BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

Meeting

 

 

 

   Tuesday 30 April 2019    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council		1300 722 542
30 Frances Street			council@randwick.nsw.gov.au
Randwick NSW 2031			www.randwick.nsw.gov.au
 



Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council meeting of Randwick City Council will be held in the Council Chambers, 1st Floor, 90 Avoca St, Randwick on Tuesday, 30 April 2019 at 6pm

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia. Amen”

Acknowledgement of Country

I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the land of the Bidjigal and the Gadigal peoples who occupied the Sydney Coast, being the traditional owners.  On behalf of Randwick City Council, I acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders past and present, and to Aboriginal people in attendance today.

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Committee Minutes from Feb/Mar 2018 - were the final meetings of these Committees prior to Council resolving, on 27 Mar 2018, to discontinue the various committees. Oversight resulted in these Minutes not being presented to the April 2018 Council meeting for confirmation.

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Environment Committee – 13 February 2018

Administration and Finance Committee – 13 March 2018

Works Committee – 13 March 2018

Planning Committee – 13 March 2018

Ordinary Council - 26 March 2019

Extraordinary Council - 2 April 2019

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council 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 69 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Audio/video recording of meetings prohibited without permission;

A person may be expelled from a meeting for using, or having used, an audio/video recorder without the express authority of the Council.

Mayoral Minutes

Mayoral Minutes, if any, will be distributed on the night of the meeting.

Urgent Business

General Manager's Reports

GM4/19       Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20.................... 1

GM5/19       Partnership opportunity with NSW Department of Primary Industries on                 rock fishing safety workshops.......................................................................... 7

Director City Planning Reports

CP10/19      Development of strategies to protect native fauna........................................... 11

CP11/19      Review of Randwick Local Planning Panel...................................................... 17

CP12/19      Report for Variation to Development Standard under SEPP No.1 and                Clause 4.6 - 13 March - 4 April 2018............................................................... 63

Director City Services Reports

CS10/19      South Coogee to Kingsford - Cycling and Streetscape Improvements - Route Options Analysis............................................................................................ 67

CS11/19      Tram Lane, Randwick – Acquisition by Council of the privately owned               section of the laneway.................................................................................... 89

Director Corporate Services Reports

CO14/19      2019 National General Assembly of Local Government.................................... 91

CO15/19      Contingency Fund - status as at 31 March 2019.............................................. 93

CO16/19      Investment Report - March 2019..................................................................... 97

CO17/19      Code of Conduct.......................................................................................... 105

CO18/19      Code of Meeting Practice............................................................................. 231

CO19/19      Monthly Financial Report as at 31 March 2019............................................... 279

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM16/19      Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Urgent driver safety traffic measures in        Prince Edward Street, Malabar...................................................................... 289

NM17/19      Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Acknowledgement of contribution of Asian communities................................................................................................ 291

NM18/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Said - Update on opposition to proposed passenger     cruise ship terminal...................................................................................... 293

NM19/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Said - Apply for National Heritage Listing and Grant Program...................................................................................................... 295

NM20/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Declaration of Climate Emergency.............. 297

NM21/19      Notice of Motion from Crs Veitch, Matson and Shurey  – Greater Randwick        Urban Masterplan and Randwick Academic Health Science Centre Masterplan................................................................................................... 299

NM22/19      Notice of Motion from Crs Veitch, Matson and Shurey  – Review of Compulsory Acquisition process for the Randwick Campus Redevelopment...................... 301

NM23/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Destruction of Aboriginal Artefacts at the       CSELR stabling yard.................................................................................... 303

NM24/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Holding Small Scale Business Activations        in the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres.............................................. 305

NM25/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Dangar Street speeding issues................. 307

NM26/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Stripping of legislative power from Ministers         of Environment, Heritage and Local Government........................................... 309

NM27/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Dangerous roundabout - Dolphin and Arden Streets......................................................................................................... 311

NM28/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Alfreda Street beautification and uplift           capital work................................................................................................. 313

NM29/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Ethel Street parking issues....................... 315

NM30/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible next step for Council Fossil Fuel Divestment - Insurance companies............................................................... 317

NM31/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Said - Development applications in Banksmeadow   (Bayside Council)......................................................................................... 319  

Closed Session

Director City Services Report (record of voting required)

CS12/19      Des Renford Leisure Centre Pool Resurfacing - Tender No. T2019-14

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

 

CS13/19      Quotation for All Terrain Vehicles - Q2019-09

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

Director Corporate Services Reports  (record of voting required)

CO20/19      Cleaning and Inspection of Gross Pollutant Traps ansd Ancillary Services - Tender No. SSROC 2018-02

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

Therese Manns

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM4/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20

 

Folder No:                     F2018/03004

Author:                          Cherie Muir, Coordinator Integrated Planning     

 

 

Introduction

 

The apex of Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting framework is our 20-year Randwick City Plan. This Plan is the overarching document underpinned by the Resourcing Strategy and a suite of medium term strategic plans such as An Inclusive Randwick and the Recreational Needs Study.

 

Integrated Planning and Reporting Graphic

 

The Resourcing Strategy outlines how we will meet our obligations now and in the future, taking into account our workforce, our finances, our technology and our assets. The Strategy enables the delivery of services and projects to the community in a cohesive and sustainable way, and includes:

 

-     a Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP);

-     an Asset Management Strategy;

-     a Digital Strategy; and

-     a Workforce Plan.

 

In late 2017, following the Council election, Council underwent a review to measure the Plan’s progress and consider the changes in the community’s priorities, demographic information, Council’s new obligations, technological advances and ongoing studies, and modify the planning documents accordingly.

 

At the same time a new Financial Strategy was developed to resource the revised Randwick City Plan and Resourcing Strategy. This financial strategy encompassed the 7-year ‘Our Community our Future’ package of works and services and included a 3-year 19.85% permanent special rate variation, a new Port Botany Business rating sub-category and the utilisation of loan borrowings.

 

The beginning of term review of the City Plan saw major new projects proposed, offering our community facilities of scale and diversity while providing for intergenerational equity in their provision and resourcing, including projects such as the Heffron Centre development.

 

In late 2018 Council commenced comprehensive community engagement activities aimed at gauging the level of support for the continuation of the Environmental Levy temporarily for a further five years 2019-24.  In February 2019, with community support, Council lodged a 5-year temporary special variation application with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).   Council will be advised of IPART’s decision in mid-May 2019.

 

The Environmental Levy consultation period was open for seven weeks from 20 November 2018 to 9 January 2019.  During the consultation period Council concurrently exhibited updated Integrated Planning documents including the City Plan, Long Term Financial Plan and 2018-19 Operational Plan and Delivery Program in reflection of a proposed continuation of the Environmental Levy.

 

Towards the end of 2018, and in the preparation of the Operational Plan 2019-20, four of the City’s precinct committees put forward their annual requests for consideration. The priorities identified through these and other consultation activities have been incorporated into our planning and budget deliberations where possible.

 

The Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2019-20 is the second year of the 2018-21 Delivery Program.  The 2019-20 plans meets the requirements of s.404 and s.405 of the Local Government Act 1993 which specify the information that is to be included in a Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

 

All actions in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan are further detailed in internal departmental plans, project plans, service standards and individual work plans. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan are supported by integrated planning systems which include assignment of responsibility, timeframe of projects and key performance indicators for services. All actions are reported on and accountability is observed through quarterly reporting.

 

Issues

 

The Draft Operational Plan 2019-20 is aligned to the 2019-20 Draft Randwick City Council Budget, which is a detailed draft estimate of income and expenditure and the Draft Statement of Fees, Charges and Pricing Policy. These documents are provided under separate cover.

 

The first two sections of the Draft Operational Plan explain how our planning process works and how it is translated into action. The outcomes and directions from the City Plan and the actions from the Delivery Program are used to develop our one-year operational actions.

 

This is followed by the Key Activities section, which is organised according to our six themes. As in previous years, we have outlined our long and medium-term plans related to each theme to give readers a better sense of how we implement our planning and illustrate our long-term planning in action.

 

Our themes:

Responsible management

A prospering City

A sense of community

Moving around

Places for people

Looking after our environment

 

The final section ‘Our Budget 2019-20’, contains all of the statutory information required in the Local Government Act 1993, including Council’s 2019-20 Revenue Policy. Accountability for the ongoing Sustaining our City Program 2019-2024 is also included assuming that IPART will approve our application for a temporary special variation.  IPART will advise Council of its decision in mid-May 2019.

 

Activities

The activities detailed in the Draft Operational Plan and Budget aim to foster a sense of community and enhance the liveability of Randwick City. The plan is underpinned by a participatory democracy approach coupled with strong governance as outlined in the Responsible Management theme.

 

Activities range from the continued delivery of high quality services, projects and capital works; and initiatives through the Sustaining our City and Our Community Our Future programs. Some of the specific projects include construction of the South Maroubra Beach Surf Club amenities and car parks; upgrading Malabar Memorial Hall; undergrounding powerlines at The Spot, ongoing construction of the coastal walkway; and continued planning towards the Heffron Centre development.

 

Public exhibition

The draft Plan is required to be publically exhibited for a period of at least 28 days. The proposed exhibition period will run from 2 May - 30 May 2019 allowing time for collation and consideration of submissions before tabling the final Plan with the Council for adoption in June 2019.

 

We are planning to advertise the draft Plan during the exhibition period in the Southern Courier; as a subject of the Mayoral column; as a media release; as a feature in Scene magazine; on local bus shelters; and online on Council’s webpage, on our Your Say specialised consultation website www.yoursay.randwick.nsw.gov.au, a targeted e-News; and Facebook.

             

In addition, hard copies of the Draft Operational Plan and Budget will be displayed at our local libraries, the Administration Building customer service desk and the Des Renford Leisure Centre.

 

Budget 2019-20

The Draft 2019-20 Budget has been compiled in accordance with the Council’s adopted Resourcing Strategy (Asset Management Plans, Workforce Strategy, Digital Strategy and Long Term Financial Plan) and is based on the assumption that the Environmental Levy special variation application will be approved by IPART.   Should IPART refuse Council’s application, Council will revisit the 2019-20 draft Budget.

 

The following tables summarise the source and use of funds.

 

Table 1: Use of funds

 

Expenditure type

Amount ($)

Employee costs

67,453,618

Materials and contracts

38,701,238

Net Capital Expenditure

40,840,355

Other operating expenses

16,465,907

Loan Repayments

1,982,675

Total

165,443,793

 


 

Table 2: Source of funds

 

Revenue type

Amount ($)

Rates and annual charges

121,912,693

User fees and charges

19,383,413

Grants and contributions

10,158,351

Other revenues

8,736,643

Reserves

3,442,296

Investment Income

1,825,160

Total

165,458,556

 

The draft Budget for 2019-20 is balanced and sustainable, with a surplus of $14,763.

 

The major source of revenue for Randwick City Council is Rates and Annual Charges.

 

Rates

The Council’s rating policy is structured on an ‘ad valorem’ basis with all rateable properties within Randwick City categorised for rating as either residential or business. For each category, a minimum rate applies.

 

Environmental Levy

In 2004-05 the Minister for Local Government approved a five-year Environmental Levy then calculated at 6% of the Council’s overall rates income. In July 2009 and again in June 2014 the Levy was re-approved for a further five years. The continuation of the Levy over time has allowed Council to continue the Sustaining our City environmental program and fund a comprehensive range of programs and initiatives aimed at achieving a substantial enhancement of Randwick’s environment.

 

On 30 June 2019, Council will reduce its overall rates income by $4.45M in expiration (and finalisation) of the 2014-2019 temporary special variation.  In February 2019 Council applied to IPART for a temporary special rate variation to fund the Environmental Levy for a further five years 2019-2024. If approved, the special rate variation increase amount in 2019-20 will be $4.6M, representing 5.9% of general rates income in 2019-20.  

 

Domestic Waste Management Charge

Under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must make and levy an annual charge for providing domestic waste management services. Under s.504 of the Act, income from the charge must not exceed the reasonable cost to the Council of providing those services.

 

The domestic waste management charge is proposed to increase from $567.85 to $586.00 for each residential service in 2019-20.

 

The increased Domestic Waste Management Charge will provide for existing services, charges for tipping to landfill, the ongoing operation of the Perry Street Recycling Centre, continuation of Council’s Contaminated Site Remediation Program and Council’s commitment to Alternate Waste Technologies, in an effort to increase the amount of rubbish diverted from landfill.

 

Pensioner Rebates

The mandatory State Government pensioner rebate has remained unchanged since it was set at a maximum of $250.00 back in 1989. Originally the pensioner concession was 50% of the combined rates and domestic waste management charge, up to the maximum of $250.00.

 

Rates and charges have been indexed every year since the introduction of the $250.00 maximum rebate, however the pensioner rebate amount has remained static. It has been 20 years since the pensioner rebate last represented 50% of the combined rates and charges for a ratepayer on the minimum rate.

 

Council has previously lobbied the State Government to increase the statutory pensioner rebate amount on a number of occasions. The State Government response has consistently been that Council is free to offer additional concessions to eligible ratepayers, however any additional rebates would not be subsidised by the State Government.

 

Council has approximately 5,026 eligible pensioners, making up over 9.5% of all residential properties. The total cost of pensioner rebates is currently $1,183,750 per annum. From this total, the State Government provides a 55% subsidy totalling $651,062 per annum. This leaves an annual cost to Council of $532,688.

 

In 2018-19 Council increased the pensioner rebate by $75.00 to $325.00 per annum resulting in an additional annual cost of $335,125 (no State Government subsidy is received towards this additional rebate). The additional $75.00 is applied to the Domestic Waste Management Charge forming part of the annual domestic waste reasonable cost calculation, in accordance with s504 of the Local Government Act 1993.  In 2019-20 Council has resolved to further increase the additional rebate by $25.00 subject to IPART approval for the Environment Levy with the additional component to be funded from the Environment Levy.

 

Therefore, the 2019-20 Budget has been developed to include a total ‘additional pensioner rebate’ of $100.00 per annum for eligible pensioners from 1 July 2019, should the Environmental Levy continue.

 

Stormwater Management Service Charge

The Stormwater Management Service Charge was introduced in the 2008-09 financial year to establish a sustainable funding source for providing improved stormwater management across Randwick City. The amount chargeable has been prescribed under the Local Government Act 1993 at:

 

-     Residential property: $25 per annum (approximately 48 cents per week)

-     Residential strata property: $12.50 per annum (approximately 24 cents per week)

-     Business property: $25 per annum plus an additional $25 for each 350m or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m

-     Business strata property: calculated as per a Business property and apportioned by unit entitlement for business strata lot with a minimum charge of $5.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1: Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:         Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

Direction 1c:         Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Council is in a strong financial position with a sustainable and balanced budget, sufficient unrestricted cash and available working capital, strong liquidity, sufficient cash reserves, and a good debt collection ratio.

 

Conclusion

 

The Delivery Program 2018-21 saw major new projects proposed, offering our community facilities of scale and diversity while providing for intergenerational equity in their provision and resourcing.

 

The Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20 represents the second year of the current 2018-21 Delivery Program, as established through the City Plan review and outline the activities of the forthcoming year. Some of the specific projects include construction of the South Maroubra Beach Surf Club amenities and car parks; upgrading Malabar Memorial Hall; undergrounding powerlines at The Spot, ongoing construction of the coastal walkway; and continued planning towards the Heffron Centre development.

 

The 2019-20 Budget has been developed to include a total ‘additional pensioner rebate’ of $100.00 per annum for eligible pensioners from 1 July 2019 if the continuation of the Environmental Levy is approved, otherwise the additional pensioner rebate will remain at $75.

 

Following Council’s consideration of the Draft Operational Plan, it will be placed on public exhibition for 28 days over the period 2 May to 30 May 2019. The exhibition period will provide the community with time and information to consider the proposed 2019-20 activities while allowing for submissions and general feedback.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)      the Draft Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2019-20, which includes the 2019-20 Budget and associated Fees and Charges be placed on public exhibition for not less than 28 days, from  2 May to 30 May 2019, inviting submissions from the public;

 

b)      at the conclusion of the period of public exhibition a meeting of the Council is held to consider any submissions made concerning the draft Plan and Budget and consider the final 2019-20 Operational Plan and Budget; and

 

c)      the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes if required.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the 2019-20 Draft Operational Plan and Budget

 

2.

Link to the 2019-20 Draft Fees and Charges

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM5/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Partnership opportunity with NSW Department of Primary Industries on rock fishing safety workshops

 

Folder No:                     F2004/07086

Author:                          Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Primary Industries has approached Randwick City Council seeking a partnership to present a series of rock fishing safety workshops within the Randwick City Local Government Area.

 

The workshops are proposed to be held on Sunday 26 May 2019 and Sunday 16 June 2019 from 2-5pm at the Prince Henry Centre in Little Bay.

 

Issues

 

Since 2005 more than 100 people have died while rock fishing in NSW.

 

In Randwick City there have been 19 rock fishing deaths since 2001 making the Randwick City coastline the most treacherous in the country for rock fishing.

 

Randwick City Council has implemented a number of proactive initiatives in recent years to improve safety including:

-     Partnering with the NSW Government to trial compulsory lifejackets for rock fishers

-     Working with industry associations to communicate key safety information

-     Installing high impact ‘shock’ signs at rock fishing blackspots

-     Conducting multilingual surveys of rock fishers about behavior and safety

-     Installing live beach cams to broadcast beach conditions

-     Hosting free rock fishing safety workshops and given out free lifejackets to rock fishers

 

Randwick Council was the first NSW Council to trial new laws requiring the compulsory wearing of lifejackets for rock fishers. These laws were introduced following the recommendations of a Coronial Inquest in June 2015.

 

Since the legislation was introduced permanently on 1 June 2018, seven other coastal council areas have opted into the legislation (Northern Beaches, Richmond Valley, Sutherland Shire, Ballina Shire, Port Stephens, Lake Macquarie and Central Coast).

 

Proposed workshops

 

The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is seeking Council’s support to partner with them to present a series of rock fishing safety workshops.

 

The DPI will:

-     arrange and fund experienced presenters to present and facilitate the workshops;

-     provide prizes and vouchers for free lifejackets to attendees;

-     arrange displays and information related to fishing regulation such as bag limits; and

-     provide draft artwork that can be adapted or modified by Council.

 

Council’s contribution would be to provide:

-     A suitable venue in your LGA;

-     Advertising for the event through your social media channels, website, local media, email bulletins, print advertising and media releases

-     Management of bookings for the workshop through a suitable online booking platform such as the free platform Eventbrite.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6                     A liveable city.

Direction 6c:                   The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programs and strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of waiving the hiring fees for the Prince Henry Centre on Sunday 26 May 2019 and Sunday 16 June 2019 from 2-5pm would be $2,930 in foregone revenue. Actual staffing costs and cleaning costs associated with the event would be $2098.70 and this would be charged to the Department of Primary Industries.

 

There would be no direct financial impact for Council to communicate the workshops through our existing communication channels.

 

There would be an impact on staff time to provide design and communication services and to manage the bookings for the events, which can be accommodated within existing workloads.

 

Conclusion

 

Supporting additional rock fishing safety workshops targeted at beginner and intermediate fishers would directly contribute to improving safety. Previous workshops have been successful and fully booked.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council agree to partner with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to present a series of free rock fishing safety workshops for the community.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Email 29 March 2019 - NSW DPI Fisheries - Partnering on rock fishing safety workshops in your LGA

 

 

 

 


Email 29 March 2019 - NSW DPI Fisheries - Partnering on rock fishing safety workshops in your LGA

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP10/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Development of strategies to protect native fauna

 

Folder No:                     F2004/06846

Author:                          Allan Graham, Coordinator Regulatory Projects     

 

 

Introduction

 

At its Ordinary Meeting held on the 25 September 2018, Council resolved, that:

 

”(Neilson/Veitch) that:

 

1)       Council, in the interest of protecting native habitat and fauna, set up a committee or working group to look into issues such as:

 

•    keeping cats inside and confined, especially at night 

•    higher registration fees

•    ways of curbing feral cats and foxes.

