BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

Meeting

 

 

 

Tuesday 25 June 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           25 June 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council meeting of Randwick City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, 1st Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 25 June 2019 at 6:00pm

 

 

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 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council - 28 May 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

GM7/19        Social Media Policy.................................................................................................... 1

GM8/19        Advisory Committees Code of Conduct....................................................................... 9

GM9/19        Request for Financial Assistance - Taste of Coogee................................................... 21

GM10/19      Governance Review - Wylies Baths............................................................................ 31

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

CP17/19       1300 Anzac Parade, Malabar (DA/898/2018)................................................................ 67

CP18/19       150-162 Barker Street, Randwick (DA/887/2018)........................................................ 101

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting not required)

CP19/19       Variation to Development Standard under SEPP No.1 and Clause 4.6 - 14 May - 11 June 2019    199

 

Director City Services Reports

CS20/19       Food Waste Collection Trial..................................................................................... 203

CS21/19       Driveways and Developer Funded Works Policy....................................................... 207

CS22/19       South Coogee to Kingsford Walking and Cycling Streetscape Improvements - Results of Public Consultation............................................................................................................ 217

CS23/19       Joint support worker parking permit......................................................................... 347

CS24/19       Use of Glyphosate in Randwick Council................................................................... 355

Director Corporate Services Reports

CO26/19      Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20..................................... 359

CO27/19      Contingency Fund - status as at 31 May 2019........................................................... 435

CO28/19      Determination of number of Councillors.................................................................... 439

CO29/19      Local Government NSW - 2019 Annual Conference.................................................... 441

CO30/19      Investment Report - May 2019.................................................................................. 443

CO31/19      Monthly Financial Report as at 31 May 2019............................................................. 453

CO32/19      Delegation limit for doubtful debt write off............................................................... 463

Community Affairs Reports

Nil  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM41/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Da Rocha - Supporting the wellbeing of animals and their owners        489

NM42/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Da Rocha - Proposed amenities facility and improvements to Malabar Pool and surrounds............................................................................................................... 491

NM43/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Improving access to Council activities and events.. 493

NM44/19      Notice of Motion from  Cr Matson - Plight of 8 Helena Street, Randwick.................... 495

NM45/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed strategic plan for Parks and Playgrounds - community consultation............................................................................................................ 497

NM46/19      Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Additional Heritage items in Coogee.................... 499  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CO32/19      Tender for the Lease of Heffron Park Tennis Centre - No. T2019-22

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.

 

CS22/19       Professional Services for Coogee Surf Club Upgrade Design and Construction Documentation - Tender No T2019-27

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.

 

CS23/19       Tender for Wylie's Bath Pool Upgrading Works Stage One - No. T2019-19

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.

 

CS24/19       Extension of the Current Waste and Recyclables Collection Contract

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           25 June 2019

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM7/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Social Media Policy

 

Folder No:                      F2011/00415

Author:                          Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 March 2019, Council considered a report on an updated Social Media Policy and resolved as follows:

 

RESOLUTION: (Parker/Shurey) that this matter be deferred to the next Council meeting to allow more time for Councillors to consider the implications of the policy.

 

This report presents the Social Media Policy back to Council for consideration.

 

Issues

 

Council adopted a Code of Conduct for Staff and a Code of Conduct for Councillors at its meeting on 30 April 2019 which includes specific requirements around social media usage.

 

The Social Media Policy has been updated with sections removed to be consistent with Council’s adopted Code of Conduct.

 

Background

 

Council’s Social Media Policy was adopted by Council on 13 December 2011 and is now due for review.

 

Council uses social media to communicate Council projects, services and events but we also use it to create a deeper, two-way connection with our community and help celebrate our area and build our vision of a sense of community.

 

Social media is an effective tool, but it can also be problematic as comments or posts made in private can quickly become public and private matters can escalate into workplace matters.

 

A Social Media Policy is a best practice approach to managing Council’s social media presence and providing guidelines to assist staff and Councillors manage their personal and professional social media profiles. 

 

In 2018, Randwick Council commenced a review of our Social Media Policy. This review included engaging an external lawyer with social media legal experience in commercial radio to review Council’s policy from a best practice and risk mitigation perspective.

 

An internal staff consultation process was conducted seeking feedback and submissions on a revised social media policy which included notification to all staff about the policy, discussion at Council’s internal Consultative Committee and consideration by Council’s Senior Leadership Team.

 

Following the consultation, key changes proposed to the Social Media Policy include:

·      Identifying social media as one of Council’s customer service tools

·      Providing guidelines, rules and a framework for staff authorised to manage Council’s social media accounts

·      Providing staff with guidelines for their personal use of social media to minimise risk

·      Outlining Councillor obligations and guidelines consistent with the Model Code of Conduct

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:     3. An informed and Engaged Community

Direction:     3a. Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Social Media Policy has been updated to be consistent with Council’s recently adopted Code of Conduct.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council adopts the revised Social Media Policy.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Social Media Policy - with tracked changes

 

 

 

 


Draft Social Media Policy - with tracked changes

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM8/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Advisory Committees Code of Conduct

 

Folder No:                      F2012/00372

Author:                          Joshua Hay, Communications Manager     

 

 

Introduction

 

At its meeting on 30 April 2019 Randwick Council adopted a new Code of Conduct for Councillors and a separate Code of Conduct for staff.

 

The new Code of Conduct is based on the Office of Local Government’s (OLG) 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).

 

On 22 September 2015 council resolved that the Code of Conduct be applied to Precinct Executives.

 

Consistent with this resolution, it is proposed that members of Advisory Committees including Precinct Executives be subject to a separate Advisory Committees Code of Conduct.

 

Issues

 

The Advisory Committees Code of Conduct is proposed to apply to members of Randwick City Council Advisory Committees which includes working groups, reference groups and Precinct Executive members.

 

It is shortened and adapted from the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW (“the Model Code of Conduct”), which has been prescribed under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the “Regulation).

 

The Code of Conduct provides guidance to members on Council’s expectations of their behavior and conduct as well as a framework for dealing with conflicts of interest, personal benefits and the appropriate use of Council resources.

 

A draft copy of the Code of Conduct has been circulated to Precinct Executives for their feedback.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability

Direction 1c:          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

 

Having a minimum set of standards for the behaviour and activities of Advisory Committees is designed to ensure integrity, accountability and transparency. It also provides the community and Advisory Committees members with confidence in the operation of the committees.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Advisory Committees Code of Conduct is adopted for immediate implementation.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Advisory Committees Code of Conduct

 

 

 

 


Advisory Committees Code of Conduct

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM9/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Request for Financial Assistance - Taste of Coogee

 

Folder No:                      F2019/00472

Author:                          Therese Manns, General Manager     

 

 

Introduction

 

The Taste of Coogee festival (TOC) was initiated in 2013 by the Coogee Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), a celebration of all things food.  The event includes gourmet food stalls, food preparation and cooking demonstrations, wine sampling and music.

 

Randwick City Council has financially supported TOC since its inception.  Like many start up events, the festival experienced losses in its early years. With Council’s assistance, the festival is now self-sufficient, with a small profit of $2,581 reported in 2017 and a profit of $47,256 in 2018 following the introduction of entry fees.

 

The Chamber proposes to hold the 2 day festival on Saturday 31 August and Sunday 1 September 2019.

 

The Chamber has now requested Council waive fees and charges for the 2019 TOC as it has done in previous years.  Council fees are as follows:

 

Application Fee:                                                                                                    $903.00

Park Hire Set Up (Friday) (low impact promotional event)                                 $2,048.00

Park Hire Event Fee: (Saturday) (very high promotional event)                        $4,909.00

Park Hire Event Fee: (Sunday)    (very high promotional event)                        $4,909.00

Park Hire Bump Out (Monday) low impact promotion event)                             $2,048.00

Waste Management Fee for the whole event:                                                    $8,382.93

Parking x 20 car spaces @ $23.00 per day                                                                                                                       $  920.00                                                                                              

                                                Total:                                                                 $24,119.93

 

Issues

 

The Taste of Coogee festival (TOC) is an event that has been supported by Council since 2013 as a not for profit festival to support local businesses in Coogee. Originally held in Goldstein Reserve, the festival was moved to Coogee Oval in 2016 and became a two day event with the support of the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club Inc.

 

Council’s support has aimed to create a positive outcome for the local economy, with local businesses given the opportunity to showcase their products in an event that draws people from across Sydney and beyond for two days in Coogee.  The festival has also added another event within our city for our community to enjoy. The event has been free to attend until 2018, with the Chamber introducing a small entry fee of $5.00 last year.

 

Council has assisted the Chamber to break even each year for the past six years, providing over $95,000 in financial assistance between 2013 and 2018.  In 2018, $15,451 was waived and charged to the Contingency Fund to support the event.

 

As mentioned above, in 2018 an entry fee of $5 per adult was introduced and has had the impact of improving the financial viability of the event, resulting in a profit of $47,256 for the 2018 financial year.  Also assisting this has been an increase in the stallholder fees, with food stall fees increasing from $1,600 in 2017 to $2,200 in 2018.

 

The unaudited financial summary for the festival shows income has increased from $96,559 in 2017 to $235,376 in 2018.  Whilst the festival remains the same size and duration, expenditure increased from $93,978 in 2017 to $188,120 in 2018.  It is unclear as to the reasons the cost of running the festival has doubled between the two years.

 

In past years, members of the Chamber have provided their own in-kind support through the time they have committed to planning and running the event, as is the case with other community run festivals such as the Maroubra Oktoberfest.

 

President of the Chamber, Mrs Bernadette Summers, has now advised that members of the Chamber are paid for both their time in planning and running the event.  Whilst this may have contributed to the increase in costs for 2018, the actual payments to related party individuals have not been disclosed.

 

In addition, the expenditure reported by the Chamber includes a $10,000 donation to the Coogee Lions Club.

 

Despite the festival now becoming financially self-sufficient, in her request for financial assistance for the 2019 year, the President of Coogee Chamber of Commerce warned Council that by not providing continued financial assistance, local business participation would decline.  In her letter, Mrs Summers states:

 

 “It would be extremely disappointing if support is now to be withdrawn – especially whilst Coogee businesses are undergoing less than good times due to the current Coogee Bay Road refurbishment project.  As a result of this, some local businesses have already expressed a downturn in their earnings and may not be able to participate in the 2019 Taste of Coogee.”

 

Capital projects such as this are always challenging, however Council should be proud of the progress to date.  This project cannot and should not be considered a reason for low participation in the TOC by local businesses.  The Coogee Bay Road upgrade will improve the local amenity and support business to thrive in the future, with expanded footpath areas for local dining.  Council has undertaken considerable work to minimise impacts on local businesses, including waiving of the renewal charges for existing outdoor dining licences and waiving of outdoor dining fees for the duration of the project, this included the summer period when works were paused to accommodate the seasonal trade.  In addition, a customer liaison officer was appointed and is on site each day to discuss any issues with local business owners. 

 

Council’s original support of TOC was bound to the condition that 50% of stallholders were to be local businesses, ensuring a direct benefit to the local community.  In 2018, only 4 local businesses participated with food stalls, out of a total of 50 food stalls participating in the event.  In 2017, 5 local food stalls participated in TOC. 

 

TOC is a food and wine event, and despite the food, wine and entertainment offering on Coogee Bay Road and other areas of our city, there is very few local businesses that participate.  It is understood that one of the reasons for the low participation is the need for a business to be resourced for the operation of a mobile food stall.  This includes the need for appropriate equipment and additional staffing.  The investment required is often not considered viable unless the business regularly participates in food stalls or is sufficiently sized.

 

As TOC is now financially self-sufficient, there could now be an opportunity to evolve Council’s support by assisting local businesses that are currently unable to participate in the event.

 

It is proposed that rather than providing financial assistance towards the running of the festival, that Council allocate funding towards a double stall at the festival to promote local food and wine businesses.  The aim of the stall would be to encourage festival goers to come back to Coogee and dine out at one of our local restaurants.  Local businesses could participate by providing information, promotions or attending the stand to promote their offerings.   This initiative would assist local businesses to participate and benefit from the festival through a focused effort on marketing local businesses and directing trade to areas such as Coogee Bay Road.

 

 

Risk Management

 

All events held on Council property require an event application form to be completed, including details of the event, insurance, access arrangements, safety, security and management, traffic management, parking, public safety and waste management.  This form has been completed and is currently being assessed.  Council staff will liaise with the Chamber to ensure all requirements are met to minimize disruption and maximize the public safety and enjoyment of the site over the festival weekend.

 

The initial assessment of the event application indicates a number of requirements regarding details for the event remain outstanding.  Council staff will liaise with the Chamber to ensure all requirements are met.  As a large event, it is important that all details are completed and returned in a timely manner to ensure risks are minimised.  In order to ensure the event can proceed, it is important that this information is provided to Council by 12 July 2019.  The Chamber was advised of this in January 2019.

 

Specific Risk – competing demands

Council has received correspondence from both the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club and the Randwick Rugby Club regarding their concerns with the festival.  The two issues include timing of the festival and impact on the grounds.

 

The Randwick Petersham Cricket Club are concerned that the ground ratings have dropped since 2015, and with Coogee Oval being a premier sporting ground, the club is requesting the TOC event not be held at Coogee Oval (letter attached). 

 

The timing of the event has been raised as another issue experienced by both the Randwick Rugby Club and the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club.  In 2018, the festival was held on the weekend of the rugby grand finals which precluded the grand final being held in Randwick. 

 

It is important that we encourage complimentary use of Council assets wherever possible to ensure our community is provided the greatest benefit.  To facilitate this, it is important that all stakeholders are able to work together to ensure consideration is given to competing challenges.  Based upon the correspondence received, despite a partnership relationship in 2016 and 2017, the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club was not consulted in the lead up to the 2018 TOC.

 

It is important to consider the ground condition risks raised by the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club.  However, given the 2019 TOC has been planned to take place within the next three months, should council consider refusal of the use of Coogee Oval, a new location could not be found within this timeframe.

 

Should the Coogee Oval continued to be used for TOC, it is important that the festival dates do not compete with use of the ground by rugby and cricket.  It is considered that with adequate notice and planning, an agreement can be reached regarding the dates for the festival for 2020 and beyond.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:     8 A strong local economy

Direction: 8a Vibrant business, commercial and industrial sectors that provide ongoing and diverse employment opportunities and serve the community.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact of the recommendation within this report is $6,000, to be funded from the Contingency Fund.

 


 

Conclusion

 

The Taste of Coogee Festival is a successful food and wine festival that after six years has now become financially self-sufficient with an entry fee.  Despite there being low numbers of local businesses, the festival has attracted sufficient stall holders to ensure a successful event.  Our ratepayers are now contributing directly to the costs of the festival through their attendance fee. Unfortunately, there are very few local businesses that participate in the event.

 

Should Council decide to provide financial assistance directly to the festival, it would be doing so on the basis of increasing the festivals profit.  The waiving of both direct and indirect costs all have an impact on Council resources.  Indirect costs or ‘in-kind’ as it is often called are still a cost to Council as staff resources are required to ensure the particular service is provided, such as food registrations.  The fee for holding an event and the venue hire compensate council for the staffing required to assess and liaise with event organisers.  This ensures everything is in order for the event to go ahead safely and enjoyably with minimal disruption to the resident community.  Council considers this staff resourcing in the setting of its fees each year.

 

In their request for assistance, the Chamber has stated that all profits go to the Chamber’s activities.  It is suggested that Council’s support of these activities be considered separately to the TOC and assessed individually on merit.  Should Council consider contributing to the operating costs of the Chamber, it should do so through membership.

 

It is time to evolve Councils support of local businesses through the TOC.  By providing funding for Council to work in partnership with local businesses to promote their food and wine at the festival under one banner, Council continues to support both the TOC and local businesses.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)    Council congratulate the Coogee Chamber of Commerce for evolving the Taste of Coogee festival to become financially self-sufficient.

 

b)    In acknowledging the event is financially self-sufficient and a gate fee has successfully been implemented, that Council not waive any of the fees associated with the holding of the Taste of Coogee festival.

 

c)    Council provide $6,000 from the Contingency Fund for the purposes of participation in the Taste of Coogee festival to promote local food and wine businesses through a stall to be facilitated by Council staff in partnership with local businesses.

 

d)    Council invite the Coogee Chamber of Commerce and the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club to a meeting to discuss and agree on mitigation measures to protect ground conditions at Coogee Oval.

 

e)    Council meet with all stakeholders to discuss the location and timing of the Taste of Coogee Festival for the 2020 year and beyond.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Taste of Coogee – Request for Assistance

 

2.

Taste of Coogee – Follow up questions answered

 

3.

Taste of Coogee – Randwick Petersham Cricket Club concerns

 

 

 

 


Taste of Coogee – Request for Assistance

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Taste of Coogee – Follow up questions answered

Attachment 2

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Taste of Coogee – Randwick Petersham Cricket Club concerns

Attachment 3

 

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM10/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Governance Review - Wylies Baths

 

Folder No:                      F2012/00407

Author:                          Therese Manns, General Manager     

 

 

Introduction

 

At its November 2018 Council meeting, in considering a report CO74/18 regarding the replacement of a community vacancy on Wylies Baths Trust, Council resolved as follows:

 

353/18 RESOLUTION: (Parker/Da Rocha) that this matter be deferred pending a report on a review of the operation of the Trust rules to include transparency measures, better governance and encouraging greater community involvement and that a position paper presented to Council by the Trust be considered as part of that review.

