Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

6th June, 2006

 

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

 

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

13TH JUNE, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                         Five (5) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE WORKS COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE HELD ON TUESDAY, 9TH MAY, 2006.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Works

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 39/2006 - BEACH LOCKERS.

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 40/2006 – COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES.

4

 

5.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 41/2006 - REVIEW OF FILMING POLICY.

7

 

5.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 42/2006 - YARRA BAY CLOSED LANDFILL.

12

 

5.5

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 43/2006 - FRENCHMANS BAY CLOSED LANDFILL.

19

 

5.6                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 44/2006 - PROPOSED STREET LIGHT POLE UPGRADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE UNDERGROUNDING OF ENERGY AUSTRALIA AERIAL CABLES BY THE DEVELOPER OF 126 MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA.

24

 

5.7                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 45/2006 - MALABAR LANDFILL REHABILATION.

28

 

5.8                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 46/2006 - PIONEER PARK CLOSED LANDFILL.

32

 

5.9                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 47/2006 - ROAD SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE.

35

 

5.10                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 48/2006 - GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT.

42

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 39/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

BEACH LOCKERS

 

 

DATE:

31 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08007

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council previously resolved on the Motion of Councillor Matson that Council officers investigate the details and feasibility of introducing beach lockers as a safety and crime prevention measure.

 

ISSUES:

 

In Mayor’s Minute 40/2005, the following matter was addressed -

 

“Beach lockers

The Maroubra Local Area Command (LAC) noted that beach lockers are proving useful at Manly for preventing beach thefts. While the swimming season is now nearly over, I consider that this could be a useful measure for both our community and visitors and that Council officers should further investigate the details and feasibility.”

 

A number of types and configuration of beach lockers are available.  Many are specifically designed for the harsh coastal or indoor pool environment.  Lockers for this purpose may operate electronically (pin number) or mechanically (key operated) and can be on a fee or free basis.  Lockers may be fixed on site or portable.

 

The operation of such lockers may also vary:

·    purchase and operate outright by Council;

·    operate by a commercial operator in return for a licence to do so with possible payment of a licence fee to Council.

 

Manly Council operates a mobile locker service at Manly Beach. The fee for the hire of the lockers is $4.00. The lockers must be available every weekend during the summer period and every day in the school holidays. The lockers may operate at other times at the discretion of the operator. They are located on the Manly Beachfront near The Corso intersection.  When not required at the beachfront, the lockers are removed. The service is available to all users.  Council receives a nominal licence fee for the provision of this service from the operator.

For the service to attract a favourable tender response it is considered that only two of Council’s beaches would generate sufficient interest from the commercial sector.  These would be Coogee and Maroubra beaches.  The inclusion of Clovelly Beach may result in a favourable tender result for that location. However it is not considered that Council’s other beaches generate sufficient beach attendances to attract commercially viable proposals.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council call tenders for the operation of beach lockers, it is considered that the provision of this service by the commercial sector will generate a revenue stream for Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given the options available, it is considered that calling of tenders for the operation of beach lockers (mobile or fixed) for minimum specified periods (the summer season, school holidays and public holidays) will provide an appropriate outcome assisting in the reduction of opportunistic theft at Coogee, Maroubra and  possibly other of the City’s  beaches.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That tenders be called for the provision of lockers at Coogee and Maroubra Beaches.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 40/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES

 

 

DATE:

31 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08336

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Over time, Council has received numerous requests for approval to install a plaque in memory of a deceased loved one on public land such as parks, coastal reserves and other prominent locations.  Council has no formal policy or guidelines on this matter.

 

ISSUES:

 

Numerous requests for the placement of commemorative plaques are received by Council.  The nature of the requests vary but generally deal with the fact that a deceased loved one (parent, partner, child or other close relative) has had an association with the local area.  The association may be:

 

·    as a resident for a particular period of time;

·    a visitor to the area over a period of time;

·    a strong affinity with the area – use, enjoyment of the place and the like;

·    a place of association providing fond memories of the deceased;

·    as a visitor to the area that enjoyed the local scenic beauty.

 

The above list is not exhaustive but used to illustrate reasons offered for wanting to place a commemorative plaque at a requested location. In some instances the request is accompanied by an offer to install a piece of park furniture such as a seat or bubbler with an attached discreet plaque. At other times, the request is approval to plant a tree at a particular location.

 

There are no Council guidelines or policies which specifically deal with this matter. The process to date has been to assess each application on its merits.  Requests for standalone plaques have been rejected.  Where an offer to fund an item of park furniture accompanies the request, the procedure has been to negotiate with the requestor the location for the placement of the item of park furniture (usually a park seat but not limited to this particular item).  Conditions also include the terms upon which Council will accept installation such as size of plaque, Council’s ongoing maintenance liabilities, etc.

 

This raises a number of issues as follows:

 

·    the cost of a quality piece of park furniture and associated plaque is often outside the capacity of some requestors which raises an equity issue for persons that may not have the same financial capacity as others;

·    Council assumes a maintenance liability for an item of park infrastructure that it cannot guarantee will be maintained in an optimum condition for an extended period of time;

·    maintenance of a register of donors and how to contact those persons in the event that changes are required to the location of the item of park furniture (this matter could become a sensitive issue where families gather periodically to commemorate or celebrate the life of the loved one);

·    complaints from other persons objecting to the installation of commemorative plaques in public places citing that it detracts from their enjoyment of the place and that cemeteries exist for that purpose;

·    determination of which application should be accepted and which should be rejected without a predetermined set of acceptability criteria.

 

This matter can be a sensitive issue for those persons making an application to Council to have a commemorative plaque installed or to plant a tree.  From an administrative and equity perspective there are many issues that need to be addressed in order for the requestor to be satisfied that their emotional and capital ‘investment’ is adequately cared for.  In this regard, vandalism is a real threat to the long term success of any such proposal, as is the matter of equity.  Should those with the financial capacity be given opportunities that others cannot afford? Lastly, there is a potential that if an approval process is developed and becomes more widely known, there may be an influx of requests and there may not be sufficient locations to satisfy requests.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial impact to Council not to introduce a formal policy or guidelines will be nil.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There is no doubt that the intentions of requestors to install a commemorative plaque (with or without an item of park furniture) are well intended.  However the wider implications and issues associated with such a scheme could lead to dissatisfaction from other members of the community not wanting to have their enjoyment of the place interrupted by such a scheme.  There are also unresolved issues as to what may be an acceptable set of criteria that would lead to an approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council not permit the installation of commemorative plaques in memory of loved ones in parks, reserves and other public places other than cemeteries, other than by specific Council resolution.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 41/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF FILMING POLICY.

 

 

DATE:

25 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07608

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting, 27 September, 2005, it was resolved on the Motion of Councillor Andrews and Councillor Belleli that Council review its filming policy and consider including the following amendments in order to protect the impact filming might have on local residents in the vicinity where filming takes place:

 

(a)        given the large number of personnel and support vehicles used in filming operations, all residents within 200 metres of the proposed site must be informed in writing at least one week prior to the commencement of filming;

(b)        all trucks, cars, trailers and any other support vehicles or equipment must be parked legally and not be obstructing driveway entrances or the visibility of drivers entering or exiting from side streets;

(c)        if equipment is going to be conveyed by trolleys down public streets, the traffic branch of the local police must be notified to ensure the safety of all filming personnel as well as local pedestrians;

(d)        filming personnel must at all time respect the visual and acoustic privacy of the local residents;

(e)        litter, including cigarette butts, coffee/tea cups and other catering utensils must be placed in litter bins/bags and removed from the filming area at the conclusion of operations;

(f)         any night time external lighting is subject to a DA (development application) and must be concluded by 9:00pm so as not to disturb sleeping hours of nearby residents; and

(g)        fines:  first offence, $250; second offence, $500; third offence, $1000; and all subsequent offences, $5000.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council receives numerous applications for filming in the Randwick LGA.  Filming applications cover a whole range of different activities:

 

television commercials;

documentaries;

news reports;

lifestyle shows;

tourism clips;

student productions;

art films and competition entries (TropFest and the like);

television series;

telemovies through to blockbusters such as Mission Impossible 2 and Superman.

