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

 

 

6th July, 2004

 

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK,

ON TUESDAY, 13TH JULY, 2004 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

Committee Members:               His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson, Crs Belleli, Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Notley-Smith (Chairperson), Seng, Sullivan, Tracey & White.

 

Quorum:                                   Five (5) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 20TH APRIL, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE WORKS COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 8TH JUNE, 2004.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Works

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 31/2004 - REGIONAL WASTE DISPOSAL TENDER.

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 32/2004 - PROPOSAL BY RECYCLING POINT SOLUTIONS PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING.

5

 

5.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 33/2004 - FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 71 GALE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

11

 

5.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 34/2004 - FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME 2004/2005.

15

 

5.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 35/2004 - YARRA BAY BICENTENNIAL PARK.

18

 

5.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 36/2004 - GILDERTHORPE, PARK AND ROSCREA AVENUES, RANDWICK - REQUESTS BY RESIDENTS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES.

20

 

5.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 37/2004 - PROPOSED SUBURB NAME CHANGE AND PROPOSED STREET NAMES FOR THE DEFENCE SITE RANDWICK.

23

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 31/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

REGIONAL WASTE DISPOSAL TENDER

 

 

DATE:

1 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2455(1)

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In addition to providing a forum for the exchange of ideas between the 11 member councils, the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) aspires to collectively negotiate more effective solutions to council responsibilities, including waste management.  Within the parameters of this mission, SSROC is planning a regional response to the performance targets, stipulated in the NSW Government’s “Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy’.  A two stage response is envisioned.

 

In Stage 1, there would be a relatively short-term, regional contract (2005-2009), during which time, councils would have opportunity to assess alternative waste technologies.  Such assessment would aim to maximize triple bottom line, e.g. social, economic and environmental, outcomes.  Alternative technologies are, of course, very costly and it would be necessary for councils to closely cooperate in their planning. 

 

In Stage 2, councils could enter into a long term contract with a service provider, using one or more of the alternative technologies.

 

With reference to Stage 1, SSROC is seeking member council participation in the development of a regional tender for the disposal of residual waste, as collected in residential and commercial kerbside services.  Residual waste refers to the remainder of the waste, after recovery of the recyclables at kerbside. 

 

This SSROC initiative aims to take advantage of the changing commercial environment and secure the “most advantageous” contractual waste disposal arrangements for participating councils.  With reference to this goal, SSROC requests member council approval to prepare and issue a tender for regional waste disposal.  After tender closure, a SSROC panel will analyse outcomes and submit tender recommendations for consideration by participating councils.     

 

BACKGROUND:

 

To date, Waste Services NSW, a statutory State Owned Corporation, has been the only licensed landfill service provider for residual waste in metropolitan Sydney.  Currently, Randwick’s residual waste is disposed at Rockdale, a transfer station owned by Waste Services NSW.  From Rockdale, waste is compacted and trucked to landfill at Lucas Heights.  Randwick City Council expenditure for the disposal of residual waste to landfill is approximately $3.5 million, including both residential and commercial collection. 

 

Randwick City Council (RCC) is an active member of the SSROC and supports its goals.  The Council is, for example, signatory to an SSROC negotiated contract for the supply of road materials. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Changing Commercial Environment

 

Collex, the private contractor presently collecting RCC’s residential garbage and recycling, is completing construction of a modern waste transfer terminal at Clyde.  In addition, the company has established a Woodlawn bioreactor, technology designed to capture landfill gas and convert it to electrical power.  Soon, Collex will be in a position to compete with Waste Services NSW for the disposal of residual waste. 

 

In expectation of this market entry, Waste Services NSW has been approaching individual councils, offering variable prices, terms and conditions.  Other large waste contractors may have an interest in residual waste disposal.  In this changing commercial environment, SSROC sees economic and environmental benefit in a regional tendering process.

 

Existing Contracts

 

No contract for the disposal of residual waste exists between Waste Services NSW and Randwick City Council.  Importantly, the proposed disposal tender will be designed so that no changes in the present Council waste collection system are required.

 

Price Stability

 

As no contract for waste disposal exists, Waste Services NSW has changed transfer station gate fees almost every year.  A contract would bring a level of price stability, assisting in budgeting and future planning.

 

Australian Consumer and Competition Commission

 

The SSROC has received legal advice, arguing the case for an application to be made to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) for authorisation of the regional tendering process.  This advice relates to the need to comply with the requirements of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Competition Code of NSW.  While past decisions suggest the likelihood of a positive ACCC response, the issuance of a tender would be subject to ACCC approval.

