REPORT TO COUNCIL - Waverley Council · REPORT TO COUNCIL Fencing options Taking into account the...

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Waverley Cemetery Boundary Fence – Design options and community consultation (A02/0658-06) Report dated 5 July 2013 from the Director, Corporate & Technical Services about new boundary fencing at Waverley Cemetery. Recommendation: That Council: 1. Deal with the confidential attachment to this report, distributed separately with the

agenda, in closed session under the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993. The financial information contained in the confidential attachment, if disclosed, could confer a commercial advantage on persons with whom the Council proposes to or may conduct business.

2. For the purpose of community consultation, endorse Option D as described in this

report as the currently preferred option for new boundary fencing and associated works along the Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street, Fig Tree Lane and Boundary Street frontages of Waverley Cemetery.

3. Endorse commencement of community engagement as described in this report to seek

community opinion on new fencing and associated works. 4. Note the funding sources for the new fencing as outlined in Section 6.2 and the

confidential attachment to this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of commencement of consultation on proposals for new boundary fencing and associated works along the Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street, Fig Tree Lane and Boundary Street frontages of Waverley Cemetery. This report is a response to Council’s resolution in February 2013 calling for a report on the options and costs for properly replacing the perimeter fencing of Waverley Cemetery with fencing that is compliant with the requirements of the Cemetery’s adopted Statutory Plan of Management. The report provides information on a range of compliant and non-compliant options and their costs and recommends community consultation on the compliant options, with Option D as the currently preferred option. Waverley Cemetery Plan of Management In 2008 Waverley Council adopted a Plan of Management (POM) for Waverley Cemetery. As a statutory Plan of Management for “Community Land” the POM is a powerful instrument setting out the values of the Cemetery and binding Council to operate on the site in accordance with those values. The POM also places a range of controls on the infrastructure works that can be carried out in the Cemetery to protect and preserve its heritage significance and characteristics. Ultimately the POM must govern decisions on boundary fencing in Waverley Cemetery.

331

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Issues affecting future management of the Cemetery The POM recognises that the Cemetery is managed as a business and identifies key issues affecting its future management. It also recommends infrastructure works that should be considered and undertaken to address each issue, subject to funding availability. In relation to boundary fencing the POM recommends the following works:

Reinforce boundaries and edges with new secure fencing and shrub plantings. Improve internal and external verges at Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street and Boundary Street

Retain and conserve existing fences where security compliance issues permit and build new fences or modify existing ones to improve security as required

Build new walls and mausolea along cemetery’s boundaries and build a new memorial garden or gathering point for outdoor services

Conservation of elements relating to boundary fencing The POM identifies elements relating to boundary fencing and provides guidelines for the conservation of each element in accordance with its own Conservation Guidelines (see pg 42 of the POM). With regard to timber picket fencing and sandstone block wall along the boundaries the POM states the preferred option is their retention and conservation, but according to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part. With regard to views across the cemetery to the ocean and surrounding district the POM states these should be retained and conserved but according to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify them or remove them in whole or in part. Internal views and vistas should be retained and conserved. Values for Waverley Cemetery It is important that any decision about boundary fencing is firmly grounded with reference to the values the Cemetery has to the community. The values inform the selection of land categories, objectives and performance targets for the Cemetery’s management. All recommendations in the POM contribute towards satisfying these values. The values are identified in the POM as:

Cultural Heritage Community Service Education Aesthetics Natural Heritage Recreation

Table 3 in the report below lists and provides an explanation of each value. Each option considered for boundary fencing has been assessed for compliance with the controls and values outlined above. The assessments for compliance are contained in the table in Attachment 1.

332

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Fencing options Taking into account the requirements of the POM, Council officers have considered a range of options and fencing types as follows:

FENCING OPTIONS CONSIDERED Option A Replace like with like (different treatments on each side) Option B Raise current fencing Option C School style fencing Option D Bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fencing with sandstone niche memorial

pillars Option E Wrought iron spear fencing Option F Repair existing fencing Option G Remove all fencing

A street by street description of actual fencing treatments in each option is provided in Section 5 of the paper. Compliance of options with the POM The above options vary in their compliance with the POM from fully compliant through partially compliant to entirely non-compliant. Only one option – Option D – fully complies with the requirements of the POM and fully supports the values. Two others – Options C and E – come close, with E being closer than C. Details of the compliance of each option with the POM are shown in Attachment 1. The following table summarises the performance of each option:

PERFORMANCE OF FENCING OPTIONS AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS AND VALUES OF THE POM

Option Compliance Comment Option A Replace like with like Non-compliant Fails on all 9 performance aspects.

Option B Raise current fencing Non-compliant Fails on all 9 performance aspects.

Option C School style fencing / Partially compliant

Meets performance aspects 1, 2, 8 and 9 but fails to meet other aspects.

Option D Bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fencing with sandstone niche memorial pillars

Fully compliant Meets all performance aspects.

Option E Wrought iron spear fencing

/ Mostly compliant

Meets performance aspects 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Fails to meet 3 and 7.

Option F Repair existing fencing Non-compliant Fails on all 9 performance aspects.

Option G Remove all fencing Non-compliant Partially meets performance aspect 5. Fails on all other performance aspects.

Financial assessment of the options The capital cost estimate for each fence replacement option is approximately as shown in the table below:

333

REPORT TO COUNCIL

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS – CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Option Compliance Capital cost estimate Option A Replace like with like Non-compliant $1.2 million

Option B Raise current fencing Non-compliant $1.5 million


$1.5 million


Fully compliant $4.6 million


/ Mostly compliant

$1.5 million

Option F Repair existing fencing Non-compliant No capital. Approx. $35,000 pa

Option G Remove all fencing Non-compliant Not estimated, although removal would have a cost

All options require loan funding as Council’s Long Term Financial Plan 4 (LTFP4) includes structuring finance for much of the Council’s backlog asset renewal via loans. However, in the case of the Cemetery fencing, only with Option D does Council gain the capacity to earn income to repay the loan, through the sale of memorial ash niches. This means the most expensive option – Option D – is actually the cheapest for ratepayers over the full life of the loan (30 years) as shown in the table below.

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS – LOAN COST TO RATEPAYERS Option Compliance Loan cost to ratepayers* Option A Replace like with like Non-compliant $2.6 million



$3.4 million


Fully compliant $10.1 million offset by income from sale of 30% of the constructed niches over 30 years = $0 See section 6.2 below and the confidential attachment to this paper for qualifying detail.


/ Mostly compliant

$3.4 million


Option G Remove all fencing Non-compliant Not estimated

* Assumes a principal and interest loans over 30 years at 6.15% pa The calculation of $0 in the above table for the cost to the ratepayer of Option D is based on the assumption that the Cemetery would be able to repay loans for the full fence from the proceeds of sales of niches. Based on very conservative sales income projections (see confidential attachment), it is considered that these loans could be repaid in full by the Cemetery from the niche sales income over 30 years. The fence would still have significant income earning capacity after this.