 

In many instances, the activity creates significant community interest and can become an attraction in its own right as people casually observe the art of film making whilst in process, adding an extra dimension to the use of public places.

 

The degree of impact that each activity has on a local community varies as do the requirements of each application.  For instance, some years ago, one movie production undertaken at Frenchmans Bay required filming to occur at night – ie overnight!  In this instance local residents in the vicinity of the filming site were individually contacted and made fully aware of the implications and impacts of the filming activity.  Some residents were concerned that the activity may impact upon their sleeping patterns and so they were offered off site accommodation at no expense.  Albeit that this was an unusual production, this illustrates that the solution and efforts by both producers and staff were such that residents were fully informed and satisfied with the outcome.  A strict Council night filming curfew with all filming activities to be completed by 9.00 pm would not have made this possible.

 

There are other industry procedures and state legislative matters that need to be considered as well.  SEPP 4 - State Environmental Planning Policy No 4 - Development Without Consent and Miscellaneous Complying Development (Amendment No 15) requires a minimum of five days notice to be given to property owners within 50 metres of the proposed location and a maximum of 30 days filming being permitted in a year without requiring development consent.  An application is still required to be made to a consent authority (Council) and must be made in the prescribed form. Often film location managers provide much shorter notice than the required five days and in these instances, a concerted effort is made to ensure that affected parties are notified/contacted and are given an opportunity to lodge an objection prior to an approval being issued.

 

Additionally, whilst the State legislation requires that property owners within 50 metres be notified, Council staff use that as a minimum criteria and then extend the notification requirements based upon site specific conditions and also based upon the nature of the filming activity.  In cases where the activity is of low impact such as hand held filming without excessive film crews/equipment, 50 metres would be considered adequate.  In instances where the activity is deemed to be high impact, the notification distribution limit is determined by on-site evaluation and is not limited.

 

In September 2000, the Local Government Department issued a circular to Councils advising the following:

 

The provisions of the Local Government Amendment (Filming) Act 2000 which insert a new Division in Part 1 of Chapter 7 of the Local Government Act 1993, are to commence on 4 September 2000. This will allow applications for approvals, consents and other determinations by a council necessary to carry out filming projects to be made in one form. Additionally council is required to take into consideration the Filming Protocol when determining applications relating to filming activities.

 

There has been extensive consultation in developing the Filming Protocol. Various stakeholders took part in discussions and provided comments, including the Local Government & Shires Associations, councils, the Film & Television Office, film industry representatives, Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Land & Water Conservation, Police Service, Environment Protection Authority, and other government agencies. I extend my appreciation to all councils that took part in the process and provided feedback.

 

Following consideration of the comments received the Filming Protocol has been refined and finalised. It is attached for your reference. Hard copies will be distributed to councils once printed, and the document will also be available on the Department’s Internet site.

 

The Filming Protocol is intended to be used by councils and filmmakers. It sets out the processes involved and the expectations of parties concerned. Moreover a fee structure has been incorporated which councils may choose to apply. Alternatively councils can use the management planning processes to set fees.

 

These measures have been introduced in recognition of the valuable contribution of filming to the economic and cultural environment of NSW. Collaboration is promoted to achieve a balance between the interests of all stakeholders so that the benefits of a growing film industry can be captured.

 

The intentions of the amendments and the introduction of the Filming Protocol were to streamline the approval process and to facilitate filming activities and not to unreasonably withhold approval for such activities (it should be noted that Council has not adopted the suggested filming protocol fee structure and has continued to use the Management Plan process to establish/set fees for filming).

 

Given the above, and given Council’s resolution, the two are incongruous in terms of requiring a development application to be lodged for any night time external lighting.  Filming is considered exempt and complying development as outlined in SEPP 4 and in Council’s DCP - Exempt and Complying development.

 

Generally, filming is confined to the hours of 7.00am to 9.00pm.  Some variations to these hours are permitted but only after extensive consultation with nearby residents and subject to no objections being received.  If filming is to be conducted in a remote location, extension to the filming hours may be considered provided that again, impacts upon the nearest residents are considered to be negligible.  An example of this is filming at Yarra Bay Beach or remote parts of Maroubra Beach.

 

Fines may be issued in accordance with the Local Government Act or the Environment, Planning and Assessment Act.   Filming on private property falls under the EP&A Act in which case a fine of $600 applies to the first and subsequent offence (Section 76A) for development not carried out in accordance with consent or development carried out without development consent.  Council cannot arbitrarily establish the value fines.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

 

There is no financial impact to Council emanating form the recommendations of this report.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council approves in the order of 125 filming applications each year.  The activity generates very few complaints from the community given the potential impact that the activity could have on the local amenity of residents and businesses.  Processing of applications in accordance with the relevant legislation, the Filming Protocol and through judicious use of appropriate conditions of approval enables the activity to continue whilst generating reasonable levels of income for Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       applications for filming be processed in accordance with the relevant legislative and Council requirements and that generally filming activities be limited to the hours of 7.00 am to 9.00 pm in residential areas unless it can be demonstrated that the activity will not have a significant impact on the local community and that any objections to extended hours of filming have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the affected parties;

 

b)      the standard conditions of approval be augmented to include conditions to further protect the local amenity of residents including conditions specifically requiring the appropriate disposal of cigarette butts, coffee/tea cups and other catering utensils;

 

c)       that any approval for parking of vehicles associated with the filming activity take into consideration sight distance issues for motorists entering and leaving drive ways of affected properties and if considered necessary, traffic control personnel be engaged to control traffic in the area of the filming activity;

 

d)      any fines issued for not complying with any conditions of approval are in accordance with the EP&A Act.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR

PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 42/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

YARRA BAY CLOSED LANDFILL.

 

 

DATE:

19 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/00886

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 12 February 1987, Randwick City Council approved a Development Application (DA) for Yarra Bay Reserve. The proposal sought to undertake major landscape upgrading of the Yarra Bay foreshore area including remediation of the closed Yarra Bay landfill site. Part of the approved work was carried out in early 1990s. Following these works, the landfill site has been used as a recycling facility for processing of green waste and some construction and demolition waste generated from Council’s road development and maintenance activities.

 

The recycling facility has now been moved to a new facility at Bumborah Point Road. The Yarra Bay Landfill site can now be remediated and made available to the community as open space as part of the Bicentennial Park.

 

ISSUES:

 

Environmental Assessment and remediation design

Council officers and specialist consultants carried out a detailed site assessment and prepared a conceptual design followed by a detail design for remediation and landscaping of the Yarra Bay closed landfill.

 

The assessment included groundwater investigation, soil sampling, gas monitoring and surface water monitoring on the site. Based on the environmental investigation results, the concept design for remediation of the site as per the original development approval was developed, which was then put on public display for 28 days for comments.  Following the public display, the concept design has been finalised (Attachment 1) taking into account and incorporating public comments where possible.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The concept design developed in accordance with the DA approval received in 1987 for the remediation of the site was put on public display at Council’s Administration building, Matraville Public Library and Bowen Library from 27 March, 2006 to 24 April, 2006. Also, a presentation on the concept design was made by Council Officers to a La Perouse Precinct Committee meeting.

Following the public display and presentation, Council received three submissions (Attachment 2). The La Perouse Precinct Committee was appreciative of the remedial work Council planned to carry out. Among others, the committee raised the need of additional parking spaces as the remediated closed landfill to an open space will attract more visitors in the area. This issue has been addressed in the final design by reopening an existing parking at the Baragoola Avenue entrance to the site.