 

Tender Process

 

The SSROC has drawn up a timetable for tender preparation, issuance, closure, analysis and recommendations by a tender selection panel.  In its assessment, the panel will be guided by Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999, which ties acceptance to “the tender that, having regard to all the circumstance, appears to be the most advantageous….”.  Triple bottom line measurements will be taken into consideration.

 

Importantly, any recommended tender will, prior to acceptance, necessitate review and endorsement by participating councils.  The stated aim of the tender process is the commencement of a regional contract for the disposal of residual waste by January, 2005.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given the changing commercial environment and the lack of an existing contract for the disposal of residual waste, Randwick City Council would benefit through participation in the tendering process.  At this stage, such participation does not bind Council to any contractual obligation and would serve, not only to advance consideration of alternative waste technologies, but to better position Council for the development of a more efficient and sustainable waste management future.

 

RECOMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.           Note the report and agree to participate in the regional tender for the disposal of  Council residual waste, subject to approval by the ACCC

 

2.           Authorize the General Manager or his/her delegate to sign off on the tender documentation, prior to the tender advertisement being published

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 32/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSAL BY RECYCLING POINT SOLUTIONS PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING

 

 

DATE:

28 June, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/3278 xr 98/S/0767(3)

 

 

REPORT BY:   DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 6th May, the Mayor received a letter (see Appendix A), containing a commercial proposal from Recycling Point Solutions (RPS).  With reference to this proposal, RPS would install 12 public place recycling units, each composed of 8 stainless steel screens, surrounding 2 garbage bins and 1 recycling bin.  In exchange, the Randwick City Council (RCC) would authorize the utilization of the two end panels of each enclosure for advertising.  The proposal was intended to initiate public place recycling, a service not currently offered by the Council.

 

Under the proposed agreement, RPS would regularly remove graffiti, remove advertising deemed inappropriate and repair vandalism; while the RCC would supply/empty the enclosed wheelie bins and receive 7.5% of advertising revenue.  Additional RCC savings/benefits are suggested in the attached RPS proposal (See Appendices C and D).

 

This report evaluates the RPS’ proposal

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The simple provision of public recycling does not ensure that such facilities will be properly utilized.  Public recycling behaviour is a complex issue and, some years ago, the Randwick City Council (RCC) removed its public place recycling bins.  This response was a consequence of very high levels of bin contamination and the need to dispose of such collections to landfill. 

 

At the same time, community expectations are changing and such decisions need revisiting.  It is, for example, recognized that the opportunity to recycle in public places may, depending on the location, promote environmentally positive behaviour.    For these reasons, initiatives, like the RPS proposal, are welcome. 

 

While most NSW councils have established successful residential recycling programs, public place recycling remains undeveloped.  In response to the seeming hiatus between residential and public place waste management, the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has recently drafted a handbook, titled ‘Better Practice Guide for Public Place Recycling’.  While this guide aims to encourage councils to consider public place recycling, it candidly admits that such programs have had “mixed success”, can generate public “confusion” and, because of differences between home and public behaviour, often experience “low amounts of recyclable materials collected or high levels of contamination in the recycling bins”.  Such negative outcomes have prompted councils, despite a strong environmental ethic, to move cautiously in the introduction of public place recycling.

 

In short, the pitfalls of public place recycling necessitate exceptionally detailed planning and implementation. 

 

ISSUES

 

Current Practice

 

Randwick City Council (RCC) operates a comprehensive residential recycling service, including a fortnightly, split bin collection.  Glass bottles, plastic containers, aluminium and steel cans are placed on the left-hand side of the bin, while paper and cardboard are placed on the right-hand side.  On alternative weeks, green waste is collected and delivered to the Storey Street Depot in Maroubra for shredding, mulching and eventual spread on Council parks and gardens.  In 2003, the Council recycling service successfully diverted approximately 36% of total residential waste from landfill.

 

While RCC staff and trucks are used for green waste and commercial waste collection, including a paper and cardboard recycling service, the residential garbage and dry recycling services are contracted out to Collex Pty Ltd.  In the latter case, their recycling trucks are specifically designed for split bin collection.