 

To conduct the independent review, Council engaged the services of Grosvenor Public Sector Advisory.  This review has now been completed and is presented to Council for its consideration.

 

Wylies Baths Trust was established in 1996 with the following objectives:

 

§ To enter into and maintain the lease for the use and control of the Wylies Baths including all buildings and areas contained within the Lease;

 

§ To operate and maintain Wylies Baths and all buildings, structures and facilities forming part of the Baths as a first class bathing facility for the benefit of all local residents and other users of the Baths;

 

§ To upgrade and expand where necessary the buildings, structures and facilities forming part of the Baths to ensure its continued viability and self-sufficiency;

 

§ To promote and encourage the sport of swimming and the use of Wylies Baths through the effective operation of the Wylies Baths Trust.

 

 

The Trust is a separate legal entity and is made up of the following members:

 

§ One member appointed by the Coogee-Randwick RSL Swimming Club (a resident of the LGA)

 

§ One member appointed by the Coogee Amateur Swimming Club (a resident of the LGA)

 

§ One member appointed by the South Maroubra (Winter) Swimming Club (a resident of the LGA)

 

§ One member appointed by the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club (a resident of the LGA)

 

§ The Mayor of Randwick City Council or another councillor nominated by the Mayor;

 

§ Three members appointed by Randwick City Council who shall be residents within the boundaries of the LGA who are regular users of the Baths.

 

Issues

 

The governance review of Wylies Baths Trust (the Trust) has been undertaken and is attached to this report.

 

In considering the current state of governance by the Trust, the governance review has found in summary that:

 

“the Trust is operating well and would continue to perform its duties at an acceptable level with no changes” and “there are small changes which can be made to the governance structure of the Trust which would enhance their performance”.

 

It is important to note when reading the report that sections of the report titled “Consult participants indicate..” provides the opinions of persons taking part in the review and these opinions should not be taken as evidence based findings of the review.  A full list of review participants is included within the report for transparency.

 

In summary, the following recommendations are made:

 

1.   Amend the appointment process for community representatives, including:

 

A revision of the Trust rules which dictate the requirements of new community representatives on the Trust:

 

-     Community representatives do not need to reside in the LGA.

-     A three year term for community representatives, whereby they can reapply

 

The formalisation of the Trust skills matrix which identifies existing skill sets of Trust members and helps to inform those which would be required of new members.

 

The process for appointing community members should ultimately reside with a senior elected council official to remove any real or perceived political conflicts.

 

 

2.   Develop and implement a five year management plan, including:

 

A five year management plan be created by the Trust that outlines Council’s vision for the Baths and how the Trust will deliver on their vision.

 

Input from the wider Baths community to be sought.

 

Publically available and reviewed annually.

 

The plan should be comprehensive and include: Strategic vision, Asset management, Governance, Financial forecasting, Risk management.

 

It was noted in the review that much of the content required for such a plan already exists in separate documents.  In addition, it was also noted that due consideration would need to be paid to any changes in the lease arrangement with Council, including Native Title claims.

 

3.   Develop and implement a risk management plan, including:

 

A comprehensive risk management plan be developed and implemented by the Trust.

 

Mitigation strategies for each risk should be outlined and actioned in order to reduce the overall impact.

 

Continual review and maintenance of the risk management plan should be incorporated into the Terms of Reference.

 

It was noted in the review that many of the risks contained in this plan will have already been identified in the past.

 

4.   Create a structure around Council’s engagement with the Trust, including:

 

 

A formalised approach to the way in which the Trust engages with Council, including:

-     A jointly produced and agreed MOU between the Trust and Council, which would clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of each party.

 

-     Reporting and communication protocols, which would dictate when and how Council would engage with the Trust and vice versa.

 

Appointing the General Manager (or their delegate) as Council’s representative on the Trust.

 

It was noted within the report that this would remove all elected Council presence from the Trust, with the view that the MOU along with the elected community reps would sufficiently represent the Councils interests.  In turn this provides fuller and clearer separation of roles and responsibilities between strategic vision and operational management.

 

5.   Further develop feedback loops between Bath users, Council and the Trust, including:

 

The development and implementation of robust communication protocols between Council and Trust members.

 

Establishment of formalised communication channels with regular Bath users in order to obtain feedback on management of the Baths and key decisions.

 

Quarterly reports be produced by the Trust and made publically available in order to keep all stakeholders informed of Trust activities and undertakings.

 

It should be noted that although the review found feedback loops between the elected Council and the Trust lacking, the communication and feedback between Council staff and the Trust has been productive for many years.  The Trust regularly liaises with Council staff in relation to asset maintenance and renewal, and Council staff provide Council with renewal requirements and recommendations through Council’s capital works program. 

 

Trust position

 

As the Trust is a separate legal entity, many of the recommendations above would require the Trust to adopt the recommendations and work towards them.  The Trust has now had the opportunity to review the preliminary report and recommendations, and generally agrees with the following:

 

1.   It is appropriate that the appointment process for community members be reconsidered as part of a broader review of the Trust Rules;

 

2.   The development of an appropriate 5 year management plan, the Trust stating that the foundation of which is largely in place;

 

3.   The development and implementation of a fit for purpose risk management plan, the Trust noting having done much of that work already;

 

4.   A formalised structure around Council’s engagement with the Trust in the form of a mutually acceptable MOU, clearly outlining obligations of both parties;

 

5.   Despite disputing a number of the findings in relation to pubic engagement and feedback, the Trust generally agrees with developing more contemporary feedback loops.

 

Whilst the Trust generally agrees with the recommendations, it does not agree with the following specific recommendations:

 

1.   The Trust sees no justification for relaxing the requirement to be a Randwick resident to be appointed to Wylies Baths Trust.

 

2.   The Trust maintains that there are adequate processes, formal and informal to ensure appropriate feedback from Bath users, including annual community information evening which includes an open Q & A forum and a customer perception survey.  In addition to face to face communication, the Trust communicates through the website, Facebook and other social media channels.

 

3.   The Trust is supportive of an MOU, however believes quarterly reports could become onerous and create unnecessary work and believes there are other ways to improve communication and transparency.

 

4.   The Trust would like to maintain their role in the appointment of community representatives.  The Trust sees this role would include the Trust undertaking an appropriate selection process subject to affirmation by the General Manager.  The Trust believes it is important that they are involved in the selection given their understanding of the workings of the Trust and the need to appoint members committed to the agreed vision and values of the Trust.

 

The abovementioned feedback is limited to the recommendations of the review.  The Trust does not agree with all comments included within the review.  The Trust has not considered formal adoption of the recommendations and is awaiting Councils resolution on the matter.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:     1 Leadership in sustainability

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Although there is no financial impact associated with the recommendations in this report, it is important to note the financial performance of the Trust.  One of the advantages of having the Trust run the operations of Wylies Baths is their ability to contain costs, use volunteer support and obtain grants that Council would otherwise not be entitled to.

 

The following table provides an indication of financial performance over the past 4 years.  The table shows that the Trust is successfully covering its costs and recording a surplus, with income increasing each year and current assets mostly consisting of cash supporting a provision for future seawall repair.

 

INCOME

2018

2017

2016

2015

$

$

$

$

Operating Income

            593,070

            564,841

           553,752

           486,826

Interest Received

              14,342

                3,780

               5,168

             16,497

Rent

                5,200

                2,400

               3,905

               2,475

TOTAL INCOME

            612,612

            571,021

           562,825

           505,798

EXPENDITURE

Employee Wages and Superannuation

            342,742

            334,886

           330,527

           288,681

Repair & Maintenance

              35,787

              16,427

             71,106

             57,921

Other Expenses

            197,836

            188,355

           152,616

           146,034

Depreciation

              18,876

              12,880

               6,951

               5,900

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

            595,241

            552,548

           561,200

           498,536

NET PROFIT

              17,371

              18,473

               1,625

               7,262

Current assets

            508,485

            497,841

           529,503

           510,988

Property plant & equipment

            156,518

            149,630

           144,554

           141,324

Current liabilities excluding provisions

              30,399

              25,039

             34,699

             47,576

Provisions - seawall repair

            405,689

            405,689

           438,689

           405,689

Total members equity

            228,915

            216,744

           200,670

           199,047

 

Conclusion

 

The governance review for Wylies Baths concludes that “the Trust is operating well and would continue to perform its duties at an acceptable level with no changes” and “there are small changes which can be made to the governance structure of the Trust which would enhance their performance”.

 

The review has been independently prepared based upon best practice governance and focused upon the two main requirements of performance and conformance.  Recommendations have been provided to enhance the governance structure and practice.

 

As a separate legal entity, many of the recommendations contained within the report would have to be considered and accepted by the Trust itself.  This has been the practice throughout past reviews and the Trust has been most cooperative.

 

The appointment of community representatives is within Council’s responsibility and as such Council must make a decision as to how to proceed with recruitment and appointment of community representatives.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)    Council reads and notes the Governance Review of Wylies Baths Trust;

 

b)    Council thanks the Wylies Baths Trust for their participation in the governance review;

 

c)    Council considers the preliminary position of the Wylies Baths Trust in relation to recommendations contained within the governance review;

 

d)    Council endorses the removal of the Mayor or another Councillor delegated by the Mayor as Council’s representative on Wylies Baths Trust, to be replaced by the General Manager (or their delegate);

 

e)    Council writes to the Wylies Baths Trust requesting the recommendations within the report be considered for adoption;

 

f)     Council delegates the process for appointment of community representatives of the Wylies Baths Trust to the General Manager (or their delegate).      

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Final review of Wylie's Baths

 

 

 

 


Final review of Wylie's Baths

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP17/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      1300 Anzac Parade, Malabar (DA/898/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/898/2018

Author:                          Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment     

 

 

Proposal:                       SECPP – 1300 Anzac Parade, Malabar (DA/898/2018)

Ward:                             South Ward

Applicant:                      Justice Health & Forensic Mental Health

Owner:                           Justice Health & Forensic Mental Health

Cost of works:                $8,017,350

 

Recommendation

That the SECPP assessment report for DA/898/2018, 1300 Anzac Parade, MALABAR be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Introduction

 

The subject application is reported to Council as it is classified as a “regional development” (being a Crown application and having a capital investment value in excess of $5 million) and is required to be determined by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) pursuant to Schedule 4A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.  The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider the assessment report prepared in relation to the application and to determine whether to make a submission to the SECPP.

 

The proposal comprises the construction of the following:

 

·      A single storey, five bedroom mental health facility.

·      Landscaping.

·      Driveway and footpath.

·      Associated services.

 

The mental health facility is to be called ‘Freshwater House’ and it is to be located within the secure hospital campus which forms part of the Long Bay Correctional Centre complex. The complex will be a 5 bed intensive care facility providing accommodation and treatment for high-risk patients not suitable for the existing in-patient mental health regime. The complex will support rehabilitation, recovery and return to standard forensic health care or alternative care pathways.

 

The design of the single storey building includes 5 bedrooms in a north-facing wing. Each room has an ensuite bathroom and private courtyard. The building also contains offices, storerooms, treatments areas, visitors’ rooms, plant rooms, communal courtyards and associated facilities.

 

Two secure communal courtyards are proposed within the unit and these feature tree planting, walking paths and seating.

 

A new internal driveway will connect to the existing perimeter ring road and a new concrete footpath will connect to existing footpaths within the wider existing Forensic Hospital site.          

 

The application states that the following design considerations are key to the proposal:

 

·      Creating a home-like environment with high levels of security and robust construction.

·      Clear separation between patient and staff spaces.

·      Secure lines of containment within the building footprint.

·      Provision of a therapeutic space which has high levels of security.

 

Site

 

The subject site forms part of the Long Bay Correctional Centre, comprising numerous buildings within secure fencing plus car parking and associated support facilities. 

 

The location of the proposed development is within the Forensic Hospital complex in the south-western portion of the Correctional Centre site. The specific location of the new facility is presently a grassed space clear of buildings within a secure area fenced by a wall approximately 6m in height. The development area can only be accessed through the main port entry at the northern boundary of the Forensic Hospital site.

 

Existing buildings within the Forensic Hospital Complex

 

The Long Bay Correctional Centre is listed as an item of State heritage significance on the State heritage register and is also listed on Schedule 5 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

   

The location of the proposed Freshwater House within the Forensic Hospital Complex at the Long bay Correctional Centre

 

Issues

 

Public exhibition

 

The development application was subject to a public exhibition, an advertisement within the local newspaper and site notification attached to the subject permises as per the requirements of the Randwick Development Contol Plan 2013 (RDCP2013) for Public Notification. No submissions were received. 

 

 

Heritage

 

The proposed development is located on the Long Bay Correctional Centre site where Items of State and Local Heritage Significance are located.  

 

Adddress

Heritage Item

Inventory Number

Significance

1250-1300 Anzac Parade

Long Bay Gaol Gatehouses – Long Bay Correctional Centre. 

 

 

I186

State & Local

1250-1300 Anzac Parade

Long Bay Correctional Centre

I187

State & Local

Table 1: List of Heritage Items and their significance.

 

A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) by Clive Lucas Staleton submitted with the application has stated:

 

“The design of the new building has been carefully considered and is in keeping with the form and materials of the existing contemporary buildings. The new building will be low in height and will not be visible from outside the secure perimeter wall of the Forensic Hospital. It will not change any existing views or sightlines from Anzac Parade to the historic skyline of the original prison buildings and landscape features, nor will  it change any of the exiting site entrances or historic axes through the site.

 

The building is located in the area of the previous  Prison Hospital constructed in 1989 and demolished in 2008. This area was prevviously the site of agricultual plots developed as part of the Prison. The area has undergone a significant degree of ground disturbance during the previous development, demolition and site remediation process. The siting of the proposed building does not involve significant changes to  the  existing ground level and will therefore be unlikely to disturb any prior undisturbed layers that may enhance an understanding of the use of the area prior to its development as the Prison Hospital.

 

All existing views to and from the heritage items in the viciniy will  be retained and conserved.”

 

 

Elevations of the proposed facility indicating height of perimeter wall in relation to the new buildings

 

The HIS included a section on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal potential archaelogical impacts from the proposed development. It concluded that there would not be an impact on indigenous archaelogical potential of the site as: “there are no areas of exposed sandstone withinthe project area, and that the level of ground surface disturbance requird for the construction of the building on the site, which is mainly constructed of fill, is unlikely to involve disturbance of Holocene sand dunes.”   Exposed sanstone areas and deposists of Holocene sand dunes are considered to be the sensitive landscape features in this locality.

     

In regard to non-Aboriginal potential archaeological impacts the HIS states:

 

·      “The Project Area contains nil potential to contain any potential archaeological remains from any previous phase of land use.

·      The Project Area has been subject to a high level of dusturbance including the demolition of the Prison Hospital in 2004, soil remediation and the deposit of fill from the adjacent stormwater detention basin.

·      The proposed works would have nil heritage impacts to archaeological potential  within the Project Area.”

 

The proposed develoopment is classed as Integrated Development in accordance with Section 4.46 of the Envvironmentl Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposal is located on land where Items of State Significance are located. The application was referred to the the NSW Heritage Office for their comment and concurrencehas been granted. General Terms of Approval (GTAs) were issued and these have been included as proposed conditions of consent in the assessment report to the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.

In accordance with Clause 5.10 (Heritage Conservation) of the RLEP, consideration of the impact of the development on these items needs to be assessed. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner who provided a detailed assessment of the propsal which is included in the attached report. It was considered that potential heritage impacts would be minimal given the location of the building within the perimeter wall which is higher than the proposed structure. In addition, subject to proposed conditions of consent, it was concluded that potential  archaeological impacts would be minimal.

 

Contamination

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land must be considered in the assessment of the application.

 

A site audit report (SAS) prepared by Graeme Nyland of ENVIRON Australia Pty Ltd dated 4 November 2008 was submitted with the development application. The Site Auditor determines the site to be suitable for a Forensic Hospital subject to compliance with the Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the Forensic Hospital Site, Long Bay Correctional Complex dated 31 October 2008 prepared by Coffey Environments Pty Ltd.

 

The Auditor’s comments state that the Environmental Management Plan is required because contaminated fill material, mainly containing asbestos but possibly other contaminants, remains on site beneath capping materials. The cap consists of clean soil, building slabs and pavements, and acts as a physical barrier between site users and the underlying contaminated soil. Excess fill was placed in capped burial pits constructed onsite. The EMP requires: 

 

·      A long term maintenance and monitoring program for the site surface.

·      Application of controls on future excavations through the cap or work beneath the cap.

·      Restrictions on the use of groundwater beneath the site.

 

Council’s Acting Environmental Health Coordinator has reviewed the SAS and concluded that site contamination has been adequately considered and appropriate conditions are included in the attached report.

