Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

 

1st November, 2005

 

 

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

 

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

8TH NOVEMBER, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

Committee Members:               His Worship the Mayor, Cr T. Seng, Crs Andrews (Deputy Chairperson), Belleli, Hughes, Matson, (Chairperson) Notley-Smith, 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, 11 TH OCTOBER, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Works

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 125/2005 -CONSOLIDATION OF WASTE/RECYCLING FACILITY AND SERVICES INTO BUMBORAH POINT ROAD FACILITY.

2

 

5.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 126/2005 - SOUTH MAROUBRA VILLAGE GREEN.

7

 

5.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 127/2005 - NAMING OF RESERVE ON THE CORNER OF ALISON ROAD AND WANSEY ROAD, RANDWICK.

9

 

5.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 128/2005 - DUFFY'S CORNER CARPARK.

11

 

5.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 129/2005 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN PAINTING THE BUNNERONG GYM IN HEFFRON PARK

13

 

5.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 130/2005 - PROPOSED FOOTPATH IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO 76 CLOVELLY ROAD, RANDWICK.

15

 

5.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 131/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 33 DIVISION STREET, RANDWICK.

19

 

5.8                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 132/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 15 KEATING STREET, MAROUBRA.

22

 

5.9                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 133/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 29 KEATING STREET, MAROUBRA.

25

 

5.10                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 134/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 3 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

28

 

5.11                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 135/2005 - COUNCIL OWNED STREET TREE GROWING OUTSIDE 46 MURRABIN AVENUE, MATRAVILLE.

32

 

5.12                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 136/2005 - PLANTING OF TREES ALONG THE CENTRAL MEDIAN STRIP IN GARDENERS ROAD, KINGSFORD.

35

 

5.13                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 137/2005 - ROAD SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE.

37

 

5.14                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 138/2005 - RAGE CAGE FACILITY.

41

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

……………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 125/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

CONSOLIDATION OF WASTE/RECYCLING FACILITY AND SERVICES INTO BUMBORAH POINT ROAD FACILITY.

 

 

DATE:

20 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07948

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

From August 2005 Council’s recycling operation from the Yarra Bay site has been transferred to the new recycling facility at Bumborah Point Road. This new facility is currently receiving and processing green waste collected from Woollahra Council, Waverley Council, Marrickville Council and Randwick City Council, and construction waste generated by Randwick and other councils through their civil work activities.  The facility has further capacity to accommodate other recycling activities.

 

Council currently runs three recycling waste facilities. They are located at the Storey Street Depot,  Perry Street and Bumborah Point Road.

 

ISSUES:

 

Current Activities

 

1.  Bumborah Point Facility

 

At the new recycling facility Council processes green waste to produce mulch, compost and other soil improvement products, which are then used in Council’s gardens and sold to other users.  Construction waste recycling is undertaken to allow a proportion of this waste to be re-used in other construction works.

 

2. Storey Street Depot.

 

Council provides green waste drop-off services at its Storey Street Depot. Residents use the services to drop-off green waste (on designated weekends) that they are unable to dispose of through their fortnightly kerbside collection services. Collected green waste is then transported to the recycling facility for processing.

 

There is enough room available at the new recycling facility to accommodate this activity. If the weekend green waste drop-off service is transferred from Council’s Depot at Storey Street to the new recycling facility, Council will be able to provide this service to the community in a much more efficient, effective and safe manner. This will eliminate the double handling of the material and associated costs.   

 

3.  Perry Street Depot

 

At Perry Street, Matraville, Council operates a recycling centre, where residents can drop-off their dry recyclables (cardboard, glass, plastic and containers) and waste oil for recycling. This activity can be undertaken at the Bumborah Point Road Depot.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There will be no operational financial impact. A report will be brought to Council on the disposal of the Perry Street property.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The new recycling facility is an ideal place for consolidation of all the recycling activities.

 

Current weekend green waste drop-off services at Council’s Storey Street Depot and dry recyclable drop-off services at Council’s recycling centre at Perry Street, Matraville, can be provided in a more efficient and safe manner at the new purpose built recycling facility by extending the opening hours of Bumborah Point facility to seven (7) days a week in order to accommodate all these services and also by consolidating all its current recycling and disposal operations from Perry Street Depot and Storey Street Depot into the new Bumborah Point Road facility, subject to approval to S96 modification to the Development Consent. Staff will be transferred from Perry Street to Bumborah Point Road facility.