334

REPORT TO COUNCIL

However, repayment of these loans in full would slow the Cemetery in its ability to finance more of the Cemetery’s $14 million+ backlog infrastructure bill, not to mention its $5.6 million maintenance bills over the next 11 years and minimum $25 million bills for maintenance and stabilisation of significant monuments. It is therefore suggested that Council could choose to dedicate some non-repayable funds to Option D including: $3.4 million in fence loan costs – the minimum that Council would be liable for in any

event for replacement of the fence under SAMP4, plus an extra $931,000 to smooth cash flow issues for the Cemetery while the niche sales

business builds up. In this arrangement Council would be funding 42% of Option D, instead of the 34% it would be up for in any event, and the Cemetery would fund 58%. This may seem comparatively expensive for Council. However, it has already been acknowledged that Council will need to contribute to Cemetery infrastructure renewal in Council’s original adoption of the POM and in Council’s rate rise application in 2011, which included expenditure on Cemetery infrastructure from rates. Additionally, when compared to the alternative of constructing a non-income producing fence, all of which would have to be funded by the ratepayer, this investment in the income producing fence will mean Council and ratepayers can avoid having to fund at least $13 million of the infrastructure renewal and maintenance costs over the next 30 years that they would have to fund from rates if the option of the income producing fence was not available. Preferred option for new boundary fencing Bearing in mind that: only a couple of options, or 3 at most (Options C, D and E), would be buildable under the

POM, and only one option – Option D – provides a potential income stream for the Cemetery, this report proposes that Council confirm Option D as the preferred option for new boundary fencing along three sides of the cemetery, being Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street including Fig Tree Lane, and Boundary Street. The preferred Option D comprises: constructing an 1800mm high bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fence with

niche memorial pillars every 4.6 meters along Trafalgar Street and along Boundary Street between Campbell Street and the south eastern corner of the cemetery.

adapting the existing sandstone fence in Boundary Street between the end of Fig Tree

Lane and Campbell Street by removing the existing rail and pillars and top layer/s of stones in places and placing a bullnose sandstone and vertical iron spear fence with short niche memorial pillars every 4.6 metres on top. The fence would remain roughly the height it is now at the western end and gradually decrease to a height of 1800mm opposite Campbell Street.

constructing an 1800mm high iron spear fence on a concrete strip footing with no pillars

along St Thomas Street and Fig Tree Lane. The above proposal is considered to be by far the best performing proposal in terms of: aesthetics, security,

335

REPORT TO COUNCIL

consistency with and protection of heritage, the opportunities it provides for improved and safe access, views through to, out of, and beyond the Cemetery, improved and defined parking opportunities at the Cemetery entrance, cost to the ratepayer, cost effective provision of niche supplies, potential improvements in overall Cemetery sales (for both burial and ashes interment

and memorialisation) due to the significant dignity and definition that will be added to the site by the new fencing and entries.

Resident concerns A small number of residents of the local area have expressed concerns about the type of boundary fencing Council might install. Some residents have even expressed a preference for no fence at all. Options D and E have been developed with the known community concerns uppermost in mind and the intention of both options is to resolve these concerns. Option D, however, comes with additional benefits, offering the community a number of operational positives that do not currently exist. In effect, there will be very little, if any, change in the day to day operation of the Cemetery as a result of any of the fencing options – even the non-compliant ones. Several things will, however, improve in terms of the above concerns, if Option D is implemented. Table 8 in the report provides information on and a performance assessment of how site and service operations will change under Option D. Community consultation Consultation will occur in two stages, firstly on the options considered, their pros cons and costs, and the concept designs. A report back to Council on community engagement outcomes and recommendations will be provided in September. Once a preferred concept is endorsed by Council, a Development Application will be prepared. This too will be exhibited for public comment prior to final consideration of the application’s merits and/or approval/refusal. Consultation for the first stage is set to commence immediately and will include: Distribution to approximately 2500 houses (near the Cemetery in the Waverley LGA

Randwick LGAs) of a brochure outlining the full background information on the options considered, their pros and cons, graphics for the preferred option, other factual information about operational opportunities and effects, and a survey seeking opinion on likes and dislikes and general concerns about Cemetery operation

An on-line version of the above plus graphics showing how other options compare aesthetically

Advertisement of the consultation process and opportunities to participate including weblinks

An open day in the Cemetery on Sunday 4 August 2013 which will double as a consultation forum and a promotion of the Cemetery itself

A comment period closing on 16 August 2013 A report back to Council in September on outcomes of consultation and

recommendations

336

REPORT TO COUNCIL

MAIN REPORT 1. Purpose of report The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of commencement of consultation on proposals for new boundary fencing and associated works along the Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street, Fig Tree Lane and Boundary Street frontages of Waverley Cemetery. 2. Background Council is aware that boundary fencing at Waverley Cemetery is past its useful life and fails to comply with Waverley Cemetery’s own Plan of Management and the safety requirements of the Building Code of Australia. At its meeting in February 2013 Council therefore resolved to:

… call for a report on the options and costs for properly replacing the perimeter fencing of Waverley Cemetery with fencing that is compliant with the requirements of the Cemetery’s adopted Statutory Plan of Management.

The report provides information on a range of compliant and non-compliant options and their costs and recommends community consultation focussing on the compliant options, with Option D as the currently preferred option. 3. Significance of Waverley Cemetery Waverley Cemetery was established in 1877. It is rare as an example of a municipal cemetery from the Victorian period which is still operational. It has been providing burial and interment services for 135 years, enabling people who live in Waverley and beyond to remember and maintain their connection with people of our past. The Cemetery is a remarkable historical atlas of our cultural heritage with tens of thousands of strikingly beautiful intact Victorian and Edwardian monuments. The remains of more than 83,000 people have been interred in the Cemetery since 1877, including some of the most famous Australians, such as the poets Henry Lawson, Dorothea Mackellar and Henry Kendall, publisher J F Archibald, world class cricketers Victor Trumper and John (Jack) Fingleton and pioneering aviator Lawrence Hargraves. The Cemetery is listed as an item of heritage significance in the Waverley Local Environmental Plan, the State Heritage Inventory, the Register of the National Estate and by the National Trust of Australia (NSW). In 2008 Waverley Council adopted a Plan of Management (POM) for Waverley Cemetery. The POM was developed and adopted in accordance with Chapter 6, Part 2 of the Local Government Act. As a statutory Plan of Management for “Community Land” the POM is a powerful instrument setting out the values of the Cemetery and binding Council to operate on the site in accordance with those values. Among other things, the POM states that:

The Cemetery is a living monument that has major historical significance for our past, present and future by contributing to our understanding of local and Australian history and archaeological development.

337

REPORT TO COUNCIL

The Cemetery land is owned as freehold title in full by Waverley Council. The boundaries of the property extend all the way down to the cliffs to the high water line on its eastern side. The recently constructed coastal walk is within the boundaries of the Cemetery. The councillors of Waverley Council and the General Manager are the trustees of the Cemetery. However, while Waverley Council is the owner and trustee, the Council itself, and by extension its ratepayers, have to date not been required to contribute to the operational and maintenance costs of the Cemetery. Waverley Cemetery has, to this time, been a self-sustaining business. Currently the business makes a profit annually, mainly through sales of interment and memorialisation services. However, it has been recognised that the Cemetery is facing significant operating deficits in the future. A business planning process is underway to devise a solution to this. A further report on that will be provided to Council later this year. 4. Waverley Cemetery Plan of Management The POM sets the objectives and parameters for preservation of the Cemetery and for continued delivery of cemetery services. It recognises the historical and essential nature of the Cemetery’s services and the need to preserve the heritage of the site, as well as the threats to both the site and the services from ageing assets, unmanaged visitation, competing objectives for site use, site risk and safety, vandalism and backlog asset renewal funding shortfalls. The POM places a range of controls on the infrastructure works that can be carried out in the Cemetery to protect and preserve its heritage significance and characteristics. There are three sets of controls that directly affect boundary fencing works. They are listed in the POM under:

Issues Affecting Future Management, Conservation Significance of Cemetery Elements, and Values for Waverley Cemetery.

