N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S · ENDORSED BY: Rob Emerson, Director Open Space and Environmental Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report is reporting the history

ITEM OSE03 REPORTS 26/3/18

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

Report to General Manager Attachments:

1. Aboriginal Heritage Site Re-recording form

2. Access Stair Upgrade and Fig Tree – Report

3. Public Stair Audit

4. Summary of Submissions received

5. Four design options

SUBJECT: Watt Park Access Stair Upgrade – Community Consultation

AUTHOR: Alicja Batorowicz, Landscape Projects Coordinator

ENDORSED BY: Rob Emerson, Director Open Space and Environmental Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report is reporting the history of the Watt Park Access Upgrade project and the outcomes

of the community consultation undertaken.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The works will be delivered within the Council approved budget for this project

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.THAT Council adopts option 4 as the preferred option for construction of the Watt Park steps

2.THAT the community whom have made submissions on this project be informed of the

Council decision.

Report of Alicja Batorowicz, Landscape Projects Coordinator

Re: Watt Park Access Stair Upgrade – Community Consultation

(2)

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM

The relationship with the Delivery Program is as follows:

Direction: 1. Our Living Environment

Outcome: 1.5 Public open space, recreation facilities and services that meet community

needs

BACKGROUND

Following adoption of the Lavender Bay Parklands Concept Master Plan by North Sydney

Council in 2007, funding has been allocated to implement identified projects.

Upgrade of Clark Park was the first project completed in 2008, followed by Lighting of

Lavender Bay Foreshore completed in 2012, an upgrade of Bob Gordon Reserve in 2014, the

amenity block refurbishment was completed in 2015, Quibaree Park improvements in 2016 and

the Watt Park Playground upgrade in 2017.

In the 2017/18 Capital Works Program, Council allocated funding for the upgrade of access

stairs extending between Waiwera Street and Lavender Crescent in Watt Park. The existing mix

of sandstone and concrete stairs has been deemed no longer suitable for safe public use and

requires full reconstruction in order to achieve compliance with current BCA and Australian

Standards.

New access stairs connecting Waiwera Street, located approximately 14 metres above Lavender

Crescent, with Watt Park was proposed to be achieved by the installation of suspended steel

staircase and footpath supplemented by concrete stairs and footpaths, retaining walls and soft

landscaping.

This project has been met with a large number of objections from the local community and as

a result of this feedback alternative proposals were prepared and further community

consultation was entered into.

This report provides the details of the process to date.

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Community engagement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community

Engagement Protocol.

SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT

The sustainability implications are of a minor nature and did not warrant a detailed assessment.



(3)

DETAIL

1. Development of the Concept Landscape Masterplan for Lavender Bay Parklands

Lavender Bay Parklands are a unique foreshore asset: a composite of popular parklands, with

spectacular harbor views, mature tree plantings, and access to an active foreshore with direct

harbor access.

Comprising Clark Park and Wendy’s Secret Garden to the east, Watt Park to the west, Quibaree

Park to the south and the Lavender Bay foreshore area, the Parklands provide panoramic open

space areas, as well as more introspective spaces for quiet reflection and relaxation.

Located in the Western corner of the Parkland is Watt Park characterised by a number of mature

trees, sandstone rock escarpment and a children’s playground.

In 2007 a group of Consultants were engaged to prepare a sensitive and respectful Concept

Master Plan. The document was to reflect a range of values to different user groups, propose a

subtle upgrade required to resolve a number of existing issues, improve and enhance the

Parklands character and recreation opportunity for the range of park users.

The community consultation process aimed to inform residents and other stakeholders about

the project, with a view to increasing their understanding of the relevant issues, and facilitating

effective involvement. Early community consultation in the form of Community Open Days

and meetings with local residents allowed the Consultants to become familiar with issues of

importance to the local community at a formative stage of the project. To ensure a thorough

consultative process, a targeted consultation strategy was developed, as follows.

Consultation Program

Date Activity Detail and Purpose

Dec 2006 –

project

completion

Project web

page on

NSC’s

website

Provided up-to-date information about the project, about community

engagement and about the development of the draft Master Plan for the

Lavender Bay Parklands throughout the course of the project.

Dec 2006 –

Jan 2007

Stakeholder

identification

and contact

Initial list of stakeholders identified by Council staff included the Kirribilli

Club, Railcorp, Luna Park, NSW Maritime, the Lavender Bay Precinct, local

residents, workers and the local business community, fitness trainers, walking

groups, commuters, people accessing the water with kayaks, dinghies etc.,

playground users, people interested in history, art and sculptures and people

using the War Memorial in Clark Park for commemorative purposes.

Consultants contacted some of these groups (Kirribilli Club, Railcorp, Luna

Park, NSW Maritime, Lavender Bay Precinct, local residents) and organised

meetings or phone calls to gather information.



(4)


Dec 2006 –

June 2007

Formation of

Project

Working

Group

4 meetings of the Working Group were held over the course of the project.

The meetings provided overall direction for the project, and there was ongoing

consultation and discussion of ideas and issues. This all provided important

input into the development of the Landscape Masterplan.

The Project Working Group comprised:

- Relevant Council Staff - Council’s Consultants - All interested Councillors (it was chaired by the Mayor, Cllr Genia

McCaffery)

- The Chairperson of Lavender Bay Precinct (Mr Laurie Mather) - Ms Jillian Skinner MP (State Member for North Shore) - Mr Tom Richardson (Kirribilli Ex-Service Club) - Local residents: Wendy Whiteley, Suzanne Wilson, Denise Moore,

Joan Street, Jo Buttfield, Peter Kingston, Ross Oakman, Robert

Lyneham, Sharyn Storrier,

Michael Gourlay, Mari Gourlay, Jan Allen

Saturday,

3rd February

2007, Clark

Park

Community

Open Day 1

Purpose: Information Gathering (held on a weekend, to attract local residents

etc.)

Council officers and members of the consultant team Spackman & Mossop

were on hand to provide information about the project process, to discuss

specific site issues and to receive comments and feedback.

Large display boards under gazebos in Clark Park provided site analysis and

historical information to trigger discussions about the Parklands. Analysis of

key issues was shown, and input and ideas were sought.

‘Comments Sheets’ were circulated, to be filled in either on-site or mailed to

Council/ Consultants later.

Notification for Community Open Days was as follows:

- Info on Council’s website (Home Page) - Info in Mosman Daily (Thursday 25th Jan and Thursday 1st Feb) - Press release – Mosman Daily & North Shore Times - Direct notification to known stakeholders – Project Working Group,

Kirribilli Club, Railcorp, local Precincts, local residents

- Posters – at NSO Pool, several in the Parklands and on local Community noticeboards

- Councillor notification (memos in pigeonholes + Councillor Diary)

Tuesday,

13th

February

2007,

Quibaree

Park

Community

Open Day 2

Purpose: Further information Gathering & Testing Ideas (held on a weekday,

at lunchtime, to attract local workers etc.)

This consultation targeted existing park users including people exercising,

walking through and lunching in the Parklands.

Notification and running of the event was as above.

March 2007 Lavender

Bay Precinct

Meeting

The consultant team, together with Council staff, attended the Lavender Bay

Precinct meeting where they presented site analysis information, site planning

principles and consultation findings for discussion and comment.



(5)


Commence

d Thursday,

24 May,

and finished

Friday, 22

June 2007.

