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

 

 

20th June, 2006

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 27TH JUNE, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 30 TH MAY, 2006.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minute

 

6.1                      

MAYOR’S MINUTE 39/2006 – WAIVING OF FEES – ST PAULS ANGLICAN CHURCH COOGEE – CAROLS BY THE SEA.

2

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 13/2006 - DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006-09 AND BUDGET 2006-07.

4

7.2

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 15/2006 - COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY 2006.

20

 

7.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 16/2006 - PRECINCT COORDINATION COMMITTEE.

54

 

7.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 17/2006 - THE RANDWICK CITY PLAN, 'RICH HISTORY - BRIGHT FUTURE'.

71

 

7.5                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2006 - PAID PRINT MEDIA ADVERTISING POLICY.

108

 

7.6                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2006 - HEFFRON PARK LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBITION.

112

 

7.7                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2006 - INCORPORATION OF MAROUBRA BEACH BUS/TRAM TERMINUS INTO ARTHUR BYRNE RESERVE.

125

 

 

8           Director City Services' Report

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 49/2006 -  CANCELLING AND RECALLING THE CURRENT TENDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STORMWATER FIRST FLUSH SYSTEM AND UPGRADE OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT COUNCIL'S COMMUNITY NURSERY.

128

 

 

9           Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 38/2006 - IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF COUNCIL'S TENDER PROCESS.  (DEFERRED)

130

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 39/2006 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LICENCE AGREEMENT AND AFFIXING OF THE COMMON SEAL.

135

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 40/2006 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASE AGREEMENT AND AFFIXING OF THE SEAL.

138

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 41/2006 - SHOP LOCAL POLICY.

140

9.5

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES’ REPORT 42/2006 – AFFIXING OF THE SEAL.

142

 

 

10         Director City Planning Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 55/2006 –

53 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

144

 

10.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 56/2006 - BUNDOCK STREET WETLANDS.

213

 

10.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 57/2006 - UPDATE ON THE PREPARATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE LEP FOR RANDWICK CITY.

216

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1

Motion By Councillor Notley-Smith – Painting Of Cycleway. 

221

12.2

Motion By Councillor Notley-Smith – Street History Signage. 

221

12.3

Motion By Councillor Notley-Smith – Detailing Of Historical Buildings. 

221

12.4

Motion By Councillor Notley-Smith – Bus Shelters. 

221

12.5

Motion By Councillor Matson – Reconsideration Of HCB Repacking Issue.

221

12.6

Motion By Councillor Matson – Clarification Of MP’s Opposition To Light Rail. 

221

12.7

Motion By Councillor Matson – Response To Petition Concerning Vicar Street Backpackers. 

221

12.8

Motion by Councillor Daley – Adult Services and Remedial Massage Premises in Randwick City Council.

222

 

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

14.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 14/2006 – CONFIDENTIAL FEES AND CHARGES 2006/07.

223

14.2

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 21/2006 – MAROUBRA BEACH PAVILLION CAFÉ TENDER.

225

 

 

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

……………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 39/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - ST PAULS ANGLICAN CHURCH  COOGEE - CAROLS BY THE SEA

 

 

DATE:

13 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07843

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Mr Jack Kasses, Parish Council Secretary, St Paul’s Anglican Church,  South Coogee, advising that the church is currently planning its annual major community event of  “Carols by the Sea” to be held on Saturday, 9th December, 2006 at Grant Reserve.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Kasses expresses the Church’s appreciation of the support given by Council towards this major community event and seeks the waiving of fees to financially meet the high costs of staging such an event.

 

Supply and remove additional bins (based on 8 by 240L bins)   $   440.00

Connection to power                                                                            $     82.50

Administration Fee                                                                                $   420.00

Temporary Food Stall                                                                           $     90.00

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $1,032.50

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $1,032.50 and this amount will be funded from the Contingency Fund 2006/07.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that St Paul’s Anglican Church is a non-profit organisation and to assist with this event, costs be allocated to cover the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         Council vote $1,032.50 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the 2006/2007 Contingency Fund Budget;

 

b)         the event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

c)         the Mayor or his representative shall be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 13/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006-09 AND BUDGET 2006-07

 

 

DATE:

2 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00161

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 18 April 2006, it was resolved that the Draft Management Plan along with the  Draft Fees & Charges 2006-2007 and Draft Budget 2006-2007 be placed on public exhibition from 19 April to 19 May 2006. An advertisement was placed in the Mayoral column of the Southern Courier on 18 April providing details of the public exhibition and inviting the public to make submissions. The closing date was then extended to 26 May 2006 and this was advertised in the Mayoral column on 25 April 2006.

 

Copies of the notice inviting submissions and the Draft Management Plan with associated documents were also placed at the three libraries, the Customer Service Centre and on Council’s web site.  Each Precinct Committee and each Chamber of Commerce was sent a copy of the Draft Management Plan with an invitation to put in a submission.

 

A combined Precinct and Chambers of Commerce Meeting was held on 11 May 2006 to discuss the Draft Management Plan and further feedback was sought.

 

ISSUES:

 

Submissions

Twenty one (21) submissions were received from individuals and organisations in response to the public exhibition of the Draft Management Plan. Attachment 5 includes copies of all submissions received.

 

Commentary has been provided on issues raised in the submissions that directly related to the activities proposed in the Draft Management Plan. There were many other important issues raised in some of these submissions that related to either:

·    Randwick City Plan (in particular the submission from Coogee Precinct Committee)

·    Development matters

·    Planning issues

·    Broad Governance issues

 

Feedback on these other issues has been directed to the relevant Council officers and departments.

 

Several submissions also suggested an increased focus on specific areas in the background information and other changes in wording and/or layout. In many instances, these changes have been incorporated into the recommended Management Plan 2006-2009.

 

Council’s Response to Submissions

The following table provides of summary of the submissions relating to programs in the draft Management Plan and documents Council’s response.

 

1. Bob Sheather, Maroubra Junction Precinct

 

Increased Services

Ramp at Coral Sea Park

 

 

Footpath, kerb & guttering in Glanfield St (between Royal & Hanna Sts.)

 

 

 

Reduced Services

No median tree planting in Maroubra Road

 

No banner program

 

Response

Ramp is in the 2006/07 Capital Works Program

 

Works can only proceed as part of a road widening program. At this stage Council still does not have ownership of all land required for road widening program

 

 

This project will proceed

 

 

The banner program is  designed to promote civic pride and is part of a city-wide streetscape improvement program

 

2. Charles Abela, La Perouse Precinct Committee

 

Increased Services

Remediation works in the Bicentennial Park

 

Footpath  constructed on western side footpath between La Perouse bus-stop & shops

 

 

Reduced Services

No footpath along Military Rd as only passes industrial sites and cemetery

 

 

Response

Funds allocated in Budget for this project. Works will commence soon

 

2006/07 Capital Works Program provides for construction of stairs in Goorawahl Avenue to the bus stop which will address some of these concerns

 

 

This footpath is part of general improvements that will involve formalising parking, narrowing roads and including bicycle pathway that will ultimately allow access to Yarra Bay. In addition majority of users are elderly who are visiting cemetery

3. The Spot Precinct

 

Increased/ Changed Services

Additional $120,000 to be allocated to Traffic Committee related projects

 

 

 

10% of the $1.6million Footpath  Construction program be allocated to each of North, East and West Wards

 

Response

$80,000 has been allocated for the first time for Traffic committee related projects.

 

In 2006/07 footpath program will be focused on Central & South Wards. However, in future years will be increased funds available for work in all wards.

4. The Spot Business Association

 

Increased Services

Allocation of funds to address outstanding Council resolutions in relation to The Spot. Includes footpath works and streetscape enhancements

 

Response

Council has yet to allocate funds to these projects

5. Mr R Albert, 17 Mason St. Maroubra

 

Increased Services

Completion of kerb & guttering in Mason St (between Royal & Anzac Parade). Two thirds of work was completed 30 years ago.

 

Response

Will be completed as it is in the 2006/07 Capital Works Program

 

6. Mark Lucas, Clovelly Chamber of Commerce

 

 Increased Services

Showcase the Coastal Walkway entry at Ocean St Clovelly to Burrows Park

 

Coastal walkway to be defined / constructed through car park at Gordon’s Bay

 

Additional funding for park maintenance

 

Response

Good idea that will be considered in future works

 

Design work is already in draft works program 06/07

 

 

In 2006/07 estimates $5.996 million has been allocated for parks maintenance and $4.511 million for parks capital works.  The combined funding is an increase on 2005/06

 

 

 

7. Ms. T Blair, 8 Bradley Street, Randwick

 

Issues

Supports the extension of weekend opening hours and establishment of a Toy Library at Randwick Branch Library

 

Location of proposed playground construction

Response

Extended library programs reflects Council’s commitment to provision of these services

 

Further information was provided to the resident

 

 

8. Joseph Smith, Prince Edward St., Malabar

 

Issues

Need for a clear communication plan around monitoring of performance indicators

 

 

 Lack of strategic approach to provision of Council run child care centres

 

Response

Council will ultimately provide regular information on website and in written communication on progress against indicators

 

Information provided to resident on child care centres that are in premises owned but not operated by Council

 

9. Combined Precinct Committee & Chambers of Commerce Meeting, 11 May 2006

 

Reallocated Services

Funds allocated to footpath in Military Rd Matraville be used for footpath construction in Anzac Parade

 

Funds to be transferred from banner program to park improvements

 

 

Issues

More clarification required on Section 94 contributions and reserves including amount in reserves

 

 

Differences between performance indicators, measures and targets & development of social capital indicators

 

 

Inclusion of information on previous domestic waste charges

 

Lack of focus on health of residents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More details required on anticipated income from property disposal  and what will happen to income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Higher profile for Libraries

 

 

 

More Council support for development of services for the aged and youth

 

 

 

Monthly updates on Capital Works projects

 

 

 

 

 

More acknowledgement to alcohol related issues

Council Response

See comment against submission 2

 

 

 

The banner program is  designed to promote civic pride and is part of a city-wide streetscape improvement program

 

 

The 2006/2007 Budget  shows an expected S94 capital contributions of $847,000 with $1,552,000 allocated to  works projects from the S94 Reserves

 

Performance indicators reviewed. In many cases the measurement in 2006/07 will provide the base data against which targets for improvements will be set

 

Information now included in draft Management Plan on page 70

 

While the funding for health is responsibility of State and federal governments Council tries to support ‘better health’ by provision of open spaces and opportunities for exercise. Council also supports community health through regulation and inspection of food premises, cooling towers, hairdressers and skin penetration premises. Randwick has worked in partnership with the Prince of Wales Community Health program in terms of promoting exercise and healthy living for the elderly. In 2006/07 Randwick will receive funding of $11,000 for a health program for aboriginals.

 

As part of the adopted Long Term Financial Plan a property development strategy was indicated. This strategy will redevelop under utilised sites, reduce reliance on rate revenue through alternative revenue streams and support Council's Community Facilities Program. Information on these proposed sales is provided on page 61. Any property sale must go to Council for approval before it proceeds

 

Library profile is actually reflected in budget allocation which includes increased library services

 

Council is aiming to support the development of increased community services by supporting organisations in seeking funding for additional services.

 

At this stage updates will be provided in quarterly reports to Council although it is Council’s intention over a longer period to improve the level of accountability and quality of information provided to community

 

While the licensing of premises is the responsibility of the Licensing Court, Council’s officers are involved in the Liquor Accord which is a cooperative approach to addressing the social issues caused by Council. These issues will also be addressed in the crime prevention and safety plan which will be developed and implemented over the next 3 years.

 

10. John Deegan

 

Issues

Community Liaison section does not reflect full range of consultative actions

Response

The section has been expanded to provide a more informative description of consultative actions

 

 

11. Jason Young, Precinct Committee

 

Increased Services

Increase in safety and security initiatives

 

 

 

 

Reduced Services

No flag banner program

 

 

Issues

Increased online reporting to community

Response

In the actions under Strategic Outcome 6 Council will prepare and implement a crime prevention and safety plan which will have a focus on safety and security

 

 

The banner program is  designed to promote civic pride and is part of a city-wide streetscape improvement program

 

It is Council’s intention over a longer period to improve the level of accountability and quality of information provided to community including information available on our website

12. Kensington-Kingsford Precinct Committee

 

Increased Services

Additional funding for Local Area Traffic Management Plan for Gardner’s Rd/Southern Cross Drive area

 

Funding for rejuvenation including new park bench of park on cnr. Strachan St & Edward Ave Kensington

 

Response

While Council acknowledges the importance of this plan, funds are not available in the 2006/07 Budget

 

Council will consider this request at a latter date

13. AMP Capital Shopping Centres (Royal Randwick)

 

Issues

Preparation of the Economic strategy be a priority action in 2006/07

 

 

 

Concern about proposed charge on businesses (& method of calculation) using public places to advertise on and above public land

 

Response

A report to put to Council on the preparation of an Economic Strategy in 2006/07.

 

 

This matter will be followed up to clarify concerns

 

14. C Greene 2/244 Maroubra Rd Maroubra

 

Issues

Include a full reconciliation of Environment levy revenue & expenditure

 

 

More details of $20,000 expenditure on coastal walkway signage

 

Separate accounting of environment levy from rates revenue in 5 year projections

 

 

 

 

Identification of all public land for purpose of revenue raising under S611

Response

A Full reconciliation is being prepared and will be reported to Council in the future.

 

Details of expenditure is provided in Capital Works Program

 

The environmental levy is not a separate charge or special rate and is consolidated with general rate revenue. Also future estimates are dependent on estimated rate pegging increases.

 

Public land for S611 purposes includes all roads, footpaths, Crown land and park reserves

15. Randwick City Tourism Inc.

 

Increased Programs

2006-2009 Actions to support a communications strategy to educate the local community on the local economy

 

2006-2009 Actions to support youthful lifestyle that will attract youth to support ageing population

 

Issues

Performance indicators to include employment and participation rates

 

Response

The preparation of an Economic Strategy

will involve a communication strategy

 

 

This has not been included at this stage but will be explored further prior to preparation of Management plan 2007-2010

 

If statistics are available from ABS they will be considered

16. Moverly Precinct Committee

 

Increased Programs

Review of Plan of Management for Randwick Environmental Park

 

More planning (funding) for transport & traffic

 

Development of multi-purpose facilities rather than user specific sporting facilities

 

 

 

 

Issues

More strategic approach to street tree planning

 

 

 

Greater emphasis on meeting health needs of residents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Require more details on income from sales of Council property

 

Response

Council is awaiting the transfer of the land title

 

Additional funding provided in 2006/07 Budget

 

All future community centres as well as the recently opened Randwick one are planned to be multi-purpose as detailed in the Community Facilities Study & Plan 2003

 

 

A Strategy for Street Tree Planting and a Street Tree Master Plan has been produced.  A significant tree register being developed

 

While the funding for health is responsibility of State and federal governments Council tries to support ‘better health’ by provision of open spaces and opportunities for exercise. Council also supports community health through regulation and inspection of food premises, cooling towers, hairdressers and skin penetration premises. Randwick has worked in partnership with the Prince of Wales Community Health program in terms of promoting exercise and healthy living for the elderly. In 2006/07 Randwick will receive funding of $11,000 for a health program for aboriginals.

 

As part of the adopted Long Term Financial Plan a property development strategy was indicated. This strategy will redevelop under utilised sites, reduce reliance on rate revenue through alternative revenue streams and support Council's Community Facilities Program. Information on these proposed sales is provided on page 61. Any property sale must go to Council for approval before it proceeds

 

17. Kingsford Chamber of Commerce

 

Increased Services

Completion of footpaths in Kingsford Commercial Area in Anzac Parade- Straun St to Barker St and Middle to Barker Sts.

Planter boxes to be kept up to date

 

A public noticeboard be erected to discourage use of light poles

 

Response

To be considered in the 2007/08 Budget

 

 

 

Regular maintenance to be undertaken

 

Council will look at a range of options to address this issue

18. Coogee Precinct Committee

 

Increased Program / Services

Initiate a biennial Coogee landscape prize in recognition of Coogee’s role in history of Australian landscape painting

 

 

Develop report on cost of putting overhead wires underground in densely populated areas

 

 

 

 

 

Plant cabbage Tree Palms in Coogee and other relevant areas

 

 

In 2006-09 –provide free parking spaces for formal car share opportunities

 

 

In 2006-09 implement a publicity campaign for use of buses

 

 

In 2006/07 trial two free car spaces at Coogee

 

 

 

Undertake an examination of urine & faecal contamination

 

Issues

New/changed performance indicators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy change re Notification that requires all residents within 500 metres. are notified at applicant’s expense of any DA involving licensed premises

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provision of Beach Watch Data on Council’s website

 

 

 

Develop new signage that celebrates items/places of natural significance

 

 

Review the fees charged to residents for information from non current files

 

 

 

 

Develop a volunteer program for counting the number of users of public open space area for passive recreation purposes

 

Initiate a moratorium on extension of hours of operation of existing licensed premises and approvals for any new licensed premises in those areas with too many licensed premises

 

Hold public meeting to assess the progress of Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord

 

 

Develop policy of tree (habitat) replacement

 

 

 

 

Extend existing aquatic reserve to and including area adjoining Wylies Baths

 

Develop maximum permitted levels of noise emission

 

 

 

 

Work with Sydney buses with a view to undertaking a trial of gas powered buses

Response

This idea will be considered as part of  the Cultural Plan which is included in the Management Plan and will be finalised in 2006-2007

 

Council has a broad understanding of the cost of this activity which far exceeds Council’s ability to pay. Report is not required. There is a new Council policy for new development to underground overhead wires and this will result in improved visual impact.

 

All street tree planting is undertaken in accordance with the Street Tree Master Plan

 

2006-09  Actions include exploring and support rideshare initiatives within Randwick City and UNSW

 

At this stage funds have not been allocated in the budget but it could be considered in future programs

 

In 2006-07 Council will investigate the feasibility of providing parking for car-share initiatives although this may not necessarily be in Coogee

 

Council will continue to keep areas as clean as possible

 

 

A large number of new or revised indicators were proposed and consideration will be given to measurement process, relevancy to outcome and availability of data with the expectation that some of these  will be incorporated into the Management Plan

 

Council's DCP- Public Notification requires letters to be sent to adjoining and nearby owners of likely affected properties, a notice to be placed on the site and an advertisement in the local newspaper. The extent of individual notification will largely depend on the nature of the proposal and scale of development, and as such it would be difficult to place an arbitrary distance on the area to be notified. Nonetheless the advertisement placed in the local newspaper allows the public exhibition to reach the broader locality.

 

Over the next three years there will be an ongoing website design project and providing Beach Watch data will be considered as part of that project

 

While funds are not available in this budget this initiative could be considered under Outcome 7 in the future

 

Currently there is no charge for Section 12 requests and a $30 charge for FOI requests. Council has to carry the cost of all such requests for information regardless of staff time involved.

 

This would be a difficult program to coordinate if reliable data is to be obtained.

 

 

Council is required to work within the parameters of the EP&A Act Consent in considering applications for the hours of operation

 

 

As Council is only one participant in the Accord we cannot make a commitment to hold a public meeting without the consent of the other parties involved

 

A number of strategies are currently in place for fauna habitat protection. In 2006/07 a native havens program will be introduced.

 

 

This is the responsibility of State government agencies

 

Noise emission levels are regulated by Council via State Government developed guidelines. The permitted standards vary depending upon the type/source of noise being emitted

 

 This would require substantial allocation of funds from State Government. Would not be the responsibility of Council to fund

19. Julie Batty, 40 Victoria St Randwick

 

Issues

Increased focus on ‘Health of residents’

 

Response

Many of the concerns raised were, while worthy, outside Council’s areas of responsibility

 

20. Randwick Open Care for Kids (ROCK)

30 Waratah St., Randwick

Increased Services

Provision in budget for children’s day care facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council to provide exhibition in Libraries of ROCK’s 26 year old history

 

Council to build a purpose built facility for ROCK at Heffron Park

 

 

Issues:

Demographics – questioned basis and concern about ageing population and Council’s role

Response

Council’s basic responsibility is to provide for maintenance of critical infrastructure and this is the priority area for funding. However, while the provision of day care facilities is the responsibility of other levels of government Council currently allocates approximately $400,000 to support child care centres across the City

 

This idea could be discussed in the future

 

 

This concept cannot not be considered until the Plan of Management is adopted with a sustainable funding option for the Heffron Park development

 

All demographic data is sourced from ABS statistics.

 

21. Mrs A Whyatt- Taylor

      36 Midway Drive Maroubra

Additional Service

Request for a footpath  to be laid outside 36 Midway Ave Maroubra where there is 19 special needs units. Many of the residents use wheelchairs

Response

Given the special needs of the residents and the fact that this is a low cost project it could be funded from the existing Central & South footpath program

 

 

Recommended Response

That the construction of a footpath in front of 36 Midway Street Maroubra is included in the Footpath Construction Program and the Draft Capital Works Program be amended.

 

 

Fees and Charges  - Recommended Schedule– Attachment  2.

 

The following changes have been made to the General Fees & Charges as per Attachment 2.

 

Page

Type of Fee

Advertised Fee

Recommended Fee

Reason for Change

3

Cemetery Fees – Annual Fee (Graves, Vault Sections & Turfing)

Various

Deleted

As per Council Resolution 9 November 2004, “…that the fees being charged for perpetual care at Randwick General Cemetery be discontinued…”)          

13

Additional Bin

$146.26

$146.30

Rounded up

 

49

Section 603 Certificates under Local Govt Act 1993

$50

$55

As per DLG Circular 06-28 on 24 April 2006

 

Recommended Budget  2006/2007– Attachment  3.

 

In accordance with the Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting (April 2005) Section 9.5 and as per Council Resolution 18 April 2006, in respect to each broad function of council, expenses that can be reliably attributed has now been allocated to that function (AAS 27 paragraph 79 (b)).

 

Changes to responsibility centres as contained in Attachment 3 are in accordance with this code.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for any of the changes as the footpath construction at 36 Midway Ave Maroubra can be carried out within existing budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The submissions received on the Management Plan have been considered in detail and the appropriate recommendations have been made. In addition many of the suggestions which related to the background information and performance indicators will be incorporated into the document. The number of submissions and level of interest shown by the community in the draft Management Plan 2006-2009 is very welcome and reflects Council’s commitment to improving the level of consultation and communication with the community.

 

The Minister for Local Government has already advised that the permissible increase in General Income is 3.6%. The Recommended Budget and Recommended Management Plan is based on a total rate increase of 3.6%

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the recommended General Fees & Charges be adopted as per Attachment 2 (GM’s Report 13/06);

(b)        the construction of a footpath in front of 36 Midway Street Maroubra be included in the Footpath Construction Program;

(c)        the Recommended Capital Works Program (as amended) be adopted for 2006/07;

(d)        the Recommended Annual Budget 2006/2007 be adopted as per Attachment 3 (GM’s Report 13/06);

(e)        the interest rate on overdue rates be calculated at 9.0% per annum, and charged daily, in accordance with the determination under s566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, by the Minister for Local Government;

(f)         the Recommended Management Plan 2006/09 (Attachment 1) be adopted as the Management Plan for 2006/09 under s406 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993;

(g)        the Ordinary Residential Rate be made and levied by Council for 2006/07, under s494 and s498 (1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.22556 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being Residential land;

(h)        the Ordinary Business Rate be made and levied by Council for 2006/07, under s494 and s498 (1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of  0.8822 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being Business land;

(i)         the minimum ordinary Residential rate be made and levied in 2006/07 under s548 (1) (a), (2), (4) & (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $529.30;

(j)         the minimum ordinary Business rate be made and levied in 2006/07 under s548 (1)(a), (2), (4) & (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $853.00;

(k)        the Domestic Waste Management Charge 2006/07 be levied under S496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $294.60; and

(l)         the responsible financial officer be delegated to make changes as adopted by Council

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         Recommended Management Plan 2006/09 - under separate cover

2.         Recommended Fees and Charges 2006/07 - under separate cover

3.         Recommended Budget Summary 2006/07 - under separate cover

4.         Recommended Capital Works Program 2006/07 - under separate cover

5.         Public Submissions 1-21 - under separate cover

6.         DLG Circular 06/28 – Maximum Interest rate on Overdue Rates and Charges 2006/07

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 6

 

Circular No. 06-28                           Contact Kim Speer

Date             24 April 2006               02 4428 4137

Doc ID.       A50151                                                                               kim.speer@dlg.nsw.gov.au

INFORMATION ABOUT RATING FOR 2006/07 – FEE FOR SECTION 603 CERTIFICATES, BOARDING HOUSE TARIFFS AND MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE ON OVERDUE RATES AND CHARGES

FEE FOR SECTION 603 CERTIFICATES

In accordance with the definition of an approved fee in the Dictionary to the Local Government Act 1993, I have determined that the fee for a Section 603 Certificate for 2006/2007 is $55.00.