•    applying the same penalties to owners for allowing their cats to run free or defecate in public places or neighbouring properties as already apply to dogs.

•    a study of the state of play with native fauna in our area

•    promoting WIRES so more people join in helping rescue and rehabilitate native fauna injured by dogs, cats and cars.

 

2)       Council promote a more vigorous education campaign to protect native fauna.

 

3)       such a strategy might include setting up a committee or holding a workshop with, for example, Prof Mike Archer UNSW invited to participate.”

 

It is the purpose of this Report to inform the Council of the actions undertaken by Council officers to address the above Resolution, including recommendations which are aimed at raising awareness for promoting the protection of native fauna and promoting domestic cat welfare in the urban environment through responsible pet ownership.

 

Executive Summary

 

It is acknowledged that the domestic cat (Felis catus), along with its feral counterpart, is a predatory animal.  Some studies suggest that the Australian cat population kills a substantial number of native vertebrates each year and is a major contributor to declining populations of some threatened native species.  However, unlike their feral counterpart, studies indicate that the diet of domestic cats is predominately derived from human provided food sources and the impact on native animals is largely determined by the proximity and make-up of the surrounding urban habitat.

 

As required by the above resolution, Council officers convened a working group to examine the key issues relating to domestic cat control, including the current regulatory framework, the effectiveness of containment, management of semi-owned and stray cat populations and other strategies that may assist in promoting responsible cat ownership and protect native animals from cat predation. The working group comprised Council’s regulatory officers as well as Council’s Bushland and Coastal walk Supervisor.

 

It is Council officers’ view that the best outcomes will be achieved by an approach that educates and promotes responsible cat ownership supported by regulation that incentivises the desexing of cats and reduces predation.  Responsible pet ownership through education, sensible regulation and with greater support for animal welfare and volunteer organisations to run programs such as Trap, Neuter, and Release programs will provide the best prospects for, humanely, stabilising and reducing semi-owned and stray cat populations. 

 

Acknowledgement

 

Council officers would like to acknowledge the contribution of Professor Helen Swarbrick.  Helen is a Professor at the School of Optometry and Vision at the University of New South Wales and is the President of Campus Cats NSW (Registered Animal Welfare Charity) and a Community Cat Liaison with the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation.

 

Helen has been instrumental in the successful implementation of the stray cat management program at the UNSW over the last decade.  This program has reduced the stray cat population at the UNSW Kensington Campus by almost 90% by non-lethal means.

 

Helen has also had interaction with Hornsby Shire Council and the City of Sydney in an advisory capacity in respect to cat management issues.

 

Council officers wish to thank Helen for sharing her expertise and insights with urban cat management issues.

 

Population

 

According the NSW Companion Animals Register there are 11,864 registered cats in the Randwick LGA.  This compares with 20,261 registered dogs.  Data compiled by the RSPCA indicates that 38% of Australian household own a dog with 29% of households owning a cat.

 

There is no sure way of estimating how many semi-owned or stray cats are in the Randwick LGA. However, cat population densities depend on a number of factors such as the abundance or available food sources and how easily those food source can be exploited.  Not surprisingly the highest density of unowned cat populations are in areas associated with humans where these animals can exploit resource rich habitats or where humans intentionally provide them with food. 

 

Semi-owned and stray cats are animals that were once owned which have either been abandoned or lost and make-up the largest sub-group of cats (larger than the feral and owned cat sub-group) in Australia. 

 

As suggested throughout this report, public awareness and responsible pet ownership programs which promote registration, early desexing, encourage people who feed unowned cats to take full ownership including microchipping and desexing are a key component of not only reducing the number of unwanted cats but will also provide the best prospects for humanely stabilising and, over time, reduce semi-owned and stray cat populations. 

 

The Regulatory Framework

 

The Companion Animals Act 1998 (CAA), is the relevant NSW legislation that provides for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals as its principal objective.  Cats are, relevantly, a companion animal as defined by the CAA (as too are dogs).  In respect to public policy regarding animal welfare s. 4 of the CAA provides that ‘It is declared that the protection of native birds and animals is an objective of animal welfare policy in the State.’

 

Part 2 of the CAA provides for the compulsory identification and registration of companion animals.  The CAA, at Part 4, provides for the responsibilities for the control of cats, including, identification requirements, and the prohibition of cats in certain public places, nuisance cat provisions and action that can be taken against cat owners to protect persons and animals.  Part 7 of the CAA prescribes the procedures for dealing with seized or surrendered animals.  Part 9 of the CAA make provisions for the registration of companion animals and the administration of the State companion animals register.

 

Importantly, the CAA was recently amended[1] after the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Companion Animal Breeding Practices in New South Wales conducted in 2015.  As part of this reform package the amendments to the CAA will introduce an annual permit system for cats that are not desexed by 4 months of age and will commence on the 1 July 2019.  This will replace the one-off registration fee that currently applies to these cats providing greater incentive to desex these animals.  A person who does not obtain a requisite permit commits an offence which attracts a maximum penalty of $550.

 

Importantly, NSW companion animal legislation while providing a mechanism to address nuisance cat issues, it does not limit how many cats at person can own or provide offences for roaming cats. Nevertheless, Council has powers to give specific animal related Orders under the Local Government Act 1993, to limit the number or kind of birds and animals that are kept at premises[2].  However, this power may only be exercised by Council where an owner or occupier of a premises is keeping an inappropriate number of animal which is causing a public or private nuisance.  Where it is appropriate to give such Orders this power is exercised in accordance with Council’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy[3].

 

Fees

 

The following are the current fees for the registration of companion animals (prescribed by cl. 18 of the Companion Animals Regulation 2018):

 

-      Desexed animal: $57

-      Non-desexed animal: $207

-      Breeder concession: $57

-      Pensioner concession (desexed animal only): $24

-      Desexed animal sold by eligible pound/shelter: $28.50

 

Penalties

 

There are, essentially, 3 offences contained in the CAA in respect to the responsible control of cats.  A cat must be identifiable by a local authority.  It is an offence for a cat to be in a prohibited public place.  The owner of a cat is guilty of an offence for not complying with a nuisance cat order.  All of the abovementioned offences carry a maximum penalty of $880.[4]

 

Cat Containment

 

The CAA does not contain any provisions which enable Council to ban, confine (e.g. at night time) or limit the number of cats except in ‘public’ areas that are declared Wildlife protection areas or that are Food preparation/consumption areas.

 

Research suggests that domestic cat containment policies can reduce impacts of domestic cat predation on local native fauna particularly in areas that are in close proximity to native habitat.  Containment also has cat welfare benefits by reducing incidents of injury from traffic, fighting and acts of human cruelty.

 

In jurisdictions where cat containment areas have been established through regulation, such as the ACT, notwithstanding the ability to impose legislative sanctions through compliance and enforcement, little in the way of policing is conducted.  Predominately, this is because compliance programs are difficult to implement without targeted objectives and sufficient funding. Without additional regulatory provisions and sufficient and targeted resource allocation Council is not in a position to conduct cat containment compliance and enforcement. 

 

Council officers do not recommend that Council pursues cat containment regulation.  Broader voluntary cat containment through community awareness programs that promote responsible pet ownership is viewed to be the most effective policy instrument.

 

Compulsory Identification and Registration

 

As outlined earlier in this report, the CAA prescribes the compulsory identification and registration of companion animals (dogs and cats). The CAA requires that all companion animals must be ‘microchipped’ (microchipping is known as the permanent identification of an animal) by 12 weeks of age or prior to being sold.

 

The owner of a companion animal must register that animal from the time the animal is 6 months of age. It is an offence for an owner of a companion animal not to have that animal ‘identified” and ‘registered’ in accordance with the CAA.

 

In addition to the ‘identification’ and ‘registration’ requirements, it is an offence for an owner of a dog not to have a collar around the dog’s neck of which there must be attached to the collar a name tag that shows the name of the dog and the address or telephone number of the owner of the dog.

 

Unlike the requirements for a dog to wear a ‘collar and tag’ it is not a mandatory requirement for a cat to wear a collar and tag. It is sufficient for a cat to be identifiable by a microchip alone. 

 

Education

 

Responsible cat ownership will increase by changing community attitudes through promoting a greater understanding of the value of cats as pets, the impact that cats have on native wildlife, the acceptance of best practice ownership and care measures and the awareness of the benefits of these measures including the benefits of early age large scale cat desexing.

 

Well designed and targeted education programs work hand-in-hand with regulation.  Whilst regulation, importantly, sets acceptable legal requirements for cat owners it is not by itself effective in addressing cat population (more broadly), nuisance and predatory issues.

 

To address these issues more emphasis needs to be placed on community education and support programs which encourage and promote best-practice cat ownership principles. As such, there is an opportunity for Council to undertake a community awareness campaign that promotes best-practice cat ownership.

 

Supporting & Promoting Animal Welfare

 

Given the important role that Council plays as the relevant authority responsible for the ‘on-the-ground’ enforcement of domestic cat legislation it is the view of Council officers that pivotal to this role is working closely with a range of stakeholders such as cat owners, breeders, veterinarians, conservation groups and animal welfare organisations.

 

An aim of the Council, as the regulator, should be to engage with these stakeholders to assist and where possible facilitate or coordinate community based activities that promote responsible cat ownership.  Council should also take the opportunity to work collaboratively with local cat rescue groups and wildlife rescue groups such as WIRES.

 

These types of collaborations are beneficial in protecting and assisting injured wildlife, provide guidance for best-practice cat management, community awareness and preventing the euthanasia of healthy, treatable animals.

 

Council should also be open to participating in relevant domestic cat (owned, semi-owned and stray) management research projects.  Adding to the scientific knowledge base through research is proving to be an increasingly important component of well-informed public policy development for non-lethal urban cat management strategies. 

 

Wildlife Protection Areas

 

Pursuant to s. 30(1) of the CAA, Council has the power to prohibit cats in certain public places.  Under these provisions Council can establish Wildlife protection areas[5] but currently has not done so in the City of Randwick.  Establishing Wildlife protection areas in locations such as the Randwick Environmental Park may, potentially, reduce cat predation in areas that provide natural habitat for native fauna.

 

It is a recommendation of this report that Council consider the identification and assessment of any suitable public places that provide habitat for native fauna which may benefit by being established as Wildlife protection areas.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:         A healthy environment.

Direction 10b:       Policies and programs are developed and implemented in response to environmental risks and their potential impacts.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council resolve to conduct a responsible cat ownership public awareness campaign this would cost approximately $5,000.00.

 

Conclusion

 

It is the view of Council officers the best way to address what is a complex animal management issue is by promoting responsible cat ownership.  If the international research is accurate or at the very least reflective of what may be occurring in Australia it is likely that there is a significant unowned and semi-owned cat population in the City of Randwick like there is in most urban areas throughout the world.  Studies suggest that it is this cat population (and the feral counterpart) that is responsible for the predation that has the most impact of native wildlife.  This, of course, is a broad statement and comes with the caveat that there has been little research conducted in Australia (and none in the Randwick LGA) that can accurately quantify the existence of the various cat populations in the Randwick LGA or their environmental impact.

 

What we do know is that it is the cat population that is unregulated (the unowned, semi-owned, stray and feral) cat-subgroups that are likely to be problematic. The best way to reduce this particular sub-group of cats, or at least attempt not to add to it, is through greater public awareness that promotes responsible cat ownership and the benefits of early desexing.

 

Increased regulation is viewed as unnecessary and will do little to impact the unowned and semi-owned (unregulated) cat population.  Nevertheless, there has been some strengthening around the regulation of non-desexed cats with the introduction of an annual permit system which commences on the 1 July 2019.  As the ‘responsible local authority’ Council will administer the permit system for non-desexed cats in the City of Randwick as part of Council’s CAA functions.

 

It is Council officers’ further view that Council should work with animal welfare organisations and be on the “look-out” to participate, where appropriate, in studies and research around urban cat control.  Council should also contemplate identifying areas of the City that may benefit by establishing Wildlife protection areas.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

1.        Council develop and implement a public awareness program which promotes responsible cat ownership, including strategies to reduce cat predation of native fauna at an estimated cost of $5,000; and

 

2.    Council identify and assess the suitability of locations within the City that could potentially be established as Wildlife protection areas pursuant to s. 31(1)(b) of the Companion Animals Act 1998.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP11/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Review of Randwick Local Planning Panel

 

Folder No:                     F2018/00147

Author:                          Emma Fitzroy, Executive Planner     

 

 

Introduction

 

The Randwick Local Planning Panel (Panel) was established on 1 March 2018. It is responsible for determining certain development applications and providing advice on planning proposals.

 

Local planning panels (commonly referred to as Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels) are mandatory for all councils in Sydney and Wollongong.

 

In its first year of operation, the Panel:

-     held 13 public meetings

-     determined 76 applications

-     considered 2 planning proposals; and

-     heard 144 representations from councillors, objectors and applicants.

 

This report reviews the Panel’s performance over the past year and details changes that have been made to improve effectiveness and efficiency. The report is divided into 5 Parts.

-     Part 1 – Panel function and procedures

-     Part 2 – Statistics

-     Part 3 – Surveys

-     Part 4 – Concerns and Issues

   Part 5 – Powers of Council

 

All statistics given in this report are for the first year of operation (1 March 2018 to 28 February 2019).

 

Legislative framework

 

The Panel was established under Part 2, Division 2.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act).

 

The function and operation of the Panel are governed by the Act and the following associated Directions issued by the Minister under Section 9.1 of the Act:

 

-     Local Planning Panels Direction - Development Applications

-     Local Planning Panels Direction - Planning Proposals

-     Local Planning Panels Direction - Operational Procedures

-     Local Planning Panels Direction - Appointment of new members

-     Local Planning Panels Direction - Naming Local Planning Panels

 

Further, all Panel member are required to comply with the Code of Conduct for Local Planning Panel Members.

 

The Panel has adopted a set of Guidelines titled ‘The Randwick Local Planning panel Guidelines’ that details how the Panel is to operate. The guidelines incorporate the relevant procedural provisions from the Act and associated directions.

 


 

PART 1 – PANEL FUNCTION AND PROCEDURES

This section provides an overview of the current referral criteria and panel procedures. It also notes where changes have been made to improve effectiveness and efficiency

 

1.1       Referral criteria

 

1.1.1     Development applications

The Local Planning Panels Direction - Development Applications, specifies the development applications that must be referred to the panel for determination. The triggers for referral include:

 

1.   Conflict of Interest

Development for which the applicant or land owner is:

a)   the council,

b)   a councillor,

c)   a member of council staff who is principally involved in the exercise of council's functions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

d)   a member of Parliament, or

e)   a relative (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993) of a person referred to in (b) to (d).

Note: some exclusions apply

 

2.   Contentious development

Development that is the subject of 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection.

 

3.   Departure from standards

Development that contravenes a development standard by more than 10%

 

4.   Sensitive development

·        Designated development

·        Development to which SEPP 65 applies

·        Development involving the demolition of a heritage item

·        Development for the purpose of new licensed premises that will require a club license, hotel (general bar) license or on-premises licenses.

·        Development for the purpose of sex services premises and restricted premises

·        Development applications for which the developer has offered to enter into a planning agreement

Council staff do not have power to determine any of the above applications unless the Panel delegates determination of a particular application back to Council staff.

 

1.1.2     Modification applications

The direction requires each Council to determine their own referral criteria for modification applications. The General Manager has adopted the following criteria:

 

1.   applications to modify development consents made under Section 4.55(2) of the Act where the Panel granted the original development consent;

2.   applications to modify development consents made under Section 4.56 of the Act where the proposed modification is not of minimal environmental impact and the original development consent was granted by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales after the development application to which the consent relates was determined by the Panel;

3.   applications to modify development consents where there is a conflict of interest of the kind identified in the Section 9.1 direction.

4.   applications to modify development consents where 10 or more unique submissions (by way of objection have been made.

 

The General Manager has authority to delegate determination of any of the above applications back to Council staff if determination by the Panel is considered unnecessary in the particular circumstances.

 

A total of 7 modification applications were determined by the Panel in the first year of operation.

 

1.1.3     Discretionary referrals

In addition to the above, Council has received legal advice that suggests that the General Manager has discretion to refer additional applications to the Panel for determination. The following discretionary referral procedures have been adopted:

 

a)   Discretionary sub-delegation to the RLPP may only be exercised if:

 

-     There is a potential conflict of interest (including but not limited to an objector being a member of council planning staff or a Councillor directly affected by the development); AND/OR

-     The General Manager considers that the application has potential significant impacts on the broader community and determination by the panel would be in the public interest.

 

b)   Any discretionary sub-delegation to the panel must be accompanied by a statement signed by the General Manager that provides reasons why determination by the panel is in the public interest.

 

The General Manager has only exercised these discretionary powers on two occasions.

 

Figure 1 below shows the key triggers for referral to the panel. It is noted that some items were captured by more than one referral criteria.

 

Figure 1: Number of items captured by each referral criteria

 

The main triggers for referral have been departures from a development standard and sensitive development (primarily residential flat buildings which trigger SEPP 65).

 

1.2          Meeting procedures

The Panel typically meets at Council to commence site visits at 9:30am on the morning of the meeting. They then return to Council at 12:00pm and meet with relevant Council staff to discuss any issues that require clarification.

 

The public meeting commences at 1pm and is then closed or adjourned after all speakers have been heard. Deliberation and voting is then undertaken for all matters on the agenda.

 

1.2.1     Deliberations and Voting

In December last year, the RLPP Guidelines were reviewed to ensure that panel processes reflected current best practice and incorporated relevant legislative requirements. Amended Guidelines were adopted by the Panel on 13 December 2018.

 

One of the key matters considered in the review was the deliberation and voting process.

 

Part 3 of the Local Planning Panels Direction – Operational Procedures and Section 4.3 of the IHAP Overview issued by the Department of Planning and Environment, allows for the chair to choose how to manage deliberations and voting. The options include:

 

1.   Deliberate, vote and make a determination in the public meeting;

2.   Adjourn the public meeting to deliberate and reconvene the meeting for voting and determination; or

3.   Close the public meeting, deliberate, vote and then notify the public of the outcomes outside the public meeting.

 

Prior to the amended Guidelines being adopted in December, the public meeting was adjourned for deliberations and then reconvened for voting (option 2). However, it was noted that returning to the public meeting for voting was not adding significant value to the process as very few (if any) people waited to hear the outcome and see the vote. As such, the Panel decided to amend the Guidelines to allow the public meeting to be closed prior to deliberations and voting (option 3). Notwithstanding this, the amended Guidelines allow for an application to be determined using options 1 or 2, if it is thought appropriate by the chair at a particular meeting.

 

The amended Guidelines also require all panel members to review and sign the written minutes after each meeting. This will ensure that the transparency and integrity of the process is maintained.

 

1.2.2     Community participation

A total of 144 representations from Councillors, objectors and applicants were heard by the Panel at the first 13 meetings. At least one Councillor has been present at every meeting.

 

The Guidelines allow one person to speak against and another to speak for each application. They also allow any Councillor to speak on any matter.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the chair has discretion to approve additional speakers. To date, no requests to speak have been refused by the chair.

 

1.2.3     Conflicts of Interest

Panel members have been required to declare any conflicts of interests at every Panel meeting. In every case that conflict has been declared, the member with the conflict has not been present when that matter was discussed or voted on.

 

The minute’s record when a conflict is declared and a copy of the submitted declaration is placed on Council’s website.

 

PART 2 – STATISTICS

 

2.1       Number of applications considered by the Panel

Over the first year of operation, the panel has determined 68 development applications, 7 modification applications and 1 review.

 

Figure 2 below compares the number and type of applications that have been referred to the Panel with those referred to Council in the year immediately prior to the Panel commencing operation. It can be seen that the number of development applications determined by the Panel and Council is very similar; however, Council determined a significantly greater number of modification applications.