 

Engineering matters

 

Council’s Coordinator Development Engineering has reviewed the proposal and has commented as follows:

 

General Comments

No objections are raised to the proposal subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report.

 

The application is a Crown Application and the conditions reference standard processes followed by Crown Applications.

 

Drainage Comments

The Long Bay Gaol site was the subject of a stormwater drainage masterplan. This application makes no reference to the stormwater strategy however conditions requiring the provision of onsite stormwater detention have been included within this report.

 

The geotechnical investigations submitted with the development application indicates that infiltration will ne be a suitable form of drainage, (given the presence of rock relatively close to the surface). Therefore, no infiltration options have been included within the drainage conditions.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the building certifier  prior to the crown building certification.

 

RMS Comments

This part of Anzac Parade is a classified road and the application was referred to RMS accordingly. No issues were raised or conditions imposed by RMS.

 

Civil Works, Alignment Level, Traffic and Parking Comments

There are no new works proposed on any public road and no civil works conditions have been included (except for those conditions dealing with damage to infrastructure).

 

Alignment level conditions are not required as no works are proposed onto a public road.

 

The application does not discuss parking demand associated with the development to any degree other than to say that little additional staff are required and the proposal only allows for 5 bedrooms.  Based on the applicant’s SEE the proposed development will generate little additional parking demand. An internal access road with turning area has been provided and ambulances and small service vehicles will use this road.

 

The main carpark for the gaol has been observed to be at capacity during peak periods. Consideration needs to be given to a redesign of the carpark and an increase in carparking capacity for the wider development site. Changes to the carpark are considered to be outside the scope of this application.

 

All vehicular access driveways, internal circulation roads and vehicle manoeuvring areas are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

Service Authority Comments

Standard service authority conditions have been included in this report.

 

Conditions relating to undergrounding of power and undergrounding of site feed power lines are not relevant to this application.

 

Waste Management Comments

A waste management plan (WMP) has been submitted with this application. Compliance with this WMP has been conditioned within this report.

 

Landscape Comments

No significant trees are designated for removal as part of this project. Landscaping for the site must be provided in general accordance with the landscape details submitted with the Development Application.

 

 Proposed conditions have been included in the attached report.

 

In addition, further information was sought in regard to staffing at the complex and the applicant advised that the operational model of the new facility is yet to be confirmed, however it is anticipated that most staff will be presently employed on site, plus there will be 12 new clinical staff members as a result of the development. The applicant advises that all staff will be provided with parking in the Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) car park located within the Long Bay Correctional complex. Visitors can prearrange parking within the CSNSW car park. Therefore Council’s Development Engineer anticipates that there will be limited additional parking demand as a result of the proposal. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationshipto the City plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There will be no financial implications as a result of the proposed development.

 


 

Conclusion:

 

The proposed developemnt satisfies the relevant statutory criteria and will result in the construction of a facility that will provide a needed health facility within the Long Bay Coorectional Centre complex.

         

Recommendation

 

That the SECPP assessment report for DA/898/2018, 1300 Anzac Parade, Malabar be received and noted.

       

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

SECPP Report - DA/898/2018

 

 

 

 


SECPP Report - DA/898/2018

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


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP18/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      150-162 Barker Street, Randwick (DA/887/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/887/2018

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Integrated Development for Stage 2 development of Lots N1 and N2 of Newmarket site, including shop-top housing on Lot N1 with 3 buildings – 2 x 8 storey buildings fronting Barker Street with commercial uses & 49 carparking spaces at ground level, 74 basement level car parking spaces, a 3 storey shop top housing building at the southern end, landscaping & associated works. Lot N1 contains a total of 131 dwellings. Lot N2 is developed with a part two part 6 storey building containing 15 x two storey multi-dwellings at ground and first floor level, 30 dwellings above & 57 basement parking spaces, landscaping & associated works.

Ward:                             West Ward

Applicant:                      CBUS Property Sydney Pty Ltd

Owner:                           CBUS Property Sydney Pty Ltd

Cost of works:                $93,724,681

Recommendation

That the SECPP assessment report for DA/887/2018, 150-162 Barker Street be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

1.       Introduction

 

Council is in receipt of a development application (DA) seeking consent for development of Northern Precinct of "Newmarket Site’ site divided into two development lots identified as Lots N1 and N2 in the Concept Plan approval (DA/88/2016). Lot N1 is sought to be developed for three shop-top housing developments containing two x 8 storey buildings fronting Barker Street identified as N1.1 and N1.2 and a three storey shop-top housing development identified as building N1.3 located south west of N1.1 and N1.2. Lot N2 is to the south of Lot N1, separated by a new road “ST2”, is sought to be developed for 15 x two storey Multi-Unit Housing (MUH) at ground and first floor levels and 4 additional storeys above a portion of the MUH portion containing 30 dwellings above. Figure 1 and 2 below are aerial views of the wider Newmarket site and the northern precinct which has a total site area of approximately 9,479sqm.

 

The Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) is the consent authority for this DA pursuant to Section 4.7, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and schedule 7 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 as the development has a capital investment value in excess of $30 million.

 

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider the attached assessment report and determine whether to make a submission to the SECPP.

 

Figure 1: Newmarket site identifying northern, southern and eastern precincts (Source: Urbis SEE)

 

Figure 2: N1 & N2 Site & surrounds (Source: Urbis SEE)

 

 

Issues

 

The development application was publicly exhibited, advertised within the local newspaper and site notification attached to the subject premises as per the requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) for Public Notification. 1 submission was received in response to the public exhibition raising issues with the density, visual and acoustic privacy, and parking and traffic congestion.

 

Built form and height

The built form of the proposed development responds well to the envelopes and development approved in the Concept plan (DA/88/2016). The application includes a request under Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standard given the development of building’s N1.1 and N1.2 two x 8 storey shop-top housing buildings breach the maximum building height development standard of 25m. The parts of building N1.1 and N1.2 that protrude above the height standard are generally consistent with the approved height under the Concept Plan approval for the wider ‘Newmarket Site’ (DA/88/2016). The proposed height is also consistent with the existing and desired streetscape character and will be more consistent with the height of two other 8 storey shop top housing developments on the adjacent site to the east in the Eastern Precinct of the Newmarket Site (Approved in DA/664/2016). The variation above the concept plan approval, shown in Figure 3 below, does not result in adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties beyond those envisaged by compliance with the Concept Plan approval. Importantly, the developments height above the standard and Concept plan approval is associated with a floor level that is setback from the floor levels below which provides a consistent street edge along Barker Street with that of the shop-top housing developments within the eastern precinct.

Figure 3: Parts of the N1.1 and N1.2 exceeding the maximum approved in the Concept plan approval.

 

Figure 4: Proposed development along Barker Street alongside approved development in the eastern precinct of the Newmarket Site.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65: Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

The application was referred to the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) as per the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 65: Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development. The key issues are as follows:

 

·      Communal open space:

 

The proposal narrows the separation between building N1.1 and N1.2 from the approved 12m down to 6m. As a result of a narrowing separation only 36% of the podium level communal open space area will receive solar access during the winter solstice which is less than the 50% minimum control in the Apartment Design Guide. The DEP requested consideration be given to providing a roof top communal open space on building N1.3 (3 storey building in Lot N1 south of buildings N1.1 and N1.2).

 

The applicant in response has not sought to add communal roof open space on building N1.3 indicating concerns that the additional height will exceed the maximum height approved in the concept plan approval which would potentially erode the transition of built form to the lower density within the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area (SHCA) to the west and south.

 

The narrower separation is considered acceptable on the basis that it has been offset by the reduction in the depth of building N1.1 and reconfigured building N1.2 resulting in a better planning outcome, increasing communal open space by around 125sqm and more importantly resulted in more dwellings across Lot N1 obtaining solar access and cross ventilation. It is also considered that a roof top communal open space would result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts that would require additional privacy measures to be provided and any additional structures would unnecessarily add bulk and scale that would detract from the significance and low scale of the SHCA.

 

·      Alternate roof design to 6 storey building on Lot N2

 

The DEP recommended that the applicant reconsider roof top design for the 6 storey building on Lot N2 so that the roof level can be distinguished from the two main levels below to create three distinct levels: a base related to the townhouses (two storey), a middle layer (three storeys) and an upper level layer with a lighter floating roof against the sky.

 

The DEP recommendations will result in a design scheme that is more consistent with the envisaged design of shop top housing within the wider LGA as well as the Newmarket development site. The applicant provided four options for alternative roof treatments indicating a preference for the originally submitted scheme. Two options provided for a solid roof form which is not supported as they are similar to the originally submitted scheme. Two other options show a floating roof form with one showing an additional storey. An additional storey is not supported, option 2 of the roof option study in the proportion analysis aligns with the DEP recommendations shown below. A condition is included requiring amended plans to be submitted for approval by Council that is consistent with option 2 roof form.

 

Figure 4: Option 2 roof profile shown along the eastern elevation of six storey building in Lot N2

 

Having regard to the key design principles in SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide as well as the Concept Plan approval the proposal is considered to display a high level of compliance having particular regard to building envelopes, solar access, cross ventilation, privacy and minimising impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal will result in appropriate building envelopes that will fit into the existing and desired future character of the area. The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant objectives of the zone and policy controls and where non-compliance occurs a merit assessment reveals either compliance with the objectives of the controls and or requirement for conditions to be imposed in the recommendation.

 

The development as conditioned will have an acceptable built form, and spatial relationship with neighbouring properties, the public domain, and neighbouring properties. It balances the varying densities of the surrounding area provide for housing choice with acceptable levels of amenity for future occupants.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

SECPP Report - 150-162 Barker Street, Randwick

 

 

 

 


SECPP Report - 150-162 Barker Street, Randwick

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


 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP19/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Variation to Development Standard under SEPP No.1 and Clause 4.6 - 14 May - 11 June 2019

 

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 14 May 2019 and 11 June 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 BETWEEN 14 MAY TO 11 JUNE 2019

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 14 MAY TO 11 JUNE 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS20/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Food Waste Collection Trial

 

Folder No:                      F2013/00423

Author:                          Todd Clarke, Director City Services     

 

 

 

Introduction

 

At its Ordinary Council meeting 27 November 2018 Council resolved (Veitch/Matson) that Council:

 

a)       notes that council has committed through its 2017-2030 Waste Management Strategy to divert 75% of waste from landfill by 2022, divided into short term (1-5 years), medium term (5-10 years) and long term (10-15) year periods;

 

b)       notes that council has been operating a Food Waste collection trial for residents in multi-unit dwellings since 2013, initially with funding from the NSW EPA Waste Less Recycle More grant;

 

c)       notes that as 73.6% (43,056) of dwellings in the Randwick LGA are multi-unit dwellings, and approx. 40% of waste in council’s red lid bins is composed of food and garden organics, the diversion of food waste and garden organics has the potential to make a significant reduction in our waste going to landfill;

 

d)       bring back a report to council detailing the progress of council’s food waste collection since the commencement of the trial, along with recommendations regarding community education and awareness raising programs, targets, milestones and other relevant strategies to increase the uptake of participants in the trial;

 

e)       bring back quarterly reports to council for the duration of the Waste Strategy Action Plan (9.3) to detail changes over time in the uptake of new and previous participants in the trial, and the amount of food waste being diverted from landfill; and

 

f)       bring back a detailed report on the trial at the end of the current five-year period, with recommendations regarding appropriate strategies for increasing uptake in the Food Waste collection for both multi and single-unit dwellings for the medium term (5 -10) year period of the Waste Strategy Action Plan.

 

The purpose of this report is to present the progress of Council’s food waste collection trial since the commencement in 2013 and implementation plan for food waste collection service to MUD properties in the City.

 

Issues

 

In 2013 Council commence a food waste recycling trial in randomly selected Multi-unit Dwelling (MUD) properties using NSW Government’s Waste Less Recover More (WLRM) program funding. The trial was conducted to understand whether source separated food waste can be collected from MUD properties in densely populated Randwick Council and recycled for environmental benefits, and also to identify any issues that might require creative and practical solutions to achieve high level of food waste recycling.

 

1.       Pre-trial Community Engagement

Prior to the commencement of the trial a comprehensive community engagement program was developed and implemented. Education material and collaterals were developed through community workshops. Some of the collaterals developed are shown in figure 1.

 

 

Figure 1. Education material

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2014 the trial was launched with approximately 3,800 dwellings randomly selected across the suburbs. Some of the 240L red-lidded bins allocated to the properties were converted into food waste bins by changing the red-lid to burgundy. Kitchen caddies with compostable caddy liners and information brochure with instructions how to recycle food waste were delivered to each dwellings of the selected MUDs. Currently over 3,600 dwellings are participating in the trial.

 

During this trial period many more residents expressed their interest in participating in the food waste recycling trial. However, the number of properties needed to be kept within limit to achieve the objectives of the trial.

 

 

2.       Collected Food Waste Tonnage

Since the commencement of the trial the participating residents have recycled more than 240 tonnes of food waste. The recycling tonnage since the start of the trial consistently increased from 42 tonnes in the first year to 60 tonnes in 2018 (figure 2) as a result of continuous engagement with participants and education. The collected food waste is currently processed at the “Earth Power” facility located at Camelia producing clean electricity and organic fertilizer.

 

Fig. 2 Food waste recycled tonnage

 

 

Initially, the contamination in the food waste bins was higher than anticipated. However, enhanced education program and engagement with the residents, body corporate and cleaners helped reducing the contamination to below 3%.

 

3.       Findings of the trial

The community is enthusiastic about food waste recycling service. Residents have written to Council supporting food waste collection services in Council.

 

Some residents raised concerns about odour from the food waste bins during hot summer days. Properly closing bin-lid and bio-filter bin-lid were able to control the odour to the same level of red-lid bins.

 

At the beginning of the trial some residents contaminated the food waste bins demonstrating lack of awareness. Enhanced engagement and education program helped increase awareness and reduced the level of contamination to below 3%. Comprehensive community education and engagement is key to successful recovery of food waste and continued engagement program is important for maintaining the community awareness.

 

The trial showed that 240L food waste bins become too heavy when full, rather 140L bins are appropriate size for food waste and that one 140L bin can serve more than 18 dwellings collected weekly.

 

4.       Implementation of Food Waste Collection Service

Introduce opt-in food waste collection in all multi-unit dwellings is an action item in Council’s Waste Management Strategy Action Plan for the short-term (1 – 5 years). Council has now developed tender documents for its waste collection services that includes this service. The findings of the trial have been incorporated in the food waste collection service specifications.

 

Council has been awarded by the NSW Environmental Trust $1.2 million grant funding for implementation of food waste collection service. Under this grant program Council, in consultation with NSW EPA, will prepare and implement a comprehensive community engagement and education plan for an effective food waste recycling service for MUD properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:          A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10d:        Sustainable alternative waste technologies and environmentally sound collection systems are identified and implemented.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Since 2013 Council carries out a food waste recycling trial in randomly selected Multi-unit Dwelling (MUD) properties to understand whether source separated food waste can be collected from MUD properties and recycled for environmental benefits, and also to identify any issues that might require creative and practical solutions to achieve high level of food waste recycling.

 

Council recycled more than 240 tonnes of food waste with consistent yearly increase of tonnage from 42 tonnes in first year to 60 tonnes in 2018. Comprehensive community engagement and education was key to this success.

 

Currently Council is going through a waste collection services tendering process including an opt-in food waste collection service to all multi-unit dwellings. Findings of the food waste recycling trial have been incorporated in the service specifications.

 

Council received $1.2 million grant funding from the NSW Environment Trust to support the implementation of food waste collection service in MUD properties.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council notes:

 

a)       food waste recycling trial achievements presented in the report;

 

b)       Council received $1.2 M NSW Environmental Trust grant funding to support implementation of food waste recycling service in MUD properties.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS21/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Driveways and Developer Funded Works Policy

 

Folder No:                      F2005/00282

Author:                          Stephen Audet, Coordinator Engineering Services     

 

 

Introduction

 

In accordance with Council’s responsibility to periodically review its policies, the opportunity has been identified to combine three current policies relating to crossings and entrances into one policy.

 

Issues

 

The portion of the driveway, pathway or stairs between the road and the property boundary is referred to as a Special Crossing in the Roads Act, 1993.  Council currently has 3 policies that relate to crossings.  These policies are as follows:

 

1.       Crossings and Entrances – Contributions Policy; (Adopted 1973)

          This policy outlines that the cost for alterations to crossings, kerb and gutter, footpaths and roads resulting from developments are to be borne by the applicant.

 

2.       Construction of Crossings and Re-instatements Policy; (Adopted 1994)

This policy outlines the process for contracting the works, including the payment of fees.

 

3.       Resident’s Requests for Special Verge Crossings Policy; (Adopted 2005)

This policy outlines the process for applying for crossings.

 

There has been numerous process changes associated with crossings and also other works undertaken on the Road Reserve to facilitate adjoining development.  These changes include:

 

·           An ongoing refinement of application forms to improve communication and meet Council’s administrative needs;

·           Changes to legislative environment including the Roads Act, 1993, Work Health and Safety Act, 2011 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 including State Environmental Planning Policies and Development Control Plans;

·           Internal changes relating to Fees and Charges, Insurance, administration and IT, tendering and contractor selection;

·           Customer trends including the number and complexity of works in the road reserve;

·           Opportunities to test and refine our systems and processes as part of the amalgamation planning process.