  

This will free up the Perry Street Depot for alternate uses. It will also minimise the cost of labour and double handling of green waste from the Storey Street Depot to Bumborah Point facility.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

a.       Council close the Perry and Storey Streets recycling services and transfer these services to the Bumborah Point Road recycling facility;  and

b.       advertise the changes in the local paper prior to closing the sites.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Maps of locations

Photos of Bumborah Point and Perry Street 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES





 

Director, City Services' Report 126/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

SOUTH MAROUBRA VILLAGE GREEN

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 24 May, 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Belleli and Councillor Notley Smith -

 

“that a report be brought back to the Works Committee regarding options of lighting in South Maroubra Village Green West, (corner of Malabar Road and Tyrwhitt Street) and South Maroubra Village Green East and Playground  (east side of car park). The report should include consultation with the local community/businesses.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Written submissions were invited from local residents, by letterbox drop enclosing  details of the proposed lighting design in the Village Green east area and Village Green west area, consisting of three, four metre high galvanised lighting poles to illuminate the playground and grassed footpath areas.

 

One (1) written submission was received, as follows:

 

“We would like to request that the lighting plan for South Maroubra Village Green makes sure that the lighting on the east side of the diagram provided is highly directional in that it does not radiate any light into the properties behind it. We do not object to the lighting just the fact that we wish not to have bright lights shining into our property, particularly as we do shift work and any sleep we can get at night is essential to functioning well the following day.

 

If it is also possible should the consideration for energy efficient lighting systems possibly solar power stored battery systems also be considered as we would like to think that the local government is using energy efficient mechanisms in all government areas and considerations?”

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council decide to approve the lighting, the cost would be in the vicinity of $40,000.00.  This could be considered for funding in the 2006/2007 budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The significant changes to the lighting in both the eastern and western sections of the South Maroubra Village Green will significantly improve the area. Local residents will be able to access the areas with the knowledge the lights will provide safe access to and from the Village Green.

 

The luminaries will provide directed light that will illuminate the playground and surrounding grassed areas, however, it will not shine into neighbouring properties and disturb the adjacent property owners.

 

The Village Green is centrally located, popular and frequently used for community events throughout the year.  It is considered worthwhile to proceed with the lighting proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the lighting design for the Village Green East Area and Village Green West area consisting of three, four metre high galvanised lighting poles to illuminate the grassed playground and footpath areas be included for consideration in the 2006/2007  budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

DARREN ANDERSON

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 127/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

NAMING OF RESERVE ON THE CORNER OF ALISON ROAD AND WANSEY ROAD, RANDWICK.

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06876 xr F2004/00171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held 26 July, 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Seng and Councillor Notley Smith that -

 

“the General Manager investigates the possibility of naming the nature reserve situated on the corner of Alison Road  Randwick, the George Dan Reserve”.

 

In accordance with the Council Resolution, an investigation into the possibility of naming the reserve “George Dan Reserve” commenced and the following information has been gathered -

 

Dan (Doumani), George Noula

The 17yr old George Dan arrived in Melbourne in 1884 from Lebanon (at that time Syria), and some time after arriving changed his name from Nicola Dounani to George Dan.

 

George walked and traded from Melbourne to Cairns, then onto Thursday Island. After saving money he made his way to Sydney and set up a warehouse in Elizabeth Street, Redfern. His businesses expanded and he eventually acquired a factory in Elizabeth Street Redfern employing many staff manufacturing men’s shirts.

 

George brought other family members from Lebanon to Australia and many of the descendants reside and resided in Randwick.  In the late 1800’s George went to live in his home “Carden” which he built on the corner of Carr Street and Arden Street, Coogee.

 

George Dan passed away at age of 86 at Coogee in 1953.   A true and proud Australian.

 

ISSUES:

 

George Nicholas Dan, George Dan’s nephew, a former Mayor and an Alderman of Randwick Council (G.N.E.Dan) was best known for his work in civic affairs. He was highly respected by both sides of politics particularly for his fairness and calm studious approach. He served as an Alderman on Council from 1949 to his passing in 1964. He was Mayor for two years 1949-50 and Deputy Mayor from 1960-64.

