Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, 30 Frances Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 at 6:00 p.m..

 

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor (T Bowen), Andrews, Belleli, D’Souza (Deputy Chairperson), Garcia, Matson, Moore, Nash, Neilson, Roberts, Seng, Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos and Stevenson (Chairperson)

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

NOTE:    At the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 September 2004, the Council resolved that the Works Committee be constituted as a committee with full delegation to determine matters on the agenda.

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Works Committee Meeting - 11 June 2013

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 66 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W25/13     Dunningham Reserve Risk Assessment..................................................... 1

W26/13     Tree Removal - Adjacent 84 Gale road, Maroubra..................................... 65

W27/13     Council-Owned Ficus 'Hillii' (Hill's Weeping Fig) Growing Outside 17 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford.......................................................................................... 75

W28/13     Coogee Beach Volleyball...................................................................... 81

W29/13     High Street Randwick, - Bus Zone near UNSW and Royal Randwick Racecourse traffic signals............................................................................................. 87

W30/13     Parking of Trailers.............................................................................. 91   

 

 

 

Closed Session

W31/13     Closure of Runic Lane, Maroubra - from Hannan Lane to Anzac Parade

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (f) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with matters affecting the security of the Council, Councillors, Council staff or Council property. (Security matters as advised by the NSW Police.)

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

Works Report No. W25/13

 

 

Subject:                  Dunningham Reserve Risk Assessment

Folder No:                   F2009/00509

Author:                   Kerry Colquhoun, Coordinator, Open Space Assets     

 

Introduction

 

In 2009, Council officers commissioned consultants to undertake a risk assessment of the coastal walkways and associated parklands along Council’s coastline.  The scope of the risk assessment was for risks relating to falling off cliffs, slipping on rocks or other unsafe conditions for members of the public using the parklands and coastal walk between Clovelly and South Maroubra.

 

The risk assessment acknowledged that as a coastal walk, there are numerous and obvious risks associated with cliffs, uneven surfaces and potential fall hazards.  The assessment also acknowledged that Council has taken reasonable and practicable measures to highlight obvious risks to visitors through signage and installation of fencing without impacting the natural landscape.

 

However, the risk assessment identified Dunningham Reserve as an area with high risk that has a high number of public users and visitors.  Due to a number of recorded incidents, the assessment recommended that a separate, specific public safety risk assessment be undertaken for Dunningham Reserve.

 

Subsequently, Council officers commissioned Reliance Risk to undertake the Dunningham Reserve Risk Assessment, 2011.  The Risk Assessment Report has now been reviewed by Council officers and final control recommendations have been made.  This report includes descriptions of the recommended risk mitigation measures, cost estimates and timeframes for their implementation.

 

To complement the coastline risk assessment, Surf Lifesaving Australia has commissioned their own risk assessment that will be released shortly and Council has also been investigating and assessing ways to prevent incidents and fatalities associated with rock fishing along our coastline.  A separate report will be presented to Council to detail the issues and recommendations proposed in these complementary studies.

 

Issues

 

Dunningham Reserve, Coogee is one of Randwick’s most popular coastal reserves.  It covers an area of approximately 5.5 hectares and includes the pathway which connects the Coastal Walkway.  It offers a range of facilities for users and provides spectacular coastal views.

 

The Dunningham Reserve Risk Assessment, 2011 was undertaken to assess fall hazards and evaluate the effectiveness of controls (signage and fencing) to mitigate the risk of injury.  The risk assessment states that since 2005 there have been four fatalities in this area.  Further, there have also been two cases of misadventure where possible spinal injuries have resulted.

 

The methodology for the completion of the Risk Assessment was as follows:

 

1.   Project kick off meeting and site inspection, discussions with relevant Council staff

2.   Additional Site Inspections

3.   Risk Validation Workshop

4.   Document review of Technical Standards including Australian Standards

5.   Law case database search

6.   Risk assessment including proposed controls.

 

Identified Hazards (Risks) and Proposed Controls

 

The following lists the identified hazards (risks) in the Risk Assessment Report.  Attachment 2 provides a location for each of these hazards:

 

·       Hazard 1:    Coogee Fishing Club/Boat Shed – Access to roof

·       Hazard 2:    Virgin Mary Memorial – Low Arris rail fence

·       Hazard 3:    Giles Baths Headland South – Jumping from rock platform and cliff

·       Hazard 4:    Giles Baths Access Platform – Low rock platform access

·       Hazard 5:    North Head of Coogee Bay – Access to cliff (High use area)

·       Hazard 6:    Eastern cliffs – Access to cliff

·       Hazard 7:    Eastern cliffs – Fall down gully

·       Hazard 8:    Eastern Point – South side of Gordon’s Bay vantage point/cliff height

·       Hazard 9:    Eastern Point – South side of Gordon’s Bay tiered cliff access

·       Hazard 10:   South side of Gordon’s Bay – Unofficial rock platform access track.