The determination applies to the issuing of a certificate of the matters specified in section 603(3) of the Act. Where a council offers to provide other information as an optional service the council is not prevented from separately determining an approved fee for that additional service. Furthermore, a council is not prevented from determining approved fees for additional services required by an applicant for the expedited processing of a Section 603 Certificate.

BOARDING HOUSE TARIFF FOR RESIDENTIAL RATING

In accordance with section 516(1A) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Minister has determined that for the purpose of the definition of ‘boarding house’ and ‘lodging house’ in that section, the maximum tariffs that a boarding house or lodging house may charge tariff-paying occupants are:

(a)          Where full board and lodging is provided – $264 per week for single accommodation, or $440 per week for family or shared accommodation

(b)          Where less than full board and lodging is provided – $177 per week for single accommodation, or $294 per week for family or shared accommodation.

A notice giving effect to this decision was published in Government Gazette No 49 of 7 April 2006.

Department of Local Government

5 O’Keefe Avenue NOWRA NSW 2541

Locked Bag 3015 NOWRA NSW 2541

T 02 4428 4100 F 02 4428 4199 TTY 02 4428 4209

E dlg@dlg.nsw.gov.au W www.dlg.nsw.gov.au ABN 99 567 863 195


MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE ON OVERDUE RATES & CHARGES

 

In accordance with section 566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Minister for Local Government has determined that the maximum rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the 2005/06 rating year will be 9%.

A notice giving effect to this decision was published in Government Gazette No 52 of 13 April 2006.

Garry Payne

Director General


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT

15/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY 2006

 

 

DATE:

14 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00865

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In March/April 2006 Micromex Research carried out a Community Survey for Randwick City Council. The aim of the survey was to examine community attitudes on a broad range of issues and to gather information on what residents see as the most important priorities for Council for the next three years.

 

The survey asked residents to rate the importance of 31 different Council services and activities and how satisfied they were with Council’s performance on those same services and activities. The survey also gathered information on corporate image and communication.

 

This critical information will assist Councillors and Council management with future planning and the establishment of long term priorities.

 

RESULTS:

 

An analysis of the results shows that the majority (69.3%) of Randwick City residents are highly satisfied with Council’s overall performance. This is an overwhelming endorsement of Council’s work for its community.

 

The five most important services and activities to residents were:

·                     Maintaining roads

·                     Public health and safety

·                     Beach Cleaning

·                     Community safety

·                     Maintaining footpaths.

 

It is important to note that residents were highly satisfied with Council’s performance on three of the above services and activities.

 

 


Chart 1: Randwick Council Compared to Average Other Councils

 

 

 

 

Randwick Council is clearly outperforming other Councils. The above chart shows that Randwick has a greater percentage of very satisfied to satisfied residents (69.3%) than other Councils (64.6%). It also shows that Randwick has a lower percentage of dissatisfied to very dissatisfied residents (10.4%) than other Councils (13.9%), which reflects the positive attitude amongst respondents to the performance of Council and its officers.


 

Chart 2: Randwi`1ck Council Overall Satisfaction Levels in Community Surveys

The above chart compares residents’ overall satisfaction levels from previous community surveys with their satisfaction levels in the 2006 survey.

 

While the results of previous surveys carried out in 1998, 1999 and 2000 are not directly comparable due to the different methodology used, it is clear that residents’ overall satisfaction levels with Council have continued to increase over the last few years.

 

Importance of services and satisfaction levels

 

Residents identified the following as the five most important services/facilities:

·         Maintaining roads

·         Public health & safety

·         Beach Cleaning

·         Community safety

·         Maintaining footpaths.

 

This clearly shows that the residents and community want a clean, safe, well-maintained City.

The five services with the highest satisfaction levels were:

 

·         Beaches

·         Council libraries

·         Ocean pools

·         Playgrounds and parks

·         Beach cleaning

The fact that Randwick residents are most satisfied with the area’s beaches reflects Council’s commitment to improving the beaches and their surrounding parks. Council has spent $28 million spent on improvements at all beaches (particularly Coogee, Clovelly and Maroubra), has ensured the beaches are well patrolled and safe, and has also ensured the beaches provide many opportunities for recreational activities and enjoyment.

 

The high satisfaction level with beach cleaning also reflects the considerable additional investment in that activity. In 2006 Randwick Council received independent recognition of its work on the area’s beaches, winning five awards in the Keep Australia Beautiful, Clean Beach Challenge competition.

 

The high level of satisfaction with our parks and playgrounds is directly related to our investment in the area. Council made significant improvements to several parks, landfill sites and playgrounds in 2005/06 and has allocated $4.5 million to parks capital programs, with over $2.5 million for maintenance, for 2006/07.

 

Gap Analysis

 

The Gap Analysis is the largest difference between the levels of importance and satisfaction according to the community for each service and facility.  The community sees these services and facilities as important but have a lower level of satisfaction with Council’s provision of these services and facilities.  These are therefore Council’s priority areas for improvement and future resourcing.

 

The following were identified as the highest priority services and facilities for Council to address (Gap Analysis).

 

·           Maintaining footpaths

·           Maintaining roads

·           Public litter bins

·           Long term planning

·           Street cleaning

·           Council’s response times to request for service

·           Attractiveness of town centres

 

Council has already identified these services and facilities as priorities and incorporated initiatives to address these in its 2006/07 Budget and 2006/07 Management Plan.

 

Maintaining Footpaths

In both 2005/06 and 2006/07 Council allocated $1.6 million to footpath maintenance. Council constructed over 16 kilometres of new footpaths in Central and South Wards this year and, while the focus so far has been on completing footpaths in these wards, the program will be expanded to all Wards by July 2007. Council intends to continue this level of spending into the future.

 

Maintaining Roads

Council has spent $2.5 million on rehabilitating our local roads over the last financial year and has dedicated the same amount towards road maintenance for the coming year. An additional $500,000 has been allocated for a regional road repair program.

 

There has also been a strong focus on implementing sound strategic asset management programs for our roads. Council intends to maintain this expenditure on roads over the next ten years.

 

Public Litter Bins    

Some of the litter bins in the streets and parks of the City are old and require replacement and Council recently adopted a strategy to address these issues.

 

To improve the street scape and the aesthetics of our public areas, Council has replaced some of the old concrete litter bins with 120 litre mobile garbage bins with stainless steel surrounds. The new-look bins have improved the attractiveness of the gateway areas and the highly visited beach areas of the city.

 

Council has installed recycling bins in conjunction with the public litter bins at Coogee Beach.  It is envisaged that this trial will expand to other beach fronts.

 

Council has increased the frequency of emptying the public litter bins in all parks and town centres.  Further, a cleaning programme for the public litter bins has been established.

 

Long-term planning

While a recent independent inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government found Councils across NSW were lacking when it comes to long-term strategic and financial planning, Randwick Council is at the forefront of local government management because it has a number of extensive plans already in place.

 

Examples include Council’s 30 year long-term Financial Plan, 20 year City Plan, 10 year Information Technology Strategy, Plant Replacement Strategy, Domestic Waste Strategy, Property Development Strategy. Council also uses monthly financial reports that are widely recognised as best practice.

 

Street cleaning

The need for improved street cleaning has been identified in Council’s 2006/07 Management Plan. A street cleaning program has been introduced and a key part of this program will be the cleaning of footpaths and roads in town centres on a daily basis to help ensure better aesthetics and cleanliness for the City.

 

Council has invested in the replacement of three new road sweeping vehicles over the past two years.  Council purchased two new footpath sweepers for the footpaths in the town centres and beach promenades in the 2005/06 Budget.  Council has proposed to fund additional resources in the draft 2006/07 Budget to increase the frequency of the cleaning of the footpaths in the town centres and beach promenades.

 

Council’s response time to requests for service

Council is consistently striving to improve its response times to various types of requests. 

With the introduction of Public Place Officers, Council is proactively addressing residents’ concerns by preventing issues becoming a problem before residents feel the need to contact Council.

 

While this is something that is being improved across Council, the Customer Service Centre plays a key role in coordinating requests. A number of changes have been made to Council’s Call Centre that have improved efficiency, including the establishment of targets (which are already being met on a regular basis), changes to rostering, and the combination of Council’s switchboard and call centre into the one unit (which has significantly reduced abandoned call rates).

 

The changes have enabled Council to increase its customer service to our community by reducing abandoned call rates from 20% to under 3 %.  Further, over 85% of all calls to Council are responded to within 40 seconds.

 

Attractiveness of town centres

A number of strategies are being adopted to improve the attractiveness of town centres.  Council’s 2006/07 Capital works program includes improvements to the following key areas:

·                    Lexington Place

·                    Coogee Bay Road

·                    Havelock Avenue Commercial Strip

·                    High Cross Commercial Precinct

·                    Malabar Junction

·                    Street Furniture Program.

 

In addition, initiatives in Council’s Management Plan to improve attractiveness include:

·        Development of the ‘Look of the City’ manual that will provide standards on attractive and consistent street furniture, waste bins and paint schemes

·        Cleaning of public litter bins in town centres daily and, in selected centres, three times daily.

 

Contact with Council

 

Table A:  Contact with Council in the last 12 Months

 

Type of Contact

% of contact

% of contacts that were satisfied

% that required follow up

% satisfied with follow-p

Face to face

26%

77%

36%

61%

Telephone

36%

71%

39%

60%

Written

15%

53%

44%

47%

Website

26.3%

76%

 

 

 

The above table shows that residents are more satisfied with face to face, telephone and website contact than they are with contact by writing. This provides a clear opportunity for improvement.

 

Information provision

 

Chart 3: Sourcing of Information from Council

The above chart shows how residents source information from Council, with the majority of residents indicating they use the local newspaper (77.9%) or source information from letter box drops (72.4%).

 

Local newspapers play a key role in informing residents about all Council matters, and Council’s Communications team liaise with local newspapers on a daily basis to place advertisements, provide editorial content and respond to media enquiries on a broad range of issues.

The majority of respondents indicated that they were satisfied to very satisfied (62%) with the information Council provides on its services and activities.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Community Satisfaction Survey 2006 validates the direction of Council over the past two and half years and the allocation of resources in the budget and Management Plan over this period.

 

The work of Council has received great endorsement from the local community, with almost three quarters of respondents to this survey saying they are satisfied or very satisfied with Council’s overall performance.

 

Council achieved greater satisfaction rates than other councils on average, and has continued to increase its satisfaction levels over the past years.

 

The survey shows that Council is performing well on several of the services or activities that residents have identified as most important to them, with residents reporting high satisfaction levels with the cleanliness of our beaches, community safety and public health and safety.

 

Respondents to the survey were also highly satisfied with Council’s website, Council libraries, ocean pools, playgrounds, parks, ovals and sporting facilities.

 

Council has already implemented a number of programs and other initiatives to address the areas that are of importance to residents and has dedicated significant resources and expenditure to all of these in its 2006/07 Management Plan and Budget.

 

The survey also highlights a number of areas where Council could improve its services, and Council has already taken steps to address these issues and has identified them for action in its Management Plan and Budget.  The draft 2006/07 Budget and Management Plan continues this direction in meeting and addressing the requirements of the community.

 

The results of this survey can now be used by Council to guide recommendations for future planning, continuous improvements and innovation that will improve Council services and corporate image.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Community Satisfaction Survey 2006 be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.           Community Satisfaction Survey 2006 Report; And

2.           Graphs Of Mean Importance And Mean Satisfaction Ratings For Council's Services And Facilities

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OVERALL SUMMARY

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY RESEARCH 2006



 

Introduction

 

Randwick City is located in the eastern suburbs of the Sydney metropolitan area and is bounded to the north by Centennial Park, the Pacific Ocean forming the eastern boundary and Botany Bay the southern boundary. The western boundary is defined generally by major roads and the line of open space and golf courses developed over low lying land known historically as the Lachlan Swamp and Botany Wetlands.

Randwick City covers an area of 36.43 square kilometres (3643.6 hectares) and includes the thirteen suburbs of:

 

·    Kensington

·    Randwick

·    Clovelly

·    Kingsford

·    Coogee

·    South Coogee

·    Maroubra

 

·    Matraville

·    Malabar

·    Chifley

·    Little Bay

·    Phillip Bay

·    La Perouse

 

 

The City has approximately 25 kilometres of coastline, which strongly influences the area's character and function, from beachside residential areas, open space and tourist destinations to industrial developments and port facilities.

 

The population in Randwick City at the 2001 Census count was 121,497 (of which, 2.4% (2,917) were overseas visitors) an increase of 5.3% over 10 years from the 1991 population (115,349).

 

In March 2006, Randwick City Council commissioned Micromex Research to undertake the 2006 Community Satisfaction Survey in order to quantitatively measure the satisfaction of residents in relation to services delivered by Randwick City Council. The research was intended to provide information on the performance of Council by evaluating community perception and opinion on a range of specific service areas and corporate image factors.

 

This survey represents the first broad community survey since 2000.  Baseline data was collated for the purpose of assessing performance in later re-administrations of the survey at appropriate intervals. 

 

 

Aims of the Study

 

This report examines community attitudes on a broad range of issues that will assist Councillors and Management with future planning and the establishment of long-term priorities.

 

More specifically the report aims to –

 

§ Establish baseline data with respect to the perceptions (i.e. importance and satisfaction levels) of residents with the services delivered by Randwick City Council

 

§ Establish baseline information on resident perceptions in relation to Council’s corporate image

 

§ Identify gaps in community perception for improvements to services and corporate image

 

§ Guide recommendations for continuous improvements and innovation to service provision and corporate image

 

§ Use the findings to establish future satisfaction targets in line with the strategic direction of Council

 

Methodology

 

Randwick City Council designed the 2006 Community Survey in consultation with Micromex Research. The custom designed survey enabled the questions to be focused specifically on the services and facilities provided by Randwick City Council, in order to provide more useful information than using a generic local government survey.

 

The main survey, using a structured questionnaire, was administered on a computer aided telephone system during the period 28th March 2006 to the 20th April 2006 from 4:30pm to 8:30pm. Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia) Standards and the Market & Social Research Society Code of Professional Conduct.

 

The survey area consisted of 6 postcode areas representing 13 suburbs within the Randwick City Council LGA.

 

Table A: Postcodes and Suburbs.

Postcode

Suburb

2031

Randwick

 

Clovelly

2032

Kingsford

2033

Kensington

2034

Coogee

 

South Coogee

2035

Maroubra

2036

Chifley

 

La Perouse

 

Little Bay

 

Malabar

 

Matraville

 

Phillip Bay

 

The sample consisted of a total of 1200 residents. The selection of respondents was by a computer based random selection process.

 

Individuals in the household, 18 years or older, were selected using the ‘last birthday’ selection procedure. Participants had lived in the Randwick LGA area for a minimum of six months.

 

If the person was not at home, the call-backs were scheduled for a later time. Unanswered calls were retried to a maximum of 3 times throughout the period of the survey. On completion of the survey, additional interviews were conducted where certain sections were underrepresented.

 

A quota sampling procedure was used to eliminate the need for heavily weighting the survey. The compliance rate achieved was 54%, which represents a good cross section of the community and provides a sound basis for gauging community opinion.

 

A sample size of 1200 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 2.9% at 95% confidence.

 

The data was analysed using SPSS V14.2 and SPSS Text Analysis. Statistically significant differences were determined by using the ‘independent sample t-test analysis (2-tailed)’.

 

Residents rated the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of 31 different Council services or facilities (see Table B below). Each service or facility was given an importance rating (out of 5) and a satisfaction rating (out of 5). Information was provided on a number of variables including age, gender, postcode and suburb which will allow more in depth analysis in the future.

 

Table B: Council Services and Facilities

 

Maintaining roads

Protection of natural bushland

Community consultations

Referral to community services

Maintaining footpaths

Weed control

Ovals & sporting facilities

Information on community services

Constructing cycleways

Tree preservation

Ocean pools

Home Modification & maintenance service

Response time to requests for service

How DAs are planned for & assessed

Playgrounds & parks

Community safety

Provision of information on Council’s activities

Attractiveness of town centres

Beaches

Public litter bins

Public health & safety

Vitality of town centres

Council libraries

Street cleaning

 

Management of parking restrictions

Protection of heritage buildings & items

DRAC

Beach cleaning

Long term planning

Community centres & halls

Town centre cleaning

 

The methodology used in this survey for determining the importance of the 31 services or facilities included the total sample population. This has allowed for a more accurate depiction of the importance of the various services or facilities to the total population.

 

With respect to satisfaction however, those respondents who were unable to give an opinion were not asked to do so. The satisfaction component therefore only applies to those respondents who were familiar with the particular service or facility.

 

 

Key findings

 

Most important services or facilities

 

·    Maintaining roads

·    Public health and safety

·    Beach cleaning

·    Community safety

·    Maintaining footpaths

·    Public litter bins

 

Services or facilities with highest satisfaction

 

·    Beaches

·    Council libraries

·    Ocean pools

·    Playgrounds and parks

·    Beach cleaning

·    Ovals and sporting facilities

 

Highest priority services or facilities to be addressed by Council (Gap Analysis)

 

·    Maintaining footpaths

·    Maintaining roads

·    Public litter bins

·    Long term planning

·    Street cleaning

·    Council's response time to requests for service

·    Attractiveness of town centres

 

Other key points

 

·    The most significant means by which respondents contacted Council was by telephone

 

·    The least satisfied, and those requiring the most follow up, were the respondents who had contacted Council in writing. This group was also the least satisfied with the follow up from Council

 

·    There was a high degree of satisfaction with Council’s website

 

·    There was a high degree of satisfaction with the information Council provided on its services and activities

 

·    There was a moderate to high degree of satisfaction overall with Council’s performance

 

·    The highest priority issues identified by respondents that Randwick was facing in the next three years were related to:

o Roads

o Development

 

Summary of Results

 

Part A

 

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of 31 different Council services or facilities. The importance and satisfaction ratings were analysed for all services and facilities and comparisons were made with each other and the priorities from a whole of Council perspective.

 

The results include the means, quadrant and gap analysis and the combined priority ranking, for all 31 services or facilities.

 

Note: Attachment 2 contains the graphs of the mean importance and mean satisfaction ratings for each of these services or facilities.

 

1. Importance ratings

 

The most important and least important services or facilities were:

 

Most important

Maintaining roads

 

Public health and safety

 

Beach cleaning

 

Community safety

 

Maintaining footpaths

 

 

Least important

Referral to community services

 

Home Modification and Maintenance Service (HMMS)

 

Des Renford Aquatic Centre

 

Community centres and halls

 

The importance mean ratings ranged from a high of 4.7 for ‘maintaining roads’ where more than 93% of the respondents rated them as highly important, to a low of 3.3 for the ‘community centres and halls’ where 50% of the respondents rated it as highly important.

 

2. Satisfaction ratings

 

The services or facilities with the highest or lowest satisfaction ratings were:

 

Most satisfied

Beaches

 

Council libraries

 

Ocean pools

 

Playgrounds and parks

 

 

Least satisfied

Maintaining roads

 

Management of parking restrictions

 

Maintaining footpaths

 

Constructing cycleways

 

The satisfaction mean ratings ranged from a high of 4.0 for ‘beaches’ where more than 75% of the respondents were highly satisfied, to a low of 2.6 for ‘constructing cycleways’ where approximately 44% of the respondents rated them in the low satisfaction range.

 

The services that fell within the predominantly dissatisfied range were:

·    Maintaining roads

·    Maintaining footpaths

·    Constructing cycle ways

·    Management of parking restrictions

·    Public litter bins

 

3. Analysis of Importance and Satisfaction Levels

 

The services and facilities were prioritised in terms of both importance and satisfaction. While it is important that Council aims at achieving a high satisfaction level for all services, it is obviously more critical to achieve a high satisfaction level for the services with higher importance.

 

Table C is a quadrant analysis of importance and satisfaction levels. It uses the mean scores for both importance and satisfaction to determine whether a service or facility is performing higher (above the mean) or lower (below the mean) compared to all the other services and facilities.

 

Table C: Importance and Satisfaction Levels for Services and Facilities

 

A     HIGHER IMPORTANCE

           LOWER SATISFACTION

B     HIGHER IMPORTANCE

           HIGHER SATISFACTION

Maintaining roads

 

Beaches

 

Maintaining footpaths

 

Community safety

Attractiveness of town centres

 

Protection of natural bushland

Council’s response time to requests for service

Tree preservation

Long term planning

Public health & safety

 

Public litter bins

Beach Cleaning

 

Street cleaning

Town centre Cleaning

 

C      LOWER IMPORTANCE

            LOWER SATISFACTION

D     LOWER IMPORTANCE

          HIGHER SATISFACTION

Home Modification & Maintenance service

Ovals & sporting facilities

Weed control (bushland & beach reserves)

Ocean pools

Constructing cycleways

 

Playgrounds & parks

How Council plans for & assesses DAs

 

Council libraries

Vitality of town centres

 

DRAC

Provision of information on Council activities

Community centres & halls

Management of parking restrictions

 

Referral to community services

Community consultations

Protection of heritage buildings & items

Information on community services

 

 

 

What each of the quadrants mean

 

Higher Importance and Higher Satisfaction Services and Facilities (Quadrant B)

 

It is clear that the community most values and is more satisfied with Council’s provision of the services and facilities that are listed in Quadrant B, ie. those which rated as Higher Importance and Higher Satisfaction.

 

Chart 1:          Council Services and Facilities Rated Higher Importance and Higher Satisfaction

 

These findings reflect the priorities that Council has identified and addressed over the past 18 months.

 

Council has put considerable resources into the cleaning of our town centres in recent years. Mechanical sweepers are now used on a daily basis and in 2006-07, recognising the importance of this activity, Council has allocated additional funds for an extra team to manually clean the ‘difficult to access’ areas.

 

Other initiatives such as the Graffiti Buster team and the introduction of the Public Place officers have contributed to improvement in the cleanliness of public places.

 

Council also has an ongoing commitment to improving community safety and, apart from the current strategies in place, will be preparing and implementing a crime prevention and safety plan over the next three years. In addition, there have been a number of recent initiatives such as the Pumpkin Bus, road safety campaigns and beach safety education for local school children which have all contributed to making the community feel safe. It is encouraging to see the level of residents’ satisfaction with community safety.

Council has a strong proactive and reactive approach to maintaining public health. We plan and implement regulatory inspection programs for food premises, cooling towers, hairdressers and skin penetration premises, as each of these can have a significant impact on public health. As a result of these planned inspection programs there have been no public health issues in the City. There is also a reactive program which sees Council staff responding in an appropriate and timely manner to any environmental spillages, and noise and smell issues which can each have a significant impact on public health.

 

The value placed on Tree Preservation and the high level of satisfaction with this activity is an acknowledgement of the range of strategies and policies such as the policy of staggering tree removal and replacement, the Street Tree Master Plan and the Greening Randwick Committee.

 

Similarly, Council’s commitment to the protection of natural bushland can be seen by actions such as the rezoning of 4.4 hectares of nationally endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub at the Prince Henry development site at Little Bay to Zone 7 Environmental Protection. Another 13 hectares were also rezoned at the former Defence land in Randwick, Bundock Street to Zone 7 Environmental Protection, and this will become part of the proposed Randwick Environmental Park which will be managed by Council.

 

 

Lower Importance Services and Activities (Quadrants C and D)

 

While the services and facilities in Quadrant D were rated as not as important to the community as those in Quadrants A and B, residents were satisfied with their provision.

 

The services and facilities in Quadrant C were also rated as not as important, however they also have a low level of community satisfaction.

 

Generally in such surveys the level of satisfaction is always lower than the level of importance. The exception to this in Randwick City relates to the Des Renford Aquatic Centre where the satisfaction level exceeds importance. However, it is clear that the community are satisfied with the facility, which supports Council’s decision a number of years ago to assume responsibility for the management of the centre.