 

The family has informed Council that the ‘original’ George Dan donated the triangle of land in front of his home on the corner of Alison Road and Wansey Road to Randwick Council for a nature reserve.  

 

The Randwick Historical Society advises from the material obtained from its collection, the Lands Department, the Sydney Water and Bowen Library, there is no evidence of his dedicating land to Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

From the information gathered, George Dan who arrived in Melbourne in 1884 was a well respected Randwick resident and although the Randwick Historical Society advises that, from its records, there is no evidence of his dedicating land to Council, it would seem appropriate to advertise the proposal to name the unnamed reserve on the corner of Alison Road and Wansey Road, “George Dan Reserve”, and seek written submissions from interested parties.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)      Council advertise in the local paper the proposal to name the reserve situated on the corner of Wansey Road and Alison Road the “George Dan Reserve” and invite interested parties to make written submissions with their views of the suggested name or other names in keeping with the history of the area.

 

2)      Council notify the Geographical Names Board of the proposal.

 

3)      A report be brought back to Council after the closing date of all submissions.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR PARKS AND RESERVES


 

Director, City Services' Report 128/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DUFFY'S CORNER CARPARK

 

 

DATE:

27 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08045

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 July, 20 05, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Belleli and Councillor Kenny that –

 

“Council further investigates the carpark arrangements on Duffy’s Corner including the driveway access northbound on Anzac Parade and report back to Council on feasibility and costing, such reports to also include the cost of constructing another entry point and where it should be.”

 

ISSUES:

 

A design has been completed detailing a northbound Anzac Parade access to the carpark. This design will be referred to the December meeting of the Randwick Traffic Committee for its approval.  The project will then be costed and added to the list of unfunded projects for consideration by Council at a future time.

 

At an on-site meeting with stakeholders it was agreed that Council would endeavour to re-organise the on-street car parking adjacent to the shops, subject to Traffic Committee approval.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

No cost estimates have been prepared at this time.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

That the northbound access to the Duffy’s Corner Anzac Parade carpark be referred to the Traffic Committee and be considered by Council for funding at a future time.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director City Services’ Report dated 27 October, 2005, be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TONY LEHMANN

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 129/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN PAINTING THE BUNNERONG GYM IN HEFFRON PARK.   

 

 

DATE:

12 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06336

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An e-mail has been received from Mr Paul Cooper, Secretary Bunnerong Gymnastics Association Inc, drawing attention to, and seeking assistance with the removal of, graffiti from the Bunnerong Gym.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Cooper advises in his e-mail of 22 September, 2005, ‘inter alia’ that -

 

“I am in receipt of your letter dated 19 September, 2005, drawing our attention for the need for us to comply with our lease and remove graffiti from your building.

 

 I am part of the Heffron Park Plan of Management Sports Committee and we have been asking for a new graffiti proof building and maintenance, especially fencing such as is placed around schools for many years, to stop this problem. Indeed, I have insisted on this in our new building proposals. The idea is not liked by Council staff or consultants on the grounds of detraction from streetscape but it would fix the problem.

 

Prior to us fixing the problem, only to have it happen over and over again, can Council look at fencing the building (and presumably the adjacent building) with a view to giving the “artists” a challenge re access to a freshly painted wall.

 

In the meantime, the Committee will cost the paint. Should the Council feel that they would like to paint our exterior as was done with the indoor sports centre then this would be most welcome. I will be pleased to receive your advice on the above. The paint is Dulux Exterior and the colour is ‘sea wife’.”

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council favour the proposal to contribute towards the upkeep of the Bunnerong Gym,  the $6,000 towards the cost of painting with Dulux Exterior paint required to graffiti-proof the Gym could be funded from 2005/2006 Contingency Account.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Mr Paul Cooper’s request for assistance from Council to provide painting to upgrade the Bunnerong Gym seems reasonable, Council could assist by providing graffiti proof paint, which would enhance the Council owned property.

 

Council is not in a position to carry out fencing as requested as it is not in keeping with the streetscape.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council contribute $6,000 to cover the cost of the painting required to upgrade the Bunnerong Gym.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 130/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Footpath Improvements adjacent 76 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

19 October, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/332/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a letter from the owner of “TJ’s Café”, 76 Clovelly Road, Randwick, offering to contribute $2,000.00 toward renewing the footpath and providing streetscape improvements in St Marks Road adjacent his café.  TJ’s Café is located on the corner of St Marks Road and Clovelly Road, opposite The Duke of Gloucester Hotel.