 

A review of the existing policies against these changes identified that the policies require revision.  It was also identified that all policies relating to crossings should be combined to form a single policy.

 

The resultant draft policy combines the above changes into a single policy document that outlines the process of application, design, construction, associated fees and charges and responsibilities for the construction of driveways and other developer funded works in the road reserve.

 


 

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 adopted fees and charges associated with driveways and developer funded works.  The adoption of a new policy and cancellation of the three current policies has no additional financial impact on Council.

 

Conclusion

 

There are three existing policies that relate to the construction of crossings or other works associated with developments on Council land.  These policies are outdated.  The draft Driveways and Developer Funded Works Policy combines these three policies and sets policy in line with current processes, legislation and best practice.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the draft Driveways and Developer Funded Works Policy be adopted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft Driveways and Developer Funded Works Policy

 

 

 

 


Draft Driveways and Developer Funded Works Policy

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS22/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      South Coogee to Kingsford Walking and Cycling Streetscape Improvements - Results of Public Consultation

 

Folder No:                      PROJ/10180/1527784/6

Author:                          Ken Shepherd, Sustainability Transport Officer; Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

 

Introduction

 

This report summarises community feedback on the concept designs for the proposed South Coogee to Kingsford Walking and Cycling Improvement Project, and outlines proposed steps to address the issues raised. 

 

The project’s route extends some two kilometers from Malabar Road in South Coogee along Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street to Anzac Parade in Kingsford. It provides a link between the Malabar Road cycle route and the new light rail terminus. The project is expected to yield considerable benefit to our community by providing a safe, pleasant and active alternative to car use for neighbourhood destinations such as the light rail terminus and local schools, and for longer distance bicycle trips and commuting.

 

The concept plans were publicly exhibited for four weeks in October and November 2018 and the Council received over 800 submissions. From the feedback, it is evident that the issue of greatest concern for the community was the proposed tree loss associated with the proposal. All of the comments have been reviewed and the importance the community places on mature trees on local streets has been clearly recognised. As a result, the concept plans have been amended at a number of locations along route with a view to save as many trees as possible. A single revised concept design that addresses this and other issues can be seen in Attachment 1.

 

The initial plans presented for public exhibition, in October 2018, contained a number of design options. Originally, up to 37 trees of various sizes were proposed to be removed, depending on the design options considered. After carefully reviewing the design in detail, 27 mature trees have now been retained.  Each of the trees now retained are mature trees which stand at over five metres in height (Attachment 2).  The number of trees now proposed for removal in the revised design is 16, of which five are considered mature and over five metres tall. An arborist report examining each of these 16 trees in detail has been prepared (Attachment 3).

 

Background

 

Strategic framework

 

Randwick City Council has over many years supported the use of bicycles as a sustainable, healthy transport mode.  Since the 1990s the Council has identified and worked toward the delivery of a number of local routes as cycle routes.  In 2015 the community was consulted and, based on community feedback, 11 specific routes were endorsed by the Council as high priority routes.  The South Coogee to Kingsford cycle route was identified as a high priority for Randwick City Council (see Attachment 4). It was also deemed to be a strategic bicycle corridor by Transport for NSW, as documented in ‘Sydney’s Cycling Future’.

 

Council received NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) funding in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years to plan and design two Walking and Cycling Improvement Projects in our city:

·      South Coogee to Kingsford - via Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street (the subject of this report)

 

·      Kingsford to Centennial Park - via Sturt Street, General Bridges Crescent, Houston Road, Day Avenue and Doncaster Avenue (endorsed by the Council on 28 August 2018)

 

These initiatives, which align with the Council’s adopted priorities for cycleway planning, will promote active transport in our city by providing safer and more pleasant routes for people who choose to walk or cycle to key destinations.

 

Route description

 

The route is approximately two kilometers in length and extends west from the intersection of Bundock Street and Malabar Road in South Coogee, to Kingsford (near to the light rail terminus), along Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street.  This route was endorsed by Council in both November 2015 and in April 2019.

 

The alignment of the cycleway within the road corridor was determined by factors such as the number of intersections, driveways, impacts on car parking, impacts on trees, as well as appropriate connections to existing cycle routes and shared paths.

 

Figure 1 below shows the route from the Malabar Road on-road bike lanes to Kingsford as a solid orange line. The dotted line shows the other proposed route from Kingsford to Centennial Park (a separate project also being undertaken by Randwick City Council, also with RMS funding).

 

The proposed South Coogee to Kingsford route would link with the proposed Kingsford to Centennial Park route at the signalized Anzac Parade/Sturt Street intersection. Plans for the Kingsford to Centennial Park project were previously exhibited in August 2018. Both concept designs received in-principle approval by RMS, prior to exhibition.

Figure 1 - Location of proposed South Coogee to Kingsford route

 


 

Previous reports to Council

 

April / May 2019

Following a Council resolution in December 2018, a report identifying and analysing potential East-West route options between the Malabar Road bike route and Kingsford was considered at the April 2019 Council meeting (CS10/19 - item 6), and the following resolution was adopted:

 

RESOLUTION: (Matson/Da Rocha) that:

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

2.      a further report be brought back to the Council addressing all the community concerns raised regarding this route, including a traffic study,

3.      the further report also details proposed design improvements to further minimise the impact of the proposed cycleway upon trees – and include the independent arborist’s advice on each tree then proposed to be removed;

4.      the identified future strategic bicycle corridor along Anzac Parade be the subject of a briefing session for Councillors; and

5.      that Council officers commence investigation on design and costings for the Anzac Parade Bikeway (mid A) (No 2) addition to Bundock Street Cycle (No 4).

 

This report addresses items 1, 2 and 3 of the above resolution.  Items 4 & 5 will be addressed at a later date.

 

November 2017

The two walking and cycling improvement projects were considered by the Council at the Ordinary Council meeting in November 2017 (CS12/17 - item 21) where it was resolved as follows:

 

RESOLUTION: (Bowen/Said) that:

a)         Council Officers report back to Council with the final concept design and the results of the community consultation;

b)         Further routes be considered to service the south of the Randwick city area; and

c)         the General Manager have discussions with the light rail construction company with the intent of integrating the bike path concepts we are generating with the unfolding design of the light rail.

 

2015 consultation

Council undertook community consultation to establish a bicycle route construction priority list. The results of the consultation were considered by the Council at its Works Committee Meeting held in November 2015 (W39/15 – item 10). The Council resolved the following:

 

RESOLUTION: (Andrews/Stavrinos) that Council:

a)         accept the offer of funding from Roads and Maritime Services to undertake the following with regard to bike facilities in the Randwick council area:

             i.           detailed design of the Sturt Street, General Bridges Crescent, Houston Road, Doncaster Avenue bike route;

             ii.          detailed design of the bike route proposed along Bundock Street then westerly along Sturt Street to the Kingsford terminus;

             iii.         detailed design of the bike route from the Coogee Beach area, past the High Street Randwick terminus and through to UNSW;

b)         consult with Botany Bay City Council with regard to the proposed improvements to bicycle facilities proposed in General Bridges Crescent; and

c)         note that the construction priority listing detailed within this report will be generally used as a guide for the implementation of bike routes in Randwick LGA (this priority may alter, especially if offers of funding are received from other sources such as RMS, Transport for NSW etc).

Design elements of the cycleway

 

Most of the proposed South Coogee to Kingsford route includes a separated cycleway treatment to remove bicycle traffic from road traffic and to more safely accommodate people riding a bike. Where specific localised constraints exist, short lengths of the route are proposed to be shared path.

 

There are a small number of design options available regarding the implementation of separated cycleways within the streetscape.  The option known as a ‘flush-to-footpath’ treatment (extending the kerb to create a cycleway at the same level as the existing footpath) is the main design treatment proposed for this route (See Figure 2 below). The design detail along the route was determined by a number of technical factors identified in the site analysis, including existing services, road gradients and susceptibility to flooding. Physical separation in the form of a kerb between the road and the cycle path reduces most cyclist / motorist interactions and provides a safer environment to ride.

 

Figure 2 below shows a diagram of a typical bi-directional cycleway treatment, as proposed along Sturt Street. It should be noted that the existing road corridor width and footpath conditions vary along the whole length of the proposed route.

Figure 2 - Typical cross section proposed on Sturt Street, showing a bi-directional separated cycleway

 

General streetscape upgrade works

 

The proposed active transport improvements provide an opportunity to increase the amenity for people who walk or cycle, and to improve safety / convenience for motorists.  Aside from providing a bidirectional cycleway to separate most bike riders from cars and pedestrians, a number of other streetscape improvements are included in the project’s concept designs.  These include:

 

·      New garden beds and enhancement of existing verges and streetscape

·      Improved safety - with new intersection treatments and traffic calming devices

·      New pedestrian crossings

·      New footpath

·      Additional planting of sixty trees

·      Calmer traffic - through implementation of clear markings and separation

·      Pavement and kerb ramp upgrades - for improved pedestrian access

·      New shared environment intersections - to improve awareness and safety where pedestrians, bike riders and vehicles cross paths.   

                                           

With the upcoming opening of the light rail / bus interchange at Kingsford, it is very likely that there will be a significant increase in the movement of pedestrians through this local area. Transport for NSW identifies that the ‘walking catchment’ for light rail services is generally within 800 metres of light rail stops. (NB: Avoca Street is only some 760m from the Kingsford Interchange).  Figure 3 (below) shows the significant number of improvements proposed for people walking in this area.  These include new pedestrian crossings, new signalised intersections with improved pedestrian access, pedestrian refuges and bend-out intersections (which incorporate pedestrian crossings).  

 

These elements will make it far easier and safer for members of the local community to walk to the light rail / bus interchange, and to other facilities, at Kingsford.

 

Figure 3 - Proposed pedestrian improvements along the South Coogee to Kingsford route

 

Design options A, B, C, D

 

During the community consultation process for this project different design options were proposed at two locations along Bundock Street, as seen below in Figure 4. The options varied, with a focus on either retaining or removing the following:

 

·      On-street vehicle parking

 

·      Trees and nature strips

Figure 4 – The South Coogee to Kingsford project route, highlighting the two sections where alternative design options were presented during consultation.

 

 

Bundock Street – Avoca Street to Canberra Street

In this part of Bundock Street two options were shown on the concept plans exhibited during consultation.  These were known as Options A and B and are shown in Figure 5, below.

 

·      Option A - Retaining some 25 parking spaces by removing six established trees.

 

·      Option B – Retaining all existing trees and removing all parking spaces on the south side of road.

 

 

 

Figure 5 - Options A and B from the proposed concept plans exhibited during consultation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Bundock Street – Ellen Street to Hendy Avenue

In this part of Bundock Street two options were also shown on the concept plans exhibited during consultation.  These were known as Options C and D and are shown in Figure 6, below.

 

·      Option C - Retaining parking, between Ellen St and Hendy Ave, reduced width of nature strip.

 

·      Option D - Retaining existing nature strip, removing most parking on south side of this part of Bundock Street.

Figure 6 - Options C and D from the proposed concept plans exhibited during consultation


A full set of the original plans shown during consultation in November 2018 can be viewed online on the Randwick Council Your Say page.

 

Consultation activities

 

Public exhibition and consultation on the concept designs for the proposed walking and cycling improvements was conducted over a four week period between 29 October and 23 November 2018. The consultation activities included:

 

·      Your Say Randwick project page, including:

detailed designs for each section of the route

frequently asked questions (FAQs)

options to make a submission and register for future project updates

·      Articles in Council’s weekly email bulletin - 31 October, 7 & 21 November 2018

·      Notification in Council page in The Southern Courier - 30 October 2018

·      Letter mailed to all residents and owners along the route informing them of the consultation and asking for feedback

·      Pamphlet mailed to all residents on Bundock Street highlighting the four different design options and asking for feedback

·      Printed concept designs made available at the Administration Building and Randwick City Council libraries

·      Contacting Rainbow Street Public School, Randwick Boys High School and Randwick Girls High School

·      Information session at Randwick Community Centre - 6.30pm, Wednesday 7 November 2018

·      Email to cycleway updates subscriber list and submissions database – 6 November 2018

·      Email to Your Say Randwick subscribers – 2 November 2018

·      Media release – 6 November 2018

·      Facebook post 5 November 2018

·      Email to all Precincts notifying the public exhibition

·      Dedicated Walking and cycling streetscape improvements page and link on Community Consultation page on Randwick City Council website

·      Door knocking of all households along the South Coogee to Kingsford route to offer an opportunity to discuss the project, and inform residents on the ways they could make a submission

 

Summary of door knocking interactions

 

Table 1 - Summary of door knocking interactions

Street

Section

No. doors knocked

Doors

opened

Positive Response

Neutral Response

Negative Response

Sturt Street

North: Holy Trinity Church to 39 Sturt Street

South: 10 Sturt Street to 58A Sturt Street

55

5

2

2

1

Sturt Street

North: 60 Sturt Street to 122 Sturt Street

South: 41 Sturt Street to 93 Sturt Street

69

21

9

7

5

Avoca Street

North: 124 Sturt Street to No 2 Bundock Street

South: 95 Sturt Street to 103 Sturt Street

East/west: Avoca Street from Bundock Lane to Jellicoe Avenue

46

15

2

13

0

Bundock Street

4 Bundock Street to 80 Canberra Street

28

17

5

5

7

Bundock Street

North: 75 Canberra Street to 20 Hendy Street

South: 101 Bundock Street to 22 Hendy Street

39

13

4

5

5

Bundock Street

North: 41 Hendy Street to 12 Malabar Road

South: 45 Hendy Street to 16 Malabar Road

84

5

3

1

1

TOTALS:

321

76

25

32

19

 

 

Submissions received

 

The concept designs for the walking and cycling streetscape improvement project received a significant amount of interest from Randwick residents, and others, including:

 

·      3260 visitors to the project page on Council’s ‘Your Say Randwick’ community consultation website (Your Say)

·      3267 documents downloaded

 

A total of 804 submissions were received during the exhibition period from 29 October to 23 November 2018, including:

 

·      291 Your Say Randwick submissions

·      473 email submissions

·      40 postal survey responses

 

A full list of the submissions received and Council responses is available via a link on the project page.

 

Following is an assessment of all of the submissions received.  They are categorised by each communication option:


 

Your Say submissions

 

There were 291 submissions received via Your Say.

 

·      Approximately 43% of the submissions received via Your Say were supportive.

·      Approximately 20% of the submissions received via Your Say provided neutral feedback.

·      Approximately 28% of the submissions received via Your Say were unsupportive.

·      Approximately 9% of the submissions received via Your Say provided no written response (where the person submitting did not enter any text in the comments field).

 

Design options preference

Of the 291 respondents who sent a submission via Your Say, 97 people expressed a preference between design options A and B.

 

·        13  (13%) preferred design option A (retaining some parking)

·        84  (87%) preferred design option B (retaining existing trees)

 

Of the 291 respondents who sent a submission via Your Say, 73 people expressed a preference between design options C and D.

 

·       14  (19%) preferred design option C (retaining parking)

·       59  (81%) preferred design option D (retaining existing nature strip)

 

Postcode analysis

Of the 291 submissions received via Your Say:

 

·      Approximately 65% of Your Say submissions were from postcodes within the LGA.

·      Approximately 7% of Your Say submissions were from postcodes outside the LGA.

·      Approximately 28% of Your Say submissions did not include a postcode.

 

Email submissions

 

There were 473 submissions received via direct email to the Council.

 

Email submissions via Saving Sydney Trees online portal

The Saving Sydney’s Trees group used an online platform, called Do Gooder, to invite people to send in pre-populated email submissions regarding the project. Do Gooder describes itself as “software to lobby policy makers and build progressive movements”.  As such, a large number of the email submissions (348 of 473, or 74%) arrived via this online campaign and were based on pre-populated submission text.

 

All such submissions objected to the four proposed designs and the removal of mature tree canopy, and requested a redesign. These emails have been included as individual submissions, reviewed by staff and responses provided.

 

Email analysis

Of the 473 submissions via email to Council:

 

·      Approximately 7% of submissions (35) received via email were supportive

·      Approximately 8% of submissions (38) provided neutral feedback.

·      Approximately 85% of submissions (400) were unsupportive (including 348 emails from the Saving Sydney’s Trees portal)

 

Design options preference

From those that sent a submission via email, 31 people expressed a preference between design options A and B.

·      1 (3%) preferred design option A (retaining some parking)

·      30  (97%) preferred design option B (retaining existing trees)

 

From those that sent a submission via email, 31 people expressed a preference between design options C and D.

 

·      5  (16%) preferred design option C (retaining parking)

·      26  (84%) preferred design option D (retaining existing nature strip)

 

Postcode analysis

Of the 473 submissions via email:

 

·      Approximately 47% of email submissions were from postcodes within the LGA.

·      Approximately 21% of email submissions were from postcodes outside the LGA.