Figure 2: Number of type of applications referred to Council and the Panel

 

2.1.1     Items considered at each meeting

A total of 81 matters have been considered by the Panel over 13 public meetings. This includes 2 deferred items that were considered at a public meeting twice, 1 item that was not determined as of 28 February 2019 and 2 planning proposals. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 8 matters have been considered at each meeting.

 

Figure 3 below shows the number of items that have been considered at each meeting.

 

Figure 3: Matters considered at each Panel meeting

 

The Institute for Public Policy and Governance at UTS was commissioned by the Department of Planning and Environment to prepare a Local Planning Panels Evaluation half-year report (April to September 2018). A copy of this report is attached.

 

The report states that all 34 Panels across greater Sydney and Wollongong have been established and are operational. It also notes that ‘According to the data available, 251 IHAP meetings have been conducted and panels have considered 875 DAs (with 840 determinations made)’

 

This suggests that the average number of matters being considered by Panels at each meeting is less than 4. Therefore the Randwick Local Planning Panel is consistently considering more than the average for all Panels at each meeting.

 

Some members of the Randwick Local Planning Panel have raised concerns regarding the number of items on the agenda for each meeting and the associated duration of the panel meetings.

 

The Panel typically commences site visits at 9:30am on the morning of the meeting. The duration of the meeting then varies depending on the number and complexity of applications being determined with the earliest finish time in the first year being 4:17pm and the latest 8:30pm.

 

To address the concerns raised by the Panel and ensure that the Panel members are able to give each item on the agenda adequate consideration, the number of items considered at each meeting is now being limited to 6 (unless the items are straightforward matters).

 

2.1.2     Determination through the circulation of documents electronically

The Act allows for the Panel to transact any of its business through the circulation of papers (electronically or in hard copy) among the members of the panel. A resolution approved in writing by a majority of those members is taken to be a decision of the panel.

 

2 of the 6 matters deferred by the Panel at a public meeting were later approved by the panel through the circulation of papers electronically.

 

2.2       Resolutions

Figure 4 below shows the resolutions from the Panel:

 

Figure 4: Panel resolutions

 

72% of all applications determined have been approved, 25% have been refused and 3% issued with deferred commencement approval

 

As of 28 February 2019, 5 of the 6 matters that were deferred by the Panel (to allow for amended plans/additional details to be submitted) had already been referred back to the panel for determination:

-     2 were approved by the panel at subsequent meeting

-     2 were approved by the Panel through circulation of amended details to the panel electronically; and

-     1 was approved at a special meeting of the panel.

 

On 28 February 2019, the remaining 1 matter had not yet been determined. However, it has now also been approved by the Panel through circulation of the amended details electronically.

 

Figure 5 below compares the final resolutions of the Panel with the resolutions from Council (deferred commencement approvals have been combined with regular approvals). The Comparison shows that the Council approved 95% of all applications considered whilst the Panel approved 75%.

 

Figure 5: Council and Panel recommendations

 

A comparison of the determinations for Residential Flat Buildings (Class 2 buildings) is provided in Figure 6 below. This shows that Council approved 96% of applications for class 2 buildings whilst the Panel approved 80%.

Figure 6: Council and Panel recommendations for Residential Flat Buildings

 

2.2.1     Consistency with Council officer’s recommendations

5 Panel resolutions were contrary to the assessment officer’s recommendation. In 2 of these cases Council recommended approval and the Panel issued a deferred commencement approval, in the other 3 cases, the assessing officer’s report recommended approval and the panel resolution was for refusal.

 

The panel did not approve any applications that were recommended for refusal.

 

Of the 71 panel resolutions that were consistent with the assessment officer’s recommendation, 29 included variations to conditions of consent.

 

The quality of resolutions from the Panel has been high, with each matter being given detailed consideration by the Panel. The ‘Local Planning Panels Evaluation half-year report’ prepared by the Institute for Public Policy and Governance at UTS states:

 

Collected data indicates that a high-level of expertise and familiarity with planning controls is being brought to the local development determination process. All chairs and experts have expertise in one or more of the 11 specified areas, with expertise most strongly concentrated in the planning, and government and public administration fields.

 

2.2.2     Land and Environment Court Appeals

A total 7 appeals have been lodged against Panel determinations. Details of these appeals is provided in the table below:

 

DA number

Address

Assessing officers recommendation

Determination by Panel

Judgement

DA/434/2018

238-242 Alison Road, Randwick

Approval

Refusal

Still in court

DA/768/2017

25 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Approval

Refusal

Still in court

DA/427/2016/B

 

212 Arden Street

Refusal

Refusal

Still in court

 

131 Mount Street, Coogee

Refusal

Refusal

Appeal upheld (based on amended plans)

DA/678/2017

 

20 Glen Ave, Randwick

Refusal

Refusal

Still in court

DA/30/2018

 

118-120 Garden St, Maroubra

Refusal

Refusal

Still in court

DA/510/2018

 

6 Fenton Ave, Maroubra

Refusal

Refusal

Still in court

 

Given that only one appeal has been determined, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the success of appeals against panel determinations. The one judgement (wherein the appeal was upheld) was made after the original appeal plans were amended to address contentions raised by Council and agreed consent orders were prepared.

 

PART 3 – SURVEYS

 

3.1       Department of Planning and Environment Community survey

In January this year the Department of Planning and Environment (Department) commissioned a comprehensive survey to gauge community views on Local Planning Panels. This survey was promoted through Council’s website; however the results were delivered straight to UTS’ Institute for Public Policy and Governance (who were engaged to the conduct the survey on behalf of the Department). The Department of have advised that the full results from this survey are expected to be released in May/June.

 

Notwithstanding, the Department have kindly forwarded Council the results from Randwick. A total of 24 responses were received from Randwick residents; however, most of the respondents did not answer all of the questions. The comments below are based on the responses.

 

The results show a significant disparity in the attitude of the community towards the Panel. Whilst the majority (12) appeared to agree that ‘IHAP’s are an appropriate way to determine certain development applications, some (9) strongly disagreed.

 

The majority of respondents appeared to be owners/residents who had made a submission and most nominated that the outcome was not what they had hoped for. This appears to have influenced the tone of the survey with respondents suggesting that that their experience with the panel fell short of expectations and rating the level of expertise of the Panel as poor. The majority also felt that they were inadequately informed about the new IHAP system.

 

Council has not yet received any of the comments that were submitted with the survey so it is difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the concerns. Dissatisfaction with an outcome is sometimes unavoidable (as the applicant seeks an approval and an objector generally seeks refusal). However, a better understanding of the role and function of the Panel will develop over time.

 

3.2       Kaldas review

In July 2018, Nick Kaldas APM, was appointed to conduct an independent review of the governance of decision-making within the NSW planning system. He was requested to review the integrity of decision making in the NSW planning system, and to look at the progress of the newly introduced system of Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs).

 

Following this review, he prepared a report titled ‘Review of Governance in the NSW Planning System’. In this report he states:

 

Even though the mandatory IHAPs are in their early days I am of the firm view they reduce the potential for corruption, and ensure more consistent, rigorous and merit-based decision-making.  The vast majority of stakeholders I consulted view the introduction of mandatory IHAPs in the Sydney metropolitan area and Wollongong as an overwhelmingly positive change, and they saw it as a highly beneficial step in enhancing the planning system.

 

PART 4: CONCERNS AND ISSUES

 

4.1       Complaints

Council has received one complaint regarding the performance of the Panel. The complaint raises concerns regarding how DA’s are processed, and refers to ‘ridiculous’ decisions made by the Panel.

 

The Panel is comprised of a chair, two experts and one community representative. With the exception of the community representatives, all of the members appointed to the RLLP are required to be experts in Town Planning (or other related field).

 

Whilst the community will not always agree with the decisions that are made, the Panel consistently endeavors to use their experience and expertise to make a sound decision. If any member has a conflict of interest, they are not permitted to be in attendance when that matter is being discussed to ensure that decisions are made impartially on the merits of the application.

 

Sometimes applicants are not happy with these decisions (especially if it means time consuming amendments) and on other occasions objectors may not be happy if it means approval of a development that they do not like. The assessment and determination of developments applications is contentious in its very nature; and regardless of the decisions that are made there will always be a level of dissatisfaction.

 

To improve community understanding and acceptance of the decisions that are made, Local Planning Panels are required to provide reasons for their decisions.

 

With the exception of the one complaint (discussed above) the community have not submitted any formal complaints regarding the performance of the Panel.

 

4.2       Confusion regarding the role of the community representative

There has been some confusion regarding the role of the community representative (with some residents wishing to speak to them outside of the meeting). Most residents now understand the legislative requirements and accept that they cannot approach a panel member outside of the meeting. Further, the Department are aware of the confusion and are seeking to clarify the role of the community representative.

 

4.3       Appointment of community representatives to each meeting

Section 2.18 of the Act states:

 

(5)        If the area of the relevant council is divided into wards, the council is to appoint representatives of the local community for each ward as members of the local planning panel. All those representatives are entitled to attend a meeting of the local planning panel, but only one of them designated by the chairperson of the panel comprises the quorum for the meeting and is entitled to vote and be heard on a matter before the panel.

 

(6)        The representative so designated by the chairperson for a matter before the panel is to be the representative for the ward that the chairperson considers is most closely associated with that matter.

 

Further, the Department have provide the following guidance to all Council’s in a response to the following FAQ “Should the community representative that votes be from the same ward as the matter/s being considered?”

 

Department response: Where there are wards, community members are chosen to represent the community of that ward. Community members can be chosen to represent more than one ward.

 

In choosing the community representative for the meeting, the chair is to choose the representative whose ward has the most matters being considered at that meeting.

 

When our community representatives were appointed, it was clearly noted that whilst a member from each ward was included in the pool, each of the members had the skills and attributes that could equally be applied to any of the wards.

 

Throughout the first year of operation, the following principals were adopted for selecting the community representative for each meeting:

 

-     If there was a deferred matter (or modification application) on the agenda and the original has already been considered by the panel, where possible, the same community representative was appointed.

 

-     Otherwise, community representatives were generally appointed on the basis of:

o    The number and nature of applications in each ward; and

o    Rotation to ensure that each community representative had an equal opportunity to be part of the panel.

 

In practice, this meant that at the start of each rotation, the community representative selected for a meeting was usually from the ward that has the most (or most controversial) applications; however, by the end of the rotation the community representative appointed may be from a ward that did not have many applications on the agenda.

 

The process of appointment appears to vary considerably between Councils, with the 3 main options being:

 

1.   Appointment based on the number and/or nature of applications in each ward. This option often results in a small number of community representatives attending most of the meetings whist other members attend very few (if any) meetings.

2.   Appointment based on rotation of all members. This ensures that all community representatives have an equal opportunity to sit on the panel; however, it also means that the community representative appointed may not always be the person who is most closely associated with the matters on the agenda.

3.   Appointment based on the number and/or nature of applications in each ward, as well as rotation.

 

The relative pros and cons of the various models are summarised in the following table:

 


 

Option

Pros

Cons

1.    Appointment based on number and type of applications in each ward

-      Representative is closely associated with the matters on the agenda.

-      Aligns with section 2.18 of Act

-      Generally less rotation of community representatives.

-      Community representatives will not know whether they are required to attend a meeting until the agenda is known (approximately 10 days prior)

2.    Appointment based on rotation

-      High rotation of community representatives minimises corruption risk.

-      Allows roster to be communicated to community representative well in advance of meeting.

-      Each community representative is given equal opportunity to participate.

-      Representative selected for the meeting may not be most closely associated with the matters on the agenda.

3.    Appointment based on combination of 1 and 2

-      High rotation of community representatives minimises corruption risk.

-      Representative is normally associated with at least some matters on the agenda.

-      Each community representative is given equal opportunity to participate.

-      Community representatives will not know whether they are required to attend a meeting until the agenda is known (approximately 10 days prior).

-      Representative selected for the meeting may not always be most closely associated with the matters on the agenda.

-      Complicated administration

 

On the 28 March 2019, Council facilitated a forum for the community representatives on the Panel to meet and share their knowledge and experiences. One of the matters that was discussed was how community representatives were appointed.

 

Most of the community representatives noted the challenges associated with not knowing whether they would be required to attend a meeting until the agenda is known (approximately 10 days prior). Further, they all advised that they are comfortable representing all five wards and expressed a preference to adopt a roster for appointment. These views were then taken to the chairs and they agreed to adopt a roster for appointment of community representatives.

 

Starting from May 2019, Community representatives will be appointed to panel meetings on the basis of a roster.

 

4.4       Delays due to determination by the panel

The process of referring matters to the Panel takes considerable time and may, in some circumstances, cause delays in the determination of an application, especially if the matter is deferred for amendments. It is generally considered that the value added by the panel is worth the investment in time.

 

The delays may be reduced by increasing the frequency of meetings; however, this will also increase the cost (each meeting costs Council approximately $7000).

 

4.5       Time of meetings

Consideration has been given to the feasibility of moving the public meeting to the evening to make it easier for Councillors and members of the public to attend.

 

The current Panel has been appointed on the basis of the meetings being held during the day, so it is not reasonable to change the meeting time during the term of their appointment.

 

Further, by holding meetings during the day, the Panel is able to call on technical staff when required to clarify issues. For example, if a site visit and/or speaker raises a new issue regarding flooding or parking, the development engineer can be called on to answer specific questions.   If meetings were held in the evenings, only those Council officers officially appointed to attend the meeting would be available.

 

Finally, conducting the meetings at night would result in additional cost and a greater administrative burden on Council staff. The function of the Panel is administrative and whilst public attendance is encouraged, available resources should be targeted towards seeking broader community and councillor involvement when preparing the strategic plans for the city, rather than carrying out administrative functions.

 

4.6       Late submissions

An ongoing issue that has been raised by Panel members and Council staff is late submissions. After the business paper has been published, objectors regularly prepare additional submissions and request that these be circulated to the Panel. On some occasions, up to 10 late submissions have been received.

 

The amended guidelines sought to address this issue by specifying that late submissions must be lodged at least 48 hours before the meeting and be limited to addressing matters raised in the Business Paper such as responding to conditions or perceived errors of fact. Unfortunately the community do not adhere to these requirements.

 

When a late submission is received, the Guidelines require council staff to assess any new information before the meeting. When information is submitted at the last minute, this is not possible.

 

To date, the Panel and Council staff have endeavoured to consider all late submissions; however, when multiple late submission are made at the last minute there is inadequate time to give new matters adequate consideration. Therefore, starting in May, when applicants and objectors are advised that the matter is going to the Panel they will be reminded that:

 

-     Any late correspondence regarding the matter must be lodged at least 48 hours before the meeting

-     The correspondence must be limited to addressing matters raised in the Business Paper such as responding to conditions or perceived errors of fact. It should not repeat information that has already been submitted; and

-     Any late correspondence received less than 48 hours prior to the meeting may not be considered.

 

PART 5: Powers of Council

 

Section 2.17 (7) of the act states:

 

A local planning panel is not subject to the direction or control of the council, except in relation to any matter relating to the procedure of the panel (or to the time within which it is to deal with a matter) that is not inconsistent with any directions of the Minister under section 9.1.

 

The Local Planning Panels Direction – Operation Procedures issued by the minister under section 9.1 direction states:

 

3.1 (1)    The chair is responsible for the management of the panel's functions and operations, including managing conflicts of interest;

             

              And

 

3.3 (1)    The panel may determine detailed procedures for the execution of efficient and effective meetings.

 

Thus Council cannot direct the Panel with regard to procedures; however, the Panel is committed to functioning as effectively and efficiently as possible and welcomes Council’s input. With regard to the amended Guidelines that were adopted at the Panel meeting on 13 December 2018, the chair respected the concerns from the Mayor regarding the need for contentious matters with significant impacts on the broader community to be voted on in public, and amended the Guidelines accordingly.

 

Whilst Council does not have power to determine Panel procedures, Council has certain responsibilities and powers in the following areas:

 

·        Appointment of Panel members

·        Removal of Panel members from Office

·        Appointment of additional alternates

·        Remuneration of Panel members

·        Panel decisions with potential significant adverse financial impact on a council.

 

5.1       Appointment of Panel members

In accordance with section 2.18 of the Act, members of a local planning panel are to be appointed by the relevant council.

 

However, the Act also specifies that the appointed chair and expert members must be independent persons approved by the Minister for appointment to the local planning panel.

 

In December 2017, Council received a letter from the Minister for Planning advising that he had approved Ms Annelise Tuor as chair and Mr Lindsay Fletcher and Mr Garry West as alternate chairs. The letter also advised that he had approved a list of independent experts from which the independent expert members were to be appointed.

 

At the Planning Committee meeting on the 13 February 2018, Council resolved to delegate to the General Manager the authority to appoint expert panel members and alternates to Randwick’s IHAP from a list of 10 preferred candidates.

 

The following 9 experts (out of the list of 10 preferred candidates) accepted appointment to Randwick’s local planning panel:

 

·        Jason Perica

·        Kara Krason

·        Jan Murrell

·        Oliver Klein

·        Sandra Robinson

·        Heather Warton

·        Peter Romey

·        Julie Savet Ward

·        Deb Laidlaw

 

Council is responsible for appointing representatives of the local community for each ward as community members of the local planning panel. The following community members were appointed to the Panel:

 

·        Kerri Hamer

·        Sarah Kelly

·        Brenton Thomas

·        Mio Margarit Chow

·        Peter Ryan

·        Michelle Finegan

 

All of the panel members have been appointed to the Panel for a term of 3 years.


 

5.2       Removal of Panel members from office

Schedule 2 of the Act states:

 

16 (4) In the case of a member of a local planning panel, the applicable council may remove the member from office at any time for any reason and without notice. However, the general manager of the applicable council must provide a written statement of the reasons for removing the member from office and make the statement publicly available.

 

Therefore Council may remove any panel member from office if they deem it necessary. If the office of a member becomes vacant, a person may be appointed to fill the vacancy (subject to that person satisfying the relevant provisions of the Act).

 

There has not been any code of conduct complaints made against any Panel member, nor has there been any behaviour in the first year of operation that would warrant removal of members from the Panel.

 

5.3       Appointment of additional alternates

Further to the above, schedule 2 (15) states that Council (as the appointing authority) may, from time to time, appoint a person to be the alternate of a member of a planning body, and may revoke any such appointment.

 

5.4       Remuneration of Panel members

The Minister for Planning has set minimum remuneration rates for IHAP members as follows:

·        Chair: $2,000 (plus GST) per meeting

·        Independent experts: $1,500 (plus GST) per meeting

·        Community representatives: a minimum of $500 up to a maximum of $1,500 (plus GST) per meeting.

 

At the Council meeting on 27 February 2018, Council adopted the following remuneration rates for members of the Randwick Local Planning Panel:

 

·        Chair: $2,000 (plus GST) per meeting

·        Independent experts: $1,500 (plus GST) per meeting

·        Community representatives:

o    $500 (plus GST) per meeting if they are required to vote on 1 to 2 items; OR

o    $1000 (plus GST) per meeting if they are required to vote on 3 to 4 items; OR

o    $1500 (plus GST) per meeting if they are required to vote on 5 or more applications.

 

The rate for the community representative was set on the assumption that more than one community representative may be present at any one panel meeting. Given that the Department of Planning and Environment have now advised that a single community representative should be appointed to each meeting, it is considered that the remuneration rate for the community representatives should be the same as for the expert member (i.e. $1500 plus GST per meeting).

 

5.5       Panel decisions with potential significant adverse financial impacts on a council.

Finally, the other area of Panel operations that is subject to Council direction, is contained in section 4.1 of the operational procedures:

 

A panel must not exercise a function that will result in the making of a decision that would have, or that might reasonably be expected to have, a significantly adverse financial impact on a council until after it has consulted with the council.

 

In the first year of operation, the Panel has not made any decision that was reasonably expected to have a significantly adverse financial impact on a council

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development

Direction 4b: New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Panel is currently costing Council approximately $90,000 per year (excluding staff time)

 

Given that the number of items at each meeting is now limited to 6, it is expected that the additional meetings will be required. Assuming that 4 additional meetings are required, the estimated additional cost will be $28,000.

