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

 

 

2 November 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, 9TH NOVEMBER 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 28TH SEPTEMBER, 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, 12TH OCTOBER, 2004.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5                        

Report of the Greening Randwick Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick held on Tuesday, 12th October, 2004.

2

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 80/2004 - WAIVING OF FEES - SALVATION ARMY BBQ.

6

 

6.2                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 81/2004 - CAROLS BY CANDLELIGHT IN KOKODA PARK, KENSINGTON - REQUEST FOR THE WAIVING OF FEES.

8

 

 

7           Works

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 79/2004 - PARKING SCHEME - THE SPOT.

10

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 80/2004 - TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN BURBONG STREET, KINGSFORD.

14

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 81/2004 - STATUS OF BICYCLE FUNDING 2004.

16

 

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 82/2004 - 32 BEACH STREET - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS.

18

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 83/2004 - ELLEN STREET, RANDWICK - TRAFFIC CONTROL.

24

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 84/2004 - PARKING SCHEMES – UPDATE.

29

 

7.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 85/2004 - REQUEST FOR THE RELOCATION OF A BUS STOP IN BEAUCHAMP ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

32

 

7.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 86/2004 - RANDWICK GENERAL CEMETERY - MANAGEMENT ISSUES & PERPETUAL CARE.

36

 

7.9                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 87/2004 - MANAGEMENT OF PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS.

55

 

 

8           General Business

 

9           Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

10         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

………………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER.

 


REPORT OF GREENING RANDWICK COMMITTEE MEETING OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANDWICK

HELD ON TUESDAY, 12TH OCTOBER 2004 AT 5:56 P.M. 

 

 

PRESENT:

 

His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson (Chairperson) (East Ward)

 

North Ward                                         -           Crs P. Tracey & M. Woodsmith

 

West Ward                                          -           Crs S. Nash & J. Procopiadis

 

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:

 

General Manager                                                                                  Mr. R. Brownlee.

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services                         Mr. R. Wade.

Director Planning & Community Development                           Ms. S. Truuvert.

Director Governance Management & Information Services                    Mr. M. Hummerston.

Assistant Public Officer                                                             Mr. D. Kelly.

Manager, Policy, Planning & Performance                                             Ms. K. Walshaw.

Tree Management Officer                                                                     Mr. B. Bourke.

Communications Manager                                                                     Ms. D. Brien.

 

IN ATTENDANCE:

 

Crs Belleli, Daley, Hughes, Kenny, Seng and Sullivan.

 

1.         APOLOGY:

 

An apology was received from Cr Notley-Smith.

 

RESOLVED:  (Woodsmith/Tracey) that the apology be received and accepted and leave of absence be granted to Cr Notley-Smith from the Greening Randwick Committee Meeting of the Council held on Tuesday, 12th October, 2004.

 

1A.      LEAVE OF ABSENCE – COUNCILLOR ANDREWS.

 

Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Cr Andrews, Minute No. 185/2004.

 

2.         MINUTES.

 

Nil.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Tracey/Woodsmith) that the meeting be adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

 

The meeting was resumed at 5.58 p.m.
3.         DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY & NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

 

Nil.

 

RESOLVED: (Tracey/Woodsmith) that the meeting be adjourned at 5.59 p.m.

 

4.         ADDRESSES TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE PUBLIC.

 

Prior to consideration of the Agenda by the Committee, the following deputation was received in respect of the following matter:

 

6.1       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 75/2004 - AGGRESSIVE-ROOTED STREET TREE STRATEGY REVIEW - SEPTEMBER, 2004.  (F2004/07359 XR 98/S/4689)

 

Against Mr Peter Barker                       19 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

 

The meeting was resumed at 6.03 p.m.

 

5.         MAYORAL MINUTES.

 

5.1       MAYORAL MINUTE 73/2004 – ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIR FOR GREENING RANDWICK COMMITTEE.  (F2004/07359)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) that the Deputy Mayor be appointed Deputy Chair of the Greening Randwick Committee.

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.         GREENING RANDWICK.

 

6.1       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 75/2004 - AGGRESSIVE-ROOTED STREET TREE STRATEGY REVIEW - SEPTEMBER, 2004.  (F2004/07359 XR 98/S/4689)

 

RESOLVED (PROCEDURAL MOTION) (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that Cr Nash assume the Chair so His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson can effectively debate the upcoming items.

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that:

 

(a)        no more than five percent of ‘Ficus Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) street trees be removed in any twelve-month period from streets where there are designated significant plantings of this species;

 

(b)        the criteria used for nominating significant street tree plantings be confined to streets containing predominantly Ficus ‘Hillii’ - where that species represents at least fifty percent of total vegetative canopy cover within that street;

 

(c)        Council provides at least two month’s written notification and consultation to residents and property owners directly affected by the proposed removal of any Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree within streets of significant plantings. 

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.2       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 76/2004 - FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 1 DUKE STREET, KENSINGTON.  (R/0250/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Tracey) that this matter be deferred to the next Greening Randwick Committee to allow for further consultation with the residents of Duke Street, Kensington.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Tracey) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

RESOLVED (PROCEDURAL MOTION) (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that the meeting be adjourned at 6.25 p.m.

 

The meeting was resumed at 6.27 p.m.

 

6.3       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 77/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS HILLII GROWING OUTSIDE 2 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY.  (R/0346/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Tracey/Woodsmith) that this matter be deferred to the next Council meeting to allow Councillors to better assess the reasons for refusing the removal of this tree.

 

MOTION: (Tracey/Woodsmith) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.4       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 78/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 42 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.  (R/0493/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Tracey/His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) that the Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing outside 42 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species - in line with Council’s proposed removal and replacement program for the entire street.

 

MOTION: (Tracey/His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.5       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 79/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 19 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.  (R/0493/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 19 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with an advanced Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia), as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

7.         GENERAL BUSINESS.

 

(Note: Cr Sullivan was given approval to raise general business and voiced his opinion as to the purpose of the Greening Randwick Committee.)

 

8.         NOTICE OF RESCISSION MOTIONS.

 

Nil.

 

 

The meeting closed at 6.43 p.m.

 

 

 

 

………………………………….

CHAIRPERSON


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 80/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - SALVATION ARMY BBQ

 

 

DATE:

27 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1018 1018

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Mr J Lunney, Salvation Army Store Manager, advising that he is currently planning to hold a BBQ outside the Salvation Army Store at 697 Anzac Parade, Maroubra.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Lunney has asked Council to give support to this fundraising activity by way of waiving the fees associated with holding this activity.

 

Administration Fee                                                                                $130.00

Food Stall                                                                                            $  80.00

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $210.00

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $210.00 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2004/05 to cover this contribution. 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Salvation Army is a non-profit organisation and to assist with the event, costs be allocated to cover the associated fees. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

1.   Council vote $210.00 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

2.   The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

3.   The Mayor’s representative shall be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 81/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

CAROLS BY CANDLELIGHT IN KOKODA PARK, KENSINGTON - REQUEST FOR THE WAIVING OF FEES

 

 

DATE:

27 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1018

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from The Salvation Army advising that they intend to hold their annual community event of “Carols by Candlelight” on Saturday, 11 December, 2004 at Kokoda Park.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Given this is a non-profit event, Council’s assistance is requested in covering the following costs:-  

 

Local Approval Application Fee                                                           $   130.00

Supply and remove additional bins (based on 6 by 240L bins)   $   297.00

Connection to power                                                                            $     74.80

Supply of Stage and lighting                                                                  $1,700.00

Printing of brochures                                                                             $   100.00

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $2,301.80

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $2,301.80 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2004/05 to cover this contribution. 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Salvation Army is a non-profit organisation and to assist with the event, costs be allocated to cover the associated fees. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

1.   Council vote $2,301.80 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

2.   The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

3.   The Mayor’s representative shall be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

…………………………

Cr. Murray Matson

MAYOR

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 79/2004

 

SUBJECT:

PARKING SCHEME - THE SPOT

 

 

DATE:

25 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES          

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 11th May 2004 Council resolved that the Spot Resident Parking Scheme be adopted in principle and that the report be placed on public display and referred to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

The attached report entitled “Final Report - The Spot Residents Parking Scheme & Parking Scheme”, and the attached agenda and minutes of the Special Traffic Committee Meeting held on 19th October 2004, provide analysis and summary of these consultative processes.

 

ISSUES:

 

Numerous suggestions/proposals were submitted by both members of the Traffic Committee and members of the public in relation to certain aspects of the draft report. The attached final report provides a comprehensive review of the draft report in light of these submissions and where appropriate amendments have been made to the draft report. These amendments are summarized in Sections B, C & D of the Final Report and are dealt with in detail in the Attachments to this report.

 

Additionally the deliberations and recommendations of the Traffic Committee in respect of the final report and recommended amendments (i.e. Plans Nos. 4 and 14 amended 20th October 2004) are also attached.

 

The introduction of this scheme involves installation/alteration of signposting, construction of islands and kerb extensions, and bay marking and linemarking. All works for this scheme will be funded from the current budget allocation for the introduction of Parking Schemes during 2004/2005.

