Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

 

1st March, 2005

 

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK,

ON TUESDAY, 8TH MARCH, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

Committee Members:               His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson, Crs Belleli, Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Notley-Smith (Chairperson), Seng, Sullivan, Tracey & White.

 

Quorum:                                   Five (5) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE WORKS COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMTION OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Business

 

7           Works

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 12/2005 - TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 7 AND 11 CENTENNIAL AVENUE, RANDWICK.

2

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 13/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 24 EVERETT STREET, MAROUBRA.

6

 

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 14/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 178 GARDENERS ROAD, KINGSFORD.

9

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 15/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 27 MELODY STREET, COOGEE, IN ABBOTT STREET.

12

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 16/2005 - APPOINTMENT OF A ROAD SAFETY OFFICER.

15

 

7.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 17/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 90 EASTERN AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

23

 

7.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 18/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 33 FIGTREE AVENUE, RANDWICK.

26

 

7.8                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 19/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 4 ALBERT STREET, RANDWICK (GEORGE STREET).

29

 

7.9                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 20/2005 - COUNCIL-OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 38-40 HELENA STREET, RANDWICK.

32

 

7.10                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 21/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS ' HILLII' OUTSIDE 15-17 HELENA STREET, RANDWICK.

35

 

7.11                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 22/2005 - INSTALLATION OF SHADE STRUCTURES AT COUNCIL PLAYGROUNDS.

38

 

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 12/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 7 AND 11 CENTENNIAL AVENUE, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

21 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 7 Centennial Avenue, Randwick, Matthew Pollinger, has written to Council detailing the problems associated with the two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip outside 7 and 11 Centennial Avenue, Randwick, and once again requesting that the subject trees be removed and replaced with more appropriate species.

 

Mr Pollinger has been requesting the removal of these two trees for a number of years now and has written to Council to express his “extreme frustration and dissatisfaction with the lack of action in progressing this matter”.

 

ISSUES:

 

Residents were advised in October, 2003, that these two trees were scheduled for removal in March/April, 2004, but this was put on hold pending a review of Council’s strategy for removing aggressive rooted street trees from throughout the City.

 

The trees are the only two of the same species growing at the northern end of Centennial Avenue, Randwick – numerous mature trees of the same species have been removed from both sides of the street in recent years and the entire street has been planted out with Schinus areira (Peppercorns), which are now well established and growing well.

 

The trees are both approximately 16 metres in height with canopy spreads of around 16 metres. Both trees are in good health with sound branches – although there are noticeable cavities within the trunk areas of both and there is also minor deadwood and several included branches within both canopies.

 

The tree outside 7 Centennial Avenue recently dropped a large branch during high winds and because the trees were ‘flat topped’ for a number of years there is a distinct possibility that as end weight on branches increases other branches may fail without warning.

 

The canopies of both trees are overhanging into adjacent properties to a very large degree and branches have to be regularly pruned from residences, overhead electricity mains, domestic service wires, light poles and street lights in order to maintain statutory clearances.

 

The footpath immediately adjacent to where the trees are growing has had to be repaired on several occasions because of tree root damage caused by the subject trees. This footpath area has had to be ‘patched’ only recently as a result of sustained tree root damage.

 

Tree roots have also damaged the adjacent kerb and gutter and are growing under the roadway. It would be reasonable to assume that over time these roots would undermine the roadway itself and that this damage would need to be rectified as a result.

 

It is also highly likely that if the trees are retained they will cause structural damage to the front brick fences of adjacent properties and that at some stage roots will enter and cause damage to residences.

 

This is despite the fact that tree roots from both these trees have been severed as much as practicable whenever damaged footpath areas have been repaired.

 

Both trees have been assessed as having moderate risk potential. They have also been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failures are considered.

 

The trees have been assessed as having only moderate scenic/environmental amenity and with providing relatively significant habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

These two trees have been calculated as having an average amenity value of $5,400 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

The amenity valuation is relatively low because they are the only two trees of this species in this section of the street, they are completely inappropriate for the situation in which they are growing, they show signs of internal decay and one has dropped a large branch without warning.

 

It is also worth considering that all adjacent property owners want the trees removed and replaced with something more appropriate – as has happened along the rest of the street.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This species of tree is entirely inappropriate for growing in confined nature strip situations under power lines – as is the case with these two trees.

 

The footpath has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage – despite severe and ongoing root pruning – and large tree roots will inevitably damage adjacent retaining walls and will enter and possibly damage properties themselves.

 

Tree roots are also damaging the adjacent kerb and gutter and are starting to undermine the roadway itself. Several large tree roots are protruding above the nature strip area and these represent a tangible trip hazard.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier is not a feasible option because it would compromise the stability of both trees and would adversely impact upon their long term health.

 

Any such barrier would only be a temporary solution to a small number of the problems associated with these trees and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

Realistically, the only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of these two trees is be to have them removed and replaced with an appropriate number of advanced Schinus areira (Peppercorns) – as has happened with several Ficus ‘Hillii’ in this street over recent years.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the two Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 7 and 11 Centennial Avenue, Randwick, be removed and replaced with more appropriate tree species – as per the request of the owner of 7 Centennial Avenue, Randwick, and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 13/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 24 EVERETT STREET, MAROUBRA.

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The daughter of the owner of 24 Everett Street, Maroubra, Ms Christine Davison, has written to Council on her mother’s behalf detailing the damage caused by a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside the above property and requesting that the subject tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

Ms Davison cites a number of reasons for wanting this large street tree removed and the roots of the tree have been causing a variety of damage to both private property and public infrastructure for several years.

 

The tree is one of three of the same species growing at the southern end of Everett Street, Maroubra, in a section of street with very few established street trees. As such it is quite important in the streetscape and is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of birdlife and other fauna.

 

The tree is approximately 20 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 15 metres. It is in good health with sound branches – although there is some minor deadwood and a few included branches within the canopy.