 

Similarly, the community’s level of satisfaction with Council’s libraries is almost equal to how important they view the service.

 

 

Higher Importance and Lower Satisfaction Services and Facilities (Quadrant A)

 

The services and facilities listed in Quadrant A have the greatest gap between the levels of importance and satisfaction. The community sees these as important but have a lower level of satisfaction with Council’s provision of these services and facilities. These are therefore Council’s priority areas for improvement and future resourcing.

 

 

Chart 4:          Council Services and Facilities Rated Higher Importance and Lower Satisfaction

 

4. Council’s future priorities

 

Those services and facilities show in the quadrant analysis (high importance/low satisfaction) and gap analysis (large performance gap) to require attention, in priority ranking, were:

 

1.   Maintaining footpaths

2.   Maintaining roads

3.   Public litter bins

4.   Long term planning

5.   Street cleaning

6.   Council's response time to requests for service

7.   Attractiveness of town centres

 


Part B

 

Part B relates to specific communications with Council, in terms of how residents contact Council (face to face, telephone or written contact, and use of Council’s website) as well as Council’s provision of information and how residents source information about Council.

 

1. Contact with Council

 

In this series of questions respondents were asked if they had had any contact with Council staff either face to face, by telephone or in writing in the last 12 months.

 

Those who had contact, were then asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the contact. Those that were dissatisfied were asked to describe why.

 

Summary

 

Type of contact

% of contact

%of contacts that were satisfied

% that required follow up

% satisfied with follow up

Face to face

26%

77%

36%

61%

Telephone

36%

71%

39%

60%

Written

15%

53%

44%

47%

 

Face to face contact

 

·    26% of respondents had face to face contact with Council staff in the last 12 months

·    Of these, 77% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with that contact (mean rating of 3.9)

·    Of those who were dissatisfied, the main reasons were categorised as follows:

o Inefficiencies                             23        (2% of total sample)

o No resolution                            15

o Disinterest/rudeness                  15

·    Of those who had face to face contact with Council, 36% required follow up by Council

·    Of those who had required follow up by Council, 61% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with how the contact was followed up (mean rating 3.4)

 

Telephone contact

 

·    36% of respondents had telephone contact with Council staff in the last 12 months

·    Of these, 71% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with that contact (mean rating of 3.7)

·    Of those who were dissatisfied, the main reasons were categorised as follows:

o No resolution                            35        (3% of total sample)

o Inefficiencies                             33        (3% of total sample)

o Disinterest/rudeness                  23        (2% of total sample)

·    Of those who had telephone contact with Council, 39% required follow up by Council

·    Of those who had required follow up by Council, 60% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with how the contact was followed up (mean rating 3.5)

 

Written contact

 

·    15% of respondents had written contact with Council staff in the last 12 months

·    Of these, 53% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with that contact (mean rating of 3.3)

·    Of those who were dissatisfied, the main reasons were categorised as follows:

o No resolution                            25        (2% of total sample)

o Inefficiencies                             11

o Disinterest/rudeness                  6

·    Of those who had written contact with Council, 44% required follow up by Council

·    Of those who had required follow up by Council, 47% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ and 43% were ‘dissatisfied’ to ‘very dissatisfied’ with how the contact was followed up (mean rating 2.9)

 

Council’s website

 

·    26% of respondents had visited Council’s website in the last 12 months

·    Of these, 76% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with having met their objectives when visiting the website (mean rating of 3.9)

 

2. Provision of information on Council’s services and facilities

 

Council’s provision of information was considered in relation to the level of satisfaction with information that Council provides.

 

When asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the information Council provides on its services and activities, the majority of respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied.

 

·    62% were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with the information Council provides on its services and activities (mean rating of 3.6)

·    Of those who were dissatisfied (13%), the main areas where they thought Council could improve were in:

o Newsletters/mailouts                                         91 (8% of total sample)

o Advertising/information in newspaper    40 (3% of total sample)


Chart 5:    Satisfaction with Information on Services and Activities

3. Sourcing information from Council

 

In response to a prompted question, we found that the most popular methods used by residents for sourcing information from Council were:

·    Local newspapers                     78%

·    Letterbox drop                         72%

·    Word of mouth             43%

·    Council’s website                     29%

·    Customer service centre            24%

 

Local newspapers play a key role in informing residents about all Council matters, and Council’s Communications team liaise with local newspapers on a daily basis to place advertisements, provide editorial content and respond to media enquiries on a broad range of issues.


Chart 6: Sourcing of Information from Council

 

Table D shows the percentages of residents in each suburb that said they used a particular means for sourcing information from Council. As shown, the highest percentages of residents across all suburbs said they source information from the local newspaper or letter box drops.

 

Table D:  Sourcing of Information Across Postcodes

 

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Total

 

 

 

 

Libraries

 

17.8%

29.8%

18.9%

17%

27.1%

26.3%

22.3%

Council’s website

 

30.3%

33%

25.9%

34.9%

27.7%

19.5%

28.6%

Letter box drops

 

68.4%

76.5%

74.1%

72.6%

74.2%

73.6%

72.4%

Customer Service Centre

28.4%

20.6%

26.6%

23.7%

20.7%

23.2%

24.3%

Word of mouth

41.7%

35.4%

38.9%

41.7%

40.5%

54.7%

42.8%

 

Other

6.6%

2.1%

0

7.4%

3.2%

3.1%

4.5%

 

Local Newspaper

74.5%

74.9%

68.9%

72.5%

84.5%

87.3%

77.9%

 


Part C

 

Part C details the outcomes of the questions on Rates Payments, as well as overall satisfaction with Council’s performance in the last 12 months, and priority issues for the future as nominated by respondents.

 

1. Rates

 

·    65% of respondents paid rates to the Randwick City Council

 

When asked what their most preferred means of paying rates would be, the most significant responses were:

·    Bpay                                        35%

·    Australia post in person 25%

·    Direct debit                              16%

 

2. Overall satisfaction with Council’s performance

 

·    69% of respondents were ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ with Council’s performance overall in the past 12 months, (mean rating of 3.6)

·    20% of respondents were neutral and 10% were ‘dissatisfied’ to ‘very dissatisfied’

·    Of those who were dissatisfied, the main reasons were categorised as follows:

o Council related issues                93        (8% of the total sample)           

o Rubbish/cleaning                       38        (3% of the total sample)

o Development                            29        (2% of the total sample)

 

Overall satisfaction compared with other councils

 

The following table compares residents’ overall satisfaction with Randwick Council’s performance in the last 12 months to a Council Satisfaction Average.

 

This Council Satisfaction Average was developed by averaging the results of 6 Council surveys conducted by Micromex in the previous 2 years (5 of these councils were city councils and 1 rural).

 

 

Satisfied to Very Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied to Very Dissatisfied

Mean (1=Very Dissatisfied, 5=Very Satisfied

Randwick City Council

69.3%

20.3%

10.4%

3.6

Council Satisfaction Average

64.6%

21.6%

13.9

3.55

 

The information on residents’ overall satisfaction has been broken down according to postcode areas below.


Table E: Satisfaction Levels Across Postcodes

 

 

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

Total

%

 

 

 

Very Satisfied

& Satisfied

 

70.8%

 

74.9%

 

69.6%

 

67.2%

 

68.1%

 

65.9%

 

69.3%

 

Neutral

 

19.6%

 

 

17.6%

 

23.1%

 

21.9%

 

21.1%

 

19.7%

 

20.3%

Dissatisfied & very dissatisfied

 

9.6%

 

7.5%

 

7.3%

 

10.8%

 

10.9%

 

13.3%

 

10.3%

 

If this information is compared with previous Council surveys, there has been a change in the relative levels of satisfaction between different suburbs. Previously the 2036 postcode (southern suburbs) showed the highest level of satisfaction in both the 1999 and 2000 surveys and for the same time period Kensington/Kingsford showed a marked fall in satisfaction from 1999 to 2000. 

 

However, as can be seen in Table E, in 2006 the Kingsford residents have the highest levels of satisfaction followed closely by the residents in Randwick and Clovelly. The residents who reside in 2036 have the lowest level of satisfaction although a satisfaction level of 65.9% still exceeds the average for other Councils and as such is a good result.

 

3. The highest priority issues facing Council in the next 3 years

 

Respondents gave the following as being the highest priority for Council over the next three years:

 

Roads

275

22.9%

Development

268

22.3%

Safety/crime

181

15.1%

Parking

176

14.7%

Cleanliness

162

13.5%

Beaches

149

12.4%

Footpaths

128

10.7%

 

Conclusion

 

This community survey contained two significant themes: the priority of services and facilities in Randwick City and communications with Council.

 

Services and facilities

 

The gap analysis identified those areas that were seen as most important to the community but with which they felt some degree of dissatisfaction.

The most significant were:

 

·    Maintaining footpaths and roads

·    Public litter bins and street cleaning

·    Long term planning

 

When asked what they felt were the highest priority issues facing Council in the next three years the findings showed that similar issues were most prominent.

These related to:

 

·      Roads

·      Development

·      Safety/crime

·      Parking

·      Cleanliness

 

Communications

 

The two primary means of communicating with Council were face to face or by telephone, both of which recorded high levels of satisfaction as well as satisfaction with any follow up, if required.

 

Council response to residents’ written communication, although not a prominent means of communicating with Council, needs to be further examined as the research identifies higher levels of dissatisfaction with Council’s response to the communication and the follow up of that communication.

 

The research also indicates that Council’s website is widely used with over a quarter of respondents visiting the site in the last 12 months. The outcomes of these visits were reported to be positive with 76% stating that they met their objectives when visiting the website.

 

Overall satisfaction with Council’s performance

 

Of particular note, when analysing the respondents overall satisfaction with Councils performance is the very low levels of dissatisfaction recorded (10%). This is an excellent result for Randwick City Council and reflects a positive attitude among respondents to the performance of Council and its officers.

 

Although there was a reasonably high level of satisfaction with the overall performance of Council there are opportunities to further improve. The community’s main concerns related to specific Council issues, rubbish/cleaning and development issues.

 

General comment

 

This survey provides a clear overview of the community’s attitudes to a range of issues or the provision of services or facilities by Randwick City Council.

 

There are areas or issues that require the attention of Council to ensure an improvement in the provision of these services or facilities. The change in the community’s attitudes as a result of these improvements will become evident from community surveys undertaken in the years ahead.

 


 

Attachment 2:  Mean Importance and Mean Satisfaction Ratings for Services and Facilities


 









 


  

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 16/2006

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

Precinct Coordination Committee

 

 

DATE:

7 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00487

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting of 22 February 2005 adopted the Terms of Reference for the Precinct Coordination Committee (PCC).

 

As part of the reporting mechanism, minutes of PCC meetings are reported to Council, including any recommendations and resolutions, together with supporting documentation.

 

This report provides Council with copies of the minutes of the Precinct Coordination Committee meeting of 23 March 2006.

 

ISSUES:

 

The 23 March 2006 PCC meeting finalised and unanimously adopted the boundaries of Council’s eleven precinct committee areas. The boundaries had been the subject of consultations with individual precincts and the Precinct Coordination Committee in the preceding 12 months.

 

The 23 March 2006 meeting also endorsed a new section of the Rules and Procedures of Precinct Committees covering matters relating to conflicts of interest. This had been the subject of six months of consultations with precinct committees and the PCC.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

CONCLUSION:

 

The boundaries of the precinct committee areas and the addition of the Conflict of Interest section of the Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures have both been the subject of community consultation and have been endorsed by the Precinct Coordination Committee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the minutes of the PCC meeting of 23 March 2006 be noted;

 

(b)        the boundaries of the Precinct Committee areas (as shown on the attached map) be adopted; and

 

(c)        the updated Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures document (as attached to this report) be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. PCC Minutes 23 March 2006

2. Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures

3. Precinct Boundaries Map   

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

Precinct Co-ordination Committee

 

Minutes of meeting

23 March 06

 

Welcome and introductions

 

Attendance:

 

Ray Brownlee (Chair)

Bob Sheather  Maroubra Junction

Kate Collier  Clovelly

Kathy Neilson  Randwick

Mark England   Coogee Beach

Charles Abela   La Perouse

Paul Chilcott   The Spot

Inspector Julie Donohue (NSW Police)

Garry MacDonald   Moverly

Snr Constable Petah Condie (NSW Police)

 Bruce Harris   Malabar

Matthew Vincent (JCDecaux)

Bob Brooks   La Perouse

Karen Armstrong  (RCC)

Andrew Tosti  The Spot

Aaron Bowden (RCC)

Coleen Greene   Maroubra Beach

Martin Ryman   (RCC)

 

 

Apologies:

 Julia Batty (Malabar), Lynne Kirchner (Kensington), John Shiell (Kensington)

 

Minutes of meeting 1 November 2005

The minutes of the meeting of 1 November 2005 were accepted as a true record of the meeting.

 

Business arising from Minutes

 

 

Item

Action

Responsibility

4.1

Conflict of Interest

 

 

 

The Conflict of Interest provisions of the  RCC Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures, tabled at the 1 November 2005 meeting of the PCC and circulated to Precinct Committees for comment, were endorsed by the meeting.

Report to Council

Martin Ryman

4.2

Boundaries

 

 

 

The Precinct Boundary Map, tabled at the 1 November 2005 meeting of the PCC and circulated to Precinct Committees for comment, was endorsed by the meeting.

Report to Council

Martin Ryman

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Business

 

 

Item

Action

Responsibility

5.1

Community Safety and Policing

 

 

 

Inspector Julie Donohue and Snr Constable Petah Condie presented information and responded to questions on policing issues, including:  Operation Prevent, conducted in March Operation Clean Sweep, drug dog operations, Repeat Victims Pack, Robbery Prevention Pack.

There was a request for information on crime statistics. The police are not able to table these statistics but are able to present information on this and the other operations to precinct committees. The contact details for Snr Constable Petah Condie are phone 9349 9214 and email cond2pet@police.nsw.gov.au

 

 

5.2

Section 94 Contributions

 

 

 

Aaron Bowden (RCC) gave a presentation on Section 94 Contributions and associated issues. A copy of the presentation is available for Precincts on request

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3

Town Centre identity

 

 

 

Aaron Bowden (RCC) also gave a presentation on the Mayoral minute on town centre identity and place marketing. A copy of the presentation is available for Precincts on request.

The PCC endorsed the concept.

Precincts to discuss and provide feedback

PCC Reps

 

Precinct Representatives were asked to discuss the ideas with the precincts, and provide feedback to Council.

 

PCC Reps

 

 

 

 

5.4

Community Safety Committee

 

 

 

Charles Abela and Mark England were endorsed as the PCC representatives.

Kerry Wareham and Bruce Harris were recommended as community representatives

Forward names to Aoife Wynter

Martin Ryman

 

 

 

 

5.5

JCDecaux and bus shelters

 

 

 

Matthew Vincent, City Relations Manager with JCDecaux gave a presentation on bus shelters. A copy of this presentation is available to precinct committees on request.

 

 

 

Precinct Committees were asked for their ideas on ways to reduce vandalism on bus shelters and provide feedback.

Precincts to provide feedback

PCC Reps

 

PCC reps asked that the JCDecaux hotline number be placed on Council’s website

 

Martin Ryman

 

Item

Action

Responsibility

5.6

Salvation Army Shop

 

 

 

Bob Sheather reported that the Salvation Army Shop at Maroubra Junction had been destroyed by fire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.7

Cyclone Larry

 

 

 

The PCC requested that the Mayor send a message of support and sympathy to those Councils affected by the Cyclone Larry

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.8

Heffron Park

 

 

 

The General Manager outlined the concept of the proposed upgrade for Heffron Park, and detailed the funding options for the proposals.

 

 

 

Next Meetings

11 May 2006 Workshop on RCC Management Plan for Precinct Committees and Chambers of Commerce.

7 July 2006 Precinct Coordination Committee, commencing at 6.30pm

 


Attachment 2

 

 

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

 

PRECINCT COMMITTEES

 

RULES AND PROCEDURES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTENTS

 

Introduction                                                                                                     2

 

PRECINCT COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES                                                           2

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP                                                                                3

 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS                                                                                      4

 

THE COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE                                                                           5

 

THE CHAIRPERSON                                                                                             6

 

THE SECRETARY                                                                                                  7         

THE AGENDA                                                                                                          8

 

THE MINUTES                                                                                                         9

 

MATTERS REFERRED BY COUNCIL TO PRECINCT COMMITTEES       10

 

COMMITTEE FUNDING                                                                                         11

 

COUNCIL’S COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND LIAISON OFFICER      12

 

PRECINCT CORDINATION COMMITTEE                                                         13

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST                                                                                                14                               


INTRODUCTION

 

Randwick City Council, in pursuing its commitment to community engagement, has established Precinct Committees throughout the City.

 

The Council’s Precinct Committees are convened by residents and supported by Council. They play a vital role in ensuring that future changes in the City of Randwick take residents’ views into account.

 

Precinct Committees have been established to increase the flow of information between the Council and the community and to provide residents with an opportunity to be more active in the decision making process.

 

Precincts Committees are not decision-making bodies, but act as a conduit moving issues and opinions between the community and Council.

 

Council’s Community Consultation and Liaison Officer (CCLO) assists Precinct Committees seeking information necessary to make informed decisions and recommendations on matters referred to them by Council.

 

In order to be effective, Precinct Committees rely on the goodwill of all who attend meetings. Precinct Committees are not to function, in effect, as resident action groups and attempts by an action group or political party to dominate a Precinct Committee or their meeting will ultimately reduce the effectiveness and credibility of that Precinct Committee.

 

PRECINCT COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES

 

·     To encourage community engagement by developing a sense of community between the Council, community and the local environment

 

·     To facilitate continuous, clear two-way communication between Randwick City Council and the community

 

·     To provide a formal system of information transfer between residents, property owners, tenants and Council

 

·     To encourage residents’ and property owners’ contribution to Council's decision making process

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

 

All residents, tenants and property owners within the designated Precinct Committee area are eligible to be members.

 

At least 20 members representing 20 different family groups must indicate their interest in establishing a Precinct Committee in their area.

 

Each Committee must annually elect an Executive, comprising a Chairperson and a Secretary. Executive Officers are elected at the initial Precinct Committee meeting. All residents, tenants and property owners within the designated Precinct Committee area are eligible to be office bearers, however the nominees cannot be from the same family or household.

 

Maps showing the current Precinct Committee boundaries accompany the Precinct Committees Rules and Procedures manual. Residents, tenants and property owners who live in or own property on the border of two or more Precincts may attend and be members of any of the adjoining Precinct Committees.

 

Councillors are eligible to be members of the Precinct in which they reside. However, they are only entitled to attend other Precinct meetings by invitation. Councillors can not accept nomination for Executive roles within any Precinct Committee.

 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

 

Each Precinct should aim to hold a public meeting once per month.  It is preferable that meetings are held a minimum of six times per year in different months.

 

It is the responsibility of the Precinct Committee Executive to inform residents of the time, date and agenda for the next meeting. This may be done by way of a letterbox drop, posters and/or email.

 

Each Precinct Committee meeting requires a quorum of 10 people. The number of people set for a quorum is to ensure that meetings remain as representative as possible. If a quorum is not reached, the meeting may still proceed, however the Council will note the vote count and take this into consideration when responding to the recommendations.

 

No resident, property owner or tenant is to be excluded from any Precinct Committee meeting.

 

It is necessary for each Precinct Committee to establish specific meeting procedures for the smooth running of their meetings, in line with Council’s Precinct Committees Rules and Procedures. The procedures must demonstrate respect for fellow attendees.

 

The Chairperson is responsible for guiding and controlling the meeting and ensuring that debate is conducted in accordance with standard meeting practice. It may be necessary to limit the number and length of time a particular person can discuss a matter, to ensure that no one individual dominates the meeting.

 

Matters to be discussed and voted on should be formulated as a motion. When sufficient discussion has occurred, members should be asked to vote on the motion and the number of people voting for, against and abstaining, will be recorded in the minutes.

 

THE COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE

 

The Executive of a Precinct Committee comprises the Chairperson and Secretary.

 

Precinct Committees may elect additional members to assist the Executive.  For example the Committee may wish to elect a Treasurer or an Assistant Secretary.

 

The Executive is to ensure that Precinct Committee meetings are conducted in accordance with standard meeting procedures.

 

The Executive is to ensure that residents, tenants and property owners are given at least five days advance notice of a scheduled meeting.

 

The Executive may need to call a Special Meeting if a decision on a matter is needed before the next scheduled meeting is to be held. For example this may occur when comments are required for a Development Application (DA) submission.

 

In exceptional circumstances, when an issue affects more than one Precinct, the respective Precinct Executives may facilitate the calling of a combined meeting.

 

All Precinct Committee correspondence or requests to Council are to be directed to the CCLO at Randwick City Council and can only be lodged by the Precinct Committee Executive.

 

Committees must keep accurate financial records, which are to be prepared for the Annual General Meeting (AGM). The role of Treasurer may be performed by either the Secretary or the Chairperson.

 

The AGM for each Precinct Committee will be held in November of each year when the Executive office bearers are elected.

 

Appointment to the position of a Chairperson and Secretary will commence upon election and become vacant on the day of the next AGM in November of the following year. If a vacancy should occur for any of the Executive positions during the year, an election shall be held to fill such a vacancy at the next Ordinary Meeting.

 

A member may hold the same position of either Chairperson or Secretary for no more than two consecutive years. Any extension beyond this time must be through a formal request to the General Manager of Randwick City Council.

 

THE CHAIRPERSON

 

The Chairperson is responsible for preparing an Agenda for each meeting. The Chairperson should follow this Agenda, however if the meeting wishes to bring forward special items such as a guest speaker, the order of items can be voted on to be adjusted accordingly.

 

The Chairperson is responsible for guiding and controlling the meeting and ensuring that decisions made, are achieved after fair and reasonable debate has taken place.

 

The Chairperson's role is to focus the meeting on the issues, ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard, discourage repetition and irrelevance and guide the meeting to consensus if necessary.

 

It is the role of the Chairperson to ensure that the meeting is conducted within a two hour period.

 

It is appropriate to allow some discussion on each item prior to moving a motion and voting. However, if the discussion takes too long, it may lead to a particular item dominating at the expense of other agenda items or the length of the meeting will be extended.

 

THE SECRETARY

 

The Secretary is responsible for:

·     The administration of the Precinct Committee

·     Assisting the Chairperson with the preparation of the Agenda for the meeting including the setting of meeting dates

·     Taking the minutes, attending to incoming and outgoing correspondence

·     The management, maintenance and monitoring of the attendance book

·     Preparing and forwarding the Minutes to the CCLO electronically, no later than 10 working days after the meeting

·     Notifying the CCLO of any changes to meeting dates or events as soon as they are known, or at least 10 working days prior. This is essential to meet advertising deadlines.

 

THE AGENDA

 

The Chairperson, in consultation with the Secretary, should prepare an Agenda for each meeting. The Agenda sets out the order of business for the Chairperson to follow and should be circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The attendance register is to be signed on arrival and verified by the Secretary prior to the end of the meeting.

 

The order of business is as follows:

·     Welcome by the Chairperson

·     Apologies

·     Declaration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest

·     Ratification of previous minutes

·     Business arising from the minutes (any matter/s that were raised at the previous meeting which required action to be followed-up

·     Incoming and outgoing correspondence

·     Business arising from the correspondence

·     Treasurer's report

·     Other reports (sub-committees)

·     General business

·     Next meeting date

·     Meeting close.

 

THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the Precinct Committee should contain the following information:

·     The number of attendees at the meeting, with the number of apologies

·     All correspondence to and from the Precinct is to be tabled and noted in the minutes

·     Any declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest

·     Any motions that have been passed, including the number of votes for and against the motion, as well as any abstentions.

A copy of the minutes is to be sent to the CCLO within 10 working days of the meeting.

 

Minutes are ratified at the following Precinct Committee meeting by two people who can verify the accuracy of those minutes.  The minutes of a Precinct Meeting are a public record of a community meeting, and as such, are available to residents, property owners and tenants.

 

The Secretary is to keep an attendance book which must include the date, name, address and signature of all attendees. This record will be presented to the AGM. The General Manager of Randwick City Council may request to see this record at any time during the year.