 

ISSUES:

 

The footpath adjacent the Café in St Marks Road is in poor condition and renewal of this section of footpath is justifiable. Council’s estimate to provide footpath pavement renewal and streetscape improvements for this section of footpath is $7,000. It is not intended to renew the Kerb and Gutter as this extra work would nearly double the cost of the works.

 

It is considered appropriate to accept the offer of a contribution in the amount of $2,000 to undertake footpath renewal and streetscape improvements. Council would have had to fully fund this footpath renewal itself in the future. Whilst the café owner will be gaining an improved street scape amenity that may improve his café business, the street scape improvements include decorative pavement edging and a planter box consistent with the streetscape theme for the Frenchmans Road commercial area.

 

It is mutually beneficial for both Council and the café owner to take this opportunity to renew the footpath and improve the street streetscape amenity for the community.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funding for Council’s share of the renewal project in the amount of $5,000 can be funded from savings in the footpath construction programme this current financial year. Council to receive a contribution in the amount of $2,000 from the property owner. 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council should accept the café owner’s offer of a contribution in the amount of $2,000 being part funding to undertake pavement renewal and streetscape improvements in St Marks Road adjacent TJ’s Café. This opportunity represents a win/win result for the greater community (Council) and TJ’s café.

 

The café owner should make his part funding contribution in full prior to Council commencing works on site to ensure this agreement is fully completed. Council could effect the works soon after the full funding contribution has been submitted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        Council accept the offer of contribution for works from the owner of TJ’s café, 76 Clovelly Road, Randwick, in the amount of $2,000 to undertake footpath pavement renewal adjacent TJ’s Café in St Marks Road; and

 

(b)        Council allocate $5,000 from savings from the footpath construction programme in the 2005/2006 financial year to fund the project.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter From Craig Holdstock

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSET SERVICES CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director, City Services' Report 131/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG)  GROWING OUTSIDE 33 DIVISION STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

5 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 33 Division Street, Coogee has requested the removal and replacement of the large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside that property.

 

The property owner is an elderly lady with a disability which affects her mobility and ability to walk and the damage being caused by the roots of this tree to surrounding public infrastructure/private property are impacting very severely on her lifestyle and the tree now constitutes a very real and serious liability issue to Council. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The roots of this tree have caused ongoing damage to the adjacent front brick fence over many years as well as to the footpath, roadway, kerb and gutter and nearby driveway.

 

The damage being caused to the driveway and footpath in particular are creating a very serious liability issue and that damage now impacts on the owner’s ability to negotiate both because she cannot walk unassisted.

 

The tree is in good health and is approximately 20 metres tall with a canopy spread of between 15-18 metres. Although the tree is the only one of this species remaining in this section of Division Street, its good health and size make it a landmark within the street.

 

However, there are large numbers of established Lophostemon confertus (Brushbox) planted along the northern side of the street (on either side of the subject Ficus) and the entire southern side of the street is also planted out with established street trees.

 

This effectively means that although the tree of itself is highly significant in the streetscape, the overall effect of its removal would be minimised because of the existence of large numbers of established street trees.

 

The property owner’s sewer has become blocked regularly over a prolonged period of time as a result of tree root intrusion and the latest episode occurred on the recent Labour Day long weekend. The owner contacted Council’s after hours number in a state of distress to report that raw effluent was discharging as a result of the most recent tree root blockage incident.

 

This is obviously a very distressing situation for an elderly disabled woman to have to deal with and even though until recently the owner wished the tree to be retained, she has now requested removal because of the increase in the range and seriousness of the problems associated with the tree.

 

There is a large percentage of the tree’s canopy overhanging into the adjacent residence and this has impacted severely on one of the owner’s most enjoyable pastimes – tending to her beloved Camellia garden.

 

Not only are Ficus tree roots restricting plant growth within the garden and making it extremely difficult to cultivate and improve the soil but continual leaf drop is providing abundant and unwanted leaf mulch that the owner simply cannot remove by herself.

 

There are domestic service wires running through the canopy of the tree into the adjacent property and branches have to be cleared from those wires on a regular basis. The tree also has to be regularly underpruned to allow unimpeded pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare along the street.

