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

 

 

5th July, 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,

12TH JULY, 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, 14 TH JUNE, 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 67/2005 - TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 18-20 AND 29 ARALUEN STREET, KINGSFORD.

2

 

6.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 68/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 515 ANZAC PARADE, KINGSFORD.

5

 

6.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 69/2005 - ROSS JONES POOL - CHILDREN'S POOL WALL REINSTATEMENT.

8

 


 

6.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 70/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 41 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

11

 

6.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 71/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 29 BROADBENT STREET, KINGSFORD.

14

 

6.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 72/2005 - TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 16 INGLETHORPE AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

17

 

6.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 73/2005 - STANNARD BROS BOAT SHED DECK.

20

 

6.8                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 74/2005 – COUNCIL OWNED FICUS HILLII (HILL'S FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 42 BALFOUR ROAD, KENSINGTON.

23

 

6.9                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 75/2005 - CCA TREATED TIMBER ISSUES.

26

 

6.10                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 76/2005 - MALABAR POOL LONG TERM SOLUTION.

28

 

6.11                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 77/2005 -  INSTALLATION OF CROSS STREET BANNER POLES IN ALL COMMERCIAL CENTRES IN RANDWICK CITY.

30

 

6.12                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 78/2005 - GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT.

34

 

6.13                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 79/2005 - SURF SENSE PROGRAM PROPOSAL FOR SCHOOLS.

49

 

6.14                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 80/2005 - CORAL SEA PARK.

51

 

6.15                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 81/2005 - CLOVELLY BEACH DISABLED WATER ACCESS RAMP - SAND REMOVAL.

54

 

6.16                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 82/2005 - IMPROVEMENTS AT DUFFY'S CORNER AND LEXINGTON PLACE, MAROUBRA.

57

6.17

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 31/2005 – INCORPORATION OF BABY HEALTH CENTRE INTO RANDWICK BRANCH LIBRARY PREMISES.

59

6.18

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 88/2005 - BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ISSUES AT THE AVOCA STREET/DARLEY ROAD/YORK ROAD INTERSECTION. (late item - circulated on Friday 8/7/05)

 

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

……………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 67/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 18-20 AND 29 ARALUEN STREET, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

28 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Concerns have been raised by the Kingsford South Precinct Committee about a number of Council-owned street trees in Araluen Street, Kingsford, which are either in need of pruning or removal because of damage their roots are causing to both public infrastructure and private property, as well as highlighting the serious public liability issues these problems constitute for Council.

 

A Work Order has been raised for the pruning of a number of street trees as required but there are serious issues involved with the two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing on the nature strip outside both 18-20 and 29 Araluen Street, Kingsford.

 

ISSUES:

 

The two subject trees are both approximately 12-14 metres tall with canopy spreads of around 14-16 metres. They are both in good health and are the only two trees of this species left in the street.

 

The adjacent footpath area has been repaired on a number of occasions and tree roots are protruding above the nature strip over a relatively large area.

 

The footpath outside 27 has lifted significantly, the front brick fence is cracked/damaged as a result of tree roots and the driveways and crossovers for both 27 and 29 have been lifted.

 

Domestic service wires run through the canopy of the tree and branches have to be regularly pruned to maintain statutory clearances.

 

The footpath outside 18-20 has been repaired some years ago with only slight lifting evident now but the front brick fence at 18 has been damaged. Powerlines run through the canopy of this tree and branches have to be regularly pruned to maintain required clearances.

Both these trees have been assessed as having a low 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.

 

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

 

The two trees have been calculated as having an average amenity value of $10,800 – 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 tree/s would be paid for from within this budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This species of tree is entirely inappropriate for growing in confined nature strip situations such as these, immediately adjacent to concrete footpaths, driveways and residences. The footpaths next to the trees has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage and, if given the chance, large tree roots will inevitably damage the adjacent residence themselves 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 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 the trees 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 these two trees is to remove them both and to replace them with a suitable number of more appropriate tree species – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

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 two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing outside 29 and 18-20 Araluen Street, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with a suitable number of more appropriate tree species – as per Council’s original removal/replacement strategy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 68/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 515 ANZAC PARADE, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

10 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 515 Anzac Parade, Dr John Dewdney, has written to Council requesting the removal of the large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside that property and for its replacement with a more appropriate tree species.

 

ISSUES:

 

This tree has been root pruned in the past by Council’s tree gang because of root damage that was being caused to the adjacent footpath area. Roots have also undermined the kerb to some degree and are now beginning to undermine the roadway itself.

 

Tree roots have recently been cleared from the sewerage pipes within the property and the owner has written to Council seeking the reimbursement of costs incurred ($143.00). The tree has been pruned away from the property alignment on a number of occasions and has also regularly been pruned away from adjacent domestic service wires.

 

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 recognised 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 $19,200 – 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 would be paid for from within this budget.

CONCLUSION:

 

The problems associated with this large and significant street tree are at this stage only minor for a tree of its size.

 

There has been some minor infrastructure damage caused to the adjacent footpath, kerb and gutter and there is also some minor undermining of the nearby roadway. The tree has to be regularly pruned away from the property alignment and service wires but this is only relatively minor.

 

As far as I am aware this recent sewer blockage is the first reported to Council and it probably indicates that the sewerage system is in a declining condition.

 

Council has only recently planted out the nature strip along Anzac Parade on both sides of the subject tree and these trees are yet to become established. The tree is highly visible in the streetscape and there are very few established or large street trees on the nature strip area where it is situated.

 

Because of the prominence of the tree in the landscape and the fact that until now its roots have caused very little infrastructure damage to either public or private property, I would recommend that the tree be retained until recently planted Gum trees become well and truly established – possibly 24-36 months.

 

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’ growing on the nature strip outside 515 Anzac Parade, Kingsford, be retained until the recently planted Council street trees on either side become well established – a period of at least 24 months.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 69/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROSS JONES POOL - CHILDREN'S POOL WALL REINSTATEMENT.

 

 

DATE:

8 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00172 xr F2004/070347

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the ordinary Council meeting held 22nd February 2005 a petition was submitted by Cr Tracey on behalf of residents requesting reinstatement of the wall at the Children’s Pool at Coogee.  Council resolved the following:

 

“that the petition be referred to the appropriate Committee and/or the Councillor’s Bulletin with a report from the relevant officer”

 

In response to the above resolution the following outlines the current status of the reinstatement of the wall in the children’s pool.

 

Ross Jones Memorial pool was constructed at the southern end of Coogee Beach in 1947. It was named after Randwick Alderman, Mr Roscoe Samuel Jones (1934-1937, East ward).  The general public uses the pool all year round.

 

The pool has significance for the following reasons: it has a unique design which includes concrete piers which extend above the top of the walls resembling crenellations on a sand castle; it has aesthetic appeal due to its sitting and relationship to surrounding elements (surf club, promenade, etc.); and its association with local swimming clubs and their members.   The pool comprises two sections: the main bathing area and a children’s pool (wading pool). The main pool has a rock base with three tapered concrete walls to three sides and the fourth side being of natural rock formation grading into the wall of a nearby raised concrete walkway. The pool is filled by the actions of tides and waves

 

The children’s pool is attached to the north of the main pools and forms an important element of the overall composition in addition to its role in deflecting the wash of broken waves back into the bay. This in turns reduces the build up of sand against the northern wall of the pool.

 

After an extended period of project planning significant upgrade works by Council were commenced in early 2005, construction is currently in progress. This upgrade is largely due to the poor condition of the concrete walls.