Each set of controls and their implications for the replacement of boundary fencing is detailed in turn below. 4.1 Issues affecting future management The POM recognises that the Cemetery is managed as a business and identifies key issues affecting its future management. It also recommends infrastructure works that should be considered and undertaken to address each issue, subject to funding availability. Three of the issues identified are relevant to boundary fencing. The issues are categorised in the POM as:

a. ‘Buildings and Other Structures’, b. ‘Security – Fences and Gates’ and c. ‘Cemetery Operations’.

a. Buildings and other structures This category includes buildings, walls, paths, fences, gates, roads, kerbs, gutters, paths,

338

REPORT TO COUNCIL

paving, drains and the boundary. With respect to the boundary the POM states:

“The boundaries & edges are degraded & undefined at the northeast & south-east entrances adjoining the coastal walk, Calga Reserve boundary & the eastern end of Boundary Street. Verges along Trafalgar & Boundary Streets are degraded. They no longer conserve the cemetery precinct as a special place nor protect its valuable monuments & structures” (p36 of the POM).

To address boundary degradation and lack of definition, the POM recommends the following infrastructure works be considered:

“Reinforce boundaries & edges with new secure fencing & shrub plantings which harmonise with the indigenous coastal flora & represent the exotic nature of the cemetery garden design. Improve internal & external verges at Trafalgar, St Thomas & Boundary Streets” (p36 of the POM).

b. Security – fences and gates Vandalism and associated behaviour is a real problem in the Cemetery. The POM acknowledges the problem in its observation about the general condition of monuments:

“Damage to monuments caused by physical decay and vandalism are major threats to the fabric of the cemetery. For example, much of the decorative cast iron work around many of the Victorian monuments has corroded due to the site’s proximity to the sea… Vandalism damage observed in the cemetery is excessive. There are monuments which have been broken or otherwise affected by vandals over a number of years. Damage has included some spray painted graffiti, loss of grave ornaments and breakage of headstones and statuary” (p23 of the POM).

The POM establishes a link between occurrences of vandalism and an insufficient level of secure fencing at the cemetery boundary. On the issue of boundary security the POM says:

“The level of boundary security is insufficient to protect the cemetery against anti-social behaviour after dark, vandalism & destruction of memorials & landscape, including graffiti, & late night parties. Compliant gates & security measures are needed to protect the significant elements of the cemetery from further destruction” (p37 of the POM).

Cemetery records over the last 18 months alone show 76 incidents of vandalism or associated behaviour (43 in 2012 and 33 in the first 6 months of 2013). The incidents range from the removal of individuals or groups of people at night for anti-social behaviour to damage to internal and external fencing, graffiti, destruction of headstones and monuments, forced entry into tombs and administration buildings, tampering with padlocks and the stealing of plants. The incidents are of varying degrees of seriousness but all have had a cost associated with them, as do the nightly security patrols of the grounds. Thankfully, major incidents do not happen very often but when they do they are expensive in terms of repairs and expose Council to liability for destruction of property. The images below show examples of vandalism that have occurred in the Cemetery in recent years. In the top left image which dates from 2001, this car was driven into the grounds through a fence, driven around for some time and then set alight causing damage to graves.

339

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Images 1-3 – Examples of vandalism damage since 2000. The lowest image shows destruction of a monument restored by the family owners in 2009. The most recent instance of wilful vandalism occurred on the evening of Monday 24 June 2013 when vandals sawed (either with a hand or power saw) through a section of wooden picket fence on Trafalgar Street, removed the section, and drove through the section into the Cemetery. In pouring rain, and possibly realising they couldn’t get out without risking being bogged, they drove up to the main gates, called for an accomplice who arrived with bolt cutters and proceeded to cut though the heavy gate chain and remove the padlock, which to date has not been found. This is a chilling instance of malintent and destruction which would, in all likelihood, have been deterred by a proper fence. The following images show some of the damage caused on the night of 24 June 2013. This is not an isolated event. It is part of a trail of repeated vandalism.

340

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Images 4-5 – Vandalism damage on 24 June 2013 To help ‘protect the significant elements of the cemetery from further destruction’, the POM allows for the following boundary fencing works to be undertaken:

“Retain & conserve existing fences where security compliance issues permit, & build new fences or modify existing ones to improve security as required in accordance with relevant conservation policies” (p37 of the POM).

c. Cemetery operations A plan of management must describe the future purposes for which the land, buildings and improvements will be permitted to be used, the scale and intensity of any such use or development and the purposes for which any further development of the land will be permitted. In accordance with this requirement the POM: describes one of the purposes of future use of the Cemetery as primarily an operational

cemetery including for in-ground burials and entombment, ashes interments, graves visitation and memorial services and the disposal of the dead;

sets the scale and intensity of this future use to burials according to market forces and the availability of plots/places;

sees an increase in sales of ashes memorials as desirable but acknowledges it is contingent on business feasibility;

permits further development of the land for the purposes of developing more locations for ashes interments; and

expressly prohibits cremation in the cemetery or on any contiguous land (p33 of the POM). Consistent with this and to provide opportunities to extend the operational life of the Cemetery, the POM recommends the following works be considered:

“The operational life of the cemetery might be extended by adding memorial walls for ashes interments, a new memorial garden for outdoor services & intimate Mausolea developments. Consider building new walls & mausolea along cemetery’s boundaries [and] building a new memorial garden or gathering point for outdoor services to be

341

REPORT TO COUNCIL

conducted” (p38 of the POM). Taking a, b and c above into account, the POM summarises the relevant fencing and boundary issues and recommended works as in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – SUMMARY OF ISSUES AFFECTING FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE CEMETERY RELEVANT TO BOUNDARY FENCING AS IDENTIFIED IN THE POM

(POM extracts, pages 36-38) Issue Explanation Recommended works Boundary Boundaries, verges and edges are

degraded or undefined and do not conserve the cemetery precinct as a special place nor protect its valuable monuments and structures

Reinforce boundaries and edges with new secure fencing and shrub plantings. Improve internal and external verges at Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street and Boundary Street

Security Boundary security is insufficient to protect monuments and structures against anti-social behaviour

Retain and conserve existing fences where security compliance issues permit and build new fences or modify existing ones to improve security as required

Continued operation

Extend operational life of the cemetery by adding memorial walls for ashes interments, a new memorial garden for outdoor services and intimate mausolea developments

Build new walls and mausolea along cemetery’s boundaries and build a new memorial garden or gathering point for outdoor services

4.2 Conservation significance of Cemetery elements The POM identifies all the elements in the cemetery and ranks them on a scale of A to D according to their conservation significance, whereby: A is ‘considerable significance’ B is ‘some significance’ C is ‘little or no significance’ and D is ‘intrusive element’.

The POM details the implications of this ranking for the conservation of each element in accordance with its own Conservation Guidelines (see pg 42 of the POM). The elements related to boundary fencing, their ranking and implication of their ranking for their conservation are provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – CONSERVATION OF ELEMENTS RELATING TO BOUNDARY FENCING Element Rank Implication for their conservation Timber picket fencing (northern and western boundaries)

B C

The preferred option is the retention and conservation in accordance with Burra Charter. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part. Options may include conservation, modification, removal in whole or in part or recycling.

Sandstone block wall (to eastern end of southern boundary) along Boundary Street

B

The preferred option is the retention and conservation in accordance with Burra Charter. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part.