 

In accordance with Council’s draft policy for the introduction of permit parking schemes it is proposed, subsequent to adoption of this scheme by Council, that the scheme be advertised for four weeks and that letters and information brochures be forwarded to all premises within the Spot precinct. It is however considered ineffective to advertise the scheme over the December/January holiday period when many residents are likely to be

away. Further it would be expected that annual closedowns will seriously affect construction works over this period. It is therefore proposed that the Spot Parking Scheme be implemented during January/February 2005 with the aim of being fully operational by 1st March 2005.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Construction, signage and line marking costs (to be funded from the

current budget allocation for the introduction of Parking Schemes

during 2004/2005):  Estimated to cost in the order of $80,000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The final report on the Spot Parking Schemes confirms the need and demand for a Resident Permit Scheme in the Spot Precinct. Additionally the report identifies medium cost proposals to improve both the quantity and availability of public parking within the precinct to the benefit of all users. The proposals conform to the proposed policy and procedures for permit schemes and conform fully to relevant legislation.

 

It is considered that the Spot Parking Scheme, as detailed in the final report and subsequent amendments, should be adopted with the aim of implementing the scheme by 1st March 2005.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

i.    The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme, Visitor Parking Scheme and General Parking Scheme be adopted for introduction on 1st March 2005,

 

ii.    All traffic facilities and signposting as detailed in Plans 1-14 of the final report, as amended, be implemented,

 

iii.   Councill will develop a Communication and Implementation Strategy that will be presented to the December Council Meeting.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Minutes of Special Traffic Committee held on 19 October, 2004

 

Under separate cover:

1.  Amended Plans Nos: 4 & 14 and Typical Threshold Treatment - Detail Plan.

2.  Report:"Final Report - The Spot Residents   Parking Scheme & Parking  Scheme"

3.  Attachment: "Attachments to Final Report"        

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

ALAN OPERA  

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

MINUTES OF

SPECIAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING

19th OCTOBER 2004

 

SUBJECT:  PARKING SCHEME – THE SPOT

 

The Police, RTA and STA representatives to the traffic committee were requested to consider the attached matter as a special traffic committee item to be determined on 19th October 2004.

 

The Police representative, Sgt. Thompson, advised that the proposed unbroken edge line markings on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road (See Plan No.4) will lead to driver confusion as to the legality of parking within 10 metres of intersections. It was agreed that unbroken edge lines within 10 metres of the intersections on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road be replaced with broken edge lines.

 

Sgt. Thompson considered that due to significant resident opposition, the Stewart Street angle parking proposal (See Plan No. 14) should not proceed at this time. The committee agreed that Council should investigate this matter further for reconsideration at a future time, but otherwise agreed to continue with the proposal for resident parking and No Standing in Stewart Street at this time. The committee agreed that resident parking should be implemented in Stewart Street in parallel parking format covering the areas as shown on Plan No. 14. It was also agreed that the proposed No Standing restrictions at both ends of Stewart Street should be introduced to improve traffic conditions.

 

Council’s representative, Mr. Opera, advised that it was not intended to introduce raised pavements between the blister islands at the proposed thresholds in Lee Street (Plan No. 9), Soudan Street (Plan No. 12), St. Pauls Street (Plan No. 13c) and Stewart Street (Plan No. 14). Mr. Opera also advised that it was proposed to apply painted or a different pavement texture in the location of entry thresholds so as to reinforce the change in traffic conditions for drivers. The committee agreed that raised pavements were not required in these locations. The matter of pavement highlighting at entry thresholds would be referred to the RTA for consideration.

 

Mr. Opera advised that the specification of days of the week (i.e. Mon-Sun) on full time restrictions presents problems on public holidays and that it was proposed not to designate days on the signposting. The advice from the RTA’s legal section is that this action is preferable to wording of “Mon-Sun” or “7 Days”.

 

It is recommended:

 

1.   That The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme, Visitor Parking Scheme and General Parking Scheme be adopted,

 

2.   That all traffic facilities and signposting as detailed in Plans 1-14 of the final report be implemented except as detailed in (a) to (d) below:

 

 

 

a)   That angle parking not be introduced in Stewart Street at this time, and that Council carry out further investigations in this respect in the future, and that resident parking be introduced in Stewart Street in parallel format covering the areas as shown in Plan No. 14, and that No Standing restrictions as proposed be introduced at both ends of Stewart Street,

 

b)   That unbroken edge lines on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road be replaced with broken edge lines 10 metres either side of the intersections with side streets,

 

c)   That raised pavements not be introduced between blister islands at the proposed thresholds, and that the proposal to introduce painted or different pavement texture in these locations be referred to the RTA for consideration,

 

d)   That days of operation not be designated on all full time period and resident parking restrictions

 

 

 


 

 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 80/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN BURBONG STREET, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

25 October, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0132/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council meeting held on 8 April 2003, it was recommended that:

 

“a)       No action be taken to ban the left turn from Anzac Parade; and

 

 b)        Speed and volume counts be undertaken in the near future to ascertain other options to address perceived safety issues at this location.”

 

The issue of traffic conditions within Burbong Street has been considered by the Traffic Committee in 1997, on two occasions in 2000 and again in 2003.  Following the Traffic Committee meeting in March 2003 a report was prepared and considered by the Council at its meeting held on 8 April 2003, at which time the above recommendation was made.

 

Accordingly, a seven day traffic speed and volume count was undertaken commencing 11 June 2004.    

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The results of the traffic survey revealed an average daily traffic volume of 200 vehicles in Burbong Street, a reduction from the 278 vehicles measured in March 1997.  The measured 85%ile speed was 47 km/hr and is well within acceptable limits for a local road.

 

At the Traffic Committee meeting held on 12 October 2004, the most recent traffic survey was considered together with the accident history of Burbong Street, for which only one accident had been reported for the passed five years of available accident data.  The accident occurred on 17 July 2000 and was of tow-away severity.

 

The Traffic Committee was also advised that ‘CREST’ warning signs were installed in Burbong Street in early 2001, following the recommendation from its December 2000 meeting. 

 

The ‘CREST’ warning signs were installed to alert motorists to the limited visibility in the street due to the existence of the crest.  

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given that no accidents have been recorded in Burbong Street following the installation of ‘CREST’ warning signage in 2001 and that the measured traffic speed and volumes were well within acceptable limits for a local road, no further action to address traffic safety is considered necessary.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the existing traffic conditions within Burbong Street are considered satisfactory and no further action be taken.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

STEVE CALDERON

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 81/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF BICYCLE FUNDING 2004

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/06616

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held 19 October 2004, Council considered the re-allocation of funds for projects that were unsuccessful in securing matching Roads and Traffic Authority funding for 2004-2005.

 

With regard to the $50,000 allocated for implementation of the Randwick Bicycle Plan, it was resolved that the funds be re-allocated to the Council’s Financial Reserve, pending the General Manager’s organisational review. It was also resolved that

 

a report be submitted providing an update on discussions with the R.T.A. to update Council on the Bicycle Plan funding to allow the Council to be aware of how quickly the funding can be put to the intended purpose, if the funding is forthcoming.

 

This report provides an update on discussions with the RTA regarding Bicycle Plan funding.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council submitted an application for 2004-05 funding for implementation of the Randwick Bicycle Plan in September 2003.

 

At the request of the RTA in May 2004, Council submitted an amended application accounting for works undertaken by Council in 2003-04. Works detailed in the amended application include bicycle parking facilities, on road line marking, and direction and location signage.  

 

Discussions between Council and the RTA have been ongoing with respect to the level of design detail required to enable an RTA approval of funding to Council. Council had also sought confirmation that funds are available for 2004-05, in the event that Council provided project design details to the level requested. 

 

The RTA has recently confirmed that funds are available for 2004-05. 

 

Council has advised the RTA that under project programming, the design phase would be complete by January 2004 for submission to the RTA, and subject to timely confirmation of funding, the project would be complete by June 2005 as required.  

 

Consequently, following the submission and approval of detailed design plans to the RTA, an allocation of $50,000 would be provided to match Council’s contribution currently held in Council’s Financial Reserve.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Upon confirmation of $50,000 funding for the Randwick Bicycle Plan project by the RTA, Council would be required to provide a matching contribution of $50,000,  from 2004-05 Cycle funds transferred to the Financial Reserve as resolved by Council at its meeting held 19 October 2004.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is proposed that Council initiate detailed project design for the implementation of selected items of the Randwick Bicycle Plan for submission and approval by the RTA.

It is proposed that upon confirmation of $50,000 funding for the Randwick Bicycle Plan project by the RTA, Council provide a matching contribution from the Financial Reserve.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 That:

 

a)   Council initiate detailed project design for the implementation of selected items of the Randwick Bicycle Plan for submission and approval by the RTA; and

b)   upon confirmation of $50,000 funding for the Randwick Bicycle Plan project by the RTA, Council provide a matching contribution from the Financial Reserve.

    

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

MALCOLM HILL

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 82/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

32 BEACH STREET - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

 

 

DATE:

27 October, 2004

FILE NO:

P/004045

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

At an Ordinary Meeting held on 24th February, 2004, Council considered the attached report (Attachment A) from the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services dated 19th February, 2004, on the above matter and resolved, THAT:-

 

“a)       The $35, 000 to carry out the works suggested in option 1 and 2 in the  consultants report be funded from an appropriate vote in the 2004/2005 budget;

 

b)         Mr Sweeney be advised that Council requires him to comply fully with the conditions of consent for his pool and garage and to provide a suitable overland flow path through his property so that the drainage system at this location is capable of coping with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event; and

 

c)         A report be brought before the next council meeting detailing the response of Mr Sweeney to Council’s resolution.”