 

The tree is growing under overhead powerlines and is situated immediately adjacent to a power pole and street light. It has to be regularly pruned away from powerlines and the power pole and street light to maintain statutory clearances.

 

The footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be replaced on several occasions because of tree root damage caused by the subject tree and a large section has been replaced only recently.

 

Tree roots have also damaged the adjacent kerb and gutter and are growing under the roadway. It would be reasonable to assume that over time these roots would undermine the roadway itself and that this damage would need to be rectified as a result.

 

Ms Davison asserts that tree roots from the tree have blocked the sewerage pipes inside her mother’s property three times since 2002 and this is entirely likely. She also states that the roots from the tree have undermined the front sandstone retaining wall and that several large sections of tree root have had to be removed from within the property itself. 

 

This is despite the fact that tree roots from this tree have been severed whenever the damaged footpath has had to be replaced.

 

The tree is in good health despite some minor cavities in the trunk and has been assessed as having only minor risk potential. It has also been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failure are considered.

 

The tree has also been assessed as having high scenic/environmental amenity and with providing average habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

This tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of approximately $16,200 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for from within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This tree is entirely inappropriate for the situation in which it is growing. The footpath has to be continually replaced because of tree root damage – despite severe and ongoing root pruning – and large tree roots are undermining the adjacent retaining wall and growing into the property.

 

It is situated immediately adjacent to a power pole and street light as well as underneath powerlines. It is also growing adjacent to the stormwater pipe from the property and directly above the Sydney Water mains.

 

The tree has had to be pruned off the property on a number of occasions as well as away from the overhead powerlines and this has meant that it now has a distinctly lopsided appearance.

 

Although the subject tree is very large and is one of only three growing along this section of the street, Everett Street has not been identified by Council as being a significant street of this particular tree species.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.    

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 24 Everett Street, Maroubra, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species – as per the request of the owner of the property and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 14/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 178 GARDENERS ROAD, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 178 Gardeners Road, Mrs Maria Petsoglou, has written to Council detailing the problems associated with a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip adjacent to the above property (in Eastern Avenue) and requesting that the subject tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mrs Petsoglou cites a number of reasons for wanting this large street tree removed and, in particular, the fact that the roots of the tree have been causing a variety of problems to both her property as well as public infrastructure for a number of years.

 

The tree is the only Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree growing along the southern end of Eastern Avenue and only recently a problematic tree of the same species was removed from outside 162 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford.

 

The tree is approximately 20 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 18 metres. It is in very poor health with a number of unsound branches – the result of suspected poisoning by persons unknown.

 

The footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be ground level on a number of occasions because of tree root damage caused by the subject tree. This is despite the fact that tree roots from this tree have been severed on several occasions in an effort to minimise the damage they continue to cause.

 

Mrs Petsoglou asserts that tree roots from the tree have blocked the sewerage pipes inside her property on a number of occasions over many years and Council records attest to this assertion.

 

The tree is in a very poor condition with a number of large cavities within the trunk and has been assessed as having high risk potential. It has been assessed as having a medium-to-high hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failure are considered.

 

The tree has also been assessed as having very low scenic/environmental amenity and with providing negligible habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would also be negligible and easily rectified.

 

This tree has been calculated as having a very low amenity value of approximately $300 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This tree is in a rapidly declining state of health and is also entirely inappropriate for the situation in which it is growing.

 

The footpath has to be repaired because of tree root damage – despite severe and regular root pruning – and large tree roots are continually blocking sewerage pipes within the adjacent properties.

 

The tree is the only Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree growing along the southern end of Eastern Avenue and as such its removal would have little impact on the streetscape – particularly because of the condition of the tree and the fact that it poses a risk to persons and/or property.

 

The removal of this tree would be negated to some degree by the fact that there have been large numbers of Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pillys) planted along both sides of Eastern Avenue, Kingsford, over the past five years and these trees are well established and growing well.

 

Three-four super-advanced Syzygiums would be planted to replace this fig tree should approval be granted for its removal.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations

be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the diseased and dangerous Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing adjacent to 178 Gardeners Road, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with three-four super-advanced Syzygium luehmannii – as per the request of the owner of the property and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 15/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 27 MELODY STREET, COOGEE, IN ABBOTT STREET.

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 27 Melody Street, Coogee, Mrs Josie Ciabattoni, has written to Council detailing the problems associated with a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip adjacent to the above property (in Abbott Street) and requesting that the subject tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mrs Ciabattoni cites a number of reasons for wanting this large street tree removed and, in particular, the fact that the roots of the tree have been causing a variety of problems to both private property and public infrastructure for a number of years.

 

The tree is one of twelve Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the street and the street itself has been nominated by Council as having significant street plantings of Ficus ‘Hillii’. As such this particular tree is significant in the streetscape and is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of birdlife and other fauna.

 

The tree is approximately 15 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 15 metres. It is in good health with sound branches – although there is some minor deadwood and a few included branches within the canopy.

 

The tree is growing under overhead powerlines and is situated adjacent to a power pole and street light. It has to be regularly pruned away from powerlines and the power pole and street light to maintain statutory clearances.

 

The footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be replaced on several occasions because of tree root damage caused by the subject tree and a section has been replaced only recently.

 

This is despite the fact that tree roots from this tree have been severed whenever the damaged footpath has had to be replaced. Tree roots also protrude quite significantly above the nature strip and these present a tangible trip hazard to Mrs Ciabattoni – an elderly woman who is 76 years old.

 

Mrs Ciabattoni asserts that tree roots from the tree have blocked the sewerage pipes inside her property on a number of occasions over many years and Council records verify this assertion.

 

The tree is in good health despite some minor cavities in the trunk and has been assessed as having only moderate risk potential. It has been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failure are considered.

 

The tree has also been assessed as having high scenic/environmental amenity and with providing average habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be moderate.

