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

 

 

7th June, 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, 14TH JUNE, 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

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 10 TH MAY, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           Works

 

6.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 52/2005 - NEW LIVERY ON COUNCIL VEHICLES AND NEW UNIFORMS FOR OUTDOOR STAFF.

2

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 53/2005 - LITTER BINS AT BUS STOPS.

4

 

6.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 54/2005 - SIGNS AT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.

6

 


 

6.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 55/2005 - PROPOSED POLICY ON "RESIDENTS' REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL VERGE CROSSINGS."

11

 

6.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 56/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' HILLS (WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 27 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

21

 

6.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 57/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) ADJACENT TO 114 BOTANY STREET, KINGSFORD.

24

 

6.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 58/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 1 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK.

27

 

6.8                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 59/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED STREET TREE GROWING OUTSIDE 62 MURRABIN AVENUE, MATRAVILLE.

30

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 52/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

NEW LIVERY ON COUNCIL VEHICLES AND NEW UNIFORMS FOR OUTDOOR STAFF.

 

 

DATE:

1 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06234

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 22 March 2005, arising from a motion pursuant to notice by Cr Notley-Smith, resolved that -

 

“a report be brought before the Works Committee on options for new livery on Council vehicles and plant, and options for new uniforms for all outdoor staff.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Plant Fleet

 

Council is currently upgrading its plant fleet to meet the needs of its operations. As Council fleet is replaced, all trucks and vehicles shall have the following inclusions -

 

a)       main telephone number of Council

b)      Council’s web site

c)       plant number

d)      safe driving stickers

e)       relevant lighting for traffic control

 

Generally, all operational vehicles will be white for visibility and for ease of purchase and  re-sale value.

 

Uniforms for Staff

 

Council‘s outdoor staff have set up a working group to consider new uniform options for the outdoor staff.  It is recognised that the way in which staff present themselves is an important aspect of the Council’s day to day business.

 

Research for an improved outdoor uniform by the working group will include –

 

a)       Safety;

b)      Durability;

c)       Presentation; and

d)      Comfort.

 

The working group will determine an appropriate uniform on these basic principles.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council is currently upgrading its plant fleet to meet the needs of its operations as detailed above.

 

Some minor changes are presently underway in order to clearly differentiate between Randwick City Council outdoor staff and other public authority workers and tradesmen working within the City.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director’s Report on new livery on Council vehicles and new uniforms for outdoor staff be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

 

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 53/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

LITTER BINS AT BUS STOPS.

 

 

DATE:

1 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06054 xr F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 1 March 2005, arising from a motion pursuant to notice by Cr Kenny, Council resolved:

 

“That a report be brought before the Works Committee on the placement of garbage bins at every bus stop in the City of Randwick.”

 

ISSUES:

 

1.  Bus Stops

 

Following the above resolution, a survey of litter bins at bus stops in the City of Randwick has been carried out. The survey showed about 18% of the bus stops in the City have litter bins. There are 585 bus stops in the City, of which 480 do not have litter bins. 

 

2. Cost of Installation and Servicing of bins

 

The cost of installation of litter bins may vary from about $450 per bin for a SULO bin on a stand, to about $2,000 per bin for a stainless steel bin enclosure. So the cost of installation of 480 litter bins will range from $216,000 to $960,000 depending on the type of bin chosen.

 

Currently, Council is collecting about 300 bins from streets, parks and beaches at different frequencies. The current budget for collection and disposal of litter from those bins is $1,085,000. So, collection and disposal cost per bin, depending on collection frequency, is in the range of $1,500 – $5,000. Therefore, collection and disposal cost of litter from additional 450 litter bins at bus stops will be at least $675,000 per year.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Depending on type of bins, the cost of installation of bins at every bus stop will vary from $216,000 to $960,000. Cost of servicing those additional bins will be at least $675,000 per year.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There are 585 bus stops in the City of Randwick, of which 480 do not have any litter bins.