 

 

Mr Sweeney (the property owner of 32 Beach Street) was advised of this resolution by letter dated 2nd March, 2004 and has not as yet responded specifically to item (b) of the resolution.

 

The $35,000 required to carry out the works suggested in option 1 and 2 in the Bonacci Rickard report (copy attached) was put forward for inclusion in the 2004/2005 budget. However, the final budget approved by Council did not incorporate the works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The property owner’s response to Council’s resolution

The property owner of 32 Beach Street was advised of Council resolution by letter dated 2 March 2004, and further requested to comment on item (b) in an additional letter dated 31 March 2004. In response to these letters, the property owner wrote to Council on the 14 April 2004 and referred Council’s officers to an email outlining the ‘scope of works’ for analysis of the drainage pipe, pit and over flow system that currently travels through his site (refer to attached letter from the property owner of 32 Beach Street dated 14 April 2004).

 

The subject email does not make reference to the issues raised in item (b) of the Council resolution nor has Council received any additional correspondence to suggest that the owner of 32 Beach Street has undertaken the works required ‘to comply fully with the conditions of consent for his pool and garage and to provide a suitable overland flow path through his property so that the drainage system at this location is capable of coping with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.’

 

The provision of a ‘scope of works required for analysis of the pipe and overflow system’ does not address the intent of item (b) of council’s resolution.

 

It is understood that the email detailing the ‘proposed scope of works’ was prepared by the property owners hydraulic consultant in response to the Stormwater Drainage Assessment undertaken by Bonacci Rickard. The owner of 32 Beach Street does not consider the Bonacci Rickard drainage assessment to be adequate and commissioned his hydraulic consultant to advise Council what an appropriate scope of works should include.

 

Council officers do not consider that a revised analysis of the pipe and overflow system (in accordance with the scope of works set out in the email from the property owners Hydraulic consultant) will significantly alter the conclusions and recommendations made in the Bonacci Rickard report and presented to Council on the 24 February 2004.

 

 

Ongoing overland flow problems through 32 Beach Street

The property owner of 32 Beach Street has continued to advise Council of ongoing problems associated with overland flow through his property.

 

As detailed in the previous report presented to Council on the 24 February 2004, if the property owner of 32 Beach Street were to comply fully with the conditions of local approval 72/2004 (refer below); and options 1 and 2 from the Bonacci Rickard report be implemented, the combined piped and overland flow system through 32 Beach Street should be able to cope with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.

 

The following conditions were included in the local approval (LA 96/00072/BF) granted for construction of a pool and associated works at 32 Beach Street in 1996:

 

54. The applicant shall allow Council to create a drainage easement, under its control, over the line of the existing Council controlled stormwater drainage pipeline within the site. The minimum easement width shall be:-

 

a.   3.0 metres for the section of pipeline located adjacent to the proposed swimming pool. This section of the drainage easement shall be created centrally over the existing Council controlled stormwater drainage pipeline.

 

b.   3.65 metres for the section of pipeline located adjacent to the proposed garage and the southern boundary (of the property). This section of the drainage easement shall be located bordering on the southern fence line.

 

The applicant shall meet the full cost, except for legal and survey fees, of the creation of the drainage easement.

 

 

55. Prior to release of the approved plans, the applicant shall submit to Council a statutory declaration stating that he does not object to Council creating the required drainage easement as stated in the condition above.

 

58. The landscaping/paving within the required drainage easement shall be lowered and constructed with a vee-drain formation to direct overland flow of stormwater that may travel through the property.

 

59. All new fences located across the required drainage easement shall be an open form type or have a 3m wide by 0.5m high opening to allow overland stormwater flow to pass unimpeded.

 

60. The applicant shall construct the proposed swimming pool coping course and the floor level of the proposed garage a minimum of 300mm above the existing adjacent ground level. This condition is required to reduce the possibility of overland stormwater flow entering these areas.

 

In relation to conditions 54 and 55 above, the owner of 32 Beach Street has provided Council with a statutory declaration in 1996 stating that he does not object to Council creating the drainage easement. However, since that time the property owner has advised Council officers on numerous occasions that he strongly objects to Council having a drainage easement through 32 Beach Street even though there is an existing Council stormwater line through the site.

 

Council may elect to force the property owner of 32 Beach Street to provide Council with an easement in accordance with the statutory declaration so that works to upgrade the system capacity may be undertaken. However, given that the works would primarily be to improve the situation for 32 Beach Street, it is considered unnecessary to acquire the easement by force (at this time) and allocate funding to undertake the pipe upgrade unless the property owner of 32 Beach Street is agreeable to the proposal.

 

The feasibility of upgrading the pipeline through 32 Beach Street has not yet been investigated. It is noted that problems may arise due to the location of structures in the rear yard and the possible size of the pipeline/culvert required to convey the 100 year ARI flow through the property.

 

Site visits indicate that the owner of 32 Beach Street has not yet complied with conditions 58, 59 and 60 of LA 72/1996.

 

Additional Note

Council has recently issued development approval for a new multi-unit development at 79 and 81 Arden Street (immediately upstream of 32 Beach Street). This development has been conditioned to provide onsite detention to ensure that the proposal will not adversely impact on the drainage system downstream of the development for storm events up to the 100 year ARI storm.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As detailed in the previous report presented to Council on the 24 February 2004, it is the opinion of Council officers and Bonacci Rickard that an overland flow path currently exists through 32 Beach Street and that full compliance with the conditions of local approval 72/2004 combined with Options 1 and 2 of Bonacci Rickard’s report could improve the drainage system to cope with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event. 

 

Council could engage a hydraulic consultant to undertake a detailed analysis of the pipe and overflow system through 32 Beach Street (as detailed in the email from the property owner’s hydraulic consultant dated 21/10/2004). However it is not anticipated that the study will significantly change the final conclusions and recommendations drawn in the Bonacci Rickard Report. Consequently, it is the opinion of Council officers that the allocation of funds to commission a further study of the pipe and overflow system through 32 Beach Street at this time is unwarranted.

 

Further to options 1 and 2 of the Bonacci Rickard report being undertaken and the owner of 32 Beach Street complying with the conditions of development approval, works to relieve the problems associated with overland flows may include upgrading the pipe and overflow system through 32 Beach Street. Such works are noted in the Bonacci Rickard report as involving ‘considerable cost’.

 

It is the opinion of Council officers that consideration should only be given to allocating funds for obtaining a detailed design for upgrading the drainage system between Arden Street and Beach Street after a drainage easement has been created through 32 Beach Street and the land owner of 32 Beach Street has complied with all of the conditions of local approval 72/2004.

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Implementation of options 1 and 2 from the Bonacci Rickard report is estimated to cost $35,000 in the 2005/2006 budget.

 

Fee proposals have not been received for a hydraulic consultant to undertake a detailed design and cost estimate for upgrading the drainage system from Arden Street through to Beach Street. It is however, anticipated that the cost of such works will be in the vicinity of $15 000.

 

It is anticipated that the cost of upgrading the drainage system from Arden Street through to Beach Street will be in excess of $300,000.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

(a)        The  property owner of 32 Beach Street be again advised that Council requires him to comply fully with the conditions of local approval 72/2004 and to provide a suitable overland flow path through his property so that the drainage system at this location is capable of coping with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.

 

(b)        The property owner of 32 Beach Street be advised that once he has provided Council with the required drainage easement through his property and complied with the other conditions of approval for his pool (and associated works), funding to engage a hydraulic consultant to undertake a detailed design and cost estimate for upgrading the drainage system from Arden Street through to Beach Street will be listed for inclusion in a future capital works program for Council consideration.

 

(c)        The $35,000 required to carry out the works suggested in Option 1 and 2 in the consultant’s report be listed for inclusion in the draft 2005/2006 budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from owner of 32 Beach Street dated 14 April, 2004

DAIS Report 11/2004 to Ordinary Council Meeting 24 February, 2004

Stormwater Drainage Assessment prepared by Bonacci Rickard Pty Ltd dated April, 2003

DAIS Report 153/2002 to Extraordinary Council Meeting 17 December, 2002 –

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

EMMA DOWLING

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DEVELOPMENT ENGINeERING TEAM LEADER - MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 83/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

ELLEN STREET, RANDWICK - TRAFFIC CONTROL

 

 

DATE:

29 October, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0269/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 25 November, 2003, Council resolved

 

“that a report be prepared on 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”.

 

It should be noted that Council has adopted a Master Plan for a staged, large scale residential development in surplus Department of Defence land bounded by Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Holmes Street, Randwick.

 

Council has approved a development application and construction certificate application for civil infrastructure works associated with Stage 1A of the adopted Master Plan, such stage being generally located in the north-eastern portion of the Master Plan site with frontage to Bundock Street. At the date of this report the majority of the proposed civil infrastructure for Stage 1A has been completed.

 

Council has also approved a development application for civil infrastructure works associated with Stages 2 and 3 of the approved master plan, such stages being located to the west of Stage 1A and with frontage to Bundock Street as well as development applications for civil infrastructure works associated with Stage 1B and Stages 5 and 6 of the approved Master Plan, such stages being located towards the southern boundary of the Master Plan site, generally in the south-eastern corner. At this point in time no construction certificates have been lodged and therefore no works relating to the provision of the proposed civil infrastructure have been undertaken.