 

This tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of approximately $8,100 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This tree is entirely inappropriate for the situation in which it is growing. The footpath has to be continually replaced because of tree root damage – despite severe and ongoing root pruning – and large tree roots are continually growing into the adjacent property.

 

It is situated adjacent to a power pole and street light as well as underneath powerlines. The tree has had to be pruned off the property on a number of occasions as well as away from the overhead powerlines and this has meant that it now has a distinctly lopsided appearance.

 

The tree is one of twelve Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the street and the street itself has been nominated by Council as having significant street plantings of Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

However, there have been large numbers of Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pillys) planted along both sides of Abbott Street over the past five years and these trees are well established and growing well.

 

There is one of these Lilly Pillys growing on either side of the subject Hill’s Weeping fig and as such its removal would be mitigated to some degree. Two super-advanced Syzygiums would be planted to replace the fig tree should approval be granted for its removal.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.    

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing adjacent to 27 Melody Street, Coogee, be removed and replaced with two super-advanced Syzygium luehmannii – as per the request of the owner of the property and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGement officer

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 16/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

APPOINTMENT OF A ROAD SAFETY OFFICER

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

 F2004/08174

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In 1994 the Roads and Traffic Authority instigated a program aimed at assisting local Councils to appoint specialised Road Safety Officers to provide road safety advice and support to traffic managers, traffic engineers and planners. Since then the program has expanded to 36 Councils in the Sydney Region, and more than one third of NSW Councils are now participating in the road safety strategic planning process.

 

The support to the Local Government Road Safety Officer Program has been guaranteed by the RTA until 2010. It forms a key component of the State’s road safety program, Road Safety 2010.

 

ISSUES:

 

Under the NSW Transport Administration Act, the RTA is responsible for promoting traffic safety throughout NSW, co-ordinating the activities of public authorities as far as those activities relate to traffic safety.

 

These activities and programs relate to:

 

·    human factors (drivers and other road users)

·    road, road environment and traffic systems

·    vehicles and personal safety equipment

 

These programs and services are supported by the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW.

 

Within the City of Randwick, Council is responsible for the care, control, planning, management and maintenance of approximately 94% of the road network.  Council’s aim is to make these roads safer for the community through engineering, behavioural and other community-based programs.

 

The lack of late-night transport options continues to be a problem in the Randwick Local Government Area.  Without adequate transport drink walking is also a major safety concern.

 

Council has received a submission from the Eastern Beaches Liquor Consultative Accord requesting that Council gives full consideration to the appointment of a Road Safety officer. In its submission the Accord has stated that the local police have recently informed that Coogee is among the highest in the State for the number of recorded PCA’s (prescribed concentration of alcohol). 

 

The costs of drink driving and drink walking are significant to the individual and the community.  Furthermore anti-social behaviours such as vandalism, disturbing the peace, aggressive behaviour and public consumption of alcohol often occur as a result of drink walking and lack of appropriate transport which have a negative impact on the whole community including visitors, businesses and residents.

 

RTA’S CONTRIBUTION/FUNDING AGREEMENT:

 

The RTA assists Councils in meeting the costs of employing a Road Safety Officer by 100% funding the costs of employment of the RSO in the first year.  In the second and all subsequent years, the RTA and Council will have to provide 50/50 funding for the costs of employment.

 

Details of RTA funding arrangement are shown on “Attachment A”.

 

The position description for the Road Safety Officer is shown on “Attachment B”.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

No funds are required in the first year (2005/2006) budget for the appointment of RSO.  In the second and subsequent years, Council has to provide funding as set out below:

 

(a)        an amount equal to 50% of the salary of the RSO;

(b)        An amount equal to 50% of the On-Costs of the RSO; and

(c)        Other Associated Direct Program Costs.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Road Safety Officer position in Council will facilitate better communications with the local community through community programs and increased promotion of Council’s road safety work.

 

Councils with a road safety officer have developed road safety strategies and action plans leading to better relationships with relevant stakeholders as well as the local community.

 

The following recommendation is therefore submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

Council endorse the principle of appointing a Road Safety Officer under the funding agreement granted by the RTA until 2010 and authorise the General Manager to implement the necessary administrative process for the appointment.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1. Details of RTA funding arrangement - Attachment A - Under Separate Cover.

2. Position description for the Road Safety Officer - Attachment B. 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POSITION DESCRIPTION

 

 

POSITION TITLE:             ROAD SAFETY OFFICER                                                                          

POSITION NUMBER:      

DEPARTMENT:                  City Services

SECTION:                          Traffic and Parking

RESPONSIBLE TO:           Senior Traffic Engineer

AWARD:                        Local Government (State) Award

GRADE:                              Grade 13

                               Salary Range $963.98 to $1060.18 per week

HOURS                            70 hours per fortnight                  

 

 

1.  ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

 

1.1   Tertiary qualifications in Education, Communications, Behavioural Science or Marketing.

 

1.2   A Class “C” drivers licence (standard drivers licence)

 

1.3   Demonstrated experience in:

 

1.3.1.           Writing reports, funding submissions and formal correspondence.

1.3.2.           Demonstrated presentation skills.

1.3.3.           Information technology skills.

1.3.4.           Excellent communication skills, both oral & written.

1.3.5.           Demonstrated commitment to the concept of teamwork.

1.3.6.           Ability to negotiate and liaise effectively with community representatives.

        1.3.7.           Experience in implementing successful community education projects at the local level.

1.3.8.           Experience in research and statistical analysis.

1.3.9.           Able to work with minimal supervision.

           1.3.10.      Ability to learn and adopt technical traffic management practices.

1.3.11.         Enthusiasm for traffic engineering and road safety management.

1.3.12.         Prepared to work outside normal business hours on occasions.

1.3.13.         Demonstrate ability to accept delegated authority to manage workload with minimal supervision.

1.3.14.         Negotiation and conflict resolution skills.

2.    DESIRABLE REQUIREMENTS

 

2.1.  Understanding of Local Government processes.

2.2.  Understanding of Road Safety Issues in local government.

2.3.  Experience in community consultation and developing, implementing, promoting and         coordinating community education projects.