 

Risk Mitigation Methods

 

The Risk Assessment Report identified the hazards listed above and proposed they are mitigated by proposed controls.  The main control for mitigating risks is barrier/fencing.

 

The risk assessment proposed the use of two main fencing types as suitable for installation to mitigate the identified risk.  These fencing types (shown in Attachment 3) include:

 

·       Type A: Barrier (Stainless) Steel Safety Rail Fence provides a high standard of protection as a fall barrier.  It shall be a minimum of 1000mm in height.  Council officers believe that 1200 mm barrier height is preferred.

·       Type C: Arris Rail Fence (Timber) shall have a minimum height of 900 mm (preferred 1200), openings with a maximum clear dimension of 500 mm vertically.

 

Council Assessment

 

In response to the proposed controls outlined in the Risk Assessment Report, Council officers reviewed the suitability of the recommendations and evolved more detailed control options for the mitigation of risk.  The review of the options included an assessment of the constructability, visual impact and the likely costs versus available budget.

 

After a number of options were considered, a preferred control measure was identified and mapped.  The preferred mitigation options are shown in Attachment 2.  A cost estimate for each identified risk was calculated as shown in Table 1.

 

Priority for Implementation

 

Depending on the significance of the risk, Council has set priorities for the installation/ construction of the control measures.

 

A summary of the risks in order of priority for implementation are as follows:

 

·      Priority 1 - Hazard 3: Giles Baths Headland South – Jumping from Rock Platform and Cliff

·       Priority 2 - Hazard  1: Coogee Fishing Club/Boat Shed – Access to Roof  

·       Priority 3 - Hazard 4: Giles Baths Access Platform- Low Rock Platform Access

·       Priority 4 - Hazard 2: Virgin Mary Memorial - Low arris Rail Fence  

·       Priority 5 - Hazard 5: North Head of Coogee Bay –Access to Cliff (High Use Area)

·       Priority 6 - Hazard 6: Eastern cliffs - Access to Cliff

·       Priority 7 - Hazard 8: Eastern Point - South Side of Gordon’s Bay Vantage   Point/ Cliff height

·       Priority 8 - Hazard 7: Eastern cliffs – Fall down Gully

·       Priority 9 - Hazard 9: Eastern Point South Side of Gordon’s Bay Tiered Cliff Access

·       Priority 10 - Hazard 10: South Side Gordon’s Bay - Unofficial Rock Platform Access Track.

 

Cost Estimate and Timeframes for Implementation

 

The works to be constructed resulting from the risk assessment are substantial.  Council Officers have now carefully assessed the proposed risk control (mitigation) options and have developed an implementation plan that allows for the staged execution of the proposed measures.

 

Table 1 provides a cost estimate for the construction of the preferred risk mitigation measure and the timeframes to deliver these items:

 

 

Table 1: Implementation plan

Cost Estimate

Timeframe

2013

2014

2015+

Priority 1 - Hazard 3: Giles Baths Headland South – Jumping from Rock Platform and Cliff

$90,000

$90,000

 

 

Priority 2 - Hazard  1: Coogee Fishing Club/Boat Shed – Access to Roof

$9,000

$9,000

 

 

Priority 3 - Hazard 4: Giles Baths Access Platform- Low Rock Platform Access

$12,800

$12,800

 

 

Priority 4 - Hazard 2: Virgin Mary Memorial - Low arris Rail Fence

$5,000

$5,000

 

 

Priority 5 - Hazard 5: North Head of Coogee Bay –Access to Cliff (High Use Area)

$86,000

$44000

$42000

 

Priority 6 - Hazard 6: Eastern cliffs - Access to Cliff

$16,500

 

$16,500

 

Signage

$3600

 

$3600

 

Priority 7 - Hazard 8: Eastern Point - South Side of Gordon’s Bay Vantage Point/Cliff height

$53,000

 

$53,000

 

Priority 8 - Hazard 7: Eastern cliffs – Fall down Gully

$3,750

 

 

$3,750

Priority 9 - Hazard 9: Eastern Point South Side of Gordon’s Bay Tiered Cliff Access

 

 

 