 

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

 

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

 

This tree has been assessed by a Council tree officer as having an amenity value of $21,600 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the subject tree and to re-instate the nature strip and footpath would be approximately $3,500 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 retaining wall, concrete footpath, driveway and adjacent residence.

 

The footpath next to the tree has had to be repaired only recently because of tree root damage and large tree roots have damaged and could compromise 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 be able to walk along the footpath and driveway into her property without risking tripping over and injuring herself would be to remove the subject tree.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that the 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 therefore that until these matters have been fully resolved and Council commences its adopted development consent procedure for dealing with the removal of significant trees within the City, that any reports dealing with these matters be forwarded to the Works Committee for resolution. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That approval be granted to remove the large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 33 Division Street, Coogee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 132/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 15 KEATING STREET, MAROUBRA.

 

 

DATE:

24 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 15 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 six metres in height with a canopy spread of around five 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. The adjacent kerb and gutter has been extensively damaged by roots from this tree and they are beginning to damage the roadway itself.

 

The canopy of the tree also needs to be regularly pruned to maintain the necessary clearance from the overhead electricity mains.

 

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 has also recently approved the removal and replacement of a Kaffir Plum outside 13 Keating Street as a result of damage being caused by the roots of that tree.

 

Council’s 2005-2006 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 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, driveway 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 the 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 the Works Committee for resolution. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing outside 15 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 133/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED HARPEPHYLLUM CAFFRUM (KAFFIR PLUM) OUTSIDE 29 KEATING STREET, MAROUBRA.

 

 

DATE:

24 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owners of 29 Keating Street, Maroubra, have written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of the Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing on the nature strip outside their property.

 

The subject tree is one of a number of the same species growing along the southern side of the street and is a relatively healthy specimen. It is therefore quite significant and contributes to a streetscape of relative significance.

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is approximately five metres in height with a canopy spread of around six metres.

 

Council’s Tree Gang has in the past severed as many damaging tree roots as possible but many large tree roots with a very real potential for damage still remain. The adjacent kerb and gutter has also been damaged by roots from this tree and they have the potential to eventually damage the roadway itself.

 

The canopy of the tree also needs to be regularly pruned to maintain the necessary clearance from overhead electricity mains.

 

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 medium hazard rating when issues such as failure potential, target rating and the size of any potential branch failures are considered.

 

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

 

This particular tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $1,600 – 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 has also recently approved the removal and replacement of a Kaffir Plum outside 13 Keating Street as a result of damage being caused by the roots of that tree.

 

Council’s 2005-2006 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 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 $2,500 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, driveway 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 deal 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 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 the Works Committee for resolution. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) growing outside 29 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 134/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 3 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

12 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 3 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, 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 her property and has detailed a wide range of problems associated with that tree that are affecting both her property and adjacent public infrastructure.

 

ISSUES:

 

The property owner 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. The owner states that several branches from the tree have snapped in high winds and fallen into her property and she is concerned that someone will eventually be injured as a result of this.

 

Regular pruning only exacerbates the spread of tree roots and they then spread even more quickly than they normally would to compensate for the ongoing and regular loss of leaf coverage involved in such pruning.

 

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

 

When several concrete footpath slabs were removed in May, 2005, the owner was alarmed by the size of Ficus tree roots growing into the front of her property and growing towards the actual residence itself.

 

The property owner also has a Development Application (DA/693/2005) currently before Council for ground floor additions to the residence and she is concerned that any works undertaken will be seriously compromised by Ficus tree roots should the subject tree remain.

 

Tree roots have also raised and damaged two concrete slabs in the driveway and this will only get much worse should the tree be retained.

 

The owner has been advised by a Council technical officer that because of the extent and frequency of tree root intrusion into her domestic sewer network that she will need to replace the pipes in PVC plastic. This will be a costly exercise and should she agree to undertake those works they will involve a significant monetary contribution being made by Council.

 

The owner has also lodged an insurance claim (PL2005/00331) with Council for the repair of a range of damage to her property and this is currently being assessed by Council’s insurance office.  She has also raised the issue of protruding tree roots not only being a genuine trip hazard and public liability concern but also that they make regular maintenance of the nature strip very difficult.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the subject tree, re-instate the nature strip, adjacent 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 owner of the subject property has expressed a strong desire to have the tree removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species 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.

 

Three trees of the same species have been 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.