 

Persons attending a meeting who have an interest in a Development Application should declare that interest and abstain from voting. This includes the applicant, their relatives, architects and builders.

 

Urgent submissions to DA’s should be forwarded directly to the Planning Department within the specified time. Confirmation of this submission will still need to be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

 

Council would prefer Precinct Committees to forward meeting minutes electronically. Timely receipt of the minutes will ensure that Council is given sufficient time to prepare an appropriately detailed response to the Committee.

 

Council needs to know if a Precinct Committee has any objections to specific matters forwarded to the Precinct by Council. It is equally important that Council is notified if the Precinct Committee has no objections to, or in fact supports, a specific matter.

 

 

MATTERS REFERRED BY COUNCIL TO PRECINCT COMMITTEES

 

The following matters are regularly forwarded, in electronic and/or in hard copy, to Precinct Committees for comment and recommendations back to Randwick City Council:

 

·     Council Business Papers

·     Major public works proposals

·     Traffic management proposals

·     Park and reserve improvement proposals

·     Community services activities and events

·     Zoning changes which affect a specific Precinct area

·     Major policies or policy changes which directly affect the whole community

·     A list of current development applications (DA)

·     Additional information on request.

 

Precinct Committees may also view the hard copy display DA files relevant to their Precinct at Council’s Customer Service Centre during business hours.

 

Randwick City Council also makes these display files available overnight, on request from a Precinct Committee Executive member, with three working day’s prior notice to the CCLO. Council provides this service to Precinct Committee Executives in good faith and expect all due care and responsibility to be taken with these files.

 

A file may be collected from Council only between 4.45pm and 5pm on the agreed date and must be returned at 8.30am the following working day.

 

Council Business Papers will continue to be mailed in hard copy and will be sent electronically once Council’s computer system enables this.

 

COMMITTEE FUNDING

 

Each year Council allocates an amount of money to Precinct Committees to assist with offsetting costs associated with running each Precinct Committee meeting. Such expenses may include the hiring of a Post Office Box, phone calls made for the purposes of Precinct business and other associated expenditure. Please note, receipts must be presented and minuted at each meeting before reimbursement can be made.

 

Funding is subject to compliance with Council’s Precinct Committee Rules and Procedures.

 

Council also provides in-kind assistance to support the Precinct Committees. This includes:

·     The CCLO position and resources

·     A copy of all relevant Council documents including copies of all Council Business Papers and DA lists

·     The allocation of a ream of printed paper per month for each Precinct Committee

·     Hall hiring fees

·     Advertising of meetings in the local newspaper.

 

COUNCIL’S COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND LIAISON OFFICER

 

Randwick City Council’s Precinct Committees are coordinated by the Community Consultation and Liaison Officer (CCLO). The CCLO is the prime point of contact for the Precinct Committees.

 

The role of the CCLO includes:

·     To co-ordinate and resource the Combined Precinct Coordination Committee

·     To provide support to the Precinct Committees and to act as a conduit between Council, the Committees and the community

·     To assist Precinct Committees to obtain the necessary information to make informed decisions and recommendations on Council matters

·     To liaise with Council officers to ensure that all relevant Council matters are referred to the Precinct Committees

·     To ensure that Precinct Committee comments and recommendations are forwarded to the relevant Council officers

·     To collate information and respond to Precinct Committee minutes

·     To co-ordinate briefing sessions with Council officers and committees as the need arises

·     To provide management guidelines for Randwick City Council’s Precinct Committees

·     To assist the development of Precinct Committees.

 

PRECINCT COORDINATION COMMITTEE

 

Randwick City Council’s Precinct Coordination Committee has been established with the following aims and objectives:

 

AIMS

 

·     To establish an inclusive forum where broad community-wide and local issues can be discussed

 

·     To continue to improve the link between Council and the community and foster improved community engagement

 

·     To promote and engage the community early in Council’s planning and decision making processes.

 

OBJECTIVES

 

·     The efficient coordination of Randwick City Council’s Precinct Committees

 

·     The establishment of a forum at which both City-wide issues and issues common to Precincts and Council can be raised

 

·     The improvement of Council’s consultation processes and the development of better community engagement practices

 

·     Improved Precinct communication with Councillors through a formal report to a following Council Meeting after each quarterly PCC meeting

 

·     Support for accountable decision making

 

·     The creation of a catalyst to revitalise and improve the effectiveness of Precinct Committees.

 


Conflict of interest

 

What is a conflict of interest?

 

A conflict of interest occurs where a personal interest, such as a business interest, family relationship or friendship, could influence the way in which you form an opinion on a matter being considered by a precinct committee. 

 

Another way of considering whether a conflict of interest exists is where a person has difficulty in making a fair and impartial decision on some issue as a result of divided loyalties or of being likely to benefit personally if the issue is decided one way rather than another way.

 

A conflict of interest would also occur when a reasonable person might believe that you could be influenced by a personal interest.

 

Just because you might have both a public duty and a personal interest in relation to a particular matter, it does not necessarily mean that the two must be in conflict.  However in any community, Randwick included, perceptions of conflicts of interest are likely to arise even where there is no real conflict.

 

What to do if there is a real or perceived conflict of interest?

 

In managing a conflict of interest, your first responsibility is to the precinct committee.  You must be careful not to place yourself in situations where conflicts of interest might occur. 

 

It is important that if a conflict of interest exists or could be seen to exist, the situation is managed effectively.  It is also important that both the community and Council are confident that conflicts of interest can be managed and resolved by precinct committees.

 

In the cases of conflicts of interest, the proper procedure is for the person concerned to:

1.   Declare any interest.

2.   Make known the way in which those interests may conflict.

3.   If the meeting considers that there is an actual conflict of interest, abstain from taking part in the decision making process.

4.   If considered appropriate, leave the room while the issue is discussed.

5.   Ensure that the declarations of a conflict or possible conflict or perceived conflict are recorded in the minutes of the precinct committee meeting.

 

In precinct committee meetings, the meeting may decide that it is appropriate for the person with the conflict of interest to speak on the issue before general discussion takes place.

 

Some examples where a conflict of interest may exist:

 

1.   The precinct committee is considering a draft policy on alcohol free zones and your family has shares in a liquor retail company that operates in the Randwick City Council area.

 

2.   The precinct committee is considering a development application lodged by you or a close family member.

 

3.   You or a close family member’s property is directly impacted on by a development proposal.

 

4.   You are asked by the precinct committee to represent the precinct’s views to Council on an issue where you have or could be reasonably perceived to have a conflict of interest on the matter.

 

In considering development applications, it is important to distinguish between direct impacts on a property or properties and broader community impact of a development.

 

If you are not sure whether a conflict exists, you should seek guidance from the precinct committee or from Council. 

 

Examples of when you could seek guidance are:

 

1.   Deciding whether a relative or a friend is close enough to create a conflict or the perception of a conflict of interest

 

2.   Distinguishing between direct and broader community impacts of a development proposal.

 

When considering whether or not a conflict of interest or the perception of a conflict of interest exists, you should always err on the side of caution. 


Attachment 3

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 17/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

The Randwick City Plan, 'rich history - bright future'

 

 

DATE:

7 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07978

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING    

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

                    

Preparation of the Randwick City Plan has been an innovative and evolutionary process. It was initiated by a series of community consultation and information processes in early 2000, and was followed by key research and studies. In 2004, using a grant from the Department of Planning, the results from the earlier consultations and research were presented to the community and Council for feedback. The Draft Randwick City Plan was subsequently prepared and placed on public exhibition during late 2005 / early 2006.

 

The strength and uniqueness of the City Plan lie not only in the document itself but in the processes that support its construction and implementation. Some of these include the consultation with the community and partnerships that have been strengthened in the preparation of the City Plan; the shift towards an Outcomes focus for Council; and a leading approach of integrated planning and reporting. It is largely because of these aspects that the City Plan has achieved such high recognition and acclaim to date - highlighted in this report under the heading Achieving Acclaim for Innovation and Best Practice.

 

Community input was of key importance in shaping the Randwick City Plan. Consultation activities were undertaken at all major stages in the project, including prior to the preparation of the Plan and seeking feedback on the draft Plan. As a result of community feedback in relation to the Draft Plan a number of key changes were made to the document, such as: providing a more balanced reference to tourism, particularly towards improving our understanding and acknowledgement of tourism trends and the role tourism plays in the local economy; strengthening the ‘Places for People’ theme with regards to safety, the maintenance of our public areas, and acknowledging the important role of our libraries; better explaining how Council will be accountable to implementation of the Plan; and further explaining aspects such as Council’s vision – ‘a sense of community’, and sustainable transport.

 

 The key recommendations of this report are that Council note the comprehensive and innovative approach taken towards preparing the Randwick City Plan, and endorse the amended Plan for finalisation.

 

CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

 

Public exhibition of the Draft Randwick City Plan commenced after it was reported to Council in November 2005, and formally finished on the 6th March 2006. Given the importance of the project and to allow for the holiday period, the exhibition period was extensive.

 

Attachment 1, Public Exhibition and Consultations re: the Draft Randwick City Plan, outlines the broad range of consultation activities undertaken. These included: information and surveys at our customer service centre, libraries and on Council’s website; written notification; roving information kiosks; advertisements; and workshops. In addition to the activities listed, staff from the City Plan working group also met with a range of stakeholders, such as representatives from the Randwick Hospitals Complex, to discuss the Draft Plan in more detail.

 

The consultation activities not only provided feedback on the Draft Plan they also served in strengthening links with our community and key stakeholders.

 

The focus of the internal consultations centred on preparation of the Draft Management Plan. This process provided an excellent cross-check of the functionality of City Plan, and served to strengthen the integrated planning focus upon which the City Plan is based.

 

Note – the above mentioned consultations all built upon the extensive consultation period undertaken prior to preparing the draft Plan.

 

 

FEEDBACK FROM CONSULTATION

 

The consultation activities provided valuable written and verbal feedback from both internal and external stakeholders. There were 39 written submissions / surveys which were generally supportive of the long term planning approach by Council. This includes responses from Precincts, Chambers, private submissions, local businesses, local MP Kristina Keneally, State Government agencies and community organisations. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the written submissions received by Council in relation to the Draft Plan, and our responses to the issues raised.

 

Overall the feedback demonstrated strong support for the preparation of the Draft Plan. In addition, many of the key stakeholders aspire to develop much stronger partnerships with Council during the implementation phase. While the pre-draft consultations resulted in a greater volume of feedback, the 05/06 draft Plan consultations resulted in fewer, yet generally very well detailed submissions.

 

A number of key themes emerged from the written and verbal feedback, including:

 

- Strong support, generally, for the long-term strategic approach

- Requests for an improved explanation and description of what is meant by ‘a sense of community’

- Requests for a greater emphasis on community wellbeing, including: safety, affordable housing, and understanding and advocating the community’s needs

- Concern about the quality and rate of development

- Strong support for environmental initiatives and advocating for sustainable transport alternatives

- Requests for an explanation of key terms i.e. ‘sustainable transport’

- A greater emphasis needs to be placed on the community value of our libraries, as well as private spaces such as shopping centres

- Requests for an improved acknowledgement of our sporting heritage and tourism

- There needs to be a stronger link between the directions in A Prospering City theme and employment opportunities

- More importance needs to be placed on maintaining and upgrading the City’s public spaces

- Requests for improved explanation of how Council will be accountable to achieving what is set out in the Plan

- Requests for detailed or specific improvements that have been, or will be, addressed in Council’s Management Plan.

 

The following section highlights the link between the feedback received and key changes to the draft Randwick City Plan.

 

KEY CHANGES TO THE DRAFT RANDWICK CITY PLAN

 

Feedback from the consultation activities (both internal and external) drove key changes to the Draft City Plan. These changes are highlighted in Attachment 3-The Randwick City Plan and in the following summary:

 

(The Background papers have also been modified – consistent with the outlined changes)

 

Key Changes to the Outcomes

 

Council in partnership with our community is aiming to achieve by 2025, the following Outcomes:

 

·          Leadership in sustainability

·          A vibrant and diverse community

·          An informed and engaged community

·          Excellence in urban design and development

·          Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

·          A liveable City

·          Heritage that is protected and celebrated

·          A strong local economy

·          Integrated and accessible transport

·          A healthy environment

There are 3 main changes to the outcomes. Firstly, ‘Excellence in urban design’ has been changed to ‘Excellence in urban design and development’. This change encompasses the functioning and management of our built environment, which has an obvious impact on the community, in addition to the design stage.

 

Secondly, ‘A liveable City that balances growth and change’ has become ‘A liveable City’. Numerous stakeholders found the previous wording confusing, and by making the outcome more concise it provides a stronger message.

 

Thirdly, the over arching outcome ‘Effective partnerships with key organisations’ has been removed as a stand alone outcome, and strengthened through the directions and key actions throughout the 5 themes - given that is essential to all themes. Leadership in sustainability remains an overarching outcome, of which partnerships is also integral too.

 

Key Changes to the Introduction of the Summary Document

 

The main changes to this section include providing an expanded definition of sustainability, and changes to the outcomes as detailed above. A more detailed explanation of how the City Plan will drive Council’s priorities and how we will report back to the community the progress of City Plan has also been provided i.e.

 

 

The ‘outcome indicators’ are a developed suite of performance indicators, measures and milestones which report against our City Plan outcomes. These outcome indicators are tabled in Council’s annual management plan and will be reported against in the State of our City report.

 

The City Plan Themes

 

 

 

Key Changes to ‘A Sense of Community’ Theme

 

This theme now provides a more holistic description of what is meant by a sense of community - creating a feeling of inclusiveness and involvement where people feel they are an integral part of our community – and how Council can continue to support that. There is also an improved acknowledgement of our libraries, which were included previously as multi-purpose facilities.

 

The wording of some of the directions and key actions has been enhanced. Several additions have also been made in order to strengthen this section, including the key action - ‘Regularly consult with our community on their needs’.

 

Key Changes to the ‘Places for People’ Theme

 

This theme has been significantly strengthened. In particular there is a lot more emphasis on aspects of liveability that are of high importance to our community. Some of these aspects include: community safety; recognising the significance of maintaining our City’s assets; acknowledging the role of privately owned public spaces in providing opportunities for community interaction (such as shopping centres); and better acknowledging our cultural and sporting heritage.

 

While the Draft Plan reflected the recreation directions and background information in the ‘Looking After Our Environment’ theme, it has subsequently been moved to this Theme – in recognition of the strong links between recreation and lifestyle in Randwick City. Also, a definition for the proposed ‘comprehensive review of our Local Environmental Plan’ has now been included in the ‘Places for People’ theme as it was being misunderstood.

 

Key Changes to ‘A Prospering City’ Theme

 

Randwick Tourism Inc. made a detailed submission which, broadly speaking supported Council’s initiative in planning ahead but also commented that the contribution of tourism to the local economy was underestimated in the Draft Randwick City Plan. A summary of the comments made are listed in Attachment 2 of this report.

 

The most significant change in this theme has been to provide a more balanced reference to tourism, particularly towards improving our understanding and acknowledgement of tourism trends and the important role tourism plays in the local economy. More reference has also been given to ‘The Sports Coast’ initiative of Randwick City Tourism Inc.

 

A direction focused on employment opportunities has been added to strengthen the direct link of this section with jobs.

 

In addition to recognising the above matters minor changes were made to the background paper, such as: updating references to the Metropolitan Strategy and the proposed development at Sydney Airport; and referring to Council’s industrial lands review.

 

Key Changes to the ‘Moving Around’ Theme

 

Changes to this theme include insertion of a definition for 'sustainable transport', addressing issues associated with the forecast growth at Sydney Airport, and updating the theme to incorporate State Government legislation and policy changes i.e. Sydney Metropolitan Strategy.

 

Both the City Plan and Background Paper have been streamlined to avoid duplication. A greater emphasis has been placed on those issues Council has greatest control over, such as local transport infrastructure and parking.

 

Key Changes to the ‘Looking After Our Environment’ Theme

 

The strategic direction in this theme was generally well supported. Further improvements have been made to give greater recognition to environmental risks, such as flooding and climate change, and to the protection of our natural heritage.

 

The wording of some of the directions and key actions has been amended to clarify their intent and several additions and corrections to both the City Plan and Background Paper have been made to strengthen this section and incorporate State Government legislation and policy changes.

RECEIVING ACCLAIM FOR INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICE

 

Council’s City Plan working group delivered the City Plan through an innovative process, including a strong focus on integrated planning. In addition, the working group also received specialist input from EcoSteps - consultants funded from the grant received from the NSW Department of Planning. EcoSteps provided best practice advice such as using the Principles for Sustainable Cities (devised as part of the United Nations Environment Program) as a foundation for the City Plan. During the preparation of the City Plan Council also under took a State of the Environment Reporting reform project. The working group also received feedback on the City Plan process from the Blumenberg consultants who undertook the SoER project.

 

Cross-checking the City Plan against relevant benchmarking tools & documents also shows that our thinking behind the preparation of the City Plan demonstrates best practice. Example documents / tools include:

 

- The Circular to Councils, Integrated Planning and Reporting, Department of Local Government, February 2006, and

- The Sustainability Health Check Discussion Paper, Local Government Managers Australia, August 2005.

 

 

The innovative work of the City Plan has been integral to Council receiving a number of awards to date, including:

 

GOLD winner of the Local Sustainability Award (Local Government Excellence in the Environment Awards 2005)

SILVER for Excellence in Sustainability within Local Government, Management Excellence Awards 2005 (LGMA NSW)

SILVER Commendation at the International Liveable Communities Awards in Canada – 2004

 

In addition, staff from the City Plan working group have been invited to submit papers and deliver presentations in relation to the City Plan at various conferences.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

A significant allocation of staff time, from across Council, has been invested in developing the Plan in a consultative manner. Council received a $90,000 grant from the State Government towards preparation of and public exhibition of the Plan.  Preparation and completion of the City Plan also involved a total of $55,000 from Council’s 04/05 and 05/06 budgets towards the City Plan consultations, exhibition, consultancies and design and printing (excluding separate studies).

 

The implementation of the Plan will be driven by our management planning and associated budgetary processes. Council’s long term financial plan will take the Randwick City Plan into consideration, and the City Plan will also provide Council with excellent leverage for external grant funding opportunities.

 

 

NEXT STEPS

 

To provide contrast between the Draft and Final Plans some of the graphic design elements will be refreshed. This will be the next step after the Plan is endorsed by Council. In particular, photos depicting more of our City’s facilities such as the University of New South Wales and the Randwick Racecourse will be included, as well as architecturally designed maps.

 

Council’s Strategic Planning and Organisational Policy and Performance teams will continue to work together to progress an integrated reporting methodology. This will include further developing the Outcomes indicators as outlined in the Management Plan, and working towards preparation of a holistic ‘State of Our City’ annual report (which will consolidate 3 previous sets of reporting – the annual report, state of the environment report, and social plan). In addition, ongoing work will be undertaken to strengthen the links between Council’s reporting, planning, and budgetary processes.

 

Council will report on our progress in delivering our City Plan commitments through our Annual Report. Over four year cycles we will undertake a major review to reflect the community’s changing aspirations and demographic information, technological advances, and to respond to ongoing studies. The first review is scheduled for 2008-09.

 

City Plan will also foster the development of cross-Council teams to work on specific projects that would benefit from a range of specialists.

 

The City Plan working group will continue to promote the best practice methodology of the City Plan, by responding to inquiries and participating in appropriate conferences. In addition, we will use the City Plan as leverage in external grant applications, and continue to seek recognition for Randwick Council by applying for suitable awards.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Randwick City Plan is an innovative strategic framework that sets the direction for Randwick City and Council over the next 20 years. It is the result of extensive community consultation and preparation of background material. This is the first long term strategic plan for Randwick, and it demonstrates a highly effective approach towards planning for the future. Of key importance to the City Plan is to maintain and improve the liveability of Randwick now, and in the future.

 

The process of preparing the City Plan initiated an Outcomes focus for Council and has driven a major integrated planning and reporting initiative.

 

Randwick City Council has received substantial positive recognition for the City Plan to date, including several awards. We will continue to share the knowledge and experience gained in the preparation of the City Plan with other local government practitioners, while also taking the opportunity to promote Randwick City and Council.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

That:

 

(a)        the comprehensive and innovative approach taken towards preparing the Randwick City Plan be noted; 

 

(b)        the ‘Randwick City Plan’ as amended, be endorsed; and

 

(c)        Council agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to the draft plan and background papers to rectify numerical, typographical, interpretive and formatting errors if required, in the completion and printing of the draft plan material.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Public exhibition and Consultations re: the Draft Randwick City Plan;

2. Summary of Written Submissions; and

3. The Randwick City Plan (summary document) - UNDER SEPARATE COVER. 

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 1:                                       

 

Public Exhibition and Consultations re: the Draft Randwick City Plan

 

Public Exhibition

Dates

Administration Building

21 Nov 05 - 10 March 06

Bowen Library

21 Nov 05 - 10 March 06

Matraville Library

21 Nov 05 - 10 March 06

Randwick Library

21 Nov 05 - 10 March 06

Web Site

21 Nov 05 - Current

Survey (web and paper)

6 Feb 06 – 24 March 06

 

 

Written Notification

 

Letters to MPs and Mayors

18 Jan 06

Letters to Precincts, Chambers, past participants / Key Stakeholders

16 Nov 05

 

 

Government Agencies

 

Letters

16 Nov 05

Workshop with Department of Planning

1 Feb 06

Workshop with representatives from the Randwick Hospitals Complex

24 March 06

 

 

Southern Courier

 

Standard Advert

22 Nov 05

¼ page advert

31 Jan 06

Mayors Column

22 Nov 05 & 14,21,28 Feb 06

Southern Courier article

15 Nov 05

 

 

Information Kiosk

 

Matraville (Shopfront)

21 Nov 05 – 2 Dec 05 (11am – 3pm)

Randwick Junction

8 – 9 Dec 05

(11am – 2pm)

Maroubra Beach

4 Feb 06 (9am – 11am)

Coogee Beach

4 Feb 06 (11.30am – 1.30pm)

Maroubra Junction

8 Feb 06 (11am – 2pm)

Kingsford

14 Feb 06 (11am – 1pm)

Clovelly

18 Feb 06 (10am – 12)

 

 

Community Workshops

 

Combined Precinct Committee

2 Feb 06

Yarra Bay Community

11 Feb 06

Combined Chambers of Commerce

13 Feb 06

Rotary Club

14 Feb 06

Coogee Precinct Group

20 Feb 06

Clovelly Precinct Group

13 March 06

Randwick Precinct

1 March 06

 


 

ATTACHMENT 2: Summary of Written Submissions

 

NAME/GROUP &

FORMAT OF COMMENTS

 

COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Kristina Keneally MP, Member for Heffron

 

 

Supports: provision of a community hub at Kensington Town Centre; transforming Anzac Pde into a grand boulevard; our commitment to an affordable housing strategy; and, the concentration of development in areas that are accessible and serviced by good public transport.

 

Issue: Highlighted the need for a Local Area Traffic Area Management plan for Kensington and Kingsford.

 

Issue: Commended Council on our efforts over the last 10 years in upgrading our parks and beaches, urged ongoing support of Kensington Oval, and for future ‘user needs’ studies to include visitors beyond our boundaries.

 

Support noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted and referred to Council’s Transport Management Group, City Services

 

Noted. Future user needs studies to include users from outside the LGA

NSW Heritage Office

 

 

 

Supports: the heritage outcome; and, undertaking the heritage study.

 

Issue: Suggested rewording of a key action.

 

Issue: very disappointed that Council recently resolved to discontinue the preparation of a LEP to implement the heritage review.

 

Support noted

 

 

 

Rewording accommodated

 

 

Noted. Council is also working to strengthen the awareness, understanding, and support of heritage generally

 

M. McMahon

Coogee

 

Supports: a well set out document and the information presented in a very accessible way

 

Issue: The definition of community is too broad – there is no distinction between visitors and those who live or work in the City.

 

 

 

Issue: To achieve growth in arts and culture there needs to be a solid groundwork with contribution from arts professionals who live or work in the City.

 

 

Issue: Council policy should protect the amenity of heritage buildings (i.e. rights of residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes).

 

 

 

Issue: The implications of ‘Undertake a comprehensive review of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan’ need to be better explained.

 

Issue: Council must take a leadership role in planning for tourism, not just managing its impacts.

