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

 

 

6 September 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,  13TH SEPTEMBER 2005 AT6:00 PM

 

 

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, 9TH AUGUST, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Report of Committee

 

6           Works

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 97/2005 - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE CARPARK.

2

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 98/2005 - PROPOSED LEASE OF PORTION OF MELODY STREET, COOGEE TO COOGEE PUBLIC SCHOOL.

4

 

6.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 100/2005 - HIGH CROSS RESERVE, RANDWICK - RESTORATION OF WAR MEMORIAL.

6

 


 

6.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 102/2005 - POLICY ON "REQUESTS FOR NATURE STRIP/ROAD VERGE PLANTINGS".

8

 

6.5                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 103/2005 - BUS SHELTERS BY JCDECAUX.

12

 

6.6                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 104/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 13 KEATING STREET, MAROUBRA.

14

 

6.7                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 105/2005 -  ARAUCARIA HETEROPHYLLA AT REAR OF 35 HAROLD STREET, MATRAVILLE.

17

 

6.8                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 106/2005 - TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 17 AND 19 INGLETHORPE AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

19

6.9                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 107/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 15 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

22

 

6.10                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 108/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 31 BROADBENT STREET, KINGSFORD.

24

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 97/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE CARPARK.

 

 

DATE:

31 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08045 xr F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 9 August, 2005, considered Director City Services’ Report No 91/2005 concerning improved lighting of the carpark at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre. Council resolved on the Motion of Councillor Belleli and Councillor Seng that –

 

a)   the Director City Services Report 91/2005 dated 25 July, 2005 be received and noted; and

 

b)   Council officers and interested Councillors conduct a night inspection of the DRAC carpark lighting with a report to come back to the Works Committee detailing the outcome of this inspection and providing costings for increasing the level of lighting.

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the Council resolution, an on-site meeting was arranged for Tuesday 30 August, 2005, and interested Councillors were invited to attend. Councillors Woodsmith and Belleli attended together with Council’s Manager Technical Services, Mark Shaw.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council see it appropriate to provide one further light on an existing pole, the estimated cost would be $2,000.00 which could be funded from the parks upgrade in the current budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It was agreed at the on-site meeting that one further light could be installed on an existing pole in the DRAC carpark to further improve the amenity of the area.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That funds of $2,000.00 be allocated from the current parks upgrade budget to cover the installation of a light on an existing pole at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 98/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED LEASE OF PORTION OF MELODY STREET, COOGEE TO COOGEE PUBLIC SCHOOL.

 

 

DATE:

30 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07133

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 19 October, 2004, considered the Acting Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No. 78/2004 concerning a proposed lease of a portion of Melody Street, Coogee, to Coogee Public School.

 

Council resolved on the Motion of Councillor Tracey and Councillor Daley that -

 

“The Coogee Public School P & C Association be advised that Council agrees in principle to the lease of the section of Melody Street adjacent to the school, subject to the continuing public access outside school hours and public liability insurance and other relevant considerations; and

 

the General Manager be delegated authority to finalise this matter.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Accordingly, a letter was forwarded to the Principal, Coogee Public School on 23 November, 2004, suggesting a meeting be convened between representatives of the School and Council officers to determine the detailed requirements of the lease proposed by the School.  These requirements would need to address continuing public access outside school hours, public liability insurance and other relevant considerations.

 

Follow up letters were forwarded to the Coogee Public School and the following e-mail has been received on 30 August, 2005 from the Principal, Mr Ken Curran, advising that -

 

“Coogee Public School has an interest in accessing the vacant land in Melody Street as an extension to our school grounds. We have a growing school and our student population need more space for play and curriculum activities. To promote this matter I am in contact with Roger Turner at the DET who is a project officer in the Asset Management Unit.  I would like to provide him with a costing of the necessary landscaping which would be required to make this area a usable interface with the school.

 

I therefore ask if you could provide me with the services of an engineer who could examine the potential landscaping needs for this area and provide me with a written costing for the same. If that person is made available they could contact me at the school for a discussion of such a project.

 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.”

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that a meeting should be convened between representatives of Coogee Public School and Council officers to determine the detailed requirements of the leased proposed by the school, prior to moving forward with regard to landscaping.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director City Services’ Report dated 30 August, 2005, be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 100/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

HIGH CROSS RESERVE, RANDWICK - RESTORATION OF WAR MEMORIAL.