 

Increasing the remuneration for community representatives to align with the rate for experts is not expected to significantly increase spend on Panel meetings given that the majority of meetings will have 5 or more applications. Based on the first year of operation, the additional spend would have been $2000 (two meetings had only 4 applications, and an additional special meeting was held to determine one deferred matter).

 

Conclusion

 

The Panel has now been in operation for over a year. During that time, a number of changes have been made to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Panel.

 

This report reviews the Panel’s performance over the past year and details some of the changes that have been made. The report also addresses some keys concerns and considers what powers Council has with respect to the Panel.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)       Receives and notes this report.

 

b)    Increase the remuneration for the community representatives to $1500 (plus GST) per meeting to align with the rate for expert members.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Local planning panels IHAPs evaluation half year report (April-September 2018)

 

 

 

 


Local planning panels IHAPs evaluation half year report (April-September 2018)

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP12/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Report for Variation to Development Standard under SEPP No.1 and Clause 4.6 - 13 March - 4 April 2018

 

Folder No:                     F2008/00122

Author:                          Terry Papaioannou, Environmental Planner Officer (Technical & Research)     

 

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)      Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) and Clause 4.6;

 

2)      Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)      Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)      Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 13 March 2019 and 08 April 2019.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b: New and existing development is managed by a robust framework

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those requirements.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Register - 13 March to 8 April 2019

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Register - 13 March to 8 April 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS10/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  South Coogee to Kingsford - Cycling and Streetscape Improvements - Route Options Analysis

 

Folder No:                     PROJ/10180/1527784/6

Author:                          Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport; Sarah Thorne, Sustainable Transport Engineer     

 

 

 

Introduction

 

Council resolved the following in December 2018:

 

(Bowen/Stavrinos) that, in response to community concern about the proposed Bundock Street Cycleway, Randwick Council investigate alternative East - West cycle routes to connect with existing cycle path network. 

 

This report identifies and analyses potential East-West route options between the Malabar Road bike route and Kingsford.

 

Issues

 

Background

 

An outcome of Randwick City Council’s 20 year City Plan states that A range of transport choices will enable effective movement to, from and around our City”.  A Direction of the City Plan also states that Council will provide “A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.” 

 

In 2015, Randwick City Council undertook significant community consultation to review our, long established, proposed bicycle network. Through this process the previously proposed east-west link, along Bundock Street and Sturt Street, was endorsed as a high priority route by the community and by the Council. (see Attachment 1 – Map of Randwick City Council Priority Construction Routes).

 

An east-west link in this area is also identified by the NSW State Government as a Strategic Bicycle Corridor, in its ‘Sydney’s Cycling Future’ strategy.  Within this strategy it is stated: “Our Bike and Ride initiative will make it convenient for our customers to ride to transport hubs, leave their bikes securely locked up and transfer to public transport to continue their journey.” 

 

Randwick Bike Network

 

Ultimately, Randwick Council’s bike network is planned to consist of 3 north/south routes connected with numbers of east/west links. One of the north/south routes, which was established in 2007, extends north from La Perouse to North Randwick and on toward Bronte.  Through South Coogee this well used, on-road route, runs along Malabar Road and Mount Street.  An east / west link from the Malabar Road route to Kingsford has long been identified by our local bike groups, and by the Council, as a much needed connection.  Such a link will provide residents (and others) with the option of riding from South Maroubra, Maroubra, South Coogee or Coogee directly to Kingsford. 

 

Kingsford is a very important transport hub.  Numbers of route options and transport modes radiate out from Kingsford.  For example, from Kingsford bike riders could continue riding on to Pagewood, Eastlakes, Mascot, UNSW, Randwick, Centennial Park, and Surry Hills or into the Sydney CBD etc.  In addition, once light rail services commence, residents could also ride directly to the Kingsford light rail / bus interchange and use the new secure bike parking facility so they can then take a tram or bus to their further destinations. 

 

Overall Project Objectives  

 

In assessing the route selection it is important to understand the overall objective of the proposed Project.  This part of the report examines these objectives.

 

Provide an east /west separated cycleway that is suitable for ‘less confident’ bike riders.

When it comes to the riding of bicycles in cities, numerous studies have shown that some seven percent of community members could be categorised as either ‘strong or fearless’ or ‘enthused and confident’ bike riders. Thirty three percent of the community are characterised as ‘no way, no how!’  The largest cohort, however, are the remaining sixty percent of community members who can be characterised as ‘interested, but concerned’.

 

The ‘interested, but concerned’ cohort are those who would like to ride a bike, but are worried about their safety. This significant proportion of the community – our potential future bike riders - are the residents who would benefit most from separated cycleways. 

 

Also, in the past year, Randwick City Council surveyed over 500 local school children, and their parents, to find out how to encourage active travel to school.  Safer streets, better footpaths and new cycle paths were all key factors identified by local primary and secondary school children in encouraging active travel to school, in our local government area.  The survey identified that 63% claim they feel confident riding their bike on a footpath, but only 5% of children surveyed identified that they were confident on the road. This local information validates the international research.

 

Respondents to the Randwick Council survey expressed their fears about riding on the road (including along on-road, line-marked, cycleways) with such statements as:

 

-     “I know how to ride a bike, but I am not confident riding it to school because there is no bike lane and the footpath is dangerous” and

 

-     “I can ride a bike but not uphill and not on roads with cars”. 

 

The survey also identified that in Randwick over 70% of school children had a current travel time from home to school of less than 10 minutes. This, even in a car, is a relatively short distance which could be easily undertaken by bike.

 

The development of a separated cycleway facility between South Coogee and Kingsford (which then continues onto Centennial Park) is a key step in developing a bicycle network where residents (and their children) would feel safe and comfortable to ride.  Bike links to the recently expanded Rainbow Street Primary School and to the two nearby High Schools (over 2,500 students in total) could be established from the proposed east / west cycleway.  This would provide parents with an alternate method for transporting their children to and from school. 

 

International and domestic experience indicates that the provision of high quality cycling infrastructure, such as dedicated cycleways, has a significant influence on reducing the safety concerns of the 60% of community members who are ‘interested, but concerned’.

 

Cycleway Route Options

 

Initially, as part of the early investigations into the proposed east / west cycleway, a number of alternate routes between Malabar Road and Kingsford were examined.  Ultimately, the originally identified Bundock Street / Sturt Street route was considered to be the best option. 

 

There are numbers of reasons why this route was considered the best option; as compared to other routes:

1.   It is the most direct (shortest) link to the Malabar Road north/south bike route

2.   Bundock Street has a limited number of residential frontages effected (due to the 680m long Defence land frontage and the 195m long Housing Department frontage – which has carparks off Elphinstone Road)

3.   For much of its length the gradients are very gentle (note however there is one significant gradient change toward the eastern end of Bundock Street)

4.   The local resident parking demand, adjacent to the Defence site, is very light as compared to other route options.  Parking adjacent to the Defence site is generally used by others for the “storage” of seldom moved vehicles and trailers.

5.   Sturt Street roadway is wide enough (12.8m) to accommodate a separated cycleway, with only one tree being affected and with minimal impact on parking spaces

 

On all of these measures the Bundock / Sturt route was considered better. However, following Council’s December 2018 Resolution, more detailed investigations have since been undertaken into the alternate route options. 

 

In all, nine possible east / west route options have been identified and analysed.  Each of the routes was assessed against the overall project objective of providing an east/west separated cycleway.

 

Additional evaluation criteria was then used to asses each of the routes in more detail:

 

     Directness

     Street Trees

     Parking Impacts

     Road Widths

     Gradients

 

The route options assessed are shown on the map overleaf, and are listed below:

 

1.   Storey Street, Gale Road and Anzac Parade                                         (3.3 km long)

2.   Storey Street and Anzac Parade                                                           (3.2 km long)

3.   Oberon Street, Perouse Road and Barker Street                                   (3.0 km long)

4.   Dudley Street, St Pauls Street, Prince of Wales Hospital and UNSW     (3.3 km long)

5.   Moverly Road and Anzac Parade                                                          (3.3 km long)

6.   Moverly Road, Henning Avenue, Holmes Street and Anzac Parade        (3.3 km long)

7.   Rainbow Street                                                                                    (2.4 km long)

8.   Bundock Ln, Rigney Ln, Rigney Ave, McNair Ave and Wallace St                   (2.2 km long)

9.   Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street (current proposed route) (1.9 km long) 

 

Evaluation Criteria 1 - Directness

 

“Directness” is an essential factor in the design of active transport (walking & riding) facilities.  When people are using their own muscle power to get from ‘A to B’, they want to avoid any detours that will take more effort.  Directness may be described as providing routes that are as direct as safely practicable and which avoid long detours.  Distance is a major factor in deciding whether the bicycle is used for any particular journey. If the route is indirect then people will likely not utilise active transport.  Of the nine east / west route options examined, four were not considered in detail in this report because they do not provide a direct link between the north / south “spine” route and Kingsford.  The four routes not examined in further detail are:

 

   Route Option 1 – Storey Street, Gale Road and Anzac Parade (3.3km long)

 

This very long route intersects with Anzac Parade some 1.6km south of the Kingsford light rail / bus interchange and doesn’t service well the community near to the interchange.  It is considered to be circuitous and is too indirect.  The gradients along Gale Road are problematic.  One of the hills rises in height by 22 metres, over a distance of 229 metres – resulting in a gradient in excess of 9.6%. This would be extremely challenging for most bike riders and would dissuade many from using this route.

 

 

Figure 1 - map showing alternate east west bike routes

 

 

   Route Option 2 - Storey Street and Anzac Parade (3.3km long)

 

This very long route intersects with Anzac Parade some 1.6km south of Sturt Street and doesn’t service well the South Coogee community in accessing their nearby Kingsford transport hub.  It is considered to be circuitous and is too indirect.  The gradients along Storey Street are extremely challenging for bike riders.  There are at least two major hills which would eliminate all but the strongest of bike riders. One of the hills rises in height by 31.5 metres, over a distance of 502 metres – resulting in a gradient in excess of 6.2%. Another hill rises in height by 10 metres, over a distance of 82 metres – resulting in a significant gradient of 12.2%.

 

   Route Option 3 - Oberon Street, Perouse Road and Barker Street  (3.3km long)

This route provides no direct link from the Malabar Road / Mount Street north / south route to the Kingsford transport hub.  Also, it provides no easy access to the Houston Road north / south bike route. It would require bike riders to ‘climb’ the unacceptably steep Barker Street incline (especially steep in the westbound direction - with a gradient of almost 12%) toward the Kennedy Street intersection.  Accordingly, this route would not be proposed now, nor in the future.

 

   Route Option 4 - Dudley St, St Pauls Street, Prince of Wales Hospitals & UNSW (3.3km)

The riding of bikes through the Hospitals’ campuses and UNSW campus has not been endorsed by Health Infrastructure nor UNSW.  This route has significant gradients within the UNSW campus. Also, it does not provide a direct link to the Houston Road bike route nor to the Kingsford transport hub – it does not service well the community near to the Kingsford interchange.  Additionally, significant lengths of this route would be located on land not owned or managed by the Council.  Therefore, it is unable to be supported.

 

Given all of the above limitations, the above routes were not considered in further detail.

 

The remaining five routes (Options 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9) were assessed in detail against five specific criteria, as detailed in the following sections.

 

Evaluation Criteria 2 - Minimise impacts on existing trees

 

Because trees provide many benefits to humans and generally improve the quality of life in the urban environment, Council considers the retention of established tree assets, in order to maintain and increase the urban tree canopy cover, to be of a very high priority.

 

Randwick City’s urban forest is a vital component of our landscape. Randwick’s trees provide a range of environmental, cultural and psychological benefits.  The community has recently let the Council know that any proposed bicycle facility must have minimal, if any, impact on existing street trees.  In addition, new trees and plantings must also be provided as an integral component of any streetscape project.

 

Evaluation Criteria 3 - Limit loss of parking 

 

On-street parking is a community resource available for the use of all members of the public.  The Council understands the importance of adequate on-street parking to our residents. The implementation of a separated bicycle facility should seek to retain as many parking spaces as possible, and, where available, should introduce new parking spaces.

 

Evaluation Criteria – 4 – Road Width

 

When designing a separated cycleway, existing road width is a critical factor as to how the cycleway will fit into the existing streetscape and carriageway. With regard to each of the roadway elements (parking lanes and travel lanes) there are certain minimum widths which apply.  One factor which applies to a number of the route options is the need to provide slightly wider travel lanes along bus routes. 

 

The basic parameters relating to the minimum road width are represented by the following diagrams:

 

 

(A) – 2 x 2.9m travel lanes (not on a bus route) and 2 x 2.1m parking lanes with bi-directional separated cycleway (Minimum width of road with cycleway = 12.8m)

 

 

(B) – 2 x 3.3m travel lanes with bus route and 2 x 2.1m parking lanes with bi-directional separated cycleway (Minimum width of road with cycleway = 13.6m)

 

 

Evaluation Criteria 5 – Gradient along Route

 

For the average bicycle rider, long and steep gradients are problematic.  Significant gradients can very much affect whether someone can easily choose active transport (walking / bike riding) or not.  As with ‘Directness’, when people are using their own muscle power to get from ‘A to B’, they want to avoid any long and steep routes. Gradient is a major factor in deciding whether the bicycle is used for any particular journey. If the route is too steep (especially over long distances) then people will likely not utilise active transport. 

 

Route Options Analysis

 

On the following page is a single table indicating the characteristics on each side of the road for each of the five routes examined in detail.

 

The tables on the subsequent pages then examine each of the five remaining route options in detail.  Each proposed option has been assessed against the five criteria identified above. 

 

Each section of each route has been examined and the characteristics applying to each of the sections are detailed.  These characteristics are then assessed with regard to implementation of a separated cycleway.  Problematic connectivity issues at the ‘ends’ of the route are also considered.

 

Each section of each route has been given a ranking of Poor, Fair, Good or Very Good for each of the five evaluation criteria. 

 

The data displayed in the following tables, relating to the numbers of trees, parking spaces, dwellings and driveways was collected from on-site surveys and inspections along each route. Road widths were measured at indicative locations along each route as well. The gradient calculations were based on data from Council’s geographic information system, which provides height contours to a 0.5m accuracy.  The evaluation of trees and car parking impacts are assessments based on the level of intervention within the road corridor.  In general, narrow streets (<12.8m wide) would require some car parking removal unless the road is re-built wider.  If roads are re-built wider then car parking could be retained, however any adjacent trees would likely have to be removed.

 

A summary statement is included with each table indicating if the route is supported, or not.

 


 

Route Options 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 Comparison Table

 


 

 

Route Option 5 – Moverly Road and Anzac Parade    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location

Trees

Pkg. Spaces

Dwellings

Driveways

Moverly Road

South side

From Malabar Road to Anzac Parade (2.1 km)

81

174

75

75

North side

From Malabar Road to Anzac Parade (2.1 km)

124

176

73

65

Anzac Parade

Central median

From Moverly Road to Sturt Street (1.1 km)

0

20* 

*(at intersections with Broadbent and Bass)

0

0

 

 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KNcDz5nQjNfXdJUZSKkBOzrPwue8DmM2ICoBeS_XpjegEKfkBSm-Pd1469lby70w9FYJZda6JkOpWGDur3mbtWANlEcWxQ0BgpdwUEszSVhjpzxhr6miFBsKAUluvaEFnVAkVx5JnSbJQmKAWH57ALIUcNsHTuxaJlDvsz6hoXXZr9BiNql8EaHSsdAFx18wDitrXxlDSEH9NAy4cq5lXBiP31W8amI3vFbDaNekZXhymXtiT1dJn_c7avCJ-HzD7JZ16m85NmAVY979L7UHcjNXJ8J3CqS63a9JiOpofxSLg1liJ3scIHmK3RsTc7bs5xH2SH9RiHECG3s7oHa6lVk2zeEoNXIvreG-E3f_hxZgVnZjabM8M5WP8eAYOvddAHvOUMv-Ur9mOFFpSNWJGgsU1XNAme4A1wHcnVewZy2Pl7nmDX_ZKzMSl0KolzUAvhMvCLLQO1hmV4J8u3JXLhMJ3_ezbvIdZV5A63pJ1JWIuujmqO7UDuH6vGULGgrx1lh1L-iVFLxf3k-cooW8n7iYRHQ5YroqVGN5SUUBoigNoMt6yA8zUQ1t4Qk0N8rL9nhuRkHaWx3Qzi_mi9C8ImIP8vBDa12C9EsG6KllQMX0b-StHFQKAZVDWtVlFBOAWnU9MD12R79nyvZ6gZc87hNKK7OFZ2Eu=w1408-h1875-nohttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xpze-pMWq7e7h_DMo02N1qmA2ye9JssRlUsNB0ubDnq0UufvyrYuGZzkcI5PjM5F-Efeybsgb-K9lSRMLL-m3GglTD-dPblWDJHHgpnsr7mGdrUklHyEBWNDhAWdHK5cjh7ayX_1BbI2E9I_lt6UcoBRpc_ew4_eoxmg6pIhLvUIMNd-lNHv8-wFqdYYNfJBzRuZeB2cG4UBjhsvzt_kZGzStIhrGTr9ROzGHnM6baX_qxf2zBNkT2nCEmVRFsy_glR8Jyb70_Xg4KP7DgOyN0ckFkpPd34mA-AuDAvCDOGDFbMLYizmcangDWzcoTskA-QQL-bJTB7Pe7sVSLTPmb0Djw7EvvMwF8ZYT1J_mjH6F7gWKth30kh5cUIX4Z37f6vYwcB__x_UgOZpvEhFR1pB44JNdYnhed8gl1rLij8Hd8cCPYASzMVgFzdFvu-gN34F0oNH44FNK57YPGRlatv6kKilFLNnROu0pzWQ0Y5yANalL2OQHhxxDsOaXtYCgBbHWC5gAbhesb5ZsPlbTfK0oWJUAe-qe8FI-ZS3BAwREWFCVmv_YP1KuKwcspjEmmxHyRDKnzxEAE5dCiIyW0wuy1oh8vWC4hZoaki0Wabexu2ECfs7LBXCcltySoj-oCXt0XJCUSRXacQXnM28e-YXT4EZaNzE=w1408-h1875-no

Section

Comments

Evaluation Criteria

Directness

 

Trees Impact

Parking Impact

Width

Gradient

 

Moverly Rd -

Malabar Rd to Henning Avenue

 

(Width:

10 – 12.8m)

-      A road with a bus service must be a least 13.6 m wide (kerb to kerb) in order to accommodate a cycleway. 

-      Accordingly a cycleway along this 1.1km long length of Moverly Road would require a kerb set back of between 0.8 and 3.6m.

-      Setting the kerb back will likely affect many street trees over this significant length of road (see preceding table)

-      Locating a proposed separated cycleway along the western and northern sides of Moverly Road would minimise direct impacts upon individual residences – due to 540m of the roadway fronting Latham Park and the South Coogee Bowling Club. (However, the parking impacts upon the many users of Latham Park would be significant)

-      This section contains one very long hill (345m length) at some 6% gradient

 

- It should be noted that a Moverly Road bike route has not ever been requested by local bike riders during either the 2006/7 or the 2015 bike route reviews – most likely due to the long, steep, gradient.

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor   (with buses)

Poor

Moverly Rd - Henning Ave to Anzac Pde

 

(Width:

Approx.12.8m)

-      A road with a bus service must be a least 13.6m wide (kerb to kerb) to accommodate a cycleway. 

-      Accordingly a cycleway along this 965m length of Moverly Road would require a kerb set back of some 0.8m.

-      Setting the kerb back will likely affect many of street trees over this length of road (see preceding table)

Poor

Poor

Poor (w buses)

Very Good

 

Anzac Parade –

Moverly Rd to Sturt St

-      With the proposed development of a future cycleway along the central island of Anzac Parade, this component of the route could become an important link as part of the future bicycle network

-      Transport for NSW has identified Anzac Parade, between Kingsford and Maroubra, as a future Strategic Bicycle Corridor. This section of this route option will likely be identified for implementation and funding in future rounds.