342

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Table 2 – CONSERVATION OF ELEMENTS RELATING TO BOUNDARY FENCING Element Rank Implication for their conservation

C

Options may include conservation, modification, removal in whole or in part or recycling.

Sandstone block wall with stone obelisk posts and metal rails (to the western end of southern boundary) along Boundary Street

B C

The preferred option is the retention and conservation in accordance with Burra Charter. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part. Options may include conservation, modification, removal in whole or in part or recycling.

Views across the cemetery to the ocean and surrounding district

A B

The element should be retained and conserved in accordance with the Burra Charter. Where the element is missing or damaged, it should be reconstructed to an earlier known form or detail. The preferred option is the retention and conservation in accordance with Burra Charter. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part.

Internal views and vistas A The element should be retained and conserved in accordance with the Burra Charter. Where the element is missing or damaged, it should be reconstructed to an earlier known form or detail.

*The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places). The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance, including owners, managers and custodians. 4.3 Values for Waverley Cemetery It is important that any decision about boundary fencing is firmly grounded with reference to the values the Cemetery has to the community. The values have been identified by the community and are included in the POM (p24-5). Table 3 lists and provides an explanation of each value. These values inform the selection of land categories, objectives and performance targets for the Cemetery’s management. All recommendations in the POM contribute towards satisfying these values.

Table 3 – VALUES FOR WAVERLEY CEMETERY VALUE DEFINITION Cultural Heritage The Cemetery is valued because it is rich in post European Australian living

history which has significant local, regional, state, national and international (the Irish Martyrs Memorial) importance from the people buried and its architecture to its monuments and graves, and natural and planted vegetation. It is a national treasure. The Cemetery should also be valued as a place that recognises local Aboriginal significance.

Community Service The Cemetery is valued as being open, accessible and operational offering an important ongoing community service for all people as a place of interment, grieving, remembrance and reflection where the wishes of the dead are respected. Many people value it as a peaceful, spiritual and/or religious place. It is also valued because it supports South Head Cemetery.

343

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Table 3 – VALUES FOR WAVERLEY CEMETERY VALUE DEFINITION Education The Cemetery is valued as an accessible place where people can learn

about local, regional, state and national post European Australian history, including in the areas of architecture, politics, the wars, genealogy, industry, the arts and culture including literature, theatre and stonemasonry, sport and the natural environment. It could become a valued place to learn about local Aboriginal history.

Aesthetic The Cemetery is valued for its uniqueness in location and size, and for its outstanding visual and aesthetic qualities from its scenic cliffs, natural heath and planted garden to its built features including its buildings, the entrance, the monuments and graves and its layout. It is also valued because it is a landmark and these qualities can be appreciated from both inside the Cemetery looking out and from the outside looking in.

Natural Heritage The Cemetery is valued for its indigenous species, dramatic and dynamic coastal landscape with its cliffs and valley, and its traditional garden design with exotic and other plants.

Recreation The Cemetery, and particularly the Coastal Walk, is valued as a place where people can undertake passive recreation such as walking. The passive recreation aspect of the Cemetery, particularly the Coastal Walk, and the quieter more contemplative features of the Cemetery can conflict. The two uses and areas need to work separately but to complement each other.

Ultimately the POM must govern decisions on boundary fencing in Waverley Cemetery. Each option considered for boundary fencing has been assessed for compliance with the controls outlined in Tables 1-3 above. The assessments for compliance are contained in the table in Attachment 1. 5. Fencing options Taking into account the requirements of the POM, Council officers have considered a range of options and fencing types including: replacing the current fencing with fencing of the same material and design (like with like)

– ie., different styles of fencing all around as now, school style steel fencing, wrought iron fencing of various designs, wrought iron and sandstone pillar fencing, repairing existing fencing, and having no fencing at all. All the options considered were assessed against the controls prescribed in the Plan of Management. The options considered are described in Table 4.

Table 4 – FENCING OPTIONS CONSIDERED Option Trafalgar Street St Thomas Street and

Fig Tree Lane Boundary Street

Option A Replace like with like

1200mm high picket fencing


Sandstone and horizontal rail fencing along western end and sandstone fencing along eastern end at mixed heights.

Option B Raise



Sandstone base with picket fencing to a

344

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Table 4 – FENCING OPTIONS CONSIDERED Option Trafalgar Street St Thomas Street and

Fig Tree Lane Boundary Street

current fencing

height of 1800mm

Table 4 – FENCING OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Option Trafalgar Street St Thomas Street and Fig Tree Lane

Boundary Street

Option C School style fencing

1800mm high steel spears (dark grey) similar to school fencing

1800mm high steel spears (dark grey) similar to school fencing

Sandstone base with vertical steel spears (dark grey) to a height of 1800mm

Option D Bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fencing with sandstone memorial niche pillars

1800mm high wrought iron spear fencing (dark grey) with sandstone memorial niche pillars

New and more accessible gate entrances and ramps for pedestrians mid way along Trafalgar Street

1800mm high wrought iron spear fencing (dark grey)

1800mm high wrought iron spear fencing (dark grey) with sandstone memorial niche pillars between Campbell Street and the south eastern corner of the cemetery

Adapting the existing sandstone fence between the end of Fig Tree Lane and Campbell Street by removing the existing rail and pillars and top layer/s of stones and placing a wrought iron spear fencing with short memorial niche pillars on top.

New and more accessible gate entrances and ramps for pedestrians mid way along Boundary Street and at the eastern-most entrance to the Cemetery




Sandstone base with wrought iron spear fencing to a height of 1800mm.

Option F Repair existing fencing

Fencing as now but repainted and wooden pickets replaced when vandalised

Fencing as now but repainted and wooden pickets replaced when vandalised

Fencing as now

Option G Remove all fencing

No fencing at all No fencing at all No fencing at all

It should be noted that a straightforward repair of the existing fence is not a practical or viable option. The fencing is beyond repair in many places and is well past its original design life and useful life.

345

REPORT TO COUNCIL

6. Assessment of performance of options 6.1 Compliance of options with the POM The above options vary in their compliance with the POM from fully compliant through partially compliant to entirely non-compliant. Only one option – Option D – fully complies with the requirements of the POM and fully supports the values. Two others – Options C and E – come close, with E being closer than C. Details of the compliance of each option with the POM are shown in Attachment 1. In general, the fencing needs to perform well on the following to comply with the POM. It needs to: 1. be secure, 2. provide safety from falls in dangerous places (be compliant with the building Code of

Australia), 3. preferably improve access, 4. preferably enhance views of the external boundaries, 5. preferably enhance views through to the Cemetery itself and the ocean, 6. be aesthetically attuned to the heritage of the Cemetery – Victorian/Edwardian, 7. increase opportunities for installation of niche walls along the boundaries, 8. provide opportunities for improvement of the traditional exotic garden design and

landscaping of the Cemetery, and 9. enhance the educational and passive recreational experience of the Cemetery. The following table summarises the performance of each option in relation to the above:

Table 5 – PERFORMANCE OF FENCING OPTIONS AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS AND VALUES OF THE POM

Option Compliance Comment Option A Replace like with like Non-compliant Fails on all 9 performance aspects.

Option B Raise current fencing Non-compliant Fails on all 9 performance aspects.


Meets performance aspects 1, 2, 8 and 9 but fails to meet other aspects.


Fully compliant Meets all performance aspects.


/ Mostly compliant

Meets performance aspects 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Fails to meet 3 and 7.