 

As stated above, depending on the type of bins, the cost of installation of bins at every bus stop will vary from $216,000 to $960,000. Cost of servicing those additional bins will be at least $675,000 per year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council considers budget allocation for installation and servicing of litter bins at every bus stop in the City in the 2006/07 budget considerations.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR WASTE POLICY, PROJECTS AND SERVICES 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 54/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

SIGNS AT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

 

 

DATE:

24 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08251 xr F2004/00171 xr F2004/08433

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 1st March 2005, arising from a motion pursuant to notice by Cr Notley-Smith, resolved:

 

that a report be brought before the Works Committee on the replacement of the yellow pedestrian crossing signage with the newer fluorescent orange signage.  The report should detail the RTA’s position on such signage and its cost, and that the Budget Review Working Group be authorised to deal with the allocation of funding in the 2005/06 Budget and that the group forward a recommendation to the relevant Committee or Ordinary Council Meeting.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The RTA’s Regulatory Signs Manual defines all regulatory signs that may be used in New South Wales.  The manual includes a graphical representation of each sign face and its size.

 

Council, under its delegated authority, can only authorise those traffic control devices that are prescribed in the RTA’s Manual.

 

For pedestrian crossing locations, the Manual prescribes a round yellow sign with walking legs symbol.  The sign has a black legend on a yellow background.  This sign is in accordance with the Australian Road Rules which aim to provide uniform road rules throughout Australia. 

 

However, Queensland has a modified pedestrian crossing sign incorporating a fluorescent orange circle border surrounding the yellow pedestrian crossing sign.

 

At the request of Council, approximately two years ago the RTA installed large (900mm x 900mm) square fluorescent orange signs with the standard round yellow pedestrian sign at the pedestrian crossing in Carrington Road near the intersection of Bream Street (Attachment A). In addition, two yellow pedestrian crossing signs outside the Marcellin College in Alison Road were replaced with two new large signs. Of these, one sign had a fluorescent orange background and the other had a fluorescent red background to the standard yellow pedestrian sign. (Attachment B).

 

The fluorescent orange signs are highly reflective; however, they fade faster in the sunlight than the Class 1 material diamond grade yellow signs used by the RTA.

 

It is interesting to note that the north facing fluorescent orange sign in Carrington Road (Attachment A) has faded almost to yellow due to direct exposure to the sunlight, whilst the south facing fluorescent orange sign remains more visible.

 

The fluorescent red sign in Alison Road has demonstrated a lesser intensity to fade than the fluorescent orange (Attachment B).

 

It is also reported that Hornsby Shire Council tried fluorescent lime green as a background to the RTA’s yellow pedestrian sign. The RTA claims that its diamond grade Class 1 material yellow signs are far superior to be exposed to the sunlight than the lime green, red or orange fluorescents.

 

The RTA’s stated position is: “For uniformity and consistency, the RTA recommends the use of the standard R3-1 regulatory pedestrian crossing sign. This position is in line with the requirements of the Australian Road Rules and the sign is used consistently across the NSW road network. The addition of a red/orange background to this sign has been used at some site specific locations on an ad-hoc basis, however, no conclusive data is available to show that the use of these signs provide any long term road safety benefit”.

 

The RTA has also indicated that should Council however decide that the large fluorescent orange background is an advantage, the RTA will not object to the installation of such signs, but Council should undertake the works at its cost. The RTA insists that Councils should not attempt to introduce another hierarchy in the signage and add to the inconsistency that already exists in certain locations.

 

Within the City of Randwick, there are approximately 40 pedestrian crossings, requiring a total of 160 signs, and the cost of supply and installation of each new sign is estimated to be $400.

 

It is reported that as the result of Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer’s investigations and further negotiations, the RTA’s Pedestrian Policy and Programs Manager has indicated that the RTA will replace the existing standard size signs with the larger R3 1C series (900mm x 900mm) yellow signs at critical locations (approximately 10) where visibility and high accident rates are of concern to Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council prefer the fluorescent orange pedestrian signs at all pedestrian crossing locations within the City of Randwick, the cost of replacing existing signs with the new signs is estimated at $64,000. In addition, there would be ongoing maintenance costs of replacing the faded signs once every two to three years.