$66,000

Priority 10 - Hazard 10: South Side Gordon’s Bay - Unofficial Rock Platform Access Track

 

 

 

 

 

$6,000

Subtotal

$351,650

$160800

$115100

$83325

Contingency 10%

$35,165

$16080

$11510

$7575

TOTAL ESTIMATE

$386,815

$176,880

$126,610

$83,325

 

In the 2012-13 Council Budget, an amount of $180,000 was committed to allow for the construction of proposed high priority mitigation measures.  A further $100,000 has been placed in the 2013-14 Capital Works Budget to allow the continued implementation of the control measures.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

Direction 6b:      Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, and clean and support recognizable image of our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

In the 2012-13 Council Budget, $180,000 was allocated to allow for the construction of the mitigation measures. A further $100,000 has been placed in the 2013-14 Capital Works Budget to allow the continued construction of the control measures.

 

Conclusion

 

An extensive risk assessment has been completed identifying public risk in Dunningham Reserve.  This assessment took into consideration the effectiveness of existing controls and proposed new controls. Council reviewed the assessment and developed control options and finally preferred risk mitigation measures to ensure that risks can be reduced. An implementation plan and cost estimate has been developed for all the preferred controls.

 

Council has committed funds to allow the construction of the mitigation measures and detailed documentation is underway. High priority risk mitigation measures will be completed by the end of 2013.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council note the risk mitigation measures listed in Attachment 1 – Recommended controls.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Dunningham Reserve - Preferred Control Options

 

2.View

Dunningham Reserve - Mapped Preferred Options for Risk Mitigation

 

3.View

Dunningham Reserve - Proposed Fence Types

 

4.View

Dunningham Risk Assessment Report

 

 

 

 


Dunningham Reserve - Preferred Control Options

Attachment 1

 

 




Dunningham Reserve - Mapped Preferred Options for Risk Mitigation

Attachment 2

 

 







Dunningham Reserve - Proposed Fence Types

Attachment 3

 

 


Dunningham Risk Assessment Report

Attachment 4

 

 


















































Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

Works Report No. W26/13

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Adjacent 84 Gale road, Maroubra

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 28 January 2013 the owner of 84 Gale Road, Maroubra, wrote to Council detailing a number of issues relating to two large Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) street trees growing on the nature strip adjacent to his property (in Everett Street) and requesting that these trees be removed and replaced with something more appropriate.

 

Issues

 

The owner of this property has been experiencing a range of problems directly associated with the two Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing in the grass verge area adjacent to his property for well over a decade and these problems have become significantly worse over the past four-five years.

 

They range from tree roots damaging the driveway strips running down the western side of the property to serious structural damage being caused to the brick garage and side fence in Everett Street.

 

There is also cracking and lifting of the concrete slabs in the rear of the property and roots have undermined and cracked the adjacent bitumen roadway in several places. In addition, for well over a decade tree roots have entered and blocked the stormwater and sewer pipes within the property and these have to be cleared by Council’s plumbers on a regular basis.

 

The two trees average eighteen-twenty metres in height with canopy spreads of around twenty metres. They are both in good health and contribute significantly to the visual amenity of the streetscape. They are the only two trees of this species remaining on the eastern side of Everett Street, Maroubra, and they provide habitat and food source for a variety of birdlife and native fauna. The canopies have to be regularly pruned well back from the roof of the residence and rear garage at the property owner’s request and the amount of property overhang means that the gutters and rear yard have to be cleared of leaf litter and debris all year round.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:         A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10b:        Environmental risks and impacts are strategically managed.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is estimated that the removal of the two large Hill’s Weeping figs in Everett Street, Maroubra, and their replacement with two-three super-advanced alternative species would cost in the vicinity of $9,000. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The two large Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing adjacent to 84 Gale Road, Maroubra, are both in very good health and are the only two trees of this species growing within the street.

 

They are estimated to be approximately sixty years old and up until now every effort has been made to retain them, despite the fact that associated tree root damage has progressively increased in both frequency and severity.

 

The trees have been assessed as having important scenic and amenity value and with providing habitat and food source for a variety of fauna. Because of the range and increasing severity of damage being caused by their roots, the impact of removal on land degradation would be negligible. Due to the size and amount of root material required to be removed from the trees to effectively deal with the damage being caused by their roots, root pruning is not considered a viable option. This is supported by the findings and recommendations of Council’s Tree Gang arborists when excavations were recently undertaken adjacent to where the trees are located.