2.4.  Experience in strategic planning.

2.5.  Experience in publicity, promotion and knowledge of the media industry.

2.6.  Tertiary qualifications in Road Safety would be highly regarded.

2.7.  Experience with working with people from a non-English speaking background.

3.    CONTACTS ARISING FROM THE JOB

 

3.1   Within the Department

3.1.1.  All Officers of the Department

3.1.2.  Outdoor employees

 

3.2   Within the Council

3.2.1 Councillors

3.2.2 General Manager

3.2.3 Department Heads

3.2.4 Managers/Line Managers

3.2.5 Other Council employees

 

3.3   Outside Council

3.3.1 Key stakeholders: NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, Police, Community and Area Health agencies, Schools

3.3.2 Consultants, Solicitors & other professionals

3.3.3 Professional/Industry Associations

3.3.4 Officers of other Councils

3.3.5 Applicants for employment

3.3.6 Members of the public/residents

3.3.7 Government Officers

3.3.8 Local Business

4.    OBJECTIVES OF THE POSITION

4.1   To identify road safety problems, areas and issues.

4.2   Develop, modify and maintain a strategy to reduce the accident rate and maintain it at a lower level.

4.3   The facilitation of the Local Government Road Safety program in Council, fostering existing partnerships and encouraging wider community ownership and participation in road safety issues.

4.4   The development, coordination and implementation of local and contribution towards Statewide road safety projects and campaigns. 

4.5   Explore alternative, additional funding opportunities.

5.    PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES

 

5.1   The development and implementation of Council's Road Safety Strategic and Action Plans.

5.2   Implementation of Road safety educational/behavioural programs to address identified local road safety issues.

5.3   Chair Road Safety Steering Committee.

5.4   Correspondence.

5.5   Meeting reporting, monitoring, evaluation and budget management requirements according to the Program Agreement between Council and other grant funding agencies.

5.6   Investigate and report on the effectiveness of traffic management devices and other actions to improve road safety.

5.7   Provide quality service to customers, including timely replies to residents, correspondence, telephone calls and counter enquiries.

5.8   Investigate the availability of local sponsorships for road safety promotions and initiatives. 

5.9   Develop and submit grant-funding applications to a range of appropriate bodies.

5.10  School site meetings.

5.11  Representation of Council at Road Safety related meetings and forums.

6.   DECISION MAKING

 

6.1   Decisions are guided by research, analysis and evaluation of information, which is not readily available.

6.2   The job holder must evaluate a variety of issues in more complicated situations.  Considerable investigation and adaptive thinking will be required.

6.3   This job holder occasionally supervises employees performing the same or similar tasks.

6.4   The job holder specifies requirements as an input to budget development but has no responsibilities for raising non-standard revenue.

6.5   Decisions made by the job holder affects the work and activities across a major function and a number of departments.

6.6   Policy and procedures are readily available but the job holder is required to choose the appropriate processes.  Unusual problems may be referred for clarity of policy or direction.  This job requires moderate planning to assure the appropriate sequence of activities and co-ordination of resources.

7.  SCHEDULE OF DUTIES

 

7.1   Research, develop, implement and evaluate annual Road Safety Action Plan in consultation with Road Safety Steering Committee, Senior Traffic Engineer and the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority.

7.2   Research, develop, implement and evaluate five yearly Road Safety Strategic Plan in consultation with Road Safety Steering Committee and other key stakeholders.

7.3   Research, develop, implement and evaluate behavioural/educational road safety programs to address identified local and/or regional road safety issues.

7.4   Prepare monthly progress reports to Senior Traffic Engineer and the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority.

7.5   Prepare 2 monthly reports to the Road Safety Steering Committee.

7.6   Chair Council’s Road Safety Steering Committee.

7.7   Attend Randwick Traffic Committee meetings when and if required.

 

7.8   Liaise with other community based road safety officers and agencies including Health, Police and Education.

7.9   Analyse road accident information in conjunction with officers from Council and identify type of crash problems and locations.

7.10  Identify community road safety areas of concern from Council data and community consultation.

7.11  Increase awareness among residents, community groups, government agencies and other key stakeholders of the crash problems identified.

7.12  Assist Police in publicising local enforcement operations.

7.13  Prepare grant submissions for alternative, additional funding opportunities.

7.14  Improve safety outside schools through the investigation of school environments and the initiation of engineering/behavioural measures capable of reducing pedestrian and vehicular problems.

7.15  Represent Council in a professional capacity at Road Safety committees and forums.

7.16  Provide leadership in road safety initiatives for the Eastern Beaches Liquor Consultative Accord.

7.17  Develop and maintain Road Safety pages for Council’s website.

 

 

GENERAL / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

8.1   Due to the nature of this position, the successful applicant may be required to complete the Declaration of Interest in accordance with Section 441 of the Local Government Act 1993.

8.2   Council supports the principles of the Equal Employment Opportunity and offers a smoke free work environment.

8.3   Applicants should be prepared to undergo a pre-employment medical assessment as part of the selection process.

8.4   Applicants should provide complete details of work history, experience and qualifications.

8.5   Copies only of two references should be submitted with an application.  Please quote the position number on all application documents.

8.6   As part of the selection process, Council will contact two referees.  Applicants are required to provide full and current details of two referees, including telephone numbers.

8.7   Conditions of employment are in accordance with provisions of the Local Government (State) Award and Council’s policies and procedures and any other applicable workplace agreements.

8.8   Certain positions within Council have been designated as “child related” in accordance with the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 and the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998.  If designated a “child related” position, applicants should be prepared to undergo a Prohibited Persons Check as part of the selection process and it is an offence under the NSW Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 for a person convicted of a serious sex offence to apply for such a position.

