’s rangers to take appropriate enforcement action on suspected flouters of the new law restricting the sale of spray cans.

 

The Department of Juvenile Justice has informed the Council’s Community Development Section that they will not support the proposal of the YLO to have young offenders clean up graffiti “due to the fact, that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Young Offenders Act 1997. The YLO has accordingly been informed by the Council’s Community Development Section that Council will be unable to support the YLOs said proposal.

 

INFORMATION SHEET FOR RESIDENTS ON DISCOURAGING GRAFFITI

 

A draft copy of the information sheet or brochure to be distributed to residents on discouraging graffiti is annexed as Appendix “A1”. As the brochure will include details of the graffiti hotline and other relevant features of the graffiti programme, it will be finalised and printed only after the tender process is complete and the contract awarded.

 

CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT

 

As the main features of the programme will be implemented and administered by an external contractor (“the Contractor”), pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is obliged to invite tenders before entering into a contract for the provision of the deliverables identified in the programme.

 

Thus, the next step is the preparation of a tender document specifying the various features of the proposed programme in the form of contract specifications and the invitation of tenders. The tenders that are received will then have to be evaluated according to pre-selected criteria, before a decision is made to award the contract to the successful tenderer.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed Council funded multi-faceted programme, including outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services, when implemented, should result in significant reduction in the incidence of graffiti in Randwick.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note the proposed Council funded multi-faceted program including outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Appendix A (Graffiti Programme)

 

Appendix A1 (Draft Agreement For Removal of Graffiti)

 

Appendix A2 (Draft Graffiti Prevention Information Sheet for residents)

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING WASTE MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council Graffiti Management Programme

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index

 

1.   Introduction

 

2.   Graffiti Programme

 

2.1       Administration

 

2.2       Removal

 

2.2.1    Initial Removal

 

2.2.2    Rapid Removal

 

2.2.3    Tags Register

 

2.2.4    Graffiti Hotline

 

2.3       Enforcement

 

2.3.1    Tags Register

 

2.3.2    Surveillance

 

2.3.3    Attacking the tools

 

2.4       Prevention

 

2.4.1    Education

 

2.4.1.1 Youth Education

 

2.4.1.2 General Community Education

 

2.4.1.2.1          Brochures

 

2.4.1.2.2          Promoting Community Responsibility

 

2.4.2    Design Features

 

2.4.3    Legal Murals

 

2.5       Stealth

 

3.   Conclusion

 

Randwick City Council Graffiti Management Programme

 

 

1. Introduction

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 September 2003, the Council resolved, among others, that “a report be submitted to Council in December, 2003 outlining the progress of developing and implementing a Council funded multi-faceted programme.”

 

The proposed graffiti management programme for Randwick is designed to be integrated and holistic in its approach and has been developed after consultation with various councils, graffiti management practitioners and the police. From comments based on their experience in tackling this issue and best-practice literature, one was able to distill successful and unsuccessful features of anti-graffiti strategies. Based on this, and taking into account the unique features of the graffiti problem in Randwick, the proposed programme will have the following four key components:

 

1.   Removal;

2.   Enforcement;

3.   Prevention;

4.   Stealth

 

2. Graffiti Programme

 

2.1 Administration

 

The overall responsibility for the management of graffiti within Council will rest with the Assets and Infrastructure Department.

 

However, the main features of the programme will be implemented and administered by an external contractor (“the Contractor”). Contracting out or outsourcing allows offers the following advantages:

 

2.1.1  Expertise

 

A specialist contractor will be able to satisfy the need for wide ranging expertise in the various aspects of graffiti control including graffiti removal; education and tag database development and maintenance

 

2.1.2   Flexibility

 

The initial removal of graffiti and the subsequent maintenance is likely to be labour intensive. If the programme is successful, it should see a definite and marked reduction in graffiti, which would mean a corresponding decrease in the manpower requirements to maintain the programme over time. Contracting out will offer the flexibility in adapting the strategy and tailoring manpower and equipment according to our needs. An in-house programme, staffed by permanent council employees, will not offer this benefit.

 

2.1.3    Cost

 

A specialist graffiti contractor is likely to be doing similar removal work for other Councils. As such, Council should derive the cost benefits of economies of scale. A competitive tender process should help to ensure that the cost for the programme is competitive. Further, as the contractor would already possess the infrastructure  and equipment to carry out the work, Council would save on start up costs associated with starting a new activity.

 

A tender document specifying the various features of the proposed programme outlined below will be prepared. The successful tenderer will then be contracted to provide the deliverables outlined in the contract specifications.

 

An officer from the Assets and Infrastructure Department would be formally assigned the role of coordinating the programme and managing the contractor (“the Graffiti Supervisor”). It is anticipated that the time that needs to be devoted by the Graffiti Supervisor to this task would be equivalent to half of a full-time Council staff

 

The Graffiti supervisor will, apart from supervising the contractor, also liase with:

 

(1)        the Council’s Community Development Section which oversees the development of mural projects in Randwick via secured funding under the Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Unit’s “Beat Graffiti Grants Scheme”, to develop a graffiti community education programme, and

(2)        the Council’s Planning and Community Development Department, when reviewing the planning/design controls in Development Control Plans (DCPs), will consider strengthening the existing requirements relating to graffiti and vandalism prevention.

 

2.2 Removal

 

2.2.1 Initial Removal

 

The first step would be an initial intensive ‘removal’ and ‘paint out’ of all graffiti within Randwick:

 

1.         from all Council owned or managed assets; or

2.         that can be viewed from and is within 50 metres of any Council or public authority road, street or highway, from:

(a)        Residential property assets, at Council cost, pursuant to Section 67B of the Local Government Act 1993;

(b)        Privately owned, commercial, retail, industrial property assets, at Council cost pursuant to Section 67B of the Local Government Act 1993;

(c)        Government authority and service/utility supply companies property assets at Council cost, subject to agreement with the owners.

 

This ‘cleaning of the slate’, so to speak, is important, as without it, it would be impossible to monitor new incidents and ‘tags’, and thereby identify active taggers in the area.

 

The graffiti audit consultant estimates the total cleaning area of graffiti in Randwick to be approximately 6000 m2. At a cleaning cost of approximately $16.50 per square metre, it is estimated that the initial graffiti removal would cost more than $100,000.00.

 

2.2.2 Rapid Removal

 

The initial removal is to be followed up with the rapid removal of all new graffiti appearing on the abovementioned assets.

 

All new graffiti that is reported to Council by the public will be removed within 24 hours.