 

The main elements of the upgrade (refer attachment 1) include the following:

 

(i)                The demolition  and excavation to allow the construction of pool access stair, and to allow significant seawall repairs and rendering  to both the main pool and children’s pool;

 

(ii)               metalwork including stainless steel handrails and/or balustrades.

The gap in the wall that exists at the intersection of the children’s pool wall (eastern) and the main pool wall (northern) is being retained to allow sand to be flushed out by wave action.

 

The current construction does not include the reinstatement of the wall that previously existed on the northern boundary of children’s pool.

 

ISSUES:

 

The following summarises the main issues in response to the petition for the reinstatement of a wall in the children’s pool at the Ross Jones Pool.

 

Ongoing Maintenance Issues

That there are ongoing maintenance issues with the children’s pool. Frequent sand inundation from high tide causes the area to be filled with sand. This inturn results in little or no water in the pool. At this time the sand from the pools is only removed by natural processes i.e. when there is high wave action.

 

It has been reported that the wall that previously existed to the northern side of the children’s pool (refer attachment 1) was demolished as it impacted on the sand being able to be removed by wave action and therefore the pool was more frequently filled with sand; it was also in poor condition. The gap that was created by the demolition of the wall now appears to be an important component in the flushing of the children’s pool.

 

Community Consultation

As part of the development of the scope of works for the project for the current upgrade works significant community consultation was undertaken. At that time the issue of the children’s pool was not raised as a priority in the upgrade of the Ross Jones Pool.

 

Available Budget

The upgrade works that are being currently undertaken at Ross Jones Pool are costing in the order of $340 000 and this fully expends the available funds. This is a significant commitment to this important public facility. Currently there are no further funds identified to undertake further work to the children’s pool.

 

Design Process

The reinstatement of the wall would require the engagement of Engineering Consultants to undertake an appropriate hydraulic study, design and documentation. Fees for this work are estimated between $5000.00 and $7000.00.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Currently there are no funds identified for the reinstatement of a wall in the children’s pool at Ross Jones Pool. If Council resolves to undertake the reinstatement of the wall the likely costs associated with the construction of the wall would be in the vicinity of $100, 000.00 to $120, 000.00 (incl Consultancy fees).

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There are a number of issues relevant to the possible construction of a wall in the Children’s Pool at Coogee. In summary these issues are as follows:

 

·          The new wall may cause a greater build up of sand in the children’s pool area. If the northern wall of the children’s pool is reinstated a method would need to be found to flush the pool.

·          The issue of reinstatement of the wall in the children’s pool was not raised at the time of extensive community consultation for the upgrade of the Ross Jones Pool.

·          No budget is currently identified for this project. Any proposed works would need to be included in the 2006/07 capital works budget

 

The reinstatement of the wall would require further investigation, identification of funds and the engagement of an Engineering Consultant.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the $7,000.00 for fee designs and documentation for the reinstatement of the pool wall at Ross Jones Pool be considered as part of the 2006/2007 Budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR DESIGN


 

Director, City Services' Report 70/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 41 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

 

 

DATE:

8 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 41 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, Ms Anne Moutzouris, 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 her 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 twelve metres in height with a canopy spread of around eight-nine metres. As stated, it is one of a number of the same species growing along the southern side of the street.

 

All the fig trees in the street have to be pruned on a regular and ongoing basis to maintain statutory clearances around overhead powerlines and domestic service wires. This particular tree is one of the largest along this section of the street and is situated in relative isolation.

 

Tree roots have damaged the adjacent footpath area and driveway and have compromised the integrity of the retaining wall at the front of the 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. They have also damaged and cracked the tiles in the entranceway of the property itself.

 

Ms Moutzouris has cited as reasons for wanting the tree removed the fact that its roots cause ongoing and serious damage to both adjacent public infrastructure and her property, that 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 large amount of berries and leaf litter that are constantly dropped.

 

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 significant scenic/environmental amenity and with providing important 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 $14,400 – 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:

 

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).

 

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 41 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:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 71/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 29 BROADBENT STREET, KINGSFORD

 

 

DATE:

8 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 29 Broadbent Street, Kingsford, Mrs Rosalind Oei, has written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of a Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing on the nature strip outside her property.

 

The subject tree is one of a number of the same species growing along the southern side of the street and is one of two particularly large and healthy specimens. As such it is quite significant and contributes to a streetscape of above average significance.

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is approximately twelve metres in height with a canopy spread of around ten metres. As stated, it is one of two of the same species growing in this section of the street that is quite significant.

 

However, tree roots have damaged the adjacent footpath area and have compromised the integrity of the retaining wall at the front of the 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.

 

Tree roots have also damaged the internal sewerage pipes and are growing extensively throughout the entire front yard area – which is impacting on the owner’s ability to utilise that entire space.

 

Council’s Tree Gang only recently severed as many tree roots as possible but many large tree roots with a very real potential for damage still remain. A tree root barrier is not a feasible option as it would seriously affect stability and long term viability 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 important 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 $14,400 – 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:

 

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 and residence.

 

The footpath next to the tree has had to be repaired previously because of tree root damage and large tree roots have damaged the adjacent retaining wall and are now growing into the front of the 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 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 any necessary retaining wall rectification works is to remove the subject tree and to replace it with a more appropriate species – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

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 Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing outside 29 Broadbent Street, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species – as per the originally adopted strategy for the removal and replacement of 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 72/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING ADJACENT TO 16 INGLETHORPE AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

 

 

DATE:

8 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, Melissa Asproloupos, has once again written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip adjacent to her property.

 

Mrs Asproloupos has cited shading, fruit drop, leaf litter and possible property damage as the main reasons for wanting these two trees removed.

 

ISSUES:

 

The two trees are both approximately 12 metres tall with canopy spreads of around eight metres. They are both in good health and are part of a significant avenue planting along both sides of Tedwin Avenue, Kensington.

 

These two trees in particular are regularly pruned right back to the property alignment in an effort to deal with Mrs Asproloupos’ concerns regarding leaf litter and fruit drop.

 

The adjacent footpath area has been repaired on a number of occasions and tree roots are protruding above the nature strip over a relatively large area.

 

At this stage there is no evidence of structural damage at the side of the property but Mrs Asproloupos has made it quite clear that she will hold Council directly responsible for any damage that does occur.

 

There has, however, been significant damage caused to the footpath and kerb area at the front of the property - as well as structural damage to the front fence area - by tree roots from the same species of tree.

 

The trees have been assessed as having a low 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.

 

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

 

The two trees have been calculated as having an average 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 tree/s 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 concrete footpath and residence. The footpath next to the trees has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage and, if given the chance, large tree roots will inevitably damage the adjacent 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 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 the trees and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

Council tree trimming contractors have recently pruned back both trees far more than would normally be the case and they undertake those works several times a year to address complaints made to Council by Mrs Asproloupos.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by these two trees is to remove them both and to replace them with an appropriate number of advanced Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elms) – as has happened with a number of Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees previously removed from within this and adjacent streets 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 two Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing adjacent to 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of advanced Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elms) – as per Council’s original removal/replacement strategy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TTREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 73/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

STANNARD BROS BOAT SHED DECK.