 

With reference to public place services, RCC does not operate a recycling service.  However, Council staff and trucks empty an extensive network of litter bins, located in beaches, parks and commercial centres.  This operation is undertaken by three dedicated teams and sub-teams, specifically catering for the different needs of the South, West and Coastal zones.  For example, the South and West teams operate on a 5 day schedule, while the Coastal team collects litter bins 7 days a week, including public holidays. 

 

Supporting the litter collection service are both footpath and street sweeping operations, also planned to meet the cleaning requirements of the different types of public places. 

 

As public place waste management confronts the continuous problem of illegal dumping, the Council employs a Litter Patrol Officer or Spotter, identifying illegally disposed materials, as well as Rangers, who investigate and enforce dumping regulations.  Where illegally dumped material is designated for pickup, it is removed within 24 hours. 

 

Contamination

 

Bin contamination or the presence of unwanted materials constitutes a major problem in public place recycling.  If the weight of bin contamination exceeds 10%, substantial penalty charges must be paid at the recycling facility.

 

The DEC handbook states that it is “unwise to include recycling stations, where there is possibility of high levels of contamination”.  For example, due to the likelihood of food contamination, paper and cardboard recycling are not recommended in public places.  As a rule of thumb, busy locations generate high contamination levels and, for this reason, recycling bins are not generally placed in shopping centres.

 

Research

 

In the RPS Bondi Beach system trial (see Appendices B and C), disposal evidence, such as recycling diversion and bin contamination, is based on the audit of a single recycling unit.  And, from any research perspective, it is simply not possible to confidently generalize from such a limited sample.  In addition, likely sources of bias, such as the location of other garbage bins in close proximity to the experimental unit (see photographs in Appendix C), do not seem to have been controlled.  Similarly, and with specific reference to the quoted community survey, no indication of statistical significance is presented.  In short, the research evidence, provided in the RPS proposal, is inadequate and certainly does not meet standards, as, for example, recommended in the DEC guidebook.

 

Contractual Obligations

 

Randwick City Council presently holds an exclusive “Street Furniture Contract” with JC Decaux Australia.  It is believed that this contract, which extends to 15/8/2019, legally precludes RCC from entrance into an agreement, such as that proposed by Recycling Point Solutions (RPS).  Under this contract, JC Decaux Australia supplies the Council with street furniture, such as the shelters found at bus stops, in exchange for the right to install panel advertising on such structures.  Importantly, the definition of “street furniture”, as per contract, includes “litter bins” and “recycling bins”.  And, while the Council has not agreed to extend advertising permission to these particular items, their use by RPS could be viewed as a breach of contract.

 

Operational Constraints

 

Randwick City Council staff and trucks are utilized for the collection of public place litter and, at present, the RCC does not possess vehicles, designed for the pickup of dry recycling, such as glass, plastic, aluminium and steel containers.  While RCC contracts residential dry recycling services to Collex, their trucks are specifically equipped for the emptying of split bins, not commingled bins.  In short, operational constraints, either in terms of the need to both change Collex trucks and rewrite the Council contract, which runs until 31/12/07, or in terms of the purchase of Council collection vehicles, would necessitate considerable financial planning and cost.

 

Management Plans

 

The importance of Randwick’s beaches and parklands to residential quality of life or a means for needed contemplation, rest and recreation in a natural setting, cannot be overstated.  For this reason, and, despite growing commercial pressure, the Randwick City Council has, in its management plans for beaches, parklands and open spaces, restricted advertisement to that which is “ancillary to or supportive of Council public purpose”.  Commercial signage is generally prohibited and, throughout these plans, the enhancement of the natural environment/heritage is seen as a “guiding principle” and “community good”.

 

As presented, the RPS proposal would, not only seem to compromise the clarity of the recycling message, but run counter to the policy commitments, endorsed in the management plans.

 

Department of Environment and Conservation Guidelines

 

Not-with-standing the high risk of failure, the draft DEC report, ‘Better Practice Guide for Public Place Recycling’, stresses that a carefully designed program can achieve some success.  However, it is deemed essential that such initiatives:

 

§   incorporate detailed pre-program research

§   recognize that different types of public places have very different consumption and disposal patterns

§   are practical in expectation

§   are planned in conjunction with operational staff

§   are supported by widespread public education, including media releases

§   are identified by unambiguous, highly visible signage

§   closely integrate recycling and litter programs

§   are continuously monitored, particularly specific bin placement, through post-installation observation and waste audits.

 

It is, in part, with reference to these DEC guidelines, that the RPS proposal has been assessed.