 

 

DATE:

1 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06574

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter dated 15 July, 2005, has been received from the Hon Secretary, Mr V R Thatcher, of the Returned and Services League of Australia NSW Branch (Clovelly Sub-Branch), seeking assistance to upgrade the High Cross War Memorial/Cenotaph, surrounds and grounds at High Cross Reserve.

ISSUES:

After discussions with members of the Combined Anzac Memorial Committee, President Clovelly RSL Sub-Branch and Hon Secretary recently, an inspection was carried out and the following improvements are considered beneficial to the Cenotaph:

·    General landscaping in the vicinity of the Cenotaph including the removal of the existing gardens, reshaping and turfing the existing garden area and transplanting some of the existing lavender to a nearby garden bed. This work will make the cenotaph more visible and accessible particularly for memorial events such as Anzac Day. It will also reduce the amount of maintenance needed to ensure the area is neat at all times.

·    Removal and replacement of the existing flag pole. This will reduce the visual impact of the pole itself and increase the impact on the open space as the old flag pole is supported with cables that intrude on the usable area of the park. The new flagpole will also have an internal halyard which reduces the potential for vandalism and makes the raising and lowering of flags safer and easier.

·    Clean the Cenotaph and install four (4) up lights. This will make the Cenotaph more visible and attractive particularly for early morning services. The increased lighting may also act as a deterrent to vandals.

·    Reconstruct the steps leading up to the Cenotaph in granite to replace the existing sandstone steps. This will greatly improve the look of the Cenotaph and return it the original concept of granite rather than the sandstone steps added in the past.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

 

§ Replace existing flagpoles.                                             $  5,000.00

§ Remove landscaping around memorial.              $10,000.00

§ Clean the memorial, transplant small amount

of lavender and install four (4) up lights.                         $10.000.00

§ Add granite steps to replace sandstone steps.                $  5,000.00

 

Should Council agree to these improvements, the costing would be approximately $30,000.00. Funding is available in the 2005/06 financial year budget from the General Park Improvement Budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This significant monument in High Cross had minor improvements made in 1998 including polishing of plaques and minor restoration works. The proposed works will significantly improve the look and usability of this area.

 

The above improvements are considered very worthwhile. The High Cross Memorial is very significant to the City of Randwick and proudly maintained.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council carry out improvements to the War Memorial Cenotaph in the current financial year and that funds be provided from the General Park Improvement Budget.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER - TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 102/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Policy on "Requests for Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings"

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07364

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Council meeting held 22nd February, 2005 considered the proposed policy "Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings.

 

At this meeting on the Motion of Councillor Woodsmith and Councillor Hughes, it was resolved that:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

Council receives a number of requests to incorporate planting within the grassed verge section of footpaths, within the Randwick LGA.  Given the number of requests and the footpath funding allocated each year, requests must be considered in the context of safety and maintenance.

 

The goals of the proposed "Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings” policy, are as follows:

 

1)   To provide consistency in the management of  requests for nature strip/road verge planting;

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

3)   To process the requests for Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings;

4)   To specify that future applicants of nature strip/road verge planting are to bear the full costs of such works; and

5)   To ensure that the construction of future nature strip/road verge planting satisfy Council maintenance and safety standards.

 

Requests for Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings

 

This policy has been prepared to legitimise verge plantings where it is more appropriate to utilise a more suitable verge planting than the standard grass and street tree configuration. A number of requests are received by Council for the planting of nature strips and garden beds.

 

Any such requests will be managed by Council in the form of a special Verge Planting Application.  Residents will be required to meet all the associated costs for the design and planting of the Nature Strip/Road Verge and will be responsible for the continual maintenance and upkeep of this area.

 

Council encourages resident participation in the beautification of streets in Randwick.  Should a resident request planting of a street tree, prior to any planting works, Council will carry out an assessment on the designated site, to determine the site suitability.  The planting of street tree species will be in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.  Ground cover species will require the consideration of council’s Landscape Architects for each particular site.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.  However, for any works approved by Council, under the requirements of this policy, there will be some indirect impact on Council’s maintenance resources for the purpose of routine maintenance.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed policy will greatly simplify the management of all resident requests for nature strip/road verge planting.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the “Request for Nature Strip/Road Verge Planting” Policy.  Residents who make these requests in future should be advised of Council’s policy and be notified of the Special Verge Planting application process, whereby the full costs of the works are borne by the applicant.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a.   Council adopt the Policy on “Requests for Nature Strip/Road Verge Plantings” (see attachment 1);

b.   Council’s Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nature Strip/Road Verge Planting Policy

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK LEONG

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER DRAINAGE

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

 

PART  4 – ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

 

Review Date:         /          /20                                                 Policy No: 

 

 

POLICY TITLE:         Nature Strip/ Road Verge Planting

 

File No.        