 

 

DATE:

10 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06044 xr F2005/00171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 1st March, 2005, Council considered a Motion Pursuant to Notice submitted by Councillor Belleli and it was resolved that Council -

 

a)         Take immediate steps to barricade the deck of the Stannard boat shed deck;

b)         Remove dead bushes/trees and exotic weeds and litter from the southern end of Frenchman’s Bay and on the piece of land and rock formation known as Lot 5113 DP 752015, 1613 Anzac Parade;

c)         Maintain this area on a regular basis;

d)         Investigate future use or making 1613 Anzac Parade a public reserve and landscaping the area; and

e)         Further, that a report be brought back to a meeting of Council on the current status of leases/ownership/responsibility for/of the Stannard boat shed deck.

 

ISSUES:

 

(a), (b), (c) above have been completed. 

 

 

With regard to (d) above,  namely

 

Investigate future use or making 1613 Anzac Parade a public reserve and landscaping the area

 

Arrangements has been made for the area  to be landscaped, the disused road pavement to be removed, the guardrail to be realigned and  interruptive signage to be provided, subject to consultation with relevant local groups.

 

In regard to (e) above the decking is situated within R77947 for public recreation notified 2nd September, 1955.  Council was appointed trustee of the reserve 13th January, 1956.

 

In 2001 the Department of Land & Water Conservation wrote to Council advising that it had received a request from Identity Design, acting on behalf of “Pete’s Boatshed”, for owner’s consent to lodge a Development Application for the conversion of the decking adjoining the boatshed for use as an outdoor seating/dining area.  A report was prepared for Council and Council resolved to:

 

advise the Department of Land & Water Conservation that Council does not object to the lodgement of a development application for the use of the former Stannard Bros deck for the purposes of outdoor seating/dining associated with the adjoining commercial use.

 

Subsequently a development application was submitted to Council and in September 2002, development consent was granted for Development Application No.142/02 for permission to rectify the existing maritime deck and install balustrade to provide 24 tables and 84 chairs to provide for an area of outdoor dining at “Pete’s Boatshed” 1609 Anzac Parade La Perouse subject to the 25 conditions, including a condition to enter into a  formal licence agreement with Council covering the terms and conditions of the outdoor deck dining.  As at the present date, the development application has not been taken any further. The development consent lapses on the 16 th September, 2007.

 

In response to Council’s resolution, the following is the current status:

 

1.         There are no current leases associated with Stannard Bros boat shed deck.  A development application dealing with the deck giving consent for its use as an outdoor dining area subject to a formal licence agreement was approved by Council in September 2002 but the intentions of the applicant to continue with this activity are not known;

 

2.         The land upon which Stannard boat shed deck stands is within R77947 for public recreation notified 2nd September, 1955.  Council was appointed trustee of the reserve on 13th January, 1956.

 

3.         Currently the responsibility for this parcel of land rests with Council.  Galvanised fencing together with a gate was recently installed to prevent unauthorised access to the deck area.  The Frenchmans Bay POM provided management strategies for the Stannard Bros boat shed deck on the basis that the area would be used as outdoor dining.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There are no financial impacts upon Council at this moment.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Until the intentions of the applicant to continue with the development consent are known Council cannot determine the future of Stannard boat shed deck.  This should be resolved with the applicant before decisions can be made concerning the future use of the facility.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That information contained in the Director, City Services Report 73/2005 be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 74/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Council-owned Ficus Hillii (Hill's Fig) growing outside 42 Balfour Road, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

16 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 42 Balfour Road, Kensington, Ms Peggy Cheng, has once again written to Council highlighting the problems she is experiencing with tree roots from a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside her property.

 

Ms Cheng first applied to Council in late 2003 to have this tree removed and replaced with a more appropriate species because of concerns that the roots of the tree were causing structural damage to her residence.

 

ISSUES:

 

Ms Cheng initially wrote to Council on 30 October, 2003, advising that a relatively large tree root had been found in the basement area of her residence and indicating that she felt this root had emanated from the fig tree growing on the nature strip outside the property.

 

A site inspection by Council’s Tree Management Officer confirmed that the root belonged to the Council-owned street tree and that there were a number of roots growing into the property.

 

Large sections of the paved footpath area adjacent to where the tree is growing have had to be replaced on several occasions.

 

The tree concerned is in excellent health and is one of the largest street trees growing along the western side of Balfour Road, Kensington.

 

The tree is approximately 20 metres in height and around the same dimension across the canopy.

 

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 significant scenic/environmental amenity and with providing important 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 $14,400 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

However, its roots cause ongoing damage to the adjacent footpath and it drops copious amounts of fruit and leaf litter onto the footpath and nature strip.

 

All these problems constitute a very real liability issue for Council – although the footpath can be repaired (only a temporary measure) and the fruiting issue is seasonal.

 

Since November, 2003, Council’s Tree Gang has had to return to the property on two occasions to sever roots growing underneath the residence and into the basement and laundry areas.

 

On 9 June, 2005, tree roots were severed by the Tree Gang and Ms Cheng placed them in a plastic bag and brought them up to Council for its Tree Management Officer to inspect and requesting that the problems associated with the roots of this tree be addressed.

 

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:

 

At this point in time there is no actual physical evidence that roots from this tree are causing structural damage to the residence at 42 Balfour Road, Kensington.

 

However, considering the nature and aggressiveness of the roots of this particular species of tree and the fact that roots have infiltrated as far into the property as the basement and laundry area, it is probably only a matter of time before actual structural damage starts to occur.

 

The removal and replacement of this tree would certainly fall within the parameters set out in Council’s recently adopted resolution relating to aggressive-rooted street 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 outside 42 Balfour Road, Kensington, be removed and replaced with an advanced Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

bryan bourke

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

tree management officer

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director, City Services' Report 75/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

CCA TREATED TIMBER ISSUES.  

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08408

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 12th April, 2005, resolved that Council -

 

a)           note the Environmental Management Officer’s report;

b)           endorse the Due Diligence/Duty of Care measures contained in the report;

c)           review the implementation actions in relation to these measures in six month’s time; and

d)           consider a report to be brought back to the next Works Committee dealing which, if any, of Council’s playgrounds are subject to this type of wood and options for the prioritisation of their replacement being put forward.

 

ISSUES:

 

CCA TREATED TIMBER INVESTIGATION IN COUNCIL PLAYGROUNDS

 

In response to resolution d) above OTEK Australia Pty Ltd has been engaged to conduct a CCA treated timber audit of all Council existing facilities, due to concerns of health and environmental risk.

 

The auditor will address the following issues in the audit report;

 

1         Identify the Quantity of CCA Treated Timber Used in Council Facilities.

2         Soil Sampling and Analysis at Sensitive Facilities.

3         Conduct Risk Analysis based on the Audit Findings.

4         Recommendation based on findings of the qualitative risk analysis.

5         OTEK will provide recommendations for migration of potential liabilities     identified.

 

OTEK Pty Ltd submitted an Audit Plan on 8 June 2005. The final report submission is due in August 2005; however, the final submission may vary because of soil testing.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost to complete the project is $14,410.50 (GST exclusive). Council Infrastructure Services are funding the audit. The long term financial impact of Council’s use of CCA treated timber cannot be assessed until the Audit is completed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director, City Services’ Report 75/2005 dated 20 June, 2005, be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

ZAMAN SHAMSUZ

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 76/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

MALABAR POOL LONG TERM SOLUTION.

 

 

DATE:

10 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07490 xR F20005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 1 March, 2005, resolved  -

 

“that a report be brought before the next Works Committee on a long term solution to the constant break down of the Malabar Pool pump. The report should include spare pump, more efficient pumps, renovating pool to naturally flush, ways of getting rid of debris floating in the pool which is not getting flushed out and any plans for amenities for Malabar Rock Pool”.