 

Financial Details

 

The Randwick City Council is not, as demonstrated in the “Street Furniture Contract”, opposed to close cooperation with commercial enterprise in cost-savings or in the improvement of Council operations.  At the same time, as reflected in the following points, a detailed financial assessment is required. 

 

For example, the proposed recycling system is not, as claimed, consistent with the “current collection technology used in the area”.  Unlike the RPS unit, Council recycling practice also includes paper/cardboard recycling as well as the use of split bins.  Such differences could become a cause of public confusion and are likely to necessitate, in order to achieve acceptable contamination levels, an extensive program of public education.  With the exception of the opportunity for 5-10% usage of enclosure advertising panels (see Appendix C), the costs of continuing public education are not factored into the RPS proposal. 

 

Calculated on the basis of 50 units over a 15 year period, RPS estimates Council revenue and cost-savings at $1.790 million (See Appendix D).  Given the initial installation of only 12 units, savings would be marginal.  In addition, as noted earlier, a considerable investment in collection equipment would be required in order to provide Council services for the RPS recycling stations.  Furthermore, continuing waste audits, research deemed necessary in order to provide up-dated information on the practicality of recycling unit location, are not considered. 

 

The RPS proposal assumes that the diversion of drink and food containers from landfill to recycling saves the Council money.  While the recycling of paper/cardboard may result in marginal savings, the collection of co-mingled glass, plastic, aluminium and steel containers costs more.  With reference to the residential service, Council costs for the collection/disposal of garbage to landfill total are approximately $170 per tonne, while costs for recycling are $220 per tonne.  

 

Finally, it is also possible that, over the period of the 15 year contract, changing community concerns and collection technology may necessitate costly system redesign.

 

While the above comments do not constitute a detailed cost/benefit analysis, they point to financial issues, needing consideration prior to the introduction of public place recycling.

 

Public Tender

 

In view of the significant financial implications, the Council would, given a decision to act on the RPS proposal, be expected to call for public expressions of interest and proceed with a formal tender process.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

While there are positive features to the RPS proposal, it is not in compliance with Council’s open space advertising policy and existing contract for street furniture maintenance.  This proposal is inconsistent with current RCC recycling practices and would require purchasing of purpose built vehicles or modification of existing vehicles to enable collection of recyclables from the proposed installations. In compliance with competition policy, Council would be required to go through a public tendering process to accept any such proposal

 

While public place recycling has not, to date, attracted much local government participation, community interest and concern is likely to grow in the future.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.       Note the proposal by Recycling Point Solutions for installation of recycling units at public places and advise the proponent that at this point of time Council is not in a position to proceed with such a proposal.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1.         Letter to the Mayor (Appendix A)

2.         Recycling Unit Trial Results (Appendix B)

3.         Public Place Recycling: A Proposal (Appendix C)

4.         Term Sheet (Appendix D) ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER WASTE


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 33/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 71 GALE ROAD, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

10 June, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0316/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from the owner of 73 Gale Road, Maroubra highlighting the damage caused inside his property by the roots of a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree.

 

ISSUES:

 

The owner of  71 Gale Road, Maroubra, has applied to Council on several occasions in the past to have this same tree removed and has sited the same reasons as the owner of 73 Gale Road for wanting the tree removed.

 

As well as damage to both the above properties, the roots of this tree have caused significant and ongoing damage to the adjacent footpath, driveways and kerb and gutter.  The footpath and driveway outside both properties has been recently replaced and despite severe root pruning being undertaken at that time, these are now being lifted once again.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The subject tree has caused on-going damage to both private property and public infrastructure and its removal and replacement with a more appropriate tree species would  comply with Council’s recently adopted strategy for dealing with aggressive rooted street trees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council approval be granted for the removal of the  Ficus ‘Hillii’  growing on the nature site outside 71 Gale Road, Maroubra.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from owners of 73 Gale Road

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 34/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Footpath Construction Programme 2004/2005

 

 

DATE:

22 June, 2004

FILE NO:

F/2004/07638

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A report was brought before Council on 17 September 2002 detailing a 5-year footpath construction programme, which aimed to provide footpath along all streets in South and Central Wards, where possible, that do not contain a footpath.  At this meeting it was resolved that:

 

b)   “The 5-Year Footpath Construction Programme for South and Central Wards be considered for inclusion in the future Capital Works Programmes commencing 2003/2004.