 

The only feasible long-term management option would be to remove the two trees entirely and to replace them with a more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan. Because they are the only two Hill’s Weeping figs growing in Everett Street, Maroubra, their removal would not contravene Council’s resolution that where Ficus ‘Hillii’ constitute the predominant species in any street and where those trees have recognised historic and heritage significance, no more than five (5) percent of vegetative canopy cover is to be removed in any one calendar year.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the two Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing adjacent to the property at 84 Gale Road, Maroubra, be removed and that they be replaced with two-three advanced Cupaniopsis anarcardioides (Tuckeroos) – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs detailing the size of the subject Council owned street trees and the range of damage being caused by their roots.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs detailing the size of the subject Council owned street trees and the range of damage being caused by their roots.

Attachment 1

 

 

Both Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees are large and significant in the Everett St streetscape

 

The northern-most tree has several basal inclusions which affect its structural integrity

 

 

Large crack in garage wall directly above very large fig tree root under footing

 

Mass of fig tree roots travelling underneath garage and into rear yard of property

 

 

 

 

Another section of massed fig tree roots growing underneath garage footing

 

Huge fig tree root growing under fence footing and into rear of property

 

 

 

Fig tree root has caused cracking in footing underneath colorbond fence in Everett St

 

Typical of species, large roots protrude above a wide area of the surrounding verge

 

 

 

Tree roots have cracked and undermined the adjacent roadway in several areas

 

Roots have entered the rear of the property and cracked/lifted several concrete slabs

 

 

 

Cracks have appeared on either side of sewer boundary trap in rear of property

 

Brick wall in rear garage has been cracked and dislodged as a result of root intrusion

 

Cracking in the garage wall is severe and has now compromised its structural integrity

 


Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

Works Report No. W27/13

 

 

Subject:                  Council-Owned Ficus 'Hillii' (Hill's Weeping Fig) Growing Outside 17 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The owner of 17 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, lodged a service request with Council on 21 August 2012 detailing structural damage to his property and surrounding public infrastructure being caused by the roots of the Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside that property.

 

 

Issues

 

The owner of this property has experienced a range of tree root related problems for many years and has requested the removal of this tree on more than one occasion.

 

Council’s Tree Gang excavated along the entire property frontage on 20 March 2009 and a site inspection undertaken at that time confirmed a number of ongoing tree root problems.

 

The tree concerned is in good health and is one of several growing along both sides of Maitland Avenue, Kingsford. It is approximately 16 metres in height and around 20 metres across the canopy. It is an important provider of habitat and food source and provides significant visual amenity.

 

The subject tree has been root pruned on a number of occasions over many years to the extent that no further root shaving or cutting is a viable option. The adjacent footpath section was replaced less than two years prior to being recently removed.

 

Council’s Tree Gang arborist advised in 2009 that the amount of root pruning required to deal with the range of damage being caused would render the tree unstable and would dramatically impact on its health.

 

In addition, the canopy has to be regularly pruned away from the roof of the adjacent property and out of overhead powerlines to achieve the required clearances.

 

Because of the visual importance of the tree and the fact that a tree of the same species was removed in mid-2012, a request to remove this tree in 2012 was postponed for a period of approximately twelve months.

 

 

Relationship to City plan

 

Outcome 10:         A Healthy Environment

Direction 10b:          Environmental risks and impacts are strategically managed

Key Action:           Develop and implement policies, programs and strategies to manage environmental risks and impacts

 

 

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

The cost to remove and stump grind this tree and to replace it with a super-advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys) would be in the vicinity of $5000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The roots of this street tree are causing ongoing and worsening damage to the adjacent property and public infrastructure. The tree has been root pruned on a number of occasions to ensure retention but this is no longer a practical management option.

 

Branches have to be regularly pruned out of the overhead powerlines and the canopy creates significant shadowing of the adjacent footpath and residence at night and during the winter months.

 

The removal and replacement of this problematic street tree would certainly fall within the parameters originally set out in Council’s resolution relating to aggressive-rooted street trees, although its removal would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding streetscape.

 

It should also be noted that several trees of the same species have had to be removed from Maitland Avenue over the past decade because of the serious and increasing amount of damage being caused by their roots.

 

However, the last Ficus ‘Hillii’ that was removed from Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, was in mid 2012 and the removal of this particular tree would therefore not contravene Council’s resolution that where Ficus ‘Hillii’ constitute the predominant species in any street and where those trees have recognised historic and heritage significance, no more than five (5) percent of vegetative canopy cover is to be removed in any one calendar year.