 

This species of tree is entirely inappropriate for growing in a confined nature strip situation such as this, immediately adjacent to a brick fence, concrete footpath and driveway and to an adjacent residence.

 

The footpath next to the tree has had to be replaced only recently because of tree root damage and large tree roots have damaged the adjacent front brick fence and internal driveway.

 

Severe tree root pruning was undertaken to allow the reconstruction of adjacent damaged footpath slabs and inevitably tree root re-growth will once again damage both the driveway and adjacent footpath within a very short period of time.

 

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 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 also 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 subject tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $10,800, using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of this tree is to remove it and replace it with a suitable number of a more appropriate species.

 

However, there have been three of these trees approved for removal in Maitland Avenue within the past eight-nine months and the removal of the Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 3 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, would therefore exceed the five percent per annum limit imposed by Council resolution on the removal of this species of tree from within streets containing significant numbers of that species.

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 November, 2004, resolved that the 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 appropriate therefore 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 the Works Committee for resolution. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the removal and replacement of the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 3 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be postponed for  twelve months to comply with Council’s resolution that no more than five percent of canopy cover in any street containing significant numbers of Hill’s Weeping figs be removed within any twelve month period.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 135/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED STREET TREE GROWING OUTSIDE 46 MURRABIN AVENUE, MATRAVILLE.

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 46 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville, has written to Council requesting the removal of a large Council owned Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark) growing in the nature strip outside his property.

 

ISSUES:

 

The property owner has documented a variety of reasons for wanting the subject tree removed, ranging from severe allergic reactions in his children to pollen to expensive fence repairs ($5,000) he has had to undertake on the front brick fence of his property.

 

He also cites tree root damage caused to the adjacent footpath and associated ongoing footpath repairs, branches dropping in high winds, an abundance of leaf litter, the proximity of the tree to the adjacent driveway and the fact that the tree is situated directly above a Sydney Water mains.

 

The tree concerned is a healthy specimen approximately 12 metres in height with a canopy spread of around five metres. It is one of several large trees of the same species growing along the northern side of the street and it is an important provider of habitat and food source.

 

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

 

There are regular and ongoing requests from a number of property owners on the northern side of the street to have Paperbarks removed and replaced with more appropriate species and Council recently approved the removal and replacement of a tree of the same species from the nature strip outside 62 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville.

              

Council has recognized that this tree species is inappropriate for planting in confined nature strip situations and they are one of the four species recommended for progressive removal and replacement in Council’s Aggressive-rooted Street Tree Strategy.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 $4,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

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

 

As long as the tree remains it will cause tree root damage to surrounding private property and public infrastructure and it will continue to cost Council a large amount of money to retain.

 

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 the Works Committee for resolution. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That approval be granted to remove the Council-owned Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark) growing on the nature strip outside 46 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville, and that a more appropriate native tree species be planted as a replacement – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 136/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

PLANTING OF TREES ALONG THE CENTRAL MEDIAN STRIP IN GARDENERS ROAD, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 1 March, 2005, on the Motion of Councillor Notley-Smith and Councillor Seng, it was resolved that -

 

“ the budget review working group approach Botany Bay City Council with the view to both Councils sharing the cost of planting appropriate and preferably large trees along the median strip of Gardeners Road between Tunstall Avenue and Leonard Avenue, Kingsford”.

 

As a result of that Resolution, Council’s Tree Management Officer, Bryan Bourke met with Botany Bay City Council’s Tree Preservation Officer, on-site in Gardeners Road to discuss the possibility of the proposed tree planting and their subsequent maintenance.

 

ISSUES:

 

There is a capacity to plant between 30-40 large trees along the median strip in the centre of Gardeners Road and for this planting to complement the existing street tree plantings on the nature strip running along both the north and south of the road.

                         

At the on-site meeting the issues of tree species, appropriate numbers of trees, siting of plantings, ongoing maintenance were discussed and at the conclusion of the meeting, the Botany Council representative advised that at this stage Botany Bay City Council is not willing to participate in the proposed tree planting project.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

If the planting suggestion does not proceed, there will be no financial implications for Randwick Council.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick City Council’s Tree Management Officer has been advised that at this point in time Botany Bay City Council is unwilling to commit to the co-operative planting of the central median strip along Gardeners Road, Kingsford, or to sharing the costs involved in any such tree planting project.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director City Services Report dated 4 October, 2005 be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 137/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROAD SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE

 

 

DATE:

26 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07238

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Local Government Road Safety Program (LGRSP) was established by the RTA in 1992.  The program uses behavioural and educational strategies to complement engineering solutions to road safety.  The program seeks to lead changes in the community awareness of road safety by; improving community understanding of issues, increasing the ability of Local Government and community organisations to implement initiatives at a local level, by promoting greater involvement and co-ordination of all road safety stakeholders.