·      Approximately 32% of email submissions did not include a postcode.

 

Postal survey submissions

Council posted a pamphlet with the four design options to all Bundock Street residents and owners. A survey inviting feedback was also included. 40 responses were received. 

 

Design options preference

From those that sent a submission via postal survey, 29 people expressed a preference between design options A and B.

 

·      16  (55%) preferred design option A (retaining some parking)

·      13  (45%) preferred design option B (retaining existing trees)

 

From those that sent a submission via postal survey, 26 people expressed a preference between design options C and D.

 

·      17  (65%) preferred design option C (retaining parking)

·      9  (35%) preferred design option D (retaining existing nature strip)

 

Issues

 

Main themes

 

Although there was a wide range of issues raised in the submissions, a number of common themes emerged. These have been identified for further discussion in this report, including:

 

·      Trees 

·      On street vehicle parking

·      Safety for bike riders

·      Traffic and congestion

·      Traffic signals and intersections

·      Pedestrian safety

·      Driveway access 

 

A full list of all issues raised in the submissions, along with the response provided by Council officers, is provided via a link on the project page. Each of the key themes above is discussed following.

 

The concept designs have been further developed to address the concerns raised, and a single set of revised plans can be seen in Attachment 1 – Revised Concept Design. With regard to the two Bundock Street locations, where alternate design options were shown, the Revised Concept Design proposes:

 

·      From Avoca Street to opposite Canberra Street - a combined Option A / B which does not remove any trees (therefore retaining 6 mature trees), and which retains 7 parking spaces on the south side of the street

 

·      From near Ellen Street to Hendy Avenue – a modified form of Option D, which retains 9 mature trees

1.       Trees

 

Due to the quantity of submissions regarding trees, in-depth commentary and analysis of trees is provided in a later, dedicated, section of this report titled ‘Addressing concerns about tree loss’ on page 17.

 

2.       On-street vehicle parking

 

A number of respondents were concerned with the loss of on street car parking spaces along the route. The presence of boat and trailer parking was also raised as an issue.

 

Although a concerted effort has been made to minimise parking loss along the route, a number of spaces are proposed to be removed in order to accommodate intersection treatments, pedestrian crossing improvements and the cycleway. New parking spaces have been created where possible.  Based on the concept designs exhibited in November 2018, there would be a net loss of between 129-172 parking spaces along the full 2 kilometre length of the route, depending on the design option (A/B, C/D).

 

Some parking is also proposed to be removed to accommodate the traffic signals at the intersection of Sturt and Botany Streets.

 

Given the narrowness of Bundock Street and given the presence of a bus route, a large proportion of the on-street car parking changes are proposed along Bundock Street. In the initial concept designs:

 

·      36 / 63 spaces are proposed to be removed next to the Defence site on the south side of Bundock St, between Avoca Street and Canberra Street (depending on the design option - A/B).

·      32 spaces are proposed to be removed on Bundock Street, between Canberra Street and Ellen Street.

·      0 / 15 spaces are proposed to be removed on Bundock Street, between Ellen Street and Hendy Avenue (depending on the design option - C/D).

·      39 spaces are proposed to be removed between Hendy Avenue and Malabar Road.

 

Some sections of Bundock Street have a lower demand for parking, such as outside the defence site, where a number of boats and trailers are parked due to unrestricted parking conditions. Towards the east end of Bundock Street there is also lower demand for parking at the bend on the hill, which may be due to perceived safety issues (as per advice received from residents during consultation) and minimal direct access to residential properties from the road. These locations are marked in pink and brown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Observed parking patterns along Sturt and Bundock Streets.

 

Discussion – On-street vehicle parking

Implementing new locations for people to more safely walk and ride along the route has resulted in an adjustment to some of the parking spaces. This is due to the narrow road space, proposed pedestrian facilities, presence of a bus route, proposed traffic signals, and the need to accommodate the cycleway.

 

Council is aware of boats and trailers parking along the south side of Bundock Street, and will continue to assess the prevalence of boat and trailer parking in the area.  It should be noted that the Council’s previous experience in a ‘trailer-dominated’ area (Burnie St, Clovelly) was that all the trailers left the area completely when we introduced a particular time limit regime.  We are soon to trial the “Burnie Street approach” in Darley Road, Randwick, and this could well prove to be the template we could use to address ‘boat trailer’ concerns in the vicinity of Bundock Street, if required.

 

Outcome – On-street vehicle parking

Discussions will be undertaken in the next stage of the project to accommodate mobility impaired parking space changes.

 

Feedback regarding on-street parking has been considered and several changes have been made to the design to accommodate more spaces. This has been balanced with the need to more safely accommodate all transport modes and all road users.

 

3.       Safety for bike riders

 

A key objective for this project is to improve safety for people walking and riding along this priority route. A cycleway that is separated from the road, and from the footpath, significantly reduces the conflict and likelihood of accidents between people who walk, people on bikes and motor vehicles. It is widely acknowledged that providing safe cycling infrastructure is the key to making bike riding a viable transportation option for many in the community. 

 

The route, in its present state, provides an opportunity to ride on-road. This requires the bike rider to mix with cars, trucks, buses and other traffic, often forcing the bike rider to ride close to parked cars where there is a risk of ‘car dooring’ (when a driver opens the car door onto a bike rider, causing a crash).

 

A significant number of submissions wanted to see a safer environment to ride a bike. This in turn was seen to encourage more people to cycle, especially those attending local schools and linking to the future light rail. Benefits to health and to congestion were also noted.

 

Discussion – Safety for bike riders

The proposed design significantly increases safety for people on bikes as:

 

·      They would be positioned on an extended verge, with a 400mm separated buffer from parked cars;

·      The cycleway would be adjacent to the passenger door side, reducing the frequency of car doors opening onto the cycleway (as many cars are occupied by the driver only); and

·      Due to the bi-directional nature of the cycleway, the bike riders closest to the parked cars would be travelling toward the front of parked cars.  This provides greater visibility of possible upcoming conflicts.

·      Avoca Street is constantly very busy and currently acts as a barrier for people walking or riding from Sturt Street to Bundock Street (and vice versa). The proposed signalised crossing of Avoca St makes crossing this busy road much safer for people walking or riding a bike.

 

Feedback from City of Sydney indicates that on many of their separated cycleways the bike trips have increased significantly and crashes have gone down. On the Kent St cycleway, by 2017 there were 6 times as many bike trips at Druitt St and 3 times and many at King St, compared with 2010. On the Bourke St cycleway, in 2017 there were nearly 4 times as many trips as in 2010, but only half the number of crashes.

 

The cycleway design component of this project meets current standards and the design has been subjected to the required Road Safety Audit processes.  This project will again be the subject of a further Road Safety Audit at the next stage of detailed design (if endorsed).

 

Outcome - Safety for bike riders

The proposed cycleway will increase the safety of bike riders, and provide a safer transport option for those in our community who wish to use it.

 

4.       Pedestrian safety

 

Pedestrian safety was raised as an issue in the consultation responses, and submissions raising this issue were generally supportive of the proposed improvements, such as:

 

·      The proposal discourages bike riders from riding on the footpath by providing a dedicated space for people who ride;

·      Pedestrians, bike riders and cars are separated wherever possible; and

·      Pedestrian crossings along Sturt Street and Avoca Street will improve safety for residents and others who walk in the neighbourhood.

 

There was, however, some concern that the safety of passengers exiting parked cars next to the cycleway would be compromised. The design has considered this issue by providing a 0.4m separation from parking and cycle path areas. The bi-directional design allows vehicle passengers and approaching riders to have clearer views of each other, reducing the likelihood of collision.

 

Discussion – Pedestrian safety

With the aim of improving pedestrian safety, the project proposes:

 

·      4 new pedestrian crossings

·      7 new signalised crossings

·      1 new pedestrian refuge

·      3 new shared environment intersections

·      360 metres of new footpath where no footpath currently exists

 

In doing so, it provides improved pedestrian access to the future light bus / rail interchange, local schools and shops.

 

A number of submissions raised the issue of access to the Kingsford light rail terminus. Access will be available from near to the entrance of South Sydney Leagues Club.  Council is in regularly contact with Transport for NSW regarding the light rail project and will continue to ensure pedestrian access is a primary consideration.

 

Submissions were also made regarding further pedestrian improvements along the route.  This included incorporating kerb ‘build outs’ at intersections opposite the cycleway. Incorporating kerb build outs into the design serves to improve safety by:

 

·      Reducing the distance pedestrians have to walk across the road;

·      Improving sight lines for pedestrians crossing the road; and

·      Providing additional traffic calming along the route.

 

As detailed earlier in this report, kerb build outs also provide increased opportunities for planting along the route. They can also provide opportunities for additional parking spaces by reducing the required set-back to the intersection allowable for parked cars.

 

Outcome – Pedestrian safety

Pedestrian access will continue to be a key consideration of the project. The possibility of kerb build outs, opposite the cycleway, will be considered where feasible for incorporation into the design.

 


 

5.       Intersections and traffic signals

 

Some respondents made detailed comments regarding particular intersections along the route. Detailed intersection analysis was used to determine the most appropriate intersection treatments. Traffic counts were analysed and likely traffic impacts were modelled using a SIDRA analysis for each key intersection (SIDRA is traffic modelling software used to understand potential traffic flows). The Traffic Study is attached (Attachment 5 - Transport Impact Assessment).

 

A number of respondents were concerned with the bicycle wait times at signalised intersections. Light phasing is the responsibility of RMS. We are working closely with RMS on the light phasing to ensure all road users are efficiently accommodated.

 

Descriptions and rationale of the changes to the larger intersections are as follows.

 

Sturt Street and Botany Street – new traffic signals

A number of submissions objected to the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Sturt Street and Botany Street.

 

The proposed traffic signals will provide the following benefits:

 

·    Improved safety for people walking and cycling.

·    Caters for existing patterns of traffic flow in all directions. A ‘bend out’ treatment, as proposed nearby at Bass Street and Sturt Street intersection, would impact traffic flows on Botany Street.

·    Accommodate any future growth in traffic.

 

The current roundabout is incompatible with the need to accommodate all forms of transport in a safer manner. People riding bikes along the cycleway would end up riding through the roundabout in the wrong direction (see Figure 8). Vehicles would have no storage space and would regularly block the cycleway. There would be poor sight lines and the arrangement may leave bike riders and pedestrians vulnerable.

             Figure 8 - Potential conflict points at roundabouts for bidirectional cycleways.

 

Also, with the upcoming opening of the light rail / bus interchange at Kingsford, it is very likely that there will be a significant increase in the movement of pedestrians through this local area.  Traffic signals, incorporating pedestrian facilities, will make it far easier and safer for members of the local community to walk to the light rail / bus interchange, and to other facilities, at Kingsford.

 

Avoca Street, Sturt Street and Bundock Street – new traffic signals and additional lanes

A number of submissions questioned the impact on traffic of the proposed changes at the intersection of Bundock Street, Avoca Street and Sturt Street. The size and scale of changes was also raised as an issue.

 

The new traffic signals and lane configurations provide the following benefits:

 

·      Easier east-west crossing of the Avoca Street barrier for people walking / riding.

·      Helping children walk or ride to schools in the area.

·      Improved active travel links to the future Kingsford light rail terminus.

·      Easier and safer east-west motor vehicle travel, with new traffic signals and right turn lanes on Avoca Street to accommodate this movement.

·      Reduced queueing and delay with the banning of right turns out of Sturt Street and Bundock Street into Avoca Street.

 

Extensive traffic flow analysis and intersection design was undertaken with the objective of more safely accommodating all road users. Introducing a safer crossing for people walking or riding, while maintaining adequate traffic flow, has been a key consideration of the design at this intersection.

 

Anzac Parade and Sturt Street – tying into light rail terminus

New traffic signals have been installed as part of the light rail project, which is being managed by Transport for NSW. The Walking and Cycling Improvement project proposes several changes to the kerb and footpath arrangement. It will provide the following benefits:

 

·      Improved pedestrian movements by removing the slip lane on the south east corner, and reducing the number of crossing points.

·      Shared path on the south side of Sturt Street, along the edge of the Anzac Parade central reserve, to accommodate a mix of walking and cycling movements.

 

Bundock St and Canberra Ave – bus stop and turning movements

Concerns were voiced regarding the current and future performance of the intersection at Bundock Street and Canberra Street, with the addition of a cycleway.

 

The bus stop on the south side of Bundock Street, near Canberra Street, is proposed to change to an ‘in lane’ bus stop. This will not significantly impact the traffic flow in this location as the average boarding numbers are not substantial. On-street car parking is proposed to be removed opposite this bus stop, and there will be no other changes to traffic lanes at this location.

 

Discussion – Intersections

Based on the traffic modelling, it was determined that the following intersections could be converted to signalised intersections with minimal impact on traffic flows:

 

·      Sturt Street and Botany Street

 

A bend out treatment (cycleway continues across secondary road with slight deviation and priority) and pedestrian crossing is proposed for the following intersections, with minimal impact on traffic flows:

 

·      Sturt Street and Bass Street

·      Sturt Street and Paton Street

·      Bundock Street and Elphinstone Road

 

A shared environment intersection (raised, mixed-use intersection with different surface treatment) is proposed for the following intersections on the south side of the route, with minimal impact on traffic flows:

 

·      Sturt Street and Sturt Lane

·      Sturt Street and Byrd Avenue

·      Bundock Street and Hendy Avenue

 

Outcome – Intersections

To reduce the amount of kerb cut back on the west side of Avoca Street, a short stretch of shared path has been included on the east side in the revised design (refer to Attachment 1).  Further analysis of all intersections will be undertaken during the detailed design phase of the project.  Where possible, appropriate proposals arising from the public consultation process will be incorporated.

 

6.       Traffic / congestion

 

The route sits within 700 metres of busy destinations such as UNSW, the Randwick hospital precinct, three schools, Kingsford shops and the future light rail terminus. Some streets in the area are busy and many people travel to and from the area, especially in peak hour. Heavy traffic is an issue for many residents and visitors to the area. Future growth of jobs and housing, and additional student capacity at Rainbow Street Public School will further add to the total number of trips occurring in the area.

 

Discussion – Traffic / congestion

Traffic analysis has been undertaken, and we are working with RMS to accommodate existing and future travel patterns. No right turns are proposed at the west end of Bundock Street, into Avoca Street, and at the east end of Sturt Street, into Avoca Street. This will improve the signal phasing and traffic flow through the intersection, and reduce queueing. It should be noted that current traffic counts show these right turn manoeuvres are very low in number (four right turns out of Sturt Street in both AM and PM peaks, and five right turns out of Bundock Street in the AM peak, with 0 in the PM peak).  Also, it should be noted that no lanes of traffic are proposed to be removed as a result of this project.

 

Outcome – Traffic / congestion

Improved walking and bike riding infrastructure will provide residents, commuters and other visitors with more, viable, alternative travel options to the motor vehicle.  And the proposed facilities will likely reduce congestion and parking pressure near to the bus / light rail interchange. The improved connection to the future light rail terminus also helps provide greater access to public transport.

 

7.       Driveways

 

Some respondents were concerned about how driveway access would be impacted by the project, including:

 

·      Safety concerns when exiting driveways, with drivers having to look out for bike riders, pedestrians and vehicles in both directions; and

·      Some driveways along the route with particular issues such as sight lines and steep inclines.

 

Discussion – Driveways

Residents with driveways located on the cycleway will need to take care when entering and exiting, as per existing conditions. Additional care will be required due to the bi-directional nature of the cycleway.  Bike riders using the route will also need to be alert when crossing driveways.

 

The design will include green surface paint and bicycle symbols at all driveways to alert drivers and bike riders of the potential conflict and the need for care.

 

The area between Ellen Street and Hendy Avenue has been closely considered. Many options have been examined to balance safety, visibility, driveway access, pedestrian and bike rider safety, on-street parking, buses, trees and motor vehicle safety.

 

The road width is a key constraint which limits available design options. The project team explored the possibility of cutting back the kerb, adjusting on-street car parking and relocating power poles on the north side of Bundock Street, however no alternatives emerged as feasible solutions. To best accommodate the many issues listed above, the revised design adopts design option D. This option provides improved sight lines by positioning the cycleway at a distance from the steep driveways, and removing on-street car parking in this section.  It should be noted that, at the current time, bike riders aged 15 years or younger (and adults accompanying them) can currently ride legally along the existing footpaths, unsighted by emerging motorists.

 

Council officers will continue to consider new driveway construction requests as per current practices.

 

Outcome – Driveways

Design measures as noted such as green paint and bicycle symbols will be used at each driveway to alert all road users of potential conflict points. Line marking will be considered along the route where appropriate.


Addressing concerns about tree loss

 

Many submissions expressed concerns about the impact which the proposed design will have upon existing mature street trees. Approximately 70% of all submissions included the issue of trees. 

 

Discussion – trees

 

Up to 37 trees were proposed to be removed (depending on the design options) in the initial concept design. This was to accommodate the cycleway, traffic changes or to meet minimum safe sight lines at signalised intersections. Fifty-nine new trees were proposed to be planted along the route.