Very Good

 Good

Very Good

Very Good

 

In Summary:

 

Route Option 5 – Moverly Road and Anzac Parade - is NOT supported because it:

 

·        Consists of a long detour - not providing a straight line route between the origin (Malabar Road bike route) and the destination (Kingsford)

·        is of a very substantial length (3.3km)

·        has a long and steep gradient (345m long with a 6% gradient )

·        will likely require some 0.8 – 3.6m of kerb set back, over 1.5km

·        will likely affect many street trees (80 on the S/E side or 124 on the N/W side of Moverly Rd), or

·        will likely affect some 190 parking spaces

·        will impact regular heavy parking demand adjacent to Latham Park (sports days / training nights)

·        has historically not been sought as a nominated bike route by local bike riders

 

(NB:  Regarding the Anzac Parade component of this route, Transport for NSW has identified Anzac Parade, between Kingsford and Maroubra, as a future Strategic Bicycle Corridor. This route will likely be identified for implementation and funding in the future)

 

 

Route Option 6 – Moverly Road, Henning Avenue, Holmes Street & Anzac Parade

 

 

Location

Trees

Pkg. Spaces

Dwellings

Driveways

Moverly Road

North side - Malabar Rd to Henning Ave (1.1 km)

72

93

30

30

South side - Malabar Rd to Henning Ave(1.1 km)

53

97

41

40

Henning Avenue

East side - Moverly Rd to Holmes Street (150m)

6

27

0

4

West side - Moverly Rd to Holmes Street (150m)

6

13

6

4

Holmes Street

North side - Henning Ave to Anzac Pde ( 1km )

70

81

81

72

South side - Henning Ave to Anzac Pde (1km)

61

90

62

58

Anzac Parade

Central median - Moverly Rd to Sturt St   (1.1 km)

0

20*

0

0

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KNcDz5nQjNfXdJUZSKkBOzrPwue8DmM2ICoBeS_XpjegEKfkBSm-Pd1469lby70w9FYJZda6JkOpWGDur3mbtWANlEcWxQ0BgpdwUEszSVhjpzxhr6miFBsKAUluvaEFnVAkVx5JnSbJQmKAWH57ALIUcNsHTuxaJlDvsz6hoXXZr9BiNql8EaHSsdAFx18wDitrXxlDSEH9NAy4cq5lXBiP31W8amI3vFbDaNekZXhymXtiT1dJn_c7avCJ-HzD7JZ16m85NmAVY979L7UHcjNXJ8J3CqS63a9JiOpofxSLg1liJ3scIHmK3RsTc7bs5xH2SH9RiHECG3s7oHa6lVk2zeEoNXIvreG-E3f_hxZgVnZjabM8M5WP8eAYOvddAHvOUMv-Ur9mOFFpSNWJGgsU1XNAme4A1wHcnVewZy2Pl7nmDX_ZKzMSl0KolzUAvhMvCLLQO1hmV4J8u3JXLhMJ3_ezbvIdZV5A63pJ1JWIuujmqO7UDuH6vGULGgrx1lh1L-iVFLxf3k-cooW8n7iYRHQ5YroqVGN5SUUBoigNoMt6yA8zUQ1t4Qk0N8rL9nhuRkHaWx3Qzi_mi9C8ImIP8vBDa12C9EsG6KllQMX0b-StHFQKAZVDWtVlFBOAWnU9MD12R79nyvZ6gZc87hNKK7OFZ2Eu=w1408-h1875-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xpze-pMWq7e7h_DMo02N1qmA2ye9JssRlUsNB0ubDnq0UufvyrYuGZzkcI5PjM5F-Efeybsgb-K9lSRMLL-m3GglTD-dPblWDJHHgpnsr7mGdrUklHyEBWNDhAWdHK5cjh7ayX_1BbI2E9I_lt6UcoBRpc_ew4_eoxmg6pIhLvUIMNd-lNHv8-wFqdYYNfJBzRuZeB2cG4UBjhsvzt_kZGzStIhrGTr9ROzGHnM6baX_qxf2zBNkT2nCEmVRFsy_glR8Jyb70_Xg4KP7DgOyN0ckFkpPd34mA-AuDAvCDOGDFbMLYizmcangDWzcoTskA-QQL-bJTB7Pe7sVSLTPmb0Djw7EvvMwF8ZYT1J_mjH6F7gWKth30kh5cUIX4Z37f6vYwcB__x_UgOZpvEhFR1pB44JNdYnhed8gl1rLij8Hd8cCPYASzMVgFzdFvu-gN34F0oNH44FNK57YPGRlatv6kKilFLNnROu0pzWQ0Y5yANalL2OQHhxxDsOaXtYCgBbHWC5gAbhesb5ZsPlbTfK0oWJUAe-qe8FI-ZS3BAwREWFCVmv_YP1KuKwcspjEmmxHyRDKnzxEAE5dCiIyW0wuy1oh8vWC4hZoaki0Wabexu2ECfs7LBXCcltySoj-oCXt0XJCUSRXacQXnM28e-YXT4EZaNzE=w1408-h1875-no

 

Section

Comments

Directness

Trees Impact

Parking Impact

Width

Gradient

 

Moverly Rd -

Malabar Rd to Henning Avenue

 

(Width:

10 – 12.8m)

-      As with Route Option 5 - A road with a bus service must be a least 13.6m wide to accommodate a cycleway. 

-      Accordingly a cycleway along this 1.1km long length of Moverly Road would require a 0.8-3.6m kerb set back. Setting the kerb back will likely affect many of street trees over this significant length of road (see preceding table)

-      Locating a proposed separated cycleway along the western and northern sides of Moverly Road would minimise direct impacts upon individual residences – due to 540m of the roadway fronting Latham Park and the South Coogee Bowling Club. (However, the parking impacts upon the many users of Latham Park would be significant)

-      This section contains one very long hill (345m length) at some 6% gradient

 

- It should be noted that a Moverly Road bike route has not been requested by local bike riders during either the 2006/7 or the 2015 bike route reviews – most likely due to the long, steep, gradient.

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor   (with buses)

Poor

Henning Ave - Moverly Rd  to Holmes St

(Width: approx.8m )

-      Would require removal of parking along one full side of the street (150m) to accommodate a separated cycleway

-      OR the removal of (6) street trees from one side of the street

Poor

Poor

Poor

V Good

Holmes St –

Henning Ave to Anzac Pde

(Width: approx.11m )

-      Would require removal of parking along the full length of one side of the street (970m) to accommodate a separated cycleway

-      OR the removal of street trees along the full length of one side of the street

Poor

Poor

Poor

V Good

 

Anzac Parade –

Moverly Rd to Sturt St

-      With the proposed development of a future cycleway along the central island of Anzac Parade, this component of the route could become an important link as part of the future bicycle network

-      Transport for NSW has identified Anzac Parade, between Kingsford and Maroubra, as a future Strategic Bicycle Corridor. This section of this route option will likely be identified for implementation and funding in future rounds.

Very Good

 Good

Very Good

Very Good

 

In Summary: Route Option 6 – Moverly Rd, Henning Ave, Holmes St and Anzac Pde - is NOT supported because it:

 

·        Consists of a long detour - not providing a direct route from the Malabar Road bike route to Kingsford

·        is of a very substantial length (3.3km)

·        has a long and steep gradient (345m long with a 6% gradient )

·        will likely require some 0.8-3.6 km of kerb set back, over 1.2km

·        will likely affect many street trees (120 on the S&W side or 148 on the N&W side along this route)

·        will likely affect some 190 parking spaces

·        will impact regular heavy parking demand adjacent to Latham Park (sports days / training nights)

·        has historically not been sought as a nominated bike route by local bike riders

 

 (NB:  Regarding the Anzac Parade component of this route, Transport for NSW has identified Anzac Parade, between Kingsford and Maroubra, as a future Strategic Bicycle Corridor. This route will likely be identified for implementation and funding in the future)

 

Route Option 7 - Rainbow Street   

 

 

 

Location

Trees

Pkg. Spaces

Dwellings

Driveways

Rainbow Street

South side - from Mount Street to Anzac Parade (2.1 km)

91

154

153

91

North side - from Mount Street to Anzac Parade (2.1 km)

93

186

331

53

 

 

 

                   

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/P_sHAY4FtpZ3QuDGdcI-C56oYwbvJjsLd5cNa1xTJaPFNZvltqXZuBSIYVFWt1yYM78H5TTkBCySoKMoxmr071gC8kEiIjoOa8ucP6Wp45LPz558QeE5ZF0ZzZQmDcl1qx9AWiRu6VuPpFpAiK4ppBeDeTNb1Ien_gRntRkrzqbDhHn-fAKHdFMDNHXLCYM2o_d8YYbF4myWKHkIQ8xNTzjr8l2qGa0GXUQvM8BKzYhg0voi_vIIELLnYv_QwascBho7cadD4hWyBznV9FpzXzuZbNEgirSYiJeO94lJ-cz9b8LvOtVvL0HS6AX1vCQVfKfmKv3pY5no4bpn_Tm-6_3eXxZj0TMeBn2HGYfdF4xDrWxe2srkVVMGwXARwtfC_L0U1I-YQ_73_5Z0TfAv14QWPw2lNyyF44cZnqcuoQ0XiOC5Qix0oURQdQ17WFPWxmmUvP5G8vuGufayeslEgKFiFoHted0EGfic7_aGGBE1YWY9b9F7oerx7XRzz_qgaN3plZL-G6u_1A4V3l-v7q0lccE4MSmJl1lwCdFo-oHDxksCT-mE7JbJkDERaxjqAnZsQt3dQ_OHYJeKjgx5C5UwwhkoeTY3z2b0g7gGHwUZUiU65jNiNKfttGQwaUW0HKyoReQSEOuioSDWKbqWvg7robNM90G4=w1408-h1875-no

 

 

 

 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FXNIPVQftAyiOsYqZAgD6VaXhuC0yY_u1XxM6uOw77eoRcLCgaIP6WsUYd_WzpcOwY5-P_o7gf1_jseC-JrGue0CI4gV8bJcgu7GQ9jdFv7K6J-_ZwNH8L7zN6sIcj9xQ5vVIzqjna55KcI9SJwwKfl6l_tBtRDX5ae27Fl5Z8fSJe41KCXQescKZYQzkT8Tb3i2rV1ZERXOl4k6WtJButDYXROIMgnCmLM8rJQsmSKMVdWcSwpwXuHIR-2oJ2XQZFzEXNL0emReUfmZYLOOBTDwWeO0jJT70HkekUv9qOnWEwlXse2oDCHxk-3rvl5BIqnl-O0tzlOppRr_oyH5iNxStnwcs1NiASSs7qSpJJerywWGlGLm9QsRABzteoW6igK4z0bDulWpm34lum2Kzv4H8Q09mlJpSPdWkDHpH0YRIqv2egrXNXwGYGQW4GG5PnXCfxEhq6BvC_XHhhHTviE-mI7p1sZ8cWsaADQ7HAZecd2StqLyRpmErl-i-23MgTWeEqXSn3R-YL5IWkLHh5mt2EQZqUoBRrJNvRoLcdGsiSJv7uxPR64JYXDch-0KdQV3rubnwPv9St6C4RNtlQmP0NgmdAOlpk9NQOLuECk-Mv1dxi9g6LH0FNr_VLGc93z26db3IMoF4PON2brPi4FXkEe8NyNP=w1408-h1875-no

Section

Comments

Criteria

Directness

Trees Impact

 Parking Impact

Width

Gradient

Rainbow Street - from Malabar Road  to Avoca St

(10.8m wide)

-     All of the parking on one side of the street would have to be removed to accommodate a separated cycleway.

-     Residential property frontages (including many with driveways) exist fully along both sides of the street (except at Bangor Park, Paine Reserve and the school frontages - 535m)

-     Replacement of roundabout with signals will likely require tree removal

Fair

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

Rainbow Street - from Avoca Street to Botany Street

 

(width - approx. 12.8m)

-     All of the parking on one side of the street would have to be removed for a distance of 800m to install a separated cycleway

-     OR All of the street trees along one side (800m) of Rainbow St would be removed.

-     A short section (50m) of existing shared path in Paine Reserve could be used.

-     There are significant space constraints at the busy bus stops and at the school drop off zone

Poor

Poor

Poor (on a bus route)

Very Good

Rainbow Street - from Botany Street to Anzac Parade

 

(width – 9.5m)

-     Removal of parking would be required on the north side to accommodate cycleway

-     Kerb setback would also be required, impacting many street trees. 

-     Numbers of residents in this part of Rainbow Street do not have off street parking and likely rely on street parking.

-     Parking could possibly be retained if the cycleway was constructed on the nature strip, however this would result in substantial tree loss and would be difficult in areas of significant level difference between the road and footpath.

Poor

Poor

Poor

Fair


                               

 In Summary: 

 

Route Option 7 - Rainbow Street – This route is some 2.4km long (to terminus). Introduction of a separated cycleway would have a great impact on street trees and / or parking supply. There are four significant hills along the whole length of Rainbow Street. One hill is 100m long at a 5.2% grade, one is 116m long at a 5.2% grade, one is 173m long at a 4.9% grade and one is 276m long at a 6.7% grade.  It must be noted that a Rainbow Street cycleway would deliver bike riders to the wrong end, and to the wrong side, of the light rail terminus.  It would also deliver bike riders to a major, complex, arterial road intersection; with no easy access to the covered bicycle parking facility (at the terminus) and with no easy access to the proposed Kingsford to Centennial Park cycleway. This route has historically not had the support of local bike riders. For these reasons this route is not considered appropriate.

 


Route Option 8 - Bundock Ln, Rigney Ln, Rigney Ave, McNair Ave and Wallace St 

 

 

Location

Trees

Parking Spaces

Dwellings

Driveways

Bundock Lane

South side - Malabar Rd to Avoca Street (1.06 km)

10

57

80

95

North side - Malabar Rd to Avoca Street (1.06 km)

18

60

65

82

Avoca Street

East side – Bundock Lane to Rigney Lane (22m)

2

1

3

4

West side -  Bundock Lane to Rigney Lane (22m)

3

2

4

3

Rigney Lane & Avenue

South side – Avoca Street to  Paton Street (225m)

8

14

8

9

North side -   Avoca Street to  Paton Street (225m)

8

13

16

11

McNair Avenue

 

 

 

 

South side – Paton Street to Botany Street (235m)

18

17

16

12

North side  -  Paton Street to Botany Street (235m)

14

27

17

8

Wallace Street & Anzac Parade

 

 

 

 

Sth side - Botany St to Anzac Pde terminus (705m)

17

51

19

15

Nth side - Botany St to Anzac Pde terminus (705m)

30

34

31

29

 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4c2DpQj0oRhu_1uugyI0su5ixoxhbrLd2a6Cn2ZC8sgjFTSaKh8UpSIWY-AJMELgAzg45T6t4ZVJc5rYW58KgSxUcUrLMbv2DhxVsDq2fgonpAPn3JZI2hf90iXZesPxPUV7BkLV6IaqpFdjLa2kvZDVzKK-E4uH94pEB01mFwZn387Dk7PyiVJ29Ra3oIUvujEyoQ9jQ_q7zC-lbqAk-KEa6PpSh-zCB2nHkX3shl2jH5IDOsiaKksspYyvuAkVn4McpispoW0oPDWgQNHT0Pc70ewY9wJm2hBtKiaZF5Hw6jtqFodT17-qOjiekYg8VQ2ph_gJn1c2VS5uK49ausZnTSx2Hso2bg7nybOwKn-3f0l0HTnCLKiFsur6_xfxx7VRCTNhPIImwTD24lC6hKVvKhWObGCF1EDuRAWgbhgWjP8CwZbxHUL1X4lAzxoiP9I5IRvRNk99ru91zLNBpOgpDuxwoL7eVr8d-poERnH3tFvVeWjQkYcOaEZTrsTHNnmDET_cgpSnQUQrC09Qepj6DEOQh6-9oAgjO02gEV8EP0QlpY7Kv3lmqeaQufK3-6gU9DApTi0JJMtC23rrpcZCoLtVySIS_YekCR5Denx0E_fue0mR1GUUEPj3FL_5Tmy0s0UIR82lO_9-VAqKm_iYuWLWUBE4=w1408-h1875-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HwlSZ7Mf4J2ZH5D6MXG9yiEj7EXIlmr6cHEnQjnWgbNvAPvVVAQAUDRtmGSIT3CysSmYmWs1r3onNdaq4Pk9hlDZNqI_blqXQpY3HFlVoYUN5blo5xvw47CBHNsudXE0rf8UGgGytIYVVFhclThiyldGt5BV27tkfE80omIRULD8BeQi9gvriZexF_YmQInoTBB2kLvxOiw9zEUX9-CGX7O0Rk--Eu-IBjVPCk8s4AvcQk6uXXnT5-hyGZ-BavIBP7IKzLGAT-RbD6LMRoPHMWIVuNxc540pvjFETtFtynauUyT894l5wycvU-nSOJBAN8Vie5gKFgz2nm3ZeWz1uQMDwSJPlB4E-bZM1XOoQbuYg0yEM7SQRMkgvNLkMeNM5IklHH-S5beYkv5cndeN_e-LcUOuViG1Z-xpENJb1mTcN7CM493hVkRuEx90CLudZSJB6TgOQrEXNpdaHSdFTF-6_QQ4vxr5Lh4uRGvBfSHoTDIOe-lljSj7BRDyumjZfespNrrHmAWGxgxFC5WaDIUzix3MRIgr78Wbi8XT1CQekqJ3bub1DxXU0XtESEmKz5bmZgREtbNPPiKF_rau0_umEbPptpMVz7kgxXs8Pxj7-U_LTxkXzrt5FMSrrGePTuZEyy0rVKeF97UX5H5YBCr4kSv3ieJ=w1408-h1875-no

 

Section

Comments

Criteria

 

Directness

Trees Impact

 Parking Impact

Width

Gradient

 

Bundock Lane

 

(width - approx. 5.2m)

-     Lane too narrow for a separated cycleway

-     Sight lines between bike riders and motorists leaving driveways is very poor

-     There is no passive surveillance along the laneway esp. in hours of darkness

-     RMS won’t permit new traffic signals across Avoca Street, at the lanes, as they are too close (85m) to the Rainbow St. traffic signals (they must be at least 130m from existing signals).

Good

N/A

Fair

Poor

Poor

 

Rigney Lane

 

(width - approx. 5m)

-     Lane too narrow for a separated cycleway

-     Sight lines between bike riders and motorists leaving driveways is very poor

-     There is no passive surveillance along the laneway esp. in hours of darkness

N/A

Poor

Poor

Very Good

 

Rigney Avenue

 

(width varies:  from 5 to 9m)

-     Roadway is too narrow at its western end to accommodate separated cycleway, and

-     is one-way westerly just east of Paton Street

-     Removal of all parking along one side of the street would be required, or

-     Removal of street trees from one side of the street would be required

Fair / Poor

Poor

Fair / Poor

Very Good

 

McNair Avenue

 

(width varies:  from 5 to 7m)

-     Roadway is too narrow at its western end to accommodate separated cycleway, and

-     Removal of all parking along one side of the street would be required, or

-     Removal of street trees from one side of the street would be required

Fair / Poor

Poor

Poor

Very Good

 

Wallace Street

 

(width varies:  from 5 to 9m)

-     Roadway is too narrow at its eastern end to accommodate separated cycleway, and

-     Removal of all parking along one side of the street would be required, or

-     Removal of street trees from one side of the street would be required in order to position cycleway on to nature strip.

Fair / Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

 

Summary:  Route 8 – Laneways and Wallace Street.

A separated cycleway cannot be accommodated in these narrow laneways and streets.  RMS restrictions prohibit traffic signals across Avoca Street at the laneway intersection/s (too close to Avoca / Rainbow signals). Sight lines to and from emerging motorists in the lanes is often non-existent. It must be noted that this cycleway route option would also deliver bike riders to the wrong end, and to the wrong side, of the light rail terminus.  It would also deliver bike riders to a major arterial road intersection – with no traffic signals. There is no easy access to the secure bicycle parking facility (at the terminus) and no easy access to the proposed Kingsford to Centennial Park cycleway. For these reasons this route is not considered appropriate.