8.9   Commencement salary and future progression is based on experience, competency and performance.

8.10  Any staff engaging or wishing to engage in secondary employment must have the approval of the General Manager.

 

9.   FURTHER INFORMATION

 

Contact Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer on phone number (02) 9399 0927.

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 17/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 90 EASTERN AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 88 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford, Ms Vicki Stone, has written to Council detailing the problems associated with the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 90 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford, and requesting that the subject tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

The owner of 90 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford, has been requesting the removal of this particular tree for a number of years now and has written to Council on a number of occasions requesting removal.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree is an isolated example of this species growing in this particular section of Eastern Avenue, Kingsford – numerous mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees have been removed from both sides of the street in recent years and the entire length of the street has been planted out with Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pillys), which are now well established and growing well.

 

The tree is approximately 20 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 16 metres. It is in good health with sound branches – although there are noticeable cavities within the trunk area and there is also minor deadwood and several included branches within the canopy.

 

The canopy of the tree is overhanging into two adjacent properties to a large degree and branches have to be regularly pruned from residences, domestic service wires and an adjacent light pole.

 

The footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be repaired on several occasions because of tree root damage caused by the subject tree. This footpath area will need to be repaired in the near future as a result of sustained tree root damage.

 

Tree roots have also damaged the adjacent kerb and gutter and are growing under the roadway. It would be reasonable to assume that over time these roots would undermine the roadway itself and that this damage would need to be rectified as a result.

 

Roots have also caused severe cracking to the driveway of 92 Eastern Avenue and this will have to be repaired at Council’s expense. Cracking is likely to continue for as long as the tree remains.

 

Tree roots from this tree have also caused regular and serious sewerage blockages within both 88 and 90 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford, and roots have been found in the front yard areas of both those properties.

 

It is also highly likely that if this tree is retained it will continue to cause structural damage to the front brick fence of 90 Eastern Avenue and that at some stage roots will enter and cause damage to either or both adjacent residences.

 

This is despite the fact that tree roots from the subject tree have been severed as much as practicable whenever damaged footpath areas have been repaired.

 

This particular tree has been assessed as having a moderate risk potential. It has also been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failures are considered.

 

The tree has been assessed as having high scenic/environmental amenity and with providing relatively significant habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $5,400 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

The amenity valuation is relatively low because it is the only tree of this species in this section of the street, it is completely inappropriate for the situation in which it is growing and it shows signs of internal decay within the trunk.

 

It is also worth considering that both the adjacent property owners want the tree removed and replaced with something more appropriate – as has happened along the rest of the street.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This species of tree is entirely inappropriate for growing in a confined nature strip situation such as this immediately adjacent to a power pole and domestic service wires.

 

The footpath next to the tree has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage – despite regular and ongoing root pruning – and large tree roots will continue to damage the adjacent retaining wall and will enter and possibly damage properties themselves.

 

Tree roots are also damaging the adjacent kerb and gutter and have severely cracked the nearby driveway.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier is not a feasible option because it would compromise the stability of the tree and would adversely impact upon its long term health.

 

Any such barrier would only be a temporary solution to a small number of the problems associated with this tree and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of this street tree is to have it removed and replaced with an appropriate number of advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pillys) – as has happened with a large number of Ficus ‘Hillii’ in this street over recent years.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.    

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 90 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species – as per the request of the owners of both 88 and 90 Eastern Avenue and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 18/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 33 FIGTREE AVENUE, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 33 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, Ms Emma Cooper, has engaged a professional tree surgeon (arborist) to assess the health and long-term viability of a large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside her property.

 

Ms Cooper felt compelled to have the tree assessed because of an increase in structural damage being caused to her property by the roots of the tree and as a result of that assessment the tree surgeon has provided Council with a report detailing a range of damage caused by the tree and requesting that it be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree report provided by William Home (Dr Treegood) cites a number of reasons for having this large street tree removed and it should be noted that the roots of the tree have been causing a variety of damage to both private property and public infrastructure for many years.

 

The tree is one of twenty Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the street and the street itself has been nominated by Council as having significant street plantings of Ficus ‘Hillii’. As such this particular tree is significant in the streetscape and is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of birdlife and other fauna.

 

The tree is approximately 20 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 18 metres. It is in good health with sound branches – although there are noticeable cavities within the trunk area and there is also minor deadwood and several included branches within the canopy.

 

The footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be repaired on several occasions because of tree root damage caused by the subject tree and a large section has been ‘patched’ only recently.

 

Tree roots have also damaged the adjacent kerb and gutter and are growing under the roadway. It would be reasonable to assume that over time these roots would undermine the roadway itself and that this damage would need to be rectified as a result.

 

Mr Home asserts that tree roots from the tree have caused structural damage to the front brick retaining wall of the property and that they have also caused cracking to the front steps and entranceway.

 

There is also evidence of cracking to the front porch area which has probably been caused by the roots of the subject Council-owned street tree. 

 

This is despite the fact that tree roots from this tree were severed when the damaged footpath area was repaired.

 

The tree is in reasonably good health but has several internal cavities in the trunk as well as showing evidence of drill marks. As a result the tree has started shedding bark and has been assessed as having moderate risk potential. It has also been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failure are considered.

 

The tree has also been assessed as having significant scenic/environmental amenity and with providing significant habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible to moderate.

 

This tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $57,600 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide. This valuation is as high as it is primarily because of the importance of the tree in the streetscape and its environmental amenity – despite the fact that it now appears to be structurally declining and is causing increasing structural damage to both the adjacent property and public infrastructure. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for from within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This tree is entirely inappropriate as a species for growing in confined nature strip situations.  The footpath has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage – despite severe and ongoing root pruning – and large tree roots are damaging the adjacent retaining wall and growing into the property.

 

As a result of this they are causing structural damage to the front entrance way and porch area of the property and this is likely to get worse.