 

We engaged an arborist to advise us on the health and status of specific trees along the route. It was found that some trees along the route are in poor condition, but many are in good health. They vary greatly in size from two to 15 metres in height.

 

When planting new advanced trees, Council officers use species that are 1.5m tall with a 25 litre root base. For this reason, and for the purpose of consistent evaluation, plants 1.5 metres in height or less were not considered as trees for the purpose of discussion regarding tree removal. Twenty-two plants less than 1.5m in height have been identified along the route (in the latest design none of these are proposed to be removed).

 

Outcome – trees

 

Further analysis and redesign has been undertaken at certain locations along the route with the objective of retaining as many trees as possible.

 

A map summarising the trees proposed to be retained and trees proposed to be removed (in the revised design) is shown below in Figure 9. The map is available as an online interactive tool on Council’s website.

 

The arborist report detailing the trees proposed for removal in the revised design can be seen in Attachment 3. A complete set of the revised plans can be found in Attachment 1.

 

Untitled-2

Figure 9 - Proposed trees to be retained and removed in the revised design, sourced from Council’s website. 

 

A learning from the City of Sydney is that, should the project be endorsed, large damage deposits should be levied against construction contractors to protect every tree against any damage. It will be a condition of any future construction of this project that existing trees are protected.  Significant financial penalties for damage done during construction will be part of the contract.

 

As previously advised within this report - with regard to the two Bundock Street locations, where alternate design options were shown, the Revised Concept Design proposes:

 

·      From Avoca Street to opposite Canberra Street - a combined Option A / B which does not remove any trees (therefore retaining 6 mature trees) and which retains 7 parking spaces on the south side of the street

 

·      From near Ellen Street to Hendy Avenue – a modified form of Option D which retains 9 mature trees

 

Comparisons of the concept design presented during consultation in November 2019 and the revised design are shown below (Figures 10, 11, 12, 13), with the trees now proposed to be retained shown in light green.

 

Sturt Street

One tree on Sturt Street near the intersection with Botany Street is proposed for removal due the need to accommodate traffic signals. The design is unchanged.

 

Avoca Street

A comparison of the initial and revised concept plans is shown below. The key points include:

 

•        Narrower travel lanes.

•        3 median strips and all trees in centre of Avoca Street are retained.

•        Reduced size of kerb cut back on west side of Avoca Street.

•        Added signalised pedestrian crossing at end of Bundock Street

•        Shared path created on east side of Avoca Street.


 

 

 



Initial concept design
                                                                  Revised concept design

                                                                                                        12 mature trees retained along median
Red dotted circle = trees proposed for removal                    8 trees to be removed
Bright green circle = trees newly retained.                            


Figure 10 - A comparison of the initial and revised plans on Avoca Street. 

 

 


 

Bundock Street – Avoca Street to Canberra Street

A comparison of the initial and revised plans is shown below. The key points include:

 

·      Elements of design options A and B have been incorporated

·      All trees between Avoca Street and Canberra Street now retained.

·      7 car parking spaces on south side (compared to design Option B) retained.

 


Initial concept design - Option A

Initial concept design - Option B


Untitled-1
Revised concept design
6 mature trees retained, compared to Option A

 

Red dotted circle = trees proposed for removal
Bright green circle = trees newly retained.


Figure 11 - A comparison of the initial and revised plans on Bundock Street, between Avoca Street and Canberra Street.

Bundock Street – Canberra Street to Ellen Street

A comparison of the initial and revised plans is shown below. The key points include:

 

·      All trees between Canberra Street and Ellen Street retained.

·      Parking on the north side of Bundock Street near Ellen Street may be impacted (4 spaces). Officers will work towards minimising this loss of on-street parking in the detailed design stage.

·      Shared path on south side of Bundock Street, near intersection of Ellen Street.

 


Initial concept design – near Ellen Street, Option C

Initial concept design - near Ellen Street, Option D

Revised concept design

8 mature trees retained, compared to Option C

 

Red dotted circle = trees proposed for removal
Bright green circle = trees newly retained.


Figure 12 - A comparison of the initial and revised plans on Bundock Street, near Ellen Street.

Bundock Street – near Hendy Avenue

A comparison of the initial and revised plans is shown below. The key points include:

 

·      Option D design is preferred, due to improved visibility and greater safety around driveways and the cycle path.

·      A small section of shared path has been included behind the bus stop.

·      The mature tree near the bus stop is now retained.

·      Indented on-street car parking created on north side of Bundock Street, near 108 and 110 Bundock Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

 

Initial concept design – near Hendy Avenue, Option C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




Initial concept design – near Hendy Avenue, Option D

 

Revised concept design

1 mature tree retained

Figure 13 - A comparison of the initial and revised plans on Bundock Street, near Hendy Avenue.


 

Summary of changes 

 

Below is a summary table of the proposed tree removal in the initial concept design, and in the revised design.

 

All of the newly retained trees are mature trees, over five metres in height. They include the Eucalyptus trees on the median strip on Avoca Street, and along the south side of Bundock Street between Avoca Street and Ellen Street. The attached arborist report (Attachment 3) details the species, size and health of the 16 trees proposed for removal in the revised design.

 

Table 2 – Summary of trees proposed for removal and newly retained.

 

Trees initially proposed to be removed

Trees proposed to be removed in redesign

New planting proposed
(in redesign)

Sturt St

1

1

25

Avoca St

13

8

2

Bundock St (Avoca St to Canberra St)
– Design Option A

6

 

0

 

(modified Option A / B)

5

Bundock St (Avoca St to Canberra St)
– Design Option B

0

Bundock St (Canberra St to Hendy Ave)
– Design Option C

13

 

 

4

 

(modified Option D)

13

Bundock St (Canberra St to Hendy Ave)
– Design Option D

12

Bundock St (Hendy Ave to Malabar Rd)

4

3

15

Total (maximum – including A & C)

37

16

60

Total (minimum – including B & D)

30


Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3: An informed engaged community.

     Direction 3c: The community has increased opportunities to participate in decision making progress.

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and 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 at obtaining funding for the development of a concept design for this project under the RMS Active Transport Program. Further design phases and construction of the cycleway and streetscape improvements are eligible for full NSW Government funding under this program. However, this funding has not yet been allocated.

 

The community consultation process was funded through the project budget.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This project introduces a number of safer crossing points for people walking in South Coogee, Randwick and Kingsford.  New pedestrian crossings and refuges, signalised intersections and planter beds will improve local amenity.  It also proposes to separate bike riders from motor vehicles and it proposes to introduce a number of traffic calming measures. In combination, this project aims to provide a safer environment for all road users.

 

The proposed removal of trees was the primary concern raised by the community consultation and this has been addressed in a revised concept design. The new design now retains 27 very advanced, mature, trees.  It proposes an overall loss of 16 trees (of which five are mature) and the planting of 60 new trees.  On-street vehicle parking, bicycle safety, traffic congestion, driveway access, and proposed intersection treatments were also of concern to the community, and have been considered within this report. 

 

The proposed walking and cycling streetscape improvements between South Coogee and Kingsford will provide a strong and safe link between these key destinations, enabling safer journeys to nearby schools, hospitals and UNSW. This will greatly benefit those in our community who choose to walk or ride a bike, whether as commuters or for recreation.  It will provide residents and visitors with the option to choose healthier travel modes; helping to reduce congestion and parking demand on our local streets, while providing strong links to the wider bicycle network and to future light rail.  

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

1.       Council adopt the revised concept plans for the South Coogee to Kingsford Walking and Cycling Improvement Project (along Bundock, Avoca and Sturt Streets) as the foundation to finalise design development and proceed to construction of the project, when funded; and

 

2.       Council seek funding from RMS for the implementation of the project.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Attachment 1 – Revised concept design 2019

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Trees retained in revised concept design

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Arborist report

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Bicycle route construction priority map

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Transport Impact Assessment

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1 – Revised concept design 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Attachment 2 - Trees retained in revised concept design

Attachment 2

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Attachment 3 - Arborist report

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


Attachment 4 - Bicycle route construction priority map

Attachment 4

 

 

PDF Creator


Attachment 5 - Transport Impact Assessment

Attachment 5

 

 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS23/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Joint support worker parking permit

 

Folder No:                      F2004/07237

Author:                          Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

 

Introduction

 

Support worker parking permits are issued by the City of Sydney and are available for use across the City of Sydney and Inner West Council Local Government Areas (LGAs). Such permits have been introduced to assist support workers in their duties and to relieve them of the obligation to obtain and display multiple Council permits, when working across different areas. 

 

This report proposes that Randwick City Council also participate in this arrangement.

 

Issues

 

Within the City of Sydney and the Inner West Council LGAs, parking permits are available for accredited workers who provide in-home support services to local residents. The support worker's vehicle is exempt from certain parking restrictions, when the permit is displayed, while the support worker is doing home visits. Permits are not issued for permanent/overnight parking of service provider vehicles.

The permit exempts support workers from certain signposted time limits (and fees) in the City of Sydney and Inner West Council LGAs.  The City of Sydney issues the service provider organisation with a ‘cross boundary’ parking permit which is also recognised and accepted by Inner West Council.  These permits are applied for by service providers who provide in-home support to residents.  Service provider means an organisation or health professional approved by a relevant professional or government body to provide in home support to a resident. 

In-home support means support provided by support workers or health professionals (trained professionals including doctors, nurses, chiropractors, occupational therapists, optometrists, osteopaths, pharmacists, podiatrists and psychologists who manage physical or mental health through services that include diagnosis, treatment or rehabilitation).

These same support service providers, engaged by accredited agencies, travel across Council boundaries.  They could be required to assist a Surry Hills resident on a Tuesday, a Coogee resident on a Wednesday and an Ashfield resident on a Thursday.  If Randwick Council were to participate in the same arrangements, the support worker would be able to (in a Randwick Council resident parking zone) remain tending to the resident without the need to ‘just go move my car’.

The permit does not allow the holders to park in clearways, no stopping, no parking, bus, loading, work, truck or disabled parking zones.  Accredited support worker organisations must apply on behalf of support worker staff.  The permits are issued to the service provider rather than the recipient of the in-home support. This gives the service provider more efficient access and avoids placing application requirements on residents. 

 

Contact with the City of Sydney has established that the City would have no objection to Randwick City Council also participating in the arrangements which they have with Inner West Council.

 

Ultimately, the only impost upon Randwick Council would be for us to ensure that our Rangers and Parking Patrol Officers are aware of the proposed arrangements and that they are aware of the visual appearance of a valid City of Sydney Support Worker Parking Permit.  If they see a vehicle with such a Permit, in a Randwick Council Parking Permit zone, they would have to be aware to not issue a Parking Infringement Notice to the vehicle.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  2:     A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction:  2a:   Meet the needs of our diverse community and provide equitable access to social services and infrastructure.

Direction:  2b:   Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

Outcome:  9:     Integrated and accessible transport.

Direction:  9e:   Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact with this arrangement.  Currently the City of Sydney issues the service provider organisation with a ‘cross boundary’ parking permit for an annual fee of $53 - to cover administration costs.  Currently Randwick Council has no support worker permit - and is gathering no commensurate income.

 

Conclusion

 

Support workers can often have challenging jobs.  With Randwick Council joining Inner West Council, in recognising City of Sydney issued Support Worker Parking Permits, an additional burden upon the support worker can be eased.  They can, therefore, better tend to the needs of the Randwick resident who requires support.  

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

1.       That Randwick Council join Inner West Council in recognising City of Sydney issued Support Worker Parking Permits; and

 

2.       An appropriate message of appreciation be forwarded to the City of Sydney in recognition of the City allowing Randwick City Council to participate in these joint arrangements.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Conditions and Application Form - City of Sydney Support Worker Parking Permit Guide and Application - 2019

 

 

 

 


Conditions and Application Form - City of Sydney Support Worker Parking Permit Guide and Application - 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS24/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Use of Glyphosate in Randwick Council

 

Folder No:                      F2004/06129

Author:                          Ryan Zammit, Acting Manager Infrastructure Services     

 

 

Introduction

 

A Council resolution raised in August 2018 has requested that health and safety concerns surrounding the use of the glyphosate based product “Roundup” be acknowledged and that trials into alternative methods of weed control be investigated.

 

This document reviews Council’s response to health and safety concerns regarding Roundup and presents the results of trials into alternative products and non-chemical methods of controlling weeds.

 

Background

 

Council currently uses a variety of methods to control weeds, including chemicals, hand weeding, slashing and mulching, however included in this suite of chemicals used by Council is the glyphosate based product “Roundup”.

 

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. Glyphosate is the primary herbicide used in agricultural practices, it is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.

 

Council uses a range of chemicals in the maintenance of open spaces, to maintain areas with herbicides to remove broad leaf weeds in sports fields and turf areas, non-selective herbicides such as Roundup, to remove weeds in amenity areas such as garden beds, bushland and footpaths and pre-emergent herbicides to prevent the germination of weeds in selected areas.

 

Councils Bushland and Coast Walk Department uses a glyphosate product in the maintenance of bushland and the coastal walkway to control State and regionally significantly weeds.  The use of the herbicide ‘Roundup Biactive’ is one of a suite of methods used in the control of weed species at 28 bushland sites across the Randwick LGA.

 

‘Roundup Bioactive’ is used as part of the Bushland and Coast Walk Departments integrated weed management program as it is approved for use by the State Government in riparian and environmentally sensitive areas as the product is frog and aquatic fauna friendly, due to the removal of the surfactant from the product. This is a crucial activity to ensure that the following does not occur;

 

·           Influx of invasive plant species not able to be controlled by other means.

·           Decline in bushland condition.

·           A deterioration of Critically Endangered and Endangered plant communities and locally rare plant species and their supporting habitats.

 

Glyphosate and more specifically ‘Roundup Biactive’ has been used as part of an Integrated Weed Management Program, for the primary reason that it is approved for use by the Australian Government and is appropriate in riparian and environmentally sensitive areas (frog and aquatic fauna friendly). As issued by Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for use Urban Bushland and Forests and Coastal Reserves - Permit Number – per 11916. ‘Roundup Biactive’ is an important component of ecological restoration and Council’s operations to improve the health of significant and locally rare species within lands under its care and control.

In 2015, Council conducted a review into the use of Roundup in response to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessment of glyphosate classification as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. An external consultant, ChemCert Australia, a joint venture between the New South Wales Government and agricultural peak bodies, was used to review Council’s application and management of chemicals.

 

ChemCert Australia observed the risk of pesticide exposure to Council employees; all indicators represented a low risk.  The current workplace practices used by Council employees to apply glyphosate as a diluted solution at a ratio 1:100, as per the label instructions. 

 

ChemCert Australia Report for Randwick City Council noted “Council employees have the ability to access personal protection equipment, and it is Council policy that all employees use the appropriate PPE when using pesticides. Council has well documented safe work procedures and record keeping management systems for the use of herbicides in open spaces.”

 

In Australia, the federal authority governing the use of pesticides, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Association (APVMA), considered reviewing glyphosate in 2016 and found that there were no grounds to conduct a formal review. The position of the APVMA remains unchanged, which is that Roundup is safe to use when used according to the label. 

 

Trials

 

Council has undertaken trials on a variety of chemical and physical alternatives to the use of Roundup to test the efficiency of the products and create cost comparisons. Comparisons are made based on the amount of Roundup used in the 2017/18 financial year. The following table sets out the results of the trial, which were conducted in the Council’s Works Depot landscaped areas at 192 Storey Street, Maroubra.

 

 

Table 1: Glyphosate use and approximate equivalent amounts of other products required to control weeds in the Randwick LGA, if glyphosate were to be replaced entirely by that product (figures are based on 2017/18 use).

 

Active Ingredient

Product

Cost

Litres Required

Efficiency

Glyphosate

Roundup

$3,909*

855

Excellent

Nonanoic Acid

Slasher

$71,820*

5,985

Good

Imazapyr

Arsenal

$181,260*

3,420

Average

Glufosinate-ammonium

Exonerate

$72,675*

4,275

Good

Pine Oil

Weed Blitz

$225,720*

17,100

Poor

 

* Comparative to cost /Litre of “Roundup”

 

A weed steaming demonstration was also undertaken with quotes and rates provided by contractors. The use of this method of weed suppression did appear to control weeds during the demonstration period, however, follow up observations by Council staff highlighted that the steam method has a tendency to kill the above ground leafy part of the weeds and not the store of energy beneath the ground in tubers, bulbs or extensive roots.

 

Our communication with other urban Councils is that, of those Councils that do use weed steaming, footpath areas and playgrounds are their main focus of weed steaming activities. If Council were to steam weed all Council playgrounds the cost would be in the vicinity of approximately $130,000 per annum.

 

Results

 

The results of the trial and cost comparisons indicate that alternatives to glyphosate are significantly more expensive with a range of efficiencies being observed for the various products and types of control. The trial indicated that certain types of weed control would only be useful in certain situations and that there is no single replacement for Roundup in all situations that require weed control.

 

Alternative chemicals to Roundup, including organic products such as Slasher and Weed Blitz, require applicators to take health and safety precautions whilst using the product as similar practises to “Roundup”. The types of chemical control investigated in this trial are not without their own risks and in many instances the risks are not well understood, thereby requiring precautions to be taken to limit exposure.