 

The approved Master Plan is the second submission for the subject Department of Defence site. The original Master Plan submission and various associated development applications, (prepared as a follow - on to the original Master Plan), were refused by Council and became the subject of Class1 action in the Land and Environment Court. Council was successful in defending this action, however much of the infrastructure and traffic management/traffic facilities proposed in the later Master Plan and associated development applications are a direct result of negotiations/mediation sessions held involving Council’s appointed expert traffic witness and the applicant’s expert traffic witness. The agreed position mediated in the Class 1 action did not make provision for any traffic management facilities to be constructed within or adjacent to the Ellen Street road reserve. Traffic management devices and controls are proposed within Bundock Street, Canberra Street (near Bundock Street) and Avoca Street (near Rainbow Street), therefore consideration has already been given to traffic management/control within all streets in the council resolution excluding Ellen Street.

 

Every development application lodged to date for civil infrastructure works within the Master Plan site has contained information on the general traffic management facilities proposed within the streets surrounding the development site. Any property owner who was notified regarding the Master Plan submission or subsequent development applications would have been able to view the proposed traffic management facilities.

 

The development consents for civil infrastructure development applications in Stage 1A and Stages 2 and 3, (i.e. the development applications to date that have direct frontage to Bundock Street), include the following conditions:

 

“Prior to the commencement of any site construction works, a detailed traffic management plan shall be submitted to Council for approval, and shall address the potential adverse impact of traffic generated by the future development of the proposed Stages 2 and 3 site, (the subject of this application), and the redevelopment of Lot 2 DP 1009660 as proposed in the Master Plan submission adopted by Council. The applicant shall meet the full cost for the construction of all traffic facilities as required to comply with the recommendations of the approved Traffic Management Plan.

 

The applicant shall undertake the design of all traffic related facilities referred to above and designs shall be submitted to Council for approval, and be approved, prior to their construction. The applicant shall liaise with Council to obtain Council’s general design requirements for the above traffic facilities prior to undertaking design of same. The applicant shall note that a checking fee in the order of 10% of the Council approved quotation for construction of the facilities will be payable to Council by the applicant.”

 

At this point in time, (and into the near future), no linkage has been established for vehicles to move through the development site from north to south and vice versa. The only development happening within the site at this point in time is the construction of 34 residential dwellings within the Stage 1A portion of the site. It should also be noted that no work has yet been commenced in Stages 2 and 3 of the site.

 

Council is now in receipt of various letters from the residents of Ellen Street requesting a detailed review of traffic management measures such that Ellen Street is not adversely impacted on by traffic generation associated with and passing through the Department of Defence site.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The current Master Plan has been adopted by Council and development of the site is proceeding generally in accordance with the adopted Master Plan. In adopting the Master Plan, Council was aware that increased traffic movements were likely in the streets surrounding the development site as a result of traffic generation from the development itself and from vehicles travelling through the site, (the path for vehicles to travel through the site has been made a circuitous one to discourage through movements).

 

Approval of the Master Plan and subsequent development applications have been conditional on the applicant and Council developing a Traffic Management Plan that minimises the adverse impact of increased traffic on those residents living in close proximity to the development site, (including residents in Ellen Street). The Traffic Management Plan and any traffic facilities referred to in the Traffic Management Plan must be considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee. Upon adoption of a Traffic Management Plan by the Randwick Traffic Committee detailed engineering design of the various traffic facilities will take place. The Traffic Management Plan prepared and submitted by the applicant with the Master Plan and subsequent development applications accurately reflects the Council/Department of Defence agreed position resulting from the Land and Environment Court Class 1 Action referred to earlier in this report. It is considered prudent that this Traffic Management Plan forms the basis for any future Council approved Traffic Management Plan.

 

The applicant’s proposed Traffic Management Plan, as submitted with the Master Plan and subsequent development applications, included the following general traffic management devices and controls in the streets to the north and north-west of the Department of Defence site:

 

·    Two midblock traffic devices to create a gateway in Bundock Street, (one positioned immediately west of Hendy Street and one positioned midway between Canberra Street and Avoca Street).

 

·    Two pedestrian refuges in Bundock Street.

 

·    Channelise the intersection of Canberra Street and Bundock Street to remove left turn movements into Canberra Street for eastbound traffic in Bundock Street.

 

·    Construct a median in Bundock Street, at the intersection with Hendy Street.

 

·    Construct a new right turn bay in Avoca Street for northbound traffic, at the intersection with Rainbow Street. Extend the existing right turn bay in Avoca Street for south bound traffic, at the intersection with Rainbow Street. Re-phase the existing traffic signals at the intersection of Avoca Street and Rainbow Street.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Nil

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The concerns of residents in Ellen Street with regard to the potential adverse impact of traffic generation / loss of amenity associated with the Bundock Street development will be considered and addressed in the preparation of a detailed Traffic Management Plan for all streets in the vicinity of the northern portion of the development site.

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer shall consult with the applicant’s Traffic Engineer and local residents, to prepare the Traffic Management Plan and then present same to the Randwick Traffic Committee. The Traffic Management Plan lodged with the Master Plan submission and subsequent development applications will act as a base document with Council officers placing particular emphasis on the concerns of residents in Ellen Street.

 

The Traffic Management Plan will be presented to the Randwick Development Committee for consideration prior to the completion of a north – south vehicular link through any portion of the site and prior to completion of any building works within the site, excluding the 34 dwellings currently under construction in Stage 1A of the site, (as this work will have a marginal effect on the surrounding streets).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

A.        The above information be noted, in particular the fact that Bundock, Canberra and Rainbow Streets are already included as streets which will be addressed as part of the Traffic Management Plan, (the applicant’s proposed traffic management devices and controls already include devices in Bundock Street and Canberra Street and right turn bay treatments are proposed at the intersection of Avoca Street and Rainbow Street).

 

B.         The residents of Ellen Street be advised that their concerns with respect to additional traffic volumes in Ellen Street and any associated loss of amenity will be considered in the preparation by Council officers of a detailed Traffic Management Plan for Bundock Street and other streets in the vicinity of the Department of Defence’ development site.

 

C.        The residents of Ellen Street be advised that the Traffic Management Plan will be prepared and presented to the Randwick Traffic Committee for consideration prior to the completion of a north – south vehicular link through any portion of the site and prior to completion of any building works within the site excluding the 34 dwellings currently under construction in Stage 1A of the site.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

 

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

1. Copies of letters received from residents of Ellen Street.

2. Copy of revised Figure 35 from Master Plan "Traffic Management Devices and Controls"  

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

JOHN FLANIGAN

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 84/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PARKING SCHEMES - UPDATE

 

 

DATE:

25 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/ 2714

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council is currently reviewing all the existing resident permit schemes within the City. Since this study commenced in mid 2003 numerous reports have been submitted to Council in respect of the various aspects of this study. This report provides an updated timeframe for the implementation of the various schemes which are being studied.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The following table provides a timeframe for each of the precinct areas which are being considered at this time.

 

LOCATION

DETAIL

DATE

THE SPOT

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

Completed

Completed

November 2004

1st March 2005

COOGEE BEACH

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

Completed

Completed

February 2005

May 2005

CLOVELLY BEACH

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

Completed

Completed

March 2005

June 2005

MAROUBRA BEACH

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

Completed

December 2004

May 2005

July 2005

RANDWICK JUNCTION

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

Completed

April 2005

August 2005

November 2005

KENSINGTON

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

March-April 2005

June 2005

October 2005

Early 2006

KINGSFORD

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

March-April 2005

June 2005

October 2005

Early 2006

NORTH RANDWICK

(TAFE)

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

June 2005

September 2005

Early 2006

Early-Mid 2006

TODMAN AVENUE

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

June-July 2005

October 2005

Early 2006

Early-Mid 2006

MAROUBRA JUNCTION

Surveys

Draft Report

Final Report

Introduction

Late 2005

Late 2005-Early 2006

Mid 2006

Late 2006

 

This timetable is designed to reflect the various “seasonal” influences within the areas being studied (e.g. Beach high season and University and TAFE calendars) and is subject to funding constraints and “other factors” such as major development (e.g. in Maroubra Junction). Times beyond the end of 2005 are provided as indicative estimates only.

 

In addition to the above, numerous other reports in respect of funding, policy, procedures and fees, have been and will be submitted to Council at the appropriate times.   

Council will develop a Communication and Implementation Strategy for the various schemes and will be presented to the December Council meeting.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Nil

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is evident from this timetable that both the process of review and the various legal procedures which are involved are extensive and time consuming processes and that these schemes cannot be introduced over a shorter time span.

 

It is important to note that all times shown are estimates only and are subject to external influences which are beyond Council’s control (e.g. concurrence of RTC members). This timetable provides a reasonable guideline for Council’s information and provides indicative times for offering advice to residents in respect of enquiries on parking matters in their local area. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the timetable for the introduction of permit parking schemes be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

ALAN OPERA

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 85/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR THE RELOCATION OF A BUS STOP IN BEAUCHAMP ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0071/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a representation from Ms. Lisa Kelleher of 437 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra, concerning the Bus Stop located adjacent to the driveway of the above premises.

 

Ms. Kelleher is the tenant at the above address, and in support of her representation, the owner of the property Mr. Stephen O’Gorman has stated, inter alia, as follows:

 

“As you can see the bus stop is close to the front of the house and immediately in front of the car port to the house. The bus stop is exposed and unsheltered either by a shelter or by trees.