Public

exhibition of

the draft

Masterplan

for 6 weeks

Publicity and

notification

undertaken in

week of

21/05/2007

15

submissions

received

The following forms of publicity and notification were carried out in the week

of 21/05/2007:

- ad for Council’s column in Mosman Daily (placed 3 times during public exhibition period)

- Information about the project on Council’s website, together with the draft Masterplan document, and a call for submissions

- Posters on community noticeboards throughout the Council area - Information placed in the Councillor Bulletin - Memo sent directly to the GM and the Mayor - Memo sent to all Working Group members - Email sent to all Council staff - Memo to Lavender Bay Precinct - 2 copies of the document placed in the Councillors’ Reading Room - Copy of document in Stanton Library for viewing and comment - Copies of document mailed to key stakeholders including the

Lavender Bay Precinct Secretary, Wendy Whiteley and Peter Kingston

Feedback on the draft Masterplan was sought, and submissions (to be

incorporated into the final Masterplan where appropriate) were invited.

A total of 15 submissions were received.

August

2007

Final Report

to Council

The report documented the content of the 15 submissions, and set out the

changes to be made to the final Masterplan as a result of the submissions.

The report, entitled: ‘Completion of the Draft Master Plan for the Lavender

Bay Parklands’ was adopted by Council on 6 August 2007. Council resolved

the following:

- THAT the draft Master Plan for the Lavender Bay Parklands, including the proposed amendments and additions set out in this

report, be formally adopted by Council.

- THAT the Open Space and Environmental Services team be congratulated on their preparation of the Masterplan.

1. Implementation of the Concept Landscape Masterplan

Following adoption of the Lavender Bay Parklands Concept Master Plan by North Sydney

Council in July 2007, Council has allocated funding for a staged implementation of the forty-

eight recommendations and to date the following works have been completed:

Upgrade of Clark Park landscape in 2008

Lighting of Lavender Bay Foreshore in 2012

An upgrade of Bob Gordon Reserve in 2014

Refurbishment of the amenity block in Quibaree Park in 2015

Quibaree Park landscape improvements in 2016.

Upgrade of playground in Watt Park in 2017

In 2017/18 Capital Works Program Council allocated funding for the identified upgrade of

access stair extending between Waiwera Street and Lavender Crescent in Watt Park. The

existing mix of sandstone and concrete stair has been deemed unsafe and no longer suitable for



(6)

public use and requires full reconstruction in order to achieve compliance with current

Australian Standards.

3. Watt Park Access Stair Upgrade project development

In 2015 a group of Consultants were engaged to undertake activities associated with the

preparation of documentation for the new access stair connecting Waiwera Street with Lavender

Crescent in Watt Park. Tasks associated with the engagement included site analysis, concept

design, design development and documentation for tender and construction. The lead consultant

– landscape architect and qualified arborist undertook a thorough site analysis, engaged with

surveyors structural and electrical engineers, through the project manager with Council’s

heritage planners. planners and arborists, to gain an understanding of the scope, opportunities

and restrictions. The landscape architect also undertook some research including government

requirements, local flora, adjacent areas and evaluation of current uses prior to the development

of initial ideas.

Detailed concept design with the nomination of typical material selection was agreed on and

presented to Council’s Conservation Planner / Heritage Officer, Tree Management Supervisor

and Executive Planner for review and comments. Below is the summary of advice received.

Heritage

Advice from Council’s Conservation Planner / Heritage Officer.

Watt Park is listed as a heritage item within NSLEP Schedule 5. It significance is stated

as: "Watt Park makes a significant contribution to the appearance of the Lavender Bay

area and commands fine, tree-framed views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The Park is

of historic interest having once been the gardens of large houses demolished for the

North Sydney railway line. The Park retains a number of stately trees planted during its

time as gardens, including a rare Victorian collection of aurucaria trees (hoop pine,

norfolk island pine, Captain Cook pine). The park also contains an original well. The

form of the park as an open amphitheatre is also of significance."

The proposed upgrade is considered to be acceptable on heritage grounds. The stairs

are in poor condition and do not comply with current safety standards. They do not have

any particular heritage significance in their current form. The proposed concept design,

based on the completed stairs at the end of King George Street, will not have a

detrimental impact on the significance of the Park.

The Aboriginal Heritage Office was also consulted and raised no objections to the proposal, as

the project has no potential for any detrimental impact on the existing rock overhang or the

cistern cut into the rock platform for water collection. Aboriginal Heritage Site Re-Recording

Form is attached to this report.

Planning

Advice received from Council’s Executive Planner:

‘The North Sydney LEP 2013 (Cl 5.10) deals with heritage matters. Subsection

(3) permits minor works and maintenance to be undertaken without a DA subject to

the provision of details and receipt of written advice that a DA is not required. In the



(7)

case of works carried out by Council the project manager provides information to and

receives advice from the Planning Advisor regarding such works. Any exempt works

carried out under this clause would need to meet the criteria listed below.

5.10 Heritage conservation

(3) When consent not required However, development consent under this

clause is not required if:

(a) the applicant has notified the consent authority of the proposed

development and the consent authority has advised the applicant in writing

before any work is carried out that it is satisfied that the proposed

development:

(i) is of a minor nature or is for the maintenance of the heritage item,

Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place of heritage significance or archaeological

site or a building, work, relic, tree or place within the heritage conservation

area, and

(ii) would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item,

Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place, archaeological site or heritage

conservation area, or

(b) the development is in a cemetery or burial ground and the proposed

development:

(i) is the creation of a new grave or monument, or excavation or disturbance

of land for the purpose of conserving or repairing monuments or grave

markers, and

(ii) would not cause disturbance to human remains, relics, Aboriginal objects

in the form of grave goods, or to an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

or

(c) the development is limited to the removal of a tree or other vegetation that

the Council is satisfied is a risk to human life or property, or

(d) the development is exempt development.’

Followed with a project specific advice:

‘The works to the pathway as generally shown on the sketches can be carried out as

exempt development. In respect of lighting – lighting is not listed as exempt

development and if the proposal includes lighting where no lighting had been provided

before a REF would be required. However, I note that the sketches show that some

lighting is being removed so I assure that lighting exists for the path and the proposed

lighting is upgrading the existing. In this case it would be exempt. I also note that the

lighting described is very subtle ground lighting and the impact will be negligible’

Vegetation

Council’s project manager met on site with Councils Tree Management Supervisor to discuss

the details of the proposal. After providing initial advice on the proposed design, the Tree

Management Supervisor recommended for an independent arborist’s report to be prepared. In

summary the Report confirms that the existing significant fig tree is in a poor health and an

‘approach resulting in minimal disturbance’ – ‘designing a walkway / structure that bridges

over the exposed roots with around 20 cm direct clearance’ is recommended. Further

recommendations suggest that the tree protection zones must be established for the duration of



(8)

construction, ‘pot-holing’ to locate tree roots and careful exploratory excavation under

arborist’s supervision to be undertaken. Copy of the Access Stair Upgrade and Fig Tree –

Report is attached to this report.

Compliance with Building Code Australia (BCA) and Australian Standards (AS)

Whilst there is no legislative requirement to comply with the BCA or AS for the subject stair

improvements, North Sydney Council has been committed to ensuring that foreshore parks and

reserves are accessible to the general community. As identified in the Foreshore Parks and

Reserves Plan of Management 2017, Council in order to maintain useful, safe and accessible

internal circulation systems, continually works to ‘identify opportunities to improve the

circulation routes for people with impaired mobility within the code of recommended practice

where appropriate and practical’ and continues to ‘upgrade existing pathways and construct

new pathways with appropriate gradients where a need is identified and the work is viable’.