 

 


 

Route Option 9 – Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street

                          – currently proposed route

 

Location

Trees

Parking Spaces

Dwellings

Driveways

Bundock Street

South side - Malabar Rd to Avoca Street (1.15 km)

46

137

62

13

North side - Malabar Rd to Avoca Street (1.15km)

65

118

84

21

Avoca Street

East side - Bundock Street to Sturt Street (45m)

0

0

0

0

West side - Bundock  Street to Sturt Street  (45m)

4

2

10

1

Median island - Bundock  St to Sturt St  (45m)

8

-

-

-

Sturt Street

South side - Avoca Street to Anzac Parade (750m)

23

58

46

21

North side - Avoca Street to Anzac Parade (750m)

22

47

91

42

          

Section

Comments

Directness

Trees Impact

 Parking Impact

Width

Gradient

Bundock Street - from Malabar Road to Canberra Street

 

(width: 10.8m)

-      Removal of parking from one side of the street is required to allow separated cycleway

-      Kerb set back is required for the wider lanes needed for bus services (from Elphinstone Rd to Canberra St).  This requires removal of some trees between Hendy Ave and no.101 Bundock St only. Transplantation of these trees may be very difficult but can be investigated. Replacement trees would be provided.

-      Parking could be maintained between Hendy Ave and no.101 Bundock St if the cycleway was located along the existing ‘nature-strip’.

Very Good

Good / Poor (part route)

Fair / Poor

Poor

Poor

Bundock Street - from Canberra St to Avoca St

(width:10.8m)

-      Most of the parking on the south side of the street requires removal for separated cycleway. (ranked  as ‘Fair’ parking impact as its adjacent Defence land)

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Good

Avoca Street – near Bundock and Sturt Sts

-      Signalisation of the Sturt St, Avoca St & Bundock St intersection is required (and possible) to allow for the safe crossing of Avoca St by walkers or bike riders.

Fair

Fair

Good

Very Good

 

Sturt Street - from Avoca St to Anzac Pde

(width:12.8m)

-    Separated cycleway can be accommodated retaining existing parking and travel lanes

-    Good connection to the Light Rail terminus and the proposed Kingsford-Centennial Park bicycle route.

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Summary:  Route Option 9 – Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street Route – is only 1.9km long and provides the most direct (and shortest) link between the Malabar Road on-road bike lanes and Kingsford.  Of the 1,920 metre length of the route, some 924 metres of frontage is under the ownership of two government agencies (NSW Land and Housing Corporation has a Bundock Street total frontage of some 185 metres either side of Elphinstone Road, and, the Department of Defence has a combined frontage to both Bundock Street and Avoca Street of some 720 metres).  This results in more than 47% of the proposed separated cycleway having no direct frontage to individual residences.

 

Bundock Street has one significant hill, east of Hendy Street, which is 179 metres long at a 6.4% gradient.  Between Hendy Ave and no.101 Bundock St a number of trees would have to be removed. Some of these trees are very small, some are in poor health and one has died.  Transplantation of these trees may be very difficult but can be investigated. Replacement trees would be planted.  It should be noted that parking could be maintained at this location if the cycleway was located on the ‘nature-strip’ area.  Some trees would have to be removed in the area of the Avoca Street intersections.  These trees are a mix of small and large trees. New trees could also be planted.  Given that this route is a very direct route, is identified by the NSW State Government as a Strategic Bicycle Corridor and that it is a route which has been consistently supported by local bike riders since before 2007, this route is supported as the preferred cycleway route between the Malabar Road bike lanes and Kingsford.

Following community consultation (in 2015) Route Option 9 was listed as one of the higher priority cycleways in the Council’s construction priority list (See Appendix 1) and this route has also been identified by Transport for NSW as a Sydney strategic cycleway. Transport for NSW has committed to the funding of the full design costs of the project.  They have also indicated that funding will be provided for the full construction costs too.

 

Forty seven percent of Route Option 9 – Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street – is not fronted by individual dwellings (NSW Land and Housing Corporation has a Bundock Street frontage of some 185 metres either side of Elphinstone Road - with parking access off Elphinstone Road - , and, the Department of Defence has a frontage to both Bundock Street and Avoca Street of some 720 metres).

 

Regarding an Anzac Parade bike route option, it is noted that Anzac Parade, from Kingsford to Maroubra Junction is listed as a high priority cycleway in the Council’s construction priority list and has also been identified by Transport for NSW as a Sydney strategic cycleway. This means it is eligible for full NSW government design and construction funding in future funding rounds. Routes with connections to Anzac Parade could be examined subsequent to implementation of an Anzac Parade route.

 

Route Option 9 - Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street - is considered as the preferred route option. Sturt Street has sufficient width to accommodate a separated cycleway without the relocation of the existing kerbs and with minimal impact on parking and trees. Bundock Street is generally too narrow to retain parking on both sides. However, parking can be removed from the south side (mostly adjacent to Defence land).  Removal of parking from adjacent to Defence land will not affect as many individual residents as compared to the required removal of parking on each of the other routes analysed.  The other route options mostly have residential aligning both sides of the street.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:           Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a:         Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Outcome 5:           Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5a:         Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses.

Outcome 6:           A liveable city.

Direction 6a:         Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Outcome 9:           Integrated and accessible transport.

Direction 9a:         A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycleways linking major land uses and recreational opportunities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Randwick City Council was successful in obtaining funding for the development of a concept design for a proposed cycleway along Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street under the RMS Active Transport Program. Further design phases and the actual construction of the cycleway and streetscape improvements are eligible for full NSW Government funding under this program. However, this further funding has not at this time been announced or committed.

 

Conclusion

 

Having analysed nine separate east / west cycle routes, to connect with the existing cycle path network, it has become clear that a number of the proposed routes have significant problems. Routes numbered 1, 2, 3 & 4 in this report are either too circuitous, have momentous hills or propose using land not administered by the Council. Therefore, they are deemed unsuitable.

 

Route nos. 5 & 6 (the two Moverly Road routes) are too indirect and, given the road widths (and bus route), will affect large numbers of trees and/or parking spaces.  Route no.7 (The Rainbow Street route) has many large hills and delivers bike riders to the ‘wrong’ end of the Kingsford terminus.  It is also very narrow for most of its length which would require significant numbers of trees and/or parking spaces to be removed in order to install a cycleway.  Route no. 8 (The laneways and Wallace Street route) could not be implemented as RMS prohibits the installation of new traffic signals within 130 metres of already existing signals (the lanes are approximately 85 metres from the existing Avoca Street / Rainbow Street traffic signals). This route is also too narrow along most of its length to have a cycleway installed and has no passive surveillance at night.  Additionally, it has two long and significant hills. 

 

Route no.9, the previously proposed Bundock Street, Avoca Street, Sturt Street route, is, over 40% of its length (i.e. along Sturt Street), a full 12.8m wide and a separated cycleway can be implemented with very minimal impact on trees and parking.  For 47% of its length this proposed route does not have a frontage to individual dwellings (i.e. alongside the Defence site and the Land & Housing Corporation’s sites) and its impacts on most residents will be minimal.  This route does have one relatively short yet considerable hill. 

 

Given the abovementioned reasons and that this route is a very direct route, is identified by the NSW State Government as a Strategic Bicycle Corridor and that it is a route which has been consistently supported by local bike riders since before 2007, this route is supported as the preferred cycleway route between the Malabar Road bike lanes and Kingsford.

 

Of the route options considered, it is deemed that the best route available for an East - West cycle route to connect with the existing cycle path network’ is the previously proposed Route no.9 – the Bundock Street, Avoca Street, Sturt Street route.   Accordingly, it is considered that the Council should adopt Route Option 9, as the preferred cycleway route between South Coogee and Kingsford. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Bundock Street, Avoca Street, Sturt Street route is adopted as the preferred east / west cycleway route between South Coogee and Kingsford. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Bicycle Route Construction Priority Map

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS11/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Tram Lane, Randwick – Acquisition by Council of the privately owned section of the laneway

 

Folder No:                     F2004/06325

Author:                          Stephen Audet, Coordinator Engineering Services     

 

 

Introduction

 

Tram Lane is located in Randwick and runs between Church Street and Alison Road. The western half of Tram Lane is privately owned and in very poor condition.  A number of the bodies corporate that own portions of the lane submitted a joint request proposing that Council acquire the private portion of Tram Lane so that it can be incorporated in the local road network under Council’s management.

 

On 14 April, 2014 Council’s Works Committee resolved to acquire the lane by a process of agreement with the owners/bodies corporate.

 

Subsequently, Council’s Works Committee, at its meeting held on 13 February, 2018, resolved as follows (W3/18):

 

a)       compulsory acquire by agreement with the landowners of the Land Lots 100, 102, 104, 108, 110 and 112 in Plan of Acquisition DP1238453 (Land) under sections 177 and 178 of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) for the purpose of public road.

 

b)       approve the making of an application to the Governor for the publication of an acquisition notice in the NSW Government Gazette under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) with respect to the Land.

 

c)       affix the common seal of Council to any documents required to be sealed as part of the compulsory acquisition process for the Land in question.

 

d)       delegate the General Manager to execute on behalf of Council any documents associated with the compulsory acquisition process that do not require the common seal of Council.

 

Issues

 

Voluntary agreements are now in place with the owners of the six portions of land listed above and the agreements have been submitted to the Office of Local Government for endorsement. 

 

Whilst the Works Committee resolution (W3/18) meets all of the regulatory requirements, the Office of Local Government has requested that in addition to resolution W3/18, that Council resolve to approve the making of the application to the Minister for Local Government.

 

The acquisition by agreement of Land lots 100, 102, 104, 108, 110 and 112 in Plan of Acquisition DP1238453 represents six of the seven land lots that form the privately owned section of the lane.

 

The seventh portion of the lane was part of the property known as 10A Kynaston Avenue.  10A Kynaston Avenue is owned by a developer who did not agree to an acquisition by agreement and sought compensation from Council.  Council Works Committee resolved (W15/17) at its meeting on 13 June, 2017 to compulsory acquire the lane portion belonging to 10A Kynaston Avenue.

 

The compulsory acquisition process has progressed such that Council now owns this portion of the lane.  The final stage in the compulsory acquisition process is the referral of the matter to the Valuer General for determination of compensation, if any, payable to the owners of the acquired land.  A further report will be prepared upon conclusion of this process.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:           A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:                   Our public infrastructure and assets are planned, managed and funded to meet community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council has already committed funds in the 2018/19 Roads Capital Works Program to fund the renewal of Tram Lane upon the completion of the acquisition process. The legal costs associated with the registering of the Plan of Acquisition, gazetting and application to the Office of Local Government are covered within this budget item.

 

Conclusion

 

The process of acquiring the privately owned sections of Tram Lane is in the final stages with voluntary agreements in place and lodged for approval with the Office of Local Government for the six portions of the lane being acquired via the voluntary process.

 

A specific resolution of Council is required to allow finalisation of the acquisitions by agreement in accordance with the requirements of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), the Department of Land and Property Information NSW, and Office of Local Government.

 

The process for the lane that is part of 10A Kynaston Avenue is proceeding separately by Compulsory Acquisition as resolved by the Works Committee (Resolution W15/17) with only the finalisation of the valuation remaining to conclude the process.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That, in addition to Councils Works Committee resolution W3/18, Council approve the making of application to the Minister for Local Government for the issue of a proposed acquisition notice under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) with respect to the Land.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO14/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  2019 National General Assembly of Local Government

 

Folder No:                     F2014/00272

Author:                          Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

 

Introduction

 

The 2019 National General Assembly (NGA) of Local Government will be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra from 16-19 June.  The NGA is the principal conference of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the theme of this year’s conference is ‘Future Focused’.

 

Issues

 

This conference provides Councillors with a unique opportunity to hear from the leaders in our sector and across government and also provides unparalleled one on one access to the most influential decision makers in the nation.

 

Relationship to city plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1a:                   Council has a long-term vision based on sustainability.

Direction 1b:         Council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Councillors’ attendance at conferences has been allowed for in the 2018-19 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

This is an important conference for Local Government throughout Australia as it is the only conference where the States come together to discuss Local Government specific issues.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)       Council endorses the attendance of interested Councillors at the 2019 National General Assembly in Canberra.

 

b)      any Councillors interested in attending 2019 National General Assembly of Local          Government advise the General Manager as soon as possible for registration          purposes.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO15/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Contingency Fund - status as at 31 March 2019

 

Folder No:                     F2017/07396

Author:                          Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to detail the progressive amount of donations, allocations, waiving of fees and other similar contributions.

 

Issues

 

For the 2018-19 financial year there have been 57 allocations totaling $252,417.15. All allocations are listed in the table below.

 

Meeting

Details

Approved allocation

2018-19

Annual contribution (ongoing)

Planning Committee – 13 Mar 2012

Annual contribution – Australia Day Botany Bay Regatta

$750.00

Ord Council

17 Sept 2013

Annual Contribution (5 years from 2015-16 to 2019-20) Waiving of Fees – Rainbow Club Australia Inc – Murray Rose’s Malabar Magic Ocean Swim

 

$27,000.00

Ord Council  23 Sept 2014

Annual contribution (5 years from 2015-16 to 2019-20) - Randwick Boys High School - 'Mayor's Award'

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 26 April 2016

Annual contribution (5 years from 2015-16 - Sydney Children’s Foundation Gold Telethon)

$5,000.00

Ord Council – 26 April 2016

Annual contribution (5 years from 2016-17 - Sydney Children’s Foundation Lights for Kids Christmas campaign)

$2,000.00

Ord Council – 25 Jul 2017

Annual contribution (5 years from 2017-18 to 2021-22) - Randwick Girls’ High School - 'Mayor's Award'

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 27 June 2017

Sponsorship and in-kind support - Surfing NSW - Junior State Surfing Title

$16,000.00

Ord Council – 16 Oct 2018

Annual contribution (3 years from 2018-19 to 2020-2021) - Renewal of Community Partnership Agreement with Westpac Helicopter Rescue Service

$20,000.00

2018-19 Contingency Fund allocations

Ord Council – 27 Feb 2018

Financial assistance - Randwick Boys' and Girls' High Schools Show 2018

$4,000.00

Ord Council – 22 May 2018

Waiving of fees - Charity Car Show and Shine

$4,749.85

Ord Council – 26 June 2018

Waiving of fees - International Day of People with a Disability

$440.00

Ord Council – 26 June 2018

Waiving of fees - St George Coptic Orthodox Church Annual Community Fete

$1,323.00

Ord Council – 26 June 2018

Waiving of fees - Taste of Coogee 2018

$15,451.00

Ord Council – 26 June 2018

Financial assistance - South Sydney Rabbitohs' - Commemorate John Sutton Historic Milestone

$2,000.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Waiving of fees - Our Lady of the Rosary School, Kensington Community Fair

$9,488.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Waiving of fees and donation - NSW Police Force & International Students' Beach Soccer Day

$4,518.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Waivng of fees - Coogee Surf Life Saving Club - Take 3 for the Sea

$928.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Donation - Coogee Surf Life Saving Club - Coogee Dippers (Autism) Program

$5,000.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Waiving of fees - Filipino Cultural and Arts Festival

$3,020.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Financial assistance - A National Act of Recognition

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Financial contribution - Commemorative Statue at the Cenotaph, Maroubra

$2,000.00

Ord Council – 24 July 2018

Financial assistance - Blak Markets La Perouse

$7,500.00

Ord Council – 28 Aug 2018

Financial assistance - La Perouse Public School

$2,780.00

Ord Council – 28 Aug 2018

Expansion of Community Partnership - Sydney Roosters inaugural women’s NRL side

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 28 Aug 2018

Donation - Wee Waa Chamber of Commerce

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 28 Aug 2018

Annual Des Renford Chair of Hearts Research Family Gala and Charity Day - Use of Des Renford Leisure Centre

$9,500.00

Ord Council – 25 Sept 2018

Surf Life Saving and Pool Rescue Coaching Clinic - Use of Des Renford Leisure Centre Pool

$6,102.00

Ord Council – 25 Sept 2018

Donation - Humour Foundation Clown Doctors Program

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 25 Sept 2018

Waiving of fees - Maroubra Diggers Junior Swimming Club for two Swimming Carnivals at Des Renford Leisure

$1,268.00

Ord Council – 16 Oct 2018

Waiving of fees - Beach Ultimate Frisbee - Selection Camp

$1,044.00

Ord Council – 16 Oct 2018

Waiving of fees and financial assistance - Surfing NSW - Carve Pro surfing event

$23,726.00

Ord Council – 16 Oct 2018

Grant Application under the Stronger Communities Program – allocation of Council funds (if successful)

$5,000.00

Ord Council – 16 Oct 2018

Earthquakes in Indonesia - Donation to Relief Fund

$5,000.00

Ord Council – 16 Oct 2018

Waiving of fees - St Nicolas Anglican Church Carols by the Sea

$2,298.00

Ord Council – 27 Nov 2018

Waiving of fees - Greek Epiphany Festival 2019

$15,537.00

Ord Council – 27 Nov 2018

Waiving of fees - Surf Life Saving Sydney Inc

$2,270.00

Ord Council – 27 Nov 2018

Financial assistance - Randwick Boys' and Girls' High Schools Show 2019

$4,000.00

Ord Council – 27 Nov 2018

Financial assistance - Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club - 2018 Life Saving World Championships

$1,500.00

Ord Council – 27 Nov 2018

Waiving of fees - Mission Australia

$180.00

Ord Council – 11 Dec 2018

Waiving of fees - Eastern Suburbs Sub Branch of the Children's Book Council of Australia

$378.30

Ord Council – 11 Dec 2018

Waiving of fees - Global Goodwill Day

$480.00

Ord Council – 11 Dec 2018

Financial assistance - First Hand Solutions Aboriginal Corporation

$1,000.00

Ord Council – 11 Dec 2018

Financial assistance – St John’s Anglican Church

$300.00

Ord Council – 11 Dec 2018

 Financial assistance - Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

$1,280.00

Ord Council – 11 Dec 2018

Financial assistance – Blak Markets La Perouse

$7,500.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Donation – Temora Shire Council

$3,000.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Financial assistance – Sea Shepherd Marine Debris Campaign

$1,025.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Waiving of fees – The Coogee Owls

$759.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Financial assistance – Randwick City Football Club 2019 Gala Day

$100.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Donation – Friends of Malabar Headland

$300.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Financial assistance – Randwick and District Historical Society

$9,000.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Donation – St John’s Anglican Church, Maroubra

$300.00

Ord Council – 26 Feb 2019

Waiving of fees – St Margaret Mary’s Primary School

$182.00

Ord Council – 26 March 2019

Financial support - Windgap Foundation - Annual Ball

$2,400.00

Ord Council – 26 March 2019

Financial assistance – Australian Blind Football (Soccer)

$500.00

Ord Council – 26 March 2019

Waiving of fees - Maroubra Swim Clubs - use of Des Renford Leisure Centre

$3,690.00

Ord Council – 26 March 2019

Financial assistance - Our Lady of the Rosary Parish Kensington

$2,850.00

 Total - 2018-19 Contingency Fund allocations:                                                            $252,417.15

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:             A vibrant and diverse community.

Our community will be proud to be part of our City and celebrate its range of cultures and people.

Direction 2b:           Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

Key Actions:           Support the provision of services and facilities to meet the needs of our Target Groups and celebrate the range of cultures and people within Randwick City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Council has allocated $221,317.00 in the 2018-19 Budget for contingencies. Budget adjustments, if required, are dealt with as part of quarterly budget reviews.

 

Recommendation

 

That the status of the contingency funds allocations for 2018-19, be noted

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO16/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Investment Report - March 2019

 

Folder No:                     F2015/06527

Author:                          Gail Johnston, Acting Manager Financial Operations     

 

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires a written report to be provided to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 12 January 2011. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s Investment Policy.