 

 

Recommendation

 

THAT the Council-owned Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 17 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species being Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys) as listed in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs highlighting the range of increasing tree root damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs highlighting the range of increasing tree root damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property.

Attachment 1

 

 

Tree roots undermining and lifting the adjacent footpath and front brick fence

 

Large fig root has lifted the footpath and damaged the adjacent stormwater line

 

Fig tree roots run diagonally under the footpath into the property at 15 Maitland Ave

Pavers inside 17 Maitland Avenue being lifted by tree roots adjacent to property

 

Tree roots have been pruned as much as possible and show signs of internal decay

 

Recently replaced footpath slabs have lifted again and have been temporarily repaired

Footpath is undulating and front brick fence has cracked in several places

Driveway and adjacent footpath will continue to be damaged as long as tree remains


Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

Works Report No. W28/13

 

 

Subject:                  Coogee Beach Volleyball

Folder No:                   F2009/08286

Author:                   Kerry Colquhoun, Coordinator, Open Space Assets     

 

Introduction

 

The Coogee Beach Volleyball Association has had approval to undertake beach volleyball classes and games on Coogee Beach since 2008.  Prior to 2008 they utilised the beach for beach volleyball on an informal basis as a non for profit association. The Association has now requested that the number of courts and the approval periods for playing be extended. The request is in response to the growing Club membership.

 

This report examines the issues related to the proposed increase in organized volleyball playing on Coogee Beach and proposes that a formal licence agreement is put in place for the future use of the beach.

 

Issues

 

The Coogee Beach Volleyball Association has written to Council requesting a change to their approval to use Coogee Beach for beach volleyball.  In their request, the Coogee Beach Volleyball Association has requested additional volleyball courts on the beach and additional hours of use.

 

To support their request, the Coogee Beach Volleyball Association have provided the following information:

 

·      Almost 120 active members, affiliated to  State  Volleyball  NSW

·      A number of beach volleyball classes offered every week. These sessions are run by TASC certified coaches spanning three different levels (beginner, intermediate   and advanced).

·      Proud of the development of Junior Program (approximately 100 children); teach volleyball to children ages 5-16, free of charge. 

·      Have  been  approached  by a number  of schools  about  the  possibility  of  offering training  to children  over  the  summer. 

·      Hold regular social activities for members and non-members, which provide a safe and welcoming environment   for   locals   to   meet   and   engage   with   the   broader   community.

·      Organise a number of tournaments  throughout  the year, with different  formats and for different levels, which have been enthusiastically received by our members

 

Table 1 shows the existing approved schedule of time periods and number of courts. Council officers assessed the request and liaised with relevant stakeholders to determine how the request could be accommodated without adversely impacting on the local community and Coogee Beach patrons.

 

Table 2 shows the proposed schedule that would commence as soon as approval is received by Council. The area required to allow this activity to occur is shown in Attachment 1.

 

 

TABLE 1. - SCHEDULE OF EXISTING COURT USE

SUMMER : 1 NOVEMBER TO 31 MARCH

WEEKDAYS:

TIME PERIOD

NO OF COURTS

                                     

7.30 am – 12.00 noon

1 court

              

4.00 pm – 8.00 pm

2 courts

WEEKENDS

 

 

Saturday

7.30 am – 12.00 noon

2 courts

Saturday

4.00 pm – 8.00 pm

2 courts

Sunday    

4.00 pm – 8.00 pm 

2 courts

 

TABLE 2. - SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED COURT USE  *

Refer  Attachment 1 - Map of location for the Courts

SUMMER : 1 NOVEMBER TO 31 MARCH

 

TIME PERIOD

COURT NO

NO OF COURTS

WEEKDAYS       

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,5

3 courts

WEEKENDS       

 

 

 

Saturday

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2

2 courts

Sunday

12 noon – 8.00 pm

1,2

2 courts

 

WINTER : 1 APRIL TO 31 OCTOBER

WEEKDAYS       

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,3,4,5

5 courts

WEEKENDS

 

 

 

Saturday

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,3,4,5

5 courts

Sunday    

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,3,4,5

5 courts

 

The approval will be condition to manage times when the beach is experiencing an extremely busy period.  In these circumstances, it will be at the lifeguard’s discretion to allow this activity to occur. Also, when Coogee Beach is booked for an approved event, the booked event will have precedence over the activities of Coogee Beach Volleyball Association.  For event bookings, a minimum of 7 days notification will be given by Council.

 

Consultation

Council’s Manager Aquatic Services has been consulted to ascertain the view on the impact of the increased use of the beach. He has advised that he supports the increased schedule as per Table 2.