 

Ms Lynda Newnam on behalf of the Botany Bay and Catchment alliance raised, among others, the issue of the long-term integrity of the capping of the landfill. Response to her concerns has been made by providing additional technical information in support of the adequateness of the capping in addressing the relevant environmental issues.

 

FINANCIAL IMPICATIONS

 

The cost of remediation and landscaping of the site to an open space standard as per the final design has been estimated to be $1,400,000. There are funds allocated in the draft 2006-07 budget to complete these works. .

 

TENDER FOR PHYSICAL WORKS

 

Tender documents have been prepared for the physical works and can be advertised for tender submissions. Subject to Council’s approval a contractor can be engaged by the end of July 2006.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

On 12 February 1987, Randwick City Council approved a Development Application (DA) for Yarra Bay Reserve including the remediation of the Yarra Bay closed landfill.

 

A final detailed design for the remediation of the closed landfill has been prepared based on environmental assessment investigation results and with inputs from the community through a public display process and in compliance with the DA approval.

 

Tender documents have been prepared for the physical remedial works.

 

Estimated cost for the designed remedial and landscaping works is about $1,400,000. Funds are available in the current budget and provision has been made for additional funds in next year’s draft budget to carry out the remedial and landscaping works.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       it be noted that a final design for the remediation and landscaping of the closed Yarra Bay landfill has been prepared in accordance with the DA approved on 12 February, 1987; and

 

b)      the General Manager be authorised to advertise the tender seeking submissions to carry out the remedial and landscaping work at the Yarra Bay closed landfill.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Final remedial and landscape design

Public comments    

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

Director, City Services' Report 43/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

FRENCHMANS BAY CLOSED LANDFILL  

 

 

DATE:

5 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00409

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Frenchmans Bay Landfill is located west of Elaroo Avenue and south of Yarra House in La Perouse (see locality plan). The landfill was operated from the late 1960s to the early to mid 1970s.  The types of waste received by the landfill was reportedly building refuse, car bodies, trees and grass cuttings and items collected during monthly Council clean-ups.

Following closure of the landfill in mid 1970s, it was capped using some imported fill material. This capping doesn’t meet today’s environmental requirements and further remediation of the site is required. 

This report documents the remediation and ownership issues of this former landfill site.

 

ISSUES:

 

Contamination level and remediation requirements

In 2000 consultants were engaged by Randwick City Council to carry out Stage 1 Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the Frenchmans Bay closed landfill. Consultants carried out the preliminary environmental assessment with the principal objective to identify the key environmental issues of concern to the management and, where relevant, remediation of the site.

 

Consultants noted in their report that there were no visually apparent manifestations of environmental impact, other than those of an aesthetic nature, and that the limited sampling of surface cover and beach sands at the toe of the landfill’s battered embankment, showed no evidence of significant impact in the form of contaminants.  Nevertheless, the apparent absence of any physical controls on surface run-off, erosion and sedimentation, surface infiltration and leachate is inappropriate considering the setting of the historic landfill within a public recreational area adjacent to beach and marine waters.

 

 

Based on the results from further investigations, a concept design for remediation of the site has been developed. 

 

Ownership of the site

The landfill site occupies lots 111(DP 752015), 29 (DP 251284) and lots 5225, 5226, 5227 (DP 728436). At the time of using the site as landfill, lot 29 (DP 251284) and Lots 5225, 5226 and 5227 (DP 728436) were owned by the Crown and was under Randwick City Council’s care and control. The remainder of the landfill site (lot 111, DP752015) has been under Council’s care and control since 1931. Subsequently, lot 29 (DP 251284) was appropriated to the Department of Housing by the Crown in 1971, which was later sold out to the Aboriginal Land Council (ALC). In 1976, DP 251284 was subdivided and houses built on it, except for lot 29, which was left vacant with residential zoning, mostly located on the closed landfill.

 

As part of aboriginal claim No. 886, lots 5225, 5226 and 5227 of DP 728436 were granted to the ALC in 1990s. These three lots are zoned as open space.

 

Currently, lot 111 of DP 752015 is owned by the Council and lots 5225, 5226, 5227 and 29 are owned by the ALC. In terms of zoning, lot 29 is residential and the other Lots are open space.

 

Council will require ALC’s agreement to remediate the Lots owned by them. Furthermore, remediation requirements for residential land and open space land are different. Residential land remediation standards are higher than open space land and so is the cost of remediation.

 

If ALC agrees lot 29, which is currently being used as open space, to be rezoned to open space and remediated to open space standard, the site can be remediated at a reasonable cost. 

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

A community consultation will be carried out on the concept design before the design has been finalised.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost of remediation of the site to an open space standard has been estimated to be $1,000,000. Should lot 29 be remediated to residential standard, the total cost could be more than $1,100,000 and could reach up to $1,500,000 if the removed material needs to be disposed off site.  This will be included in the Domestic Waste Management Budgets for Council’s consideration.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Frenchmans Bay closed landfill used for deposition of building waste, car bodies, trees, grass clippings and Council’s clean-up material, and was operated between 1960s and mid 1970s. The site requires remediation.

 

 At the time operation of the landfill the site was owned or was under care and control of Randwick City Council. Currently, part of the land is owned by the Aboriginal Land Council and part by Randwick City Council. One lot of the land owned by the Aboriginal Land Council is zoned as residential land. The remainder of the site is zoned as open space.

 

Randwick City Council will require land owner’s consent to remediate the site. The site can be remediated within reasonable cost, if the whole site, including the residential Lot, can be remediated as open space.

 

The estimated cost of remediation of the site is $1,000,000 to 1,500,000 depending on whether the whole site is remediated to an open space standard or part remediated to residential standard.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       the General Manager be authorised to seek agreement from the Aboriginal Land Council to remediate the Frenchmans Bay closed landfill to an open space standard;

 

2.       the remediation plan be put on public exhibition for comments: and

 

3.       funds be allocated for the remediation and landscaping of the site in 2007/08 budget out of Domestic Waste Levy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         Locality Plan

2.         Remediation concept plan 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director, City Services' Report 44/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED STREET LIGHT POLE UPGRADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE UNDERGROUNDING OF ENERGY AUSTRALIA AERIAL CABLES BY THE DEVELOPER OF 126 MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

22 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00508

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The developer of 126 Marine Parade has invited Council to upgrade four (4) street light poles opposite 126 Marine Parade, Maroubra, in conjunction with developer funded undergrounding of Energy Australia aerial cables.

 

This report seeks Council approval to commit funding to upgrade four street light poles in conjunction with developer funded undergrounding of Energy Australia aerial cables opposite 126 Marine Parade, Maroubra.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Currently Energy Australia aerial cables exist immediately in front of a multi-unit development being constructed at 126 Marine Parade, Maroubra.  126 Marine Parade enjoys unobstructed views of Maroubra Beach and the existing aerial cables significantly detract from the views enjoyed by the development.

 

The developer proposes to underground the aerial cables to improve the views enjoyed by the development. The developer has invited Council to take this opportunity to upgrade four aerial supplied timber light poles with four underground supplied galvanised street light poles, to match the light poles installed by Council as part of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management works. The four street light poles are located opposite 126 Marine Parade, Maroubra.

 

The development funded undergrounding of aerial electrical cables represents a good opportunity for Council to upgrade its street light poles to improve the streetscape amenity of Marine Parade and the Coastal Walkway, identified in Council’s City Plan. All under grounding works and street light pole upgrade would be carried out by Energy Australia.

 

The developer proposes to fund the entire works and Council would fund the street light pole upgrade component. The developer has submitted the quotation prepared by Energy Australia which separates Council’s component of cost to upgrade the four street light poles for Council’s consideration. 