 

The bus stop is reasonably heavily used and, particularly in either sunny or inclement weather, persons waiting at the bus stop use the car port to the house as a shelter. The problem is not limited to isolated occasions but regularly involves half a dozen people or more congregated under the car port and around any car parked there.

 

As a result, apart from security issues and the invasion of privacy, compounded as the bed room windows of the house open onto the car port, there is a continual litter, including drink cans, wrappers, cigarette butts from smokers and milk crates brought in to sit on while waiting, in and around the car port and front of the house. I note that the corresponding bus stop across the road is protected by a shelter.

 

It also appears to me that the current location of the bus stop, on a curve in the road and relatively close to two intersections, is not ideal as it causes traffic build up every time a bus stops. Apart from blocking the driveway, as buses wait at the bus stop, traffic is unable to pass the bus because of the narrowness and curve of the road.

 

Moving the bus stop west along Beauchamp Road would appear to offer a better location on a straight stretch of road”.

 

ISSUES:

 

The matter was considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 10 August 2004 and the Committee raised no objection for the relocation of the bus stop and the J Stem to a new position 7 metres east, subject to consultation with the owners of premises No: 439 Beauchamp Road.

 

However, the owners of premises No: 439 Beauchamp Road have strongly objected to the proposal as such relocation will bring the bus stop near to their driveway.

 

Subsequently, at the request of the Ward Councillor, representatives of Council, Police and Sydney Buses met on site on 13 August 2004. At that meeting the Police representative stated that there was no reported accident at the present location of the bus stop and it is the legal responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to exercise adequate care when reversing from the car port through the driveway and onto the roadway.

 

Sydney Buses representative stated that he will not support the relocation of the bus stop west along Beauchamp Road, to a position west of Davidson Crescent, as it will position the bus stop further away from the large number of residents living in the Housing Commission flats east of Chicago Avenue.

 

It was generally considered that the relocation of the bus stop as requested (to a new position 7 metres east) will not really improve the safety and the amenity of the area. The Traffic Committee accordingly reaffirmed that that there will not be any benefit in relocating the bus stop.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is therefore concluded that Council should endorse its Traffic Committee’s advice that the relocation of the bus stop to a new position will not enhance the safety and amenity of the area.

 

However, it is considered that Council could negotiate with JCDecaux for the provision of a bus shelter, with advertising panels under a commercial agreement with Council, at the subject location.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Nil

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council endorse the recommendation of the Randwick Traffic Committee that the relocation of the existing bus stop outside premises No: 437 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra, to a new position 7 metres east, will not improve the safety and the amenity of the area;

 

2.   Council negotiate with JCDecaux for the provision of a bus shelter, with advertising panels under a commercial agreement with Council, outside premises No: 437 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Sketch - Existing Parking Restrictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

KEN KANagarajan

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 


 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 86/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

RANDWICK GENERAL CEMETERY - MANAGEMENT ISSUES & PERPETUAL CARE

 

 

DATE:

28 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1532

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s Works Committee meeting of February 2004 resolved:

 

“That a report be brought back to the next Works Committee on how Council is managing Randwick Cemetery.”

 

In response to this requirement the following report summarises issues related to the Cemetery and makes recommendations for future actions to improve the administration, appearance and operation of the Cemetery. In particular it describes the status of annual and perpetual care and makes recommendations on this issue.

 

Background:

 

The draft Randwick General Cemetery Management Report (refer Attachment1) was written by Asset Management section in early 2003. The intention of the Management Report was to form the basis for a briefing document for investigations into further strategies/business plans for the administration and upgrade of the Cemetery.

 

The draft Management Report details the operational and administrative issues associated with the Cemetery. To date Council has not adopted a comprehensive approach to provide a long term strategy for the cemetery. This Council report recommends the steps required to determine this strategy for Randwick General Cemetery.

 

It should be noted that since the introduction of Councils Online that some minor procedural changes have occurred to the administration and maintenance of the Cemetery.  Generally, the information contained in Attachment 1 is still relevant.

 

Councillors have requested particular information in regards to fees and services associated with perpetual and annual care. This issue is also dealt with in this Council report.

 

ISSUES:

 

The following summarises issues that have been highlighted in the draft Management Report. These issues require comprehensive resolution to ensure a well maintained and managed facility.

 

1.   Cemetery Administration

 

Ø Generally the micro administration of the Cemetery is successful in regards to the proper process for burial, plot identification and record keeping.

Ø Long term efficient administration needs to be determined through a business planning process.

Ø Strategy for long term administrative management of gravesites, vaults and crypts does not exist and needs to be addressed. Burial records should be recorded in a data base as part of Councils Online project.

Ø Define or source written agreement for Owner’s responsibilities and define legal requirements.

Ø Sale of available crypts need to be undertaken in the context of better funding for the Cemetery

Ø Where perpetual and annual care does not in reality occur; appropriate action needs to be undertaken.

Ø Funding sources and income need to be determined in a business plan for the Cemetery.

Ø A business plan needs to be undertaken to investigate management options and funding for the cemetery. It should also investigate the legal position for reuse of the gravesites, maintenance of headstones etc.

 

2.   Maintenance of the Cemetery

 

NOTE: It should be noted that the maintenance of grave and the grave site is the responsibility of the person who owns the burial right. The Council is responsible for maintenance for the area external to the gravesite.

 

Ø Level of landscape presentation is poor and some existing elements impede maintenance. A Landscape Masterplan should be developed to assist in resolving maintenance issues.

Ø Many built elements are in a significant state of disrepair. Resolve necessity and status for disused buildings.

Ø Clarify function of cemetery office.

Ø Strategy for long term maintenance of gravesites, vaults and crypts does not exist and this needs to be defined. The heritage restoration and maintenance costs need to be included in future strategies.

Ø Existing toilet block and maintenance shed in poor state and unused and future needs to be determined

Ø Existing graffiti is extensive and requires removal

Ø Some boundary fences and walls need repair

 

3.   Upgrade of Cemetery (Landscape & Heritage Restoration)

 

Ø Landscape appearance of the Cemetery is poor and needs improvement.

Ø The Cemetery requires a Landscape Masterplan for the long-term upgrade of the area including signage, heritage walk etc.

Ø A Heritage Conservation Plan needs to be developed for the long-term treatment and management of the headstones and statues and any other heritage items.

 

4.   Perpetual Care and Annual Care

 

Council collects annual care fees for the Cemetery for the maintenance of certain graves. The RCC finance section advises that they annually collect $2700 (incl GST) approximately from this source.

 

A system of annual and perpetual care in theory is in place for the Cemetery. It is understood that perpetual care was offered in the past however according to Council officers it has been a considerable time since any perpetual care agreement has been undertaken. A written service agreement is not in place for this activity.

 

The plots which are designated to receive care are marked with a symbol. It is clear however that generally the same level of care is provided to all graves.

 

The poor level of maintenance associated with the graves is often a result of the design and general repair of the graves and whether easily accessible for maintenance. Many of the very old graves are in poor repair and therefore particularly difficult to maintain because of broken masonry and fallen statues.

 

It would seem appropriate that subject to legal advice Council should temporarily cancel the payment of fees for annual care until this service can actually be offered.

 

5.   Administration in accordance with the Councils OnLine solution

 

The Councils OnLine (COL) business analysis recognised the changes in regulations in 2002, which impose the role of Cemetery Authority on any entity that administers a cemetery under the legislation.  The business solution was premised on a Cemetery Authority using two modules of the Pathway software application as follows:

 

Property Administration

All burial plots need to be entered into a Cemetery field of the property records, with each plot, niche wall space or memorial boulder plaque space being equivalent to a parcel of land.  In turn, this can be given visual representation as a map through a Geographical Information System (GIS) for the purpose of sales and for public information purposes.   Denominational and General Rows have been configured into the COL system, but work on the entering of plots is yet to commence.

 

 

 

Licensing

Each burial record needs to be entered as a “Licence” over a plot in a similar way to the issuing of multiple commercial licences over a commercial occupancy.   Once the entering of plots has been completed, there are some 10,000 burial records to be entered as “licences” into the COL system records. Historical information such as profiles, inscriptions, photographs and the like can be attached to these records and recovered electronically for researchers and enquirers.   The Licensing functionality is also configured to sell burial rights over a plot and to track changes in the ownership of the burial right.  It is also configured for the fees and charges relevant to Randwick’s cemetery business and to generate a Right of Burial document, a Burial Permit document and a Monumental Works Permit document.   The care and maintenance fees are interpreted to cover surrounding grounds, not the plot.

 

It should be noted that the Right of Burial is the right to use the burial plot and is not a right of ownership of the land.  The Right of Burial also imposes obligations on the Right of Burial Owner in relation to responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of the plot space, including monumental works and statues.  A Rights and Responsibilities document for Right of Burial Owners document forms part of the Right of Burial template document.

 

Once burial plots are configured as parcel-equivalents and burial records “licensed” in the COL system for Cemeteries, is intended to utilise the data base for communicating with Owners of Rights of Burial or their successors or assigns, to ascertain the following:

 

Ownership

Has ownership of the Right of Burial lapsed with no surviving record?  In which case, following public declaration, the right could be sold again by the Cemetery Authority.

 

Has ownership of the Right of Burial survived, but not been updated?  The Licensing functionality allows for records to be changed and former owners historicised in records. 