 

Tree roots are also damaging the adjacent kerb and gutter and are starting to undermine the roadway itself. Several large tree roots are protruding above the nature strip area and these represent a tangible trip hazard.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier would only be a temporary solution to a small number of the problems associated with this tree and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

Despite this, the tree is one of 20 Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the street and the street itself has been nominated by Council as having significant street plantings of Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

Realistically, the only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of this tree would be to have it removed and replaced with a super-advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly) – as has happened with several Ficus ‘Hillii’ in this street over recent years.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.    

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 33 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species – as per the request of the owner of the property and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 19/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 4 ALBERT STREET, RANDWICK (GEORGE STREET)

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of unit 1, 4 Albert Street, Randwick, Mr John Lam, has written to Council detailing the problems associated with the very large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside that property and requesting that the subject tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree is approximately 25 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 20 metres. It is in excellent health with sound branches and is one of five mature specimens of the same species growing within the street.

 

The tree is situated above a stormwater pit and at any particular time of the year it sheds an inordinate amount of leaf litter and associated debris. As a result of this the street is often covered with rotting leaves and water forms ponds along a large section of the western side of the street outside Mr Lam’s building.

 

Mr Lam states in his correspondence that this ponding creates acrid smells and that these are causing him to suffer migraine headaches as well as creating ongoing offence.

 

The canopy of the subject tree overhangs into the adjacent block of units to a large degree and branches have had to be regularly pruned away from the building.

 

The concrete footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be repaired in bitumen on several occasions because of tree root damage caused by the tree. This footpath area will need to be repaired yet again as a result of sustained and serious root damage.

 

Tree roots have also damaged the adjacent kerb and gutter and are growing under the roadway. It would be reasonable to assume that over time these roots would undermine the roadway itself and that this damage would need to be rectified as a result.

 

Tree roots from this tree have also caused regular and serious sewerage blockages within both the nearby units and adjacent properties and roots from the tree have been found as far away as the rear yard areas of several properties.

 

It is likely that if this tree is retained it will continue to cause structural damage to the front brick fences of the two adjacent blocks of units and that at some stage roots will enter and cause damage to either or both of these properties.

 

This particular tree is so large that root pruning of any significance is simply not an option and this is why the original concrete footpath that was damaged by tree roots has been replaced in bitumen on a number of occasions.

 

This particular tree has been assessed as having a low risk potential. It has also been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failures are considered.

 

The tree has been assessed as having significant scenic/environmental amenity and with providing significant habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $21,600 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

As a result of damage to private property and public infrastructure caused by the roots of this species of street tree in George Street, Randwick, three mature specimens were removed some five years ago and replaced with an appropriate number of Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacarandas).

 

These trees were removed after extensive consultation with residents and the replacement species was selected by the majority of residents/property owners living within the street.

 

At that same time property owners were advised that the remaining five trees would be removed over a ten year period and that this would allow replacement trees to become well established - while at the same time minimising the loss of amenity within the streetscape.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This species of tree is entirely inappropriate for growing in a confined nature strip situation such as this, immediately adjacent to a stormwater pit, concrete driveway, concrete footpath and nearby unit blocks.

 

The footpath next to the tree has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage and large tree roots will continue to damage adjacent retaining walls and will enter and possibly damage properties themselves.

 

Tree roots are also damaging sewerage pipes, stormwater pipes and have virtually destroyed the nearby concrete driveway – to the extent that Mr Lam is having difficulty driving his car in and out of his garage.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier is not a feasible option because it would compromise the stability of the tree and would adversely impact upon its long term health. Any such barrier would only be a temporary solution to a small number of the problems associated with this tree and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of this street tree is to have it removed and replaced with an appropriate number of advanced Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacarandas) – as has happened with the three Ficus ‘Hillii’ previously removed from within this street over recent years.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.    

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing adjacent to 4 Albert Street, Randwick, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of Jacarandas – as per the originally adopted strategy for the removal and replacement over a ten-year period of all Hill’s Weeping figs within George Street, Randwick.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 20/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL-OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 38-40 HELENA STREET, RANDWICK.

 

 

DATE:

25 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owners of 38 Helena Street, Randwick, Mr A D Cogin and Mrs B A Sullivan, and the owners of 40 Helena Street, Randwick, Mr R A and Mrs J Segal, have requested that Council remove the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside their properties.

 

This tree is one of twelve of the same species growing along both sides of the street and the species represents approximately 60 percent of streetscape canopy cover within the street – as such it is highly significant and the street has been designated as such by Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is a relatively healthy specimen approximately eight metres in height and around six-seven metres across the canopy.

 

It has been extensively pruned on a number of occasions to clear overhead powerlines and is growing in the middle of the nature strip area.

 

The roots of the tree are extensive and have damaged the footpath on a number of occasions over a protracted period. The tree has been root pruned in the past to deal with damage caused by the roots but this has only ever been a temporary measure utilised by Council in order to be able to retain the tree.

 

As a result of the most recent episode of damage caused to the adjacent footpath area, the footpath has been removed and tree roots exposed.

 

This excavation has revealed a massive amount of tree root material emanating from the tree and travelling across the footpath area and into both properties at 38 and 40 Helena Street, Randwick.

 

The majority of these tree roots are between 250-350mm in diameter and they travel for a large distance in all directions from where the tree is situated. They have not only damaged the adjacent footpath area but have also damaged sewerage pipes, services entering both properties and have undermined the front brick fences in several places.

 

The owners of both these properties initially expressed a desire to retain the subject tree but once the roots were exposed and they could see the extent of tree root activity – particularly in relation to the relatively small size of the tree – they now insist that the tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate street tree species.

 

Attached photographs clearly indicate the size and extent of tree root activity as well as the size and location of the tree in relation to both properties.