 

Council’s cost to upgrade the street light is $32,494 (including GST).

 

Council should only pay its contribution to the developer upon the successful completion of the works by Energy Australia with the street lights tested and operational. 

 

There are no financial consequences should Council decide not take this opportunity to upgrade the street poles. The street light poles can be upgraded at any time in the future or left as they exist indefinitely at no additional cost. There will be financial benefit if the work is undertaken at this time as EnergyAustralia will be onsite undergrounding the cables.  These poles will also be hooked directly to the new underground cables.

 

As there is benefit to the developer as well as to Council in upgrading the street lights at this time, it would seem appropriate that 50% of the cost of upgrading the street lights be paid by the developer and 50% by Council. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council can fund 50% of the upgrading of the four street light poles from the Street Lighting Budget in the amount of $16,247.00 including GST, although will then need to reduce the amount of streetlight upgrading works as part of the streetlight improvement programme.

 

The objective of the street light improvement programme is to replace old technology lights with new technology lights, to reduce light wastage and improve street lighting efficiency and effectiveness.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council encourages the undergrounding of Energy Australia aerial cables as it significantly improves the streetscape amenity for the community.  It is expensive to underground cables as Energy Australia charges on a full cost recovery basis even though Energy Australia is gaining new infrastructure with less ongoing maintenance costs.

 

It is the developer’s decision to underground the cables and should be responsible for all the costs associated with this cable undergrounding project, including Council’s normal road opening restoration charges.  Upgrading the street light poles to further improve the streetscape amenity is a good opportunity for Council whilst Energy Australia work crews are established on site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the street light poles opposite 126 Marine Parade Maroubra be upgraded in conjunction with developer funded undergrounding of Energy Australia aerial cables, in the amount of $32,494.00 to be funded from the Street Lighting budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Aerial photo of locality.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER

TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director, City Services' Report 45/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

MALABAR LANDFILL REHABILATION

 

 

DATE:

31 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00887

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Malabar landfill is located on the northern foreshore of Long Bay, east of Malabar Beach.  It is within the suburb of Malabar, in the south of Randwick City Council area.  The site is accessed from Fishermans Road, with regional access along Anzac Parade (see attached locality plan). 

The landfill area on the northern foreshore of Long Bay is estimated to cover 15,000 square metres with an estimated volume of 45,000 cubic metres of fill. The Malabar Beach Plan of Management 1994 (MBPOM) states that the fill is approximately 90% clean fill. The MBPOM identifies the following issues related to the landfill:

 

·    The poor visual quality of the landfill;

·    Safety issues and the effect of a collapse; and

·    The need to protect sensitive sites of significance to the aboriginal community.

 

The Contaminated Land Management Act and SEPP 55 define the requirements for closed landfill remediation and rehabilitation. 

 

This report documents the remediation issues and the plan for remediation of this former landfill site.

 

ISSUES:

 

Contamination level and remediation requirements

An assessment of the historical filling at the site has been carried out and an assessment of  the geotechnical stability of the site with particular reference to the partial collapse to date  and environmental sampling of soil, surface water and groundwater at the site have been undertaken. The assessment included test pits and chemical analysis of soil and groundwater samples.

 

 

Soil samples analysed identified total petroleum hydrocarbon and heavy metal levels in few testing points exceeding health based and ecological investigation level assessment criteria. However, in consultant’s view, it is unlikely that the site represents a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment.

 

Remediation and rehabilitation Plan

Based on the findings of the Site Characterisation report a remediation concept design was developed. Following a community consultation on the concept design, a final remediation and landscape design has been assessed.

 

Development Application

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection applies when determining a development application. On 18 November 2005 the NSW Coastal was extended to include the greater metropolitan region, and Malabar landfill site is included in the Coastal Zone.

 

An application (DA) has been lodged for remediation of the site. The application is currently being assessed.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The concept design, prepared based on the Environmental Site Characterisation findings, was put on public display for 28 days at Council libraries and Customer Service Centre at 30 Frances Street, Randwick, for comments. Also, a public presentation was made at the Anglican Church, Victoria Street, Malabar.   Following the public comments, a final detailed design for remediation and landscaping of the site has been prepared.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

The cost for the remediation and landscaping has been estimated at $1,184,000.  Funds have been allocated in environmental levy fund, $600,000 for 2005/06 and $600,000 for 2006/07 for this purpose.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

An Environmental Site Characterisation report has identified the level of contamination at the Malabar closed landfill site. Following evaluation of the report, a concept design for remediation and landscaping of the site was developed and the concept design has been finalised through a community consultation.

 

An application for development approval has been lodged for the remediation and landscaping of the site.

 

Funds are available for this work in the environmental levy fund.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       it be noted that Development approval for remediation and landscaping of the closed Malabar landfill site has been lodged: and

 

b)      the General Manager be authorised to advertise the tender for carrying out the remediation and landscaping works at the closed Malabar landfill site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Locality Map.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 46/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

PIONEER PARK CLOSED LANDFILL.

 

 

DATE:

1 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00890

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Pioneers Park closed landfill is located at Cromwell Place, east of Anzac Parade and north of Fisherman’s Road, Malabar. Randwick City had approval to operate this site as a sanitary landfill since 1975 and operated until 1978.

 

Following closure the site was capped and since has been used as a sports field. A plan of management for the park was adopted by the Council in 1992. Among others, an objective stipulated in plan of management is to provide quality active recreational venues in a complementary setting.

 

The site is divided into two tiers: upper and lower. The upper tier is undulated as result of subsidence of the deposited waste. The lower tier is relatively level ground and currently licensed to the South Eastern Rugby League Football Club. The current license expires on 26 May 2007. 

 

This report documents the remediation and landscaping issues of this former landfill site.

 

ISSUES:

 

Contamination level and remediation requirements

Council engaged a consultant to carry out investigations on the site. The investigations included gas monitoring, and soil, groundwater and surface water sampling for contamination analysis.

 

Based on the results from the investigations, a concept design for remediation and landscaping of the site has been developed, in accordance with the Plan of Management.

 

The lower tier, the existing sports field, doesn’t require remediation at this stage, but will be subject of ongoing environmental monitoring.

 

Tender for remediation and landscaping work

Once the detailed design for remediation and landscaping of the site is completed a tender document will be prepared and advertised for tender submissions.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

Community consultation will be carried out on the concept design and a detailed design for remediation and redevelopment of the upper tier.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The preliminary cost estimates of the remediation and landscaping of the upper tier is $600,000. Funds have been allocated in the draft 2006/07 budget for this purpose. However, this may change significantly upon finalisation of the remediation plan.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Based on environmental investigation results, a concept design for remediation of the Pioneers Park has been developed. Following community consultation the concept design will be finalised and a detailed design for remediation and landscaping of the site will be developed.

 

The preliminary cost estimate for the remediation and landscaping of the upper tier is $600,000. Funds are available in the draft 2006/07 budget.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the General Manager be authorised to proceed with calling tenders for the remediation and landscaping of the upper part of the Pioneers Park.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Remediation, landscaping design and locality map.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 47/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROAD SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE.

 

 

DATE:

1 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07238

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Road Safety Steering Committee was established in November 2005 to provide the Community Road Safety Officer with strategic direction and a forum to discuss road safety projects.