 

                                                                 OBJECTIVE

 

To provide Council with a procedure for managing resident requests for special non standard nature strip / road verge plantings adjacent to a property. 

 

                                                          POLICY STATEMENT

 

a)     That the adjacent property owner’s request for the special plantings on nature strips / road verges, require the completion of a pre-paid works application form to allow the relevant council officers to assess the special planting application.  The special planting application shall comprise plans and specifications regarding the proposed plants and layout of the planting including maintenance of the special planting. Council’s officers shall assess the application for pedestrian and property access, sight distance for pedestrians and vehicles, street lighting implications, streetscaping issues, horticultural issues, maintenance issues, impacts on adjoining properties and utility services, erosion and sedimentation control and affects upon and compliance with Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

b)     That residents be encourages to maintain their adjoining nature strips, except where the verge is an area that poses a significant public risk or the planting will significantly lower the maintenance of the area, (e.g. the slope of the verge is too steep or is inaccessible) and the special planting is seen as a benefit to the wider community.

 

c)     That Council will not permit any Nature Strip/Road Verge plantings (eg: garden beds or any other permanent structure), unless the Nature Strip/Road Verge has been deemed unsuitable for turf maintenance and alternative planting of the area would be seen as a benefit to the wider community.

 

d)     That requests associated with special planting of the nature strip/road verge, that have been deemed unsuitable for turf maintenance and alternative planting of the area would be seen as a benefit to the wider community, be forwarded to Council’s Landscape design section, and all associated costs, including maintenance and ultimate removal and restoration be borne by the adjacent property owner.

 

e)     That the adjacent property owner shall be wholly responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the special nature strip / verge planting.

 

f)     Property owners who have pre-existing special plantings and have no formal approval from Council shall be given the opportunity to make application to gain Council’s approval. Failure to achieve approval or the property owner elects not to make application, then Council may order the property owner to remove the special planting and restore the nature strip / road verge at the adjacent property owner’s cost.

 

 

Minute No:            /                                                 Meeting Date:                           


 

Director, City Services' Report 103/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

BUS SHELTERS BY JCDECAUX

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/00811

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 24th May 2005, on a Motion by Councillor Sullivan and Councillor Daley, resolved that –

 

(a)  the General Manager liaise with JCDecaux to ensure that Council is in a position to adequately notify the affected local businesses when the company is removing or replacing its bus shelters

(b)  a report be brought to Council as to how we can advise local businesses on how best to take advantage of the clause in the contract (between Council and JCDecaux) under which JCDecaux must consider giving favourable treatment to local businesses.

 

ISSUES:

 

In October, 2004 Council, through Bowen and Gerathy Lawyers, wrote to all businesses with advertising panels on Adbin shelters and advised them that the agreement between Randwick City Council and Adbin Pty Ltd had terminated in January, 2004, and that Adbin had no ongoing right to display such advertisements.

 

An offer was made by Council that any business wishing to retrieve advertising panels should contact Council within 14 days from the date of the letter. Only three (3) representations were made to Council from companies wishing to retrieve panels. The businesses that contacted Council were informed that Council would pursue options for the existing advertising clients to have an ongoing presence on the remaining Adbin advertising sites.

 

A meeting was held between Randwick City Councillors, Council officers and JCDecaux to discuss possible options in relation to existing local business advertising continuing on Council owned (ex Adbin) bus shelters until such time as those shelters were replaced or removed.

 

In December, 2004 JCDecaux responded to Council’s request with a proposal that provided a possible solution to the issue.

 

JCDecaux agreed to take on current Adbin clients (generally local businesses) where the advertising shelters are existing and are to remain for the short and medium term.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Notification was sent to all local businesses with advertising on ex Adbin bus shelters in relation to the expiry of the agreement and an opportunity was extended for those businesses to contact Council if they wanted to retain their advertising panels. The businesses that responded, expressing an interest in continuing to advertise on ex Adbin shelters, were given an undertaking that Council would pursue the matter with JCDecaux with a view to formulating a solution to the situation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director City Services Report dated 17th August, 2005 be received and noted.