 

Damage to the front of both properties is extensive and is likely to get much worse should the tree be retained.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s would be paid for from within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The nature and extent of tree root activity associated with this tree is such that root pruning or root barrier installation are not in any way feasible long-term options for dealing with the problems associated with the tree.

 

Any such measures would only be temporary and the range of problems inherent with retaining the tree would simply continue for as long as the tree remained.

 

Two large trees of the same species growing on the nature strip outside 29 Helena Street, Randwick, were removed in early 2002 as a result of property damage being caused by their roots.

 

A report has also been forwarded to Council’s March 2005 Works Committee meeting detailing a request by the owners of 15-17 Helena Street, Randwick, for the large, significant Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing on the nature strip outside that property to be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species.

 

Obviously, the removal of this tree as well as the one above would have implications relating to Council’s recent resolution not to remove any more than five percent of canopy cover in any twelve-month period in streets containing significant plantings of Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

However, the range and extent of tree root damage is severe and the owners of both affected properties are supporting the removal and replacement of the subject tree.

 

The tree has been assessed as having only a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failure are considered.

 

The tree has also been assessed as having high scenic/environmental amenity and with providing average habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible to moderate.

 

This tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of only $3,600 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide. This valuation is as low as it is primarily because of the range and extent of previous and existing tree root damage to both private property and public infrastructure as well as the inappropriateness of the species. 

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that Works Committee would consider and determine any applications/requests (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees (Resolution 295).

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters relating to a number of elements within Resolution 295 that are still either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps even more appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its adopted development consent procedure for dealing with the proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations are forwarded to Works Committee for resolution. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 38-40 Helena Street, Randwick, be removed and that it be replaced with one-two more appropriate trees, as per Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Council tree officer's tree assessment form.

Photographs of tree root damage.  ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 21/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS ' HILLII' OUTSIDE 15-17 HELENA STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

F/2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 17 Helena Street, Randwick, Mr Peter Souleles, has approached Council detailing the problems associated with the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 15 Helena Street, Randwick, and requesting that the subject tree be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree is approximately 20 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 18 metres. It is one of 12 Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the street and the street itself has been nominated by Council as having significant street plantings of Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

As such this particular tree is significant in the streetscape and is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of birdlife and other fauna.

 

The canopy of the subject tree overhangs into the adjacent property to a large degree and branches have to be regularly pruned away from the residence itself as well as the service wires into the property.

 

A section of concrete footpath immediately adjacent to where the tree is growing has had to be repaired recently because of tree root damage and there are several uplifted sections that will need to be replaced within the near future.

 

Tree roots from this tree have also spread to the rear of 17 Helena Street, Randwick, and have caused damage to the garage in the rear as well as damaging the pebblecrete area within the front of that property.

 

It is highly likely that if this tree is retained it will continue to cause structural damage to the front brick fences of the two adjacent properties and that at some stage roots will actually enter and cause damage to either or both of those properties.

 

This particular tree has been assessed as having a low risk potential. It has also been assessed as having a medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failures are considered.

 

The tree has been assessed as having significant scenic/environmental amenity and with providing significant habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $32,400 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds have been specifically allocated by Council this financial year for the removal of recognised aggressive rooted street tree assets and the removal and stump grinding of this tree/s will be paid for within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This species of tree is entirely inappropriate for growing in a confined nature strip situation such as this.

 

The footpath next to the tree will have to be continually repaired because of tree root damage and large tree roots will continue to damage adjacent fences and will enter and damage private property.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier is not a feasible option because it would compromise the stability of the tree and would adversely impact upon its long term health.

 

Any such barrier would only be a temporary solution to a small number of the problems associated with this tree and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of this street tree is to have it removed and replaced with an appropriate number of advanced Syzygium luehmanni (Lilly Pillys) – as has happened with several Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees removed from within this street over recent years.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that, among other tree-related matters, the Health, Building and Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subjected to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

However, there are a number of procedural and/or policy matters involved with the implementation of the various elements of Resolution 295 that are currently either being drafted or are the subject of legal opinion/briefing.

 

It is therefore perhaps appropriate that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its newly adopted development consent procedure for dealing with any proposed removal of significant trees within the City, that any such recommendations be forwarded to Works Committee for resolution.    

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 15 Helena Street, Randwick, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of Lilly Pillys – as per the request of the owner of 17 Helena Street, Randwick, and in line with the recommendations contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for the removal and replacement of inappropriate street tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Assessment Report – UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 22/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

INSTALLATION OF SHADE STRUCTURES AT COUNCIL PLAYGROUNDS.

 

 

DATE:

23 February, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/4094

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 November, 2004, resolved that a report be presented to Council on the progress of construction of shade cloths at every Council-owned playground within the City, in accordance with the initiative announced last year by former Mayor Dominic Sullivan.

 

ISSUES:

 

As a result of Council’s resolution to provide shade structure in every park within the City, funds were allocated as part of the current budget to commence this program.  Part of the implementation strategy was to establish a ranking system to prioritise works in various parks. The table of priorities has not been previously considered by Council.

 

In order to prioritise the installation program, each existing playground was evaluated using the following criteria.

 

·        Level of Usage – A high priority was given to playgrounds with large catchment areas and therefore high use ie. regional playgrounds and a lower priority was given to small neighbourhood parks with lower use.

 

·        Location - A high priority was given to playgrounds located in close proximity to the beaches. These playgrounds have a large catchment area and therefore high use. The children at these playgrounds also tend to have less protective clothing.

 

·        Age of play equipment – A high priority was given to playgrounds that have been installed within the past 5 years and have no shade structure and a lower priority was given to playgrounds with aging equipment. The likelihood of play equipment in these parks being replaced or the playground being substantially upgraded was higher and the upgrade would include a shade structure.

 

·        Existing shade cover – A high priority was given to playgrounds with no existing shade and a lower priority given to playgrounds with existing shade from trees or other structures.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost of providing a shade structure to each of the playgrounds has been estimated at 1.8 million dollars.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Since the Council resolution, Council has installed one new shade structure as part of this program.