Option F Repair existing fencing Non-compliant Fails on all 9 performance aspects.

Option G Remove all fencing Non-compliant Partially meets performance aspect 5. Fails on all other performance aspects.

6.2 Financial assessment of the options The capital cost estimate for each fence replacement option is approximately as shown in Table 6 below:

346

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Table 6 – FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS – CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Option Compliance Capital cost estimate Option A Replace like with like Non-compliant $1.2 million



$1.5 million


Fully compliant $4.6 million


/ Mostly compliant

$1.5 million


Option G Remove all fencing Non-compliant Not estimated, although removal would have a cost

Note that the cost of Option A in the estimate tables is understated as Option A would not provide sufficient security for the Cemetery. Cost estimates for Option A do not include costs that would arise from ongoing vandalism, lost future sales of graves, more frequent asset renewal and maintenance, and public liability risk. Note also that all options require loan funding as Council’s Long Term Financial Plan 4 (LTFP4) includes structuring finance for a significant proportion of Cemetery backlog asset renewal via loans. However, in the case of the Cemetery fencing, only with Option D does Council gain the capacity to earn income to repay the loan, through the sale of memorial ash niches. This means the most expensive option – Option D – is actually the cheapest for ratepayers as shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7 – FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS – LOAN COST TO RATEPAYERS Option Compliance Loan cost to ratepayers* Option A Replace like with like Non-compliant $2.6 million



$3.4 million


Fully compliant $10.1 million offset by income from sale of 30% of the constructed niches over 30 years = $0 See below and the confidential attachment to this paper for qualifying detail.


/ Mostly compliant

$3.4 million


Option G Remove all fencing Non-compliant Not estimated

* Assumes a principal and interest loans over 30 years at 6.15% pa

The calculation of $0 in Table 7 for the cost to the ratepayer of Option D is based on the assumption that the Cemetery would be able to repay loans for the full fence from the

347

REPORT TO COUNCIL

proceeds of sales of niches. Based on very conservative sales income projections (see confidential attachment), it is considered that these loans could be repaid in full by the Cemetery from the niche sales income over 30 years. The fence would still have significant income earning capacity after this. However, repayment of these loans in full would slow the Cemetery in its ability to finance more of the Cemetery’s $14 million+ backlog infrastructure bill, not to mention its $5.6 million maintenance bills over the next 11 years and minimum $25 million in bills for maintenance and stabilisation of significant monuments. It is therefore suggested that Council could choose to dedicate some non-repayable funds to Option D including: $3.4 million in fence loan costs – the minimum that Council would be liable for in any

event for replacement of the fence under SAMP4, plus an extra $931,000 to smooth cash flow issues for the Cemetery while the niche sales

business builds up. In this arrangement Council would be funding 42% of Option D, instead of the 34% it would be up for in any event, and the Cemetery would fund 58%. This may seem comparatively expensive for Council. However, it has already been acknowledged that Council will need to contribute to Cemetery infrastructure renewal in Council’s original adoption of the POM and in Council’s rate rise application in 2011, which included expenditure on Cemetery infrastructure from rates. Additionally, when compared to the alternative of constructing a non-income producing fence, all of which would have to be funded by the ratepayer, this investment in the income producing fence will mean Council and ratepayers can avoid having to fund at least $13 million of the infrastructure renewal and maintenance costs over the next 30 years that they would have to fund from rates if the option of the income producing fence was not available. This is just the start of the financial benefits to Council and ratepayers from Option D – see confidential attachment. Essentially, Option D would save ratepayers much more than it would cost them and ratepayers are quarantined more quickly from exposure to the Cemetery infrastructure backlog if Option D is chosen. 7. Fencing Proposal Bearing in mind that: only a couple of options, or 3 at most (Options C, D and E), would be buildable under the

POM, and only one option – Option D – provides a potential income stream for the Cemetery, this report proposes that Council confirm Option D as the preferred option for new boundary fencing along three sides of the cemetery, being Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street including Fig Tree Lane, and Boundary Street. There are no plans developed for the fourth side along the coastal edge at this time. The preferred Option D comprises: constructing an 1800mm high bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fence with

niche memorial pillars every 4.6 meters along Trafalgar Street and along Boundary Street between Campbell Street and the south eastern corner of the cemetery.

348

REPORT TO COUNCIL

adapting the existing sandstone fence in Boundary Street between the end of Fig Tree Lane and Campbell Street by removing the existing rail and pillars and top layer/s of stones in places and placing a bullnose sandstone and vertical wrought iron spear fence with short niche memorial pillars every 4.6 metres on top.

constructing an 1800mm high iron spear fence on a concrete strip footing with no pillars

along St Thomas Street and Fig Tree Lane. Visual representations of the proposal are provided below.

Image 6 - Aerial image of Waverley Cemetery showing boundary treatments proposed for Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street and Fig Tree Lane and Boundary Street.

349

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Image 7 - BOUNDARY TREATMENT 1 for the length of Trafalgar Street and the eastern half of Boundary Street. Top image shows view of fence from the street while the bottom image shows view of the fence and niches from inside the cemetery.

Image 8 – Shorter pillars and spears to sit atop the existing sandstone wall along the western end of Boundary Street.

Image 9 – Wrought iron fence 1.8m high similar to existing section adjacent to sandstone cottage in St Thomas Street.

350

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Image 10: New accessible entry concept along Boundary Street, opposite Campbell Street

Image 11: New entry concept mid way along Trafalgar Street in line with the Irish Monument

351

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Note: Pillar intervals shown in the above images are for illustrative purposes only. The actual distance between pillars would be greater than shown here. The proposal aims to reinforce the Waverley Cemetery as a special precinct through the reinterpretation and continuing use of the sandstone pillars which currently frame the main entrance to the Cemetery. The design is in keeping with that historical layer of the Cemetery and its continued development. ‘Capricorn’ buff sandstone has been identified as the best sandstone for this location. The stone is strong and durable, non porous and has a white/grey colour finish that compliments but does not detract from the existing character of the cemetery and frames the changing views and vistas. The material will complement the existing background of the white marble monuments and sculptures. Square shape pillars echo the original units and permit maximum use of the pillar for memorial and niche options. The pillars will meld in with the other monuments in the Cemetery as a smooth extension of the existing monumental landscape. The proposal uses personalised niche “plaques” or panels made out of white Carrara marble with dark lead in-laid lettering. Carrara marble is an Italian marble white in colour with very light grey undulating patterns throughout. In dominant funeral symbolism white is associated with purity, peace and harmony. Carrara has been widely used for centuries for sculpture due to its clean uplifting colour and its durability. White marble is an important and valued characteristic of the memorials and sculptures found at Waverley Cemetery. This material and inscription technique is used throughout the cemetery and is a significant design element of the site. It is especially representative of the Victorian / Edwardian era. The proposed wrought iron spears are similar to those associated with recognised heritage landscapes found in locations throughout Sydney, particularly landscapes which, like Waverley Cemetery, are Victorian/Edwardian. This type of fencing has been used in the Centennial Parklands, Victoria Park, Sydney University, the Botanic Gardens and the Domain. This fence style is strong and visually permeable and is a re-introduction of a known earlier fence treatment for the cemetery. Wrought iron spears have been used in the Cemetery in the past and are part of its heritage. An example of this is provided in the adjacent photo of original spear fencing at the Cemetery’s main entrance in the early 1900s. This has since been replaced of course with the more decorative wrought iron grand entrance that exists today. A remnant of this spear fencing style can be found adjacent to the cottage near the main entry. It is recommended that the finish colour of the wrought iron elements of the fence be a dark grey. This colour shade blends into the landscape, retaining sightlines and views in and out of the cemetery. The spear fence sections will be installed on a sandstone strip to compliment the pillars and achieve a unified defined edge. In addition to boundary fencing the Option D proposal includes associated works consisting of:

352

REPORT TO COUNCIL

creating a new pedestrian access point midway along Trafalgar Street, complete with inner and outer accessible ramps which are currently not available at the existing entry on Trafalgar Street;

creating a new pedestrian access point in Boundary Street opposite Campbell Street

complete with inner and outer accessible ramps which are currently not available; creating a new pedestrian access point in the south eastern corner (see Image 13 below); removing the existing quite poor pedestrian entry points in Trafalgar Street opposite

Tipper Avenue and Boundary Street opposite Northumberland Street; adding new street tree plantings and landscaping in Trafalgar Street adjacent to the main

entry; new landscaping along the external sides of the Trafalgar and Boundary Street fences;

and optional installation of additional parking spaces in Trafalgar Street adjacent to the main

entry. This would be additional to the current estimated cost of Option D. No funding source has yet been identified for this optional extra.

Image 12 below is a draft concept design of the works to Trafalgar Street near the main entry.

Image 12 – Optional works in Option D comprising tree plantings and angle parking in Trafalgar Street adjacent to main entry.

353

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Image 13 – New entry concept in the south eastern corner on the Boundary Street side where the Randwick coastal walk meets the Cemetery. The road gate will be open whenever the Cemetery is open. Note: Restoration of the grand main entrance gates and decorative fencing – Subject to its endorsement, it is intended to compliment Option D by completing a project proposed some years ago to fully restore the very fine heritage ceremonial gates and decorative wrought iron and sandstone fencing at the Cemetery’s main entrance on the corner of St Thomas and Trafalgar Streets. If Option D proceeds, this project will be able to be funded from the Cemetery reserve due to the growth in the reserve over recent years which has resulted from good performance in maintenance of margins on sales, despite tougher competition. The cost of this project is additional to costs shown for Option D above but it can be funded by the Cemetery reserve if Option D proceeds. If Option D does not proceed restoration of the main gates will need to be delayed again as the reserve will need to be kept for more urgent works. The above proposal of Option D is considered to be by far the best performing proposal in terms of: aesthetics, security, consistency with and protection of heritage, the opportunities it provides for improved and safe access, views through to, out of, and beyond the Cemetery, improved and defined parking opportunities at the Cemetery entrance, cost to the ratepayer, cost effective provision of niche supplies, potential improvements in overall Cemetery sales (for both burial and ashes interment and

memorialisation) due to the significant dignity and definition that will be added to the site by the new fencing and entries.

One other proposal, Option E, comes reasonably close to performing as well as Option D on aesthetics, security, consistency with and protection of heritage and preservation of views. However, in terms of improved access and parking it performs less well. Improved access can only be offered in Option D due to the financial bonus it provides. Option E performs very poorly in a financial sense and provides no opportunity for cost effective provision of niche supplies. As such, while Option E may provide a reasonable fall-back in the event of rejection of Option D, it remains an option which fails to offer the service, site and ratepayer advantages

354

REPORT TO COUNCIL

of Option D. It would also result in the Cemetery having to incur extra expense to expand niche stock. The current supply of constructed niches is now 91% sold and new stock will need to be constructed soon. Option D is the only option that offers the chance of cost-effectively providing niche stock with strong sales potential (see confidential attachment). As the Cemetery site is acknowledged as being a national heritage icon and is certainly by far Waverley’s largest and most valuable heritage asset, it is considered that the site deserves the best quality in terms of its front face. Option D provides that quality as no other option does, and does so at a substantial financial benefit to ratepayers. It is a rare opportunity that the strongest performing option in terms of social benefit, also happens to cost the community the least and will provide the Waverley community with a net positive income source. 8. Community consultation 8.1 Resident concerns Due to Council’s resolution to develop options for fencing that are compliant with the POM, awareness of the impending fencing consultation is well known in the community and a small number of residents of the local area have already expressed concerns about the type of boundary fencing Council might install. Some residents have even expressed a preference for no fence at all. In the main, however, concerns have generally been expressed along the lines of: A new fence will mean of loss of access Steel or wrought iron fencing will make the Cemetery look like a jail The vandalism problem is overstated and we don’t need better security in the form of a

fence The unique and peaceful experience of the Cemetery will be lost A new fence will bring too many cars into the Cemetery A new fence will cause more people to park in our streets A new fence is too expensive and we should just repair the old one We shouldn’t run the Cemetery as a business We should shut the Cemetery site and service down, sell no further interment services,

remove most of the monuments and make it into an open park A new fence is a precursor to a pavilion Volunteers can repair the fence if we need one at all It would be expected that most of these concerns may be raised by some in regard to any style of fence. The proposal of Option D, however, has been scoped to acknowledge and alleviate these concerns as much as possible. It has been designed to strike the best possible balance between the inevitably different personal aesthetic preferences for fencing, using the values and standards already adopted in the POM as the best guideline. These values and standards are themselves the result of significant community consultation and are in line with what the community has told us they want for the Cemetery. Were Council to adopt an option that would lead to a loss of access, an aesthetic disharmony, ineffective security, unmanageable parking problems, unaffordable luxury, or a closure of the business, this option would be in contravention of the POM. Fortunately, the POM provides the best protection to the community in relation to most of the above expressed concerns. It should be noted though that the POM provides no comfort in relation to desires to shut the Cemetery and cease running it as a business. If these objections continue, they are likely to remain unresolved in any debate which uses the POM as the basis for decision making. Options D and E have been developed with the known community concerns uppermost in mind and the intention of both options is to resolve these concerns. Option D, however, comes

355

REPORT TO COUNCIL

with additional benefits, offering the community a number of operational positives that do not currently exist. In effect, there will be very little, if any, change in the day to day operation of the Cemetery as a result of any of the fencing options – even the non-compliant ones. Several things will, however, improve in terms of the above concerns, if Option D is implemented. Table 8 provides information on and a performance assessment of how site and service operations will change under Option D.

Table 8 – PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SITE AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES ARISING FROM OPTION D

Operational aspect: Access What will remain the same?

Opening hours will remain the same – 7am to dusk, as now Security patrols at night, as now Dogs will not be allowed, as now Car access will be for funerals, visitors to graves and operational needs

as now Numbers of cars entering the Cemetery will be unaffected by the fence

replacement Coastal walk pedestrian activity will be unaffected (day and night) Access to the Cemetery from the coastal walk side will be unaffected Access to the sea and cliffs (though not advisable even now) will be

unchanged What will change? New entry gates and accessible ramps will allow easier access for

pedestrians during the day The cemetery will be more inviting to walkers during the day Numbers of walkers entering the Cemetery dur8ng the day is likely to

increase Use of the Cemetery at night as a diagonal pedestrian route (south east

to north west and south west to north east) between Clovelly and Bronte– although not permissible now – will be more surely prevented by stronger fencing

Net gain/loss in community amenity

Substantial net positive gain in access

Operational aspect: Views and aesthetics What will remain the same?