 

ISSUES:

 

A spare pump has recently been purchased with a new set up for pump installation. The initial pump changeover with the new system has occurred smoothly and required fewer staff involved.

 

Council has approached the Fisheries Department and now is awaiting approval from the Department to remove the seagrass.  The removal of the seagrass should improve the water quality considerably. 

 

A toolbox consisting of a pool scoop, broom, shovel and rake are now available on-site at Malabar Pool and three residents have been supplied keys to the toolbox to enable them to use these items when required (at their request). 

 

Weekly pool inspections are carried out and algae removed when necessary and when tides permit. Changeover of the pump will occur every six months  (April and October).

 

There is no provision of funds in the present budget for amenities at the Malabar Rock Pool.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

All costs associated with the maintenance of the Malabar Pool are included in the existing maintenance budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Director’s Report on the Rock Pool at Malabar be received and noted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director, City Services’ Report 76/2005 dated 10 June, 2005 be received and noted and the procedure now in place for pump maintenance be reviewed after completion of the 2005/2006 summer season.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

PETER STONE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER INFRASTRUCTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

Director, City Services' Report 77/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

INSTALLATION OF CROSS STREET BANNER POLES IN ALL COMMERCIAL CENTRES IN RANDWICK CITY.

 

 

DATE:

28 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07744 xr F2005/00171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held 24th May 2005 Councillor Notley-Smith submitted a Motion Pursuant to Notice on the installation of cross street banner poles in all commercial centres in Randwick City. It was resolved -  

 

“that a report be brought back to Works Committee on the cost of installation of cross street banner poles in all Commercial Centres in Randwick City.

 

In response to the above resolution the following report provides background information and cost details for the supply and installation of cross street banner poles.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Major Commercial Areas

The major commercial centres in the City of Randwick are as follows:

 

1. Clovelly

6.   Malabar

2. Coogee

7.   Maroubra Beach

3. Kensington

8.   Maroubra

4. Kingsford

9.   Matraville

5. The Spot

10. Randwick

 

It is understood that the purpose of these poles would be to advertise the community events of various organisations including Council. The viability of locating across–street banner poles in the commercial centres would need to be carefully assessed before any works were undertaken.

 

It should be noted that it is not permissable to install across-street banners on State Roads such as Anzac Parade.

 

 

 

Process for Installation of Poles

Across Street Banners (refer Attachment 1) will most likely require customised engineered poles. Poles for this purpose require to be highly engineered due to the range of environmental conditions e.g wind loadings. 

 

The poles at the commercial centres would need to incorporate the following characteristics:

 

§ aesthetically appropriate

§ made of materials most appropriate to the prevailing conditions

§ poles are to be between 7- 7.5 metre in height in most locations

§ allow for a 1.0 metre deep x 8.0 metre wide banner to be strung across the full width of a street or/and allow for two 1.0 metre deep x  5.0 metre banners to be strung across each carriageway of a street in most locations

§ have appropriate fixings for the easy installation of the banner (winch system)

§ be able to be replaced within a period of 6 weeks if damage occurs to the poles.

 

The process that would need to be undertaken to ensure the delivery of appropriate across-street poles is outlined in the following:

 

§ concept design of the poles

§ obtaining of approvals from relevant agencies for the installation of the poles including RTA and service authorities

§ engineering documentation and certification for the supply and installation of the poles

§ technical specification of the poles

§ manufacture and supply of the poles.

 

Further to the above an appropriate management and maintenance plan would need to be put in place to ensure the appropriate use and condition of the elements. This plan would require appropriate funding.

 

It should be noted that a well known Manufacturer of poles strongly recommends against the use of these poles for across street banners. They have advised that the cost and problems associated with the functionality and occupational health and safety have caused them to withdraw from the design and manufacture of these poles.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost of the supply and installation of a set (i.e. 2 poles) of across-street banner poles would be in the order of $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 per set. If poles were installed at the commercial centres listed above the total costs would be in the order of $300,000.00 to $400,000.00.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Director, City Services’ Report 77/2005 dated 28 June, 2005, be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Diagram Across Street Banner Pole.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

LANDSCAPE  DESIGN coordinator

 



 

Director, City Services' Report 78/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT

 

 

DATE:

29 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

At its Ordinary Council meeting on 22 February 2005, on the Motion of Councillor Sullivan, Council resolved that:

 

The General Manager report to the next Council meeting on how the graffiti plan for the removal of graffiti from public and private buildings throughout the City is progressing.

 

This report documents the progress made in management of graffiti throughout the City.

 

ISSUES:

 

Graffiti Audit

 

Council carried out an audit of the graffiti in the City during March 2005. The audit recorded 4312.5sq.m of graffiti on a total of 366 sites in the City and 79.2% of the graffiti is on non-council property. Out of the total amount of graffiti, 2904.5sq.m will require removal and 1408 sq.m will require paint out. The average size of graffiti per site is above 11sq.m, which is well above the industry average of 8sq.m.

 

There were 207 “Through Ups” and 2744 tags, of which 35.7% belong to 10 different taggers. Tags represent 93% of the total graffiti. Offensive graffiti was identified at 9 locations.

 

The worst affected suburbs are Randwick, Maroubra, Matraville and Coogee with 48% of the graffiti being in Randwick and Maroubra. Central, South and North were the worst affected wards. Residential hot-spots were in Randwick and Coogee. About 50% of the graffiti is on main roads, over 43% on minor roads and the remainder on back streets.

 

Graffiti Management Team

 

A two-member graffiti team has been formed under the City Services Department and will be operational early in 05/06 financial year. The team is equipped with a truck and other necessary instruments required for graffiti removal and paint out.

 

Graffiti Management Truck.

 

 

Graffiti Management Policy

 

The graffiti audit findings clearly show that the extent of the graffiti problem in the Randwick City Council area is very high. This problem cannot be resolved through one-off action, but requires comprehensive planning.

 

A draft graffiti management policy has been developed for Council’s consideration. After Council’s approval, this draft policy will then be advertised for 28 days for public comment and reported back to Council for final approval.

 

A draft policy is shown at attachment 3.

 

Legislation

 

Under Section 67A of the Local Government Act 1993, owner’s consent is required to remove graffiti from structures or assets not vested in the Crown nor owned by Council that is not accessible from a public place, However, under Section 67B of the Act no such consent is required for removal of graffiti from private property, if the property is accessible from a public land.

Council has developed an owner’s consent form through which the above information will be collected and a graffiti register maintained.

 

The Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to keep a register of graffiti removal from private properties and states:

1) The council must keep a register of graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with section 67A or 67B.

(2) The register is to specify in respect of each incidence of graffiti removal work carried out:

(a) the owner or occupier of the premises on which the graffiti was situated, and

(b) the nature of the work carried out, and

(c) the actual cost, or an estimate of the cost at current market rates, of carrying out the work, and

(d) in the case of graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with section 67A—the actual amount charged by the council for carrying out the work.

 

Council is currently developing a graffiti register database that will enable recording of all the information under Section 67C of the Act. Until the database preparation is completed, necessary information will be recorded in a register manually.