 

Apart from removing graffiti that is reported to Council, the Contractor will operate a scheduled removal cycle. For the purposes of the scheduled removal cycle, the area in Randwick will be classified into high priority and medium priority areas. High priority areas will include major arterial roads, secondary roads, beach fronts, shopping and commercial areas, public parks, school areas, graffiti hotspots. Other areas, such as side streets and laneways will be designated as medium priority areas. The Contractor will survey and remove graffiti from high priority areas daily, while the medium priority areas will be surveyed and any graffiti spotted, removed, every 5 days.

 

To ensure that the above response time can be achieved in the case of government authority and service/utility supply companies property assets, their prior written consent to allow rapid removal by the Council as and when graffiti is found on their property or asset will be sought. A draft agreement is annexed as “A1”.

 

Thus, in summary, within 24 hours of the graffiti appearing in high priority areas or being reported, it will be painted out or removed, by chemicals or high pressure cleaning, whichever process is the most appropriate. Any graffiti appearing in medium priority areas however will be removed within 5 days.

 

The advantages of removing graffiti as soon as possible are:

-     Graffiti, especially spray paint, is much easier and less costly to remove if it is done within 72 hours or before it has had time to fully dry and harden.

-     The graffitist gets the least recognition from others the sooner the 'work' is removed.

-     The appearance of the property and the neighbourhood is improved.

-     Pride in the overall appearance of the properties in a neighbourhood can have a positive effect on everyone, including graffitists.

 

A key feature of the rapid removal strategy is that all property types are included. The most successful anti-graffiti strategies do not limit the graffiti removal to Council and public property but include private and commercial property. Leaving commercial, private and other property owners to fend for themselves has in the past created a patchwork effect of partially removed graffiti leaving the shopfront next door or the neighbours fences covered with graffiti. This situation commonly referred to as the ‘broken window scenario’ can result in the appearance of a derelict non-cared for street or suburb which not only does little to discourage graffiti but also attracts other sorts of anti social behaviour. Thus, a holistic approach is necessary.

 

Any graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with section 67B of the Local Government Act 1993 should be followed within 24 hours with a written notice informing the owner of the property that the work has occurred.

 

2.2.3 Tag Register

 

As part of the removal work, the Contractor will establish and maintain an electronic database of graffiti tags with the following details:

 

-     Electronic photographic image of tags

-     Brief decryption of tag

-     Date and time tag recorded

-     The estimated area and cost of removal

-     Date and time removed with a photo of the area after the graffiti has been removed

 

According to Section 67C of the Local Government Act 1993, a register of graffiti removal work carried out on residential property and/or privately owned, commercial, retail, industrial property assets, is to be kept.

 

The maintenance of an electronic tag register database would not only fulfill this statutory requirement, but also serves the following additional purposes:

 

-     it helps police enforcement by enabling the identification of tags and the eventual linking of incidents to apprehended offenders;

-     enables the mapping of incidents to identity patterns

 

2.2.4 Graffiti hotline

 

A coordinated, well-structured reporting process is necessary to ensure that graffiti incidents are responded to rapidly.

 

A ‘graffiti hotline’ for Randwick, would be highly successful, as has been the case in other councils, both as a reporting mechanism and a promotional tool. The hotline will be set up and managed by the contractor.

 

2.3 Enforcement

 

2.3.1 Tags Register

 

As mentioned earlier, the contractor will maintain on behalf of Council, a tag register or database, which will be accessible by the police. This will make it easier for police to gather evidence to apprehend and charge graffitists.

 

The Contractor will liase with the police and make available the contents of the Register. Specifically, at the end of every week, hardcopies of the major new tags observed in Randwick with details of the date, time and location at which the tag was recorded, will be sent by the Contractor to the Youth Liaison Officer of Maroubra Police Station, who is the officer in charge of graffiti.

 

2.3.2  Surveillance

 

Monitoring after the initial clean up of graffiti, is likely to reveal graffiti hotspots. Where the benefits outweigh the costs, increased surveillance in collaboration with the police, by Council rangers, professional security patrols or guards, or closed circuit television, will be undertaken.

 

2.3.3 Attacking the tools

 

As the graffiti audit reveals, 76% of the audited graffiti in Randwick is spray paint based.

 

The Summary Offences Amendment (Spray Pain Cans) Act 2002, which took effect on 1 September 2003, creates a new offence under section 10C of the Summary Offences Act 1998, which makes it an offence to sell spray paint cans to minors under certain circumstances, breach of which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 penalty points (currently $1100).

 

The Youth Liaison Officer of Maroubra Police Station has agreed, jointly with the Council Rangers, to distribute information about the above law and the penalties for non-compliance by personally approaching relevant retail outlets selling spray paint cans. The police have also agreed to undertake periodic surveillance together with council Rangers of suspected flouters of the above law.

 

2.4 Prevention

 

It is important for the graffiti programme to incorporate features that will discourage or prevent graffiti.

 

2.4.1 Education

 

The physical removal of graffiti should be augmented by a community education programme, which will help reduce the incidence of graffiti.

 

 

The community education programme will be directed to both young people in the community and to the general population.

 

2.4.1.1 Youth Education

 

The graffiti audit reveals that the majority of graffiti offenders in Randwick range between the ages of 14 to 25 and generally live in the areas that they attack.

The general consensus between the police, graffiti consultants as well as other councils, is that education at youth level that creates awareness of the consequences of graffiti and discourages them from this activity is a crucial component of a successful anti-graffiti strategy.

 

There are 49 primary and 16 high schools in Randwick. As such, an imaginative and innovative education programme will be delivered to ‘all’ Year 5 and Year 8 (the two key age groups, identified by the Youth Liaison Officer of Maroubra Police as well as Casey City Council, where schoolchildren were picking up graffiti interests) schoolchildren in Randwick, as part of Council’s graffiti abatement strategy.

 

This aspect of the programme will form part of the deliverables of the contractor under the tender. The education programme will be developed by the contractor with input from the Council’s Community Development Section.

 

The above graffiti education programme will be complemented by the graffiti module of the Department of Education and Training and the NSW Police Service, Crime Prevention Workshops Program, which is, we understand, due to a lack of resources, run on an ad hoc basis.

 

2.4.1.2 General Community Education

 

It is important to educate the general public on graffiti prevention, reporting and removal mechanisms.

 

2.4.1.2.1 Brochures

 

The above can be achieved by printing and distributing brochures or information leaflets that highlight graffiti prevention, reporting and removal mechanisms to all households and businesses within Randwick City. A draft brochure is annexed as Appendix “A2”.

 

The brochure will include details of:

 

-           emphasise the cost to the community of graffiti;

-           emphasise the benefits of removing graffiti;

-           general information on the removal and deterrence of graffiti;

-           contact details for reporting the presence of graffiti

 

2.4.1.2.2 Promoting Community Responsibility

 

It has been found that promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership in the whole community for those services and facilities which belong to everyone ‑through programmes such as Neighbourhood Watch, School Watch etc. ‑ can help reduce intentional damage.