 

ISSUES:

 

As such, $1.5 million from the 2003/2004 Capital Works budget was allocated towards the construction of new footpaths.  Additionally, this budget funded the construction of pedestrian access ramps and the replacement of trees and driveways as required during the construction process.  In the first year of the programme, approximately 12.6 kilometres of 1.3 metre wide footpath was constructed across streets in South and Central Wards. 

 

A reduced budget of $1.2 million is allocated towards the footpath construction programme for 2004/2005.  The following is a proposal of footpath construction works:

 

Street

From

To

Suburb

Beatty Street

Fitzgerald Avenue

Byng Street

Maroubra

Charman Avenue

No23 Charman Ave

Percival Street

Maroubra

Cobham Street

Wild Street

Bunnerong Road

Maroubra

Donovan Avenue

Hinkler Street

Parer Street

Maroubra

Donovan Avenue

Walsh Avenue

Paine Street

Maroubra

French Street

Walsh Avenue

Paine Street

Maroubra

Hinkler Street

Bunnerong Road

Maroubra Road

Maroubra

Holden Street

Parer Street

Paine Street

Maroubra

Holmes Street

Henning Avenue

Garden Street

Kingsford

Marjorie Crescent

The End

Storey Street

Maroubra

Marville Avenue

Botany Street

Walenore Avenue

Kingsford

Nagle Avenue

Fitzgerald Avenue

Chichester Street

Maroubra

Nevorie Crescent

Storey Street

No.20 Nevorie Cres

Maroubra

O’Sullivan Ave

Paine Street

Robey Street

Maroubra

Paine Street

Fitzgerald Avenue

Chichester Street

Maroubra

Paine Street

Walsh Avenue

Wild Street

Maroubra

Parer Street

Donovan Avenue

Cobham Street

Maroubra

Percival Street

Storey Street

Snape Street

Maroubra

Rainbow Street

206 Rainbow St

216 Rainbow Street

Coogee

Royal Avenue

Maroubra Road

Gale Road

Maroubra

Sims Grove

Minneapolis Cres

New Orleans Cres

Maroubra

Taylor Street

Holden Street

Wackett Street

Maroubra

Ulm Street

Parer Street

Hinkler Street

Maroubra

Wackett Street

Donovan Avenue

Wild Street

Maroubra

Anzac Parade

No.726 Anzac Pde

Avoca Street

Randwick

Anzac Parade

UNSW entrance

Barker Street

Kensington

Fenton Street

Chapman Street

Mons Avenue

Maroubra

Summary of Footpath Construction 2004/2005 – total proposed length: 6.9km

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This programme seeks to improve the network of footpath across the Randwick LGA and to cater for a growing community.  The proposed selection considers factors such as:

 

·    The side containing streetlights;

·    The location of street trees;

·    The side that experiences higher pedestrian usage; and

·    Vicinity to schools, shops, public transport access and nursing homes.

 

It is recommended that the above footpath construction programme be approved and adopted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

·     The proposed 2004/05 Footpath Construction Programme be approved and adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS ENGINEER - ANCILLARY


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 35/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

YARRA BAY BICENTENNIAL PARK

 

 

DATE:

10 June, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1792

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 26 August, 2003, resolved that -

 

“Council investigate and report on ways to increase the amount of parking spaces in and around Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park and include ways to reduce the amount of car break ins.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject of additional carparking at Yarra Bay has been canvassed by Council officers since Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park was constructed in 1988.  Plans for the next stage in the re-development of Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park includes picnic grounds for general recreation and a parking area to cater for these activities

 

There is currently a paved area at the end of the “No Through Road” which could be used for overflow parking in the short term. This area is currently fenced off and is used by the recycling facility which is currently involved in the redemption of this site. However, the security of this overflow carpark would be very difficult to maintain as it is out of the way and a considerable distance from the current recreation areas.