 

Should Council however agree to the RTA’s offer of replacing the existing signs at some selected critical locations with the larger new signs, such work can be undertaken without cost to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

1.         The proposal to replace existing pedestrian crossing signage with the fluorescent orange/red signage has already been tried at certain locations within the City of Randwick, however, no conclusive evidence is available to indicate that these signs provide a long term road safety benefit;

 

2.         Experience has shown that the fluorescent orange signs fade much faster in the sunlight than the Class 1 diamond grade yellow signs used by the RTA;

 

3.         Council should accept the RTA’s strong advice not to introduce another hierarchy of signage that would add to the inconsistency that already exists in certain locations; and

 

4.         Council should accept the offer of the RTA to install the larger R3 1C series (900mm x 900mm) signs at critical locations where visibility and high accident rates are of concern to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

The RTA’s Pedestrian Policy and Programs Manager be requested to carry out a joint inspection with Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer of pedestrian crossing locations within the City of Randwick, where critical site distances, visibility and high accident rates are of concern to Council, and replace the existing signs at these locations with new larger signs, with a view to enhancing the safety at these locations.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ATTACHMENT - A

ATTACHMENT – B

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 55/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Policy on "Residents' Requests for Special Verge Crossings."

 

 

DATE:

1 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07364

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council meeting held 24th August 2004, arising from a motion pursuant to notice by Cr Bastic, a report was considered whereby the resident of 29 French Street, Maroubra, made a request for the construction of stairs to provide a paved connection between the French Street roadside kerb and the respective private property boundary.

 

At this meeting Council resolved that:

 

“a report be prepared for the Works Committee Meeting on 7th September 2004 on the construction of stairs outside 29 French Street, Maroubra, which will enable the infirmed residents access to the property.”

 

Consequently, Report 63/2004 was presented at the Works Committee meeting held on 7th September 2004.  In this report, the Access Committee noted that it was neither a Council responsibility nor a priority to spend the funds that solely benefit the residents of one property and that any spare unallocated funds should be allocated towards resolving outstanding access issues within the Randwick LGA.  At this meeting, it was resolved that:

 

“this matter be deferred to the Access Committee to get their view on the matter, assess the potential design of these works and to formulate a clear policy for Council to use in cases like this. The report from the Access Committee to be tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 21st September, 2004.”

 

More recently, Report 66/2004 was presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21st September 2004 and it was resolved that:

(a)        Council notes the Access Committee’s recommendation that it does not support the allocation of funds to a one off specific project;

 

[1] A property allotment within the context of this report refers to an existing lot whose boundaries are shown in a crown plan or registered plan.  

(b)        the property owners be advised that Council is prepared to construct the requested stairs at the owner’s cost; and

(c)        Council note that the Access Committee will formulate a clear policy for Council to use in cases similar to this.

 

Following the Council resolutions on this matter, it was considered appropriate that a policy be formulated by Council’s Asset Management Section in consultation with the Access Committee and the Risk Section.

 

At the Council meeting held 22nd February, 2005 the Proposed Policy on "Resident Requests for Special Verge Crossings" and "Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings was presented

 

At this meeting it was resolved that:

 

a)      this item be deferred to allow for the redrafting of the proposed Policy to incorporate the feasibility of allowing appropriate plantings in certain median strips, guidelines for those plantings and the nature of the types of plantings which may be suitable; and

 

b)      consideration also be given to Council assisting in hardship cases regarding access issues to properties.

 

This proposed policy has now been redrafted into two separate policies, to include the Council’s considerations.  The first policy being "Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings" is presented here.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council has for many years received requests for the construction of stairs to service single residential dwellings.  (Herein the report, a property access footway will be referenced as a “special verge crossing”.)  In certain areas of the Randwick City LGA, property boundaries are either considerably higher or lower than the adjacent roadway but some existing property access stairs are not constructed to Council standards.