 

The Graffiti Supervisor will lease with the Community Development Section to develop appropriate programmes that will promote community responsibility and help deter graffiti.

 

2.4.2 Design Features

 

Planners, builders and architects can play a vital role in reducing graffiti and vandalism in public housing and public places by designing spaces which are attractive, which foster a sense of ownership in users and which are defensible ‑ that is, which incorporate design factors which minimise the opportunities for graffiti and vandalism. Examples of the latter would include:

 

1. Providing less attractive 'canvases', by breaking up large flat wall surfaces with, fast growing screen plantings, doors, windows, ornamentation and texture.

 

2. Making observation easier and more likely by improved lighting, having some land uses with a 24 hour presence e.g. residences, windows and doors providing a direct visual access to the space for people in abutting premises;

 

3. Reducing access to vulnerable aspects, such as walls through site/building design.

 

4. Encouraging the use of graffiti resistant surfaces and materials e.g. polished granite, tiles, anti-graffiti coatings and paint.

 

Also, faulty design and inappropriate material selection and specification result in building defects, which are widely regarded as one of the major triggers of vandalism. Architects and builders need to be aware of the, use to which buildings will be put and ensure materials and fixtures will be strong enough to withstand everyday wear and tear, careless use and even misuse.

 

Council's relevant Development Control Plans (DCPs) already contain provisions for 'safety and security', such as requirements in the design of new developments to avoid large, blank walls/fences and other inappropriate design elements that may attract graffiti. There will, however, be opportunities to strengthen these provisions when DCPs are being reviewed, such as the current project to review Matraville town centre.

 

With a view to further discouraging graffiti as part of its development approval process, Council's Planning and Community Development team will review the current Development Approval (DA) Guide and standard conditions of consent, to better guide applicants and specify conditions that will further discourage graffiti from new developments.

 

2.4.3 Legal Murals

 

There are currently three legal murals in Randwick. One in South Ward (Coral Sea Park), the second, a collaboration with Department of Housing at South Coogee, and the third, an Indigenous mural at La Perouse. The three murals, developed by the Community Development Section, were funded by the Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Unit’s “Beat Graffiti Grants Scheme”.

 

Monitoring of graffiti activity near the existing murals will be undertaken, after the initial clean up of graffiti. This will help ascertain whether areas with murals have any effect on the incidence of graffiti.

 

2.5 Stealth in approach - Media and Publicity

The graffiti audit report says that the motivations of the taggers in Randwick are ‘simply to be recognized, not necessarily by the general public but by friends and definitely other taggers’. It goes on to add that ‘there appears to be a competitive nature among taggers with an ongoing challenge to find more challenging techniques’.

 

Graffiti is about visibility.

 

Graffiti and vandalism are often responded to in inappropriate ways. The fact that these behaviours are usually illegal and publicly condemned in the popular press sometimes serves not to deter, but to strengthen its appeal and, even reinforces its group identification.

 

In a study of widespread graffiti and vandalism in the train system in Sydney, New South Wales, it was found the media often played a critical role in reinforcing behaviour such as ‘New York’ style graffiti by rewarding its perpetrators with publicity and a level of social recognition otherwise unattainable. Such publicity, including dire warnings by railway officials and the police that graffitists would be dealt with severely, contributed to the transformation of relatively minor incidents into what became to be perceived as major and organised social protest on the part of young offenders (Wilson and Healy, 1986).

 

Publicity and threats of official sanctions undoubtedly lends the activities of many graffitists and vandals additional value and meaning, as well as increased recognition (Wilson, 2001).

 

Thus, as per the approach in Bankstown council, a key feature of the Randwick Council graffiti abatement strategy is to get on with the job of tackling graffiti with minimal or little publicity. Media publicity of a nature that will provide graffitists with unintended positive rewards will be strictly curtailed by ensuring that any media release on graffiti is to occur only with the consent of the Council’s Communication Section in consultation with the Graffiti Supervisor.

 

3. Conclusion

 

The proposed programme is designed to be holistic and multi-faceted in its approach by others in the past has proved to be unsuccessful. The key components of the proposed programme, namely, removal, prevention, enforcement and stealth are therefore designed to complement each other.

 

While the programme has been designed by Council, the implementation of the programme on the ground will be left to the Contractor who will have to report to the Council’s Graffiti Supervisor. By contracting out the main features of the programme to an experienced contractor, the Council will be able to satisfy the need for flexibility in adapting the strategy over time; the need for wide ranging expertise in the various aspects of graffiti control, and receive the benefits of competitive pricing and economies of scale.

 

The successful implementation of the programme should see a substantial reduction in both the incidence of graffiti in Randwick and on-going removal costs.


                                                                                                            APPENDIX A1

 

 

 

 

AGREEMENT FOR REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY BY RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL.

 

 

PARTIES TO AGREEMENT:

                                                                                    

Randwick City Council                                                  **************************

30 Frances St                                                                **************************

Randwick                                                                     **************************

NSW  2031                                                                   **************************

 

 

DESCRIPTION:                    

 

Randwick City Council has identified ********* (the Property) as a target for illegal graffiti. The Property is in a commercial area which is subject to concentrated and constant pedestrian traffic and is therefore highly visible to members of the public. Council believes that the presence of graffiti on the property, in an area of high visibility, significantly detracts from the amenity of the area.

 

As part of Council’s multi-faceted graffiti management programme, Council will seek to remove all graffiti that appears within Randwick including that appearing on private property. Under 67B of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, a council may, “without the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land, carry out graffiti removal work to property on that land if the graffiti concerned is visible from a public place”.

 

Notwithstanding, Council prefers to carry out graffiti removal work to the Property with the owner’s express agreement. Under this agreement, Randwick City Council will address the problem of recurring graffiti on the Property by undertaking regular inspections of the Property and removing any graffiti as soon as possible following its appearance.

 

Removal of any graffiti from surfaces on the Property, as agreed by Randwick City Council and the property owner, will be undertaken by Council at no cost to the property owner.

 

CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT

 

1          Under this agreement the property owner gives Randwick City Council authority to remove any graffiti from surfaces on the Property at the sole discretion of Council and without prior consent from the property owner on each occasion.

 

2          All works carried out by Randwick City Council to remove graffiti will be undertaken at no cost to the property owner.

 

3          Upon signing this agreement the property owner will provide Council with any relevant information which may affect Council or the property owner in regard to removal of graffiti from the Property. Such information may include paint codes for colour matching purposes or details of any protective coatings previously applied to the agreed surfaces.

 

4          On each occasion, Council will make reasonable attempts to inform the property owner of its intention to remove graffiti from the Property prior to commencing any graffiti removal works.

 

5          Randwick City Council will use “best practice” to remove any graffiti from the Property. However Council will not be held liable for any damage caused by these practices in the graffiti removal process.