The Cemetery’s inner landscape

What will change? The cemetery will appear to be more formally defined The Cemetery will have a more dignified character commensurate with

its status as a national heritage icon From outside the cemetery, views of graves will be improved when seen

through the spear sections of the fence (spear sections will be a dark grey/dark grey which people tend to see past most easily). Spears also give a much larger vista than pickets - the spaces between spears are much wider than the spaces between pickets

Additional monuments will be added to the boundaries in the form of sandstone pillars

Pillars will blend in with monuments within the Cemetery External landscaping will soften any perceived negative aesthetic

impacts of the pillars External landscaping will markedly improve streetscapes A separate project will revitalise the front entry, fully restoring the gates,

existing pillars and wrought iron Net gain/loss in community amenity

Substantial net positive gain in views and aesthetic appearance of the Cemetery

Operational aspect: Security What will remain the Current night time security patrols

356

REPORT TO COUNCIL


same? What will change? Security patrols at night will be more effective

Anti-social behaviour at night will be policed more effectively Vandalism of the internal sections of the Cemetery should decrease Vandalism of fencing should also decrease in terms of the ease of

destroying fencing Net gain/loss in community amenity

Substantial net positive gain in security and control of vandalism

Operational aspect: Heritage conservation What will remain the same?

Heritage structures and monuments will not be altered. The main ceremonial gates will be unchanged and will be restored to

their full existing detail What will change? Heritage monument preservation will be markedly improved

The heritage character of the Cemetery’s street boundaries will be extended beyond the current front gates to the full length of the three street frontages

The heritage character will be more formal than informal and more dignified than dilapidated

Entrances will be more clearly defined creating a new and distinct identity and sense of a heritage place

Respect for the site and the history it holds is likely to increase due to the formality of the defining boundaries

Removal of the ramshackle mixture of mismatched styles of fencing from different eras

Creation of a coherent Victorian/Edwardian boundary to: match the Victorian/Edwardian inner space and built form and lift the status of the place to the equal of other great heritage open

spaces from the same era, such as Centennial Park Net gain/loss in community amenity

Substantial net positive gain in heritage look, feel, architectural coherence and status

Operational aspect: Parking What will remain the same?

Internal parking arrangements will stay the same Demand for internal parking will be unaffected by any new fence Demand for external parking will be unaffected any new fence

What will change? Perimeter parking options will improve On-street boat parking will gradually be lessened due to landscaping

and kerb re-alignments Net gain/loss in community amenity

Substantial net positive gain in external parking layout and opportunities

Operational aspect: Sales and services What will remain the same?

Funeral and right of burial sales Inner space memorial sales

What will change? The variety of ashes interment options on offer will be wider, more interesting and special

Interest in buying niches and plots will increase Cost efficiency in construction of niche space (integrated niche spaces

and fencing rather than separate fences and niches walls) The look and feel of prime niche space


Net positive gain in cemetery returns, variety of interment options, and the look and feel of niche memorial spaces

Operational aspect: Landscaping, biodiversity corridors and environmental protection What will remain the same?

Remnant bushland will be unaffected by the fence No trees are being removed

What will change? External landscaping will create more corridors and habitat for fauna External landscaping will provide more tree cover to match existing tree

357

REPORT TO COUNCIL


plantings on street verges near the main entrance Net gain/loss in environmental amenity

Net positive gain in biodiversity and greening

Operational aspect: Site peacefulness What will remain the same?

Pedestrian visitation is not expected to increase enough to affect opportunities for peaceful use of such a large site

Car entry during the day is unchanged by the fence What will change? Respect for quiet contemplation on the site is likely to increase

The peace of the site at night should be untrammelled (or at least less so) by anti-social intrusion


Net positive gain in peacefulness, night and day

Operational aspect: Site and service uniqueness What will remain the same?

The existing unique internal characteristics of the site will remain the same

The existing unique services will remain on offer The site will still be unlike any other in Australia viewed from outside or

inside What will change? Unique external characteristics will be enhanced including extension of

the existing wrought iron fencing Net gain/loss in community amenity

Net positive gain in recognition of the site as a unique place

Operational aspect: Site management costs What will remain the same?

Rates will not need to rise further to pay for the cemetery maintenance

What will change? Maintenance will be substantially more cost effective as assets will havea longer design life and will not be as easily damaged as current fencing

Public liability risk will be reduced Net gain/loss in community amenity

Net positive financial gain to ratepayers which does not apply in any other option

It is important to understand that neither Option D nor any other option is a precursor to a pavilion. No fencing option pre-empts the outcome of discussions on a pavilion. Replacement fencing is simply a basic required, regardless of whether a pavilion goes ahead or not. 8.2 Proposed focus of community consultation In calling for this report, Council has stated the need to consider fencing options that are compliant with the POM. Investigation of seven broad options has revealed that that only one option is fully complaint and a second option is mostly compliant. All other options considered are either largely or totally non-compliant. That being the case, it is considered that it would be disingenuous to consult the community to gather opinions on the full range of options that were considered in response to Council’s original resolution. To consult on all the options would be tantamount to consulting on something Council cannot in fact build under its own statutory POM and would unreasonably raise expectations of individuals in the community that their preference, if it is for one of the non-compliant options, is feasible. Instead, information can be provided to transparently demonstrate what options were considered, their pros and cons and why they were ruled in or out under the POM. This information will be useful in providing a context in which the compliant options, or variations on them that community may come up with, can be assessed by Council. For the two options that are fully and mostly compliant – Options D and E – a productive

358

REPORT TO COUNCIL

engagement strategy can therefore be mounted to gather opinion on: the pros and cons of these options, and suggestions as to how they might be improved. This means that Council would be seeking genuine community input on how the effects of fencing can be ameliorated in terms of the concerns the community has already expressed in 8.1 above and any other area of concern that may arise. Information provided in Table 8 can be incorporated into communications materials to assist the community in formulating their concerns. Table 8 shows no negative changes arising from Option D because officers have genuinely been unable to find any, other than the risks inherent in any business venture. (These risks are commercial in confidence and are discussed in the confidential section of this paper.) However, the community may be expected to find negatives from their personal perspectives in both Option D and E and it is recommended that the focus of community consultation should be on gathering information from the community about how to resolve these concerns to whatever extent is possible. 8.3 Timing of community consultation Consultation will occur in two stages, firstly on the options as described above and concept designs. If concepts are then endorsed by Council, a Development Application will be prepared. This too will be exhibited for public comment prior to final consideration of the application’s merits and/or approval/refusal. Consultation for the first stage is set to commence immediately and will include: Distribution to approximately 2500 houses (near the Cemetery in the Waverley LGA

Randwick LGAs) of a brochure outlining the full background information on the options considered, their pros and cons, graphics for the preferred option, other factual information about operational opportunities and effects, and a survey seeking opinion likes and dislikes and general concerns about Cemetery operation

An on-line version of the above plus graphics showing how other options compare aesthetically

Advertisement of the consultation process and opportunities to participate including weblinks An open day in the Cemetery on Sunday 4 August 2013 which will double as a consultation

forum and a promotion of the Cemetery itself (4 August is the 136th anniversary of the first interment at Waverley Cemetery)

A comment period closing on 16 August 2013 A report back to Council in September on outcomes of consultation and recommendations Analysis Financial: See section 6.2 above and the confidential attachment. Delivery Program: Accords with: Direction Strategy C1 Waverley’s cultural heritage and diversity

is recognised, protected and respected C1a Support programs that celebrate and

strengthen our multiculturalism and indigenous culture and cultivate a sense of community appreciation of our cultural heritage and diversity