 

In the past, residents have made requests to Council to either construct a new special verge crossing; to reconstruct an existing special verge crossing; or to construct a special verge crossing for mobility impaired access, so that a connection is made between adjoining property boundaries and the roadside kerb or footpath.

 

Council receives a number of requests to improve footpath infrastructure within the Randwick LGA.  Given the number of requests and the footpath funding allocated each year, requests must be prioritised to ensure that improvements benefit the wider community.

 

The goals of the proposed “Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings Policy” to service property allotments, are as follows:

 

1)      To provide consistency in the management of residents’ requests for the construction of special verge crossings;

2)      To ensure that footpath budgetary spending benefits the wider community;

3)      To process the requests for Special Verge Crossings as a Pre-Paid Works application;

4)      To specify that future applicants of special verge crossings, are to bear the full costs of such works; and

5)      To ensure that the construction of future special verge crossings satisfy Council standards.

 

It is proposed as a policy that special verge crossings that service up to three adjoining property allotments should be considered as a Pre-Paid Works application, due to the footway request being for the benefit of a low number of residents.  For example, a resident may lodge a request for the construction of a special verge crossing across the road verge, to allow the residents from up to three separate residential property allotments to access the roadside kerb area and the respective property boundary, by foot.

 

For any requests for special verge crossings that service more than three adjoining property allotments, Council will consider these requests individually based on the merits of each case and the availability of funding.

 

Resident Requests for Special Verge Crossings

Council owes a duty of care to ensure that its existing footpaths are maintained to a serviceable condition.  At the same time, Council has limited resources and should prioritise requests based on a risk management approach where consideration is given towards footpath usage levels, pavement condition and the availability of alternate property access such as rear lane access, as some of the major factors. 

 

Special verge crossings that would service up to three adjoining residential property allotments only and/or have alternate access to the respective properties are generally for the sole benefit of the adjoining residents.  These requests expose Council to a comparatively lower level of public risk and consequently receive low priority for the expenditure of funds. 

 

The proposed policy will provide Council with a tool to enable a consistent approach towards managing “single-use” [1] or better described “low-use” requests.  Due to Council’s footpath capital works budget, it is vital that programming of footpath rehabilitation considers those footpaths that are in high pedestrian traffic areas.

 

It is proposed that future requests for special verge crossings be managed in the form of a Council Pre-Paid Works application and funding issues by Council be reported to the Council for approval.

 

Council’s Duty of Care

Council, as owner of the nature strip, has a "duty of care" with regards to any works approved on Council land.  Council should ensure that any works approved are safe for its intended use and that they are regularly and appropriately maintained, in accordance with Council’s risk management policies and procedures.

 

One of the conditions of protection as required by Council's Public Liability Insurer, Statewide is "Reasonable Care":

 

6.         The Member shall as far as reasonably practicable:

a.   Exercise reasonable care that only competent employees are employed and take reasonable measures to maintain all premises, fittings and plant in safe and sound condition;

b.   take all reasonable precautions to:

i. prevent Personal Injury and Damage to Property;

ii.      prevent the manufacture, sale or supply of defective products;

iii.     comply and ensure that its employees, servants and agents comply with all statutory obligations, by-laws or regulations imposed by any                     public authority for the safety of persons or property;…." Emphasis added.

 

In addition, Council should also ensure that any items constructed meet the required building codes, Australian Standards and/or any applicable legislation.

 

The management of any Council asset should be in accordance with the normal operations of Council and form part of the overall risk management strategy of Council, taking into account the financial, physical and human resources available to Council. 

 

As a result, Council will be required to maintain any approved works and review the condition of these works as part of an ongoing footpath inspection programme.  Any such approved works will be maintained and managed by Council, to demonstrate Council’s duty of care. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter unless Council approved funding on an individual site basis. However, for any works approved by Council, under the requirements of this policy, there will be some indirect impact on Council’s maintenance resources for the purpose of routine maintenance and to incorporate these assets as part of future ongoing inspection and renewal programmes.