 

 

 

Issue: Explanation of ‘global industries’ required.

 

 

 

 

Issue: There are industries which are currently operating in, or close to residential areas and which are not addressed (Places for People) include the liquor industry (and gaming), tourism and construction.

 

 

 

Issue: Control of visual clutter and advertising needs to be addressed

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Historical reference to the pubs at Coogee do not differentiate the scale of the impact between the 1970/80’s and now, and there is no information about tourist/visitor accommodation

 

 

 

Issue: A new Council logo should be introduced with the 20 year plan

Support noted

 

 

 

 

While the current definition is in keeping with Social Planning standards, an emphasis is placed on our residents in the directions, actions, and supporting text

 

This will be further recognised in Council’s preparation, consultation and implementation of a Cultural Plan

 

 

The protection of residential amenity generally has been strengthened in the ‘Excellence in urban design and development’ outcome

 

The ‘Places for People’ theme in the summary document has been updated to provide an explanation

 

Noted. The preparation of the economic strategy –will include a tourism component to assist Council to take pro-active measures

 

More information can be found in the ‘A Prospering City’ background paper, under Emergence of the ‘global arc’

 

The potential impact of these activities on residential amenity is noted. In Places for People a new direction has been added recognising the need to address safety and anti-social behaviour.

 

Strategies to address this issue will be developed in accordance with City Plan directions through policies and development control plans

 

 

The difference in scale is noted. More information about tourist/visitor accommodation will be researched as part of the preparation of an economic strategy

 

 

 

Noted

 

 

Randwick Precinct Committee

 

Issue: Libraries are not mentioned in the Randwick City Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: The Precinct Committee hopes that community consultation will happen as set out in the Plan.

 

The Plan has been changed to better acknowledge the importance of libraries. See ‘A Sense of Community’ and ‘Places for People’ themes

 

 

Council has a strong commitment and accountability to implementing the Plan.

Maroubra Beach Community Workshop (facilitated by R. Leoni)

- minutes of meeting

 

 

Issue: Look and feel of Plan could be enhanced - Plain English, darken typeface etc.

 

Issue: Firm commitments needed in vital areas

 

 

Issue: Draft needed to be displayed in high people traffic areas

 

Noted for final graphic design phase

 

 

Council’s Management Plan ensures the City Plan is implemented

 

Refer to Attachment 1 of this report - Public Exhibition and Consultation of the Draft Randwick City Plan

 

The Spot Business Association Inc.

(J. Deegan – Chairman)

 

 

Issue: That tourism is portrayed negatively in the City Plan, the benefits not acknowledged, and is incongruent with the relevant background paper as well as other Council communications

 

Appropriate changes have been made to the ‘ A Prospering City’ theme to correct the outlined discrepancy

 

Council staff met with Mr. Deegan to discuss the Draft Plan

 

Randwick City Tourism Inc.

(D. Hertford – President)

 

 

Supports: Council’s initiative in planning ahead; the majority of directions and key actions outlined in A Prospering City; the outcome – A Strong Local Economy; and, numerous sections (i.e. – town centres and small businesses – transport and access)

 

Issue: The contribution of tourism to the local economy is underestimated

 

 

 

Issue: Opposes the wording of the statement ‘Manage tourism and its impacts so that visitors to our City are more environmentally and socially responsible’

 

 

Issue: Need increased recognition of the complimentary and symbiotic relationship between small business, tourism, and UNSW

 

Issue: Randwick City Tourism should be better recognised as a partner

 

 

Issue: Opposes the wording of the direction ‘Visitors to our City are environmentally and socially responsible and support our local economy’

 

 

Issue: Opposes the wording of the key action ‘Prepare and implement a visitor and tourism management strategy, as part of the economic strategy’

 

Support noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has been addressed through changes in the directions and supporting text in the ‘ A Prospering City’ theme

 

The wording has been changed to have more of a focus on better understanding and acknowledging the role of tourism

 

Noted, and to be further investigated in the preparation of an economic strategy for Randwick City

 

The summary document has been updated to better reflect the role of Randwick City Tourism

 

The wording has been changed to have more focus on better understanding and acknowledging the role of tourism

 

This has been changed to ‘the proposed economic strategy to incorporate a tourism component’

 

 

AMP Capital Investors

(L. Mason – Head of Retail Development)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supports: The sound approach demonstrated to meet the future needs of the community; the focus of improved urban design and sustainability of buildings; the preparation of an economic strategy; and, the preparation of a crime prevention and safety plan.

 

Issue: Need increased understanding that the Randwick Town Centre is underpinned by two large retail centres that support the street based retail activities of the town centre.

 

Issue: Retail areas such as Randwick need to grow and adapt to counter the competitive forces that encourage local residents to increase their travel (and expenditure) out of the LGA.

 

 

 

Issue: The significant retail development at Sydney Airport is a genuine threat to the vibrancy and long term sustainability of the Randwick town centre.

 

 

Issue: While the draft Plan focuses on public spaces, it does not recognise that ‘communities’ can also be established within the semi public/private realm of shopping centres.

 

Support noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The interface between the large shopping centres and the street based retail in Randwick Town Centre is acknowledged

 

Randwick Council supports the existing retail areas. One of the directions in City Plan is ‘Vibrant town centres that adequately serve the community and foster support for local business activity’

 

Council has expressed strong concern with the proposed expansion of Sydney Airport, and will continue to advocate appropriate development.

 

The ‘Places for People’ theme has been updated to reflect the important role that privately owned public spaces have in terms of community interaction

 

Australian Jockey Club

(J. Seward, Manager Property Development)

 

 

Acknowledgement of receipt of the Draft Plan. Interested to discuss the Draft Plan in the context of preparing their master plan

 

Support noted

 

Council has had ongoing communication with the AJC

 

 

 

Design Collaborative Pty Ltd (H M Sanders – Director)

 

 

Supports: initiatives to focus opportunities for urban renewal in proximity to town centres, major transport routes and the UNSW/Hospital precinct; and, a review of the UNSW/Hospital precinct and surrounds for opportunities for additional density and additional housing.

 

 

Support noted

 

 

 

 

 

Kensington / Kingsford Precinct Committee

- written submission

(Comments focused on Moving Around)

 

Supports: a most thoughtful and far-sighted document demonstrating a positive attitude to the environment and role in the community; the focus on public transport; and, the integrating transport and land uses section.

 

Issue: If Council is to motivate its residents and to reduce car usage, balancing the convenience of car use against the moderation of car use, must be a prime consideration in all its determinations.

 

Issue: There is a need to market the parking policy better, Council to explain the benefits of Council’s initiatives as well as the costs

 

Issue: The Local Traffic Committee should have community representatives

 

Issue: There needs to be a motivational focus as well as education in terms of road safety and sustainable transport use

 

Issue: The bicycle way through Kensington and West Kingsford appears un-safe in its present form

 

 

Issue: Local Area Traffic management has not been adequately dealt with in either the transport studies or the Draft City Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: A committee of key stakeholders should be formed now to provide sustained pressure on the State Government to provide light rail

 

 

 

Issue: There should be a permanent coordinating committee set up with neighbouring councils to address cross-border issues

 

 

 

 

Issue: A high priority should be given to improving bus shelters and their surrounds

 

Issue: Any future parking policy to be done in partnership with the community

 

Issue: While the City Plan is comprehensive more attention may be needed to prioritise initiatives, such as through an ecologic economic study

 

 

Issue: An explanation for what is meant by ‘sustainable transport’ needs to be provided

 

Support noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted for future parking policy and planning initiatives

 

 

 

Noted and referred to the Traffic Committee

 

 

Noted a referred to Council’s road safety officer

 

 

Noted for Review of the Bicycle Plan, and referred to the Traffic Committee

 

Noted. While the City Plan includes the key action ‘Establish and manage street hierarchies through strategies such as Local Area Traffic Management Schemes’ it will be dealt with in more detail through Council’s work/projects in Annual Management Plans

 

Noted. Council has previously worked with other key stakeholders to lobby for public transport improvements in the Eastern Suburbs, and will continue to seek these opportunities.

 

Noted. Randwick Council is working with neighbouring Councils in the preparation of the Metro-Strategy Sub-Regional Plans, of which transport is one component

 

This comment has been noted and referred to the Traffic Committee

 

Noted

 

 

 

Noted. There will be on going work regarding implementation of City Plan in the area of prioritising and other aspects primarily addressed in the Management Plan each year.

 

The City Plan has now been updated to include a definition of sustainable transport – in the ‘Moving Around’ section

 

Randwick Rotary Club- verbal comments from a workshop

 

 

Support; Wished to acknowledge that Randwick City is a good area and Rotary supports the City Plan. Particular support for public transport improvements including the possible extension of the Bondi Junction line.

 

Issue: Question as to the effectiveness and ability for Council to lobby State Government.

 

Issue: Question as to the ease of implementing the outcomes and sought greater actual detail of actions for the short term.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Request simple measures to improve the City such as street cleaning and more efficient street plantings.

 

Support noted. (however, the new State Infrastructure Strategy no longer identifies the Bondi Junction rail line extending to Maroubra Junction)

 

 

Council seeks to establish new and enhance existing partnerships with other government agencies.

 

The outcomes are achieved through the stated directions which are linked into Council’s Management Plan which provide the detail to direct Council activities and operations.

 

Noted. The City Plan outcomes and directions have been strengthened to recognise this and will be implemented via the Management Plan. 

 

Charles Abela of La Perouse Precinct Committee

Support however more issues have been identified.

 

Issue: Several issues relating to anti-social behaviour which should be addressed in the City Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Ambiguity of the comment ‘diverse community’ and ‘balance growth and change’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: multi-unit developments within shopping areas do not provide a shopper friendly environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: the quality of landscaping and aesthetic/heritage value of La Perouse should be improved.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: footpath upgrades requested as a priority for La Perouse

Support noted.

 

 

The concerns for community safety have been noted and there is a key action under outcome 6 ‘A liveable City’ which relates to community safety. The particular concerns raised have been referred to the community safety committee where the respondent is a community representative.

 

Concerns with the wording of and intention behind these outcomes have been noted. The wording of all outcomes has been reviewed and changes made including outcome No. 6 to read as: ‘A liveable City’.

 

Concerns for the planning of our town centres have been noted. These controls are consistent with state-level planning, got locating people near shops to enhance accessibility and the viability of shops.

 

Specific upgrade projects will be developed in accordance with City Plan directions through management Plans to be included in Council’s Section 94 Plan.

 

Works programmes for footpath upgrades have been funded and priority areas in the south of the City have been noted.

 

Barry McGuren and Julie Jarvis Bowen Library co-ordinator and Manager.

Issue: the libraries need a stronger emphasis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: library services are provided for each Target Group

Noted, additional reference to the value of libraries within our community has been incorporated into ‘A Sense of Community’ background paper and theme (these were previously referred to by the term ‘multi-purpose facilities’).

 

The information provided has been noted and amendments made to the City Plan and Community Background Paper. The Paper provides a reference to the services provided.

 

Kathy Roli- Acting General Manager Department of Housing

Supports: congratulate Council on the preparation of the draft City Plan and looks forward to working with Council. Particularly encourages preparation of an Affordable Housing Strategy.

 

Support noted including supporting documentation.

Julia Spies, Director Kooloora Community Centre

Support: general support for the draft City Plan.

 

Issue: concern that the Target Groups are too narrow in definition and do not include socio-economic factors.

 

 

 

 

Issue: comments made during earlier consultations were misconstrued as being negative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: more information about the nature, role and location of multi-purpose community facilities required.

 

 

Issue: concern about exclusivity of Prince Henry development and cultural facility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: concern about increasingly larger dwellings

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Desire for further communication in regard to information hubs, return of Malabar Headland, the coastal walkway extension and upgrade of Anzac Pde.

 

Issue: further development at Port Botany should be managed and inappropriate development be opposed.

 

 

Issue: support improved public transport and bus routes in the southern wards

 

Issue: support sustainable initiatives but concern that current development is energy intensive

 

 

Support noted.

 

 

The Target Group definitions are consistent with State Government social planning requirements and are not aimed at assessing socio-economic parameters

 

The feed back document was prepared for community development work plans (2005). The intention of original comments has been noted and specific directions to improve communication between Council and the community have been included.

 

Please refer to Council’s Community Facilities Study for additional information relating these facilities.

 

Concerns about Prince Henry are noted however to date the planning has been directed towards inclusion of the community, the site and its public facilities. Council will continue to work to ensure accessibility to the cultural facility.

 

Private developments are assessed under existing development controls however Council aims to maintain a variety of housing stock within the City.

 

The desire for additional consultation is noted and is consistent with City Plan directions, which will occur as specific projects are initiated.

 

 

 

Council will continue to advocate for appropriate development at Port Botany and Sydney Airport.

 

Support noted.

 

Support noted, new developments are required to be compliant with BASIX.

 

Barbara Kelly from The Junction Neighbourhood Centre.

Support: enthusiastic support of the vision and commitment to the UNEP principles.

 

Issue: recognition of people who are culturally, socially and economically marginalised.

 

 

 

Issue: development of specific strategies to address the needs of marginalised peoples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: a stronger commitment to the many service providers in the area currently meeting the needs of the seven Target Groups including assistance with funding seeking.

 

 

 

Issue: request a final round of consultations with the groups that participated in community consultation workshops.

 

 

 

 

Issue: formation of a steering committee to assist Council to implement identified strategies in the Plan

Support noted.

 

 

 

The plans aims to provide outcomes that ensure quality of life is improved for all members of our community.

 

Specific strategies will be development in accordance with the City Plan outcomes and directions through Council’s specific Management Plan and operations.

 

Council recognises and values the work undertaken by community groups. The City Plan is strongly committed to working with our target groups and other service providers.

 

The exhibition process was the final formal consultation prior to adoption of the Plan however Council can provide a briefing session for this respondent.

 

The directions and actions of the Plan are to guide Council’s activities over the next 20 years. Council appreciates the support of specific community groups and will consult widely with relevant community groups and individuals as different projects require.

Margery Whitehead

Kensington

Issue: transient populations have economic advantages for business but costs for asset maintenance.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Precinct committee are also key organisations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: areas of special character are not suitable for future growth and development should not be considered as a ‘job lot’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue:  “Implementation of quality planning and design controls etc” should apply to all parts of the City.

 

Issue: Anzac Pde should not be narrowed with outdoor dining.

 

Issue: Purchase of buildings within the City for use as community facilities.

 

 

Issue: green spaces should be appreciated and maintained.

 

 

 

 

Issue: Balanced growth and change seems to conflict with the Hospital/UNSW precinct

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Do global organisations pay rates?

 

 

 

 

Issue: The map does not show the extent of Maroubra Junction

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Deviate buses from Anzac Pde to Eastern Ave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Car parking should be improved in town centres.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: requested changes to Kensington DCP

Issue is noted for the preparation of the Economic Strategy. The City Plan was strengthened in recognising the importance of strong asset maintenance.

 

The value of both Precinct Committees and the Chambers of Commerce are recognised. A key action has been included which incorporates precinct committees as part of effective communication processes (3a).

 

The City Plan broadly identifies areas for future growth, detailed planning will be undertaken as part of the comprehensive LEP review and the State Government Metro-Strategy. Applications are considered on an individual basis.

 

Addressed by outcome – ‘Excellence in Urban Design and Development’.

 

 

The City Plan is a strategic document and does not look at the smaller scale such as public domain strategy details, outdoor dining or purchase of specific buildings.

 

The public open spaces of our City are appreciated and will be retained for both recreational and environmental purposes.

 

The precinct is to support the current special uses of the Hospital and University. The outcome Balance growth and change has been amended and the direction more clearly notes ‘continued yet low growth’ and reduced confusion.

 

All land owners in Randwick City pay rates except for public institutions such as UNSW and Randwick Hospitals.

 

The City Plan does not establish the boundaries of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP. This is already determined by the existing DCP.

 

This should be considered at a more detailed planning level however Eastern Ave is not a large enough road to support additional bus routes.

 

Public car parking will be maintained in town centres and sustainable alternatives to the car such as walking and cycling will be encouraged.

 

The City Plan is a strategic document that does not vary existing development control plans.

 

Adam Blakester Maroubra and previous representative of the Environmental Strategy Group.

Support: commend Council on the plan.

 

Issue: There is no focus on the human experiences within our City

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: What is unique about our community?

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: How do we celebrate our community?

 

Support noted.

 

 

Noted. The final City Plan document has a more inclusive outcome of a Liveable City which incorporates the ‘human experience’; and a section on what we mean by a sense of community is included on page 9 of ‘A Sense of Community’ background paper and theme.

 

The introduction section to the Background paper ‘A Sense of Community’ details the unique combination of attributes of our community.

 

The City Plan sets the direction for this including preparation of a Cultural Plan which provides detail of infrastructure, events and activities to celebrate our community’s diversity.

 

Issue: concern for the meaning behind Council’s vision and lack of ‘human spirit’ within the Plan.

 

 

The ‘A Sense of Community’ Background paper is strengthened in the final City Plan.

 

Noelene Hall Randwick

Issue: Only incidental references to libraries.

‘A Sense of Community‘ Background Paper and the City Plan have been enhanced to include references to libraries. This respondent met with staff to discuss her concerns in further detail.

Rona Wade- Coogee

Support: pleased to see Council taking a strategic approach.

 

Issue: Impact of licensed premises not noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: support our community, not policies that undermine a sense of community

 

 

Issue: Does enhancing partnerships mean partnerships that bring money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Are there any additional directions for Leadership in Sustainability. Too much focus on financial sustainability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Coogee should be considered as a dress circle destination for tourists rather than a backpacker slum

 

 

Issue: Proposed community facilities do not deal with issues such as safety or enhancing community values.

 

 

 

Issue: request that growth in arts and culture does not result in big festivals in populated areas

 

 

 

 

Issue: aged and youth services are lacking as is a community cultural centre

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Council should push for the Police to provide 24 hour presence in hot spot areas

 

 

 

 

Issue: Council does not listen to community consultation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: request that council facilities are made safe.

 

 

 

Issue: There is not enough reference to the Coogee Foreshore Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Insert the word ‘contemplation’ for the use of recreation areas

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: balancing growth and change are about the same thing- growth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue: Affordable housing does not support the local character where it allows for backpackers.

 

 

 

 

 

Support: heritage incentives

 

Issue: Local businesses have been driven out of Coogee for those that cater for backpackers.

 

Issue: we need to focus on quality tourists.

 

 

Issue: Reduce the size and hours of operation for the two big hotels in Coogee.

 

 

 

Support noted.

 

 

The City Plan is a strategic document that does not attempt to exhaustively detail all impacts on our community. It should be noted that different uses have a different impact on different sections of the community. Directions have been added to specifically undertake programmes//actions to address any anti-social behaviour.

 

Outcomes 2 and 3 specifically relate to supporting our community with associated directions.

 

Partnerships include working relationships between community groups and government and non-government organisations for the betterment of our City and community. An explanation of partnerships is provided within the City Plan under A Sense of Community theme.

 

This is an over-arching outcome with four fairly broad directions relating to Council’s internal operation which cover the intent of creating a sustainable City. As detailed in the Plan sustainability relates to the environment, economy and community.

 

Comments are noted and such considerations will be reviewed as part of the tourism component of the economic strategy.

 

Safety is a new key direction under the outcome a Liveable City. Supporting a vibrant and diverse community is an adopted outcome.

 

Council’s Cultural Plan will support relevant and appropriate events and cultural development, building on Council’s existing events calendar.

 

The City Plan provides support for the development of all aspects of our community including youth and the aged. A cultural centre at Prince Henry is being developed.

 

Council has a working relationship with Local Area Command working together on crime prevention and community safety initiatives.

 

Council is committed to enhancing the way Council communicates with our community as evident in the outcome an Informed and Engaged Community. Improving and enhancing consultation procedures is an action for the next Management Plan.

 

Council is committed to ensuring all Council facilities are appropriately built, upgraded and managed. 

 

The City Plan directs all of Council’s activities at the higher strategic level while the Coogee Foreshore Plan of Management looks at the specific management of foreshore open space in Coogee.

 

All appropriate uses of recreation spaces are accommodated through outcome 6 and ‘passive use’ incorporates contemplative use of open space. 

 

The intent of this direction is to accommodate growth as identified in the State Government’s Metro Strategy whilst ensuring residential amenity and impacts of increasing population are mitigated the actual wording of this outcome to ‘A liveable City’ has been amended to improve clarity.

 

Affordable housing is about maintaining a mix of housing opportunities and ensuring persons of a lower socio-economic level can afford to remain within the City.

 

Support noted.

 

Noted for the preparation of the tourism component of the economic strategy.

 

Noted for the preparation of the tourism component of the economic strategy.

 

The City Plan is a strategic document that does not incorporate a review of operating hours for licensed premises.

 

Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust

Support – the outcomes are consistent with the Trust’s PoM but encourage the inclusion of more detail under each action. Interested in being involved in a number of key actions.

 

Noted. Detailed planning for each action is conducted when preparing the Management Plan.

Malabar Precinct

Support – the concept of a City Plan

 

Issue – Malabar Headland key action needs to specify the future use as national park rather than community land to ensure the preservation of the bushland on site. Notes that the buildings on site are unsafe.

 

 

 

 

Issue – Anzac Parade Upgrade – concern that installing seating will attract street drinkers, may displace parking spaces and may affect the future of light rail in the corridor. Needs to include upgrade of gardens at Malabar.

 

Issue – encourage public transport between Malabar and Eastgardens.

 

Issue – Central Area Map p55 - concern that description doesn’t recognise that high rise development in Maroubra Jct also puts pressure on amenity and other services, not just public transport, as stated.

 

Support – Upgrade Matraville library and hall.

 

Noted.

 

 

‘Community land’ includes national parks and the final use will depend on which level of Govt. is given control. The City Plan ensures any bushland is retained and the site is maintained, if the site is handed to Council.

 

Noted. Detailed design issues will be addressed in a public domainstrategy/ies.

 

 

 

 

Noted – as part of our advocacy role and added to ‘Moving Around’.

 

Reworded to reflect comment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted.

Friends of Malabar Headland

Issue – should promote Malabar headland becoming National Park and the creation of an aquatic reserve around it.

 

 

 

 

Issue – rewording of South Coastal Area priorities p56 to clarify intent.

 

Issue – general comments on “Looking After Our Environment’ background paper.

 

Noted – as part of our advocacy role. ‘Community land’ includes national parks. An adjacent critical habitat and intertidal protection zone already exist.

 

Noted – rewording made.

 

 

 

Noted. Reworded to update and clarify content.

K. King, Maroubra

Issue – request to rezone part of Heffron Park for convalescent and retirement village purposes as there are not enough facilities for persons with disabilities.

Disability issues we addressed in ‘A Sense of Community’, Council’s Access Plan and are implemented through the Management Plan. Appropriate land uses for Heffron Park are being considered in the current Heffron Plan of Management review.

 

BIKEast

Support – for Plan, vision, outcomes and engaging the community, expressing desire to continue to be involved.

 

Issue –The can be physical and mental health repercussions caused by lack of mobility by youth and older persons. Emphasis the low cost alternatives to the car.

 

Issue –increasing use of bicycles and Scooters, particularly by older persons and more bicycle parking and separate cyclist bike paths.

 

Issue – more detail on how there will be community involvement.

 

Noted.

 

 

 

 

Noted. Issues discussed in the ‘Moving Around’ theme and background paper.

 

 

 

 

Noted. Issues discussed in the ‘Moving Around’ theme.

 

 

 

A Community Consultation strategy is a key City Plan action.

 

R Pleasant, Kingsford

Issue – extension of the Eastern Suburbs rail line from Bondi Junction to Kingsford would satisfy the transport and parking issues, help vehicle use reducing targets, reduced emissions and increase access to town centres and Uni/ hospital.

 

Issue - State Govt. have clearly shown they are not interested in light rail.

 

Noted – will be followed up as part of our advocacy role and discussed in “Moving Around”.

 

 

 

 

Noted.

J. Dahlenburg

Water Sensitive Urban Design Sydney Program

Support – development of a strategic frame work.

 

Issue – lacks discussion of airport expansion and impacts.

 

 

 

 

Issue – Anzac Parade as a spine for the bike network.

 

 

Issue – p19, sounds premature to rule out providing new child care centres, with current shortages.