 

6          Either party may terminate this agreement upon providing to the other party 14 days written notice, in which case the parties are released from all obligations under this agreement.

 

7          Should the property owner sell the property the subject of this agreement, the owner will forward to Council, details of the purchaser of the property within five business days following the sale.

 

8          Randwick City Council will provide public liability insurance cover for all graffiti removal activities occurring under this agreement.

 

Signed for and on behalf of Randwick City Council:                              

 

                                               

………………………………………                                    Date: ……………………………

Signature

………………………………………

Name (Print)

 

………………………………………                                    Date: ……………………………         

Witness

 

 

Signed by or for and on behalf of the owner of the property known as:

 

 

………………………………………                        Date ……………………………

Signature

 

………………………………………                                    ADDRESS:

Name (Print)                                                   

                                                                        ………………………………….

                                                                        ………………………………….

 

………………………………………                        Date ……………………………

Witness                                                           

 

………………………………………                                    ADDRESS:

Name (Print)                                                   

                                                                        …………………………………

                                                                        …………………………………

                                                           


                                                                                                            APPENDIX A2

[Draft of graffiti brochure to be distributed to Randwick Residents]

 

Managing Graffiti

 

1. Introduction

 

Graffiti vandalism is any intentional mark on an unauthorized location. It takes on many forms such as spray paint, felt tip pen, glass etching, crayon etc and occurs on a daily basis within local government areas.

 

Graffiti is not only unsightly and costs the community millions of dollars, if not removed quickly, it attracts more graffiti and promotes other form of vandalism and crime.

 

The best way to manage graffiti vandalism in our community is for every resident and business owner to remove graffiti immediately after it appears on the property.

 

The recommendations outlined in this brochure are effective in preventing and removing graffiti. They are most effective when used in combination.

 

2. Preventing Graffiti

 

2.1 Restrict Access

 

2.1.1 Vegetation

 

Planting vegetation in front of a surface is an effective prevention tool. It can be built out, up and along depending on the property. The choice of vegetation, eventual height, width and access requirements is important when considering vegetation as an access control measure. Your local garden center should be able to offer further advice.

 

2.1.2 Fencing

 

Fencing is an effective way to reduce access and set rules for use of a space. Dark coloured, non-continuous materials are preferred over light colours and continuous surfaces as they are less likely to be used by graffitists.

 

2.1.3 Natural ladders

 

Graffitists prefer to vandalise higher levels on properties so that more people can see it. Therefore, unintended ‘natural ladders’ should be avoided. Keeping items that can be climbed on, such as wheelie bins, away from potential canvasses, reduces the opportunity to get to higher levels of a building.

 

2.1.4 Lighting

 

Lighting can increase the perception of safety and deter criminal activity. However, if a building or surface has little natural surveillance, lighting can illuminate surfaces for vandals to work by. Sensor lighting can be very effective.

2.1.5 Strong security presence

 

Increased security measures such as the use of security guards, patrols, flash cams and video units are identified by graffitists as a big deterrent.

 

2.2 Canvas reduction measures

 

Canvas reduction measures seek to reduce the quantity and quality of the surface. This can be achieved by using meshes, grilles, lattice and rough and highly textured materials.

 

2.3 Easy maintenance measures

 

Easy and quick graffiti removal can be ensured by easy maintenance selections.

 

2.3.1    Dark colours

 

The selection of a dark base colour is a good graffiti management strategy. Masking graffiti is easier when the base paint is a darker colour. It is straightforward to paint over a light tag with dark paint. It is less effective to paint over a dark tag with light paint.

 

2.3.2    Easy to clean materials

 

Materials and finishes that allow for straightforward and quick graffiti removal, such as, ceramic tiles, metal such as stainless steel, glass and some stone (e.g. granite) are easily maintained and are not popular with graffitists. Porous materials such as plain brick or unpainted timber as graffiti can soak into them and make removal difficult.

 

2.3.3    Protective coating

 

Protective and ‘sacrificial coatings are designed to provide a barrier between the base coat or material and any graffiti that may be applied. They have a specific role in protecting unpainted brick and masonry surfaces, and surfaces painted unusual colours that are difficult to match. Consult with a hardware store or a graffiti removal consultant to determine the most effective coating for you.

 

3. Removal

 

Rapid removal is the most effective method of deterring future graffiti as it denies the graffitist the recognition they want. If graffiti remains, it can act as a ‘lure’ for further vandalism.

 

Further, graffiti is always more easily removed if done as soon as possible after occurrence and before the paint has fully dried.

 

The most appropriate method for your property depends on the surface type, graffiti medium (e.g. paint or marker pen) and the age of vandalism. Some methods can be undertaken quickly and simply. Other methods require professional assistance or special chemicals.

 

Graffiti Removal Tips:

 

3.1 Remove graffiti with a brush or scourer and soapy water. This can work on newer graffiti or smoother surfaces.

 

3.2 Painting Over Graffiti.

 

Painted surfaces can be painted again. Keep a supply of the same coloured paint as your surface, so you can paint over any graffiti immediately after it appears. However, it is helpful to remember some basic points when painting over graffiti:

 

3.2.1    Clean the surface well, try to remove the graffiti as much as possible first.

3.2.2    Try to get the closest match possible to the original paint or surface finish or if the original surface is not a colour, choose colours that match the surroundings, are neutral or don't draw attention.

3.2.3    Paint over in clean square shapes. Try to blend it in to surrounding areas by overlapping or covering nearby areas.

3.2.4    Cover the graffiti completely, 'bleed through' will only encourage 'having another go'.

3.3 Chemical or pressure blasting

 

Where the other measures do not work, consider chemical or pressure blasting techniques. These measures are effective on the majority of graffiti vandalism, but can be hazardous without specialist training. Contact your local hardware or paint store or graffiti removal consultants in the Yellow Pages for advice or call the Council Graffiti Hotline NO on ______________________and we will arrange to have it removed.

 

 

 

TELEPHONE THE COUNCIL HOTLINE ON

[INSERT NUMBER]

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON GRAFFITI OR TO ARRANGE TO HAVE IT REMOVED

 

END

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 32/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

ARRANGEMENTS DURING CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2004.

 

 

DATE:

4 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/1738 xr 98/S/1078

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report outlines a method for matters to continue to be processed during the Christmas/New Year period and to advise Councillors of the proposed meeting schedule for the forthcoming calendar year.

 

ISSUES:

 

As has been customary for several years, a list, detailing the meeting schedule for the forthcoming year, has been prepared and is attached for information purposes.

 

Should a necessity arise for any meeting dates to be altered, the provisions of the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.06 will prevail.