 

Following a resolution of Council on 8 March 2005, a new Community Road Safety Officer (CRSO) was appointed to Randwick City Council in late August.  An integral component of the Road Safety Officer Funding Agreement is the establishment of a local Road Safety Steering Committee.

 

ISSUES:

 

The purpose of the Steering Committee is to provide peer and expert guidance, advice, feedback and support to Randwick City Council’s Community Road Safety Officer (CRSO).  The committee will have a strategic orientation and is a forum which focuses on behavioural issues.  Committee members are also asked to contribute to the development of an annual Action Plan.

 

The composition of the Committee should assist the CRSO in gaining political and community support and add credibility to any projects developed.  It should also assist in providing access to people, information and expertise.  All Committee members will have a special perspective and local information about road safety problems.

 

Generally the CRSO will identify road safety issues through statistical analysis and community liaison, and then develop campaigns to raise awareness.  There is a strong emphasis on developing, implementing, monitoring and reporting of programs.

 

It is proposed that the following groups and individuals participate in the Steering Committee. Council’s Co-ordinator - Transport Management Group, Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW Police, Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord, Dept. Education and Training, Local Area Health Promotion and other representatives from Randwick City Council.

 

Meetings will be held quarterly and will last for approximately 2 hours. At these meetings the Community Road Safety Officer (CRSO) will report on current and proposed activities, with the Committee discussing; rationale of certain projects, how activities are progressing, problems, evaluation, funding & budgets.  The Committee will also facilitate the development of future projects and look at any other issues as they arise.

 

Members of the Committee are given the opportunity to discuss issues that are relevant to their area of expertise and relate directly to the activities of the CRSO.  The meetings will have agendas, minutes and action items which will be documented and distributed by the CRSO.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In conclusion, to gain recognition and support, a nominated Councillor is required to be part of the Randwick City Council Road Safety Steering Committee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That one Councillor be nominated as a representative on the Randwick City Council Road Safety Steering Committee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Randwick City Council - Road Safety Steering Committee - Terms of Reference.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

HEIDI OATES

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COMMUNITY ROAD SAFETY OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Terms of Reference

 

Randwick City Council - Road Safety Steering Committee

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) Road Safety Officer (RSO) Funding Agreement requires the establishment of a relevant forum to comply with the requirements of the Local Government Road Safety Program. (LGRSP)

 

 

The Local Government Road Safety Program

 

The Local Government Road Safety Program was established by the RTA in 1992.  The program uses behavioural and educational strategies to complement engineering solutions to road safety.

 

The program seeks to lead changes in the community awareness of road safety by; improving community understanding of issues, increase ability of Local Government and community organisations to implement initiatives at a local level, and promote greater involvement and co-ordination of all road safety stakeholders.

 

Generally the RSO will identify road safety issues through statistical analysis and community liaison, then develop campaigns to raise awareness.  There is a strong emphasis on developing, implementing, monitoring and reporting of programs

 

 

Purpose of the Steering Committee

 

The purpose of the Steering Committee meeting is to provide peer and expert guidance, advice, feedback, information and support to Randwick City Council’s Community Road Safety Officer (CRSO).

 

The meeting will have a strategic orientation and is a forum which focuses on behavioural and educational issues.  Stakeholders contribute directly to the development of an annual Action Plan and monitor the implementation.

 

Committee members should assist the RSO in gaining political and community support and add credibility to any projects developed.  It should also assist in providing access to people, information and expertise.

 

All stakeholders will have a special perspective and local information about local road safety issues.