 

Graffiti Management Procedures

 

In managing the graffiti problem in the City the graffiti management team will adopt the following procedures:

 

1.         Spot graffiti and billposters on Council and private properties on main and minor roads:

 

2.         Take photographic evidence for registration in Council’s Graffiti register;

 

3.         Obtain owner’s consent for removal or paint out of graffiti on private properties;

 

4.         Remove or paint out of graffiti from Council property on main roads within 2 days of spotting or reporting and from private properties within 2 days of owners’ consent;

 

5.         Remove or paint out of graffiti from Council property on minor roads within 5 days of spotting or reporting and from private properties within 5 days of owners’ consent being obtained;

 

6.         Take photographic evidence of removed or painted out graffiti; and

 

7.         Record private property owner’s details, photograph each graffiti incidence, nature of the work carried out and cost of work.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A graffiti management team has been formed to spot and remove or paint out graffiti and billposters from private and council properties starting early in 2005/06 financial year.

 

Owner’s consent is required to remove graffiti from a private property if the property is not accessible from a public land. However, we will also seek owner’s consent for the removal of graffiti on private property that is accessible from public land.

 

A graffiti register will be maintained for carrying out graffiti management work on private property.

 

A draft graffiti management policy has been developed that will be advertised for public comments following Council endorsement.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.         Note that a graffiti management team has been formed to spot and record graffiti in a graffiti register, and remove or paint out graffiti and billposters from private and council properties starting from early in 05/06 financial year;

 

2.         Note that before removal or paint out of graffiti from private property, owner’s consent will be sought; and

 

3.         Endorse the draft Graffiti Management Policy for public display.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Summary of Graffiti Audit

2. Consent form for graffiti removal from private property.

3. Draft Graffiti Management Policy.  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR WASTE POLICY AND PLANNING

 


Attachment 1.

 

Summary of Graffiti Audit

 

A graffiti Audit has been carried out in the Randwick City Council local government area in February 2005 with the objective of finding out the extent of graffiti in the City.

 

The audit recorded 4312.5 square metres of graffiti on 366 sites. Of the total amount of graffiti, 2904.5 square metres can be removed and 1408 square metres will require painting out.

 

Among the suburbs, Randwick, Maroubra, Matraville and Coogee are the worst affected ones. Randwick and Maroubra had 48% of the total graffiti in the local government area. In respect of wards, Central, South and North wards were affected most. Graffiti on non-council property was found to be 79.2% of the total graffiti recorded. Energy Australia properties had 62.2% of the total graffiti.

 

There were 2744 tags that contributed to 93% of all graffiti. Of all the tags, 35% came from 10 separate taggers. There were only 207 ‘Throw Ups’. ‘Red Alert’ or offensive graffiti was found at 9 locations.

 

Most of the graffiti (90%) was recorded on main and minor roads, whereas very little was on back streets. Most of the graffiti recorded (79%) was in spray paint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2.

 

Consent form for removal of graffiti from Private Property

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Consent to Clean Graffiti

 

Randwick City Council (“the Council”) has developed a multi-faceted programme to tackle graffiti in Randwick.

 

As part of the programme, Council will seek to remove all graffiti that appears within Randwick including that appearing on private property. Under 67B of the Local Government Act 1993, a council may, “without the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land, carry out graffiti removal work to property on that land if the graffiti concerned is visible from a public place”.

 

Notwithstanding, our powers under the abovementioned section, we hereby seek your express consent to remove graffiti from your property or assets found within the City of Randwick, as and when it appears.

 

If you agree, please acknowledge your consent below.

 

If you have any queries whatsoever regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact ______________ at ___________.

 

 

 

 

I, ______________________[Insert Name], the ______________ [Insert Designation] of

_________________________ [Insert Name of Organisation] hereby give my consent to

Randwick City Council and/or their agents removing graffiti appearing on our property

within Randwick City henceforth.

 

____________________ [Signed]

 

____________________[Name and designation]

 

____________________[Date]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3.

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

 

 

 

Draft Graffiti Management Policy

 


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT POLICY

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

The term 'graffiti' is generally used as an all-encompassing label for any illegal writing or drawing on buildings, trains, fences etc. There are different forms of graffiti, the most prevalent being the practice of 'tagging' an identifying word with spray paint or a wide felt tip pen in a publicly visible place. Graffiti is a well studied practice, as noted by Alonso: '...psychologists, sociologists, linguists, law enforcement, anthropologists and geographers have studied graffiti. It has been examined to understand adolescent personality, ancient cultures, sexual attitudes, artistic style, gender differences, behaviour, communication, female suppression and territoriality.

 

A graffiti audit carried out in February 2005 recorded over 4000 square metre of graffiti in Randwick City Council area. This is quite high level of graffiti, which is a community concern.

 

Residents are often legitimately angry when vandals deface their homes, pubic places and open space. Unsightly graffiti adds to an atmosphere of neglect and urban decay, and distorts perceptions about the actual level of crime and safety.

 

This policy has been developed in response to the proliferation of graffiti within the Randwick City Council.

 

Overall, the aim of this policy is to create and maintain better neighbourhoods for residents, businesses and visitors by effectively preventing and managing graffiti and bill posters.

 

1.1 PURPOSE

 

The Graffiti Management Policy has been formulated to enhance the Randwick City Council’s streetscape by minimising the impact of graffiti. This policy provides the City with a framework through which to respond to the ongoing prevalence of graffiti in the Local Government Area. This policy applies across the Randwick City Council Local Government Area.

 

The desired outcome of this policy is to reduce graffiti and bill poster occurrences through the use of rapid removal and other initiatives.

 

 

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY

 

The objectives of the policy are:

-     To enhance the Randwick City Council’s built and natural environment by reducing incidents of graffiti.

-     To remove graffiti as quickly as possible as a deterrent.

-     To provide avenues for residents to display notices / posters of community interest particularly for the purpose of social, political and environmental comment.

-     To involve the local community and young people as partners in reducing graffiti.

-     To remove graffiti using environmentally sustainable methods to minimise harm to the environment.

 

1.3 POLICY STATEMENT

 

The Randwick City Council seeks to minimise the incidents of graffiti on both public and private property by prompt removal.

 

1.4 POLICY PRINCIPLES

 

The Randwick City Council’s Graffiti Management Policy is based on the following principles:

-     The need for a holistic program that considers a broad range of community interests including removal of graffiti from private property.

-     Resident concerns about graffiti and owner/occupier rights to graffiti free assets.

-     Residents need for legitimate means to display notices/ posters of community interest particularly for the purpose of social, political and environmental comment.

-     Posters and notices on poles and buildings can end up in the streets and ultimately pollute our waterways through the stormwater system if not managed carefully.

-     Graffiti management strategies must be efficient and cost effective.

-     The importance of community consultation and solutions relating to graffiti and programs for youth.

 

-     The need to involve all departments within Council and key government agencies regarding innovations to deter graffiti, by way of design and planning concepts.

-     There are four key elements to minimise the impact of graffiti. These elements include: prevention; continual removal; prosecution and; education.

 

1.5 DEFINITIONS

 

For the purposes of the Randwick City Council’s Graffiti Management Policy:

 

“The Act”

Means the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

 

Graffiti

Means any inscription, word, figure or word design that is marked, etched, scratched, drawn, sprayed, painted, pasted, applied or otherwise affixed to or on any surface of any Assets and includes any remnants of same such as adhesives, glues, tape, shadows or colour variations remaining after removal.

 

Graffiti Register

Means the register that is required to be developed and maintained in accordance with section 67 of the Act.

 

Non-Publicly Accessible Private Property Assets (NPAPP)

Means structures and assets not vested in the Crown nor owned by the Randwick City Council on Private Land as defined by the Act. Graffiti on this private land must be visible from a public place yet inaccessible from a public place. Removal of Graffiti from NPAPP can only occur with the owner / occupier’s consent, in accord with Section 67A of the Act.