 

ISSUES:

 

The attached minutes are from the meeting held on 5 May 2006.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The minutes are an accurate reflection of the discussions of the Road Safety Steering Committee meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the minutes from the Road Safety Steering Committee held on the 5 of May 2006 be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Minutes - Road Safety Steering Committee.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TONY LEHMANN

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR - TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT GROUP

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

Road Safety Steering Committee

 

 

Thursday 4 May 2006

9:30am

 

Randwick Room

Administrative Centre

Randwick City Council

30 Frances Street

Randwick  NSW  2031

 

 

Apologies (in alphabetical order)

Bec Coleman, Project Education Officer, University of Sydney, Health Education Unit

Cr Murray Matson – Councillor, RCC

 

Present

Cr Anthony Andrews – Councillor, RCC

Sandra Coppe, Road Safety Consultant, DET

Snr Constable Karen Griffiths, Traffic – Maroubra LAC

Tony Lehmann, Co-ordinator – Transport Management Group, RCC

Kathryn Logan, Local Programs Officer, RTA

Shane Lowe, Team Leader, Community Development, RCC

Heidi Oates, Community Road Safety Officer, RCC

Sgt Tony Quinn, Highway Patrol – Rose Bay

 

Minutes from the last meeting were confirmed.

 

2005 – 2006 Program Updates

 

Pumpkin Bus

Heidi talked to the evaluation summary paper (Appendix A) of the Pumpkin Bus.  The paper provided a summary of feedback from patrons of the bus service, as well as recommendations that the service recommence operations over Summer 2006 – 2007.  The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) have supported the 2006 – 2007 service, through the granting of funds to support the promotions of the project.

 

 

As the service was seen as a success over summer, discussion turned to the need for a transport method to get home over the winter months.  As Road Safety Officer, Heidi indicated that this was the perfect opportunity to promote the secure taxi rank and the issuing of taxi vouchers in Coogee.

 

Some notes from that discussion included the concern some people had about handing over identification and the recording of identification.  This was seen as something to consider at the project implementation stage.

 

 

GLS Workshops

Heidi explained the Graduated Licensing Scheme, its purpose and that we would be running a GLS Workshop on the 7 June 2006.

 

Sandra Coppe talked about the Low Risk Driver Workshops proposed within the school system and said she understood they were on hold until implementation issues were addressed.

 

School Safe

Heidi explained the components of the school safe program were beginning to be rolled out.  This included the identification of a schools list with relevant contact details for each school and the distribution of school safe information.  School newsletter inserts have been sent to schools to be included in school newsletters throughout the year.

 

The French School and Kensington Public school have had some specific engineering works completed around the schools and information sheets have been distributed to the school communities to assist them communicating the changes to parents and carers.  Further schools identified for this kind of treatment / communication are: Randwick Primary School as well as St Andrews School and possibly Coogee Public School.

 

Cnr Anthony Andrews raised the issue of wombat crossings around schools.  He believes that there is a need for consistency within the Local Government Area, particularly on a road like Moverly Road (near The French School) which is a main thoroughfare between Anzac Parade and Malabar Road.

 

Discussions focused on the different types of crossings, the warrants for crossings and the need to increase visibility of crossings particularly around schools.

 

A suggestion was put forward by Sandra Coppe about the need to highlight pedestrian access points of the schools, possibly on the footpath or gates or in the vicinity of the access point to the school to make drivers and passers by aware of the pedestrian traffic flow.

 

 

SLOW DOWN

Heidi informed the meeting that the purchase of the speed display and data logger would go ahead by the end of the financial year.  RTA funded $5,000 and RCC would fund the remaining amount.

 

2006 – 2007 Projects

Two projects have been funded by the RTA for the 2006 – 2007 financial year. Details of each project as it was discussed are outlined below.

 

Senior Pedestrian Project (2006 – 2007)

 

Project Description

This project involves implementing a series of NRMA “Years ahead” workshops to local seniors groups, distributing localised brochures and utilising RTA "watch out cars about" artwork for bus shelter advertising. 

 

Target group

Older pedestrians in the Randwick LGA.

 

Project Rationale

RTA data in Randwick identified that in 2004 42% of pedestrian casualties were over the age of 50 – with 25% (or one in four) being over the age of 70. This project is also partially in response to “A Survey of older pedestrians in metropolitan Sydney: walking patterns, perceptions and risk exposure” funded by the MAA.

 

The survey highlighted that “small local journeys were common, usually in the course of a shopping trip.” The report also identified that older pedestrians “consider themselves to be careful and safe road users”. “Men are more confident in their abilities and less likely to consider other factors, such as route selection.” Although fatality data indicates that this is not so, 80% of older pedestrians interviewed thought that older people should be given special attention.

 

The report also identified that “there was a low level of awareness about road safety campaigns, even in areas with obvious pedestrian safety signage”. Utilising advertising opportunities at bus stops is supported by the finding that “Besides walking, most people regularly used at least one other type of transport, particularly buses.”

 

The project targets existing seniors groups keen to assist their members with information relevant to their needs. By utilising the existing NRMA “Years ahead” program, we are able to roll out workshops on a regular basis and in the future this would be able to be done by the seniors groups themselves. Development of support material (brochure) for seniors in Randwick LGA would make the messages relevant and identifiable to their situation and local area

 

Objectives

1.   In the long term, reduce the incidents and severity of pedestrian crashes in Randwick.

2.   Increase awareness among older people of their vulnerability as road users.

3.   Promote safe walking and driving practises among older pedestrians and drivers in Randwick.

4.   Engage a variety of stakeholders (internal and external) to promote awareness in the local area.

5.   Link to RTA state and regional pedestrian initiatives and campaigns. 

 

Strategies

 

1.   Liaise with NRMA Years Ahead co-ordinator to facilitate the delivery of the NRMA “Years Ahead” Seniors presentation to existing seniors groups in the local area.

2.   Develop a safe seniors pedestrian brochure for the Randwick LGA. (based on existing Burwood model) Information included will relate directly to Randwick LGA with specific issues and problem streets identified. It will include strategies to address problems.

3.   Utilise information in the MAA report and local crash stats to identify issues and hotspots.

4.   Work with Councils Older Person’s Reference Group to draft brochure content.

5.   Develop a “Shopping list” give away – a note pad with a magnet on the back with a variety of senior pedestrian messages to reinforce information in the brochure.

6.   Book JC Decaux for RTA bus shelter “watch out cars about” advertising (this is subject to the council contra agreement conditions with JC Decaux)– During Seniors Week (March 2007) Production, approvals and printing of brochures, notebooks and bus shelter posters.

7.   Develop and distribute media releases and seek editorial opportunities to promote local senior pedestrian issues and the workshops.

8.   Distribution of brochure and giveaways through NRMA presentations to community groups. Timing - January to March 2007 finishing around Seniors Week?

9.   Evaluation through questionnaires after presentations. 

 

Planned Evaluation

Identification of media take-up of media releases and workshop activities.

Number of information sheets / shopping lists distributed

Attendance at NRMA workshops.

Evaluation surveys at workshops. 

 

The Committee also discussed the increasing issues of scooters or “gophers” that older people were using.  This could be a subject for discussion as part of the workshop.

 

 

Pumpkin Bus Project (2006 – 2007)

 

Project Description

Operation of a late night alternative transport initiative called “The Pumpkin Bus” in the Randwick City LGA. 

 

Target group

Patrons of venues in the Randwick City Council LGA 

 

Project Rationale

In 2005 – 2006 a trail of the Pumpkin Bus was undertaken with support and funding from the Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord, the Coogee Bay Hotel and the Beach Palace Hotel. The Trial has been successful, particularly considering the service began with little promotion and at a very bleak time for the Eastern Beaches, on the week after the Cronulla riots in December 2005.

 

Support for the service has continued and patronage of the service has grown steadily. 41 people used the service during the first weekend of operations and 183 people used the service fifteen (15) weeks later. A running total of 1615 patrons have used the service through out it’s operation, with an average of 96 people per weekend. Compared with Manly’s Pumpkin Bus service, now in it’s fourth year of operation, the first year in Coogee has been highly successful.

 

Objectives

1.   To reduce the incidents of Drink Drive and Drink Walk casualties in the Randwick LGA.

2.   To raise awareness in the local community of Drink Drive and Drink Walk issues.

3.   To encourage local venues to contribute financially toward the provision of alternative transport options in the local area.