Further as stated in the Foreshore Parks and Reserves Plan of Management 2017:

‘All new developments in North Sydney’s foreshore parks and reserves take into account

the need to cater for mobility-impaired users. Significant new work for which a

Development Application is required necessitates an audit by an independent auditor

to ensure all proposed work meets Australian Standards with regard to accessibility.’

It is therefore, Council’s standard practice to ensure that where possible all detail design

documentation needs to meet all relevant BCA and Australian Standards.

As part of the site analysis, Council engaged BCA consultant to provide an assessment of

existing public stair in Watt Park in order to determine its compliance with current standards.

The assessment of existing stair against the applicable provisions of the BCA (2016) that all

seven stairways, comprising of a total of 45 stairs, have uneven riser heights and going lengths

that do not comply with the current requirements. Copy of the Public Stair Audit is attached to

this report.

Sustainability

North Sydney Council is committed to improving its environmental performance and actively

engages with consultants who are committed to and have track record of work practices that

adhere to the following:

Sustainable construction practices including design for waste minimisation,

Source-separation of waste and waste minimisation

Virgin forest protection,

Energy and water conservation. It has been well established that sustainable design enables for improved useability and comfort,

decreases operational and life-cycle costs. As such it was anticipated that this project was an

opportunity to demonstrate good practices in the selection of materials and construction

methods for the maximal performance. An aim of the design was to achieve lowest long term

operational costs, to promote the use of recycled building materials and materials that have

long-term durability, are save and easily maintained.



(9)

Option 1 – original proposal

The original proposal for the new access stair connecting Waiwera Street, located

approximately 14 metres above Lavender Crescent, with Watt Park was proposed to be

achieved by the installation of suspended steel staircase with fibre glass reinforced plastic mesh

stair threads and landings supplemented by concrete stair and footpaths, retaining walls and soft

landscaping. Proposed new arrangement for each flight of stairs ensured minimal impact on the

existing trees and retaining walls. Moving the path away from the existing residences increased

privacy and achieved to redirect the views, concentrating attention on the site features instead.

Proposed materials are robust and ensure for longevity and low maintenance. Metal sections of

the proposed footpath allow for off-site manufacturing, therefore minimising the disruption and

time spent on site. Steel handrails and balustrades with incorporated LED plug lights are being

proposed as necessary.

This option is fully accessible and compliant with the Australian Standards and the BCA.

Tender outcomes / contract

In September 2017 tenders were called for the Watt Park Access Improvement project. Prior to

the Council meeting at the Lavender Bay Precinct Committee’s request a complete set of

documentation drawings was provided to the Precinct Committee.

Following the evaluation of tender submissions, at its 3696th Council meeting it was

determined:

1. THAT Council accept the tender of the highest ranked Tenderer for Tender 11/2018

Watt Park Access Improvements.

2. THAT Council hereby authorises its Official Seal to be affixed to Contract 11/2018

under signature of the Mayor and the General Manager.

3. THAT once Council has executed the Contract, information relating to the

successful tender be published in Council’s Register of Contracts as required by

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 - Part 3 Division 5 - Government

Contracts With Private Sector.

Subsequently a Contract of engagement was prepared and signed by both parties and the

contractor was instructed to take the possession of the site by 15 January 2018. In preparation

for the construction period the contractor erected project information signage on site in late

December 2017.

4. Community Consultation for the proposed Watt Park Access Stair Upgrade

Following the erection of construction signage on site, the local community raised objection to

the proposal and requested for a delay to project starting time in order to allow adequate time

to provide feedback.

Below is a chronological recollection of events relating to community consultation of Watt Park

Access Stair Upgrade project:

27 October 2017 - emailed full set of plans to the Secretary for Lavender Bay

Precinct for distribution and comments.

31 October 2017 – emailed the Precinct Secretary with response to his questions.



(10)

24 November - met on site with Precinct Secretary to discuss the details of proposed

design.

15 December 2017 – emailed Precinct Secretary advising about proposed

construction period and footpath closure with a request for distribution to Precinct

members.

End of December 2017 erected project information signage on site.

12 January 2018 – As per resident’s request, Council met on site with a group of

local residents.

Present: Rob Emerson (OSES), Alicja Batorowicz (OSES), Jenny Wilson – Sturt

Noble Associates, Cr Ian Mutton, Bernard Smith – Secretary for Lavender Bay

Precinct, six local residents and the journalist from the Mosman Daily.

During the meeting Jenny Wilson, the landscape architect, introduced everyone to

the scope of proposed access upgrade works, outlining the details of all elements

including concrete and suspended metal stairs, extent of handrails and balustrades,

lighting, areas of proposed planting, extend of demolition, exact location (pegged out

by surveyors prior to the meeting) and height of proposed structures.

Following issues were discussed:

Necessity of proposed upgrade. It was confirmed by the landscape architect that the existing staircase is not fit for an upgrade or partial repair and if kept

in current condition will need to be closed off for public access.

Re-use of existing sandstone treads. It was confirmed by the landscape architect that existing sandstone steps would require significant re-modelling

in order to become usable and compliant with building codes. Sandstone is a

softer material than concrete, the wear would be a lot faster than on proposed

concrete or steel stairs. It was confirmed that where possible existing

sandstone stairs will remain in their current location as a landscape feature

and be inter planted with vegetation. Remaining sandstone stairs will be re-

used on site as landscape feature / retaining as necessary.

Issue of heritage impacts were raised by a resident. It was confirmed on site that Council’s Heritage Planners visited the site, reviewed the design and had

no objections to the proposal as they found it sympathetic with the

surrounding environment.

Views into existing property windows from the proposed structure. It was confirmed that views and vistas were important part of initial site analysis and

as a result proposed design offers an arrangement which significantly

improves existing conditions limiting views into residential windows to the

minimum by re-orientating pathways and moving away from the existing

building.

Lack of community consultation. Rob Emerson advised that extensive community consultation was undertaken at the time of preparation of

Lavender Bay Parklands Masterplan.

A resident from the adjoining property requested for additional consultation to be held prior to the commencement of construction.

It was agreed that the start of construction would be delayed until 29 January in order to allow the residents the opportunity to put forward their comments.

16 January 2018 – distribution of 400 project information flyers to local resident’s

letterboxes.



(11)

21 January 2018 @ 2pm – Alicja Batorowicz - Project Manager met on site meeting

with three local residents of 23 Lavender Cr and 3 Waiwera St

22 January 2018 @ 7 am – Rob Emerson and Alicja Batorowicz met on site with a

group of approximately 17 residents to discuss the project.

During the meeting Rob Emerson gave an introduction to the history of the project

and consultation that had occurred to date. The Project Manager outlined the

proposed works and provided technical feedback.

During this discussion several residents requested a further delayed commencement

of construction and provided a written summary of issues which they would like

addressed. It was advised that the Council would negotiate with the contractor for

later commencement date to allow for the project to be discussed at the next Lavender

Bay Precinct meeting on Thursday 25 January.

Further a proposal was put forward by the community for the relocation of the

staircase to a different location adjacent to 19 Lavender St, where no stair currently

exists.

22 January 2018 – NSC negotiated a further delayed commencement date with the

contractor. The new proposed date for commencement was set at the end of March

2018 to allow the project to be discussed at the Lavender Bay Precinct Committee

and then for this report to be prepared for Council.