 

It has been the practice for many years for the Council to take a recess following the last Ordinary Meeting in December, to give Councillors and Officers the opportunity to either take holidays or to finalise the year’s activities and plan for the following twelve months.  During the previous recess periods, the Council’s Policy No. 1.01.11, which provided a means of obtaining decisions on urgent or important matters, prevailed. Over the past Christmas/New Year period (2002/03), no items of business were dealt with under this Policy.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council may proceed during the Christmas/New Year period, without the requirement for formal Committee and Council Meetings to be conducted, with the utilisation of Policy No. 1.01.11 during that time.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That the Council recess following its Ordinary Meeting on Tuesday, 9th  December, 2003 and thence resume meetings in the new year commencing with Committee Meetings on Tuesday, 10th February, 2004, and during this period the provisions of Policy No. 1.01.11 prevail, subject to the need for any Extraordinary Meetings to be held in the intervening period to consider pressing matters; and

 

(b)        That the Meeting Schedule for the Year 2004 be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Policy No. 1.01.11

2. Policy No. 2.01.06

3. Council and Committee dates for Year 2004.  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 1 -  COUNCIL MATTERS, MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

 

Review Date:         /        /20                                                                 Policy No: 1.01.11

 

 

POLICY TITLE: COUNCIL IN RECESS – PROCEDURE.

 

File No.                        C-16-7

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To provide a means of obtaining decisions on important or urgent Council matters at times of Council recess.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That subject to other policies of the Council and to Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993:-

 

The Mayor, the Chairpersons of the Health Building and Planning Committee, the Administration & Finance Committee, the Community Services Committee and the Works Committee or in his or her absence, (or if the Mayor is the Chairperson of the Committee) the Deputy Chairpersons and the General Manager jointly be authorised to make decisions which would otherwise be made by the Council and any such decisions are to be unanimous and circulated to Councillors for their information.

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:       386/1986                                 Meeting Date: 12 August, 1986.

Amended:         386/1993                                                         12 September, 1993.   

                        582/1993                                                         14 December, 1993.

                        566/1994                                                         18 October, 1994.

                        577/1994                                                         22 November, 1994.

                        381/1996                                                         10 December, 1996.

                        264/1998                                                         24 November, 1998.

                        163/2000                                                         5 September, 2000.


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 2 – GENERAL MANAGER’S OFFICE

 

 

Review Date:          /      /20                                                                  Policy No: 2.01.06

 

 

 

POLICY TITLE: COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS – AUTHORITY TO VARY DATES AND TIMES.

 

 

File No:                        C-16-7

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To allow flexibility in complying with the schedule of meeting dates and times for Council and Committee Meetings.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That the General Manager is authorised to vary the schedule of meeting dates and times for meetings of Committees and the Council, when it is not practicable or desirable to hold meetings on a particular designated night to ensure that one meeting of each general committee and an Ordinary meeting of the Council is held each month, except for the month of January (289/1989 – 19/9).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:       427/1987                                 Meeting Date:   27 October, 1987.

Amended:         289/1989                                                         19 September, 1989.

General Manager’s Del. Auth.               Revised legislation-

Policy No. 2.01.04 [No. 14 (ii) ]                      Local Government Act, 1993.

 


COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2004

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

 

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

 

MON

 

 

1

 

 

 

MON

TUE

 

 

2

 

 

1

TUE

WED

 

 

3

 

 

2

WED

THU

1 New Year’s Day

 

4

1

 

3

THU

FRI

2

 

5

2

 

4

FRI

SAT

3

 

6

3

1

5

SAT

SUN

4

1

7

4

2

6

SUN

MON

5

2

8

5

3

7

MON

TUE

6

3

9

6

4

Committees

TUE

WED

7

4

10

7

5

9

WED

THU

8

5

11

8

6

10

THU

FRI

9

6

12

Good Friday

7

11

FRI

SAT

10

7

13

10  Easter Saturday

8

12

SAT

SUN

11

8

14

11  Easter Sunday

9

13

SUN

MON

12

9

15

12  Easter Monday

10

14  Queen’s Birthday

MON

TUE

13

10 Committees

16 

13 

11 Committees

15

TUE

WED

14

11

17 

14

12

16 

WED

THU

15 

12

18

15  Deadline: Extraordinary Council 20/4

13

17  Deadline: Council 22/6

THU

FRI

16

13

19

16

14 

18 

FRI

SAT

17

14

20

17

15 

19

SAT

SUN

18

15 

21

18

16

20

SUN

MON

19

16 

22

19

17

21

MON

TUE

20

17

23

20  Extraord. Council (Elect Mayor & Committees)

18

22  Council (Incl. Man Plan)

TUE

WED

21

18

24

21

19

23

WED

THU

22

19  Deadline: Council 24/2

25

22  Deadline: Council 27/4

20 Deadline: Council 25/5

24

THU

FRI

23

20

26

23

21

25

FRI

SAT

24

21

27   Local Govt. Election

24

22

26

SAT

SUN

25 

22

28

25  Anzac Day

23

27

SUN

MON

26 Australia Day

23

29

26  Anzac Day (Holiday)

24

28

MON

TUE

27

24 Council

30

27 Council (Incl. Man. Plan)

25 Council

29

TUE

WED

28

25

31

28

26

30

WED

 

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

 

THU

29  Deadline: Committees 10/2

26

 

29  Deadline:  Committees 11/5

27 Deadline: Committees 8/6

 

THU

FRI

30

27

 

30

28

 

FRI

SAT

31

28

 

 

29

 

SAT

SUN

 

29

 

 

30

 

SUN

MON

 

 

 

 

31

 

MON

 

COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2004

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

 

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

 

MON

 

 

 

 

1

 

MON

TUE

 

 

 

 

Melbourne Cup Day

 

TUE

WED

 

 

1

 

3

1

WED

THU

Deadline:  Committees 13/7

 

 

4

2

THU

FRI

2

 

3

1

5

3

FRI

SAT

3

 

4

2

6

4

SAT

SUN

4

1

5

3

7

5

SUN

MON

5

2

6

4 Labour Day

8

6

MON

TUE

6

3

Committees

5

Committees

Committees

TUE

WED

7

4

8

6

10

8

WED

THU

8

5

9

7

11

9  Deadline: Council 14/12

THU

FRI

9

6

10

8

12

10 

FRI

SAT

10

7

11

9

13

11

SAT

SUN

11

8

12

10

14

12

SUN

MON

12

9

13

11

15 

13

MON

TUE

13  Committees

10 Committees

14 

12  Committees

16 

14 Council

TUE

WED

14

11

15 

13

17

15 

WED

THU

15 

12

16   Deadline: Council 21/9

14 Deadline:  Council 19/10

18 Deadline: Council 23/11

16

THU

FRI

16

13

17

15 

19 

17

FRI

SAT

17

14 

18

16

20

18

SAT

SUN

18

15 

19

17

21

19

SUN

MON

19

16

20

18

22

20

MON

TUE

20

17

21  Council

19  Council

23  Council

21

TUE

WED

21

18

22

20

24

22

WED

THU

22 Deadline: Council 27/7

19 Deadline: Council  24/8

23 Deadline: Extraord. Council 28/9

21

25 Deadline: Committees 7/12

23

THU

 