  

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

LISA DURLAND

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSISTANT TO COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 104/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 13 KEATING STREET, MAROUBRA.

 

 

DATE:

29 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 13 Keating Street, Maroubra, has requested the removal and replacement of a Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is approximately seven metres in height with a canopy spread of around ten metres.

 

Council’s Tree Gang has in the past 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 affect the 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 low hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failures are considered.

 

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

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $7,200 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

Only recently a large tree of the same species was removed by Council from the nature strip outside 20 Keating Street, Maroubra, as a result of the ongoing tree root damage it was causing to both the adjacent property and surrounding public infrastructure.

 

Council’s approved footpath construction program includes the construction of a footpath along the southern side of Keating Street and the implementation of this program will necessitate the removal and replacement of this particular tree – among others.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the subject tree, re-instate the nature strip and to replace the tree with a super-advanced replacement species would be approximately $3,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management 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 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 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 13 Keating Street, Maroubra, 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 105/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ARAUCARIA HETEROPHYLLA AT REAR OF 35 HAROLD STREET, MATRAVILLE.

 

 

DATE:

29 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owners of 35 Harold Street, Matraville, Jackie and Martin Gawthrop, have written to Council requesting a review of its decision not to approve the removal of a very large Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine) growing within the rear of that property.

 

The owners of the property have serious concerns about the long term safety of the subject tree and my recent inspection revealed that several large branches had recently snapped from within the canopy – possibly as a result of severe wind storm activity.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree concerned is approximately 25 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 15 metres. It is in good health, although there is evidence of branch failure on the southern side of the canopy, and it contributes significantly to the surrounding landscape.

 

It provides important native fauna habitat and at this point in time is causing no structural damage to either public infrastructure or private property.

 

It is situated in the middle of the yard at the rear of the property and is located at least four-five metres from the residence on the adjoining property to the south. It is located approximately two metres from the common boundary with that property.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

This tree is growing within private property and any costs associated with its removal and replacement would be borne by the owner of the tree and not by Council.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

The subject tree is very large, is structurally sound and is highly prominent and significant in the surrounding landscape.

 

However, several large branches on the southern side of the tree have snapped without warning and although the tree is very large it is exposed to high winds and is perhaps a little incongruous for the situation in which it is growing.

 

The owner of 54 Australia Avenue, Matraville, Mrs R Baxt, which backs onto the property in which the subject tree is growing, has serious issues with the tree and adamantly supports the removal and replacement of the tree.

 

She highlights the fact that it is an entirely inappropriate species for a suburban back yard, that it provides negligible habitat and food source for native wildlife, potential for root damage to her sewerage pipes, potential structural damage to her residence, deprivation of sunlight into her property (which severely affects her chronic arthritis) and a genuine concern that falling branches could be life threatening.

 

The owners of the two adjoining properties at 33 Harold Street and 37 Harold Street both support the proposed removal and replacement of this tree and have provided Council with documented support of that proposal.

 

All these elements would obviously need to be considered when Council considers whether the tree should be removed and replaced with something more appropriate.

 

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 approval be granted to remove the potentially dangerous Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine) growing within the rear of 35 Harold Street, Matraville, and that it be replaced with a more appropriate native tree species.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER


 

Director, City Services' Report 106/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 17 AND 19 INGLETHORPE AVENUE, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

29 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

The owner of 19 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, Mrs Mary Kardamis, has written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of the two mature Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip outside 17 and 19 Inglethorpe Avenue.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mrs Kardamas and her neighbour have been experiencing a number of problems in relation to the roots of these two trees over a protracted period of time and these are detailed below.

 

Mrs Kardamas states that on two occasions she has slipped over on her steps as a result of berries that have fallen from the trees onto those steps.

 

Although this is only a seasonal issue, it does represent a serious and ongoing liability issue to Council that cannot be dealt with other than by serious pruning or actual removal of the tree/s.

 

Tree branches are overhanging by at least three metres into her property. Again, this problem can be temporarily dealt with by pruning the tree but this is only short lived and will need to be undertaken on a regular basis.