Throughout the consultation period it was evident that, the local community was not satisfied

with the original proposal for the upgrade of existing stairs for various reasons, which are

described in more detail in the next section of this report and the “Summary of Submissions”

attached.

In response to community’s request for alternative proposals, Council agreed to develop a

further three design options, which would take into consideration feedback provided by the

local community over the weeks of consultation. Following is a description of the additional

options presented:

Option 2

Option 2 is a variation of the original Option 1 proposal. The new access stair is proposed to be

achieved by the installation of suspended steel staircase with fibre glass reinforced plastic mesh

stair threads and landings supplemented by sandstone (rather than concrete stairs as proposed

for option 1) and concrete footpaths, retaining walls and soft landscaping.

Proposed new arrangement for each flight of stairs ensured minimal impact on the existing trees

and retaining walls. Moving the path away from the existing residences increased privacy and

achieved to redirect the views, concentrating attention on the site features instead.

Proposed materials include recycled (rescued from site) and imported sandstone for all on

ground flights of stairs. Steel handrails and balustrades with incorporated LED plug lights are

being proposed as necessary.

This option is fully accessible and compliant with the Australian Standards and the BCA.



(12)

Option 3

Option 3 was created in response to community’s strong request for a sympathetic restoration

of existing stair in its current location. This option proposes to relay existing sandstone stairs

in their current location in order to achieve flat treads and even risers. In addition, in order to

reduce the grade on the existing landings, additional sandstone stairs were proposed where

necessary.

A new fibre glass reinforced plastic mesh suspended bridge positioned within steel frame is

being proposed to be installed above the exposed fig tree roots. Steel handrails with

incorporated LED plug lights are also being proposed. An existing unstable sandstone dry pack

retaining wall would need to reconstructed in order to provide adequate structural support for

the new flights of stairs.

This proposal offers partial compliance with the BCA and Australian standards with stair

threads, risers and landing gradients meeting the legislated requirements. However, length of

landings, absence of balustrades in areas adjoining drops of more than 1 metre and handrails

located only on one side of the path are non-compliant.

Option 4

Option 4 is a variation of the Option 3 proposal and similarly follows the alignment of the

existing path and further minimises the proposed changes to the existing stairway. This design

option re-lays existing sandstone stairs in their current location and configuration in order to

achieve flat treads and even risers. It is not seeking to improve current gradient non-

compliances on the landings located between the flights of stairs and introduces nine new

sandstone steps in order to achieve the clearance required for the support of the suspended

structure bridging over the existing fig tree roots.

This option also allows for two new flights of sandstone stairs to be constructed at the bottom

of the site in substitute for the existing extremely steep ramp. Steel handrails with incorporated

LED plug lights are proposed for improved safety and an existing unstable sandstone dry pack

retaining wall would need to be reconstructed in order to provide adequate structural support

for the re-laid flights of stairs and landings.

This proposal only meets compliance with the BCA and Australian standards with stair treads

and risers. However, the steep gradient and length of landings, absence of balustrades in areas

adjoining drops of more than 1 metre and located only on one side of the path handrails do not

comply.

As the delivery of Option 4 is contradictory to Council’s standard practice to give consideration

to mobility impaired community members through the adherence of identified building

standards when implementing new works, legal advice was sought from Council’s in-house

lawyer. The advice is confidential and subject to legal professional privilege, however in

summary the advice is:

Council regulates matters of Building Code of Australia (BCA) compliance with the public at large;



(13)

The current stairway within Watt Park was assessed against the Building Code of Australia and the risers and goings to the stairs were considered uneven and did not

comply with the relevant standards;

Council may breach its duty of care to members of the public entering Watt Park if Options 3 or 4 for the repair and design of the stairs were accepted and adopted by

Council;

Council could expose itself to liability and damages for personal injury by failing to ensure an appropriate repair and design of the stairway; and

The Courts consider Councils to have a high standard of care when designing and repairing infrastructure which are used by members of the public.

With the further design options prepared further community consultation was undertaken and

included:

9 February – 11 March 2018 – On line community consultation was launched and

all stakeholders were notified and encouraged to review proposed 4 design solutions,

nominate the preference and provide comments. Summary of the consultation results

is provided in the next section of this report.

22 February 2018 – Rob Emerson and Alicja Batorowicz attended Lavender Bay

Precinct meeting to present the four design options to the local community.

5. Summary of the submissions

Below is a summary of all submissions received in a response to the community consultation

conducted between 1 January – 11 March 2018.

A total of 48 community members provided feedback to the proposal during the 2 January – 11

March period. 35 written submissions were made via email and distributed to various parties.

22 online submissions were made through Council’s ‘Your say’ engagement site, out of which

9 were submitted previously via email.

Only twelve people indicted their preference of a nominated design option and the results are

presented in the table below:

DESIGN

OPTION

NUMBER OF VOTES

Option 1 1

Option 2 4

Option 3 2

Option 4 5

Summary of Submissions analysis considered feedback from all (email and online) submissions

received during the consultation period.



(14)

Twenty issues were identified in the process of analysis. The issues are listed in the attached

summary with relevant comments to each heading. The issues are not listed in any particular

order but rather as they were identified in the text of submissions at the time of reading. These

were the dominating themes of the submissions:

Theme 1: General Support for the Masterplan

Theme 2: Consideration for the history and heritage of the existing site

Theme 3: Request for a sensitive restoration of existing stair

Theme 4: Proposed landscape elements / materials

Theme 5: Impact on the adjoining property

Theme 6: Alternative location for a new staircase

Theme 7: Request for design Option 5

A separate submission was also made by the Lavender Bay Precinct providing feedback on the

consultation and the proposal. Following motions were voted on and adopted during the two

recent meetings:

- ‘For Council to consider an alternative design (Option 5) that is sympathetic to the rustic heritage of the stairs’. This motion was passed.

- ‘For Council to prepare a 5th option based on conservation, restoration and reuse of the existing stairway, and add to the presented options informational notes concerning the

legislative and procedural status of each option’. This motion was passed.

- ‘That the 5th option be based on timber hand rails (rather than metal). This motion was lost.

The Committee stated that none of the four presented options have their support and suggested

that ‘a variation of Option 4 with an even greater focus on conservation and restoration is

necessary to gain community support’ and requested for further deferral to ‘any upgrade until

community’s concerns have been addressed’.

It is also advised that a member of local community initiated an on-line petition resulting in 768

signatories opposing the proposed stairway improvements from residents of North Sydney and

beyond. The large number of comments provided on the change.org petition were all read by

the Council staff involved on this project, however haven’t been reported within the

consultation analysis within this report.

6. Conclusion

It is obvious that, the local community, workers, students and the visitors to the area will benefit

from any upgrade of badly dilapidated access stair connecting Waiwera St with Lavender Cr in

Watt Park. The Councils aim for this project is to increase public safety and appropriate access

through an appropriate upgrade of existing stairway, whilst maintaining all significant trees

onsite.

Based on the feedback from the community consultation, it is clear that safety and building

standard compliance is not the highest priority for the local residents and the community

strongly wishes to maintain the current form of the existing stairway whilst also preserving the

significant trees that are a strong feature in the locations character.



(15)

Therefore, it is the opinion of the Council Officers after receiving the feedback from the

community and balancing this with the safety and access improvements that are required, that

Option 4 is recommended as the preferred option as it delivers a fundamental effective

compromise between the range of differing and diverse points of view and values for this

project.

Option 4 reusing sandstone material for the step reconstruction can achieve the BCA and

Australian Standards for stair treads and risers whilst providing minimal changes to the current

configuration of the existing stairs and without significantly compromising the health of the

existing fig tree.