 

Views from the Coogee Precinct Committee were also sought on the issue     of increased use.  The item was discussed at their meeting on Tuesday 18 June 2013.  They have advised that they support the proposed extended use.

The following is an extract from the minutes of the Precinct:

 

The Precinct supports the requests of the CBVA for an increase in the number of courts and an extension of hours as specified in their report to Council but would not support any further and future increases or extensions in the number of courts or their use. The Precinct does not support any permanent fixtures on the beach at any time. The courts should be removed when not playing and there is no support for or approval of hooks or similar in the heritage wall, which should therefore be removed. We applaud and encourage the training of children and also encourage more people to exercise and live a healthy life.”

Licence Agreement

Previously there has not been a formal licence agreement between Council and the Coogee Beach Volleyball Association due to the size and non for profit nature of the association. It is now intended that Council enters into a formal licence arrangement with the Club to ensure appropriate terms and conditions are in place.

 

The term of the licence would be for a period of five years and the annual minimum rent would be applied as per Council’s “Community Facilities Management Policy”. As the Coogee Beach Volleyball Association is a non profit organisation, a minimal licence/rental fee will be applied.  This fee is currently $444.00 (ex GST).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

Direction 6b:      Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, and clean and support recognizable image of our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The annual rental amount would be $444.00 (ex GST) indexed annually according to increases in fees and charges.  Over the period of the licence a total income of approximately $2220 (ex GST) would be received by Council.

 

Conclusion

 

Beach volleyball is an appropriate activity to be conducted on the City’s beaches.  The Coogee Beach Volleyball Association has been conducting volleyball at Coogee for a substantial amount of time. The proposed permissible number of courts and usage times as outlined in Table 2 - Schedule of Court Use was developed following an assessment of the beach operations and consultation with the Manager Aquatic Services and the Coogee Precinct Committee.  It is considered that the approval will allow increased usage of Coogee Beach for beach volleyball without significant impact to the local community or beach goers. Council will enter into a formal licence agreement with the CBVA for a period of five years and fee of $444.00 (ex GST) to allow this activity to be undertaken.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council extends the number of courts and time periods that Coogee Beach Volleyball Association is able to carry out training and classes at Coogee Beach as per the following table.

 

TABLE 2. - SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED COURT USE  *

Refer  Attachment 1 - Map of location for the Courts

SUMMER : 1 NOVEMBER TO 31 MARCH

 

TIME PERIOD

COURT NO

NO OF COURTS

WEEKDAYS       

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,5

3 courts

WEEKENDS       

 

 

 

Saturday

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2

2 courts

Sunday

12 noon – 8.00 pm

1,2

2 courts

 

WINTER : 1 APRIL TO 31 OCTOBER

WEEKDAYS       

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,3,4,5

5 courts

WEEKENDS

 

 

 

Saturdays

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,3,4,5

5 courts

Sunday    

7.00 am – 8.00 pm

1,2,3,4,5

5 courts

 

b)     Council enters into a formal licence agreement with Coogee Beach Volleyball Association to conduct volleyball games and classes on Coogee Beach for a period of five years.

 

c)     a minimum annual rent of $440.00 (ex GST) indexed according to increases in Council’s Fees and Charges is applied.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Map of proposed licence area

 

 

 

 


Map of proposed licence area

Attachment 1

 

 


Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

Works Report No. W29/13

 

 

Subject:                  High Street Randwick, - Bus Zone near UNSW and Royal Randwick Racecourse traffic signals

Folder No:                   F2004/08393

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

A temporary relocation of the High Street bus zone at the western end of High Street, near to the traffic signals accessing the racecourse roadway and the UNSW road (Gate 2) was approved by the Council in late 2011.  This was to facilitate building works on UNSW land.  As the building works have been completed it has been requested that the bus zone return to its original location. 

 

This report details the rationale for returning this bus stop to its original location and explains the Traffic Committee members’ position regarding this matter.

 

Issues

 

At the August 2011 meeting of the Randwick Traffic Committee, temporary amendments to parking restrictions in High Street, Randwick, were endorsed, in order to assist with construction vehicle access for a large site within the UNSW campus.  The development site, which had a frontage to High Street, was located to the immediate west of the signalised entry/exit road (Gate 2 Avenue) on High Street (some 250m east of Anzac Parade) which also controls traffic movements in and out of Randwick Racecourse.

 

The temporary changes required to the parking restrictions in High Street necessitated the relocation of the Bus Zone from the western side of the signals to the eastern side.