 

In addition, special verge crossings may result in an increase in public liability risk to be borne by Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed policy will greatly simplify the management of all resident requests for Special Verge Crossings.  Following consideration by the Access Committee, the Risk and Insurance section and the Asset Management section, it is determined that requests for special verge crossings are a low priority for Council due to limited resources and the lower levels of risk exposure.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the “Residents’ Request for Special Verge Crossings” policy.  Residents who make these requests in future should be advised of Council’s policy and be notified of the Pre-Paid works application process, whereby the full costs of the works are borne by the applicant, unless Council approves otherwise.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)     Council adopt the Policy on “Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings” (see attachment 1);

 

(b)     Council’s Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Policy on "Residents' Requests for Special Verge Crossings."

Draft Procedure Guidelines for the implementation of "Residents' Requests for Special Verge Crossings" Policy.

Updated Pre-Paid Works Application Form 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK LEONG

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER DRAINAGE

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

                                            POLICY REGISTER

 

 

 

                            PART  4 – TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:         /          /20                                 Policy No: 

 

 

POLICY TITLE:    Resident Requests for Special Verge Crossings

File No.             

 

                                                  OBJECTIVE

 

To provide Council with a standard procedure for managing resident requests for special verge crossings. 

 

                                          POLICY STATEMENT

 

a)    That all costs associated with requests for the construction of special verge crossings to service up to three property allotments, to join private properties with adjacent road infrastructure, be borne by the residents requesting the provision of verge access, unless council approves otherwise.

 

b)    That requests for the construction of special verge crossings to service individual property allotments, require the completion of a pre-paid works application form.

 

c)    That the construction of property access stairs/footpath across Council’s nature strip or road reserve not approved and supervised by Council staff may result in the stairs/footpath being removed by Council and the area replaced with turf, with all costs to be borne by the residents whom which the special verge crossing services;

 

d)    That Council will only permit the construction of property access stairs/footpath in residential areas to be in concrete or Asphaltic Concrete.

 

Minute No:       /                                         Meeting Date:

 



 


 

 

PRE-PAID WORKS APPLICATION FORM (INCLUDES DRIVEWAYS, F’PATH, KERB, GUTTER, DRAINAGE, & SPECIAL VERGE CROSSINGS)

           

This form must be completed when applying for the construction of a Vehicular Access and/or other civil works on Council’s nature strip by a Council contractor or your own contractor, subject to Council approval. In addition an application and procedure fee of $135.00 (GST Inclusive) must be paid at the Customer Service Counter, Ground Floor, 30 Frances Street, Randwick 2031 when lodging the form.

 

Please note that this application is subject to certain conditions –

OPTION 1 - SELECTING A COUNCIL CONTRACTOR

Randwick City Council designs and supervises the construction of Vehicular Access (or other civil works such as special verge crossings & nature strip plantings) obtaining quotes from a list of Council nominated contractors. The cheapest quote is selected and the applicant will be sent a letter detailing the cost of the proposed construction.  This cost will also include a Design and Supervision fee.  When full payment is made a work schedule is programmed and the Vehicular Access (or other civil works such as special verge crossings & nature strip plantings) is constructed under the supervision of a delegated Council Officer.

 

OPTION 2 - SELECTING A CONTRACTOR OF YOUR CHOICE. THIS OPTION ONLY AVAILABLE IF VALUE OF BUILDING WORKS CARRIED OUT WITHIN YOUR SITE EXCEEDS $10,000

Randwick City Council designs and supervises the Vehicular Access (or other civil works such as special verge crossings & nature strip plantings) and the applicant can select the contractor of your choice, subject to approval by Council.

 

Under this option you will be sent a letter detailing the cost of design and supervision as well as a contractors workmanship bond.  However you / the applicant have the option to select any licensed contractor provided they satisfy the specifications set out by Council including:  $10,000,000 public liability insurance, prior evidence of satisfactory workmanship and full understanding of the requirements of Workcover and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, (including Traffic Control to AUS-SPEC-1\NSW-C201 Mar 2000 standard) in relation to the construction of the approved design. 