It is noted that this option proposes to resurface the existing landings between the stairs at their

current grade which don’t meet the current compliance standards. If this option is constructed

with the knowledge that the landing gradients are non-compliant because of their steepness it

is strongly recommended that an improved and compliant hand rail is installed that will allow

pedestrians using the stairway a measure of safety.

Additionally, to overcome the current poor lighting of the stairway it is considered that the most

effective measure would be to install LED bud lighting within the proposed painted steel tubular

hand rail that would result in providing a low level of unobtrusive lighting for the safe use of

the pathway in the evening.

NSC#0244 Lavender & Kirribilli (45-6-2055) 1

mE

mN

North Sydney – NPWS

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITE RE-RECORDING FORM

SITE: NSC#024

NPWS SITE NO: 45-6-2055

SITE NAME: Lavender Bay 2 [Watt Park]

SITE TYPE: SHELTER & MIDDEN

AMG Grid Reference (GPS):

3 3 4 0 0 5

6 2 5 3 4 8 5

Previous AMG As recorded on original NPWS site card. Accuracy of NPWS AMG is doubtful.

333890 mE 6253550 mN

LOCATION:

The site is on the western side of Charles Watt Park, approximately 10 feet above the road.

There is a very large rock shelter facing east, 115’ x 6-12’ x 9’.

DESCRIPTION:

[Monitor dates: 1999 and 15/04/03]

Mid slope

The floor is a sandstone platform with minimal soil visible. Cut into the platform is a large

trough to collect water. There is an orange ochre hand stencil made in 1978, not Aboriginal,

on the wall near the trough. The north end of the shelter has a water trough cut into the wall.

It is probably that a fairly large midden was here at one time, but it has long since been

disturbed, as there is little evidence of it left. Shells were found here.

CONDITION:

The shelter is very long and immediately above a car parking area. At the eastern end the

deposit is sandy and yellow/orange coloured. There are two pillars, one of brick and one a

timber beam. The middle section of the shelter has a grey coloured deposit which appears

ATTACHMENT TO OSE03 - 26/03/18 Page 16

NSC#0244 Lavender & Kirribilli (45-6-2055)

2

deeper. The western end has little or no dry deposit. This is where one of the water troughs is

cut.

A few oyster fragments were seen in the dry sandy floor and more shell on a spoil heap to the

north. It is not clear whether these shells are more recent dumping. Visibility was quite good

in the shelter so probably little potential archaeological deposit. The non-Aboriginal hand

stencil was not relocated, perhaps due to a build up of lichen, moss, leaching and moisture

across the site.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

PHOTOGRAPHS:

1 2

Photo 1: Shelter from north-eastern end

Photo 2: Eastern end of shelter, showing dry yellow/orange deposit, with some grey.



3



4



5



6


of 11

AE&D Pty Ltd A: Suite 3.04, 55 Miller Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P: (02) 9571 8433 F: (02) 9571 8466 E: [email protected]

W: www.aedconsulting.com.au

30 January 2018

Project No: 8116 Alicja Batorowicz Landscape Architect North Sydney Council 200 Miller Street NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060 By Email: [email protected] Dear Alicja, Re: Public Stair Audit

Watt Park, Lavender Bay

11..00 IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

Reference is made to the engagement of this office to provide consultancy advice to inspect the existing public stair/s within Watt Park and provide an assessment report against the applicable going and riser provisions of Part D2.13 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2016 (Volume 1).

It is noted that the BCA’s application typically does not relate to landscape stairs within a public park however the terms of this engagement are to undertake an assessment of the riser and goings of the stairway/s against public stair requirements of the code.

22..00 AAsssseessssmmeenntt BBaassiiss

The content of this correspondence reflects and relies upon – (i) Terms of engagement with North Sydney Council. (ii) Part D2.13 Going & Riser provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2016 (Volume 1)

specifically referenced. (iii) AED inspection on 24 January 2018

33..00 PPuurrppoossee

To undertake an inspection of the existing public stair/s within Watt Park and provide an assessment report against the applicable provisions within Part D2.13 of the Building Code of Australia 2016 (Volume 1).

4.0 Exclusions/Limitations


of 11 AE&D Pty Ltd A: Suite 3.04, 55 Miller Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P: (02) 9571 8433 F: (02) 9571 8466 E: [email protected]

W: www.aedconsulting.com.au ABN: 74 149 587 744

This correspondence should not be construed to infer assessment or reporting on the following - Reporting on hazardous materials, OH&S matters or site contamination.

Assessment of any structural elements or geotechnical matters relating to the building, including any structural or other assessment of the existing fire resistant levels of the building.

Assessment of plumbing and drainage installations, including stormwater

Heritage significance

Consideration of energy or water authority requirements

Consideration of Council’s local planning policies

Environmental or planning issues

Requirements of statutory authorities

Pest inspection or assessment building damage caused by pests (general/visual pest invasion or damage will be reported, however invasive or intrusive inspections have not be carried out)

Provision of any construction approvals or certification under Part 4A or Part 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

This assessment excludes BCA clauses D3.0-3.12 (Inclusive), F2.4 and E3.6 and AS 4922-1995 as these provisions are subject to review separately by an access consultant.

BCA 2016 does not directly specify slip-resistance classification(s) for all accessible paths of travel; however, we highlight the need under AS 1428.1-2009 for all accessible paths of travel to have a slip-resistant surface. We recommend you should seek surface finish advice from an independent specialist slip safety consultant.

Any relevant alternative solutions under the BCA in respect to the building.

Any parts of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) not specifically referenced.

Any part of an Australian Standard), other than if specifically mentioned in this correspondence.

Work Health & Safety considerations.

55..00 DDiissccuussssiioonn

BCA D2.13 Goings & Risers

As part of its engagement AED has undertaken an inspection of the existing public stair/s within the pathways located in Watt Park which provides pedestrian connection between Waiwera Street and Lavender Crescent.

A total of seven (7) separate stairways were identified within the pathway which is either constructed of sandstone or concrete, connected by bitumen pathways or varying steepness.

Part D2.13 of the BCA requires that a stairway must have a going (G), riser (R) and quantity (2R + G) in accordance with Table D2.13 as shown in Figure 1.

Constant goings and risers throughout each flight are required, with a permitted variation between adjacent risers or between goings of not greater than 5mm; and the largest and smallest riser within a flight, or the largest or smallest going within the flight not exceeding 10mm.





A flight is a defined term in the BCA meaning the part of a stairway that has a continuous series of risers, including risers of winders, not interrupted by a landing or floor.

As stated in the BCA Guide 2016, the purpose of the requirements of Part D2.13 is to achieve constant going and riser dimensions deemed safe for people to walk up and down. This minimises the risk of people overstepping during decent on uneven stairs (due to short goings) and tripping on ascent (due to high risers).

Figure 1 – Table D2.13 BCA 2016 (Vol 1)





The findings of the inspection are as follows noting measurements of the risers and goings were taken at two (2) points at the end of the white painted nosing from left to right, bottom of stairway to top –

1. Stairway 1 (located closest to Lavender Street)

Photo 1 - Stairway 1 (located closest to Lavender Street)

Stair 1 Riser #

Riser (R) Complies Yes or No

Going (G) Complies Yes or No

Quantity – Complies Yes or No

1 130mm to 160mm

No – riser height not constant across path of travel

310mm to 330mm

No – going width not constant across path of travel

Yes

2 170mm to 160mm

No – up to 40mm height difference

310mm to 325mm

No – variation over flight exceeds 10mm

Yes

3 180mm to 185mm


180mm to 150mm

No - up to 175mm difference between going width.