 

Given that the construction activity has now ceased it was recommended that the Bus Zone be returned to its original position.  This return to the original location is supported primarily with regard to the safety of the significant numbers of passengers / pedestrians who alight at this stop.  In particular their safety as they move into the UNSW campus road and path network.

 

The UNSW, in good faith and in recognition of the pedestrian conditions existing at the time of planning, had identified the western footpath as their primary pedestrian axis along Gate 2 Avenue.  Accordingly, it has been much improved, significantly widened and it provides safe pedestrian linkages to the internal pathway network leading pedestrians to numerous internal destinations.

 

Conversely, the eastern footpath has been retained as a minimum width, narrow footpath, which cannot accommodate the streams of pedestrians arriving with each bus load.  Also, the eastern footpath requires pedestrians to cross Gate 2 Avenue midblock to get to the preferred pedestrian linkages.  Pedestrians, however, are known for their tendency to choose the path of least effort and, without the daily corralling efforts of UNSW security staff, they regularly walk straight ahead along the eastern footpath and cross Gate 2 Avenue at a blind corner which is inherently dangerous.

 

The Traffic Committee’s State Transit Authority representative stated that his preference was for the Bus Zone to remain on the eastern side of the intersection.  His opinion was that this is a safer option, from the perspective of bus operations and suggests that the STA would not be supportive of the Bus Zone returning to its original position.

 

Notwithstanding the concerns of the STA it is the safety of the whole of the passenger / pedestrian trip which the Council has to consider.  Currently the bus unloading is relatively safe; however the pedestrians’ walking task within the UNSW access network puts them at some significant risk.

 

In order to more fully evaluate the issue an examination of the crashes at the intersection was undertaken.  A search of the most recent five years of crash data (to end of 2011) reveals that there were no reported crashes involving pedestrians at or near this intersection (when the bus stop was in its original position).  Indeed, a further examination of more historic data shows that even within the most recent ten years of crash data there have been no pedestrian crashes at or near to these signals. For all of these ten years the Bus Zone was in its original position, west of the signals.

 

This zero pedestrian crash rate, with the Bus Zone in its original location (west of the signals), is very significant when considering a possible return of the Bus Zone.  This significance is magnified, however, when the true passenger delivery task is realised.

 

UNSW travel survey results and transport statistics reveal that on a typical semester day the number of passengers alighting from bus services ( 891, 895, M50, 370, 348) at Gate 2 is more than 7500!  Given that this is the typical passenger loading on each of the 142 days per year of semester, it shows that the original location had performed extremely safely, even though more than 1,065,000 passengers alighted buses at the original Bus Zone location each year.  And, this data also shows that over the ten years during which there was not one crash involving a pedestrian some 10 million passengers used the Bus Zone at its original location without any reported incident.

 

When this matter was considered by the Traffic Committee the voting was not unanimous.  The voting pattern is shown below:

 

In favour of the Recommendation:

Against the Recommendation:

Council

RMS

Police

 

Member for Coogee

 

The RMS representative supported the STA view, given the volume of pedestrians. However, the Police, Council and the local member representatives, when taking all aspects into account, voted in favour of the proposal. 

 

Under the delegation from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) when the there is not a unanimous position amongst the voting members of the Traffic Committee, the Council may determine its position on the matter.  If the Council, in determining its position, resolves to implement a traffic / parking change it must provide the Police and RMS with 14 days notice of the proposed changes.  The Police and RMS may then decide whether to appeal the matter to the Sydney Regional Traffic Committee, or not.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport.

A range of transport choices will enable effective movement: to, from and around our City.

Direction 9a:      A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

Direction 9b:      The community is informed, educated and encouraged to use sustainable transport.

 

Financial impact statement

 

In order to address the concerns of the State Transit Authority about pedestrians possibly ‘jay-walking’ in front of the buses stopped, to the west of Gate 2 Avenue traffic signals, a pedestrian safety fence is required. This will cost approximately $6500.  This funding can be met from the Section 94 Contribution from the UNSW.