 

Does the surviving owner not wish to exercise the Right of Burial?  Would the owner be willing to either surrender the right or seek a refund or on-sell the right to a third party.

 

Does the Owner or surviving owner intend to use the residual capacity of an already used plot, for the second or third burial or for the burial of ashes caskets? 

 

Assets on the plot

Is the Owner or surviving owner aware of their obligations to maintain the plot and all structures thereon?   Definition of the scope of perpetual care and maintenance fees would be required.

 

Where there is no surviving Owner of a Right of Burial, following public declaration, the Council may determine the future of the plot.

 

Business Planning

Where there is scope for reclamation or re-use of plots, the business planning should include consideration of alternatives that are in keeping with current practice, such as niche walls for interment of ashes caskets or memorial boulder plaque spaces to associate the memory of a person with the area, where their ashes have been cast elsewhere.  

 

As a Cemetery Authority, Council is liable for the keeping of records and for allowing access to records.  The current “quill and ink” records need to be established in the COL solution’s electronic record, to enable visual mapping and burial records to be retrievable, with the potential for online enquiries.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

$35,000  – Heritage Report

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That :

 

·    A Business Plan be developed for the cemetery by Council officers and the Community to provide a long term management scenario for Randwick General Cemetery.

 

·    Discontinue fees for perpetual care and annual care of the cemetery plots until such time that a full business plan for the Cemetery is developed.

 

·    A Landscape Masterplan that responds to the outcomes of the Business Plan is included as part of the 2005/06 works programme.

 

·    Funds be allocated in the 2005/2006 Council budget for $35,000 to engage suitable Consultants to undertake a Conservation Management Plan and Heritage Assessment of the Cemetery to ensure appropriate actions are undertaken in regards to the historical significance of the Cemetery.

 

·    Relevant data for the management of the cemetery be entered into the Council’s Online (COL) software.

 

·    The location of plots, the keeping of Rights of Burial and Burial Permit records be automated using the Councils Online system to enable the Council’s responsibilities as a Cemetery Authority to be given effect.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Randwick General Cemetery Draft Management Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE DESIGN CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 


 

 

RANDWICK GENERAL CEMETERY

Draft Management Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

Administrative Centre

30 Frances Street,

Randwick 2031

 

 

JULY 2003
CONTENTS

            1. 0      INTRODUCTION

1.1       Purpose

1.2       Scope

2.0      THE SITE

2.1       General

2.2       Location

3.0       HISTORICAL CONTEXT

3.1       History

3.2       Famous People Buried in the Cemetery

4.0       LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE – CURRENT REGIME

4.1       Landscape Maintenance

4.2       Perpetual Care and Annual Care

5.0       BUILT ELEMENTS– CURRENT REGIME

5.1       Buildings

5.2       Statues, Headstones and Graves

5.3       Vaults & Crypts

5.4       Fences and Walls

5.5       Signage

5.6       Vandalism

 

6.0       ADMINISTRATION – CURRENT REGIME

 

7.0       CONSERVATION OF THE CEMETERY

7.1       Zoning and Local Government Listing

7.2       Current Situation

8.0       SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 


 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

1.1 Purpose

The draft Randwick General Cemetery Management Report is an investigation into the current administration and operation of cemetery. It aims is to describe current responsibilities and procedures in the operation and management of the Cemetery. Further to this the report identifies issues and makes preliminary recommendations for future steps to determine a framework for the long-term management of the facility.

 

1.2 Scope

The scope of the Randwick Cemetery Management Plan includes:

 

-   Description the current administrative and maintenance regime

-   Summary of Issues 

-  Recommendations for actions that need to be undertaken to improve the    Cemetery

 

2.0 THE SITE

 

2.1 General

The Randwick General Cemetery covers an area of approximately 3.5 hectares and contains 10,800 inscriptions; this represents approximately the actual number of people buried in the cemetery. The number of plots is less as many plots contain multiple burials.  The land on which the cemetery is located is owned by Randwick City Council (RCC). RCC also administrates the cemetery.

 

Currently approximately 40 funerals occur each year at the Cemetery. All plots are sold however a number of Crypts and Vaults are still available.

 

2.2 Location

Randwick Cemetery is located on Malabar Road near the intersection of Arden Street. In this section of Malabar Road there are single storey residences that overlook the Cemetery. The Cemetery is flanked to the western side by housing commission residential flat buildings and Emily Mc Carthy Park.

3.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

 

3.1 History

Until 1871 the cemetery at St Judes was the main cemetery for the Randwick area. It was closed in January 1871. After that date, residents went to Rookwood, (then called Haslems Creek), Cemetery. In December 1871 a petition from residents requested the Council “to take necessary steps to secure a Cemetery for the residents of this neighbourhood”. The petition went on to state that burials at Haslems Creek were “entirely unsuited to the requirements of this district”. This twelve month delay shows that, although residents were prepared to trial Haslems Creek, some problem, (not known - probably either cost or travel problems), made this cemetery inconvenient.

 

Simeon Pearce, at the same meeting, proposed a motion, which was carried, that the Mayor, Alderman Walter Bradley, approach the Minister for Lands, requesting him to “dedicate certain lands for a cemetery...and to arrange what settlement for the land they may deem correct” (italics added). However, at the following meeting, on the 20th December 1871, Pearce successfully proposed that the Council ask to purchase land in the “Church and School Estate” - specifically sections 54 and 55 in the Parish of Botany on the Long Bay Road (now Malabar Road). These two sections were in a little valley facing south with the drainage towards Maroubra Beach.

 

Why these two sections? Previously, it has been proposed that this valley was selected because it was far enough away from civilisation to avoid controversy. However, it is proposed that Pearce selected this land for two reasons: firstly, it was the closest possible site to “civilisation” and secondly, it could be used to advantage when purchasing land in the Church and School land.

 

The request to the Government for the land took a year to be answered. Approval was finally given for Council to purchase the land for a cemetery on 4 December 1872, despite attempts by the Pearce faction to delay it because of Pearce’s absence. It cost £45/12/6. Over a year had passed since the petition from Randwick residents was first presented to Council.

 

Another nineteen months were to pass before the cemetery approached the stage of being used. During that time, Council adopted the Cemetery By-Laws on the 8th January 1873 after first being drafted by Pearce. It took the Government another three months to approve these regulations. There were problems with the fence around the land - it had to be reduced in height.

 

However, 1874 was remarkable for several events in Council that clearly overshadowed any building and road works. The political situation was very volatile - there were several mayors; Pearce was removed from the position of Honorary Surveyor; there were several displays of tempers, even to the point of one alderman throwing a book at another alderman (it apparently found its target). There were several cases of aldermen refusing to participate in meetings. Finally, Pearce himself did not seek re-election for this year thus making it the first year since 1859 where he was not directly involved with municipal matters. He, however, became very involved with the cemetery. He became its manager.

 

The Council approved Pearce’s position on 7th July 1874. Among the duties of the manager were: the advertising of the cemetery in the Sydney Morning Herald; choosing the date of opening; and preparing the necessary plants and books. For this service the manager received £40 per service backdated to 4th February 1874, which almost coincides with the departure of Pearce from both the Council and the position of Honorary Surveyor.

 

Over the years the Cemetery was very popular and the need for additional burial space has drastically reduced the earlier allowance that was made for open space with plantations. In some parts the current, denominational areas are not clearly defined and it is apparent that the location of a grave within denominational area does not necessarily relate to the religion of the person interred within (Adams).

 

June and Warwick Adams recorded all the legible monumental inscriptions in the cemetery in 1993 and Council have a copy of this document. This document is often used for confirming location of plots for new burials.

 

3.2 Famous People Buried in the Cemetery

The parents of Charles Henry Streeton, famous painter of the Heidelberg school.

 

The Hannan family, publishers of the “Randwick Coogee Weekly” which later became the Eastern Suburbs Newspapers, and owners of butchery. Their offices were located in the Star and Garter building (behind the Capt Cook statue).

 

David Hugh Munro, a jockey who won the Melbourne Cup three times in 1934, 1944, and 1946. More familiarly known as Darby Munro.

 

Sir John See, Mayor of Randwick, 1880-81 and 1886. Later went on to become a Member of the NSW parliament for the constituency of Grafton, served as Postmaster General, Colonial Treasurer and Chief Secretary and Minister of Defence.

 

The Veness family ran a wheelwright and blacksmith business and in 1864 Frederick Veness became the Postmaster a role in which he continued until 1878 when the first official Post Office was opened in Belmore Road.

 

Various other local prominent familles are buried in the cemetery, including the Pemmels, the Walls and two young men that were victims of shark attacks at Maroubra and Coogee beaches in the 1920’s.

4. 0 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE – CURRENT REGIME

 

4.1 Landscape Maintenance

Discussions were undertaken with Randwick Council operational staff to ascertain the current maintenance and administrative regime that exists for the Cemetery.

 

Grass pathways, grassed plots and masonry gravesites cover the vast majority of the cemetery. An asphalt and gravel road is found generally close to the perimeter of the cemetery. Small areas of minor shrub planting are found in the Cemetery. Masonry and timber fences surround much of the perimeter of the site.

 

Generally the quality of the grass cover is poor and weed infested however the grass is kept cut and therefore of a reasonably neat appearance. This level of presentation is similar to the landscape of many cemeteries.