 

Upon approval of your chosen contractor by Council and payment of the design and supervision fee and contractors workmanship bond the plans and specifications are issued and construction of the Vehicular Access (or other civil works such as special verge crossings & nature strip plantings) is supervised by a delegated Council Officer.

 

NOTE:  The applicant should not pay your contractor any monies until Council has inspected the constructed Vehicular Access (or other civil works such as special verge crossings & nature strip plantings) and Council is satisfied with the work. It is the responsibility of the applicant to arrange Council’s inspection. 

 

              The workmanship bond is approximately 50% of the total cost of what a Council’s nominated contractor would charge to do the work. This bond is refundable following Council’s final inspection of the works.

 

 APPLICANT DETAILS PLEASE SEE OVER PAGE:

 

Before lodging this application please fill in the following checklist (for Vehicle Access only).

                                                                                                                      YES        NO

 

1.   Has the internal carspace where you intend on parking the car been               ____       ____ approved by Council?

 

2.   Is the internal driveway completed up to the property boundary? If not please                check with City Services Department for your issued alignment                               ____       ____     levels – i.e. the level your driveway must be at the property boundary.

 

3.   Have all building materials (spoil) been removed from Council’s nature            ____       ____     strip and roadway?

 

NOTE:- The above 3 requirements must be satisfied prior to Council designing the Council driveway and issuing it for quotation.

 

4.   Is a site meeting required between the applicant and Council’s Design            ____       ____     Officer prior to carrying out the design?

 

 

Applicant Name      ______________________________________________

Postal Address       ______________________________________________

                                    ______________________________________________

                                    _______________________Post Code______________

Phone                        (___)_______________(H)   (___)_______________(W)

                                    (___)_______________(Fax)

Site Address            ______________________________________________

Comments               ______________________________________________

                                    ______________________________________________

I REQUEST A QUOTE FOR:   OPTION 1      OPTION 2         OR BOTH    PLEASE CIRCLE

 

NOTE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY (AND/OR OTHER CIVIL WORKS) ON COUNCIL’S NATURE STRIP OR ROAD RESERVE NOT APPROVED AND SUPERVISED BY COUNCIL STAFF FROM THE ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPT MAY RESULT IN THE DRIVEWAY  (AND/OR OTHER CIVIL WORKS) BEING REMOVED BY COUNCIL AND THE AREA REPLACED WITH TURF AT THE OWNER’S EXPENSE.

 

COUNCIL’S DRIVEWAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE TO BE OF A PLAIN WHITE CONCRETE FINISH. NO FAUX BRICK, TILING PAVING ETC WILL BE ALLOWED.

 

OFFICE USE ONLY

 

Application No.:_______________                       Fee: $135.00     Receipt No.:________________


 

Director, City Services' Report 56/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 27 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 27 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, Mr George Kittel, has written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’  (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

The subject tree is one of a number growing along the southern side of the street and as such it is quite significant and contributes to a streetscape of recognised significance.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree is approximately ten metres in height with a canopy spread of around six metres. As stated, it is one of a number of the same species growing along the southern side of the street.

 

All these trees have had to be pruned on a regular and ongoing basis to maintain statutory clearances around overhead powerlines and domestic service wires. This particular tree is the smallest of a group of three and its canopy is squeezed between the two adjacent trees.

 

Tree roots have damaged the adjacent footpath area and have seriously compromised the integrity of the brick retaining wall at the front of the adjacent property. The damaged footpath area has been removed and some root pruning undertaken but this is only a temporary measure for dealing with this immediate problem.

 

Mr Kittel has cited as reasons for the tree being removed the fact that its roots cause ongoing and serious damage to public infrastructure and his property, that the shading caused by the canopy creates and exacerbates problems with rising damp and mildew and that the canopy creates a safety issue with regard to the domestic service wires  entering his property.