 

In respect of the existing parking area, a number of trees were lost during a severe wind storm which occurred late last year. Some minor additional and judicious underpruning of trees and shrubs would enable the car park to become visible from the recreation grounds if not from the beach itself. Apart from having full time security personnel present, this visibility option is regarded as the most viable to reduce the number of car break-ins which occur in this carpark. As stated above, this visibility could not be provided for the overflow parking until the final stage is completed and the picnic and recreation grounds come “on line” thereby providing their own participants to provide this necessary “visibility”.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that minor pruning of shrubs and trees should be undertaken in the existing carpark and either side of the carpark to improve visibility to the carpark from the Yarra Bay Sailing Club and the existing recreation grounds. The provision of additional parking should be restricted to the overflow carpark at the end of the "No Through Road" leading to Baragoola Avenue for major events only with the organisers of these events being required to provide security to cover this area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.       Minor pruning of shrubs and trees be carried out in the existing carpark on either side of the carpark to improve visibility from the Yarra Bay Sailing Club and the existing recreation grounds; and

 

2.       the existing carpark at the end of the "No Through Road" leading to Barragoola Avenue be made available only for major events with the stipulation that the organisers of these events be required to provide security for this carpark.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 36/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

GILDERTHORPE, PARK AND ROSCREA AVENUES, RANDWICK - REQUESTS BY RESIDENTS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES.

 

 

DATE:

1 July, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0326/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 April, 2004, considered a petition from the residents of Gilderthorpe, Park and Roscrea Avenues seeking traffic calming devices and resolved:

 

“that the petition be referred to the appropriate Committee and/or the Councillors’ Bulletin with a report from the relevant officer.”

 

Gilderthorpe, Park and Roscrea Avenues are subject to 50 km/hour speed limit, however, Carrington and Frenchman’s Roads are signposted with 60km/hour speed limit.

 

Council’s officers have recently carried out traffic speed and volume surveys to obtain a full assessment of existing traffic conditions on these streets.

 

The results of these surveys are shown on the following table:

 

 

85th Percentile speed (km/hour)

AAPT (Vehicles/day)

Gilderthorpe Avenue (bidirectional)

59

1552

Roscrea Avenue (bidirectional)

48

1043

Park Avenue (bidirectional)

49

531

 

ISSUES:

 

The Traffic Committee has reported that the above recorded traffic volumes and speeds do not warrant construction of traffic calming devices. The 85th percentile speeds of motor vehicles travelling in Roscrea and Park Avenues are within the statutory speed limit of 50 km/hour, although during a full week of survey by roadway loop detectors, one vehicle in Roscrea Avenue registered a speed of 130 km /hour.

 

The speed surveys have indicated that Gilderthorpe Avenue experiences slightly higher vehicle speeds (59km/hour), and given the residential environment, the Traffic Committee has recommended provision of edge lines to define the kerbside parking lanes on both sides, together with a dividing line at the centre of the carriageway. The proposal is to retain parking on both sides, whilst maintaining two-way traffic with an effective dividing line at the centre.  It is considered that the reduced width of the line marked carriageway on both directions will achieve a reduction in traffic speed.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council is under an ever increasing demand and pressure from residents for the implementation of traffic calming proposals. In most cases, the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limits is marginal. Funding is the prime constraint, due to other more severe black spot locations within the City that need to be treated as priority.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed line marking measures for Gilderthorpe Avenue, to be carried by the RTA, are the most practical traffic calming treatment aimed     at achieving safety and speed control with due regard to the severity of existing traffic conditions and funding limitations.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)      The proposed traffic calming measures for Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick, as shown on the attached drawing, be approved for implementation by the RTA; and

 

2)      The petitioners be advised that Council has received advice from the Randwick Traffic Committee that the traffic volumes and speeds on Roscrea and Park Avenues do not warrant the provision of any traffic calming devices.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Drawing showing proposed traffic calming measures for Gilderthorpe Avenue , Randwick.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 37/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED SUBURB  NAME CHANGE AND PROPOSED STREET NAMES FOR THE DEFENCE SITE RANDWICK.  

 

 

DATE:

30 June, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1368

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 25 May, 200 4, considered the attached report regarding  the proposed suburb name change for the Defence Site, Randwick and it was resolved:

 

“that this item be deferred to allow for Councillors to consult further with the community in respect to the locality name”

 

Also at the same Council meeting the attached report was considered on the proposed street names for the Defence Site, Randwick and it was resolved:

 

“that this item be deferred to allow for Councillors to consult further with the community”’

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the above resolutions, memos were circulated to all councillors requesting interested councillors to place in writing:

a.       suggested suburb names; and

b.       suggested street names

 

Three (3) submissions were received, as follows:

 

The Mayor, Councillor Murray Matson

 

“I proposed the surnames of the two Aboriginal elders who died last week -

i.    Herb Simms

ii.    Connie Stewart. She was also known as Connie Longbottom

 

Councillor Matson has also suggested that other themes could be adopted e.g. place, names or characters from Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”.  No further information has been provided in relation to this suggestion. However, it is considered that sufficient street names could be provided from this source.