 

The results of the trial indicate that there will be an increase in cost and frequency of application that will require substantially more chemical use to achieve the desired outcome.

 

The only non-chemical form of weed control, weed steaming, requires a large capital outlay and operational costs (vehicle operation and maintenance, diesel, oil, generator and boiler maintenance and potential traffic control) if the equipment were to be purchased by Council. The alternative is to have weed control performed by contractors in areas that are currently maintained by in-house staff. Current conditions in Council CBDs, such as Randwick CBD, are not particularly favourable for weed growth as the infrastructure is new and the areas are highly trafficked. Inspections of the Randwick CBD revealed very few weeds and conversations with Council’s footpath and hard surface weed controller indicated that very little time and effort is required to control weeds in CBD locations.

 

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, environmental, economic and operational activities.

Outcome 10:       A Healthy Environment

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There will be a financial impact to Council’s 2019-20 Operational Budget for the duration of the trial as Council substitutes Roundup with alternative products.

 

Conclusion

 

The results of the trial indicate that chemical alternatives to Roundup vary in the degree of efficiencies and generally represent substantial increases in costs without eliminating risks. Non-chemical methods of weed control, specifically weed steaming are ineffective for Council operations.

 

Despite the fact that the federal authority governing the use of pesticides, the APVMA, has reaffirmed that the use of glyphosate is safe when used according to the label and that Council uses minimal amounts of the product, Council may consider substituting the use of glyphosate as the risks to the community and staff are in question following recent developments in the US and subsequent public opinion in Australia.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

1.       Council substitute the use of Glyphosate based herbicide Roundup with organic based herbicides such as ‘Slasher’ in our predominant weed management program and in Urban Bushland and Coastal walkway areas substitute Roundup with an alternative herbicide that is approved and regulated for use in these situations for an extended trial for the 2019-20 financial year.

 

2.       Council Officers will report back to Council on the effects and efficiencies of the alternate products. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO26/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

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

 

Folder No:                      F2019/03002

Author:                          Cherie Muir, Coordinator Integrated Planning     

 

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 30th April 2019, it was resolved that the

 

·      Draft Randwick City Council 2019-20 Operational Plan (including Revenue Policy – annual rates and charges);

·      2019-20 Budget (including Capital Works); and

·      Fees and Charges,

 

be placed on public exhibition from 2nd May to 30th May 2019, inviting submissions from the public.

 

Issues

 

During the exhibition period the following activities were undertaken:

 

·      A Your Say Randwick website was launched on 2 May 2019:

https://www.yoursay.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Budget2019-20

 

The site included the 2019-20 Draft Operational Plan and Budget and Draft Fees and Charges, an overview video on the budget and suburb highlight Information Sheets.

The site included a Q&A forum (3 questions were received and responded to) and submissions could be made online.

The site had 2,520 unique visitors during the exhibition period, and

4,320 documents were downloaded (586 Draft Operational Plan and Budget, 366 Draft Fees and Charges and the remaining 3,368 downloads were the suburb specific Information Sheets).

 

·           The public exhibition was featured in the Mayor's column and listed in The Southern Courier on 7th May 2019, and in Council’s weekly email bulletin Randwick News on 8th May 2019.

 

·           A direct email campaign was launched on 6th May 2019. Using Council’s eNews database, eNews subscribers were sent a ‘Budget Special’ email campaign with projects relevant to their suburb of residence.

 

Campaign

Recipients

Opens

Clicks

Clovelly

455

48%

42%

Coogee and South Coogee

2,641

44%

21%

Kensington and Kingsford

1,959

39%

25%

La Perouse, Phillip Bay and Little Bay

429

53%

47%

Malabar

325

53%

36%

Maroubra

2,293

43%

19%

Matraville and Chifley

691

45%

29%

Randwick

2,987

35%

13%

 

·           A feature story in Council’s SCENE magazine winter edition distributed to 65,000 households in Randwick City.

 

·           Bus shelter posters were displayed at 29 bus stops across Randwick City.

 

·           Exhibition materials were available online at Council’s website and in hard copy at the Customer Service Centre, Council’s three libraries and the Des Renford Leisure Centre.

 

·           Precincts were notified of the consultation via email.

 

·           Information sheets detailing projects by suburb were published online and were downloaded as follows:

 

Maroubra                                                547 downloads

Coogee and South Coogee                     679 downloads

Randwick                                               410 downloads

Matraville and Chifley                              292 downloads

Kingsford and Kensington                       564 downloads

Clovelly                                                  365 downloads

La Perouse, Phillip Bay and Little Bay      295 downloads

Malabar                                                  216 downloads

 

·           Council’s Facebook page was used to post the video and suburb Information Sheets.

 

·           75 formal submissions were received, addressing varying issues including:  The environment and climate change; traffic calming; pedestrian and cyclist safety, tree planting; placemaking, electric cars; outdoor gymnasiums and rates.

 

·           All formal submissions were logged, reviewed and responded to – with a full list tabled as an attachment to this report.

 

Continuing the approach used successfully in recent years, Council again sought input from the Precincts during the preparation phase (rather than the exhibition stage).  There were 40 issues/suggestions raised by the Precincts at the initial stage, covering aspects such as: Pedestrian and cyclist safety; landscaping; outdoor exercise equipment, amenities maintenance and upgrade; signage; traffic calming; litter management; waste reduction and stormwater management.

 

Recommended Operational Plan 2019-20

 

A number of administrative changes have been made: 

 

·      Update to include the IPART approval of our special rate variation (numerous references throughout the document);

·      Update to include the Sydney Coastal Councils Group in the ‘key partnerships’ section on page 8;

·      Updates to the ‘Management Team’ table on page 15; and

·      Updates to the rates and rates revenue amounts in the ‘2019-20 Rates Structure’ table on page 94.

 

Recommended Capital Works Program 2019-20

 

There are no changes to the Draft 2019-20 Capital Works Program.

 

Recommended Budget 2019-20

 

There are no changes to the Draft 2019-20 Budget.

 

Recommended Fees and Charges 2019-20

 

A number of administrative changes have been made: 

 

·      Venue Hire – Alcohol Bond – a new alcohol bond has been introduced for Council Venue Hire to mitigate risk of the alcohol functions.

 

·      Request for Information – Document retrieval off-site fee – reduced from $64.00 to $24.00

 

·      Planning s603 certificate fee – increased from $80 to $85 as per Office of Local Government advice.

 

·      Subpoena Request – CD fee renamed to “Information Request – CD fee”.

 

·      Summer Sustainability Activities Program – renamed to exclude reference to ‘summer’.

 

·      Revised naming convention for work zones as shown in table below:

 

Name in draft publication

Name in final publication

Residential zoning (parallel parking)

Low density residential zoning (parallel parking)

Residential zoning (angle parking)

Low density residential zoning (angle parking)

Commercial zoning (parallel parking)

Other zoning (parallel parking)

Commercial zoning (angle parking)

Other zoning (angle parking)

 

·      Animal registration fees – adjusted for CPI as per Office of Local Government advice.

 

Fee category

Draft

Final

Desexed cat or dog

$57.00

$58.00

Desexed cat or dog owned by pensioner

$24.00

$25.00

Desexed animal sold by eligible pound/shelter

$28.50

$29.00

Non desexed cat or dog

$207.00

$210.00

Non desexed cat or dog owned by registered breeder

$57.00

$58.00

 

Recommended 2019-20 Revenue Policy – annual rates and charges

 

The 2019-20 Revenue Policy, contained within the Operational Plan, details rates and charges for the 2019-20 rating year, including the:

 

a)   Ordinary Residential Rate,

b)   Ordinary Business Rate,

c)   Ordinary Port Botany Business Rate,

d)   Environmental Levy special Rate,

e)   Ordinary Residential minimum rate,

f)    Ordinary Business minimum rate

g)   Port Botany Business minimum rate

h)   Domestic Waste Management Charge

i)    Domestic Waste Management Charge for an additional 140 litre service

j)    Domestic Waste Management Availability Charge for vacant/unoccupied Residential land

k)   Stormwater Management Service Charge for residential properties

l)    Stormwater Management Service Charge for residential strata/Company titled properties

m)  Stormwater Management Service Charge for business properties

n)   Stormwater Management Service Charge for business strata/Company titled properties

o)   Set interest rate on overdue rates

p)   Additional Pensioner Rebate

 

All councils are subject to the annual rate peg unless otherwise covered by a ‘Special Variation’. In May 2018, IPART approved the Council’s application for a special variation to increase rates for the next three years, to fund the Our Community Our Future program of projects and services which will run over seven years from 2018-19, including increases to rates above the rate-peg in the first three years.

 

 

 

The special variation approved increases over three years are shown in the following table.

 

Year

Financial year

Rate-peg %

SRV % above rate-peg

Total approved increase

1

2018-19

2.3%

5.34%

7.64%

2

2019-20

2.7%

3.02%

5.52%

3

2020-21

2.5%*

3.02%

5.52%

*assumed rate-peg for 2020-21

 

Under s.494 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must make and levy an ordinary rate each year on all rateable land in its area. The 2019-20 rates are shown in the table below. 

 

Rate Description

Rate in $

No. of Properties

Rate Revenue

Residential - ad valorem

0.00139100

22,746

$40,924,475

Residential - minimum

$850.15

27,655

$23,510,898

Business - ad valorem

0.00526580

1,405

$12,674,195

Business - minimum

$1,369.99

625

$856,244

Port Botany Business - ad valorem

0.00863720

26

$4,820,637

Port Botany Business - minimum

$1,369.99

1

$1,370

Environmental special rate

0.00011511

52,458

$4,626,897

 

 

 

$87,414,716             

 

Port Botany Business

 

Council at its meeting 22th May 2018, resolved to determine a sub-category of the business category, known as ‘Port Botany Business’.   The sub-category applies to land zoned SP1 Special Activities, as defined by the Three Ports SEPP 2013.

 

In 2019-20, business properties located within the Port Botany Business sub-category will attract a higher rate than business properties located throughout the City of Randwick.

 

Environmental Special Rate

 

The Environmental Levy funds the Sustaining our City program which has been in place for the past 15 years. The Levy was originally introduced in July 2004 for five years. Since then, the Levy has been extended with community support and Ministerial approval for three further five- year periods, effective from July 2009, July 2014, and July 2019. IPART approved the 2019-24 temporary continuation of the levy on 13 May 2019.

 

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 Council of providing those services. For 2019-20, the Domestic Waste Management Charge will increase 3.20 per cent from $567.85 to $586.00 for each residential parcel.

 

For residential premises with shared facilities, i.e.; shared bathroom and kitchen, the charge will apply one charge per 10 beds. For all other residential premises with self-contained units, i.e.; non-shared bathroom and/or kitchen, one charge will apply per unit/occupancy.

 

The Domestic Waste Management Charge for an ‘additional’ 140 litre service will be $282.00 in 2019-20.

A domestic waste ‘availability’ charge will apply to vacant (unoccupied) residential land from 1 July 2019, charged at 50 per cent of the full domestic waste service charge.   The Domestic Waste Management Availability charge will be $293.00 in 2019-20.

 

The Domestic Waste Management Charge provides 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.

 

For 2019-20 the estimated gross yield for the Domestic Waste Management Charge is $34,620,294.

 

The draft Fees and Charges document has been updated to reflect the Domestic Waste Management Charge.

 

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. Under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council may make and levy an annual charge for stormwater management services for each parcel of rateable land for which a stormwater management service is provided.

 

The Stormwater Management Service Charges are set in accordance with the Local Government Act Regulations 2005, and remain unchanged from last year.

 

The Stormwater Management Service Charge will appear as a separate charge on the 2019-20 rate notices and is determined by the type of property:

·      Residential property: $25 per annum

·      Residential strata/Company Titled property: $12.50 per annum

·      Business property: $25 per annum plus an additional $25 for each 350m2 or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m2

·      Business strata/Company Titled property: calculated as per a Business property and apportioned by unit entitlement for each business strata lot with a minimum charge of $5.

 

For 2019-20 the estimated gross yield of the Stormwater Service Management Charge is $1,132,736.

 

Interest Charge 2019-20

 

In accordance with s.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, the Minister for Local Government has determined that the maximum rate of interest payable on overdue rates and charges for the 2019-20 rating year will remain at 7.5 per cent per annum. Randwick City Council will apply the maximum rate in 2019-20.

 

Additional Pension Rebate 2019-20

 

Council at its meeting 26th March 2019 resolved to provide pensioners with an additional $25 annual rebate, should IPART approve Council’s application for the temporary continuation of Council’s Environmental Levy for five years 2019-2024.

 

This $25 is in addition to the $75 additional rebate adopted last year by Council at their meeting of 26th June 2018, taking the Additional Rebate for eligible pensioners to a total of $100 for 2019-20.

 

The $100 Additional Rebate is fully funded by Council and provided to eligible pensioners who already receive the mandatory rebate (maximum of $250) which is co-funded by the State Government.

 

The Additional Rebate is apportioned 75 per cent to the Domestic Waste Management Charge and 25 per cent to the Environmental Levy.

 

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

 

Significant initiatives are detailed in the Operational Plan, underpinned by the budget, ranging from the construction of amenities to providing practical solutions to community issues.

 

The activities outlined in the Plan aim to foster a sense of community and enhance the liveability of Randwick City, reflecting the broader directions of the 20-year Randwick City Plan.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)    The Operational Plan for 2019-20 be adopted as per the attached, and that the General Manager be authorised to make any minor changes as requested by the Council or the NSW Office of the Local Government;

 

b)    The Budget for 2019-20 be adopted as per the attached;

 

c)    The General Fees and Charges be adopted for 2019-20 as per the attached;

 

d)    Council make and levy the ordinary Residential Rate for 2019-20, under s.494 and s.498(1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.00139100 in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being categorised as Residential;

 

e)    Council make and levy the ordinary Business Rate for 2019-20, under s.494 and s.498(1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.00526580 in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being categorised as Business;

 

f)     Council make and levy the ordinary Port Botany Business rate for 2019-20, under s.494 and s.498(1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.00863720 in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the Port Botany Business sub-category area, defined by the SP1 Special Activities zone of the Three Ports SEPP 2013;

 

g)    Council make and levy the Environmental Levy special Rate for 2019-20, under s.495 and s.498(1)(b) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.000115110 in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick;

 

h)    Council make and levy the ordinary Residential minimum rate for 2019-20 under s.548(1)(a), (2), (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $850.15;

 

i)     Council make and levy the ordinary Business minimum rate for 2019-20 under s.548(1)(a), (2), (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $1,369.99;

 

j)     Council make and levy the Port Botany Business minimum rate for 2019-20 under s.548(1)(a), (2), (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $1,369.99;

 

k)    Council make and levy the Domestic Waste Management Charge for 2019-20 under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $586.00;

 

l)     Council make and levy a Domestic Waste Management Charge for an additional 140 litre bin for 2019-20 under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $282.00;

 

m)   Council make and levy a Domestic Waste Management Availability Charge for vacant/unoccupied Residential land under s.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $293.00.

 

n)    Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for residential properties for 2019-20 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, as $25.00;

 

o)    Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for residential strata/Company titled properties for 2019-20 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, as $12.50;

 

p)    Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for business properties for 2019-20 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, as $25.00 plus an additional $25.00 for each 350m² or part thereof by which the parcel of land exceeds 350m²;

 

q)    Council make and levy the Stormwater Management Service Charge for business strata/Company titled properties for 2019-20 under s.496A of the Local Government Act 1993, calculated in accordance with the land area as per business properties in ‘p’ above and then apportioned by unit entitlement subject to a minimum charge of $5.00 per business strata lot.

 

r)     The interest rate on overdue rates for 2019-20 be set at 7.5 per cent which is the maximum rate as determined by the Minister for Local Government; under s.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993; and

 

s)    Council grant a further $100 rebate in addition to the existing statutory $250 pensioner concession in 2019-20 for eligible pensioners, with the additional rebate to be split $75 to the Domestic Waste Management Charge and $25 to the Environmental Levy.

 

t)     The Responsible Accounting Officer be delegated to make changes as adopted by Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Submissions and responses to the Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20 and Fees and Charges 2019-20

 

2.

Randwick City Council Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20

Included under separate cover

3.