4.   To provide an alternative transport option in the Coogee / City of Randwick LGA (known as The Pumpkin Bus) over summer.

5.   To support the objectives and strategies of the Randwick City Plan and the Management Plan.

6.   To develop a marketing and promotions plan for successful operation of the service.

7.   To monitor and review the project through operation. 

 

Strategies

1.   To gain financial support from local venues to operate the Pumpkin Bus for a second summer.

2.   To ensure the route and timetable are appropriate for the second year of operations.

3.   To liaise with venues and other stakeholders including Ministry of Transport, Sydney Buses, Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord, and NSW Police to gain support for the project.

4.   Develop a marketing and promotions strategy to create awareness of the service including: timetables, posters, convenience advertising, media releases, SMS releases, Email lists, local paper advertisements etc.

5.   Roll out of Pumpkin Bus operations and promotions.

6.   Undertake final evaluations of the service.

7.   Print and distribute Roads and Traffic Authority Drink Walk resources to participating venues.

8.   Reporting of project outcomes. 

 

Activities

The Coogee Safety Committee agreed to support the bus for the second year of operation at a meeting on the 3 May 2006.

 

The Committee agreed that the service should re-commence operations from Mid November 2006 (Friday 17 & Saturday 18 November) and operate for 20 weeks until the end of March 2007 or when daylight savings ends on Sunday 25 March.  Planning and programming of the service will begin July / August 2006.

 

 

Planned Evaluation

Local Media take up of information about the Pumpkin Bus ie. articles in Southern Courier, BEAST etc.

Bus service patronage increase from previous year. (Total patrons more than 1800). Measure reduction in the incidents of drink walking and drink driving.

Increase in support and management by the Liquor Accord for the service. 

 

 

General Business

 

Kathryn Logan notified the meeting that this would be her last meeting as Local Programs Officer with the RTA as she was taking up a new position.

 

The Committee expressed their thanks at her contribution and wished her well with future endeavours.

 

Next Meeting

Next meeting is planned for September, 2006 this will be confirmed closer to the date.

 

Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 10.30 am

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 48/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT

 

 

DATE:

19 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06111 xr F2004/07629 xr F2005/00171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has previously endorsed the draft Graffiti Management Policy that had been displayed for public comments for 28 days and public comments received. 

 

Council has implemented a graffiti management team (Graffiti Busters).  It is now considered appropriate to offer this service to residents/businesses within the City for public accessible private property (PAPP) at ground level only.

 

ISSUES:

 

Public Consultation

 

Over the public display period Council received 7 submissions (see attachment 2) from individuals and Precinct Committees.

 

In general the submissions were in support of the draft policy. Some suggestions were made in relation to the definitions of some terms. The terms concerned have been further defined in the final policy.

 

Some further suggestions have been made in relations to Council’s operations, which will be taken into account when operations review will be carried out.

 

Graffiti Management Policy

 

Following Council’s endorsement of the draft Graffiti Management Policy it was advertised for 28 days for public comments. Public comments received have been incorporated in the final Randwick City Council’s Graffiti Management Policy where possible.

 

The final Graffiti Management Policy is shown in attachment 1.

 

 

 

Graffiti Management Database

 

A graffiti management database is currently being developed. The database will be used to record graffiti information when graffiti is spotted by Council Staff or reported by residents. Information will include property ownership, date of spotting and removal, owner’s consent, street category, type of graffiti and photographs of graffiti before and after removal. This database will be used as a Graffiti Register in accordance with Section 67C of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Following public consultation Council’s Graffiti Management Policy has been finalised.

 

A graffiti management database is currently being developed to record graffiti information.

 

Following adoption by Council, the Graffiti Management Policy will be implemented.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Randwick City Council Graffiti Management Policy be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Graffiti Management Policy.

2.  Summary of submissions in relation to draft Graffiti Management Policy. 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

 

 

 

Graffiti Management Policy

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................           3

1.1 PURPOSE .............................................................................................            3

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY ............................................................          4

1.3 POLICY STATEMENT ...........................................................................           4

1.4 POLICY PRINCIPLES ...........................................................................           4

1.5 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................             5

1.6 LEGISLATION .......................................................................................            6

1.6.1. Local Government Amendment (Graffiti) Act 2002 ........................       6

1.6.2. Summary Offences Act 1988. ........................................................          6

2. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY .................................................       6

2.1 KEY ELEMENTS ...................................................................................           6

3. POLICY GUIDELINES ................................................................................          7

3.1 GENERAL ..............................................................................................            7

3.2 RAPID REMOVAL .................................................................................           7

3.3 MAIN ROAD AREAS .............................................................................           8

3.4 MINOR ROAD AREAS ..........................................................................           8

3.5 EMERGENCY REMOVAL CAPACITY ..................................................        8

3.6 COUNCIL PROPERTY ..........................................................................           8

3.7 PRIVATE PROPERTY ...........................................................................           8

3.8 PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY .................................      9

3.9 NON PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY ......................        9

3.10 PUBLIC ENQUIRIES ............................................................................          9

3.11 HERITAGE STRUCTURES.................................................................         11

3.12 COMMUNITY EDUCATION / AWARENESS .....................................       11

3.13 PROSECUTION .................................................................................           11


 

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT POLICY

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

The term 'graffiti' is generally used as an all-encompassing label for any illegal writing or drawing on buildings, trains, fences etc. There are different forms of graffiti, the most prevalent being the practice of 'tagging' an identifying word with spray paint or a wide felt tip pen in a publicly visible place. Graffiti is a well studied practice, as noted by Alonso: '...psychologists, sociologists, linguists, law enforcement, anthropologists and geographers have studied graffiti. It has been examined to understand adolescent personality, ancient cultures, sexual attitudes, artistic style, gender differences, behaviour, communication, female suppression and territoriality.

 

A graffiti audit carried out in February 2005 recorded over 4000 square metre of graffiti in Randwick City Council area. This is quite high level of graffiti, which is a community concern.

 

Residents are often legitimately angry when vandals deface their homes, pubic places and open space. Unsightly graffiti adds to an atmosphere of neglect and urban decay, and distorts perceptions about the actual level of crime and safety.

 

This policy has been developed in response to the proliferation of graffiti within the Randwick City Council.

 

Overall, the aim of this policy is to create and maintain better neighbourhoods for residents, businesses and visitors by effectively preventing and managing graffiti. 

 

1.1 PURPOSE

 

The Graffiti Management Policy has been formulated to enhance the Randwick City Council’s streetscape by minimising the impact of graffiti. This policy provides the City with a framework through which to respond to the ongoing prevalence of graffiti in the Local Government Area. This policy applies across the Randwick City Council Local Government Area.

 

The desired outcome of this policy is to reduce graffiti occurrences through the use of rapid removal and other initiatives.

 

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY

 

The objectives of the policy are:

-     To enhance the Randwick City Council’s built and natural environment by reducing incidents of graffiti.

-     To remove graffiti as quickly as possible as a deterrent.

-     To remove graffiti using environmentally sustainable methods to minimise harm to the environment.

 

1.3 POLICY STATEMENT

 

The Randwick City Council seeks to minimise the incidents of graffiti on both public and private property by prompt removal.

 

1.4 POLICY PRINCIPLES

 

The Randwick City Council’s Graffiti Management Policy is based on the following principles:

-     The need for a holistic program that considers a broad range of community interests including removal of graffiti from private property.

-     Resident concerns about graffiti and owner/occupier rights to graffiti free assets.

-     Graffiti management strategies must be efficient and cost effective.

-     The need to involve all departments within Council and key government agencies regarding innovations to deter graffiti, by way of design and planning concepts.

-     There are four key elements to minimise the impact of graffiti. These elements include: prevention; continual removal; prosecution and; education.