 

The following table indicates the priority given to each playground as assessed by the set criteria:

 

 

PARK NAME

 

LOCATION

PRIORITY RATING FOR SHADE

STRUCTURE

 

COMMENTS

Bundock Park

Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly Beach at Clovelly Beach

High

·   Location at beach

·   High use

Burnie Park

Burnie Street, Clovelly x Pacific Street

High

·   High Use

·   Recently upgraded (2003)

Shaw Reserve

Middle Street, Randwick

High

·   Upgraded in 2004

·   No mature trees

Alison Park

Alison Road, Randwick x Abbey Street

High

·   High use

·   High Profile location

·   Relatively new equipment

Central Park

Cooper Street, Maroubra x Storey Street

High

·   Recently upgraded (2002)

Coral Sea Park

Midway Drive, Maroubra x Chester Avenue

High

·   Recently upgraded (2003)

·   High Use

Gollan Park

Macleay Street, Maroubra x Phillip Street

High

·   Used by school

Grant Reserve

Beach Street, Coogee x Dudley Street

High

·   High Use

·   Regional Park

Kokoda Park

Ascot Street, Kensington x Goodwood Street

High

·   Upgraded in 2002

Les Bridge Playground

Baker Street, Kensington x Virginia Street

High

·   Upgraded 2004

 

 

Nagle Park

Holden Street, Maroubra x Wild Street

High

·   Upgraded in 2004

Purcell Park

Australia Avenue, Matraville

High

·   High use

·   Exposed location

South Maroubra Village Green

Meagher Avenue, Maroubra x carpark at rear of shops

High

·   Upgraded in 2003

·   High use – adjacent to shopping centre

Wassell Street, Matraville

Wassell Street, Matraville x opposite 27 Wassell Street

High

·   Recently upgraded

Woomera Reserve

Woomera Road, Little Bay x Noora Avenue

High

·   Upgraded in 2005

Dunningham Reserve

 

High

·   Upgraded in 2005

Paine Reserve

Rainbow Street, Randwick x Botany Street

High

·   Upgraded in 2005

Alby Smith Memorial Park

Dolphin Street, Coogee x Melody Street

Medium

 

Baker Park

Dudley Street, Coogee x Carr Street

Medium

·   Requests for improvements from residents

Bangor Park

Oberon Street, Coogee x Higgs Street

Medium

 

Barwon Park

Clarence Street, Matraville x Namoi Road

Medium

 

Bieler Reserve

Frenchmans Road, Randwick x Gilderthorpe Avenue

Medium

·   Some shade trees

Blenheim Park

Rainbow Street, South Coogee  - opp 333 Rainbow

Medium

 

Coogee Oval

Dolphin Street, Coogee x Brook Street

Medium

·   Some trees

·   Small playground

Fred Williams Reserve

Adina Avenue, La Perouse x Lindsay Street

Medium

·   Relatively new equipment

 

 

Govett Reserve

Govett  Street,Randwick x White Street

Medium

·   Some shade trees

Hereward Reserve

Hereward Road, Maroubra x Maroubra Road

Medium

 

Kensington Oval

Doncaster Avenue, Kensington x Day Lane

Medium

·   Some shade trees

·   Relatively new equipment

Popplewell Park (lower)

Malabar Road, South Coogee  - opposite 217 Malabar Road

Medium

 

Snape Oval

Storey Street, Maroubra x Percival Street

Medium

·   Adjacent to sports oval

Wills Park

Duke Street, Kensington x Balfour Road

Medium

·   Old equipment

Baird Reserve

Baird Avenue, Matraville x Perry Street

Low

·   Shade trees

·   Relatively old equipment

Blaxland Reserve

Blaxland Street, Matraville x Torrens Street

Low

·   Old equipment

Boulevarde Reserve

The Boulevarde, Malabar x McGowen Avenue

Low

 

Dr Walters Reserve

Mawson Parade, Chifley x Kenny Street

Low

·   Existing trees

Ella Reserve

Bilga Cresent, Malabar x Lucas Avenue

Low

·   Old equipment

·   Requires upgrade

Fitzpatrick Park

Eastern Avenue, Kensington x Day Street

Low

·   Mature shade trees

Frank Doyle Park

Randwick Street, Randwick x Gordon Street

Low

·   Some shade trees

Gabee Reserve

Gabee Place x Calga Avenue

Low

·   Low use

·   Some shade trees

Heffron Park 1

Jersey Road, Maroubra x Rabey Street

Low

·   Requires major upgrade

Hurley Reserve

Hurley Crescent, Matraville -next to 2 Hurley Crescent

Low

·   Old equipment

·   Low use

Jacaranda Playground

Moverly Green, Maroubra x Jacaranda Place

Low

 

Lucas Reserve

Lucas Street, Malabar x Zions Avenue

Low

 

Ocean View Reserve

Broome Street, Maroubra  - next to 16 Broome Street

Low

·   Low use

·   Some shade trees

Popplewell Park (upper)

Gregory Street, Maroubra opposite 6 Gregory Street

Low

 

Quarry Reserve

Storey Street, Maroubra x Cantrill Avenue

Low

·   Old equipment

Rabaul Reserve

Pozieres Avenue, Matraville x Rabaul Way

Low

 

Raleigh Park

Todman Avenue, Kensington x Brompton Avenue

N/A

 

Randwick Peace Park

Stephen Street Closure, Randwick x Chepstow Street

Low

·   Some shade trees

·   Low use

Rubie Reserve

Adams Avenue, Malabar x Rubie Lane

Low

·   Old equipment

·   Low use

Randwick Peace Park

Stephen Street Closure, Randwick x Chepstow Street

Low

·   Some shade trees

·   Low use

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note the information.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

LISA DURLAND

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

LANDSCAPE TECHNICAN