 

Owner’s Consent

Means the consent required from the owner/occupant in order to remove Graffiti from NPAPP in accord with section 67A of the Act.

 

Publicly Accessible Private Property (PAPP)

Means structures and assets not vested in the Crown nor owned by the Randwick City Council on Private Land as defined by the Act. Graffiti on this land is visible from a public place and can be accessed / reached from a public place. Graffiti can be removed from PAPP without the consent of the owner/ occupier in accordance with Section 67B of the Act.

 

Main Roads

Means streets that are inspected every two days a week to identify incidents of graffiti for removal.

 

Minor Roads

Means streets that are inspected once a week to identify incidents of graffiti for removal.

1.6 LEGISLATION

 

1.6.1. Local Government Amendment (Graffiti) Act 2002

 

The Local Government Amendment (Graffiti) Act 2002 commenced on 19 July 2002. This Act provides councils with the power and therefore the responsibility to remove graffiti where the graffiti can be seen and accessed from a public place.

 

If Randwick City Council uses its powers under this Act, it is required to:

-     Meet all costs associated with the removal of the graffiti; and

-     Give written notice to the owner/occupier that the graffiti has been removed.

 

1.6.2. Summary Offences Act 1988.

 

Graffiti is illegal in New South Wales. Damaging or defacing property by means of chalk, paint, felt tip markers or other material is an offence. This offence is reported by the NSW Police as malicious damage.

 

Most graffiti related offences in New South Wales are handled under the Summary Offences Act 1988, Sections 9, 10a, 10b and 10c.

 

Under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (Section 10c) it is also illegal for anyone to sell spray paint cans to persons under the age of 18. This law commenced on 1 September 2003.

 

2. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

 

2.1 KEY ELEMENTS

 

While it is not possible to eliminate graffiti altogether, Council will adopt a variety of strategies to reduce illegal graffiti. These strategies aim to:

-     Prevent the reoccurrence of illegal graffiti through rapid removal;

-     Educate the community about the illegality of graffiti;

-     Prevent the reoccurrence of illegal graffiti through the prosecution of offenders;

 

-     Provide local opportunities for residents to display notices/posters of community nature;

-     Lessen the negative financial and social impact of illegal graffiti; and

-     Reduce the fear of crime in the community.

 

2.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

 

The Randwick City Council’s Graffiti Management Policy will be implemented focusing on the following fundamentals:

-     Twice a week inspection of main roads and removal of graffiti within two days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

-     Once a week inspection of minor roads and removal of graffiti within five days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

-     Promoting the Council Call Centre to residents to report graffiti for removal.

-     Providing community noticeboards and great opportunities in key areas for the display of community / event information.

 

3. POLICY GUIDELINES

 

3.1 GENERAL

-     Council will inspect main roads twice a week and remove graffiti within two days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

-     Council will inspect all other streets once a week and remove graffiti within five days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

-     Residents/ratepayers can call Council’s Call Centre (1300 722 542) to report graffiti for removal or to ask advice on managing graffiti.

-     All solvents, additives or chemicals used by Council for removing graffiti should be handled with ecologically sustainable development principles to minimise harm to the environment and comply with relevant environmental law and policies.

 

3.2 RAPID REMOVAL

 

An effective strategy against illegal graffiti is to remove it as quickly as possible and to persist in removing it. Removal of graffiti should be done as soon as possible because:

-     Solvents dissolve paint more easily if it is not completely dried and hardened;

-     The appearance of the property and the neighbourhood is improved making it a less likely target for illegal graffiti and dumped waste;

-     Illegal graffitists will be deprived of the reward/satisfaction of recognition.

 

3.3 MAIN ROAD AREAS

 

Main Road Areas contain streets that are subjected to high pedestrian traffic and tend to be the main gateways and thoroughfares in the City. These streets are subjected to a large amount of graffiti and posters on a daily basis.

 

Due to their nature, Main Roads will be inspected five days a week and graffiti be removed within two days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

 

3.4 MINOR ROAD AREAS

 

Minor Road Areas contain streets that are not subject to high pedestrian traffic or large amounts of graffiti and posters.

 

Minor Road Areas will be inspected once a week and graffiti be removed within five days of identification or owner’s consent being obtained.

 

3.5 EMERGENCY REMOVAL CAPACITY

 

As part of Council’s graffiti removal program, Randwick City Council will have an emergency graffiti removal capacity that enables  Council to organise the removal of particularly offensive graffiti within six (6) hours from being reported.

 

3.6 HOARDINGS

 

Hoarding permit holders will be responsible for the removal of graffiti and bill posters from hoardings. Under this policy, each construction site will be required to ensure that the hoardings are kept free of graffiti and bill posters.

3.7 COUNCIL PROPERTY

 

Council’s assets are to be free of graffiti as a result of the graffiti removal program, reducing the incidents of graffiti through the use of a rapid removal strategy and the application of innovative techniques.

 

3.8 PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

Randwick City Council is committed to addressing community concerns about the financial and social costs of illegal graffiti and will remove graffiti from publicly accessible private property. Council recognises that some private property owners may not want Council to remove graffiti from their property due to anti-graffiti coatings on their buildings. In these cases Council will liaise with the property owner/occupier to ensure that graffiti is removed from their building as soon as practical to avoid attracting more graffiti.

 

3.9 PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

Under section 67A of the Local Government Act 1993, Council has the power and therefore the responsibility to remove graffiti, where the graffiti can be seen and accessed from a public place.

 

For each incident of graffiti removed from publicly accessible private property, Council shall:

-     Take photographic evidence of the incident (pre and post removal);

-     Update the graffiti register (as per section 67C of the Act) within 5 working days of the removal of the incident;

-     Within 5 working days of removal, provide the owner/occupier of the property concerned with written notice that the removal has occurred; and

-     Meet all costs associated with the removal of the graffiti.

 

3.10 NON PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

Under section 67B of the Local Government Act 1993, Council can remove graffiti, with the consent of the owner/occupier where the graffiti can be seen yet inaccessible from a public place.  For such properties Council will:

-     Obtain the consent of the property owner/occupier to remove the graffiti;

-     Take photographic evidence of the incident (pre and post removal);

-     Update the graffiti register (as per section 67C of the Act) within 5 working days of the removal of the incident;

-     Within 5 working days of removal, provide the owner/occupier of the property concerned with written notice that the removal has occurred; and

-     Meet all costs associated with the removal of the graffiti.

 

3.11 PUBLIC ENQUIRIES

 

Members of the community can report incidences of graffiti for removal to  Council on 1300 722 542.

 

Incidents reported to this line will be removed within a working day of reporting or owner’s consent being obtained.

 

3.12 POSTERS & NOTICES

 

Bill posters are comparable to corporate vandalism as they are usually advertising events organised by private businesses. These posters are often posted in an uncontrolled manner without the permission of the owner of the asset.

 

Power poles are a prime target for posters of commercial nature. These posters often attract more posters with a consequential build up around poles on a daily basis.

 

There is a great possibility that posters can become litter. Posters can deteriorate and end up in the streets and ultimately pollute our waterways through the stormwater system.

 

Posters can also cause serious damage to Energy Australia’s poles. Posters can inhibit airflow around poles causing the pole structure to rot. Posters can also create an environment conducive to termites. Overtime, this damage can affect the structure of these poles.