JULY
AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

 

FRI

23 

20

24  

22

26

24

FRI

SAT

24

21

25

23  LGAC

27

25  Christmas Day

SAT

SUN

25

22

26

24  LGAC

28

26  Boxing Day

SUN

MON

26

23

27

25  LGAC

29

27  Boxing Day (Holiday)

MON

TUE

27  Council

24 Council

28  Extraordinary Council Meeting (Elect Mayor)

26  LGAC

30

28

TUE

WED

28

25

29 

27

 

29

WED

THU

29 Deadline: Committees 10/8

26  Deadline: Committees 7/9

30  Deadline:  Committees 12/10

28  Deadline: Committees 9/11

 

30

THU

FRI

30

27

 

29

 

31 New Year’s Eve

FRI

SAT

31

28

 

30

 

 

SAT

SUN

 

29

 

31

 

 

SUN

MON

 

30

 

 

 

 

 

TUE

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting Times:

Community Services Committee

Works Committee

Administration & Finance Committee

5.30 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

Council Meetings:

6.00 p.m.

 

Health, Building and Planning Committee

6.30 p.m.

Deadlines Close:

12.00 noon

 

G:\BusinessPaper\Dgmis\O030923-DGMIS-164.doc                                                                                                                                                                                                           19 November 2003


 

Director Planning & Community Development's

Report 94/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

Party Safe Program

 

 

DATE:

18 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/5303

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its 26 August 2003 Meeting resolved that:

 

“Council investigate implementing its own Party Hard Party Safe Program that is operating in other Councils, and refer it to the Youth Advisory Committee and Police Accountability Committee”.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The issue of unsupervised parties is an ongoing concern to both the general community and Council, for its adverse impact on community safety.  House parties are often unsupervised and as such alcohol, drug consumption, gatecrashing, petty theft and assaults occur prompting police intervention.

 

The NSW Police have designed a “Safe Party Pack” to assist party hosts hold safer and more organised parties.   The pack contains a Safe Party Tips Checklist and a Safe Party Notification Form.

 

Primarily, the Safe Party Pack is a public information, education and crime prevention strategy.  Secondly, the Notification Form is an information gathering strategy, whereby party hosts can inform police in advance of the details of their party. 

 

The Party Notification Form is lodged with the Police at least seven days prior to the party being held.  The Station Supervisor has responsibility for tasking the operational police and will use the existing Local Area Command (LAC) tasking system to ensure that operational crews on the date of the party are aware of its existence and can provide assistance and support if needed.

 

The Safe Party Tips Checklist will assist party holders to prepare a safer venue for their guests and discourages behaviour that threatens safety.    The pack encourages parents and young people to hold appropriate and safe parties in their own home and potentially minimise the risk of requiring Police intervention.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The distribution of the Safe Party Pack program throughout the Randwick Local Government Area would potentially minimise the risks associated with parties and help make parties enjoyable and therefore safer for the whole community. 

 

It is recommended that Council in collaboration with the Youth Advisory Committee and the Maroubra Police Youth Liaison Officer would distribute the Safe Party Packs throughout the community, including high schools and local youth service providers.  Council’s Communication Unit would assist to publicise the initiative.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That Council in collaboration with the Youth Advisory Committee and the Maroubra Police Youth Liaison Officer facilitate the implementation of the NSW Police Party Policy throughout the Randwick Local Government Area. 

2.         That Council publicise the Safe Party Packs.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  NSW Police Safe Party Pack - UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHELLE LEWENKOPF

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

COORDINATOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community

Development's Report 95/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2003

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4989

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Local Government Act (1993) was amended in 1997 to encompass Ecologically Sustainable Development provisions, including the requirement of Councils to annually prepare a State of the Environment Report (SoER).

 

SoER documents must report on eight specific environmental sectors, including: air, water, land, biodiversity, waste, noise, aboriginal heritage and non-aboriginal heritage. In addition the Randwick City SoER also contains a social health chapter and a community liaison chapter highlighting the social and environmental achievements of community groups.

 

This SoER is a supplementary report and covers the reporting period from the 1st July 2002 to the 30th June 2003 (i.e. the last financial year). Council will produce the next comprehensive SoER in 2004 and the consultative process with Councillors, staff and the community will commence early in the new year, with a strong focus on future directions linking with the Management Plan and budgetary processes.

 

As with previous reports this document applies the state-pressure-response model to State of the Environment Reporting. Under this model the ‘state’ section identifies and describes the current state of the environment. The ‘pressure’ component identifies and describes the pressure that activities in Randwick have put on the immediate environment. Finally the ‘response’ component identifies and describes the response of Council, government, industry and the community to the pressures that the environment is facing.

 

ISSUES

 

Information for the 2003 SoER was sourced internally from multi-disciplinary working groups within Council, via State Agencies such as the Environment Protection Authority, and the community. Council corresponded with around 150 community groups and individuals, inviting them to tell us about a specific community environmental achievement or project that they undertook, or to raise matters about the environment in general. Community groups including the Tramway Community Gardening Group and the Rainbow Street Public School responded. Details of their environmental achievements as well as general feedback about environmental issues received from the community are outlined in the Community Liaison Chapter of the SoER.

 

In response to environmental pressures Council continued to deliver innovative environmental initiatives, such as: supporting a campaign to eliminate plastic shopping bags in our City, the introduction of a fortnightly green waste collection service, an on-going bush regeneration program, the creation of a new planning zone – Environmental Protection, a new education program addressing emissions from solid fuel heaters, and requiring innovative sustainability measures (such as rainwater tanks) for the Defence site at Bundock Street, and the Prince Henry site. A Plan of Management for the Randwick Environmental Park was also produced and endorsed by Council. Randwick Council received a Sydney-wide Sustainable Water Challenge Award for design elements relating to the Prince Henry site, and also initiated research towards the development of a Rainwater Tank Policy.

 

Two new ‘threatened’ species were also recorded in Randwick including Loggerhead Turtles sighted off the coast, and the Osprey (a large bird commonly called the fish-hawk). Loggerhead Turtles are listed as "endangered" under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995  [NSW], and the Osprey is listed as “vulnerable”.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The 2003 SoER (and Appendices – 13 parts) provides useful information reflecting the state and pressures of the environment in the Randwick Local Area and the associated Council responses. It also looks at future directions and suggestions for community members about how they can get involved in caring for the environment.