Randwick City Council Fees and Charges 2019-20

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Submissions and responses to the Operational Plan and Budget 2019-20 and Fees and Charges 2019-20

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


 

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           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO27/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Contingency Fund - status as at 31 May 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 64 allocations totaling $270,609.90 and for the 2019-20 financial year there have been 2 allocations totaling $7,968.00. 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 -

28 Nov 2017

 Sydney Film Festival – sponsorship (3 years 2018–2020)

$5,000.00

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

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

Ord Council – 30 Apr 2019

Financial assistance - Autism MATES

$630.00

Ord Council – 30 Apr 2019

Waiving of fees - Superhero Walk

$182.00

Ord Council – 30 Apr 2019

Waiving of fees - Special Olympics Sydney East at the Des Renford Leisure Centre

$1,190.75

Ord Council – 30 Apr 2019

Ron Wood - Commemorative seat and plaque

$4,090.00

Ord Council – 30 Apr 2019

Donation - Royal Hospital for Women

$300.00

Ord Council – 28 May 2019

Donation - Randwick Golf Club, Ladies Charity Day

$300.00

Ord Council – 28 May 2019

Screen Franklyn Barrett Silent Films at Ritz Cinema Randwick

$7,000.00

Total - 2018-19 Contingency Fund allocations:                                                           

      $270,609.90     

2019-20 Contingency Fund allocations

Ord Council – 28 May 2019

NSW Police Force and International Students Beach Soccer Day

$4,968.00

Ord Council – 28 May 2019

Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Wrapping of Little Bay by Christo and Jean-Claude

$3,000.00

 Total – 2019-20 Contingency Fund allocations:                                                                $7,968.00

 

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 $261,101 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 and 2019-20, be noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO28/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Determination of number of Councillors

 

Folder No:                      F2004/06565

Author:                          Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

 

Introduction

 

Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires:

 

“1)      A council must have at least 5 and not more than 15 councillors (one of whom is the mayor).

 

2)       Not less than 12 months before the next ordinary election, the council must determine the number, in accordance with subsection (1), of its councillors for the following term of office.

 

3)       If the council proposed to change the number of councillors, it must before determining the number, obtain approval for the change at a constitutional referendum.”

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:           Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1b.2:       Contribute to protecting the Council’s reputation and enhancing its positive public image.

 

Financial impact statement

 

If Council were to decide to reduce the number of Councillors, it must obtain the approval for the change at a constitutional referendum. There has been no budget allocation for a constitutional referendum prior to the 2020 Local Government elections.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that Council determine that the number of Councillors for Randwick City Council remain unchanged at 15.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council determine, in accordance with Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1993, that the number of Councillors for Randwick City Council for the 2020-2024 term remain unchanged at 15.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO29/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Local Government NSW - 2019 Annual Conference

 

Folder No:                      F2004/06645

Author:                          Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

 

Introduction

 

The Annual Conference of Local Government NSW (LGNSW) will be held at Warwick Farm in Sydney from Monday 14th October to Wednesday 16th October 2019.

 

Issues

 

This conference is the annual policy-making event for the NSW Local Government sector. For over a century, Councils have worked together through this peak body to promote local government and advocate on behalf of our communities for local democracy, informed decision-making and good governance.

 

Conference voting

This year the Conference will involve two types of voting and LGNSW is required to develop two separate rolls of voters:

 

1.    Voting on motions - Under the LGNSW formulae Randwick is able to nominate seven (7) voting delegates for voting on motions. Council is able to nominate an unlimited number of non-voting observers.

 

2.    Voting in the election for Office Bearers and the Board (Board election) - Randwick is able to nominate seven (7) voting delegates to vote in the Board election.

 

Councils need to advise LGNSW of the names of their nominated voting delegates for both types of voting: voting on motions and voting in the Board election.

 

Members are required to advise LGNSW of the names of their nominated voting delegates (for both types of voting) by Friday, 20 September 2019.

 

Conference motions

LGNSW has indicated that motions should be strategic, affect members state-wide and introduce new or emerging policy issues and actions. Member Councils are invited to submit motions between Monday 24 June and Monday 19 August 2019.

 

LGNSW has resolved that motions will be included in the Business Paper for the conference only where they:

 

1.    are consistent with the objects of the Association (see Rule 4 of the Association’s rules1)

2.    relate to Local Government in NSW and/or across Australia

3.    concern or are likely to concern Local Government as a sector

4.    seek to advance the Local Government policy agenda of the Association and/or improve governance of the Association

5.    have a lawful purpose (a motion does not have a lawful purpose if its implementation would require or encourage non-compliance with prevailing laws);

6.    are clearly worded and unambiguous in nature, and

7.    do not express preference for one or several members over one or several other members.

 

Councils are encouraged to review Action Reports from the previous conferences before submitting motions for the 2019 conference to ensure newly proposed motion wording reflects recent developments and does not duplicate existing positions.

 

October Council Meeting

 

The October Council meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday 22 October 2019 and, as such, does not conflict with this year’s conference.

 

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

 

The costs associated with Councillors’ attendance at the 2019 Conference of LGNSW have been allowed for in the draft 2019-20 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Delegates and observers need to be nominated if Council is to be represented at the 2019 Conference of Local Government NSW. The Councillors’ Expenses and Facilities Policy permits all Councillors to attend this conference.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)    Councillors interested in attending the 2019 Conference of Local Government NSW advise the General Manager as soon as possible.

 

b)    proposed motions for the 2019 LGNSW conference be submitted to the July Council meeting for consideration and to allow submission by the deadline (being 19 August 2019).

 

c)    Council nominate its voting delegates for;

-      voting on motions; and

-      voting in the election for Office Bearers and the Board.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO30/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Investment Report - May 2019

 

Folder No:                      F2015/06527

Author:                          Gail Johnston, Financial Operations Accountant     

 

 

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 – May 2019” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of May 2019. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 31 May 2019, Council held investments with a market value of $69.871 million. The portfolio value increased during May by ~$1.472 million. The increase is representative of a positive 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 May 2018 to May 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 (46.51%) and senior floating rate notes (45.35%). The remainder of the portfolio is held in the overnight cash accounts with CBA (8.13%). 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 40% 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

$18,685,121

26.74%

10%

100%

91-365 days

$14,000,000

20.04%

20%

100%

1-2 years

$9,527,576

13.64%

0%

70%

2-5 years

$27,658,108

39.59%

0%

50%

5-10 years

$0

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 May, applying the long-term S&P ratings only, Council did not have an overweight position to any single authorised deposit-taking institution (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

$42,839,669

61.31%

100%

$27,031,137

A Category

$27,031,137

38.69%

80%

$28,865,508

BBB Category

$0.00

0.00%

0.00%

$0

Unrated ADIs

$0.00

0.00%

0.00%

$0

 

 

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-

$13,234,408

18.94%

40%

$14,713,914

NAB

AA-

$19,561,167

28.00%

40%

$8,397,155

Westpac

AA-

$10,044,094

14.38%

40%

$17,904,228

Rabobank

A+

$1,017,102

1.46%

25%

$16,450,599

Suncorp

A+

$13,027,512

18.65%

25%

$4,440,189

AMP Bank

A

$7,986,523

11.43%

25%

$9,481,179

ING Bank

A

$5,000,000

7.16%

25%

$12,467,701

 

 

 

 

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 May 2016 to May 2019.

 

 

For the month of May, the total portfolio of term deposits (T/D’s) and floating rate notes (FRNs) provided a solid return of +0.23% (actual), outperforming the benchmark AusBond Bank Index return by +0.08% (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 term deposit and FRN portfolio returned +2.83% p.a., outperforming bank bills by 0.84% p.a. The overall return remains solid given deposit rates have again surpassed their all-time lows following the RBA’s latest rate cut of 0.25% in early June 2019.

 

Performance

1 month

3 months

6 months

FYTD

1 year

Official Cash Rate

0.13%

0.38%

0.75%

1.38%

1.50%

AusBond Bank Bill Index

0.15%

0.48%

0.99%

1.84%

1.99%

Council’s T/D Portfolio

0.23%

0.69%

1.37%

2.51%

2.73%

Council’s FRN Portfolio

0.23%

0.72%

1.45%

2.70 %

2.95%

Council’s Portfolio^

0.23%

0.70%

1.41%

2.60 %

2.83 %

Outperformance

0.08%

0.22%

0.42%

0.76 %

0.84%

 

 

Term Deposits

 

At month end, term deposits totalled $32.5 million, accounting for 46.51% of the total investment portfolio. Three deposits totalling $4.0 million matured and were withdrawn in May.  One new deposit of $2.5 million was placed. As at the end of May, the weighted average deposit yield stood at 2.72%, down 5 basis points from the previous month.

 

Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)

 

The portfolio includes $31.688 million in floating rate notes. During May there was no trading of FRN’s.

 

The FRN’s 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 May 2019 decreased by ~$32k.

 

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 review and a further $190,000.00 as part of the March 2019 review. The total revised budget is $1,740,934.00. Investment income to 31 May 2019 amounted to $1,834,163.29.

 

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 May 2019 have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer - May 2019

 

 

 

 


Certificate by Responsible Accounting Officer - May 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO31/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Monthly Financial Report as at 31 May 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 May 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 May 2019. Attachment 3 details the cash flow of the Council as at 31 May 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 May 2019 is 2.67 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 -  May 2019

 

2.

Monthly Financial Statements - Balance Sheet - May 2019

 

3.

Monthly Financial Statements - Cashflow Statement - May 2019

 

 

 

 


Monthly Financial Statements - Income Statement -  May 2019

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Monthly Financial Statements - Balance Sheet - May 2019

Attachment 2

 

 

PDF Creator


Monthly Financial Statements - Cashflow Statement - May 2019

Attachment 3

 

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Director Corporate Services Report No. CO32/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Delegation limit for doubtful debt write off

 

Folder No:                      F2019/06521

Author:                          Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

 

Introduction

 

Section 213 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 specifies restrictions on writing off debts to a council (Attachment 1). This report provides information on the recovery procedures for outstanding debts and recommends an increase in the delegated authority threshold for debt write off.

 

Issues

 

Council has in place a Debt Recovery and Financial Hardship Policy (Attachment 2) that provides a comprehensive framework to actively manage the level of outstanding debt to Council. Staff are sensitive to the financial affairs of customers and work proactively with customers to achieve flexible alternatives to legal action wherever possible. Legal recovery action is only ever used as a last resort.

 

 

Even with the use of legal recovery, there remain some debts that are unlikely to be recovered. Such situations include when the debtor has gone into liquidation or when recovery agents are unable to locate the debtor.

 

Council has previously resolved that an amount of $2,500 be fixed, above which, debts to the Council may only be written off by resolution of Council. The $2,500 limit was set by Council resolution back on 28 February 2006. A debt below this amount can be written off by the General Manager or by the Responsible Accounting Officer under delegated authority.

 

It is up to each Council in NSW to set a limit at which bad debts may be written off under delegated authority. To assist with this determination, debt write off delegation limits have been sourced from other NSW councils and various government agencies. Some of the comparatives of organisations with higher thresholds are as follows:

                                                                                     

City of Sydney Council                     $100,000

Canterbury Bankstown Council            $10,000

Northern Beaches Council                   $20,000       

North Sydney Council                         $50,000       

Woollahra Municipal Council               $20,000

NSW Attorney General                      $250,000

Federal Government Agencies           $100,000

 

The management of outstanding receivables is an operational activity that is conducted within financial services, with the write off of any debts only being done under delegated authority or resolution of Council. With the existing limit of only $2,500, this generates additional administration tasks and activities, which is not the most efficient use of resources, to write off debts that are relatively minor in nature and low risk.

Increasing the delegated amount will enhance decision-making processes and allow nominated routine matters to be resolved efficiently and effectively without the need for submission to Council so that Council only need to consider those debts that were of a more significant value.

 

It is recommended that the value of debts which can be written off by the General Manager or by the Responsible Accounting Officer under delegated authority be increased to $25,000. This increase would mean that only debts above $25,000 would need to be reported to Council and require a Council resolution to be written off.

 

The increase in the delegated authority amount will not alter the due diligence followed in the recovery of outstanding debts.

 

 

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

 

Council makes a provision for doubtful debts each year. Any debts written off under delegated authority would be covered by this provision.

 

Conclusion

 

With the prudent debt recovery procedures in place, the use of the debt write off delegation would only be used in circumstances when all reasonable means of recovery have been exhausted.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the value of debts which can be written off by the General Manager or by the Responsible Accounting Officer under delegated authority be fixed at $25,000.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Local Government (General) Regulation Section 213

 

2.

Debt Recovery and Financial Hardship Policy

 

 

 

 


Local Government (General) Regulation Section 213

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


Debt Recovery and Financial Hardship Policy

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

  


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM41/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Notice of Motion from Cr Da Rocha - Supporting the wellbeing of animals and their owners

 

Folder No:                      F2015/06453

Submitted by:                Councillor Da Rocha, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council:

 

a)    Recognise the large number of animal owners in the Randwick City LGA and the positive impact that they have on the community;

 

b)    Investigate opportunities to make pet ownership and maintenance more accessible and affordable; and

 

c)    Engage local and regional animal services providers to determine if there is the possibility of offering a free animal check-up service for residents.

 

Background:

I was recently contacted by a local resident who highlighted to me the high cost of pet ownership and to see if council would be able to engage with local animal service providers to offer free or low-cost services for those in the LGA who find it difficult to maintain their pets.

 

Source of funding:

No funding required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM42/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Notice of Motion from Cr Da Rocha - Proposed amenities facility and improvements to Malabar Pool and surrounds

 

Folder No:                      F2004/07490

Submitted by:                Councillor Da Rocha, South Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That:

 

a)    Council investigate the feasibility of providing an amenities facility at Malabar pool to cater to the users of the Malabar rock pool;

 

b)    Council undertake works that provide a smoother, even surface at all access points of the pool for those who use the facility;

 

c)    Council investigate opportunities to increase the accessibility of the pool for users of all ages and abilities; and

 

d)    A report be brought back to Council outlining the opportunities and costs of providing the above mentioned works.

 

Background:

I have been contacted by a number of residents who have made me aware of the difficulties they face when trying to access the Malabar Pool and the lack of amenities in the vicinity of the pool for swimmers.

 

Residents have raised the issue of the condition of the access points to the pool, in particular the surface that sometimes can be difficult to navigate and has the potential to cause injuries. I have also been made aware of the lack of amenities available in close proximity to the pool and the sporadic nature by which they are able to access the toilets located within the Randwick Golf Club.

 

Source of funding:

Any applicable funding will be allocated from future operational budgets.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM43/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Notice of Motion from Cr Veitch - Improving access to Council activities and events

 

Folder No:                      F2017/00217

Submitted by:                Councillor Veitch, West Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Randwick City Council bring back a report to council that identifies:

 

a)       Resident groups currently experiencing barriers to inclusion in council activities;

b)       The range of barriers (attitudinal, communication, physical, policy, programmatic, social, transportation) being faced by these residents and;

c)       Strategies, actions and measures for removing barriers and increasing inclusion in council programs and activities that are within the council’s operational framework.

 

Background:

Randwick City Council offers an annual program of over 2000 cultural, educational, entertainment and sporting events and activities for all members of our community. This is supported by councils ten year Inclusive Randwick City plan to enhance opportunities for people living within Randwick City to be actively involved in community life. Despite this, many residents continue to experience significant barriers to participating in these programs and other forms of community life, particularly the aged, NDIS recipients and others with access or mobility needs and other forms of social disadvantage. Social isolation is increasing in society, and can have severe emotional, psychological and physiological effects.

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM44/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Notice of Motion from  Cr Matson - Plight of 8 Helena Street, Randwick

 

Folder No:                      F2016/06032

Submitted by:                Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council study the process that resulted in the deleterious impacts on the household at number 8 Helena Street from construction work at 10 Helena Street and report back to Councillors on the option of using this information as a case study in lobbying the NSW State Government and local MP’s for reforms to the accredited private certifier system.

 

Background:

The household at 8 Helena are experiencing ongoing stress from delays in the construction of a retaining wall as required in the conditions of consent for the ongoing development on the neighbouring site at number 10 Helena Street.

 

A second issue is the failure (as of Sunday the 17th of June) to complete and link up a working stormwater system on the 10 Helena Street. This has resulted in the occupants of 8 Helena Street being required to call the SES to sandbag their property because of water inundation during the heavy rains over the weekend of the 15th and 16th of June.

 

I believe that this situation demonstrates a failure in the private accredited certifier system to adequately provide oversight of developments to the detriment of the residents of Randwick City Council.

 

The main legislative instruments governing the accreditation, role and responsibilities of accredited certifiers in NSW are the Building Professionals Act 2005 and the Building Professionals Regulation 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM45/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Proposed strategic plan for Parks and Playgrounds - community consultation

 

Folder No:                      F2018/00592

Submitted by:                Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That Council, as part of the Housing Strategy being currently coordinated, conduct a simultaneous community consultation to devise a strategic plan for Parks & Playgrounds within the Randwick LGA to upgrade the amenity of these spaces to meet community expectations.

 

Background:

A number of residents have contacted me in recent times, enquiring about our parks & playgrounds, particularly the type of equipment contained within them and the way in which council is utilising these spaces.

 

With our LGA undergoing changes to our LEP & DCP controls, the need for green space, parks and playgrounds is of great importance and the community should be given the opportunity to give feedback to council on what they expect from these types of amenity.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council           25 June 2019

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM46/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Additional Heritage items in Coogee

 

Folder No:                      F2004/06755

Submitted by:                Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

 

 

Motion:

That the following dwellings be assessed for heritage protection not only for their individual worth but for the cohesive nature and uniformity of this rare heritage street in Coogee, in a future review of the coming review of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan:

 

·      72 Dudley Street

·      74 Dudley Street

·      76 Dudley Street

·      1 Berwick Street

·      3 Berwick street

·      5 Berwick Street