 

Another serious problem which is exacerbated by regular and severe pruning is that tree roots need to compensate for leaf loss and spread far for rapidly and much further than would be the case if this pruning were not regularly undertaken.

 

Tree roots have damaged the footpath outside both properties on a number of occasions and only a few years ago several slabs were removed and root pruning carried out to allow re-instatement of the footpath.

 

Buttress roots from both trees extend across the nature strip area in front of both properties and these constitute a serious trip hazard – particularly for elderly property owners.

 

Roots from both trees have grown under the front brick fences of the two adjacent properties and have pushed them upwards and backwards towards the residences and Mrs Kardamis is worried that should the trees remain eventually their roots will cause actual structural damage to her residence.

 

Roots have also damaged the driveway into 17 Inglethorpe Avenue and have caused regular and ongoing sewer blockages at both properties over a period of time. Mrs Kardamis has put Council on notice that should any further damage or injury occur to persons and/or property as a result of these two trees not being removed, she will hold Council personally responsible.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the two subject trees, re-instate the nature strip, damaged driveways and footpath areas, and to replace the trees with two super-advanced replacement species would be approximately $5,000 in total and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The owner of 19 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, has expressed a desire to have the two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 17-19 Inglethorpe Avenue removed and replaced with more appropriate species.

 

Several years ago two trees of the same species were removed from outside 11-13 Inglethorpe Avenue because of similar problems and only a month ago Council approved the removal and replacement of two mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing on the nature strip adjacent to 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington.

 

The problems associated with these particular trees are typical for the species and will continue (and will only get worse) for as long as the trees remain.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip outside 17-19 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elms)  – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 107/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 15 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 15 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, Mr Graham Ely, has written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of the mature Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Ely has been experiencing a number of problems in relation to the roots of this tree over a protracted period of time and these are detailed below.

 

Tree roots have damaged the footpath on a number of occasions and only recently several slabs were removed and root pruning carried out to allow re-instatement of the footpath.

 

The canopy has to be severely pruned on an annual basis to maintain statutory clearances around overhead electricity mains and to pull back branches overhanging into the property. This pruning then exacerbates the growth of tree roots to compensate for the loss of leaf coverage involved.

 

Mr Ely also highlights the fact that the tree drops an inordinate amount of leave litter throughout the year and large amounts of rotting fruit during the fruiting period. This in turn makes the footpath very messy and slippery and constitutes a serious trip hazard – particularly for elderly citizens.

 

He also mentions the fact that the tree attracts fruit bats and that their droppings represent a serious health issue. These droppings also affect the duco on any motor vehicle parked under the subject tree and this in turn is a cost imposition on the vehicle owner.

 

The tree’s roots have grown under Mr Ely’s front brick fence and have pushed it upwards and backwards towards his residence and he is worried that should the tree remain that eventually those roots will cause structural damage to his residence.

 

Tree roots have also cracked and damaged the tiles along the front entranceway area and have caused regular and ongoing sewer blockages over a period of time.

 

Roots have also damaged the driveway into 17 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, as well as pushing up several footpath slabs outside that same property.

 

Mr Ely has already lodged an insurance claim (PL2005/00350) with Council for the repair of damage to his property and this is currently being assessed.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the subject tree, re-instate the nature strip, driveway and footpath, and to replace the tree with a 100-litre advanced replacement species would be approximately $4,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The owners of the subject property have expressed a desire to have the tree removed and residents of Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, were first notified over ten years ago that ALL Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the street were to be removed and replaced with more appropriate tree species.

 

Two trees of the same species were recently removed from Maitland Avenue because of similar problems at the request of affected property owners.

 

The problems associated with this particular tree are typical for the species and will continue (and get worse) for as long as the tree remains.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 15 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with an advanced Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia) – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 108/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 31 BROADBENT STREET, KINGSFORD

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 31 Broadbent Street, Kingsford, Mr Antony Stewart, has requested the removal and replacement of a Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is approximately twelve metres in height with a canopy spread of around ten metres.

 

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 entered 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 has in the past 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 average habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

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

 

Only recently a large tree of the same size and species was removed by Council from the nature strip outside 29 Broadbent Street, Kingsford, as a result of the ongoing tree root damage it was causing to both the adjacent property and surrounding public infrastructure.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the subject tree, re-instate the nature strip and to replace the tree with a 100-litre advanced replacement species would be approximately $3,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management 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 are undermining the front fence and are 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 31 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