Councillor Bastic

 

“In reference to your memo on 2 June concerning the proposed name change for the Defence site in Randwick, I support the Bundock Defence Site being in the locality/suburb of Randwick.

 

The approximately ten streets south of the Defence site being in the suburb of Maroubra.

 

As far as the street names within the Defence site I am still considering my response.”

 

Councillor Alan White

 

“In response to your memos of the naming of streets at the former defence site at Bundock Street and Avoca Streets.

 

I would like to suggest that the streets be named after Australian Victoria Cross winners - for example Simpson VC Avenue.

 

I think this gesture would recognise the armed forces use of the site and be a form of remembrance for our war heroes.”

 

Further research based on Councillor Alan White’s submission revealed an extensive list of Australian Victoria Cross award recipients.  This list contains the names of 97 award recipients. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The recommendations to the Council Meeting of 25 May, 2004, concerning the proposed suburb name change and the proposed street name change are outlined in the attached reports.

 

On the matter of proposed suburb boundary changes, Councillor Bastic’s submission is considered appropriate in that the Defence site would form part of the suburb of Randwick so that Randwick’s suburb boundary be extended along Avoca Street to Holmes Street and the eastern border of the Defence site.

 

The Moverly Road boundary of Maroubra would be relocated from Moverly Road to Holmes Street, so that the ten streets south of the Defence site, currently belonging to the suburb of Kingsford would form part of Maroubra.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       Council consider the above submissions and adopt an appropriate street naming theme for the Randwick Defence Site;

2.       The suburb boundary proposals be adopted so that the Defence site is in Randwick and that the ten streets south of the Defence site be in Maroubra; and

3.       Council approve the commencement of the consultation process (in accordance with the Geographical Names Board) to alter suburb boundaries.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Reports of Council Meeting 25 May,2004.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS ENGINEER ANCILLARY

 

 


7.           DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES’ REPORTS.

 

7.1         DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 23/2004 - PROPOSED STREET NAMES FOR THE DEFENCE SITE, RANDWICK.   (98/S/1368)

 

73          RESOLUTION: (Notley-Smith/Sullivan) that this item be deferred to allow for Councillors to consult further with the community.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION:  (Andrews/Sullivan)  SEE RESOLUTION.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 23/2004 

 

 

SUBJECT:

Street Names

 

 

DATE:

25 May, 2004

FILE NO:

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Defence Site located in Kingsford is bounded by Bundock Street in the north and Avoca Street in the west and consists of 68.6 hectares of land.  This site is in the process of development into a residential complex, consequently introducing a network of new roads into the Randwick City Council jurisdiction. 

 

In accordance with the Defence Site Masterplan September 2001, this report seeks the adoption of new street names, as recommended in the plan. 

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the Geographical Names Board of NSW, the naming of road names must follow set guidelines.  These guidelines suggest the preferred source for road names to include any of the following:

 

·    Aboriginal names;

·    Local history;

·    Early explorers, pioneers, settlers and other eminent persons;

·    War/casualty lists; or

·    Thematic names such as flora, fauna or ships.

 

Consistent with these guidelines, the Defence Site Masterplan produced a list of street names divided into two categories, east/west and north/south directions.  The east/west streets were recommended names generally in keeping with local flora.  Since the site was historically used by the Australian Defence Force as a large military warehousing facility, it was suggested that streets in the north/south direction be named with a military theme.

 

In addition, several neighbouring streets will extend into the Defence Site development, including:

·    Loch Maree Street

·    Garden Street

·    Benvenue Street

·    Hendy Avenue

 

It is considered that these street names should be extended to cover the extensions into the Defence site.  As the street numbering system in this area follows a north to south pattern, potential problems exist for adjoining streets from the southern end of the Defence site namely, Loch Maree Street, Garden Street and Benvenue Street. 

 

Both Loch Maree Street and Garden Street are relatively short extensions and will extend along the side of the subject properties and should not affect the current street numbering system.  However Benvenue Street is a much longer extension and potential exists for property frontages to face this street.  As such, the extension should be named North Benvenue Street. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The following street names are consistent with themes as suggested by the GNB Guidelines.  Each name was selected by its uniqueness, clarity and suitability to the area.