 

 

 

 

Issue – need strategies to engage short term residents, eg uni students, hospital works, travellers, eg encourage correct waste disposal

 

Issue – p25 public space – too park focused, with too little recognition of public and semi public spaces in town centres and other public spaces

 

Support Noted.

 

 

Discussion strengthened in ‘A Prospering City’, ‘Moving Around’ and ‘Looking After Our Environment’.

 

Noted. Detailed design issues to be addressed in the Bike Plan review.

 

The City Plan does not rule out this. Council supports the provision of child care centres but will not necessarily provide them.

 

Noted. To be incorporated into the Community Consultation Strategy and related actions.

 

 

Rewording to clarify this in the ‘Places for People’ Theme.

Paul Jenkin, Kensington

Issue - Concern that the vision and mission are not visionary. Outcomes are not ambitious                      

 

 

 

Issue - Anzac Parade as a grand boulevard is probably not achievable without good design parameters, developed in partnership with the community.

 

Issue - Given poor past planning decisions, it is difficult to see how the ‘liveable city’ outcome will be achieved.

 

Issue – unclear how the outcomes and actions impact on the community; how partnerships will work or what ‘leadership’ is.

 

 

 

 

Issue - Need better planning for the University and Hospital precinct, and recognition of the benefit these bring to the City. Take advantage of the University’s innovations, eg photovoltaic cells.

 

 

Issue - Needs greater focus on human health.

Noted. The vision and mission is that of Council and the outcomes are considered to be positive yet realistic.

 

Noted. Detailed design and consultation will be critical to success.

 

 

 

Noted. Key directions will work towards rectifying these where possible.

 

 

The introduction to the City Plan has been strengthened to clarify these issues and ‘partnerships’ have been incorporated into each outcome.

 

This issue is recognised and covered in “Places for People”. A MOU has been recently established with the University and planning for the future of this Precinct will be a priority.

 

Noted. Discussed in the “A Sense of Community” theme.

 

Kensington/ Kingsford Precinct Committee

Support – sustainability basis and the retention of  light, medium and limited heavy industry

 

Issue - Locality based hubs for information, easier access to information and a faster dissemination of pertinent information

 

 

Issue - Support and encourage flow of communications channels, between council, precinct and chambers

 

 

 

 

Issue – improve the relationship between UNSW, council and precincts with enhanced information flow

 

Issue - West ward needs a community centre

 

 

Issue – need a DCP for boarding houses

 

Issue - Redraft Direction 5C to remove confusion

 

Issue – Support bus shelters being constructed with the character of the area in mind

 

 

 

 

Issue - Provision of more park benches, and create and retain public open spaces

 

Issue - Current inconsistent planning does not constitute balanced growth

 

Issue - More emphasis on developments with good urban design and ecological sustainability for residents

 

Issue - Promote diversity not density

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue - Review Kensington town centre DCP

 

 

Issue - Balanced heritage conservation with a DCP that incorporates an outline of heritage-listed buildings and their heritage criteria.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue - Foster transparency and advocacy for managing each town centre. Consideration must be allowed for economic growth and development

 

Issue - Kingsford roundabout must be redesigned and upgraded.

 

 

Issue - Advocate local and regional transport movements from Central to university and hospital

 

Issue - Maintain existing initiative to create bike tracks on non major roads

 

Issue – LATM plans need to be redeveloped and interlinked for efficient traffic management with surrounding councils, with a focus on business parking schemes and limiting traffic volumes in local residential streets. Increase use of chicanes and traffic management initiatives to slow local traffic safer local streets.

 

Noted.

 

 

 

These issues are discussed in “A Sense of Community” Theme and supported by the outcome -  “an informed and engaged community”

 

Precincts and Chambers are valuable community organisations and their on going support is discussed and strengthened in “A Sense of Community” and “A Prospering City”

 

Noted. UNSW/ Hospital precinct planning with the community is a key action in the City Plan.

 

Identified in the recent Community Needs Study and The City Plan.

 

To be considered in reviews of housing DCPs.

 

Direction reworded to clarify intent.

 

Council bus shelter are provided by JC Decaux under contractual arrangement with a consistent style for the City’s character..

 

Noted. Discussed in “Places for People”.

 

 

Noted. Key directions will work towards rectifying these past problems where possible.

 

Discussed in “Places for People” and A Healthy Environment”

 

Discussed in “Places for People”. The City Plan promotes diversity but must also provide a range of appropriate densities to meet State Government planning Policies and a diversity of housing needs.

 

The City Plan is a strategic document that does not deal with design specifics.

 

Noted. Council resolved to not adopt further heritage conservation measures at this stage. Nevertheless heritage promotion and conservation as initiative will continue as identified in The City Plan and Management Plan.

 

Issue discussed in the “A Prospering City” Theme.

 

 

 

 

This will be one of the issues investigated in the Anzac Parade public domain strategy.

 

Noted and addressed in the “Moving Around” theme.

 

 

Noted. To be addressed in the Bike Plan review.

 

 

Noted. Local area traffic management plans are a key action in the “Moving Around” theme and will address these issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kiosks

 

 

 

Support

–    long term planning is a great initiative

–    extension of coastal walk way

–    protection of Malabar Headland

–    upgrading Heffron Park

–    public transport advocacy

–    upgrading footpaths/ bike ways

Issues

-     focus on maintenance

-     worst Councillors ever, only make reactionary decisions

-     better response to complaints

-     bus links east-west and north-south

-     crime concerns at Kingsford, particularly the mural walkway

-     too much high rise development

-     heavy rail not light rail – no support by State Govt. for light rail

-     back packers

-     alcohol issues at Coogee

-     more Garbage collection

-     all hotels to be Smoke free 

-     no parking meters

-     Remove storm water drain on Maroubra beach

 

Noted. Most issues are best addressed through the Management Planning or are covered as key directions in the City Plan.

Surveys

 

 

M. McFarlane Maroubra

Support - Considers the Plan to be a very comprehensive and positive document.

 

Issue - must ‘listen’ to the community and note that not all residents are computer literate.

 

Issue - no high rise in open space and coastal areas.

Noted.

 

 

 

Noted for preparation of the Community Consultation Strategy

 

Noted. The City Plan notes only broad development partners based on locality for later detailed planning.

 

Joe Wolfe

Coogee

Support - sustainability elements throughout the Plan.

 

Issue - Should ensure coordination with the NSW Government and the City of Sydney Council.

 

Issue - Cycleway route could be along Coogee Bay Road.

Noted.

 

 

Effective partnerships with other organisations are addressed throughout the Plan.

 

Specific design to be addressed in the Bike Plan action.

Elizabeth Mifsud Clovelly

Support - community building and the encouragement of better public transport

 

Issue – doesn’t address the needs of young people in the LGA.

 

Issue – incorporate more ‘concrete’ time frames.

 

 

 

 

Issue - parking issues can be solved by better public transport.

 

Noted.

 

 

 

‘Youth’ is one of the key Target Groups addressed in ‘A Sense of Community”

 

The City Plan provides the strategic direction and Council’s Management Plan provides specific timeframes.

 

Noted.

Name withheld by request

Issue - The Plan is too overwhelming, often contradictory information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue - who will take responsibility to ensure that the proposed outcomes come to fruition?

 

 

 

 

 

Issue – no time frames.

 

Noted. The City Plan has been designed to be a holistic document without jargon. The review of submissions has incorporated changes to address confusion on issues.

 

The outcomes are realised through the Management Plan and future City Plan reviews. The community, Councillors and Council staff must work together to ensure the outcomes are achieved.

 

The City Plan provides the strategic direction and Council’s Management Plan provides specific timeframes.

 

Tony Tudor

Kingsford

Support

–    retention of low density residential areas

–    recognise the differing needs of local areas/town centres

–    maintain the parks, beaches, open space areas and environment generally.

 

Issues - clean Congwong Beach more regularly.

 

 

 

Issue - house that currently impedes the Coastal Walkway at Lurline Bay needs to be removed.

 

Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted. Maintenance and regular operational issues have been strengthened in the Plan.

 

Noted.

James Allen Kingsford

Support - Commends Council for engaging the community in preparing the Plan.

 

Issue - there is ‘always’ a gap between ‘planning’ and ‘execution’ of plans such as these.

Noted.

 

 

 

The nature of the City Plan as a long term document, means it will be implemented incrementally over the next 20 years, commencing immediately (06/07 Management Plan)

Anonymous (x3)

Support - for developing a strategic Plan.

 

Issue - Daceyville Housing Commission areas should be redeveloped for private tenancy.

Noted.

 

 

Daceyville (outside of Randwick City) provides a range of affordable housing and is a legitimate part of our wider community. The City Plan notes working with Department of Housing to better integrate with the neighbours.

 

Penny Crofts
(Faculty of Law, UTS)

Support - Plan is clear and concise, and identifies the needs of each respective group within the community.

Commends the matching of actions with objectives.

 

Issue - impact of backpackers, urban design and medium/high intensity development.

 

Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These issues are discussed in the ‘Places for People’ Theme.

Name withheld by request

Issue – too much information.

 

Issue – provide more aged care housing. Apartments are not appropriate for older people.

 

 

 

 

Issue - provide more off street parking.

 

 

Issue – Apartments should have a larger floor space and larger outdoor areas.

 

Issue - Rates of crime in the City need to be addressed immediately.

 

 

Issue - affordability and diversity of housing/ SEPP – Seniors Living.

 

 

Issue - Concerned that Council does not take notice of public opinion.

 

Issue - Concerned about appropriateness of community facilities.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue – need greater levels of graffiti removal.

 

Issue - light rail corridors need to be planned now.

Noted.

 

Noted. Council does not provide housing, but is seeking to ensure a wide variety of housing for our community’s differing needs.

 

Discussed in ‘Moving Around”.

 

 

Noted. An issue for future DCP reviews.

 

 

Noted. Council has recently formed a Safety Committee and crime is a focus through Direction 6c.

 

Noted and discussed in ‘Places for People’ and ‘A Sense of Community’ Themes.

 

Noted. Refer to Outcome 3 - “an informed and engaged community”.

 

Noted. Facilities to be provided are in response to the Community Facilities Study 2003. These will be multi-purpose and cater to changing needs over time.

 

Noted – operational issue guided by Direction 6b.

 

Discussed in ‘Places for People’ and ‘Moving Around’


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Paid Print Media Advertising Policy

 

 

DATE:

9 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00282

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Advertising plays a key role in ensuring Randwick City residents are fully informed about all Council matters. Indeed, recent research indicates that 77.9% of residents in the City of Randwick use local newspapers as their main source for information on Council.

 

Council currently places advertisements in the local print media in order to:

 

§ inform and educate the community about a range of Council services, initiatives and issues;

§ invite community comment and consultation;

§ promote a sense of community, and;

§ encourage participation in Council and local events and programs.

 

The types of items Council advertises include, but are not limited to, the following:

 

§ Vacant positions;

§ Council and Committee meeting dates;

§ Development Applications;

§ Public Notices;

§ Tenders;

§ Statutory obligations;

§ Mayor’s column, including upcoming events, plans, submissions, community issues;

§ Mayor’s goodwill wishes;

§ Precinct Committee meeting dates and promotional ads;

§ Specific Council services and activities.

 

At the moment, the majority of Council’s advertising (other than for vacant positions) is placed in the Southern Courier newspaper.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick City Council will assess whether to advertise in a newspaper according to a “value for money” criteria. The characteristics of the newspaper that determine the value Council receives as a result of advertising in that newspaper are:

 

§ Circulation (as audited by the Circulation Audit Bureau)

§ Distribution/delivery points

§ Frequency

§ Advertising rates

§ Demographics of readership

§ Editorial topics

 

A comparison of local newspapers that are distributed in the Randwick City Council area is below.

 

 

Southern Courier

The Bondi View

The Beast

Eastern Suburbs Spectator

Circulation

47,650

25-32,000

40,000

42,500 (only 11,000 in RCC area)

Frequency

Weekly

Monthly

Monthly

Weekly

Distribution area in Randwick City

Entire Randwick City Council area

Only Clovelly and Coogee beaches

Only Clovelly, Coogee and Maroubra beaches

Only Clovelly, Coogee, Maroubra, Randwick, Kensington and Kingsford

Cost of newspaper

Free

Free

Free

Free

Rates – half page (+ size)

$1792

(Tabloid)

$1246

(Tabloid)

$660

(A5)

$1000

(Tabloid)

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

This policy will ensure that Council gets the best value for money from its paid advertising.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council currently places the majority of its advertising in the Southern Courier newspaper. The content and coverage of this newspaper reflect the demographic and geographic diversity of the residents in the Randwick City area. The Southern Courier:

 

§ Covers a broad range of issues of concern to members of our diverse multicultural community;

§ Is the most widely distributed and readily-available local newspaper and the only one that is distributed across the whole Randwick City Council area;

§ As it is published weekly, Council can provide the necessary regular updates to the community and meet Council’s notification processes.

 

Council has also placed occasional advertisements in the Bondi View and The Beast. However, it is doubtful how much impact this advertising has and how it benefits Council because:

 

§ Both these publications have very limited circulation in the City of Randwick;

§ Both are published monthly, therefore are less frequent;

§ Both focus on the Bondi and Bronte areas and issues concerning, or information from, Waverley Council. Items concerning Randwick Council are rarely included.

 

It is recommended that Council continue with its current arrangements for its advertising by placing paid advertising in the newspaper/s which reach most members of Randwick City’s large diverse community and reach the appropriate target audience for the topic of the advertisement, and, at the discretion of the General Manager, consider placing advertisements in various publications from time to time as appropriate.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council adopts the Paid Print Media Advertising Policy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Paid Print Media Advertising Policy

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART-

 

 

Review Date:         /          /20                                                 Policy No: 

 

 

POLICY TITLE:                   Paid Print Media Advertising Policy

 

 

File No.                  

 

                                                                 OBJECTIVE

 

To ensure that Council gets the best value for money for its paid advertising in the print media.

 

                                                          POLICY STATEMENT

 

Advertising plays a key role in ensuring Randwick City residents are fully informed about all Council matters. Council places advertisements in the local print media in order to:

 

§ inform and educate the community about a range of Council services, initiatives and issues;

§ invite community comment and consultation;

§ promote a sense of community, and;

§ encourage participation in Council and local events and programs.

 

Randwick City Council will assess whether to advertise in a newspaper according to a “Value for money” criteria. The characteristics of the newspaper that determine the value Council receives as a result of advertising in that newspaper are:

 

§ Circulation (as audited by the Circulation Audit Bureau)

§ Distribution/delivery points

§ Frequency

§ Advertising rates

§ Demographics of readership

§ Editorial topics

 

Council will place paid advertising in the newspaper/s which reach most members of Randwick City’s large diverse community and reach the appropriate target audience for the topic of the advertisement.

 

Council, at the discretion of the General Manager, will consider placing advertisements in various publications from time to time as appropriate depending on the issue involved and whether there is a need for Council to reach a specific target audience.

 

 

Minute No:          /                                                   Meeting Date:         


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Heffron Park Landscape Concept Plan Exhibition

 

 

DATE:

14 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00141

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

Following twelve months of consultation with community and sporting representatives, a draft Landscape Concept Plan was prepared for a major upgrade of Heffron Park.  Council resolved at its 28 March 2006 meeting to endorse the draft Landscape Concept Plan (Option 2B) for public exhibition. A number of funding options for the proposed works in the draft Landscape Concept Plan were identified and feedback was also sought during the exhibition period. 

 

An extensive exhibition and consultation process was undertaken to ensure that the community and sporting groups were fully informed of the proposal, with two months in which to make comments.  Council received 485 responses to the exhibition including 98 written submissions and 387 community feedback forms.  2 petitions were also received, one prior to the 28th March Council report and exhibition (716 signatures) and one during the exhibition (216 signatures).

 

In summary, the majority of respondents in both the written submissions and feedback forms (approximately two-thirds) supported the design proposals of the draft Landscape Concept Plan.  In relation to the proposed funding options, again, of those responding to this issue, the majority (over half) were in favour of the option of residential development in the airspace above the indoor sports centre. Both of the petitions related only to the funding and strongly opposed the proposed residential option to allow the park upgrade within 5 years. Thus, while the proposed design was generally highly supported, the funding options were a highly controversial element of the public exhibition.

 

A community feedback form (accessed via the internet and paper copies) was prepared to assist in the consultation and 387 responses were received during the exhibition period.  Based on an initial analysis of the comments received in the feedback forms approximately 59% of respondents liked the proposal, 34% didn’t like the proposal and 7% didn’t know.  In relation to the funding issue, three options were put forward; using existing rates and developer contributions (14% respondents supported this), rate levy of at least $40 per year (24% respondents supported this) and using the airspace above the multi-use recreation centre for residential development (62% respondents supported this).   The feedback form also provided open ended questions to allow an opportunity to identify what was liked about the design and what improvements could be suggested.

 

Of the 98 written submissions, 21 (21%) commented only on the proposed funding options (all objecting to or querying the residential funding option). Of the remaining 77 submissions, 44 (45%) supported the proposed design, 16 (16%) did not support the design and the remainder of submissions did not state support or otherwise, but raised questions or provided comments on specific issues. 

 

A brief overview of the issues raised during the consultation is provided in this report. An analysis of the detailed comments raised in submissions and the community feedback forms, and the changes required to the draft Plan of Management, will be reported to Council in a future report recommending the formal exhibition of the draft Plan of Management as required under the Crown Lands Act. 

 

This report provides an update on the Heffron Park project and feedback on the exhibition.  Given the strong positive feedback on the design of the draft Landscape Concept Plan, the report recommends that Council adopt the draft Landscape Concept Plan, subject to a number of design changes based on comments received during the exhibition period and as discussed in this report.  Many of the comments received in submissions relate to detailed design and management issues which can be accommodated with minor changes to the draft Plan of Management prior to its required exhibition.  In contrast, the feedback on the funding options showed both strong support and objection to the option of residential development in the airspace, including queries over whether the 3 funding options put forward were sufficient and suggesting other options for consideration. At the same time, the significant positive response to the funding option of residential development in the airspace, and the progressively lower preferences for the longer term options, suggests a strong interest in the park upgrade being undertaken in the short rather than long term. This report recommends that in response to this feedback further investigations are undertaken of alternative funding options that can achieve the upgrade in the short term (5-10 years) and that these be reported back to Council in a separate report, for consideration. 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Heffron Park is a large Crown reserve of approximately 44 hectares for the public purpose of “public recreation”.  Care control and management is the responsibility of the Heffron park (R81741) Reserve trust (managed by Randwick City Council). 

 

The current Plan of Management for Heffron Park was completed in 1997.  It outlines a range of recommendations and projected costs.  In 2000/2001 a draft landscape plan was prepared based on the strategies in the Plan of Management.  This draft landscape plan was not supported by the community or the Council. 

 

In October 2004 Council resolved to prepare a new draft Plan of Management and draft Landscape Concept Plan for the park to ensure that developments and improvements are relevant to both the current and long term sports and recreational needs of the community.  A draft Plan of Management and draft Landscape Concept Plan were developed in consultation with sporting groups and the community during 2005.  The Working Committee and Community Representative Sub-Committee endorsed a major upgrade of the Park rather than a minor ‘tweak and tidy’ upgrade, given the current state of facilities in the park.  Two options were prepared for the major upgrade (Options 2A and 2B) with the difference being the location of the netball courts.  Council decided to support Option 2B, which was the Randwick Netball Associations preferred option, which retains the existing location of the netball courts and provides no room for future court expansion. 

 

In summary, the draft Landscape Concept Plan envisages improvements to all sport fields, a new major indoor multi-purpose recreation centre including a relocated Des Renford Aquatic Centre (DRAC), additional sports including hockey and handball, additional and upgraded parking areas, additional and improved pedestrian paths through and around the Park, passive recreation areas including upgraded children’s playgrounds, BBQ areas and an outdoor amphitheatre, and extensive additional landscaping to enhance the biodiversity and attractiveness of this significant park.

 

The DRAC relocation is based on the need to undertake major reconstruction or rebuild the pools within the next 5 -10 years, given the life of the existing pools. The proposal is to include the same pool capacity as the current DRAC.

 

A number of funding options were also investigated for the estimated $43M works in the draft Landscape Concept Plan.  These included the use of Council rates and s.94 developer contributions (estimated 70 years completion of works); a special rates levy of approximately $40 per year (estimated 20 year completion of works); and the use of airspace above the multi-use recreation centre for 8 storeys of residential development (estimated 5 year completion of works). 

 

Council also resolved at its meeting of 18 April 2006 to “approach both the State Government directly and local State Government MP’s individually to request a dollar-for-dollar funding arrangement similar to the arrangements for the Coogee and Maroubra Beach upgrades” and that “a proposal be put to SSROC inviting other Councils to become regional joint partners with Randwick in the funding, running, maintenance and ownership of the upgraded sporting complexes”. 

 

The draft Landscape Concept Plan and funding options were exhibited for public comment, noting the preference for a short-term time frame for the upgrade via the use of airspace above the multi-use recreation centre for residential development.

 

The Department of Lands, which is responsible for endorsing the formal exhibition of the draft Plan of Management under the Crown Lands Act, requested that Council seek community feedback on the draft Landscape Concept Plan and funding options prior to formal exhibition of the draft Plan of Management.  

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITION OVERVIEW:

 

An extensive public exhibition and consultation process was undertaken over a two month period from 4 April until 2 June 2006.  The exhibition included:

§   Information placed on Council’s website and exhibition venues including Council’s Customer Service Centre; Bowen, Randwick and Matraville Libraries and the Des Renford Aquatic Centre;

§   Information brochure (including feedback form) was prepared to assist in understanding the draft Landscape Concept Plan and funding options.  Copies of the brochure were sent to all residents surrounding the park (approximately 1000 brochures), all sporting groups which use the Park, relevant Precinct Committees and Chambers of Commerce, and other interested groups.  Copies of the brochure and feedback form were also available on Council’s website and at the exhibition venues;

§   Information pages in the local newspaper were included during the exhibition period and provided background information on the proposed landscape design and funding options;

§   Two open days were held in the Park (Saturday 6 May and Sunday 21 May) where staff were available to take comments and answer questions;

§   Presentations were also made to Precinct Committees, Chambers of Commerce and Council’s Sports Committee; and

§   Meetings were also held with a number of individual sporting groups, interested individuals and adjoining Botany Bay City Council staff.

 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED:

 

Overall, the majority of comments received in both written submissions and community feedback forms strongly supported the design of the draft Landscape Concept Plan; generally two-thirds supported the proposals and one-third did not.  A number of good ideas and feedback on detailed design and management improvements were suggested. These are discussed in more detail below and a number of changes are recommended to the draft Plan. 

 

In relation to the funding options, there was also strong support (over 50%) for the residential funding proposal, however there was also mixed views expressed in the written submissions and community feedback forms.  A high degree of opposition to the proposed use of airspace above the multi-use recreation centre for residential development was raised in written submissions (20 submissions), however the community feedback forms provided a contrary response with 152 (62%) of responses preferring the residential funding option. 

 

A summary of the comments received during the public exhibition period is provided below. 

 

Feedback Forms

Community feedback forms were included in the information brochures available at exhibition venues and distributed to local residents and sporting groups (refer Attachment 1).  The feedback forms were also online on Council’s website.  During the exhibition period 387 feedback forms were returned to Council (either by mail or via the internet), a sufficient response rate to indicate the general views of the Randwick City population.  Of the feedback forms received 82% were from residents of Randwick and 13% were residents of another local area, the remaining 5% did not answer the question. 

 

Four questions were asked in the community feedback; two of which were open-ended questions allowing the opportunity for a range of comments.  A brief summary of the responses to the questions is provided below.  A comprehensive analysis of the detailed comments will be provided in a future report to Council which will outline the proposed changes to be incorporated in the draft Plan of Management prior to public exhibition:

 

1. Do you like to proposals to improve Heffron Park?

216 (59%) of respondents liked the proposal, 126 (34%) did not like the proposal and 26 (7%) didn’t know.

 

 

2. List what you like about the proposals.

A range of features were identified including improvements to recreation and parkland, upgrading of amenities, new playing fields, new pool, increased parking, additional landscaping, children’s playgrounds, improved cycle paths and walking tracks and BBQ areas.