 

Conclusion

 

Given the excellent long term safety record of the original Bus Zone location and given the significant safety benefits afforded upon the internal roadway and pathway network of the UNSW campus, there is seen to be no rationale for opposing a return of the bus zone to the western side of the intersection.  As per the delegate of the Traffic Committee, Council needs to resolve its position with regards to this matter.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That High Street Bus Zone, temporarily relocated to the eastern side of the UNSW Gate 2 / Racecourse roadway traffic signals, be returned to the original, long-term, location, west of the traffic signals.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Works Committee                                                                                                      9 July 2013

 

 

Works Report No. W30/13

 

 

Subject:                  Parking of Trailers

Folder No:                   F2008/00499

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

On 27 November, 2012, the Council resolved on a Mayoral Minute

 

‘(Mayor, Cr Bowen) that:

 

a)     Randwick City Council call upon the State Government to introduce the appropriate legislation in order to address the ongoing problems associated with the parking of trailers in high density residential areas; and

 

b)     the Mayor of Randwick City Council inform the Mayor of Woollahra that Randwick City Council appreciates the efforts being undertaken by Woollahra Council to address the issue of trailer parking in residential areas.

 

c)     that Mayor writes to the Members for Coogee and Maroubra to ask them to work together to champion this matter in parliament.’

 

As a result of representations from many local Councils, Transport for NSW established a Boat Trailer Working Group to examine the issue of boat trailers parking on the public road, particularly in highly pressured parking areas.  A discussion paper (attached) has been released. 

 

Issues

 

Many Coastal Councils, especially in those areas where parking is under significant pressure, grapple with the issue of boat trailers occupying parking spaces.  Local residents in such areas, often expressed strong concerns to their local councils asking that something be done about the impact on parking supply of the boat trailers. Whilst ever the trailers remained registered they are entitled to park on the public road.  As such, councils can take no action against such trailers.  The Boat Trailer Working Group discussion report and options paper examines in detail the position of councils, RMS, and the Police.

 

Currently any oversize vehicles (longer than 7.5 metres or greater that 4.5 tonne) are prohibited from parking on roads in built up areas, for more than one hour.  So, larger trailers can be managed.  Also, there is a process for the management of unregistered vehicles, including trailers.

 

The challenge for the NSW government is to implement controls which apply to the areas where local councils have concerns.  Most councils in NSW do not experience any issues with boats being parked on the road.  For example, rural councils and outer urban councils do not experience the significant parking pressures that inner Sydney councils or coastal Sydney councils experience. 

 

It is proposed that Randwick City Council make a submission along the following lines:

 

·      That legislation be adopted enabling each council to choose to opt into a trailer parking control process. 

·      Those councils (such as Randwick) which choose to opt in to such a process can then nominate the suburbs within its local government area to which the process would apply. 

·      Those councils which experience no problems with the parking of trailers can choose to not participate in such a process. 

·      Once a suburb is nominated (and advertised in the Government Gazette) the council would be able to issue warning notices to the owners of any trailers parked longer than 72 hours (three days).   This notice would give the owner a further 7 day period in which they must remove that trailer from that suburb for a period of at least 28 days.   

·      If the owner chooses not to relocate the trailer a prescribed fine could result. 

 

Having a process established which allows councils to opt in or not, provides flexibility throughout the State.  Also the ability to nominate the suburbs to which the process applies creates flexibility within each LGA.  For example, Randwick City Council may choose to opt in and have such a control applying to Clovelly, Coogee, Randwick and South Coogee, where parking pressures are great and boat trailer parking can be common.  Boat owners in the other suburbs of Randwick LGA, where parking pressures are less, can continue to park their boats on the public road.

 

The intent of having a formalised warning process established is to remove the requirement of having expansive ‘trailer limitation’ signage regimes in each and every street of a nominated suburb.  Such signage would not only be an installation and ongoing maintenance expense but would also significantly detract from the aesthetics of our coastal suburbs.  A formal warning issued to the registered owner of the boat ensures that they have seven days in which to move the boat and that it must not return to that suburb for 21 days.  Such an impost on the on-street parking of boats in nominated suburbs would likely result in the boat owner seeking off-street parking for their boat, or, relocating their boat to another area which (as the council has not nominated it) has less parking pressure. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       A range of transport choices will enable effective movement: to, from and around our City.

Direction 9d:      Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic management.

Financial impact statement

 

There would be no financial impact on the Council apart from some ongoing monitoring of trailer parking.  However, there may be a commensurate generation of income due to infringement notices being issued.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal outlined above provides flexibility for each council to choose to participate or not.  It also provides flexibility in nominating the areas of its LGA where such a process should be applied.  Introduction of such a process would likely make the long term parking of a trailer in nominated areas problematic.  This would encourage trailer owners to seek alternative parking arrangements.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That a submission be made to Transport for NSW regarding the control of trailer parking, along the lines indicated within the report.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Transport of NSW Boat Trailer Working Group Discussion report and options paper

Included under separate cover