 

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – March 2019” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of March 2019. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 March 2019, Council held investments with a market value of $75.868 million. The portfolio value decreased during March by ~$625 thousand. The decrease is representative of a negative cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from March 2018 to March 2019. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

Council’s Portfolio & Compliance

 

Asset Allocation

 

The majority of the portfolio is spread between term deposits (51.41%) and senior floating rate notes (41.71%). The remainder of the portfolio is held in the overnight cash accounts with CBA (6.88%). The FRN’s add additional liquidity and are generally accessible within 2-3 business days.

 

 

Term to Maturity

 

The portfolio remains diversified from a maturity perspective with a spread of maturities out to 5 years. Medium-term (2-5 years) assets account for around 36% of the total investment portfolio.

 


 

All minimum and maximum limits comply with Council’s investment policy:

Compliant

Horizon

Invested
$

Invested
%

Min Limit
%

Max Limit
%

0-90 days

$19,220,928.00

25.34%

10%

100%

91-365 days

$19,502,790.00

25.70%

20%

100%

1-2 years

$9,527.437.00

12.56%

0%

70%

2-5 years

$27,616,863.00

36.40%

0%

50%

5-10 years

$0.00

0.00%

0%

25%

 

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of the Council’s portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.

 

Credit Quality

 

As at the end of March, applying the long-term S&P ratings only, Council did not have an overweight position to any single ADI. The investment portfolio is entirely directed to assets rated “A” or higher, consistent with the adopted investment policy. That is, there are currently no assets rated “BBB” or below.

 

Compliant

Credit Rating

Invested ($)

Invested (%)

Max. Limit (%)

Available ($)

AA Category

$48,344,496

63.72%

100%

$27,523,523

A Category

$27,523,523

36.28%

80%

$33,170,892

BBB Category

$0.00

0.00%

 

 

Unrated ADIs

$0.00

0.00%

 

 

 Under the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS), the first $250,000 is guaranteed by the Federal Government (rated AAA by S&P), per investor, per ADI

 

Counterparty

 

The table below shows the individual counterparty exposures against Council’s current investment policy based on long term S&P ratings.

 

Compliant

 

Issuer

Rating

Invested ($)

Invested (%)

Max. Limit (%)

Available ($)

CBA

AA-

$16,761,570

22.09%

40%

$13,585,638

NAB

AA-

$21,543,680

28.40%

40%

$8,803,527

Westpac

AA-

$10,039,246

13.23%

40%

$20,307,961

Rabobank

A+

 $1,017,623

1.34%

25%

$17,949,382

Suncorp

A+

$12,522,934

16.51%

25%

$6,444,071

AMP Bank

A

$7,982,966

10.52%

25%

$10,984,039

ING Bank

A

$6,000,000

7.91%

25%

$12,967,005

 

 

Performance

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the AusBond Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period March 2016 to March 2019.

 

 

The total portfolio (T/D’s and FRNs) provided a solid return of +0.24% (actual), outperforming the benchmark AusBond Bank Index return by +0.07% (actual). The outperformance continues to be driven by a combination of deposits that were originally invested longer than 6 months, as well as the higher yielding FRNs locked in at attractive margins and sold prior to maturity, realising small capital gains and boosting returns. The FRN portfolio (on an accrual basis) continues to outperform the deposit portfolio, as evidenced by the returns over the past 12 months. This has partially been attributed to the strategic sales undertaken, realising capital gains and then switching proceeds into higher yielding (new) FRNs.

 

Over the past year, the combined deposit and FRN portfolio returned +2.82% p.a., outperforming bank bills by 0.80% p.a. The overall return remains solid given deposit rates reached their all-time lows in August 2016 after the RBA’s last interest rate cut. The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remains at the historical low of 1.50%.

 

Performance

1 month

3 months

6 months

FYTD

1 year

Official Cash Rate

0.13%

0.37%

0.74%

1.12%

1.50%

AusBond Bank Bill Index

0.17%

0.52%

1.00%

1.52%

2.02%

Council’s T/D Portfolio

0.23%

0.68%

1.36%

2.04%

2.70%

Council’s FRN Portfolio

0.25%

0.73%

1.46%

2.21 %

2.96%

Council’s Portfolio^

0.24%

0.70%

1.41%

2.12 %

2.82 %

Outperformance

0.07%

0.18%

0.41%

0.60 %

0.80%

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, term deposits totalled $39.0 million, accounting for 51.41% of the total investment portfolio. Two deposits totalling $2.50 million matured and were withdrawn in March.  Four new term deposits between 6-12 months totalling $6.50 million were placed in March. As at the end of March, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.76%, down 2 basis points from the previous month.

 

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $31.647 million in floating rate notes. During March the following FRN was sold:

- $1.00m CBA (AAA) FRN maturing 17/11/2021

Total realised capital gains on this sale amounted to $8,140. The $1.0m (face value) of the sale proceeds were reinvested into a secondary market FRN with AMP (A-) at +129bp trading margin or capital price of $99.316.

 

The Floating Rate Notes are classified as “held for trading” requiring that they are reported at the latest indicative market valuations at month end. The indicative market value of the FRN’s as at the 31 March 2019 increased by ~$80k.

 

Ministerial Investment Order

 

In late 2007, the NSW Government commissioned a review of NSW local government investments. The review, known as the Cole Report included eight recommendations that were all adopted by the NSW Government and incorporated into the Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008. A revised Investment Order was issued on the 12 January 2011 and includes changes that:

-        Remove the ability to invest in the mortgage of land;

-        Remove the ability to make a deposit with Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd;

-        And includes the addition of “Key Considerations” with a comment that a council’s General Manager, or any other staff, with delegated authority to invest funds on behalf of the council must do so in accordance with the council’s adopted investment policy.

 

Investment Register

 

The investment register is maintained with details of each individual investment including; financial institution; amount invested; date invested; maturity date and the applicable interest rate.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:    Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction:    Long term financial viability is achieved

 

Financial impact statement

 

The original budget provision for investment income from this source was $1,200,934.00. An additional $350,000.00 was budgeted as part of the December 2018 budget review. The total revised budget is $1,550,934.00. Investment income to 31 March 2019 amounted to $1,529,733.07.

 

Conclusion

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in the 2018-19 financial year and outperforming the AusBond Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.

 

All investments as at 31 March 2019 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Investment Report for March 2019 be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer - March 2019

 

 

 

 


Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer - March 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO17/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Code of Conduct

 

Folder No:                     F2004/06569

Author:                          Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

 

Introduction

 

In September 2018 the Office of Local Government (OLG) released the new Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – 2018 (the Model Code) and the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – 2018 (Procedures).

 

The Model Code and Procedures were prescribed by legislation on 14 December 2018. Councils have six months, until 14 June 2019, to adopt a Code of Conduct and Procedures based on the Model Code and Procedures.

 

Issues

 

The pecuniary interest provisions from both the Act and Regulation were repealed on 14 December 2018 and are now incorporated into the new Model Code of Conduct. Under the transitional provisions of the Act, they are deemed into Council’s adopted Codes of Conduct until such time as the Council adopts a new Code of Conduct based on the prescribed Model Code and, where Councils fail to do this by 14 June 2019, this will happen automatically.

 

Key points

-      Council’s existing adopted Code of Conduct and procedures will remain in force until such time as a new Code of Conduct and procedures based on the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures prescribed under the Regulation, are adopted.

-      If Council fails to adopt a new Code of Conduct and procedures based on the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures by 14 June 2019, the provisions of the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures will automatically override any provisions of Council’s adopted Code of Conduct and Procedures that are inconsistent with those contained in the Model Code and Procedures (unless the inconsistent provisions of a Council’s adopted Code of Conduct are more onerous than those contained in the Model Code of Conduct).

-      In adopting a new Code of Conduct and Procedures, Council may include provisions that are supplementary to those contained in the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures. Council may also impose more onerous requirements under their adopted Code of Conduct than those prescribed under the Model Code of Conduct.

-      Council may adopt separate Codes of Conduct for Councillors, staff and delegates and committee members instead of a single Code of Conduct that applies to all Council officials.

-      Code of conduct complaints must be assessed against the standards prescribed under the version of Council’s Code of Conduct that was in force at the time the conduct the subject of the complaint is alleged to have occurred.

-      Code of conduct complaints must be dealt with in accordance with the version of Council’s Procedures that were in force at the time the complaint was made.

 

What is changing?

The main differences between the previous Model Code and the new Model Code are as follows:

 

-      Inclusion of new clauses on Harassment, Discrimination and Bullying;

-      Inclusion of Work, Health and Safety Requirements;

-      Inclusion of new requirements relating to Meetings;

-      Inclusion of Pecuniary Interest requirements from the Local Government Act 1993;

-      Inclusion of new clauses relating to Gifts and Benefits;

-      Inclusion of a new clause relation to Access to Information where councillors have a conflict of interest;

-      Provisions governing the use of social media (from the previously released version of the Model Code of Conduct issued on 5 September 2018) have been removed from the Model Code but have been included in the draft Code as a supplementary provision.

-      Inclusion of Recordkeeping requirements.

 

In addition, The OLG has also released bespoke versions of the Model Code for those Councils that wish to adopt a separate Code for:

 

-      Councillors;

-      Staff; and

-      Committee members, delegates and council advisers.

 

It is recommended that the bespoke versions be adopted as they allow for more specific and targeted Codes.

 

Councils may extend the application of their Codes of Conduct to advisory committee members, volunteers and contractors if they wish. On 22 September 2015 council resolved that the Code of Conduct be applied to Precinct Executives. The Manager Communications is currently working with the Precincts to review their ‘rules and procedures’ and, given that it is likely that a report in relation to this will be presented to the May 2019 Council meeting, it is recommended that Council defer a decision on the adoption of the ‘Code of Conduct for committee members, delegates of council and council advisers’ and consider this in conjunction with the Manager Communications report in May.

 

Randwick City Council specific clauses

The following Randwick specific clauses have been added to the Model Code:

 

·        Council’s values (Councillors and staff Code)

·        Purchasing and procurement decisions (staff Code only)

·        Annual reporting for secondary employment (staff Code only)

·        Council’s current gifts and benefits provisions (ie. that gifts and benefits are not to be accepted regardless of the value (Councillors, staff and council advisers Code)

·        Councillors Access to Information and Interaction between Councillors and Staff Policy (Councillors and staff Code)

·        Council resources policies (staff Code only).

·        Social Media requirements (Councillors, staff and council advisers Code).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1(c):       Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Councils must adopt a Code of Conduct and Procedures, incorporating the provisions of the Model Code, within 6 months of Code being incorporated in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (ie. by 14 June 2019).

 

It is recommended that the Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – 2018, be adopted without amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)      the following Codes be adopted for immediate implementation:

 

-    Code of Conduct for Councillors; and

-    Code of Conduct for Staff.

 

b)      the ‘Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW – 2018’ be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Code of Conduct for Councillors

 

2.

Draft Code of Conduct for staff

 

3.

Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW - 2018

 

 

 

 


Draft Code of Conduct for Councillors

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Draft Code of Conduct for staff

Attachment 2

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW - 2018

Attachment 3

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO18/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Code of Meeting Practice

 

Folder No:                     F2004/06570

Author:                          Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

 

Introduction

 

Amendments made to the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) in August 2016 by the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 provided for a Model Code of Meeting Practice (Model Meeting Code) to be prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

The Office of Local Government released the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW in November 2018.

 

The Model Code of Meeting Practice was prescribed by legislation (ie. included in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005) on 14 December 2018.

 

Issues

 

The Model Meeting Code has mandatory and non-mandatory provisions. Under the transitional provisions of the Act, Councils have until 12 months after the next ordinary elections to adopt a Code of Meeting Practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code. However, if Councils fail to do so by 14 June 2019, any provisions of a Council’s adopted Code of Meeting Practice will be invalid to the extent that they are inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code.

 

It should be noted that the OLG has indicated that it believes that the non-mandatory provisions in the Model Code reflect ‘best practice’ with respect to meeting procedure and have been included after extensive consultation with NSW Councils.

 

The meeting provisions of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 were repealed as of 14 December 2018, but are deemed to continue to apply to meetings of a Council until such time as it adopts a Code of Meeting Practice based on the Model Meeting Code.

 

Councils are required to adopt a Code of Meeting Practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code. A Council’s adopted Meeting Code may also incorporate the non-mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code and any other supplementary provisions adopted by the Council.

 

Key points

-       Optional rules for pre-meeting Councillor briefings (these have been included in the draft Code at clauses 3.32 to 3.37 – page 6)

-       Optional rules for public forums (these have been included in the draft Code in a slightly amended form to reflect Council’s current practice – see section 4 – pages 7-8)

-       A new requirement for meetings to be webcast. Councils that have not adopted a Code of Meeting Practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code by 14 December 2019 will be required to webcast their meetings after that date. The webcasting requirement may be met by

o    Livestreaming; or

o    posting a video recording of the meeting on Council’s website; or

o    posting an audio recording of the meeting on Council’s website

The draft Code provides for audio recordings to be posted on Council’s website on the 1st business day following the meeting in question and to remain on the website for three months) (clause 5.19 – page 10)

-       A new rule limiting the use of Mayoral Minutes without notice to cases of urgency (clause 9.9 – page 15)

-       Optional rules requiring a staff report for motions that do not align with Council’s integrated planning and reporting objectives (these have been included in the draft Code at clauses 3.12 – page 4)

-       Optional rules allowing multiple items to be adopted in a block (these have been included in the draft Code as they reflect Council’s current code) (section 13 – page 22)

-       Optional rules allowing rescission motions to be dealt with at the same meeting in cases of urgency and allowing matters to be recommitted to correct an error (these have been included in the draft Code at clauses 17.12 to 17.14 – pages 29-30)

-       Optional rules placing time limits on meetings (these have been included in the draft Code as they reflect Council’s current code) (section 18 – page 31)

-       Optional rules with respect to Motions requiring the expenditure of funds (these have been included in the draft Code in a slightly amended form) – see clauses 9.10 and 10.9 – pages 15 and 17.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1(c):       Continuous improvement in service delivery based on accountability, transparency and good governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Before adopting a new Code of Meeting Practice, under section 361 of the LGA, Councils are required to exhibit a draft of the Code of Meeting Practice for at least 28 days and provide members of the community at least 42 days in which to comment on the draft code.

 

If the report recommendation is adopted, a post-exhibition report will be submitted to the 25 June 2019 Council meeting for the new Code of Meeting Practice to be adopted.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That, in accordance with legislative compliance,  the draft Code of Meeting Practice be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days and members of the community be provided at least 42 days in which to comment on the draft code.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Code of Meeting Practice - based on Model Meeting Code

 

 

 

 


Draft Code of Meeting Practice - based on Model Meeting Code

Attachment 1

 

 


 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 


 



 

 


 


PDF Creator


 


 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO19/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Monthly Financial Report as at 31 March 2019

 

Folder No:                     F2018/00380

Author:                          Oliver Guo, Acting Manager Financial Planning & Performance     

 

 

Introduction

 

Section 202 of Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the responsible accounting officer of a council must:

 

a)       establish and maintain a system of budgetary control that will enable the Council’s actual income and expenditure to be monitored each month and to be compared with the estimate of the council’s income and expenditure, and

 

b)      if any instance arises where the actual income or expenditure of the Council is materially different from its estimated income or expenditure, report the instance to the next meeting of the council.

 

Issues

 

This report provides the financial results of the Council as at 31 March 2019. Attachment 1 summarises the Council’s financial performance and its source and application of funds. It also summarises the operating result for each of the Council’s principal activities. Attachment 2 details the financial position of the Council as at 31 March 2019. Attachment 3 details the cash flow of the Council as at 31 March 2019.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:         Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1b:       Council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational      activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council’s Director Corporate Services, as the Responsible Accounting Officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.  The Current Ratio as at 31 March 2019 is 2.53 compared to 2.12 as at 30 June 2018, indicating the Council’s liquidity remains strong with capacity to meet short term obligations as they fall due.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council acknowledges that the Responsible Accounting Officer has advised that the projected financial position of Council is satisfactory.

 

 


 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Monthly Financial Statements - Income Statement - March 2019

 

2.

Monthly Financial Statements - Balance Sheet - March 2019

 

3.

Monthly Financial Statements - Cashflow Statement - March 2019

 

 

 

 


Monthly Financial Statements - Income Statement - March 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Monthly Financial Statements - Balance Sheet - March 2019

Attachment 2

 

 

PDF Creator


Monthly Financial Statements - Cashflow Statement - March 2019

Attachment 3

 

 

PDF Creator  


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM16/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Urgent driver safety traffic measures in Prince Edward Street, Malabar

 

Folder No:                     F2004/06184

Submitted by:               Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That due to community concerns about driver safety, Council’s Manager Integrated Transport undertake the appropriate measures to ensure stop signs are installed at the Ireton Street, Raglan Street, Napier Street and Howe Street intersections with Prince Edward Street, Malabar.

 

Background:

I have been approached by a number of Malabar residents who are concerned by the number of accidents occurring at different intersections at Prince Edward Street, Malabar. Each intersection on Prince Edward Street between Ireton Street and Howe Street is extremely dangerous with blind spots at every intersection. All of these intersections require stop signs to be installed as a matter of urgency to reduce the risk of further accidents. I believe this motion is important to ensure community safety to visitors and residents in our LGA.  

 

Source of funding:

Funding for such traffic measures would be minimal and are allowed in our current budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM17/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Acknowledgement of contribution of Asian communities

 

Folder No:                     F2004/06281

Submitted by:               Councillor D'Souza, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Randwick City Council formally acknowledges the invaluable contribution made by our Asian communities to the advancement of our LGA and Australia in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM18/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Said - Update on opposition to proposed passenger cruise ship terminal

 

Folder No:                     F2014/00125

Submitted by:               Councillor Said, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

Considering the recent NSW State Election and the re-election of the Berejiklian Government,

 

That Randwick City Council:

 

1.       Identify the NSW Minister responsible for Ports and/or the proposed cruise terminal at Yarra Bay or Molineux Point and associated activities;

 

2.       Write to the NSW Premier, and the new Minister responsible for ports reiterating  Council’s strong opposition to a proposed passenger cruise-ship terminal at either Yarra Bay or Molineux Point, highlighting Council’s strong concerns about the negative impact a passenger terminal would have on the area including traffic congestion, environmental destruction, loss of open green space and flow-on land-use pressures;

 

3.       Invite the Minister(or their representative) to attend a meeting of Council to address these concerns;

 

4.       Invite representatives from the ‘Save Yarra Bay’ group, State and Federal MPs, representatives from surrounding councils, members of the Local Aboriginal Land Council and identified concerned residents to a special briefing from council staff on the potential negative impacts of the cruise terminal being located in the LGA;

 

5.       Provide an update to council on the matters outlined in the previous council resolution NM63/18 dated 28 August 2018.

 

Background:

- Previous motion below - NM68/18

 

That Randwick Council strongly opposes a passenger cruise ship terminal and takes the following actions:

 

1.       write to the NSW Government stating Council’s strong opposition to a proposed passenger cruise-ship terminal at either Yarra Bay or Molineux Point noting Council’s strong concerns about the negative impact a passenger terminal would have on the area including traffic congestion, environmental destruction, loss of open green space and flow-on land-use pressures;

 

2.       request an urgent meeting with the relevant NSW and Federal Ministers asking for further investigation of alternate sites; 

 

3.       prepare an application to list Yarra Bay Beach and Frenchman’s Beach as state heritage items;

 

4.       re-affirm its current commitment to these areas as having local heritage significance; and

 

5.       prepare a report outlining potential studies into the environmental significance of impacted areas and potential risks of a major change to land-use in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM19/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Said - Apply for National Heritage Listing and Grant Program

 

Folder No:                     F2005/00185

Submitted by:               Councillor Said, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That:

 

1.       Based on the comprehensive research collected, Council Officers are to bring back a report on the possibility of applying to the Department of the Environment and Energy to add Yarra Bay and Frenchman’s Beach to the National Heritage List (of which Kurnell is already listed)

 

2.       Council Officers to investigate applying for funds through the, ‘Australian Heritage Grant Program’ and are to advise Council of the outcome.