Yes

4 180mm No – up to 250mm to No - up to 110mm Yes





10mm height difference

260mm difference between going width.

5 170mm to 180mm


600mm to 650mm


No

6 155mm to 160mm


185mm to 175mm


Yes

7 185mm to 205mm

No – up to 45mm height difference and max step exceeded.

230mm to 250mm


Yes

8 295mm to 280mm

No – up to 110mm height difference and maximum step exceeded.

300mm to 290mm


No

9 190mm to 185mm


Top of stair (walkway)

N/A N/A

2. Stairway 2





Photo 2 - Stairway 2

Stair 2 Riser #



Quantity - Complies Yes or No

1 120mm to 165mm


295mm to 275mm


Yes

2 175mm to 185mm


295mm to 285mm


Yes

3 190mm to 180mm


290mm to 275mm


Yes

4 195mm to 190mm


270mm to 295mm


Yes

5 190mm No – greater than 10mm variation over flight

295mm to 290mm


Yes

6 180mm to 200mm


290mm to 285mm


Yes

7 180mm to 210mm



N/A N/A

3. Stairway 3






Stair 3 Riser #

Riser (R) Complies Y or N

Going (G) Complies Y or N Quantity - Complies Yes or No

1 165mm to 220mm


305mm No – variation over flight exceeds 10mm

No

2 200mm No – up to 35mm height difference

315mm to 300mm


No

3 205mm to 200mm

No – greater than 10mm variation over flight

295mm to 290mm


No

4 200mm to 210mm


295mm to 285mm


No

5 190mm to 185mm



N/A N/A

4. Stairway 4


Stair 4 Riser #








1 60mm to 170mm

No – riser height not constant across path of travel and step height is below the minimum.

160mm to 290mm


Yes

2 280mm to 205mm

No – up to 220m height difference

190mm to 300mm


No

3 240mm to 210mm


280mm to 245mm


No

4 210mm to 195mm



N/A N/A

5. Stairway 5

Photo 5 - Stairway 5 (Top of photo)

Stair 5 Riser #

Riser (R) Complies Ye or No



1 65mm to 130mm


290mm to 305mm


Yes





2 185mm to 200mm


305mm to 395mm


No

3 200mm to 215mm


290mm to 270mm


No

4 200mm No – up to 15mm height difference


N/A N/A

6. Stairway 6


Stair 6 Riser #




1 50mm to 145mm


260mm to 250mm


Yes

2 195mm to 205mm


260mm to 300mm


No

3 200mm No – greater than 10mm variation over flight

270mm to 280mm


Yes





4 200mm to 205mm

No – greater than 10mm variation over flight

260mm to 295mm


No

5 200mm to 215mm



N/A N/A

7. Stairway 7


Stair 7 Riser #




1 100mm to 40mm

No – riser height not constant

305mm No – going width not constant across

No





across path of travel

path of travel

2 190mm to 195mm


300mm to 305mm


Yes

3 190mm to 200mm


295mm to 305mm


No

4 190mm to 195mm


Quarter Landing

N/A N/A

5 185mm to 190mm


290mm No - up to 390mm difference between going width.

Yes

6 160mm to 200mm


295mm No - up to 475mm difference between going width.

Yes

7 170mm to 200mm

No – up to 30mm height difference and max step exceeded.

290mm to 295mm


Yes

8 200mm to 185mm



Yes

9 170mm to 205mm



No

10 175mm to 205mm


Quarter landing

N/A N/A

11 165mm to 110mm


Footpath N/A N/A

66..00 CCoonncclluussiioonn

Assessment of the existing public stair/s within Watt Park against the applicable provisions of Part D2.13 of the Building Code of Australia 2016 (Volume 1) found that Stairways 1 to 7 have uneven riser heights and going lengths that do not comply with the requirements of Table D2.13.

For any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Regards,

Daniel Keato Senior Building Consultant Accredited Certifier / Principal Certifying Authority (Building) - Grade A2 BPB 2424 for AE&D


1

Watt Park Access Stair Upgrade

Summary of submissions received during community consultation period

Prepared March 2018

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCILLORS REFER TO THE COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND TO THE REPORT TO COUNCIL, WHICH EXPANDS ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SUBMISSIONS.

Issue Key Points Raised Number of supporters

1 GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL

Six submissions expressed unqualified support for the OPTION 1 or 2 proposal. A sample of comments is included below: - In past years, during our 20+ years of local residence, my husband and I frequently used the steps, but for the past ten years the risk of

injury while attempting to navigate the unstable irregular steep stone steps, without adequate handrails prevented our access to the park. I know you have had pressure to keep the stairs in their current condition with minimum improvement. Reference to the cistern which once existed there provides a nostalgic focus perhaps, but unfortunately accurate local records of the geologic and practical uses of the hillside are lacking I believe. Consequently, it is obvious to me that the primary responsibility of the Council today, is to ensure safe access to the park for residents, with a stairway permitting safe navigation of the hillside.

- I think that it will be a vast improvement of the current dilapidated stairs. - I like the combination of classic sandstone and the light footprint of the suspended landings. I also like walking on the mesh, it always

feels safe and study. I am pleased to see the bottom level moved over away from out building and using a part of the park where very little can grow due to the large tree there. I agree with keeping the old stairs and retaining walls and incorporating them into the landscape. (I hope you will also remove the diseased/dead sections of the large fig tree at the top of the area - very scary to walk near.

- I appreciate the need for maintenance, accessibility and safety. - As a resident living nearby and as an owner of a unit in the adjoining building i.e. 23 Waiwera St, I much prefer option 1 with sandstone

steps. Patching up the existing, although most likely preferred on heritage grounds, is a short sighted piecemeal approach that will have ongoing maintenance and safety issues.

- I'm a resident at 23 Waiwera st and previously complained about the original. I'm happy with this version (option 2) and the steps made to improve the design with higher quality materials.

6


2


2 LIGHTING

a Assess lighting levels; provide additional low-level lighting if necessary (with any impact on nearby residents to be addressed during the design phase). It would be preferable, if low level lighting is adequate, to disconnect the street lights that shine into nearby window. Lighting should be warm in tone if possible; this ties in with the historic aesthetic of the area, and has been proven to attract fewer bugs/moths than cool white light.

8

b Better lighting will enhance access. 1

c The plan to include lighting in the hand rails will certainly add to the safety in traversing the steps, BUT will it provide enough light in the surrounding area for people to feel safe at night?

1

d Existing street lights shine directly into windows, making bedrooms bright at night. Most residents of 23 Waiwera Street supported the idea of a handrail lighting system.

1

3 DRAINAGE

a Assess current site drainage/runoff to site prior to project commencement; and ensure this is adequately addressed in the design phase, so as to positively impact nearby residents.

11

b Concerns about existing significant runoff into current site and issues with tree roots invading 23 Waiwera Street drainage. 1

4 NOISE

a Acoustic impact on nearby residents to be addressed during selection of materials. 7

b Excessive and inevitable increased noise levels associated with metal steps will have a major impact on the natural wildlife in the park. 7

d Proposed construction will ruin the peace and quiet I require to work. 2

5 VIEWS / PRIVACY

a Proposed stair (option 1 and 2) does not respect the 1928 Spanish Mission style Bellarion Court that is less than 5 metres from, and directly overlooks and is overlooked by, the current stairs. It will negatively impact privacy for nits on the northern side of the building.