 

The Sexton and on-site staff have been relocated to the Council Depot and form part of the West Maintenance team. In terms of landscape and general maintenance staff is responsible for the following activities:

 

·    Mowing of grassed areas and grassed graves

·    Whipper snippering of edges

·    Weed Control

·    Minor maintenance of garden beds

·    Digging graves

·    Cleaning of toilets

·    Litter control

·    Incidental maintenance of elements such as walls, fences.

 

Issues

Ø Level of landscape presentation of Cemetery is poor and ill defined.

Ø Landscape appearance of the Cemetery needs improvement. Some existing elements impede maintenance.

Ø A landscape Masterplan for the Cemetery does not exist and needs to be established for the future development of the site.

 

4.2 Perpetual Care and Annual Care

Council does collect annual care fees for the Cemetery. The RCC finance Section advises that they collect $2700 (incl GST) approximately annually from this source.

 

A system of annual and perpetual care is in place for the Cemetery. It is understood that perpetual care was offered in the past however according to Council officers it has been a considerable time since any perpetual care agreement has been undertaken. A written service agreement is not in place for this activity.

 

The plots which are designated to receive care are marked with a symbol. It is clear however that generally the same level of care is provided to all graves.

 

The mediocre level of maintenance associated with the graves is often a result of the design and general repair of the graves and whether easily accessible for maintenance. Obviously many of the very old graves are in poor repair and therefore particularly difficult to maintain because of broken masonry and fallen statues.

 

Ø Perpetual and annual care does not in reality occur

 

5.0 BUILT ELEMENTS – CURRENT REGIME

 

5.1 Buildings

The existing Toilet block located to the north of the site is in a state of disrepair and is currently unusable.

 

The maintenance shed is located near Malabar Road near the intersection of Greenwood Ave. This shed has been burnt out and therefore currently unused.

 

The Cemetery office is located in southwest corner of the site. This building is in reasonable condition although it does get broken into periodically and has graffiti on the external walls. Currently the building is not used.

 

Issue

Ø Resolve necessity and status for disused buildings

Ø Clarify function of Cemetery office

 

5.2 Statues, Headstones and Graves

In many cases particularly with old graves the statuary and masonry is in a significant state of disrepair. It would appear that from a legal viewpoint the maintenance of these elements falls under the responsibility of the owner of the plots. Obviously many owners are not contactable or interested in repairing expensive stonework and masonry. Therefore the graves are in a state of constant deterioration.

 

A large statue  (approx 1.3 metres), which marks the grave of the first Major of Randwick, John Campbell McDougall, has been dislodged by the removal of a close by tree and is potentially dangerous to other graves and the public. Council is aware of this problem and have barricaded the area. An appropriate action is being sought for the statue.

 

Issue

Ø Strategy for long term assessment and management of gravesites does not exist

Ø Define or source written agreement for Owner’s responsibilities

 

5.3 Vaults & Crypts

The maintenance of the vaults is the responsibility of the owners. Generally the vaults are more recently built than many of the graves and therefore maintained in reasonable condition. Graffiti is found on many of the external walls of the vaults. Some unused vaults are missing doors and these are often used by undesirable persons.

 

Council constructed new Crypts in the early 1990’s; they are located near Malabar Road towards the South of the site. One crypt has been sold however the remainder area currently unused. These crypts are generally in good repair.

 

Issue

Ø Strategy for long term assessment and management of vaults and crypts does not exist

Ø Define or source written agreement for Owner’s responsibilities

Ø Sale of available crypts need to be undertaken

 

5.4 Fences and Walls

The boundaries of the site are a mixture of sandstone walls, timber fences and sheet metal fences. The sheet metal fences, which run on the western boundary, are most problematic as they are covered by extensive graffiti and generally in poor repair.

 

Council is currently undertaking some work to the timber fencing.

 

Issue

Ø Existing graffiti is extensive and requires removal

Ø Some boundary fences and walls need repair

 

5.5 Signage

A present there is no sign that advises the name of the Cemetery. There is no current signage system in place for the Cemetery. Signage would be helpful in directing people to locations.

 

Issue

Ø Lack of signage causes confusion and lack of identity for the site

 

5.6 Vandalism

Vandalism and the gathering of undesirable persons have been the frequent subject of resident’s complaints and the topic of recent newspaper articles. The unused unsecured buildings encourage use by undesirable persons.

 

Issue

Ø Lack of security allows undesirable activities to occur

 

6.0 ADMINISTRATION – CURRENT REGIME 

 

Randwick City Council is responsible for the administration of the cemetery. The Enquiry Clerk at RCC (Mr Ken Sommerville) is responsible for most of the administrative tasks.

 

Existing administrative tasks involved with Funeral Arrangements include the following:

 

·    General inquiries from the public

·    Liaison with Funeral Directors

·    Provision of  Funeral Application Forms

·    Confirmation of location of burial sites

·    Keeping of Receipt Register

·    Keeping of Cemetery Register (burial records)

·    Collection of Funeral Fees from Funeral Directors

·    Provision of Receipts to Funeral Directors

 

To arrange a funeral the Funeral Director contacts Mr Ken Sommerville, Enquiry Clerk at Randwick City Council. The person arranging the burial must fill out a form requesting that the deceased be buried in a certain plot and indemnifying the Council against any future action (Refer App C). The Enquiry Clerk checks the Cemetery Register to ascertain the owner of the grave and ascertains the correct location of the plot. The West Maintenance Team confirms that the correct grave is prepared. 

 

Funeral Directors forward burial fees to the Enquiry Clerk for provision to RCC Finance Department. Both the Enquiry Clerk and the Sexton registers that the burial has occurred and the details in separate Cemetery Registers (register at RCC and in Cemetery Office).

 

Stone Masons are required to pay a fee to Council to carry out masonry work on the headstones.  They complete a form and submit to the Sexton before completing the work The Sexton collects the payment and provides receipts for these payments. These fees are then forwarded to the Enquiry Clerk for provision to RCC Finance Department

 

Council has a list of the Fees and Charges related to the Cemetery in the Statement of Fees and Charges 2003/2005 (Refer Appendix C).

 

Issue

Ø Generally the micro administration of the Cemetery is successful in regards to the proper process for burial, plot identification and record keeping. Responsibility for administrative tasks needs further definition and longterm strategies.

Ø Long-term management strategies are not in place for the Cemetery.

Ø Long-term funding strategies are not in place for the Cemetery

 

7.0 CONSERVATION OF THE CEMETERY

 

7.1 Zoning and Local Government Listing

Randwick Cemetery is zoned "Special Use (Cemetery)" under current environmental planning legislation. This zoning affords the cemetery statutory protection against other uses or development on the site.

 

Randwick Cemetery is listed as a heritage item in our LEP.  The LEP does allow certain maintenance work which doesn't affect heritage significance to be carried out without development consent.

The inclusion of a cemetery within the "heritage schedule" of a LEP identifies it as an area of heritage importance which is to be conserved. This usually requires specific approval by the local Council for any work other than routine

7.2 Current Situation

Randwick Cemetery is generally in a state of disrepair. Strategies need to be put in- place to minimise the degradation of the cemetery and ensure its conservation and appropriate management.

There are potentially a number of strategies for the future of the Cemetery and the Council must decide on the preferred option.

The following summarises some relevant of the relevant legal position that may impact on future decisions about the Cemetery. Further to this it outlines processes that will ultimate lead to a Conservation Plan for the Cemetery. The following is largely the summary of an extract from “GUIDELINES FOR CEMETERY CONSERVATION” from The National Trust of Australia (NSW) A full extract of this section is provided in the appendix.

            Burial Plots and Relatives' Rights

The "ownership" of a burial plot does not involve any normal title to the land but only a Burial Right and the right to erect and maintain monuments. These rights are generally transferable, but the transfer at death can be complicated.

                       

The Legal Position

1.   On death, the Burial Right automatically vests in the Legal Personal Representative of the Deceased (the Executor or Administrator). The Burial Right will remain vested in the Legal Personal Representative until it is transferred to a beneficiary and the transfer is registered in the cemetery register.

2.   Until the transfer is registered, the Legal Personal Representative is the only person entitled to require the Cemetery to recognise him as the owner of the Burial Right and the only person entitled to authorise a burial in the grave or conservation work on the monumentation.

3.   The Burial Right can be passed to another by will or on intestacy. Unless specifically dealt with in a will, it will form part of the residuary estate and will belong beneficially to all of the residuary beneficiaries (under the will) or all of the next of kin (in case of an intestacy) and they may be numerous. The beneficial shares which belong to each residuary beneficiary or next of kin may in turn be further fragmented among their beneficiaries or next of kin who may not even know of their inherited rights.

4.   Regardless of what may happen to the beneficial ownership of the Burial Right, the legal title to it will remain vested in the Legal Personal Representative until transferred to the persons beneficially entitled to it and he/she will be the only person legally entitled to authorise a burial in the grave or conservation work on the monumentation.

            Practical Effect

Determining the legal ownership of Burial Rights to an old grave is a difficult task for descendants (or others) wishing to undertake conservation. Determining the beneficial ownership may be a near-impossible task.

Often, if interested descendants can establish that they personally own some beneficial share in the Burial Right and if reasonable steps have been taken to advise other beneficial owners, the controlling authority will allow work to proceed.  