 

Background:

Council officers have done an excellent job of researching the State Heritage significance of Yarra Bay and Frenchman’s Beach. Based on the historical data provided, there now is a case to apply for National Heritage significance and a National Heritage Grant.

 

National Heritage listing, strengthens and provides conservation, preservation, recognition and management to our unique area.

 

A National Heritage Grant will allow Randwick City Council to improve awareness of this unique area of our National History and to promote the values also unique to this area through community engagement.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM20/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Declaration of Climate Emergency

 

Folder No:                     F2008/00363

Submitted by:               Councillor Veitch, West Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Randwick City Council:

 

1.       Publicly acknowledges that we are in a state of climate emergency that requires urgent action by all levels of government; that human induced climate change represents one of the greatest threats to humanity, civilisation, and other species; and that it is still possible to prevent the most catastrophic outcomes if societies take emergency action, including local councils;

 

2.       Bring back a report to council to examine how council plans, policies and works programs can address the climate emergency, and ensure this is embedded into future council strategic plans.

 

Background:

In the absence of policies global warming is expected, to reach 4.1°C – 4.8°C above pre-industrial by the end of the century. The emissions that drive this warming are often called Baseline scenarios and are taken from the IPCC AR5 Working Group III. Current policies presently in place around the world are projected to reduce baseline emissions and result in about 3.3°C 1 warming above pre-industrial levels. https://climateactiontracker.org

 

There remains a substantial gap between what governments have promised to do and the total level of actions they have undertaken to date. Furthermore, both the current policy and pledge trajectories lie well above emissions pathways consistent with the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal.

 

In 2010, Beyond Zero Emissions calculated the cost of changing from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy would be approximately $8 per household per week, and the cost of solar and wind has fallen significantly since then. In contrast, the economic, human and environmental cost of ignoring climate change is incalculable. The cost of 1.1 metre of sea level rise will be $20 billion in destroyed property in NSW alone.

 

In 2018, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world must take action in the next two years to avert the disastrous consequences of runaway climate change. "Climate change is the defining issue of our time…if we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us."

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM21/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Veitch, Matson and Shurey  – Greater Randwick Urban Masterplan and Randwick Academic Health Science Centre Masterplan

 

Folder No:                     F2018/00420

Submitted by:               Councillor Veitch, West Ward; Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor Shurey, North Ward     

 

 

[Note: In accordance with clause 43(4) of the Code of Meeting Practice, three Councillors have signed this motion as it is similar to NM8/19, which was considered at the 26 February 2019 Council meeting].

Motion:

That Randwick City Council:

 

1.       Write to the Premier of NSW, the NSW Minister for Planning, and representatives from UNSW and NSW Health Infrastructure to:

 

-     request that a meeting be arranged with the Minister for Planning, representatives from UNSW and NSW Health Infrastructure, Randwick City Council and residents in the area bounded by Hospital Rd, and Magill, Botany and Barker Streets to discuss the plans referred to above

 

-     request that details and timelines regarding the Greater Randwick Urban Masterplan (GRUM), the Randwick Academic Health Science Centre Masterplan (RAHSCM), and the Randwick Campus Redevelopment Stage 2, 3 and 4 plans be provided to Randwick City Council and residents in the area bounded by Hospital Rd, and Magill, Botany and Barker Streets, and that all relevant information and plans be published on the Randwick Campus Redevelopment website.

 

Background:

-        Notes that since at least 2008 reports and plans for the Randwick Health and Education Precinct have been a subject of great concern to residents in the Randwick LGA, particularly those residents living near POW Hospital in the area bounded by Botany St, High St, Hospital Rd and Barker St;

 

-        Notes that references to plans for the area bounded by Hospital Rd, and Magill, Botany and Barker Streets can be found on the Randwick Campus Redevelopment website

 

         http://randwickcampusredevelopment.health.nsw.gov.au/Projects/How-To-Build-A-         Hospital

 

         Including reference to the Greater Randwick Urban Masterplan (GRUM) (final report v1 23/12/16, final report v2, 18/1/17)

 

         https://gsc-public-1.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/submissions/SouthEasternSydneyLocalHealthDistrict_Open_Submission-Attachment-02.pdf

 

         and the Randwick Academic Health Science Centre Masterplan (RAHSCM).

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM22/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Veitch, Matson and Shurey  – Review of Compulsory Acquisition process for the Randwick Campus Redevelopment

 

Folder No:                     F2018/00420

Submitted by:               Councillor Veitch, West Ward; Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor Shurey, North Ward     

 

 

[Note: In accordance with clause 43(4) of the Code of Meeting Practice, three Councillors have signed this motion as it is similar to NM8/19, which was considered at the 26 February 2019 Council meeting].

Motion:

That Randwick City Council:

 

1.       Write to the Premier of NSW and the Leader of the NSW Opposition, calling for a public inquiry into:

 

-     the compulsory acquisition process itself;

-     the consultation and transparency issues (referred to above);

-     the treatment individual residents received when negotiating with NSW Government officials regarding the Randwick Health and Education campus redevelopment;

-     current statutory planning powers that override council LEPs to the detriment of local communities;

 

with the intent of achieving significant reforms for other residents in the Randwick LGA and across NSW whose homes may become the subject of a future compulsory acquisition process.

 

Background:

-        Notes that since at least 2008 reports and plans for the Randwick Health and Education Precinct have been a subject of great concern to residents in the Randwick LGA, particularly those residents located near POW Hospital in the area bounded by Botany St, High St, Hospital Rd and Barker St;

 

-        Notes that on 23 June 2017 the Treasurer Dominic Perrottet and Minister for Health and Medical Research Brad Hazzard released details of a $720 million expansion of the Randwick Hospital Campus, and that residents of over 70 properties in the area immediately west of the hospital, bounded by Magill St to the South, Hospital Road to the East, High St to the North and Botany St to the West have since had their homes acquired by Health Administration Corporation under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991;

 

-        Acknowledges that the lack of transparency and consultation regarding the long term plans for this site by the NSW State Government has caused these residents significant distress and hardship.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM23/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Destruction of Aboriginal Artefacts at the CSELR stabling yard

 

Folder No:                     F2013/00263

Submitted by:               Councillor Veitch, West Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Randwick City Council:

 

1.       Calls on the NSW State Government to:

 

-     Remove Aboriginal Heritage protection from the National Parks and Wildlife Act, and introduce stand-alone Aboriginal Heritage Laws that can’t be overridden by State Significant Infrastructure and other developments;

 

-     Hand control and decision-making over Aboriginal Heritage and culture to First Nations people – Registered Native Title owners, registered claimants, local traditional owners, local elders and knowledge keepers and Land Councils;

 

-     Provide copies of the post excavation report to Randwick City Council and the local Aboriginal community as required under the consent, and;

 

-     Meet with representatives of Randwick City Council and the local Aboriginal community to discuss the report and answer questions regarding both the findings and the destruction of the site.

 

Background:

Transport for NSW is constructing the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR), with tram stabling facilities located at the Randwick Stabling Yards located to the north-east of the Royal Randwick Racecourse. Between 2015 and 2016 the Randwick Stabling Yard was archaeologically and geomorphologically investigated, resulting in the discovery of over 24,000 Aboriginal artefacts at the site referred to as RSY1.

 

A formal request to then Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt to use powers under sections 9 and 10 of the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act 1984 to protect the site's indigenous heritage was rejected, and excavation of the site was able to continue.

 

A post-excavation report prepared by GML Heritage for Acciona and TfNSW has confirmed both the significance of the site and the impact of its destruction. The site was of very high value to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, and to researchers attempting to understand the impact of colonisation on the local Aboriginal population.

 

“The site RSY1 has considerable heritage value to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. The site was created at a historical junction, when Aboriginal and European cultures crossed and interacted for the first time. The place and its cultural landscape context provide direct evidence of the extent of early and continued Aboriginal presence beyond the widely known history of dispossession. Investigation of the site confirms this continued presence, demonstrates new connections and provides a means to understand the complexity of cross-cultural relations in the early colony.

 

As the values and nature of the flint material become recognised by the archaeological and Aboriginal communities, it is likely that flint material will start to be documented and identified in further Aboriginal and historical archaeological assemblages across Sydney…..An understanding of the materials movement across the Sydney landscape can be used to reconstruct social and economic systems of material and human movement.” (Ref. Post-Excavation report prepared by GML Heritage for Acciona and TfNSW November 2018).

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM24/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Holding Small Scale Business Activations in the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres

 

Folder No:                     F2014/00156

Submitted by:               Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council:

 

a)      Bring back a report investigating the feasibility of operating small-scale business activations from now until the Light-Rail becoming fully operational in the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres.

 

b)      Co-ordinate between the Economic Development Team, Chambers of Commerce and TfNSW Business Activation Teams to organise these activations.

 

Source of funding:

TfNSW have allocated funding specifically for these types of activations. The Niji Sushi Challenge was one event, which with the help of TfNSW, In-Kind Donations from Council and local business was able to run successfully and bring over 250 into the Kingsford Town Centre. I’m asking for a report to come back to council to see what, if any financial impact holding these activations would have on Councils Budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM25/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Dangar Street speeding issues

 

Folder No:                     F2004/07177

Submitted by:               Councillor Shurey, North Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council notes that residents have concerns over speeding buses in Dangar Street and resolves to consider street calming measures for Dangar Street in consultation with residents, interested Councillors and the local Precinct Committee. In addition, consult with the State Transit Authority about the speeding of buses.

 

Background:

Dangar Street resident Chris Daly has asked that street calming measures be considered for his street: He states:

 

I live in Dangar Street - it has been a speedway for years - long straight stretch of road. Especially late at night high speed cars and bikes use it. Recently for some bizarre reason we now have speeding government buses returning to the Randwick Depot- up to 20 to 30 an hour all day also blocking all traffic while they attempt to negotiate the Dangar/King Street intersection.”

 

Mr Daly reports that the area is “full of Centennial Park pedestrians/cyclists/through traffic” and that the issue impacts on a retirement home in the area.

Fellow Dangar Street resident Amanda Moore states:

 

“We have speeding government buses too. I … must accelerate out of the roundabout on Arden/Dolphin and tear up Arden street. My daughters and I were nearly wiped out by a rogue bus at that roundabout. They also speed along Bream Street. Our children cannot legally cross a road to get to the beach 150m away. They also can only legally cross one road to get to primary school 900m away, they play chicken daily.”

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM26/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey - Stripping of legislative power from Ministers of Environment, Heritage and Local Government

 

Folder No:                     F2009/00075

Submitted by:               Councillor Shurey, North Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council:

 

a)      Notes the changes to legislative power in the Environment, Heritage and Local Government portfolios;

 

b)      Writes to the Premier expressing our disappointment on these changes and asking her to reinstate the decision making powers to Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

 

Background:

The new Berejiklian Government have stripped Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government of all their responsibilities to manage the legislation in their portfolio areas.

All legislative powers in these key portfolios have been centralised in either the Premier of the Minister for Planning.

 

These changes disempower these Ministers that are so important to Local Government role, from having any official role in the administration of key legislation in their areas, including under the Protection of the Environmental Acts, the Heritage Act and the Local Government Act.

 

NSW Planning has a history of abusing the environment, not protecting it which makes these changes very concerning.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM27/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Dangerous roundabout - Dolphin and Arden Streets 

 

Folder No:                     F2013/00099

Submitted by:               Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That a meeting be held on site with appropriate Council staff and interested residents and Councillors to assess ways of implementing measures to slow down cars and buses passing through the Arden and Dolphin Streets roundabout and to increase pedestrian safety.

 

Background:

Ms Milnda Jones has contacted me concerning safety issues with the Dolphin and Arden Street roundabout in Coogee. As I understand it the issue is that cars accelerate more than is safe when exiting the rounding heading north up the Arden Street hill.

 

She graphically describes a serious accident occurring to a pedestrian who was crossing the Arden and Bream Street intersection immediately to the north of the roundabout at the conclusion of the recent Christmas carols. The accident almost involved her own daughter who was standing on the traffic island in the road centre.

 

“… tonight I witnessed the millionth car take the roundabout at the corner of Arden and Dolphin and accelerate beyond the speed limit to head north up the Arden Street hill. Tonight a pedestrian was hit, causing serious injury and considerable distress to the families returning home from the carols. My daughter was in the middle of the road, on the meagre ‘traffic island’, holding her grandfather’s hand, as the car sped past and knocked over the pedestrian (a young doctor on his way to work). One more second and she would certainly have been injured or killed. There were a lot of other children crossing the road around that time.”

 

She suggests that Council implementing measures to slow down cars and buses on this stretch of road in recognition that is, as she describes it, a site of high pedestrian traffic, due to its proximity to the beach.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM28/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Alfreda Street beautification and uplift capital work

 

Folder No:                     F2018/01332

Submitted by:               Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council:

 

1)   Notes the disruption, noise and stress to the residents of Alfreda Street, Coogee caused by the works on Coogee Bay Road and the placement of the works compound in Alfreda Street directly opposite resident premises;

 

2)   Notes that Alfreda Street is increasingly being used as a service lane for businesses in Coogee Bay Road;

 

3)   Identifies the beautification and undertaking of rectification works for Alfreda Street as a capital works program for consideration in the 2020-21 Council budget, and

 

4)   Approaches the Coogee Beach Chamber of Commerce asking for a meeting with the East Ward Councillors, the Mayor and the General Manager to discuss the possible rationalisation, consolidation or timings of the current multiple commercial waste service pickups in Alfreda Street.

Background:

Alfreda Street resident Michael Ryan went to the February meeting of the Coogee Precinct Committee and drew attention to the:

-     Impact of Coogee Bay Road upgrade works means more commercial businesses putting bins out in Alfreda Street rather than Coogee Bay Road;

-     Multiply commercial waste services picking up in Alfreda Street at different times of the day, and;

-     Need to beautify Alfreda Street in its own right because it is a significant arrival area for day visitors to the beach and the Coogee Oval.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM29/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Ethel Street parking issues

 

Folder No:                     F2014/00528

Submitted by:               Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council

 

a)   Assesses the need for timed parking restrictions in Ethel Street, Randwick;

 

b)   Contacts local hospital administrators to suggest the setting up of a joint working group to draft a local area parking plan to reduce parking competition between hospital employees and residents with the objectives of:

 

-    Ensuring that hospital employees are able to safely travel to and from work at all times of the day without incurring excessive cost and difficulty;

-    Ensuring reasonable access to residents of on-street parking near their homes;

-    Assessing the introduction of parking permits in local streets for staff facing otherwise insurmountable commuting problems;

-    Optimising staff access to available on-site parking where they work;

-    Rationalising hospital shifts to integrate with public transport times including those of the future light rail stop in High Street, Randwick;

-    Liaising with local schools and business to explore the possible of the coordinated hiring of any available after-hours off-street parking;

-    The usefulness of a local bus commuter service for staff to reach available parking;

-    Designing an appropriate app for staff use in finding parking or commuting options;

-    Other possible solutions.

 

Background:

Ethel Street, near the Spot and Prince of Wales Hospital, is a small street with many semi-detached cottages. I am told that 50% of dwellings lack off-street parking. William Burkitt of 5 Ethel Street states that there is parking competition in the street between residents and Prince of Wales Hospital employees. He says:

 

“This causes a lot of issues for all residents including parents with young children and the elderly who struggle to park their cars anywhere on the street or surrounding streets, let alone near their own house, during the day and evening. Often with no parking spaces within two or more blocks from Ethel Street.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM30/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Possible next step for Council Fossil Fuel Divestment - Insurance companies

 

Folder No:                     F2009/00291

Submitted by:               Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council contributes to the global pressure on the Insurance industry to divest from fossil fuel clients, such as the 2015 decision of Paris City Council, by:

 

1.    Writing to our current insurers to ask about their individual support for fossil fuels and ask that they cease investing in and insuring fossil fuels;

 

2.    Bringing back a report on options for withdrawing from the use of insurers supporting the fossil fuel industry.

 

Background:

Mr Aaron McInnes informs me that the insurance company QBE has committed to “stop insuring new thermal coal mines, power plants and transport networks from July 1 this year, and will shut down its thermal coal underwriting business by 2030”. (source Financial Review, “QBE to abandon thermal coal by 2030” March 30 2019)

 

In 2015, Paris City Council, publicly committed to divesting from fossil fuels companies and

sectors that contribute to climate change and in 2018. (source Unfriend Coal, https://unfriendcoal.com/paris-calls-on-insurers-to-ditch-coal/)

 

Council officers report that our Council currently use brokers, JLT to organise most of our insurance which is spread across a range of insurers. For our liability insurance, the lead insurers are QBE UK and AIG UK. For our property insurance, the lead insurers are FM Global and Affiliated FM. Motor vehicles are insured by Zurich. The councillor & officer mutual is insured with Zurich. The crime mutual (cyber security) is insured by Chubb and Zurich. Our workers compensation insurer is Allianz.

 

The Market Forces web site (https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/insurance/) indicates that a number of the above companies have some degree of involvement in the fossil fuel industry to a greater or lesser degree. For example, Market Forces states with reference to Allianz: All insurance related to coal will be gradually phased out by 2040.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council  30 April 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM31/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Said - Development applications in Banksmeadow (Bayside Council)

 

Folder No:                     F2009/00381

Submitted by:               Councillor Said, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

Council Officers:

 

a)      to bring back a report and simultaneously voice our objection to the following Bayside proposed DA’s for the Orica site and the detrimental effect on South Ward residents;

 

1)    Orica’s plans for warehouses on the remediated wetlands site, Banksmeadow Hollow – which was meant to be put aside as a detention basin for maintenance of the flood basin.

 

2)    Holcim Concrete Plant at 1 Beauchamp Rd. The proposed Holcim Concrete Plant site has designated Beauchamp Road for a 24 hour B-double transport route for heavy vehicles to Port Botany. It is estimated that this site will have approximately 40 truck movements per hour. This concrete batching plant is estimated to produce 250,000m3 of pre-mix concrete per year.

 

b)      to seek advice from Bayside Council regarding the Dangerous Goods Transport Review and its quantitative Risk Assessment of the Botany/Randwick industrial zone recommendations which were to be actioned by June 2019.

 

Background:

The Orica (ICI) site at Banksmeadow, even though not located in our LGA, has long had a detrimental impact on the lives of those in South Ward.

 

Residents of the South Ward have witnessed the contamination of the Botany aquifer, HCB stockpile and Mercury contained on site and discharged at Malabar Sewage plant.

 

 



[1] The Companion Animals and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2008, Assented to on the 15 June 2018 is an Act to amend the Companion Animals Act 1998 and other legislation.

[2] Order No. 18 in the Table at s. 124 of the Local Government Act 1993, provides that a Council may Order an occupier of a premises not to keep birds or animals at the premises in circumstances where the number or kind of birds or animals kept are inappropriate. 

[3] Randwick City Council adopted the Compliance and Enforcement Policy on the 25 September 2018, which is the relevant Council policy that sets out the guiding principles and circumstance whereby Council exercises its discretionary enforcement functions under various legislation.

[4] Part 4 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 set out the provisions for the control of cats including the procedures for issuing Nuisance Cat Orders. Part 4 also creates offences against an owner in respect to prescribed forms of identification of cats, prohibition of cats in certain public places (i.e. Food preparation/consumption areas and Wildlife protection areas) and contraventions of Nuisance Cat Orders. Council can issue Penalty Notices to cat owners for these offences ranging from $165 to $275.  

[5] Section 30(1)(b) of the Companion Animals Act 1998, prescribes a Wildlife protection area as any public place or any part of a public place set apart by the local authority for the protection of wildlife and in which the local authority ordered that cats are prohibited for the purposes of the protection of wildlife and in which, or near the boundaries of which, there are conspicuously exhibited by the local authority at reasonable intervals notices to the effect that cats are prohibited in or on that public place.