 

1.5 DEFINITIONS

 

For the purposes of the Randwick City Council’s Graffiti Management Policy:

 

“The Act”

Means the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

 

Graffiti

Means any inscription, word, figure or word design that is marked, etched, scratched, drawn, sprayed, painted, pasted, applied or otherwise affixed to or on any surface of any Assets and includes any remnants of same such as adhesives, glues, tape, shadows or colour variations remaining after removal.

 

Graffiti Register

Means the register that is required to be developed and maintained in accordance with section 67 of the Act.

 

Non-Publicly Accessible Private Property Assets (NPAPP)

Means structures and assets not vested in the Crown nor owned by the Randwick City Council on Private Land as defined by the Act. Graffiti on this private land must be visible from a public place yet inaccessible from a public place. Removal of Graffiti from NPAPP can only occur with the owner / occupier’s consent, in accord with Section 67A of the Act.

 

Owner’s Consent

Means the consent required from the owner/occupant in order to remove Graffiti from NPAPP in accord with section 67A of the Act.

 

Publicly Accessible Private Property (PAPP)

Means structures and assets not vested in the Crown nor owned by the Randwick City Council on Private Land as defined by the Act. Graffiti on this land is visible from a public place and can be accessed / reached from a public place. Graffiti can be removed from PAPP without the consent of the owner/ occupier in accordance with Section 67B of the Act.

 

Main Roads

Main Road Areas contain streets that are subjected to high pedestrian traffic and tend to be the main gateways and thoroughfares in the City. For the purpose of this policy, all the streets that are classified as “State Roads” and “Regional Road” in Road and Transport Authority’s classification will be treated as main roads.

 

Minor Roads

Minor Road Areas contain streets that are not subject to high pedestrian traffic or large amounts of graffiti and posters. For the purpose of this policy, all the streets that are classified as “Local Roads” in Road and Transport Authority’s classification will be treated as minor roads.

 

1.6 LEGISLATION

 

1.6.1. Local Government Amendment (Graffiti) Act 2002

 

The Local Government Amendment (Graffiti) Act 2002 commenced on 19 July 2002. This Act provides councils with the power and therefore the responsibility to remove graffiti where the graffiti can be seen and accessed from a public place.

 

If Randwick City Council uses its powers under this Act, it is required to:

-     Meet all costs associated with the removal of the graffiti; and

-     Give written notice to the owner/occupier that the graffiti has been removed.

 

1.6.2. Summary Offences Act 1988.

 

Graffiti is illegal in New South Wales. Damaging or defacing property by means of chalk, paint, felt tip markers or other material is an offence. This offence is reported by the NSW Police as malicious damage.

 

Most graffiti related offences in New South Wales are handled under the Summary Offences Act 1988, Sections 9, 10a, 10b and 10c.

 

Under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (Section 10c) it is also illegal for anyone to sell spray paint cans to persons under the age of 18. This law commenced on 1 September 2003.

 

2. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

 

2.1 KEY ELEMENTS

 

While it is not possible to eliminate graffiti altogether, Councill will adopt a variety of strategies to reduce illegal graffiti. These strategies aim to -

 

-           Prevent the reoccurrence of illegal graffiti through rapid removal;

 

-           Educate the community about the illegality of graffiti;

 

-           Prevent the reoccurrence of illegal graffiti through the prosecution of offenders;

 

-           Profile local opportunities for residents to display notices/posters of community nature;

 

-           Lessen the negative financial and social impact of illegal graffiti; and

 

-           Reduce the fear of crime in the community.

 

3. POLICY GUIDELINES

 

3.1 GENERAL

 

-     Council will inspect main roads weekly and remove graffiti within three days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

-     Council will inspect minor roads monthly and remove graffiti within five days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

-     Residents/ratepayers can call Council’s Call Centre (1300 722 542) to report graffiti for removal or to ask for advice on managing graffiti.

-     All solvents, additives or chemicals used by Council for removing graffiti should be handled with ecologically sustainable development principles to minimise harm to the environment and comply with relevant environmental law and policies.

 

3.2 RAPID REMOVAL

 

An effective strategy against illegal graffiti is to remove it as quickly as possible and to persist in removing it. Removal of graffiti should be done as soon as possible because:

-     Solvents dissolve paint more easily if it is not completely dried and hardened;

-     The appearance of the property and the neighbourhood is improved making it a less likely target for illegal graffiti and dumped waste;

-     Illegal graffitists will be deprived of the reward/satisfaction of recognition.

 

3.3 MAIN ROAD AREAS

 

Main Road Areas contain streets that are subjected to high pedestrian traffic and tend to be the main gateways and thoroughfares in the City. These streets are subjected to a large amount of graffiti and posters on a daily basis.

 

Due to their nature, Main Roads will be inspected weekly and graffiti be removed within three days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

 

3.4 MINOR ROAD AREAS

 

Minor Road Areas contain streets that are not subject to high pedestrian traffic or large amounts of graffiti and posters.

 

Minor Road Areas will be inspected once a month and graffiti be removed within five days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

 

3.5 EMERGENCY REMOVAL CAPACITY

 

As part of Council’s graffiti removal program, Randwick City Council will have an emergency graffiti removal capacity that enables Council to organise the removal of particularly offensive graffiti within six (6) hours from being reported.

 

3.6 COUNCIL PROPERTY

 

Council’s assets are to be free of graffiti as a result of the graffiti removal program, reducing the incidents of graffiti through the use of a rapid removal strategy and the application of innovative techniques.

 

3.7 PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

Randwick City Council is committed to addressing community concerns about the financial and social costs of illegal graffiti and will remove graffiti from publicly accessible private property.

 

3.8 PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

It is not proposed to remove this graffiti under section 67B of the Local Government Act 1993, Council has the power and therefore the responsibility to remove graffiti, where the graffiti can be seen and accessed from a public place.

 

For each incident of graffiti removed from publicly accessible private property, Council shall:

-     Take photographic evidence of the incident (pre and post removal);

-     Update the graffiti register (as per section 67C of the Act) within 5 working days of the removal of the incident;

-     Within 5 working days of removal, provide the owner/occupier of the property concerned with written notice that the removal has occurred; and

-     Meet all costs associated with the removal of the graffiti.

 

3.9 NON PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

Under section 67A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council can remove graffiti, with the consent of the owner/occupier where the graffiti can be seen yet inaccessible from a public place.  For such properties Council will:

-     Obtain the consent of the property owner/occupier to remove the graffiti (Attachment 1);

-     Take photographic evidence of the incident (pre and post removal);

-     Update the graffiti register (as per section 67C of the Act) within 5 working days of the removal of the incident;

-     Within 5 working days of removal, provide the owner/occupier of the property concerned with written notice that the removal has occurred; and

-     Meet all costs associated with the removal of the graffiti.

 

3.10 PUBLIC ENQUIRIES

 

Members of the community can report incidences of graffiti for removal to Council on 1300 722 542.

 

Incidents reported to this line will be removed within a working day of reporting or owner’s consent being obtained.

 

3.11 HERITAGE STRUCTURES

 

Necessary approval will be obtained before removing graffiti from heritage structures and monuments.

 

3.12 COMMUNITY EDUCATION / AWARENESS

 

Council’s graffiti management program will be promoted to residents and ratepayers during regular community forums and in newsletters.

 

Promotional material will also be developed and distributed to gain community awareness of graffiti removal and prevention strategies to assist with the management of graffiti on private property.

 

3.13 PROSECUTION

 

Graffiti is illegal in New South Wales. Damaging or defacing property by means of chalk, paint, felt tip markers or other material is an offence. This offence is reported by the NSW Police as malicious damage.

 

Most graffiti related offences in New South Wales are handled under the Summary Offences Act 1988, Sections 9, 10a, 10b and 10c.