 

            Reuse of Graves

In 2001 the NSW parliament passed the Cemeteries Legislation (Unused Burial Rights) Act, which enables cemetery authorities to resume and resell plots that have been unused for 60 years.

The National Trust of Australia strongly recommends that any proposal to reuse areas of a cemetery should be preceded by a thorough conservation analysis and consideration of the social consequences, particularly the attitude of the families of those interred.

Conservation Management Plan

A conservation management plan (the plan) details why an item is considered to be of heritage significance and outlines policies to retain this significance that allow for economic re-use, possible future development and ongoing management and maintenance

                        Objectives

In preparing the conservation management plan the objectives are to:

• understand the heritage item through investigation of its historical and geographical

context, its history, fabric, research potential, and importance to the community

• prepare a statement of significance — the plan will analyse documentary and physical

evidence to determine the nature, extent and degree of significance of the heritage item

• develop a conservation policy, arising out of the statement of heritage significance, to guide current and future owners of the item on the development potential of the item and its ongoing maintenance. Constraints and opportunities are to be examined

• consider current proposals for re-use or development, and how they can best be

achieved in accordance with the conservation policy. Where proposals may have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the item, the need for such work must be justified. Where development proposals have not been finalised, several likely options responsible and interested in its ongoing are to be discussed

• recommend how the heritage item can best be managed bearing in mind those conservation. It is to include proposals to review the conservation management plan and the item’s maintenance.

 

Issue

 

Ø Council needs to engage an appropriate Consultant to provide expert advice on the heritage, conservation and legal issues associated with the Cemetery.

 

8.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The following table summarises these issues and makes recommendations to resolve issues.

LANDSCAPE

 

Issue

Recommendations

 

Level of landscape presentation is poor and ill defined.

 

Written description and programme for maintenance tasks not in place.

 

Ill defined area of responsibility for West Maintenance Team.

Agree acceptable level of presentation with relevant RCC Staff and Maintenance Team.

 

Provide maintenance specification and programme landscape maintenance tasks.

 

Define maintenance responsibilities including landscape, built elements and other

Perpetual and annual care does not in reality occur.

Decide on appropriateness of future agreements for perpetual and annual care- Discontinue perpetual care and annual care if legally acceptable

Landscape appearance of the Cemetery needs improvement.

 

Some existing elements impede maintenance.

Develop Landscape Masterplan which addresses maintenance regime.

 

Mininise landscape maintenance by appropriate treatments in Landscape Masterplan Plan.

Lack of regular waste service.

Establish an appropriate regular waste service

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUILT ELEMENTS

 

Issue

Recommendations

 

Define or source written agreement for Owner’s responsibilities for gravesites  vaults and crypts

 

 

 

 

Strategy for long term assessment and management of gravesites,  vaults and crypts does not exists

 

Undertake a study of gravesites vaults and crypts to complete the following

-identify Owners

-identify any significant elements requiring    repair

-contact owners and request repair

 

Ascertain legal process for reuse of plots

Resolve strategy for long term management

Sale of crypts need to be undertaken

Council should undertake a campaign of advertising the crypts and selling them at a reasonable market.

Resolve necessity and status for disused buildings. Existing toilet block and maintenance shed in poor state and unused

Resolve to refurbish or remove these buildings.

Clarify function of Cemetery office- under utilised space

Resolve use of building-appropriately refurbish.

Some materials presently stored in unused vault.

More appropriate location for storage should be nominated Area in office building to be used as storage area.

Existing graffiti is extensive and requires removal

Resolve method and programme for removal of graffiti.

Some boundary fences and walls need repair

Improvements to boundary treatments to be included in landscape refurbishment plan.

Lack of signage causes confusion and lack of identity for the site

Develop appropriate signage system as part of Landscape Masterplan Plan.

 

 

ADMINISTRATION

 

Issue

Recommendations

 

Responsibility for administrative tasks need further definition

 

Responsibility for record keeping needs to be more clearly defined.

Define responsibility & centralise administrative tasks.

 

Define appropriate responsibility for keeping of “Cemetery Register”.

Payments of fees are not strictly regimented.

Process for appropriate payment of fees need to be clearly defined.

Long-term management strategies are not in place for the Cemetery.

 

Long-term funding strategies are not in place for the Cemetery

 

A Business Plan needs to be developed for the Cemetery. This needs to comprehensively discuss management options.

                                      

 

SECURITY

 

Issue

Recommendations

 

 Lack of security allows undesirable activities to occur incl. arson.

Syringes are commonly found in the grounds

Increase Ranger patrols of the Cemetery

Extensive graffiti occurs on many of the built elements within the Cemetery.

Assess methods for minimising graffiti within the Cemetery.

 

 

CONSERVATION OF THE CEMETERY

 

Issue

Recommendations

 

The Cemetery and the built elements are degrading and there is no plan in place to restore the items of heritage significance.

Council needs to engage an appropriate Consultant to provide expert advice on the heritage, conservation and legal issues associated with the Cemetery.

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 87/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

MANAGEMENT OF PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07333

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 10th September 2004, the Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus MP, wrote to the Mayor, regarding actions taken by the NSW Government to curtail the use of plastic shopping bags.  

 

These actions include:

 

§  The endorsement by Environment Ministers of the Australian Retailers’ Association Code of Practice for the Management of Plastic Bags, with prescribed targets to reduce plastic bag usage by 50% by the end of 2005;

 

§  The identification of plastic bags as one of sixteen “wastes of concern” in the annual Extender Producer Responsibility Priority Statement, released by the NSW Government in March this year;

 

§  The intention to negotiate with producers to phase out plastic bags, with NSW being prepared to act independently to enforce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measures if there are no national outcomes on bag reduction; and

 

§  Support to Planet Ark for its “Plastic Bag Free” campaign, with an attached form to join the “Plastic Bag Free Town”.  (Randwick joined in 2003.)

 

On 16th September 2004, Planet Ark wrote to Council’s Waste Management Division.  The text of the letter was identical to that of the Minister’s letter.  

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 21 September 2004, in response to Mayoral Minute 68/2004 regarding the Practice for the Management of Plastic Bags, Council resolved “that this matter be deferred to the next Committee Meetings”, pending an officer’s report.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The role of governments, both State and Local, is to develop policy in relation to problem wastes such as plastic bags.  Council has previously taken an active role in contributing to legislative review and to policies in relation to waste.  

 

Under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, the NSW Government has responsibility for invoking the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) provisions to make producers (and not retailers) responsible for the life-cycle of the plastic bag product.  

 

An EPR scheme needs to address the product’s life cycle from the extraction of virgin materials to the post-consumer use and disposal consequences.   As quasi-regulation, the Minister must consider certain factors before introducing an EPR scheme for plastic bags, not the least of which is “whether there are any constitutional issues or other impediments to NSW acting unilaterally.”

 

In the Extended Producer Responsibility Priority Statement, the environmental policy objectives for an EPR scheme need to be made clear for each sector, namely:

 

§  Production - plastic bags are made from valuable petro-chemical stock and the objective is to conserve this resource.  

 

§  Distribution – the objective is to minimise the use of plastic bags by retailers adopting the Code of Practice measures.  

 

§  Disposal - the objective is to eliminate plastic bags from creating harm through uncontrolled release into environmental waters and landfill disposal.

 

Council should propose to the Minister, certain suggested actions that could be considered in relation to an EPR scheme for plastic bags.  These actions are:

 

§  Production - set targets for the reduction in the use of petro-chemical stock by bag producers, rather than rely on reduction in demand management for bags.

 

§  Distribution - mandate the adoption of the Code of Practice by retailers as part of the business licensing function, if targets are not met.

 

§  Disposal - ban the use of plastic shopping bags in marine vessels and waterways.

 

At a local level, councils can encourage consumers to restrict their use of plastic bags at beaches and parks to the wrapping and disposing of wastes.   Consumers should be encouraged to use reusable woven bags and to knot any plastic bags before putting them into the garbage disposal stream, so as to avoid wind-blown litter.

 

One successful campaign is the sale of the “Go Green” reusable woven bag, which is being promoted by Clean Up Australia, Planet Ark and Landcare Australia, in conjunction with retailers.  These bags are retailing for around $1.00 and are being well used by consumers.   Newspaper publishers have introduced similar woven bags for their products.  Other retailers may follow suit, so as to capture customer loyalty.

 

Clean Up Australia is providing a support campaign for the retailing industry, with a retailer’s package to assist with the implementation of the Code of Practice.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council should support the State Government in giving effect to its legislation with respect to Extended Producer Responsibility, by providing workable proposals based on Council’s own analysis of the issues.  Council should deal equitably with the supporting environmental campaign groups.  Council should also develop its own initiatives to assist retailers and consumers in minimising plastic bag usage and to survey the cost effectiveness of such initiatives and give feedback to the Government.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Locally based initiatives would be funded from within the current Waste Management budget.  A nominal estimate of $10,000 is made for these initiatives, although opportunities to offset the costs from sponsorship or grants would be examined.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council;

 

a)   Reply to the Minister’s letter advising proposals to enable Extended Producer Responsibility schemes to be developed in accordance with various legislative provisions;

 

b)   Copy the Ministerial reply to Planet Ark, Landcare Australia and Clean Up Australia; and

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   Copy of Minister for the Environment's letter dated 10 September, 2004.

2.   Copy of Planet Ark's letter dated 16 September, 2004.   

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

RUSSELL WADE

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE MANAGEMENT