 

Energy Australia does not have an official bill poster removal program. However, in response to the problems caused by unauthorised signage on poles, Energy Australia’s Network Division has developed an informal policy. Under this policy, wrap-around posters are not permitted under any circumstance.

 

Under Randwick City Council’s graffiti removal program, posters which are pasted, applied or otherwise affixed to any surface of any asset are removed to prevent litter and damage from occurring. This also includes remnants such as adhesives, glues or tape remaining after removal.

 

Council Rangers will action when they witness someone in the act of posting advertisements. However under current legislation, Council is limited in what it can do in applying the penalties. There is no on-the-spot infringement.

 

It has been found that prompt removal of bill posters is a more effective deterrent than prosecution.

 

3.13 COMMUNITY EDUCATION / AWARENESS

 

Council’s graffiti management program will be promoted to residents and ratepayers during regular community forums and in newsletters.

 

Promotional material will also be developed and distributed to gain community awareness of graffiti removal and prevention strategies to assist with the management of graffiti on private property.

 

3.14 PROSECUTION

 

Graffiti is illegal in New South Wales. Damaging or defacing property by means of chalk, paint, felt tip markers or other material is an offence. This offence is reported by the NSW Police as malicious damage.

 

Most graffiti related offences in New South Wales are handled under the Summary Offences Act 1988, Sections 9, 10a, 10b and 10c.

 

Council Rangers also will take action when they witness someone in the act of defacing property with graffiti or posting advertisements.

 

However under current legislation, Council is limited in prosecuting bill posters. There is no on-the-spot infringement.


 

Director, City Services' Report 79/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

SURF SENSE PROGRAM PROPOSAL FOR SCHOOLS

 

 

DATE:

27 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07107

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

It is proposed to re-introduce the Schools Surf Sense program into the local community. This program is designed to develop a child’s ability to recognise and recreate in a beach environment.

 

The program will be targeted at Year 4 students, rather than Year 6, which has happened in previous years. The aim of earlier intervention is to prepare children before they start visiting the beach unaccompanied by a parent/guardian.

 

ISSUES:

 

The time frame for this program will be from 10 October 2005 to 4 November 2005 and 21 schools will be invited to participate.

 

The teaching sessions will run for approximately 1½ hours. The format and teaching tools for each session is as follows:

 

Section 1         Gearing Up      

DVD (which has yet to be produced), featuring children getting ready for a day at the beach.

 

Section 2         Hanging out

PowerPoint presentation (included on the DVD), which shows the beaches in the RCC area, pictures of beach signage, blue bottles and rock pools.

 

Section 3         Getting wet

Interactive picture symbol boards, which involves the children selecting beach items and placing them on the board.

 

The DVD used in these teaching sessions will be replacing the video that was made 10 years ago. As well as a new introduction, a few new scenes will be added e.g a child caught in a rip, child surfing.

 

Advantages of a DVD are that there is no mechanical wear to a DVD disk and they are not susceptible to being ‘chewed up’ by a VCR.  Clarity remains after many times of use.

 

The Lifeguards wish to issue each child with a Surf Sense Education booklet & sticker, which will be produced by Council staff.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Mack Media Creations will be producing the DVD for a cost of $1,500.00 (excluding GST). This includes:

 

·          Filming the scenes

·          PowerPoint Presentation          

·          Editing

·          Master copy of DVD + one extra copy

 

This has been included in next year’s draft budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Surf Sense Education program is a very worthwhile community program and its re-introduction is supported.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information on the Surf Sense Education Program contained in the Director, City Services’ Report 79/2005 be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

PETER STONE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER INFRASTRUCTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 80/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

CORAL SEA PARK.

 

DATE:

9 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Council at its meeting held on 22nd March, 2005 a Motion Pursuant to Notice was submitted by Councillor Belleli and it was resolved -

 

“that a report be brought before the next Works Committee on options for pedestrian access into Coral Sea Park on the Yorktown Parade side near the club house, such report to also address the possible inclusion of a feature to illustrate and recognise this area’s history as a Speedway.”

 

The park has been inspected and the area in question is located opposite Perkins Way along Yorktown Parade. The embankment immediately between the amenities building and Yorktown Parade is eroding owing to poor access into the park and to the amenities facility.  The following photographs illustrate the issue.

 

 

Image 1            View of embankment opposite Perkins Way

 

 

 

Image 2            View of the embankment behind the amenities building.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The embankment exhibits signs of erosion owing to uncontrolled access to the park from Yorktown Parade.  From field observations it is estimated that the height differential between the kerb and the ground near to the amenities building is in the order of 1.8 metres.  The preliminary analysis would indicate that a set of 12 steps together with appropriate landings will be required to achieve the transition.  A retaining wall or extensive filling may also be required as part of the solution to this exercise.  An access ramp to current standards should also be considered.  A detailed survey and design would need to be prepared to confirm the field observations.

 

As stated in the Council Resolution, Coral Sea Park was formerly a Speedway.  An appropriately designed interpretive panel could be incorporated into this access design work.  Alternately, the location at the corner of Yorktown Parade and Chester Avenue may also lend itself as a suitable location for such a purpose given its immediate exposure.

 

FINANCIAL IMPART STATEMENT:

 

The cost to survey, design and construct an access stairs and ramp into Coral Sea Park at the requested location will cost in the order of $25,000.00.  Funds have not been identified for these works in the 2005-06 budget.  This estimate is subject to change following the preparation of a detailed design.  The estimated cost to design, construct and install appropriate interpretive signage at the above or other suitable location is in the order of $5,000.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Construction of an access ramp and steps at the identified location is considered necessary.  Funds in the order of $25,000.00 will be required to complete these works.  Design and construction of interpretive signage will cost in the order of $5,000.00 and would be a suitable addition to this park.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That $30,000.00 for these works be considered for inclusion in the 2006/2007 budget.

 

Nil 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 81/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Clovelly Beach Disabled Water Access Ramp Sand Removal  

 

 

DATE:

14 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07783

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Council Meeting 1st March 2005 Council considered a Motion Pursuant to Notice submitted by Councill Kenny regarding the Clovelly Beach Disability Access ramp. It was resolved  -

 

“that a report be brought before the Works Committee on the methods of keeping the Clovelly Beach Disabled Ramp clear of sand and that, should any reconstruction work be required, the Budget Review Working Group be authorised to deal with the matter in the 2005/06 Budget discussions and that the group forward a recommendation to the relevant Committee or Ordinary Council Meeting.”

 

This report reviews various options to manage the sand deposition on the Clovelly Beach Water Access Ramp and recommends the most appropriate option.

 

ISSUES:

 

Sand build up on the water access ramp has been a maintenance requirement for a number of years. The sand on the ramp impedes wheel chair access as it is difficult to push the thin wheels through loose sand.

 

Sand is deposited upon the ramp via wind, waves and tides as the natural movement of beach sand is towards the northern side of the beach. It is common for a few tonnes of sand to be blown or washed onto the ramp in one day. Council staff then manually shovels the sand off the ramp only to find the sand has been deposited back onto the ramp the next day and the maintenance process begins again.

 

A number of management options are available to reduce the amount of sand deposited upon the ramps which are discussed below:

 

Option 1 - Mechanical relocation of sand

When the sand builds up against the ramp, Council can establish on site, a rubber tracked D4 size bulldozer, to relocate the sand from the northern and western sides of the beach back to the southern and eastern sides of the beach. Greater than 500 millimetres depth of sand can be removed immediately adjacent to the ramp and relocated sixty metres across the beach to the southern side. Volumes in the order of one to two thousand cubic metres of sand will be needed to be relocated one or two times a year, at a cost of $4,000 to $7,000 per treatment depending upon the volume of sand to be relocated.