 

Council Rangers also will take action when they witness someone in the act of defacing property with graffiti.

 

 


 

Atachment 1.

 

Consent form for removal of graffiti from Private Property

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Consent to Clean Graffiti

 

Randwick City Council (“the Council”) has adopted a multi-Graffiti Management Policy.

 

As part of the policy, Council will seek to remove all graffiti that appears within Randwick including that appearing on private property. Under Section 67A of the Local Government Act 1993, a council may, by agreement with the owner or occupier of any private land, carry out graffiti removal work on the land.

 

We hereby seek your express consent to remove graffiti from your property or assets found within the City of Randwick, as and when it appears.

 

If you agree, please acknowledge your consent below.

 

If you have any queries whatsoever regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact ______________ at ___________.

 

 

 

 

I, ________________________[Insert Name], the ______________ [Insert Designation] of

______________________________ [Insert Name of Organisation] hereby give my

 

Consent to Randwick City Council and/or their agents removing graffiti appearing on our property within Randwick City henceforth.

 

 

______________________________ [Signed]

 

______________________________________________[Name and designation]

 

____________________[Date]

 

 


SUBMISSION 1

 

THE SPOT PRECINCT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST, 2005. Received by e-mail from Council officer Martin Ryman on 15 September, 2005.

 

Draft Policy was considered with the following comments and queries to Council.

 

o Overall agree with the intent and actions detailed in the Policy.

 

o Would like clarification of the rights of residents to remove graffiti from surfaces in the public domain and also to remove posters attached to electricity poles?

 

o A query was raised regarding owners reluctant or slow to either remove graffiti or have Council undertake this task - could the graffiti be considered as non-complying sign to encourage co-operation?

 

o Liaison with Energy Australia regarding graffiti resistant surfaces to poles and substations needs to be undertaken. In addition, it is understood there is a lease arrangement in place, between Council and Energy Australia for these electricity poles.

 

o Lease terms should be reviewed to ensure Council objectives for discouraging   graffiti are met. Finally, a long term objective of Council should be the undergrounding of electricity poles, particularly on main roads, thus removing the problem.

 

o With regard to the at least weekly inspection of all streets by Council, could the officer multi-task and also note instances of illegal dumping for removal and also by affixing a notification sign to the illegal dumping so that residents were aware that the matter is being attended to.

 

SUBMISSION 2

 

RANDWICK PRECINCT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST, 2005. Received by e mail from Council Officer Martin Ryman on 5 September, 2005.

 

The draft graffiti management policy was discussed in brief.

7.4

 

Ø A number of definitions in the policy could be improved on e.g. main roads, minor roads and poles.

 

Ø (Motion) The Committee commends Council on its draft graffiti management policy but suggests that definitions of the followimng terms be clarified: “main roads”, “minor roads”, “poles”.

 

Ø In addition, it is recommended that at section 3.14 the words “’parking officers’” be added after the word “rangers.”

 

Ø They also resolved Council is asked to act promptly to remove the graffiti from the Randwick Literary Institute. Can you investigate the possibility of graffiti removal? Sharon Pluntett has the details of the owner, Dept of Lands.

 

SUBMISSION 3

 

COOGEE PRECINCT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST, 2005. Received by e mail from Council officer Martin Ryman on 8 September, 2005.

 

In the minutes there was the following resolution

8.1 Draft Graffiti Plan Resolution 43/05

 

Ø That the Precinct commend Council on the draft plan and suggest that it include public parks and reserves and that information be provided (URLs etc) as to authoritative sources on information for the public as to appropriate environmental cleaning agents.

 

SUBMISSION 4

 

COOGEE PRECINCT COMMITTEE. Received from Precinct nominated person Ms Rona Wade, 4/138 Beach Street, Coogee. on 7 September, 2005.

 

THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY.

Comment on 1 - mostly agree

Comment on 2 – seems fine

Comment on 3 – no comment

Comment on 4 – no comment

 

IMPLEMENTITON OF THE POLICY

Comment on 1 - disagree

Comment on 2 - there is no mentioned of parks or reserves, public toilets etc. There are the main targets for graffiti in Coogee.

Comment on 3 - we suggest you include some URLs for advice on cleaning graffiti. The Council Call Centre does not have this information.  Cleaning away graffiti usually involves using toxic substances and great care would need to be exercised in giving advice.

 

POSTERS AND NOTICES

Comment on 1-  no comment

Comment on 2 – no comment

Comment on 3 – no comment

Comment on 4 - yes at the moment it is up to residents to remove them. We would wish to see Council removing them. Also what about putting pressure on Beach Palace and Coogee Bay Hotel. They outsource the affixing of posters to power poles or an agency. This should cease.

SUBMISSION 5

 

MAROUBRA BEACH PRECINCT COMMITTEE. Received from the Secretary, Lindsay Shurey 8 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra 2035 on 23 August, 2005.

 

We had a chance to discuss this draft policy at meeting on 22 August, 2005, and passed a resolution -

 

o Under 3 Policy Guidelines 3.1 General the MBPC would like to see two more categories added to the present main roads and all other streets.  There are graffiti hot spots – i.e. Lexington Place which is currently covered in Graffiti inspected twice a week and parks (i.e. Arthur Byrne Reserve, barbeques and pavements are currently covered in graffiti inspected twice a week.

 

o Thanks for taking this point into consideration and the MCPC congratulates the Council on their initiative and looks forwarded to the Policy being implemented.

 

SUBMISSION 6

 

MS PEARL CHAMPION, 32 BURKE STREET, CHIFLEY Undated

 

THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY

Comment on 1  - agree

Comment on 2 – no comment

Comment on 3 – no comment

Comment on 4 – no comment

 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY  

Comment on 1 -  agree

Comment on 2 - no comment

Comment on 3 - much much more publicity about what residents can do i.e. ring to get graffiti dealt with promptly. That private property is covered.  Tell RCC Call Centre staff this they told me 2 weeks ago is it not. RCC to get permanent permission from owners of properties which are regularly graffitied, to facilitate prompt removal e.g. electricity substations cnr Franklin and Wassell Street, Matraville, Burke Street and Mitchell Street, Chifley repeatedly covered.

 

POSTERS AND NOTICES.

Comment on 1 – Agree

Comment on 2 – no comment

Comment on 3 – no comment

Comment on 4 – no comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUBMISSION 7

 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR STEPHEN P GATT, (47 Balfour Road, Kensington 2033) ON BEHALF OF THE KENSINGTON KINGSFORD PRECINCT COMMITTEE. Received 12 August, 2005.

 

Professor Gatt comments - I fully in agreement with this policy. This policy will be distributed to all precinct attendees. It is comprehensive and will intentioned and could prove to be a boom to all residents of Kensington and Kingsford.

 

THE PURPOSE AND OJECTIVES OF THE POLICY

Comment on 1  - agree

Comment on 2 – that they are very specific about the service

Comment on 3 – suggest to owners these types of paint which may be most suitable to paint surfaces with.

Comment on 4 – no comment

 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY  

Comment on 1 - mostly agree

Comment on 2 – not sufficiently specific of how to deal with graffiti at height (e.g. on the NIDA rooftop)

Comment on 3 -  no comment

Comment on 4 – strategy to police the policeman (who is the ser vice responsible to and how is the deciding done)

 

POSTERS AND NOTICES

Comment on 1 – mostly agree

Comment on 2 – as per the graffiti policy

Comment on 3 – have into making policy to lay charges to bill posters including politicans who leave their ’mug shots’ forever on poles etc.

Comment on 4 – they do nothing to enhance the amenity or beauty of the precinct.   Better still remove the poles and place the lines and cables underground (as in may other cities overseas.)

 

 

 


 

General Business

 

Notice of Rescission Motions