C2 The community is welcoming and inclusive and people feel they are

C2a Provide a broad range of relevant affordable and accessible facilities, spaces,

359

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Direction Strategy connected and belong programs and activities that promote

harmony, respect and togetherness C5 People feel safe in all parts of Waverley C5a Maintain safety in public areas such as

streets, malls, parks and beaches C7 Health and quality of life are improved

through a range of recreation and leisure opportunities

C7a Retain, protect and improve the quality, flexibility and useability of parks reserves and other green spaces to meet recreational needs while considering and ameliorating any negative environmental impacts

G2: Our community is actively engaged in well informed decision processes

G2b Provide opportunities in a variety of forums for all stakeholders to contribute to community decision making

G3 Services are accessible and provided in a professional friendly and timely manner

G3a Promote and advocate systems and procedures that support efficient and effective service delivery which meets or exceeds customer satisfaction goals

G5 Waverley is financially sustainable with the revenue and resources required to support implementation of the community’s plans and to provide the infrastructure performance and services our community needs

G5c Promote the establishment and maintenance of commercial business operations that contribute to Waverley’s financial sustainability

G7 In service delivery sound safety and risk management practices are maintained to protect the community and service agency staff

G7a Provide a safer environment by implementing specific risk management practices

Consultation and timeline: As in Section 8.3 above. Recommendation: That Council: 1. Deal with the confidential attachment to this report, distributed separately with the

agenda, in closed session under the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993. The financial information contained in the confidential attachment, if disclosed, could confer a commercial advantage on persons with whom the Council proposes to or may conduct business.

2. For the purpose of community consultation, endorse Option D as described in this

report as the currently preferred option for new boundary fencing and associated works along the Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street, Fig Tree Lane and Boundary Street frontages of Waverley Cemetery.

3. Endorse commencement of community engagement as described in this report to seek

community opinion on new fencing and associated works. 4. Note the funding sources for the new fencing as outlined in Section 6.2 and the

confidential attachment to this report. Bronwyn Kelly Director, Corporate & Technical Services Authors: Al Johnston and Bronwyn Kelly

360

REPORT TO COUNCIL

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – Fencing options and their compliance with the Plan of Management Attachment 2 – Confidential Attachment Attachment 3 – Artist impressions of fencing options

361

ATTACHMENT 1 FENCING OPTIONS AND THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

CONTROL IN THE PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

FENCING OPTIONS

Option A - Replace like with like

Option B – Raise current fencing

Option C - School style fencing

Option D - Bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fencing with sandstone memorial niche pillars

Option E - Wrought iron spear fencing

Option F - Repair existing fencing

Option G - Remove all fencing

RECOMMENDED WORKS TO ADDRESS ISSUES AFFECTING FUTURE MANAGEMENT (FROM TABLE 1 IN THE REPORT)

Reinforce boundaries and edges with new secure fencing and shrub plantings. Improve internal and external verges at Trafalgar Street, St Thomas Street and Boundary Street.

× × × ×

Retain and conserve existing fences where security compliance issues permit and build new fences or modify existing ones to improve security as required.

× × × ×

Build new walls and mausolea along cemetery’s boundaries and build a new memorial garden or gathering point for outdoor services.

× × × × × ×

CONSERVATION OF ELEMENTS RELATING TO BOUNDARY FENCING (FROM TABLE 2 IN THE REPORT)

Timber picket fencing (northern and western boundaries) is to be retained and conserved as the preferred option. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the fence or remove it in whole or in part.

Sandstone block wall (to eastern end of southern boundary) along Boundary Street is to be retained and conserved as the preferred option. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part.

Sandstone block wall with stone obelisk posts and metal rails (to the western end of southern boundary) along Boundary Street is to be retained and conserved. According to circumstances, it may also be acceptable to modify the item or remove it in whole or in part.

Views across the cemetery to the ocean and surrounding district should be retained and conserved.

×

Internal views and vistas should be retained and conserved.

×

362



FENCING OPTIONS








VALUES (FROM TABLE 3 IN THE REPORT)

Cultural Heritage The Cemetery is valued because it is rich in post European Australian living history which has significant local, regional, state, national and international (the Irish Martyrs Memorial) importance from the people buried and its architecture to its monuments and graves, and natural and planted vegetation. It is a national treasure. The Cemetery should also be valued as a place that recognises local Aboriginal significance.

× Does not protect cultural heritage



Helps protect cultural heritage.

Helps protect cultural heritage



Community Service The Cemetery is valued as being open, accessible and operational offering an important ongoing community service for all people as a place of interment, grieving, remembrance and reflection where the wishes of the dead are respected. Many people value it as a peaceful, spiritual and/or religious place. It is also valued because it supports South Head Cemetery.

× Does not contribute to Cemetery’s capacity to remain operational and provide on-going community service



Contributes to Cemetery’s capacity to remain operational and provide on-going community service by generating income for the Cemetery




Education The Cemetery is valued as an accessible place where people can learn about local, regional, state and national post European Australian history, including in the areas of architecture, politics, the wars, genealogy, industry, the arts and culture including literature, theatre and stonemasonry, sport and the natural environment. It could become a valued place to learn about local Aboriginal history.

Aesthetic The Cemetery is valued for its uniqueness in location and size, and for its outstanding visual and aesthetic qualities from its scenic

× Is not in keeping with visual and aesthetic qualities

× Would worsen visual and aesthetic qualities

× Would worsen visual and aesthetic qualities.

Enhances visual and aesthetic qualities. Is in

Is in keeping with visual and aesthetic qualities

× Is not in keeping with visual and aesthetic qualities

Enhances visual and aesthetic qualities

363



FENCING OPTIONS








cliffs, natural heath and planted garden to its built features including its buildings, the entrance, the monuments and graves and its layout. It is also valued because it is a landmark and these qualities can be appreciated from both inside the Cemetery looking out and from the outside looking in.

Not in keeping with materials used in the cemetery’s built features.

keeping with materials used in the cemetery’s built features. Frames views and vistas.

Natural Heritage The Cemetery is valued for its indigenous species, dramatic and dynamic coastal landscape with its cliffs and valley, and its traditional garden design with exotic and other plants.

× Does not help protect natural heritage







Recreation The Cemetery, and particularly the Coastal Walk, is valued as a place where people can undertake passive recreation such as walking. The passive recreation aspect of the Cemetery, particularly the Coastal Walk, and the quieter more contemplative features of the Cemetery can conflict. The two uses and areas need to work separately but to complement each other.

364

ARTIST IMPRESSIONS OF FENCING OPTIONS ATTACHMENT 3

Image 14 Artist impression of Trafalgar Street boundary with 1200mm high picket fence (Option A)

365

Image 15 Artist impression of Trafalgar Street boundary with 1800mm high picket fence (Option B)

366

Image 16 Artist impression of Trafalgar Street boundary with 1800mm school style fencing (Option C)

367

Image 17 Artist impression of Trafalgar Street boundary with 1800mm high bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fencing with sandstone memorial niche pillars (Option D)

368

Image 18 Artist impression of Boundary Street frontage with 1800mm high bullnose sandstone and wrought iron spear fencing with sandstone memorial niche pillars (Option D)

369

Image 19 Artist impression of Trafalgar Street boundary with 1800mm wrought iron spear fencing on concrete footing (Option E)

370

REPORT TO COUNCIL - Waverley Council · REPORT TO COUNCIL Fencing options Taking into account the...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT TO COUNCIL - Waverley Council · REPORT TO COUNCIL Fencing options Taking into account the...