 

New street names proposed for the east/west direction include:

·    Melaleuca Street

·    Banksia Avenue

·    Monotoca Street

·    Correa Street

·    Casuarina Street

·    Lobelia Street

·    Acacia Street

·    Defence Avenue

 

New street names proposed for the north/south direction include:

·    Musket Street

·    Mantelet Street

·    Oval Avenue

·    Barrack Street

·    Squadron Street

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

·    The following new street names be adopted in accordance with the GNB guidelines:

o Melaleuca Street

o Banksia Avenue

o Monotoca Street

o Correa Street

o Casuarina Street

o Acacia Street

o Lobelia Street

o Defence Avenue

o Musket Street

o Mantelet Street

o Oval Avenue

o Barrack Street

o Squadron Street

 

·    The following existing street names be extended into the development complex:

o Loch Maree Street

o Garden Street

o Hendy Avenue

 

·    North Benvenue Street be adopted as an extension of Benvenue Street.

 

·    Notice of both the Proposal and the new names be sent to:

o Land and Property Information of NSW

o Local Newspaper

o The Registrar-General

o The Surveyor General

o Australia Post

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of GNB Guidelines for the Naming of Roads

Site Map of the Defence Site

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS ENGINEER - ANCILLARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.2         DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 24/2004 - SUBURB NAME CHANGE FOR THE DEFENCE SITE RANDWICK.  (98/S/1368)

 

74          RESOLUTION: (Andrews/Notley-Smith) that this item be deferred to allow for Councillors to consult further with the community in respect to the locality name.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION:  (Andrews/Notley-Smith)  SEE RESOLUTION.

 

(His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson requested his name be recorded as opposed to the resolution.)

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 24/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Suburb Name Change for the Defence site Randwick

 

 

DATE:

19 May, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1368

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Defence Site Randwick, historically owned by the Australian Defence Force, is located within the Suburb of Kingsford, bounded by Randwick to the north, South Coogee to the East and Maroubra to the South.  For further detail, reference should be made to the attached suburb location map. 

 

Recently, an application was forwarded to Randwick City Council requesting a suburb name change for the Defence Site.  This application, submitted by Mirvac Projects proposed to change the current suburb name from Kingsford to Randwick. 

 

ISSUES:

 

According to a letter submitted to Council by the Australian Government Department of Defence, this suburb name change proposal was considered “consistent with the general naming of the site as the Randwick Barracks in the past and as correctly stated will be the location of the new Randwick Community Facility and Randwick Environmental Park.  For further detail on Randwick Environmental Park, reference should be made to the attached Site map. 

 

In accordance with the Geographical Names Board of NSW, there are recommended procedures for local Councils in the determination of locality/suburb names and boundaries.  These recommendations specify a detailed consultative process (see attachment for complete list), to illustrate, the following are some of those which are included:

 

·    Consult with Progress Associations, Australia Post, residents and other relevant groups

·    Prepare map of draft suburb boundaries

·    Advertise and exhibit draft boundaries

·    Review submissions

·    Submit to Council for approval to submit to the Geographical Names Board (GNB)

 

Following the initial submission by Council to the GNB for approval, there is a lengthy process of liaising between Council and the GNB where the suburb name change proposal is advertised over a one month period to allow for public submissions or objections on the matter, prior to approval of the name change.

 

In addition, the proposal to change the suburb name for the Defence Site will introduce suburb layout problems in Kingsford.  There are approximately ten streets south of the Defence site that belongs to the suburb of Kingsford:

 

Holmes Street

Garden Street

Benvenue Street

Cooper Street

Ian Street

Edgar Street

Loch Maree Street

Henning Avenue

Garrett Street

Moverly Road

 

For the purposes of logical suburb planning and layout, it is recommended that these streets be considered for suburb name change to either Randwick or Maroubra.  Reference should be made to the attached suburb location map for further details.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Due to the work and time required to carry out the suburb name changing process, it is considered that Council should acknowledge this matter and approve the commencement of the procedures to redefine suburb boundaries for the Defence Site and selected adjacent streets to the south of this site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

·        Council officers proceed with the consultation process as recommended by the GNB to change the locality/suburb move for the Bundock Street Defence Site from Kingsford to Randwick; and

 

·        a report be submitted to a future Council Meeting outlining draft boundaries to be submitted to the GNB.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Current suburb location map

Proposed suburb location map

Recommended procedures for determining suburb names and boundaries

Copy of letter issued by the Department of defence

Site map of the Defence site 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS ENGINEER - ANCILLARY