 

During December a review process will commence to evaluate Randwick’s State of the Environment reporting methods as part of a ‘continual improvement process’ and in preparation for the 2004 comprehensive report. It is envisaged that the comprehensive SoER, particularly the future directions section, will provide greater focus as a sustainability tool for Council and be closely aligned with Council’s Management Planning, budgetary processes and also the 20 year Strategic Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1)         That Council endorse the attached State of the Environment Report 2003.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1)   State of the Environment Report 2003. under separate cover

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ANNE WARNER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 96/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

DRAFT FOOTPATH DINING AND TRADING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2003

FILE NO:

98/S/4356

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Footpath trading involves the use of Council-owned footpaths for outdoor dining associated with approved indoor dining premises and, for the placement of A-frame advertising structures and goods display stands, also in association with approved indoor premises.

 

A number of Council resolutions have required a review of these activities. It is appropriate to consider all uses on public footpaths in a comprehensive manner and to give better direction for applicants hence, the current draft Footpath Dining and Trading DCP. 

 

The draft DCP aims to provide detailed planning, design and implementation objectives and criteria to control footpath trading activities on Council-owned footpaths. The emphasis is on good design and appropriate use of footpaths for all sections of the public, particularly with respect to maintaining pedestrian convenience and accessibility for disabled persons. 

 

Notwithstanding the restrictive provisions for A-Frame signs contained in the draft DCP, this report identifies a number of disadvantages in permitting their uses, particularly for ease of access by disabled persons.  It is recommended that Council endorse the draft plan for public exhibition subject to consideration of two options for A-Frame signs.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

On the 25th June 2002, Council endorsed updated hours of operation for outdoor dining. The hours were developed as the basis for Council's standard conditions of consent in relation to outdoor dining development applications.

 

Council also resolved under Section 72 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to,

 

'prepare a new Outdoor Dining Development Control Plan (DCP ), in accordance with Planning NSW Guidelines, including (the endorsed) outdoor dining hours'.

 

On 24th July, 2001, Council resolved to develop a "Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signs" Policy.

 

On 27th August, 2002, Council resolved that,

 

'a report be prepared in accordance with the Council's original resolution of 24th July, 2001.'

 

On 10th December, 2002, Council resolved to,

 

'adopt in principle the Draft Policy on Moveable Footway (A-Frame) Signs subject to …an amendment to the "Outdoor Advertising" DCP that would permit the erection of A-Framed signage …'

 

That draft policy is formally titled, 'A-Framed signs and other forms of relocatable advertising signs on public land under Council's control.' It allows the use of moveable footway signs for a maximum of one year subject to adequate pedestrian access, a maximum of one sign per premises, maximum size specification and adequate structural design. It also contains guidelines for location, fixture methods, sign content, hours of operation and public liability.

 

Council's current DCP No. 20 "Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace above Roads and Public Land" is a brief document and primarily addresess procedural matters and information which should be submitted with Development Applications (DA) for outdoor dining. It has limited controls and guidelines on location, customer amenities, design of furniture and fittings and, other health safety and amenity issues. It distinguishes the use of airspace above public roads for outdoor dining in terms of the life of the consent and car parking requirements.

 

Outdoor dining areas (restaurants) are generally permitted with development consent within the Residential 2D, General Business 3A, Local Business 3B, Industrial 4A and  Open Space 6A zones.  Premises which benefit from existing use rights also exist in other zones within Randwick City. Outdoor advertising is generally permitted in most zones.

 

The draft Footpath Trading DCP addresses a range of issues, ensuring that new footpath trading activities will be appropriately located with consideration given to site suitability, access, safety, amenity and aesthetic issues.  

 

The draft DCP has been prepared to be consistent with the style and format of Council's existing DCPs. The NSW Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources'   'Encouraging Outdoor Eating Guideline', where relevant, has been incorporated into the draft DCP, particularly with respect to the approval requirements of the Roads Act, 1993.

 

KEY ISSUES:

 

The Key issues addressed by the draft DCP, are as follows:

 

Location

 

The draft DCP provides objectives and performance criteria to ensure that footpath trading activities are located to maintain the core function of pedestrian access while providing sufficient space for outdoor dining. It contains provisions for unobstructed footpath widths (clear zones), setbacks from public utilities and gradients.

 

For new outdoor dining areas, the draft DCP recommends a minimum 2 metre clear zone. In locations where there is no footpath trading, new uses are required to locate adjacent to the kerb. This is important for people with a disability, particularly those with mobility problems and the visually impaired who need a building line free of obstructions to orient themselves.

 

In locations where footpath trading exists, location of activities adjacent to the building line is subject to justification of consistency with existing premises, exceptional circumstances and/or public benefit. For example, activities on the footpath should be easy to sight, easy to orient around and  not create a pedestrian hazard.

 

The 2 metre clear zone requirement increases to 2.5 metres for uses on classified roads, busy footpaths and footpaths greater than 4 metres width. Justification is required in instances where these clear zones cannot be achieved.    

 

The draft DCP requires a 2 metre clear zone for A-frame signs and goods display stands and minimum footpath widths of 3 metres to ensure public access and safety is not impeded.

 

Hours of Operation & Amenity

 

Hours of operation for outdoor dining, as endorsed by Council on 25th June 2002, provide a standard which has been used in the draft DCP provisions.  Hours of operation are dependent upon both the land use zone and proximity to adjacent residences. 

 

Criteria relating to the behaviour of patrons, amplified music, general noise generation, safety and storage of furniture and fittings, customer amenities, cleaning and maintenance are recommended to ensure reasonable noise and amenity levels, particularly for premises close to residences. Applicants are required to submit details of measures to minimise potential nuisance or harm associated with noise, alcohol consumption, waste, patrons' behaviour and any other likely amenity impacts.

 

Accessibility

 

The draft DCP contains criteria for access for disabled persons to ensure equity and safety in all new footpath trading areas, as well as access to facilities within associated indoor premises.  Access and facilities are required to be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Furniture and Fittings

 

The draft DCP contains performance criteria for outdoor dining fittings including umbrellas, planter boxes, and lighting and heating devices. It has guidelines for  placement, construction, aesthetics and design and these are incorporated in appendices to the draft DCP.

 

Advertising, Signage & A-Frame signs

 

A-Frame signs and goods display stands on footpaths have, at times, become problematic in Randwick City as businesses seek to maximise advertising opportunities. These structures increase visual clutter and pose not only an inconvenience to unobstructed pedestrian traffic, but may also pose a danger to the public as trip hazards and projectiles in high winds. It is considered appropriate to incorporate them into this Council DCP which addresses footpath activities generally hence, the title Footpath Dining and Trading DCP. For the above reasons, it is considered appropriate that they require development consent rather than be classified as Exempt or Complying Development. 