 

Council could trial this method as it requires no permanent works and no permanent beach impacts occur. The beach would need to be closed during the period of operation of the bulldozer being three to five days for occupational health and safety reasons. A review of environmental factors should be prepared for the activity.

 

Council staff will still need to occasionally shovel small volumes of sand from the ramp, particularly sand that is washed onto the ramp by waves and tides. However there would be labour savings that would offset the cost of utilising a bulldozer instead of regular manual shovelling of sand.

 

Option 2 - Manual shovelling of sand from the ramp

Manual shovelling of sand from the ramp is Council’s current form of sand management. Manual shovelling is very time consuming and shovelled sand is easily blown back onto the ramp as shovelled sand is deposited close to the side of the ramp.

 

This sand management method is not cost and time effective. The cost of manually shovelling sand is approximately $17,000 per year.

 

Option 3 - Construction of a retaining wall to hold back the sand

Construction of a retaining wall to hold back the sand would be another means of protecting the ramp from wind blown sand. Ultimately, once the sand has reached the top of the retaining wall the sand would then fill the ramp and require manual shovelling. As sand would eventually reach the top of the wall this would have a short term benefit with sand still needing to be moved from the ramp. In addition the relatively high surface levels of the beach compared to the ramp may appear unsightly.

 

The cost to build the retaining wall would be in the order of $100,000 and the recurrent costs of manual shovelling would commence two or three years after the construction of the retaining wall.

 

Option 4 - Rebuild the ramp in concrete to allow a skid steer loader to clean the ramp.

Council could rebuild the existing ramp in concrete but higher and wider to allow a skid steer loader to mechanically scrape off the sand as required. Option 1 would also need to be undertaken for this option to be effective.

 

The costs to rebuild the ramp in concrete would be approximately $250,000. Recurrent costs for the skid steer loader would be approximately $1,000 per treatment a few times a year.

 

Option 5 - Construction of a new Water Access Ramp on Southern Side of the Beach

Council could build a new water access ramp on the southern side of the Beach which is not affected by sand and demolish the northern access ramp. This project would require a Heritage Impact Statement and require development consent as this a new structure which changes the way people use the beach area.

 

The cost of this option is considerable and be in the order of $1,000,000. The ramp would occupy the entire southern side of the beach from the western end of the beach to the water. This ramp would be closer to the disabled parking spaces on the southern side enabling improved disabled access.  

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial impacts of the options are summarised below:

Option 1 – Recurrent costs between $10,000 and $17,000 per year which includes a small amount of manual shovelling.

Option 2 – At least $17,000 per year as recurrent costs.

Option 3 – Capital Cost $100,000 with recurrent costs of approximately $10,000 per year.

Option 4 – Capital Cost $250,000 with recurrent costs of approximately $10,000 per year.

Option 5 – Capital Cost $1,000,000.

 

Funding for the recurrent costs would be required to be added to the maintenance budget whilst the capital costs would need to be considered by Council for inclusion in a future Capital Works Budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The improvement in ramp serviceability for the community increases with increasing capital cost. If the ramp is maintained on the northern side, recurrent sand management activities are required.

 

Option 1 Mechanical relocation of sand appears to be the most cost effective option for Council to utilise at present. This option can be easily trialled. If Option 1 is found to be unsuitable then the other options discussed in this report can be further investigated and considered by Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Option 1, as detailed in the Director, City Services’ Report 81/2005, be trialled as the sand management practice for the Clovelly Beach Water Access Ramp. If option 1 is found to be reasonably successful, then option 1 be adopted as the permanent sand management practice.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSETS CO-ORDINATOR

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 82/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

IMPROVEMENTS AT DUFFY'S CORNER AND LEXINGTON PLACE, MAROUBRA.

 

 

DATE:

10 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08045 xr F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 24 May, 2005, resolved by way of Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Belleli that -

 

“A report is brought back to Council on the costing of the following in the 2006/07 budget -.

 

a)      Council replacing the old fence in the Council car park at Duffy’s corner with a stronger, more robust fence of the same length as the existing fence;

 

b)      Council re-marking parking lines in Council’s car park opposite Duffy’s corner; and

 

c)       Council re-making parking lines at Lexington place Car Park”.

 

ISSUES:

 

Arrangements are underway for the line marking at Duffy’s corner and Lexington Place to be carried out.

 

A quotation has been received for the fencing on the corner of Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road to replace the existing fencing.  The existing fencing has become an ongoing maintenance problem and therefore often has panels removed or broken allowing pedestrians to pass through the gaps.  A more solid fence has been proposed for this location. The new fence would be similar in design to the metal fence on Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The quotation to remove the existing fence and replace it is $32,000.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

That the work to remove and replace the existing fence in the Council car park at Duffy’s Corner be considered for 2006/2007 budget.

 

The remarking of the parking lines at both the Council’s car park opposite Duffy’s Corner and the car park at Lexington Place be implemented.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director, City Services Report 82/2005 be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 31/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

INCORPORATION OF BABY HEALTH CENTRE INTO RANDWICK BRANCH LIBRARY PREMISES 

 

 

DATE:

4 July, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/1109(2) xr F2004/07367

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Discussions have been held with the Director of Administrative Services of the Sydney Children’s Hospital Randwick regarding the incorporation of the Baby Health Centre into the Randwick Branch Library premises at 73 Belmore Road, Randwick.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Sydney Children’s Hospital Randwick has sought assistance from Randwick City Council in regard to their tenure at Royal Randwick Shopping Centre.

 

Discussions have been held to ascertain whether Council could incorporate a Baby Health Clinic within the Randwick Branch Library’s leased premises.

 

The benefit of incorporating both services would be felt by both Council and the SEAHS.

 

SEAHS are currently leasing a suite within the Royal Randwick Shopping complex.  Their lease has expired and they are occupying the premises on a month to month holding over basis.  It is understood their rental is very expensive and it is becoming increasingly harder to meet their rental obligations.

 

Randwick City Council has a ninety-nine year lease over a Suite measuring 968m2, for a peppercorn rental of $1.00 per annum.  Council is responsible for 6.96% of the Centre’s Outgoings. Over the years the outgoings have significantly increased and incorporating the Baby Health Centre into the Library under a licence agreement, paying a percentage of the outgoings of the library will reduce the expenses for Council and the Baby Health Centre.

 

The Library is in need of refurbishment and Library Services indicated they do not require the full floor space.

Council has sought and received the approval in principle of the Centre Management in accordance with the lease agreement, to the incorporation of the Baby Health Centre into the Library Services.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The approximate cost of the refurbishment works is $60,000.00 including GST.  The cost of the refurbishment works would be off-set against the rental income from the Baby Health Centre which would equate to an annual income of approximately $14,500.00 + GST.  The cost of the refurbishment works would be recouped within four (4) years.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick Branch Library is in need of refurbishment.  The floor space is in excess of the needs of the Library services and with increasing outgoings costs being off-set by the incorporation of the Baby Health Centre both Council and the Sydney Children’s Hospital will benefit by the merger of these services.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council fund the capital refurbishment works of $60,000.00 including GST to fit-out the Randwick Branch Library to incorporate the services of the Sydney Children’s Hospital Randwick Baby Health Clinic and charge a rental based on the percentage of floor area utilised by the Baby Health Clinic within the Randwick Branch Library.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

..............................................                                                 

GENERAL MANAGER