3


3


b Proposed upgrade will spoil th rustic picturesqueness that now exists. 1

6 EXISTING VEGETATION

a Retain all current trees, landscaping and retaining walls; any issues with these would be assessed and solutions agreed upon prior to project commencement. Additional low level planting suitable to the environment is encouraged, so long as a corridor for access to the rock cut cistern is maintained. Clearing of weed species is permitted.

8

b Cutting back the pleasantly wild vegetation will have a major impact on the natural wildlife in the park. 1

c Need for modifications where existing fig tree roots intrude should be bridged by some a platform made of eco-friendly ‘bee-hive’ type material, like that used by Mosman Council in some of their reserves.

1

d The winding staircase and ancient vegetation including the fern trees at the site have enormous emotional significance to long time and recent residents connected to the landscape of his area. The way the vegetation has covered the stairs is their attraction.

1

e Allow tree roots to remain undisturbed 4

f Gardens adjoining the stairs are delightful and mus be preserved. 1

g I hope that the redevelopment will include removal of the ivy from the fence and fig tree on Waiwera Street. Ivy is an inappropriate ground cover. It doesn't stay on the ground.

1

7 AIR QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

a Construction will provide bad air and dust which will badly affect my asthma.

8 HISTORY & HERITAGE

a Proposal contravenes the North Sydney DCP2013; LEP Development Control Plan 2013: Council will work to protect North Sydney’s heritage by: “(e) not supporting developments that remove or significantly reduce the heritage significance of any heritage item, (g) acknowledging and protecting the setting of heritage items”. It is Council’s duty to protect all significant items located on site including properties which are individually listed as heritage items, properties and items (stairs) within heritage conservation areas.

3


4


b Watt Park is part of a Conservation Area: and the stairs are immediately adjacent to Bellarion Court (23 Waiwera Steet), which is locally listed heritage item.

3

c Located nearby, two rock cut cisterns in the Aboriginal shelter are believed to potentially be of State Heritage significance. An application has been made by local residence to list these items on State Heritage Register.

5

d Council has not completed a Heritage Impact Statement regarding the impact of the proposed work on Bellarion Court. 3

e Proposed staircase with additional number of angular concrete stairs and hundreds of metres of galvanised steel handrails and balustrades does not respect the curtilage, scale, and priceless heritage style of Watt Park.

6

f Project is eroding the heritage significance of the area, is unnecessary in its scale and needs a more sensitive approach on a ‘minimalist intervention basis’.

1

g The Project Managers’ claims that the stairs are not heritage listed themselves, and therefore require little more than cursory assessment, are invalid. The fact that the current stairs will be left in situ under the steel & concrete eyesore is again tacit admission that the stairs do indeed possess heritage value.

1

h The stone steps are integral to the heritage legacy of Watt Park; are in sympathy with the vegetation and built heritage adjacent to the park; and contribute significantly to the visual amenity.

1

9 CONSERVATION AND SYMPATHETIC REPAIR OF EXISTING STAIRS

a Request for “A Conservation and Sympathetic Restoration Program” for the current stairs, to be undertaken by qualified professionals (landscapers, arborists and stonemasons). Stair and the path to be repaired and kept in their existing form. Conservation and repair of the stairs should be approached in a responsible, sensitive and controlled manner which will still fall within the broad scope of required Standards.

28

b Repair and conservation can be achieved for much less than the budget for the proposed new stairs. 7

c Increase safety by re-laying the current stairs to mitigate issues with tree roots, retaining current stair sections where possible. 9

d Current stairs have been designed to blend into their environment: following the natural curve of the land, with sandstone treads and retaining walls, and wooden handrails painted cream to match the nearest building.

4

e Conservation and sympathetic restoration of the current stairs by qualified professionals is the only option that deserves consideration. This would allow Council to rest assured that the stairs are safe for the majority of users, yet retain the history and beauty the area is renowned for. No-one visits this area to stand on the most ‘compliant’ set of stairs in existence; they do so because they enjoy the natural beauty and tranquillity of the area, which is unique in a high density area less than 6 km from a major CBD. Failure to consider this will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on both tourism and community enjoyment of the area.

14


5


f Councillors are encouraged to vote against the current Options 1-4 and for conservation and sympathetic restoration. 3

g The existing stairs are steep and narrow. They have been used by walkers for ages with great satisfaction. The existing stairs have character and heritage.

1

10 ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR NEW STAIR

a An alternative location for a fully compliant set of stairs to descend from the natural lookout at the top of Waiwera Street and onto Lavender Crescent below (with the consideration that Lavender Cr be made a shared pedestrian/vehicle zone with appropriate speed limits, to enhance safety and access for those with limited mobility). Council already owns this lookout and it has one of the best views in Sydney; additionally, it does not directly overlook nearby properties, and is less complex in terms of the landscaping (no mature trees/root systems). A staircase here would need to be designed to blend seamlessly into the natural environment, with the design taking nearby residents and the acoustic challenges of the natural stone amphitheatre into consideration. This would allow Council the opportunity to have a fully compliant set of stairs (if that is its foremost concert), whilst lowering the impact on the heritage and beauty of the area and local residents.

10

b Removal of existing stair is not a favourable option as it would severely limit Watt Park access via foot by local residents coming from North Sydney CBD.

1

c Initiate a design study for the stair in the rocky greenery and a glass lift amongst the trees. It will be very, very beautiful. 1

11 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

a Council needs to inform Precinct about all the relevant legislation and procedures (planning, heritage, safety) that cover this project so that Precinct can make up its own mind about whether all proper planning and other procedures have been followed, and to clearly show that all the relevant legislation and procedures are truly being complied with for this proposal.

1

b Historical significance of the current stairs/ site must be thoroughly assessed by an independent party prior to project commencement; with any recommendations informing the proposed repairs.

12

12 COMPLIENCE WITH BCA AND AS

a Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards are technical guidelines only. BCA does not apply to a set of stairs that is not within or attached to a building.

7

b The fact that ‘non-compliant’ options have been presented for consideration is a tacit admission that the people managing this project are well aware neither BCA nor AS guidelines are required to be adhered to in this instance.

1


6


c It should be noted that the current stairs are neither safe nor accessible; and due to their historic nature, conservation and repair should not have to meet current Australian Standards or access and mobility requirements/ideals. There are alternative routes available within an acceptable distance from the Watt Park stairs which already satisfy those requirements.

11

d Councils position that the existing steps cannot be made compliant with AS is specious because: any safety concerns with the current steps can be easily remediated to make them ‘fit for purpose’. There is no obligation for Council to substitute brand new steps for the ‘grand fathered’ existing steps. If this were not the case, Council would be faced with the impossible task of replacing a range of ‘non-compliant’ infrastructure e.g. buildings, gutters, drains, railings, paths, steps, roads etc. Attendance to many of these is a much more pressing priority than to replace the Watt Park steps.

1

13 ADDITIONAL STAIRS

a Options 1-3 will add between 28-33 new stairs, with some stair flights doubling in length (the maximum number of stairs in a single flight is currently 9; options 1 and 2 are likely to include 18 stairs in a single flight). Increasing the height and distance of an unbroken fall will increase the risk of a serious injury / decreases community safety.