 

Generally, advertising should be an incidental part of a footpath trading activity and comprise only directly related product or business identification signage. The draft DCP contains performance criteria for advertising generally and, for A-frames and goods display stands specifically. Guidelines for A-frames and goods display stands relate to size, safety, access, construction and aesthetic considerations.

 

The draft DCP contains provisions noting that advertising in the form of bill posters is not acceptable. Provisions to control bill posters will also be contained in the current review of Council's Outdoor Advertising DCP. Section 11 of the Roads (General) Regulation, 2000, also relates to prohibitions on things placed on, and the use of roads, and this may include bill posters where issues of traffic safety arise.

 

Council officers sought legal advice from Council's solicitors in the drafting of the DCP. Council has been advised to consult its public liability insurer about possible liability for injury from future approved A-frames. Council's insurer advised that it is not aware of legal cases involving injury from A-frame signs and that there are no changes required for Council's insurance policy in this respect. Council's solicitors further advised that applicants should indemnify Council with respect to any grant of an A-Frame licence. This advice is incorporated into the standard conditions of consent at Appendix 5 of the draft DCP. It is standard practice for Council to incorporate the conditions of development consent into the terms of license agreements for the use of Council footpaths.

 

On 18th July, 2003, Council's Access Committee considered the impact of A-Frame signs on footpaths. Councillor Procopiadis (on behalf of the committee) presented four recommendations to the Strategic Planning team. The Committee identified 17 important issues for Council's consideration and concluded that it did not support A-Frame signs on footpaths because of the dangers and difficulties posed to people with a disability.

 

In summary, the Committee raised issues including the high proportion of elderly disabled people in Randwick City, danger and inconvenience, visual clutter, possible proliferation, undesirable spread of commerce onto footpaths, litigation following accidents, administration and enforcement costs and location required adjacent to the kerbline. The Committee's issues have been addressed as much as possible via controls in the draft DCP in terms of minimum footpath widths, clear zones, placement, anchoring, design and content.

 

The Access Committee concluded that should Council permit A-Frames, it should include strict standards for licensees and regular monitoring to ensure public safety. The Committee's memorandum is accompanied by a submission from Guide Dogs NSW/ACT. It states that permitting A-Frames will result in the proliferation of obstacles and make it extremely difficult for people with vision impairment to travel on Council's footpaths with safety.

 

Council Rangers advise of frequent instances of unauthorised A-Frames being placed on Council footpaths, repeat offenders and complaints of injury to pedestrians, for example, in windy conditions. The monitoring and enforcement process uses considerable Council resources in terms of recording and referring complaints, inspections, warnings, the issue of notices and the serving of fines as well as follow-up actions.

 

Should Council endorse A-Frame signs in this DCP, the costs incurred will potentially outweigh any likely financial benefit from fees and charges. There are also costs to the public in terms of less attractive footpaths, especially in heritage conservation areas, additional clutter, increased trip hazards and potential projectiles. Council is also potentially exposing itself to a public liability claim arising from injury caused by A-Frame signs. The same issues arise for goods display stands. To address this, the two following options are proposed:

  

Options for A-Frame signs and goods display stands

 

In the light of the issues discussed above, two options for proceeding with the draft DCP are proposed as follows:

 

1.         Provisions in the draft DCP noting the inappropriateness of A-Frame signs and goods display stands - because of the relevant issues discussed in this report. 

2.         Provisions in the draft DCP to enable A-Frame signs and goods display stands - with detailed and restrictive controls in terms of suitable footpath widths, minimum clear zones, location, size, number per premises and content.

 

It is recommended that Option 1 be preferred, particularly given the concerns of the Access Committee. However, given Council's previous resolutions to enable A-frames, provisions in the draft DCP provide for Option 2, which address a detailed range of matters to protect amenity, access and safety (see particularly sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the draft DCP).

  

Management

 

The draft DCP contains performance criteria relating to cleaning, maintenance, toilets and car parking. These are required to ensure that footpaths and any furniture and fittings are kept clean and safe. Council's footpath rental fees for outdoor dining also include a charge for the cleaning of footpaths.

 

ESD

 

There are provisions throughout the draft DCP which incorporate ESD requirements, for example, amenity and waste management and, health and safety issues.

 

Appendices

 

The appendices contain examples of furniture, planter boxes, and associated fittings. These provide for high quality designs and consistency with existing street furniture (where relevant), for example, the planter boxes in Kensington town centre. The appendices also contain a statutory processes flowchart, recommended locations and layout, as well as standard conditions of consent.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The draft DCP provides objectives, controls and guidelines to direct appropriate footpath trading activities to suitable locations in terms of adjacent uses, local conditions, streetscape, access and amenity issues. It sets out locational, design, amenity and safety criteria for outdoor dining, A-Frame signs and goods display stands.

 

The draft DCP provides clear requirements to ensure that outdoor dining is facilitated, while restricting it to appropriate areas with the least impact on residential areas.

 

The draft DCP contains restrictive provisions for A-Frame signs and goods display stands given the dangers they may pose, their potential impact on the streetscape, the attendant monitoring and enforcement costs and their implications for public liability insurance.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council,

 

1.         Endorse the draft Footpath Dining and Trading DCP (at Attachment A) for public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A. Draft Footpath Dining and Trading DCP (and appendices)

B. Memorandum to the Acting Director Of Planning & Community Development 18 July, 2003 from Cr Procopiadis –

BOTH UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

JANE FLANAGAN

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SOCIAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Ellen Street Traffic.  (R/0269/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council convenes an on-site public meeting to discuss the Department of Defence’s traffic management plan for the Bundock Street site and the impact that expected traffic flows will have on Bundock, Ellen, Canberra and Rainbow Streets.

 

11.2     By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Rainbow Street Footpath.  (R/0635/02 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council allocate funding in next year’s Works Budget for the construction of a footpath on the northern side of Rainbow Street between Canberra Street and Bangor Park.

 

11.3     By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Electoral Boundaries.  (98/S/0064xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council reaffirms its commitment to the principle of community consultation and guarantees that a referendum will be conducted prior to any proposed changes to local government representation within the City of Randwick.

 

11.4     By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – Legal Services.  (98/S/0060xr 98/S/0178)

 

That in line with Council’s commitment to National Competition Policy, this Council calls for the immediate tendering of all legal services and that a report be brought back to Council with recommendations for the renewal of legal services contracts.

 

11.5     By Councillors Notley-Smith & Seng – State Tax on Registered Clubs.  (98/S/5279xr 98/S/0178)

 

That this Council urgently convene a meeting with the management of all registered clubs in the City of Randwick to discuss the impact that the state government’s “Pokies Tax” will have on local clubs’ ability to fund essential community services and the degree to which RCC will have to fund the expected shortfall.