 

3. What suggestions can you make to improve the proposals for Heffron Park?

The main suggestions for improvements related to the:

 

§   additional parking and traffic improvements in surrounding streets,

§   support for the retention of an outdoor 50m pool and provision of a water polo pool, hydrotherapy pools and better children’s pools (including a slide);

§   need for AFL fields within the park;

§   better signage and safety (including lighting);

§   additional features within the park including an off-leash dog walking area, skate board area, gym stations associated with the pathways throughout the park, and additional seating and toilets;

§   improved environmental design features (eg. water tanks and solar lighting);

§   within the multi-use recreation centre suggested features included dancing facilities, cafes, etc;

§   improvements to fields, courts and facilities including a BMX track, additional netball courts, skateboard ramp and outdoor basketball courts.

A number of responses to this question opposed the residential funding option and suggested alternative funding options.  Comments also stated that Heffron Park was fine as it is and that no improvements were necessary.

 

4. Which funding option do you prefer?

a.   existing rates and developer contributions to complete the upgrade in over 70 years

b.   a special rate levy of at least $40 per year to complete the upgrade in the next 20 years

c.   using the airspace above the multi-use recreation centre to complete the upgrade within 5 years

 

Council received 244 responses to this question; 34 (14%) preferred using existing rates and s.94 contributions, 58 (24%) preferred the rate levy and 152 (62%) preferred using the airspace above the multi-use recreation centre.  143 feedback forms did not respond to this question.

 

Other comments raised in the feedback forms related to the:

§   support for green areas and additional landscaping;

§   support for the multi-use of fields;

§   need to review funding options;

§   parking issues;

§   queried relocation of the pool; and

§   requested equivalent or greater number and lanes with new pools.

 

Submissions

 

Council received 98 written submissions during the exhibition period.  Of these, 21 submissions commented only on the proposed funding options, the majority of which opposed the residential funding option.  As previously noted, the proposed funding options and investigation of other options will be considered in detail in a future report to Council and these submissions will also be considered in that report.  Of the remaining 77 submissions, 44 supported the proposed design, 16 did not support the design and the remainder of submissions did not state support or otherwise, while raising questions or provided comments on specific issues.  The main issues raised in submissions, which will be reviewed in detail and where necessary changes made to the draft Plan of Management, were:

§   Questioning the need to relocate the Des Renford Aquatic Centre and noting the need to retain outdoor 50m swimming pool and providing a water polo pool and hydrotherapy pool;

§   Ensuring that the cost of using the facilities remain affordable;

§   Security, vandalism and safety issues including the separation of cycling and pedestrian paths;

§   Additional features such as a BMX track near the sand dune area, leash free dog walking area; indoor and outdoor basketball courts, additional children’s playgrounds, ballroom dancing facility for children.  Support was noted for the additional toilets, seating, water bubblers and rubbish bins;

§   Request for more netball courts and resurfacing of the courts:

§   Request for field space for Australian Rules Football;

§   Differing comments relating to parking (some saying adequate and others inadequate) and traffic impacts;

§   Concern about the dominance of sporting use in the park; questioning the demand for sporting areas and need for more passive areas;

§   Support for the small amphitheatre provides opportunity for performance space;

§   Support for cycling criterium circuit which will be best in the State;

§   Support for improvement to gym facility;

§   Questioned whether there is asbestos in the existing buildings;

§   Need for an Aboriginal Heritage Assessment prior to any development; and

§   Queries relating to an inconsistency between draft landscape plan and the exhibited version of the draft plan (which was amended on Council’s recommendation) in location of multi-use recreation centre and the need for detailed site plans, elevations, shadow diagrams of proposed multi-use recreation centre.

 

Submissions from Sporting Groups

Of the 98 submissions, 7 sporting groups also provided submissions, all in support of the draft Plan and including specific comments on the design of the draft landscape concept plan:

Oztag Juniors: commends the draft plan.  Requested use of the passive recreation area on the corner of Fitzgerald Avenue and Bunnerong Road for evening competitions.

Eastern Suburbs Soccer Football Association: the 32 clubs and 7000 registered players fully support the draft concept plan.  Requested relocation of two of the small multi-use facility buildings within the park and lighting of soccer fields for night training.

Maroubra Saints Junior Australian Football Club & AFL NSW/ACT: supports the wide ranging and magnificent vision for sport and recreational facilities.  Requested space for AFL training and competitions as there is currently no home ground in Randwick City and there are 400 players and 1320 school participants.  Detailed specification for AFL requirements were provided.

 

Randwick Botany Cycling Club: fully supports the Heffron Park upgrade and supports the cycling circuits proposed.  Concerned about pedestrian and cyclists conflict but noted that this can be addressed at a later stage in the management process.

 

Matraville Tigers Rugby League Football Club: supports the redevelopment of the park with a number of considerations relating to facilities being provided for the club including a dressing shed, canteen, office/storage area and equipment storage area in new indoor recreation centre.  Detailed specifications were provided.  The club would like a variation to the layout of the rugby league fields in the south western corner of the park.  Requested use of the cricket oval adjacent to the rugby league fields.  Noted that proposal has the support of South’s Juniors and Maroubra Lions, La Perouse, Coogee Wombats and South Eastern and Clovelly Crocodiles (representing 110 sides a week).

 

Randwick District Rugby Union Football Club Inc: requested use of the park for training purposes.

 

Randwick Netball Association: supports the draft concept plan which retains netball facilities in the current location.  Requested additional netball courts.

 

Council’s Sports Committee meeting also considered the draft Landscape Concept Plan at its meeting of 17 May 2006.  While it did not give an overall comment on the draft Plan, individual comments raised included the need to consider the surface of the cricket nets, lighting needs to be provided across all fields, rugby union requested space within the park, playground in the north western corner should be relocated, questioned whether the four tennis grandstands are required and whether a clay court should be considered and whether the multi-use recreation centre will have meeting rooms/office space for sports.

 

Response:  the majority of requests made by the sporting groups (including booking of the sporting fields, space within the multi-use recreation centre and the design of lighting) are reasonable and can be accommodated through detailed design and management features in the draft Plan of Management.  There are three recommended changes which affect the design of the draft Landscape Concept Plan; the relocation of the small multi-use facility buildings requested by the Eastern Suburbs Soccer Football Association; changes to the size of the main cricket oval (if required) to accommodate an AFL sized field in consultation with cricket and AFL representatives and the reconfiguration of the rugby league fields in the south western corner of the park as requested by the Matraville Tigers Rugby League Football Club.

 

The Oztag request for use of the north-west corner area, relates to a passive recreation area that may be appropriate to be used on some evenings, particularly winter months, while the area should remain identified as a passive area. This does not therefore require amendment to the Landscape Concept plan.

 

In relation to the request by the Randwick Netball Association for additional netball courts, it is noted that the first design option (Option 2A) for the draft Landscape Concept Plan relocated the netball area to the west of its current location which allowed for additional netball courts and a new club facility.  The relocation of the courts was not supported by Randwick Netball Association, which specifically as a member of Council’s working group during the preparation of the draft Plan, stated that additional courts were not needed.  Retaining the existing location of the netball courts had implications on the design of both the soccer fields and the cycling track, as Option 2A had provided for a longer cycle track and better configuration of the soccer fields.  In addition, the parking requirements for netball in the current plan are based on the current number of courts.  It is therefore recommended that no additional netball courts be provided.  All existing courts will be resurfaced and new lighting and landscaping provided in consultation with the Randwick Netball Association.  It should be noted that the multi-use recreation centre will provide for courts that can be used for indoor netball.

 

Submissions from Business/Resident/Interest Groups

The Business and Tourism organisations all supported the plan and the proposed funding.  Of the Precinct Committees responding, Moverly supported the draft Plan but not the funding option while Malabar and Maroubra Junction oppose the proposal on funding issues.

 

The Spot Business Association: which supports the draft Landscape Concept Plan that the Park will complement the natural assets of Randwick City allowing residents and visitors to enjoy an active and healthy lifestyle.

 

Randwick City Tourism: stated that Heffron Park will be a grand addition to the already extensive range of sporting facilities available to residents and visitors and supports the concept plan.

 

Matraville Chamber of Commerce: strongly supports the draft Landscape Concept Plan which would make Heffron Park a handsome sporting facility.

 

Moverly Precinct Committee: welcomes upgrading of public land but not residential funding option.  It questioned the relocation of the DRAC and whether new community and sporting facilities would be multi-purpose.  Noted that Council should also consider other funding options such as State and Federal funding and funding from sporting associations.  Safety issues were also raised in the submission.

 

Malabar Precinct Committee: does not support high rise residential development but does want multi-purpose centre to be maximum 2 storeys.  Stated that the brochure and survey form should be removed as the questions are biased.  The Committee also applauded the concept of sporting facilities but did not want it at the cost of residential development in a public park.  Concern that development would set a dangerous precedent for the future.

 

Maroubra Junction Precinct:  opposed the draft Landscape Concept Plan.

 

Submissions from Other Organisations

City of Botany Bay: generally acknowledges and endorses the proposed upgrading of open space and park facilities.  Raised concern about the residential funding option, location of recreational facility and requested detailed design information on the proposed building envelopes.

 

Petitions

 

There were two petitions received, both relating to the proposed funding option of the use of airspace above the multi-use recreation centre for residential development.

 

One petition was received during the exhibition period containing 216 signatures and stating that “Please sign to show support opposing the new high rise development in Heffron Park.  The park is crown land and should remain an area for the public to enjoy and not an area to be zoned up and sold off to profit developers and councils”.

 

A petition was also received before the commencement of the exhibition period and prior to information being available to the public regarding the proposed draft Landscape Concept Plan and funding options.  This petition had 726 signatures and was headed “No high rise development on Heffron Park.  We the undersigned are totally opposed to the proposal to build a high rise apartment block on Heffron Park and call on Council to find another way to fund the redevelopment of the park and the building of a multi sports facility”. 

 

CONSIDERATION:

 

Funding Options

 

The feedback showed both strong support and objection to the option of residential development in the airspace, including queries over whether the 3 funding options put forward were sufficient and suggesting other options for consideration. At the same time, the significant positive response to the funding option of residential development in the airspace, and the progressively lower preferences for the longer term options as arose with the feedback forms, suggests a strong interest in the park upgrade being undertaken in the short rather than long term. Given this, it is recommended that further investigation be undertaken of a wider range of funding options that would provide for the park upgrade in the short term (i.e. 5-10 years) and would replace the option for a residential proposal in the airspace, and that these options and the funding issues raised in submissions be addressed in detail in a further report to Council.

 

Suggested Changes to the draft Landscape Concept Plan

 

The key issues raised during consultation on the draft Landscape Concept Plan relate to both the design and management of Heffron Park and the proposed funding options.  As previously noted, and in response to the comments raised by the community and suggested alternative funding options such as loans and a combination of funding options, it is recommended that additional analysis of potential funding options be undertaken and reported back to Council.  In order to undertake this additional analysis of funding options it is recommended that the design of the Park, as shown in the draft Landscape Concept Plan, be supported consistent with the vast majority of views received during the exhibition period

 

Many of the comments received during the public exhibition will be need to be considered in detail for any changes to the draft Plan of Management which provides the mechanism for controlling detailed design and management issues.  The following key design changes are recommended to the draft Landscape Concept Plan:

§   Changes to the rugby league fields in the south western corner of the Park as requested by, and in consultation with, Matraville Tigers Rugby League Football Club;

§   Relocation of two of the amenities buildings as requested by, and in consultation with, the Eastern Suburbs Soccer Football Association;

§   Clarification that the relocated aquatic centre will include an outdoor 50 metre pool and other pools which can be used for other types of activities eg. waterpolo and hydrotherapy;

§   Changes to the size of the main cricket oval (if required) to accommodate an AFL sized field in consultation with cricket and AFL representatives; and

§   Removal of all references to residential development in the airspace above the multi-use recreation centre.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

To date, approximately $150,000 has been spent for this project which covers the staff resourcing of the project, the management of committees, consultancies, printing and design of all material, the recent public exhibition and preparation of the draft plan of management. Additional funding may however, be required depending on the next phase of consultation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.        That Council adopt the exhibited Landscape Concept Plan, as a basis for further discussion with the Department of Lands and with specific groups in relation to proposed changes as follows:

a.   Reconfiguration of the rugby league fields in the south west corner of the Park in consultation with the Matraville Tigers Rugby League Football Club;

b.   relocation of two of the small multi-use facility buildings in consultation with Eastern Suburbs Soccer Football Association and other sporting groups;

c.   clarification that the relocated aquatic centre will include a 50 metre outdoor pool and other pools which can be used for other types of activities eg. waterpolo and hydrotherapy;

d.   changes to the size of the main cricket oval (if required) to accommodate an AFL sized field in consultation with cricket and AFL representatives; and

e.   the removal of all references to residential development in the airspace above the multi-use recreation centre; and

 

2.         That Council note that further investigations into a broader range of funding options and staging be undertaken and reported back to Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Community Feedback Form; and

Exhibited Draft Landscape Concept Plan - both under separate cover.  

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

INCORPORATION OF MAROUBRA BEACH BUS/TRAM TERMINUS INTO ARTHUR BYRNE RESERVE

 

 

DATE:

15 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07367

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Maroubra Beach Bus/Tram Terminus is located at 7R Marine Parade, Maroubra Beach (Lot 1214 DP 752015).

 

The property is yet to be incorporated into the Maroubra Beach (R46111) Reserve Trust. This report details the current status of the Bus/Tram Terminus.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department of Lands advised on 1 February 2006 that the submission for approval to declare the parcel Crown Land and waive the requirement for a land assessment has been prepared.  The submission for approval to add the land to the Maroubra Beach (R46111) Reserve has also been prepared and the application is with the Manager of Public Land Management, awaiting execution.  Once endorsed, the documentation will then be forwarded to the Director General.  The land will then be gazetted.

 

Detailed hereunder is chronology of status on the Maroubra Beach Bus/Tram Terminus.

 

27 February 02            Letter to Council staff from DOL detailing proposed acquisition of part Broadarrow reserve.

 

February 2003             Council staff telephoned STA about tram shelter hand over to Council.  (STA incorrectly suggested that Council should pay for the tram shelter, after investigation by staff, the STA agreed that an arrangement was in place, i.e. Council build the new bus shelter and STA hand over old tram shelter).

 

26 March 2003            Council letter to STA requesting confirmation that STA will transfer the land to Crown.

 

23 March 2003            Internal Council memorandum enclosing final draft design development drawings of the Maroubra Beach Old Bus Terminus Kiosk/Café.

 

4 June 2003                 State Transit Authority email to Council staff confirming telephone conversation that STA has approved the transfer of the bus shelter to Council for nominal consideration.

 

26 June 2003               Council lodged Development Application for café.

 

23 July 2003                STA letter to Department of Lands requesting tram shelter be incorporated into Arthur Byrne Reserve.

 

20 January 2004           STA letter to Department of Lands requesting update on status.

 

February 2004             Council staff telephoned Department of Lands to check status.

                                    Department of Lands said matter had been put on back burner (due to restructure of Crown office) & they would get back working on it.

 

April 2004                    DA process put on hold.  Council staff rang Department of Lands to say put D.A. on hold.

 

16 April 2004               Council staff letter to Department of Lands requesting dedication be put on hold.

 

30 August 2004            Department of Lands asked Council staff to advise on present position in the proposed acquisition of part Broadarrow Reserve

 

October 2004              Randwick Council staff rang Department of Lands and requested matter proceed.

 

6 January 2005             Council staff spoke with Department of Lands.  File note states: Tied up with an earlier proposal rationalising Marine Parade.

 

22 February 2005        Council resolution to call for expressions of interest.

 

March 2005                 Council staff rang Department of Lands and requested update on status of incorporation.

 

9 May 2005                 Expressions of Interest issued for upgrade of bus shelter.

 

October 2005              Expressions of interest evaluated, however as the lease of the current surf school expired 31st October, 2005 and a tender was being prepared it was decided that the upgrade of the bus shelter would be included as part of the Tender for the Surf School.

 

18-20 October 2005    Council staff called Department of Lands stressing urgency of matter.  Department of Lands said the transfer would be expedited.

January 2006                Council staff spoke to Department of Lands requesting update on status of incorporation.

 

February 2006             Council staff spoke to Department of Lands, following up status.

 

February 2006             Department of Lands advised that the current status is that the submission for approval to declare the parcel crown land, waive the requirement for a land assessment and then to add the land to the Maroubra Beach Reserve has been prepared and is with the Manager of Public Land Management at the moment, waiting for sign off.  It will then go to the Director General.  Once all done then it will be gazetted.

 

23 February 2006        Council staff emailed Department of Lands again following up status.

 

20 April 2006               Council staff send letter to Department of Lands enclosing draft of licence to be put in place for bus/tram shelter and chasing status of incorporation into reserve.

 

10 May 2006               Council staff left message for various Department of Lands staff seeking advice on status of incorporation into reserve.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The land known as 7R Marine Parade, Maroubra Beach (Lot 1214 DP 752015) is yet to be incorporated into the Maroubra Beach (R46111) Reserve and the matter is still in the hands of the Department of Lands.  In anticipation of the incorporation of the building into the Reserve, Council has prepared a draft licence agreement for a Learn to Surf School and provided same to the Department for their Approval in Principal.  Once approval is granted a tender will be prepared for provision of Learn to Surf classes at Maroubra Beach.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 49/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Cancelling and Recalling the Current Tender for Construction of the Stormwater First Flush System and Upgrade of the Irrigation System at Council's Community Nursery .

 

 

DATE:

15 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00104

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

To seek Council’s approval to not accept the current and recall the tender for the construction of a stormwater first flush system and upgrade of the irrigation system at the Council’s Community Nursery.

 

The open tender was called on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 to invite different companies to submit the tender for the Council Community Nursery Stormwater Drainage and Reuse Works. The proposed works included construction of first flush tank and the installation of a stormwater harvesting and reuse system. The existing stormwater drainage system would also be augmented as part of the works. Elements of construction include:

 

·    Runoff Water Quality Treatment System.

·    Stormwater Treatment Plant

·    Stormwater Storage tank

·    Stormwater Drainage Augmentation.

 

ISSUES:

 

The objectives of this project are;

 

·        To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current nursery irrigation system;

 

·        To minimise environmental pollution and meet all the requirements of relevant environmental legislation; and

 

·        To minimise usage of town water by harvesting rain water and re-using collected irrigation and stormwater runoff on site.

 

Tenders closed on Tuesday, 23 May 2006 at 10.00 am. Council received only two tenders.   Due to the low number of tenderers it is felt that it would be financially prudent for Council to re-tender these works with the view of obtaining a more financially advantageous outcome for Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The purpose of recalling the tender would be to:

 

1.       Attract a wider range of quotations; and

 

2.       Attempt to attract additional quotations that are lower in price by allowing additional time for tenderers to prepare their submission and by increasing the duration of the construction period.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council not accept any tenders and recall tenders for the construction of stormwater first flush system and upgrade of the irrigation system at Council’s Community Nursery.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil .

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

ZAMAN SHAMSUZ

DIRECTOR,

CITY SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER,

CITY SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 38/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF COUNCIL'S TENDER PROCESS  

 

 

DATE:

16 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00699  

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 30th May, 2006 it was resolved:

 

RESOLUTION: (Nash/Notley-Smith) that this matter be deferred to the next ordinary Council meeting to allow councillors to examine the “Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government” which were recently forwarded to Council by the Department of Local Government.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director, Governance & Financial Services Report No. 29/2006 - Ordinary Council Meeting - 30 May, 2006.

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 29/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF COUNCIL'S TENDER PROCESS

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00699

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Mayor’s Minute 30/2006 entitled “Improving Transparency of Council’s Tender Process” was considered at the 18 April 2006 Council Meeting and Council resolved as follows:

 

“That the General Manager prepare a report for Council’s consideration addressing ways in which confidential tender documents may be released to the public after the tender has been awarded and contractual arrangements have been finalised, with the intent that Council develop a policy in this respect taking into consideration the following matters:

 

1.       confidential documents (including the tender submissions and evaluation results) relating to each tender shall be released publicly 3 months after the tender has been awarded and contractual arrangements have been finalised;

 

2.       Council’s policy to eventually release all confidential documents relating to the tender process be included in the tender specifications;

 

3.       if necessary, unsuccessful tenderers be given the opportunity for particulars of their tender submission to be deleted from the documents released to the public;

 

4.       Council minutes shall record reasons for the acceptance of the successful tender; and

 

5.       where possible, Council’s deliberations concerning the awarding of a tender be carried out in open Council session.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department of Local Government has produced draft “Tender Guidelines for NSW Local Government” which aim to assist Councils in applying clear policies, consistent procedures and affective risk management strategies in accordance with the Local Government Act, the Local Government (General) Regulation and other relevant legislation.

 

The guidelines have been prepared under Section 23A of the Local Government Act and, therefore, must be considered by Councils as part of the tendering process.

 

The document contains standards of behaviour and ethical principals which are based on those developed by all NSW State Government agencies and the Department suggests that Councils “should adopt these standards.”  One of the standards of behaviour is “honesty and fairness.”  The following is an extract from the Tender Guidelines in relation to honesty and fairness:

 

“Councils must conduct all tendering, procurement and business relationships with honesty, fairness and probity at all levels.  Councils must not disclose confidential or proprietary information.”

 

In relation to the issue of confidentiality, the guidelines state:

 

“Councils must not disclose tender information received from tenderers that is intellectual property, proprietary, commercial-in-confidence or otherwise confidential.  In addition, Council staff or Councillors must not disclose information regarding the specific details of a tendering process, including a recommendation of the tender evaluation or assessment panel before the Council has made a resolution on the matter at a Council Meeting.

 

Section 10A of the Local Government Act outlines the circumstances under which a Council or Council Committee Meeting may be closed to the public.  This includes information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.  This also includes commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it or confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council or reveal a trade secret.”

 

In relation to reporting tender evaluation outcomes to Council, the guidelines state:

 

“The contents of the report to Council should include:

§ Background information..........

§ Full details of all tender received.  For non-complying or alternate tenders, a detailed analysis of the non-compliance should be included and the reasons for Council to consider this appropriate or otherwise

§ Detailed and accessible financial analysis of the tenders providing a comparison of all options on the basis of unit price, service price, annual cost, total cost or other appropriate measures depending on the nature of the tender…..

§ Details of the evaluation criteria, the relative weightings and the analysis of tender against the criteria, including a summary of the experience of each tenderer in relation to the nature of the tender.

§ Details of any post-tender contact and the reasons for or results of that contact, such as contact for the purpose of clarification and the outcome of this clarification.

§ Summary of the tender considered most suitable in the circumstances, including the rationale for the conclusions or the rationale for considering none of the tenders suitable.

§ A recommendation for the acceptance of a tender including, if applicable, any conditions or requirements associated with the acceptance or proposals to vary the contract conditions as a result of the tendering process or errors in documentation, or a recommendation not to accept any of the tenders.”

 

“In accordance with Clause 179 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, Councils must make information on the outcome of the tendering process publicly available by displaying the name and amount of the successful tender or a notice stating that none of the tenders were accepted.”

 

In addition, the Premier’s Department has produced guidelines designed to clarify what information relating to the Government’s contractual arrangement with the private sector should, and should not, be made public. These guidelines establish government practice to:

 

§ Vary the disclosure of information according to the size of the project;

§ Limit the extent of commercial-in-confidence material to very specific areas and not disclose it unless required by law; and

§ Treat the information in an unsuccessful tender as commercial-in-confidence and not disclose it unless required by law.

 

With respect to contracts between the value of $100,000 and $5million, the following information is disclosed routinely:

 

§ Details of contract (description of project to be completed or goods/services to be provided or property to be transferred; commencement date of the contract; the period of the contract);

§ The full identity of the successful tenderer including details of cross ownership of relevant companies;

§ The price payable by the agency and the basis for future changes in this price;

§ The significant evaluation criteria and the weightings used in tender assessment;

§ Provisions for re-negotiation (where applicable).

 

Items not to be disclosed for any contracts are:

 

§ The contractor’s financing arrangements;

§ The contractor’s cost structure or profit margin;

§ Items of the contractor having an intellectual property characteristic;

§ Any other matters where disclosure would place the contractor at a substantial commercial disadvantage with its competitors both at the time of entering into the contract and at any later date when there would be an effect on future competitive arrangements.