 

The 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.

 

It has been assessed as having moderate scenic/environmental amenity and with providing average 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 $800 –  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 trees would be paid for from 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 brick retaining wall, concrete footpath and adjacent residence.

 

The footpath next to the tree has had to be repaired previously because of tree root damage and large tree roots have seriously damaged and compromised the adjacent retaining wall.

 

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 the 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 tree and to allow the property owner to undertake necessary retaining wall rectification works is to remove the subject tree and to replace it with an advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly).

 

Because the tree is situated between two larger examples of the same species, its removal and subsequent replacement with something more appropriate would not have a dramatic effect on the existing streetscape.

 

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 perhaps 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 Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 27 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, be removed and replaced with an advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly) – as per the originally adopted strategy for the removal and replacement of all aggressive rooted street trees growing within the City of Randwick.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Correspondence from Mr George Kittel

Tree Assessment Form and Report

Photographs- ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 57/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) ADJACENT TO 114 BOTANY STREET, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

28 April, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

There is a very large, healthy Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip (in Rainbow Street) adjacent to the above property which has caused ongoing damage to the property over a number of years, as well as causing infrastructure damage to a range of surrounding public infrastructure.

 

The owner of that property recently logged a Service Request (64688) with Council requesting that the tree be removed because of the nature and extent of the tree root damage that it is causing.

 

ISSUES:

 

The roots of this tree have caused ongoing damage to the adjacent property over many years as well as to the roadway, kerb and gutter. The owner has repeatedly expressed a desire to have the tree removed and replaced with more appropriate trees.

 

Council’s Tree Management Officer inspected the residence several years ago and discovered Ficus tree roots inside the hallway cupboard as well as in the bathroom area and at the time of that inspection there were a number of large cracks in the residence itself immediately adjacent to where the tree is situated.   It is a very large and visually significant tree but it is also the only one of this species growing along this section of the street. As such, it is quite incongruous in the situation in which it is growing and its removal would not in any way compromise the integrity of the streetscape.

 

The entire length of this section of Rainbow Street has recently been planted out with Calodendron capense (Cape Chestnuts) – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.   The subject 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.

 

It has been acknowledged as having significant scenic/environmental amenity and as providing a significant habitat/food source. Conversely, the effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

This tree has been assessed by a Council tree officer as having an amenity value of $6,400 – 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 would be paid for from within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The only effective long-term method of dealing with the range of problems associated with this tree would be to remove it and replace it with a more appropriate species and this would comply with the intent of Council’s originally adopted strategy for dealing with aggressive-rooted street trees.

 

The roots of this tree have caused serious structural damage to the adjoining property over a protracted period of time and the damaged footpath adjacent to the tree has had to be regularly repaired on an ongoing basis.

 

The owner of the property has undertaken major repairs to the residence and the side brick fence and if the tree is retained its roots are highly likely to cause further damage to both.

 

The tree is the only one of this species in this section of the street and three others of the same species were recently removed from the opposite corner of Botany/Rainbow Streets because of tree root intrusion/damage caused to the property adjacent to those trees.

 

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 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 adjacent to 114 Botany Street, Randwick, be removed and replaced with more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Inter-office Memo from Tree Preservation & Maintenance Co-ordinator (South)

Completed Tree Assessment Form undertaken by Tree Management Officer. - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER    

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER


 

Director, City Services' Report 58/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 1 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK.

 

 

DATE:

10 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 1 Avoca Street, Randwick, Mr C Patterson, has written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of a large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip in Centennial Avenue – adjacent to the side of the property.

 

The subject tree is one of four growing in a group along the southern side of this section of the street and as such it is quite significant and contributes to an imposing section of streetscape.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree is approximately 16 metres in height with a canopy spread of around nine metres. As stated, it is one of four mature specimens of the same species growing within this section of the street.