 

 

Committee Members

 

It is proposed the Committee consists of the following members:

 

1.   Randwick City Councillor(s)

2.   Randwick City Council – representatives

·    Community Road Safety Officer

·    Co-ordinator, Transport Management Group

·    Community Development Representative (Youth and / or Aged Services)

3.   Representative from Roads and Traffic Authority

4.   Representative from NSW Police (Maroubra – LAC and / or Highway Patrol)

5.   Representative from Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord

6.   Representative from Dept. Education and Training, Road Safety Program

7.   Representative from Southern Sydney Health Promotion Unit

8.   Representative from the Chamber of Commerce

 

 

Proposed Meeting Dates & Times

 

Meeting will be held quarterly at Randwick City Council Offices, from 9am – 11am (2 hour duration).  The first meeting date is proposed for Tuesday 29th November, 2005.  This is subject to confirmation.

 

Proposed Structure of the Meetings

 

Community Road Safety Officer (CRSO) – reports on current and proposed activities, with the stakeholders discussing; rationale, how their activities are progressing, problems, evaluation, funding & budgets, and any other issues as they arise.

 

Participants are given the opportunity to discuss issues that are relevant to their area of expertise and relate directly to the activities of the RSO.  For example: The Police – provide relevant reports like (Highway patrol statistics, Traffic, Licensing etc.  The RTA might report changes in policy and other relevant information).

 

Meeting will have agendas, minutes and action items which will be documented and distributed by the Community Road Safety Officer. 

 


 

 

Director, City Services' Report 138/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

RAGE CAGE FACILITY

 

 

DATE:

19 October, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00561 xr F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 28 June, 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Belleli and Councillor Notley Smith that –

 

“a report be prepared on the kids’ and teenagers’ fun outdoor/indoor multi use recreational sports activity centre, known as a “Rage Cage” facility. This report should cover possible locations, costs and the experience of other Councils which have installed them (as well as Sydney Olympic Village) with regard to the benefits for local youth. Also safety and impact on neighbouring areas.”

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The manufacturer describes the Rage Cage as follows:-

 

“The Rage Cage is a reduced size, multi purpose sporting complex that caters for 12 different sports. The Rage Cage has been designed specifically with fun, fitness and variety in mind.

 

The Rage Cage complex is also very durable, able to withstand the extremes of weather. Being constructed in kit form, the Rage Cage can easily be transported or exported by container ship. Once the site pad is prepared the Rage Cage can be assembled in only a few days for permanent long-lasting use.

 

The colour co-ordinated base, lines and fixtures take away all of the confusion and danger usually associated with multi use facilities.

 

 

 

 

This innovative design is constructed in three different styles each catering for specific needs. Whether the Rage Cage site is a public park, multi storey development or a backyard, Rage has the model for you.

 

The Rage Cage has many optional extras that may be adapted to suit particular needs and activities.

 

To the community Rage Cage offers hours of free, low maintenance entertainment particularly for youth.  Rage Cage can improve the standard of living in areas, with Rage Cage you can cater for everyone.”

 

It would seem that the Rage Cage is ideal for an area where open space is unavailable for open playground use.  These facilities by their nature should be appropriately supervised as the opportunity for bullying in the enclosed area could become an issue.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

·    RAGE CAGE EXTREME:  (25 x 19 metres)                          $160,300.00

     Optional extras:  Earthworks $2,900 ‑ Concrete Base $19,300

 

·    RAGE CAGE 2000: (25 x 14 metres)                                     $80,300.00

      Optional extras:  Earthworks $2,700 ‑ Concrete base $17,300 ‑ Rubberised surface    

       $27,800.0

 

·    RAGE CAGE RAMPAGE TWIN:  (14 x 10 metres)               $37,300.00

     Optional extras:  Earthworks $1,300 ‑ Concrete base ‑ $5,200

 

·    RAGE CAGE RAMPAGE STANDARD (10 x 8 metres)         $33,500.00   

     Optional extras:  Earthworks  $1,300 ‑ Concrete Base $4,700 ‑ Rubberised surface     

     $10,300

 

·    RAGE CAGE BUDGET SKATE PARK:                                $27,500.00

     Optional extras:  Earthworks ‑  $1,300.00 ‑ Concrete Base ‑ $5,200

 

·    RAGE CAGE INSTALLATION COSTS:$1,750 per day subject to site conditions & gauge size.

 

If Council resolved to install a Rage Cage, the funds could be considered in a future budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A Rage Cage facility may be appropriate in the future for a new development or in an area that expansion of facilities is recognised in the appropriate Plan of Management where space is the issue hindering extension.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director City Services’ Report dated  19 October, 2005 be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

DARREN ANDERSON

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS OFFICER.