 

It would not be advisable for Council to make a decision with respect to the disclosure of tender/contract information that was in contravention of either of the above mentioned guidelines.

Council’s current tender specifications indicate that Council will not disclose confidential or proprietary information and this is in accordance with best practice guidelines.  If Council were to remove the confidentiality provisions from it tender specification, the number of organisations responding to the tender would be significantly reduced (as financing arrangement, cost structures and profit margins etc are often passionately protected by private sector firms).  This would result in increased costs for Council due to reduced competition and also reduced value for money in Council’s tendering processes.

 

While tender reports could be presented in open Council rather than in closed session, the current reporting format would need to be changed significantly to ensure that commercial –in-confidence information was not disclosed.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is recommended that the Department of Local Government and Premier’s Department Guidelines be adhered to and that Council’s current tendering practices remain unchanged with respect to the receipt and management of confidential information.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         Council affirm its support for the Department of Local Government’s “Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government” and also the Premier’s Departments “Guidelines for the Disclosure of Information in NSW Government Contracts” particularly with respect to the confidentiality of tender/contract information.

 

b)         Where possible, taking the above guidelines into consideration, Council’s deliberations concerning the awarding of a tender be carried out in open Council session.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 39/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LICENCE AGREEMENT AND AFFIXING OF THE COMMON SEAL

 

 

DATE:

14 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06336, F2004/07326

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council’s Property Services section are proposing to enter into licence agreements over five (5) Council owned or managed premises and are seeking Council’s authority to enter into the agreements.

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal for the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

Licence for S.O.S Pre School, 25 Munda Street, Randwick

 

A Council Resolution No. 365 from an Ordinary Council meeting on 23 August 2005, authorised the execution of a three (3) month licence to S.O.S. Pre-School at a 50% rental level, pending a report to be tabled in respect to Council’s position on rental subsidies.

 

A Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy has been prepared and community consultation is soon to be undertaken prior to adoption of the Policy.  In the interim the licence to S.O.S. Pre-School is to expire on 23 June 2006.  Therefore it is proposed to enter into a five (5) year licence agreement in accordance with the current terms and conditions. A 50% rental subsidy level will apply until Council adopts its Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy, at which time the new rental subsidy level will be determined in accordance with the policy.

 

Licence for Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care, 23 Munda Street, Randwick

 

Similar to the licence to S.O.S. Pre-School, the three (3) month licence to Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care will expire on 23 June, 2006.

 

It is also proposed to enter into a five (5) year licence agreement with Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care in accordance with the current terms and conditions. A 50% rental subsidy level will apply until Council adopts its Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy, at which time the new rental subsidy level will be determined in accordance with the policy.

 

Licence for Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre, Lower, 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar

 

Permission was granted by Council to The Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre to occupied the lower part of 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar on 11 September 1979.

 

A two & a half year lease agreement was prepared and entered into on 1 July 2003.  The lease agreement expired on 31 December 2005.

 

It is proposed to enter into a five (5) year licence with the Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre in accordance with the current terms and conditions. The existing rental will apply until Council adopts the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy, at which time the new rental subsidy level will be determined in accordance with the policy.

 

Licence for KU Childcare Centre, 17 Frances Street, Randwick

 

Kindergarten Union of New South Wales Incorporation have occupied part of Alison Park since prior to 1 July 1984.  A deed of agreement for a term of ten (10) years was entered into on 1 July 1984 and expired on 31 June 1994.  A further three (3) year lease was entered into on 1 January 2003 and expired on 31 December 2005.

 

It is proposed to enter into a five (5) year licence with KU Childcare Centre in accordance with the current terms and conditions. The existing rental will apply until Council adopts the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy, at which time the new rental subsidy level will be determined in accordance with the policy.

 

Licence for Duffy’s Corner Occasional Child Care Centre, 419A Beauchamp Road, Maroubra

 

The Duffy’s Corner Occasional Child Care Centre has been in operation since 1990.

 

A five (5) year lease agreement was entered into on 1 September 2001 and is to expire on 31 August 2006.  The lease has a five (5) year option to renew and the Child Care Centre has executed it’s right to take up the option in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  The current agreement details an annual rental of $24,650.00, however, this amount has never been charged and has been subsidised by Community Development.  A new lease has been discussed with the Centre Director and she is aware that the rental will increase.

 

It is proposed to enter into a five (5) year licence with Duffy’s Corner Occasional Child Care Centre in accordance with the existing terms and conditions. The existing rental arrangement will apply until Council adopts the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy, at which time the new rental subsidy level will be determined in accordance with the policy.

 

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

 

S.O.S. Pre-School

Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care

Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre

KU Childcare Centre

Duffy’s Corner Occasional Child Care Centre

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Subject to the adoption of the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy the level of rental income to Council is variable depending on the Categorisation of each organisation and the market rental valuation to be determined by an independent valuer.

 

The rental income from the organisations will meet some of the costs of providing the facility.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority is granted to enter into licence agreements with S.O.S. Pre-School, Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care, Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre, KU Childcare Centre and Duffy’s Corner Occasional Child Care Centre.  The value of the license agreements will be subject to the determination of the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy and Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

SHARON PLUNKETT

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

PROPERTY COORDINATOR


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 40/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASE AGREEMENT AND AFFIXING OF THE SEAL

 

 

DATE:

6 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06336

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Councils Property Section are proposing to enter into a forty-four (44) month lease agreement over the property at 30-32 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, a Council owned premises and is seeking Council’s authority to enter into the agreement.

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal for the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick Open Care for Kids (ROCK) has been operating for twenty-six (26) years in Waratah Avenue, Randwick.  ROCK provides care for over 50 children and is a quality service provided to the local community and an employer of staff.

 

In April 2005, Council offered ROCK a sixteen (16) month lease commencing from 1 May 2005 and expiring 31 August 2006, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the current lease agreement.  Council also gave a commitment to facilitating the location of a suitable long-term alternative site with a further report required to assess options.

 

In August 2005, Council adopted a Long Term Financial Plan and Property Development Strategy which included redevelopment of the Council-owned Waratah Avenue site, to provide additional dwellings that would meet the principles of the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy in the existing residential zone.  Part of the Long Term Financial Plan was to contribute to the additional demand for community buildings as set out in Council’s Community Facilities Program.  The Long Term Financial Plan indicated that funding could be provided for the relocation of ROCK to a purpose-built facility.

 

Council has recognised the need for a longer term lease to assist ROCK with its funding application and also provide a suitable timeframe for consideration and location of a purpose-built facility.  To this end, Council has offered ROCK, a forty four (44) month lease to the 31 December 2008.

 

It is therefore necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of the agreement with Randwick Open Care for Kids Inc.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The current market rental for 30-32 Waratah Avenue, Randwick is $57,200.00 per annum, (exclusive of GST) however ROCK is currently subsidised to this level. As Council would be aware a Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy has been prepared and community consultation is soon to be undertaken prior to the adoption of the policy.  In the interim Council will receive an annual income of nil however the lease will be subject to the determination of the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority is granted to enter into a forty four (44) month lease with Randwick Open Care for Kids Inc for 30-32 Waratah Avenue, Randwick. The value of the lease will be subject to the determination of the Grants, Subsidies and Donations Policy and Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreement.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

SHARON PLUNKETT

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

PROPERTY COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 41/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

SHOP LOCAL POLICY

 

 

DATE:

5 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06377

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council Meeting of 28 February 2006, Council considered a Mayor’s Minute entitled “Shop Local Initiatives” and resolved as follows:

 

a)   “That Council consult with and assist the local chambers of commerce to develop and implement “shop local” strategies and that, where possible, Council support those strategies in the manner outlined in Council’s City Plan (and in particular ‘Background Paper 3: A Prospering City’); and

 

b)   That a “Shop Local” policy be developed for application to Randwick City Council purchases.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Part A of the resolution is being coordinated by Council’s Communications Section through their ongoing work with the local Chambers of Commerce and Precinct Committees.

 

In order to address part B of the resolution, it is suggested that the following guiding principle be included in Council’s Purchasing Policy:

 

That Council utilise local suppliers and purchase locally produced goods, where possible, taking price, quality and other relevant considerations into account.

 

Council’s Management Plan also provides for the incorporation of sustainability provisions in its purchasing policy, procedures and practices.  In this regards, it is suggested that the above principle be broadened to include Australian-made products, recycled (or partly recycled) products and energy efficient/clean (waste minimising) technologies.

 

Council is unable to give absolute preference to local suppliers or sustainability provisions in it purchasing practices for the following reasons:

§ Council’s purchasing activities must be conducted in a manner that ensures appropriate contesting processes are observed to ensure optimum quality, price, delivery and service.

§ Quality, price, delivery and service are generally considered the main criteria in assessing Council’s procurement of goods and services.

§ Value for money may not always be able to be demonstrated by local suppliers or sustainability initiatives.

§ The purchasing process must be undertaken in a consistent and business like manner, leading to improved industry performance, business relationships and cost effective methods of doing business for Council. 

§ Suppliers must be treated fairly with equal opportunity and Council should refrain from agreements that restrain competition.

 

In addition, purchases sourced through SSROC Agreements, Government Contracts or other pre-approved agreements often represent best value to Council. 

 

A practical example for the Shop Local Policy is where Council receives two competing prices for similar products, with all other aspects being equal, Council will choose the local provider, even if the price is marginally higher.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

While it is meritorious for Council to support the local community by utilising local services and products, Council has to ensure that it is getting the best value for money for its ratepayers and that appropriate contesting processes are observed in the procurement of goods and services.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the following guiding principle be included in Council’s Purchasing Policy:

 

That Council utilise local suppliers and/or Australian-made products, recycled (or partly recycled) products and energy efficient/clean (waste minimising) technologies, where possible, taking price, quality and other relevant considerations into account.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR


 

 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 42/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE SEAL

 

 

DATE:

14 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07367

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.               Bill Baltatzis (T/As Arthurs Pizza) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 47 Perouse Road, Randwick.

2.               Paul Varga & Hana Berankova (T/As Green Mango Café & Catering) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 220 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

3.               Anthony Burrows (T/As The Coogee Bite Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 126A Beach Street, Coogee.

4.               NSW Department of Housing in relation to a request for a Resumption Application in accordance with Section 31a(3) of the Real Property Act, 1900 for land known as Lot 1, DP 789036.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council will receive in signing of these agreements the following income –

 

1.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Bill Baltatzis (T/As Arthurs Pizza) will generate an annual income of $4,405.25 + GST.

2.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Paul Varga & Hana Berankova (T/As Green Mango Café & Catering) will generate an annual income of $1,151.20 + GST.

3.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Anthony Burrow (T/As The Coogee Bite Cafe) will generate an annual income of $7,835.20 + GST.

4.       There is no financial benefit to Council for execution of the Resumption Application for Lot 1 DP 789036.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and :

 

1.         Bill Baltatzis (T/As Arthurs Pizza) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 47 Perouse Road, Randwick.

2.         Paul Varga & Hana Berankova (T/As Green Mango Café & Catering) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 220 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

3.         Anthony Burrows (T/As The Coogee Bite Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 126A Beach Street, Coogee.

4.         NSW Department of Housing in relation to a request for a Resumption Application in accordance with Section 31a(3) of the Real Property Act, 1900 for land known as Lot 1, DP 789036.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

SHARON PLUNKETT

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

PROPERTY COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 55/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

53 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

15 June, 2006

FILE NO:

DA 875/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 875 / 2005 for and alterations and first floor additions and conversion of the existing dwelling house into a boarding house containing 17 single bedrooms, 3 double rooms and an on-site manager’s room (total of 21 rooms), associated bathrooms, laundry and living rooms and one off street parking space at 53 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 7 June 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

7 June, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/875/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor additions and conversion of the existing dwelling house into a boarding house containing 17 single bedrooms, 3 double rooms and an on-site manager's room (total of 21 rooms), associated bathrooms, laundry and living rooms and one off street parking space.

PROPERTY:

 53 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Kenso Holdings Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Kenso Holdings Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Council for determination at the request of Councillors John Procopiadis, Paul Tracey, Alan White. The estimated cost of the works is $350,000.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to construct alterations and first floor additions to an existing dwelling house for the purposes of a boarding house. The boarding house will provide 17 single rooms, 3 double rooms and an on-site manager's room (total of 21 rooms), associated bathrooms, laundry and living rooms and two off street parking spaces.

 

The main issues for consideration are the potential amenity impacts to surrounding properties, non-compliance with the FSR standard and the incentives for affordable housing contained within RLEP98. There are no relevant policy controls for boarding house development and as such a merit based assessment has been undertaken with reference to section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

The application has been notified to surrounding properties on several occasions as the proposal has been amended three times. The latest notification and advertising period has resulted in 8 submissions. The submissions raised the following issues as primary concerns:

 

§  Privacy and overshadowing impacts

§  Excessive density, bulk and scale and impact on character and the street

§  Inadequate landscaping

§  Inadequate parking and existing traffic and parking congestion in the area

§  Safety and security impacts

§  Concern regarding impact on adjacent public open space, Kokoda Park

 

This report recommends deferred commencement approval of the redevelopment of 53 Doncaster Avenue, subject to conditions. The deferred commencement conditions relate to colours and materials and the parapet to the rear of the proposal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The amended proposed development is seeking approval to convert the existing single storey dwelling into a two storey boarding house with 17 single bedrooms, 3 double rooms, of which one room is designed to be accessible, and 1 manager’s room. The manager’s room will also function as the office and does not indicate sleeping arrangement for the on-site manager. The site will accommodate for a total of 24 occupants including 1 manager. Three of the rooms are provided with ensuite bathrooms and three communal bathrooms are also provided. Communal laundry, kitchen, dining and living rooms are proposed to the rear of the ground floor level.

 

To accommodate the change of use from a single dwelling to a boarding house the application proposes construction of a new first floor and additional floor area to the rear of the existing ground floor plan. The proposal will also involve the alteration of the front verandah to facilitate the provision of two tandem car parking spaces located along the northern side boundary and construction of a new driveway and crossover.

 

Pedestrian access from the site directly to Kokoda Park is proposed via an existing gate in the rear boundary fencing located in the south-western corner of the site.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Doncaster Avenue, Kensington between No.55 and No.51 and is presently occupied by an existing freestanding single storey dwelling house. The site has a frontage width of 12.8 m, a side boundary depth of 40.235 m and has an overall site area of 515 m².  Neighbouring the property to the north is a single storey dwelling, to the south is a two storey dwelling and to the rear of the subject site is Kokoda Park. Across Doncaster Avenue to the east are one and two storey dwellings and behind these further to the east is Randwick Racecourse.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mix of single dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and multi-unit housing. The site was included as part of the Kensington Tram Loop Heritage Conservation Area under the Draft Heritage LEP amendments which were considered by Council on 13 December 2005. As Council resolved not to proceed with the draft amendments, the site and surrounds currently has no heritage status. A heritage item exists diagonally opposite the site at 58 Doncaster Avenue. The item is known as “Cresswell” and is a two storey freestanding Victorian terrace. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was lodged on 21 October 2005 and notified from 9 November to 23 November 2005. A request was received on 22 November 2006 for the application to be referred to Council for determination.

 

A large number of objections were received in response to the notification period and after a preliminary assessment was undertaken, amended plans were requested on 20 January 2006. Amended plans were received on 3 March 2006 and renotified from 16 March to 30 March 2006. Additional objections were received in response to the notification period and a meeting with the applicant on 1 May resolved to allow the applicant opportunity to provide further amended plans. Amended plans were received 9 May 2006 and renotified from 15 May to 29 May 2006.

 

The amendments contained within the plans received on 9 May 2006 include:

 

·    Reduction of single bedrooms from 21 to 17.

·    Increasing double bedrooms, including the double/disable room on the ground floor, from 2 rooms to 3.

·    Removal of the rear external fire stair access.

·    Internal modifications such as the rearrangement of bathrooms, kitchen and dining rooms.

·    Alignment of first floor rooms with adjoining northern and southern properties.

 

These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

b.      HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

Previous development applications for the site include:

 

·                    Application number

·                    Description

·                    Determination

·                    BA/428/1971

·                    Additions

·                    Approved, 1 January 1971

·                    CDC/127/2003

·                    Install portable spa pool to dwelling.

·                    Approved, 2 July 2003

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

The following objections were received during the notification period of 9 November to 23 November 2005.

1.   Mr Paul Caruana – 51 Doncaster Avenue

 

§ Claims proposed number of occupants is too high and inappropriate for the site.

 

Comment: The proposed number of occupants has been reduced from a maximum of 58 boarders to a maximum of 23 boarders plus 1 on-site manager. The number of people to be accommodated is commensurate with the allowable density in the surrounding area, which is zoned Residential 2(c).

 

§ Believes boarding house is intended to be used as a backpacker hostel.

 

Comment: The application is for a ‘boarding house’, which is separately defined from ‘backpacker accommodation’ in RLEP98. Backpacker accommodation is a prohibited form of development in the 2(c) zone.

 

§ Development will set an unfavourable precedent if approved.

 

Comment: The development is permissible in the 2(c) zone and will provide housing choice in accordance with the zone objectives.

 

2.   Mr Paul Caruana – 51 Doncaster Avenue

 

§ Noise impact from the proposed use from internal and external sources will be significant,

 

Comment: Noise generation will be controlled by the management plan for the boarding house and conditions of consent.

 

§ Privacy impact from 14 windows facing and overlooking into living areas,

 

Comment: The four proposed northern windows to the first floor will have external sunscreen/privacy louvres fitted. The first floor bathroom window will use glass brick preventing overlooking.

 

§ Anti-social behaviour will occur as no security checks will be undertaken on the boarders. Alcohol and drug taking will exacerbate problems and lead to undesirable and criminal behaviour.

 

Comment: Any illegal activity will result in police intervention, as per the management plan.

 

§ Natural light and ventilation to his property will be “substantially diminished”,

 

Comment: Sunlight will not be impinged as subject site is located to the south of objector’s property. Proposed side setbacks will allow sufficient air to pass between buildings.

 

§ Proposed structure is not of similar scale to adjacent dwellings,

 

Comment: Proposed boarding house has a lower height than No.55, has a 2 storey scale and will appear as a large freestanding dwelling in the streetscape.

 

§ DA does not comply with the Kensington Town DCP,

 

Comment: The Kensington Town centre DCP does not apply to the subject site.

 

§ Believes parking is inadequate for the site and that proposed development will have negative impact on on-street parking availability,

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

§ The will be safety and security concerns for local residents,

 

Comment: The proposed management plan and on-site manager will handle all complaints and report to police any serious breaches.

 

§ Proposed development is within a heritage conservation area,

 

Comment: The subject site is not within a heritage conservation area and the draft heritage provisions which applied to the site at time of lodgement are no longer applicable to this assessment. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the development is satisfactory with regard to the character of the area.

 

§ Visual character of the dwelling will be “completely destroyed”.

 

Comment: Character of the dwelling will be generally retained and elements such as roof pitch will be match the existing dwelling where possible. A deferred commencement conditions requiring submission of a colours and materials sample board prior to operation of the consent has been imposed to ensure colours and materials will not affect the streetscape.

 

3.   Mr C Panay, Mrs C Panay – 57 Doncaster Avenue

 

§ On-street parking available already scarce and proposed development will significantly add to this pressure,

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

§ Noise generated by activities from the boarders will be “unbearable”,

 

Comment: The boarding house management plan will enforce noise controls and all complaints from neighbours will be directed to the on-site manager.

 

§ Kensington not suitable area for boarding houses and should remain in established Randwick and Coogee areas.

 

Comment: Boarding houses are permissible in the zone and are encouraged by the objectives of RLEP98 with regard to provision of affordable housing.

4.   Jane and Athena Frangidis – 4/358 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (Owners of No.62 Doncaster Avenue)

 

§ The proposed development is contrary to existing residential nature of area,

 

Comment: Boarding houses are a form of residential development and are permissible in the zone.

 

§ Proposed development will exacerbate existing parking difficulties in the area,

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

§ Development may attract “transitory occupants who may be of an undesirable nature”,

§ Noise emanating from proposed boarding house will have an adverse impact on the “quiet enjoyment of the neighbourhood”,

 

Comment: The individual behaviour of occupants would be controlled via the on-site manager, and implementation of the management plan.

 

§ Development is excessive for the site and number of occupants.

 

Comment: The proposal exceeds the FSR for the site. The visual bulk is consistent with the adjoining properties and will not result in a loss of solar access for neighbouring dwellings. The density of the development in terms of the number of occupants has been reduced to a satisfactory level.

 

5.   Paul W. Jenkin – 61 Doncaster Avenue

 

§ Proposed development will create additional pressure for on-street car parking spaces,

§ Traffic flow will increase with this development and force it into “narrow and crowded side streets”,

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

§ The proposal will lead to anti-social behaviour that will not be monitored,

 

Comment: See previous comments regarding potential anti-social behaviour arising from the proposed development.

 

§ Proposal will have an adverse impact on the proposed heritage conservation area.

 

Comment: The draft heritage provisions which applied to the site at time of lodgement are no longer applicable to this assessment. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the development is satisfactory with regard to the character of the area.

 

6.   Kensington War Memorial Club Ltd. – 2 Goodwood Street, Kensington, attendance sheet attached with 31 signatures indicating attendees of a public meeting held on 20 November 2005 at the Club to discuss the application

 

§ There is inadequate off-street parking provided and the proposed development will add pressure to the existing street parking,

§ Proposal will generate anti-social behaviour, increase occupational health and safety issues to the Club’s employees and members if direct access is provided to Kokoda Memorial Park.

 

Comment: See previous comments regarding traffic impacts and potential anti-social behaviour of the proposed development.

 

7.   Petition submitted by Mrs Susan Pursehouse – 55 Doncaster Avenue bearing 20 signatures.

 

§ Petition requested an extension of time for submissions due to the variation of the date of receipt of the notices to residents.

 

Comment: An extension of one week to 30 November was granted to residents of Ascot, Goodwood Streets and Doncaster Avenue.

 

8.   Sock C. Lim – 65 Doncaster Avenue

 

§ 29 double rooms is a over-development of the site,

 

Comment: Amended plans reduce total rooms to 17 single and 3 double rooms plus 1 on-site manager room. This is not considered to be overdevelopment as discussed throughout this report.

 

§ Rear access into Kokoda Memorial Park is not suitable and will detract people to use to the park,

 

Comment: The access to the park from the development is likely to improve casual surveillance of this public open space and activity as occupants may use the park as a shortcut to Anzac Parade and the facilities of the Kensington Town Centre. The proposal is likely to have a positive impact in terms of the security of the public open space.

 

§ Proposed 2 car parking spaces are inadequate for the site.

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

9.   Ross Cresdee – 65 Doncaster Avenue

 

§ Ratio of bathroom facilities to occupants does not meet the minimum requirement under Council’s Development Control Plan - Backpacker Accommodation,

 

Comment: The DCP – Backpacker Accommodation is not applicable to this proposal.

 

§ Proposed development will place significant pressure on car parking along Doncaster Avenue,

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

§ Proposed development significantly exceeds the maximum FSR for the site.

 

Comment: See previous comments regarding non-compliant floor space ratio of the proposed development.

 

10. David and Dianne Holdforth – 1 Ascot Street

 

§ Believes the proposal will have significant overshadowing impact to their property and habitable rooms,

 

Comment: Amended plans reduce first floor to align with the rear building setbacks of the adjoining properties, thereby eliminating any significant overshadowing of the objector’s property.

 

§ The objector’s bedroom windows with north facing views will be in direct line of sight with the south facing windows on the proposed development,

 

Comment: The amended plans have increased the rear setback of the proposal and as a result there will not be any windows in line of sight with this property.

 

§ Proposed dining, laundry, kitchen  and waste disposal are in line with objector’s bedroom windows and will generate an adverse amount of noise,

 

Comment: Amended plans increase distance of kitchen, laundry and bin storage areas from the objector’s property and reduce potential impact.

 

§ Structure does not comply with minimum boundary setbacks,

 

Comment: Boarding house developments have no minimum boundary setback requirements. The development provides setbacks which are generally consistent with the setbacks for dwelling houses on adjoining sites. The setbacks provided will ensure adequate separation between properties and be compatible with the established streetscape.

 

§ Proposed development will exacerbate lack of on-street car parking in the area,

 

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 9.1, below.

 

11. Mr Lewis N and Mrs Christina Parras – 26 Dudley Street, Coogee (Owners of 47 Doncaster Avenue)