4

b Current configuration of fewer stairs and gentle inclines is much easier for senior members of the community and those with hip/knee issues. 9

c Improve the bottom section of the path with an addition of new stairs to improve safety. 13

d Do not introduce additional stairs. 1

14 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR DISABLED

a User group covered by Disability Discrimination Act would be further endangered if using the existing routes to access the stairs (due to the natural topography of Lavender Bay). This user group already has a safer and more practical access route to Watt Park and the foreshore via Lavender Crescent and around the boardwalk.

7

15 COMMUNITY CONULTATION

a Essential community consultation and notification did not take place prior to a contract for the works being signed. 15

b Proposal should be formally put to public consultation and especially to Lavender Bay Precinct for its input. 1


7


16 CONTRACT

a Consider new information which have come to light since the initial decision was made in October 2017 and cancel the current contract to build new stairs.

12

b Honouring a deal with a construction company should not take precedence over the safety and concerns of the very community the Councillors represent.

1

17 HANDRAIL

a As part of the proposal retain existing timber handrail or replace with similar to match existing. 18

b Existing timber handrail on either side should be replaced with metal handrails. An additional central hand rail should be installed to make it easier for people to stead themselves as they ascend or descent the stairs.

1

18 MATERIALS

a Aesthetic suitability within the surrounding environment to be addressed during selection of materials. 7

b Remove existing sections of concrete and replace with sandstone to match existing. 6

c Resurface the paths with suitable material to increase pedestrian safety and allow tree roots to remain undisturbed. 10

19 ACCESS TO BELLARION COURT

a Proposed upgrade (option 1 and 2) will block access to our front garden (current access being via the side of the existing stairway). 1

20

PROPERTY VALUE

a Proposed upgrade will no doubt decrease the value of my home by replacing the current rural view with a steel eyesore. 2


20.0

22.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

24.0

25.0

27.0

21.0

19.0

18.0

17.0

16.0

21.0

20.019.0

18.0

15.0

22.380ex +

STAIR 2STAIR 5

STAIR 6

STAIR 7

STAIR 8

NEW CONCRETE STAIRSWITH STAIR NOSINGS

EXISTING SANDSTONETREADS REMAIN INSITU

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.PRO'S- Accessible and Compliant with Australian Standards and BCA- Minimal impact to existing trees- Minimal impact to existing walls- Robust materials for longevity and low maintenance- Clear distinction between new and existing elements- Path moved back from surrounding residences to increase- privacy- Path alignment directs views to site features- Straight sections of path allows for off site construction of- some sections and less disruption and time spent on site.CON'S- New materials of concrete stairs and paths and steel- introduced into the space- New design has a more geometric alignment

OPTION 1 -PROPOSEDLAYOUT.ISSUE B.09.02.2018

Sturt NobleA s s o c i a t e s

27.00

27

CONCRETE PATHS ANDLANDINGS

C

C

C

C

C

C

FIBRE GLASS REINFORCEDPLASTIC MESH SUSPENDEDLANDINGS WITH STEELEDGES

C

F

F

F

SUSPENDED STEEL STAIRSWITH FIBRE GLASSREINFORCED PLASTICMESH STAIR TREADS

STAIR 1

C

LEGEND

STAIR 4

STAIR 3F

WAIWERA STREET

LAVE

NDER

CRES

ENT

HANDRAIL

HANDRAIL

HANDRAIL

HANDRAIL

EXISTING STAIRS WITH TREEROOTS TO REMAIN IN PLACEAND A NEW ELEVATEDWALKWAY INSTALLED ABOVE

EXISTING WALL

NEW HANDRAIL/BALUSTRADEWITH LIGHTING LOCATED ALONGEDGE OF FOOTPATH AND STAIRSEDGE FROM WAIWERA STREETTO LAVENDER CRESENT

HANDRAIL/BALUSTRADE LOCATEDON BOTH SIDES OF SUSPENDEDSTAIRS AND LANDINGS


20.0

22.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

24.0

25.0

27.0

21.0

19.0

18.0

17.0

16.0

21.0

20.019.0

18.0

15.0

22.380ex +

STAIR 2STAIR 5

STAIR 6

STAIR 7

STAIR 8

STAIRS PROPOSED TOHAVE SANDSTONE TREADSWITH STAIR NOSINGS

EXISTING SANDSTONETREADS REMAIN INSITU

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.PRO'S- Accessible and Compliant with Australian Standards and BCA- Minimal impact to existing trees- Minimal impact to existing walls- Sandstone stairs are in keeping with character- Clear distinction between new and existing elements- Path moved back from surrounding residences to increase- privacy- Path alignment directs views to site features- Straight sections of path allows for off site construction of- some sections and less disruption and time spent on site.CON'S- New materials of concrete paths and steel stairs introduced- into the space- New design has a more geometric alignment- Sandstone stairs are more prone to degrading and may- require patching and replacement sooner than concrete stairs

OPTION 2 -SANDSTONESTAIRS.ISSUE B.09.02.2018

Sturt NobleA s s o c i a t e s

CONCRETE PATHS ANDLANDINGS

27.00

272

STAIR 1

FIBRE GLASS REINFORCEDPLASTIC MESH SUSPENDEDLANDINGS WITH STEELEDGES

F

F

F

SUSPENDED STEEL STAIRSWITH FIBRE GLASSREINFORCED PLASTIC MESHSTAIR TREADS

LEGEND

F

STAIR 4

STAIR 3

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

WAIWERA STREET

HANDRAIL

HANDRAIL

HANDRAIL

NEW HANDRAIL/BALUSTRADEWITH LIGHTING LOCATED ALONGEDGE OF FOOTPATH AND STAIRSEDGE FROM WAIWERA STREETTO LAVENDER CRESENT

EXISTING WALL

EXISTING STAIRS WITH TREEROOTS TO REMAIN IN PLACEAND A NEW ELEVATEDWALKWAY INSTALLED ABOVE

HANDRAIL/BALUSTRADE LOCATEDON BOTH SIDES OF SUSPENDEDSTAIRS AND LANDINGS

HANDRAIL

LAVE

NDER

CRES

ENT


20.0

22.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

24.0

25.0

27.0

21.0

19.0

18.0

17.0

16.0

21.0

20.019.0

18.0

15.0

+15M

+20M

+8M

+10M+6M

+20M

+12M

+5M

+8M

+25.050

+25.050

+22.060

+14.970+14.210ex

+16.300

+18.580

+26.190

+28.300ex

+20.480+16.460

+18.280ex

+24.770ex

+24.670

+25.000ex

+25.810ex

+15.370ex

+16.100ex

+16.860ex

+16.320ex

+24.670

+26.080ex

WAIW

ERA S

TREE

T

22.380ex +

+17.980+18.740+18.740

+16.405fall1:45

fall

1:45

+20.450

fall

1:40

+22.000

+23.390

+23.490

fall1:40

fall1:40

+23.870

+23.910

+24.500ex

+24.670ex

+27.140

+28.280

+26.190

+16.200ex

fall1:47

NEW SANDSTONE STAIRSWITH PAINTED NOSINGS TOMATCH EXISTINGEXISTING SANDSTONESTAIRS TO BE RELAID /REBUILT WITH FLAT TREADSAND EVEN RISERS. NOSINGSTO BE REPAINTED

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.PRO'S- Exiting path alignment retained- New works visually tie into existing.CON'S- Not compliant with Australian Standards and BCA- Reconstruction of the whole path and a section of wall required- Potential for increased damage to existing site- Increase

Documents

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S · ENDORSED BY: Rob Emerson, Director Open Space and Environmental Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report is reporting the history