 

All four trees have had to be pruned on a regular and ongoing basis to maintain statutory clearances around overhead powerlines. This particular tree is the smallest of the four and its canopy is squeezed between those of two other trees.

 

Tree roots have 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 even more and that this damage would need to be addressed as a result.

 

As a result of tree root damage to the kerb and roadway, water continually ponds on the road and leaves cover the street and block adjacent stormwater pits. The footpath and stormwater pipe from the property have also been damaged as a result of tree root damage.

 

Council has previously approved a Development Application (DA655/2004) for the owner to undertake extensive works within the property, which includes a proposed new driveway adjacent to the subject tree.

 

The owner intends to replace the existing damaged sewer system with PVC plastic and contends that this will be a worthless exercise with the tree being so close to that system. Because the Council tree has contributed to the damage to that network, Council is contributing to replacement costs. The owner has also expressed a desire to widen the existing driveway into the property should consent be granted to remove and replace the tree.

 

Sewer diagrams and an arborist’s report have been provided by the owner of the property and these indicate the very close proximity of the tree to the sewerage system as well as noting a number of cavities within the trunk of the tree.

 

The 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.

 

It has been assessed as having high 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 $7,200 – 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 trees would be paid for from 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 pipe, concrete driveway, concrete footpath and adjacent residence.

 

The footpath next to the tree has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage and large tree roots will inevitably damage the adjacent retaining wall and to enter and possibly damage the actual residence itself at some time in the future.

 

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 the 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 tree and to allow the property owner to undertake his desired building works is to remove the subject tree and to replace it with an appropriate number of advanced Schinus areira (Peppercorn trees) – as has happened with a number of Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees previously removed from within this street over recent years.

 

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 perhaps 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 Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing adjacent to 1 Avoca Street, Randwick, (second tree from Avoca Street) be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of Peppercorns – as per the originally adopted strategy for the removal and replacement of all aggressive rooted street trees growing within the City of Randwick.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 59/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED STREET TREE GROWING OUTSIDE 62 MURRABIN AVENUE, MATRAVILLE

 

 

DATE:

5 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 62 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville, Christopher Boniface, has written to Council requesting the removal of a large Council owned Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark) growing in the nature strip outside that property.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Boniface has cited as his reasons for wanting the tree removed the fact that it is too large for the situation in which it is growing, that it is inappropriately located and that it drops copious amounts of leaf litter onto the nature strip and into his property.

 

He has also offered to pay for the removal and replacement of the subject tree with a more appropriate species.

 

The tree concerned is a healthy specimen approximately 15 metres in height with a canopy spread of around five metres. It is one of several significant trees of the same species growing along the northern side of the street and it is an important provider of habitat and food source.

 

The entire length of the street on the southern side has been planted out with Hibiscus tileaceus (Cottonwood) and they are well established.

 

There are regular and ongoing requests from a number of property owners on the northern side of the street to have Paperbarks removed and replaced with more appropriate species.

 

It has been recognised by Council that this tree species is inappropriate for planting in confined nature strip situations and they are one of four species recommended for progressive removal and replacement.

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The removal and replacement of this tree will be paid for by the owner of 62 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville, Mr Christopher Boniface – there would therefore be no cost impost to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The subject tree is growing immediately adjacent to a concrete driveway and is surrounded by a concrete footpath and kerb and gutter.

 

It has been severely root pruned in the past but this is a measure that only temporarily deals with the issue of tree root damage. The tree has now reached a height and size that makes further major root pruning not only potentially dangerous but also likely to adversely impact on the tree’s long term health and viability.

 

As long as the tree remains it will cause tree root damage to surrounding public infrastructure and it will continue to cost Council an unreasonable amount to retain.

 

Its removal would only have a temporary impact on the visual aesthetics of the street and it would be replaced with a more appropriate native tree species – at no cost to Council.

 

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 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 approval be granted to remove the Council-owned Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark) and that a more appropriate native tree species be planted as a replacement – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 



[1] Single-use applies to those requests that may only benefit a single property due to the location of the requested footway.