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

 

 

2 May 2006

 

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,

9TH MAY, 2006 AT 6:00 PM

 

 

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, 11TH APRIL, 2006.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Works

 

5.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 25/2006 -   DUNNINGHAM RESERVE, COOGEE - AMENITIES BLOCK.

2

 

5.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 26/2006 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILL'S WEEPING FIG) GROWING ADJACENT TO 17 BOTANY STREET, RANDWICK.

3

 

5.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 27/2006 – COUNCIL OWNED MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA (PAPERBARK) STREET TREE GROWING OUTSIDE 275 DONCASTER AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

6

 

5.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 28/2006 - FOUR COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' STREET TREES GROWING ADJACENT TO 20 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY.

9

 

 

6           General Business

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

………………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER.

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 25/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

DUNNINGHAM RESERVE, COOGEE - AMENITIES BLOCK

 

DATE:

7 April, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08256

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 28 March, 2006, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Tracey and Councillor Sullivan that  “a report be prepared for the next meeting as to what would be involved in providing hand washing facilities in the toilet block in Dunningham Reserve, Coogee”.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council has set aside funds from 2005/06 Capital Works budget to construct new male and female toilet blocks in Dunningham Reserve.  These plans are currently on public exhibition. Hand washing facilities are to be installed in the proposed toilet block.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

As part of the Capital Works project for construction of new amenity block.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A design has been prepared for new facilities and is presently on exhibition and the works are to commence in the current financial year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES


 

Director, City Services' Report 26/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILL'S WEEPING FIG) GROWING ADJACENT TO 17 BOTANY STREET,         RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

24 April, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owners of 17 Botany Street, Randwick, have lodged a Development Application with Council which, if approved, would necessitate the removal and replacement of one Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’  (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip adjacent to the property.

 

The subject tree is one of a number growing along the northern side of Waratah Avenue, Randwick, and it contributes to a streetscape of recognised significance.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tree is approximately nine-ten metres in height with a canopy spread of around 12 metres. It is one of a large number of the same species growing along the northern side of the street.

 

All the fig trees in the street have to be pruned on a regular and ongoing basis to maintain statutory clearances around overhead powerlines and domestic service wires. This particular tree has to be regularly pruned away from the overhead electricity mains, as well as periodically having to be cleared away from domestic service wires and an adjacent street light.

 

Tree roots have in the past damaged the adjacent footpath area and this damaged footpath section has only recently been replaced in asphalt - with some minor root pruning undertaken - but this is only a temporary measure for dealing with this particular problem.

 

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

 

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

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $5,400 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 footpath, and to replace the tree with a 100-litre advanced replacement species would be approximately $3,000 and this cost should be borne by the owner of the property.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by the roots of this tree and to allow the property owner to undertake the construction of a new concrete driveway would be to remove the subject tree and replace it with an advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly).

 

There are a number of trees growing adjacent to this particular tree and its removal would not seriously compromise the overall significance of the streetscape. The canopy of the tree to the east would fill in some of the surface area removed should the tree be removed.

 

There have not been any Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees removed from this street within the last 12 months and therefore if it were to be removed it would not surpass the five percent annual canopy cover limit imposed by Council.

 

It should be noted that there are a variety of serious and ongoing issues involving most properties along the northern side of Waratah Avenue involving tree root damage caused by Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees. 

 

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

 

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

 

It is 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 removal and replacement of the eastern-most Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip adjacent to 17 Botany Street, Randwick, be approved to allow the construction of a new concrete driveway – on condition that the tree be replaced with a 100-litre Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly) and that all tree removal/replacement costs be borne by the owners of that property.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT  OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 27/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA (PAPERBARK) STREET TREE GROWING OUTSIDE 275 DONCASTER AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

 

 

DATE:

24 April, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 275 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford, has written to Council requesting the removal of a large Council owned Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark) growing in the nature strip outside their property.

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is approximately 12 metres tall with a canopy spread of around five metres and it is one of a number of the same species growing along the western side of this section of Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford.

 

The footpath adjacent to the tree has had to be replaced on a number of occasions because of tree root damage and this will inevitably continue for as long as the tree remains.

 

Tree roots have blocked the sewerage pipes within the property on several occasions and a recent CCTV inspection revealed that roots from this particular tree had blocked every joint of the sewer service pipe line between the mains and the property – as well as intruding into the Sydney Water mains itself.

 

Root pruning is not an option and even if it were undertaken it would only be a temporary solution to the range of problems associated with this tree.

 

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

 

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

 

This particular tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $5,400 – 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 $3,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management/maintenance budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The subject tree is growing immediately adjacent to a residential front brick fence and is surrounded by a concrete footpath and kerb and gutter.

 

It has been root pruned on a number of occasions in the past but this is a measure that only temporarily deals with the ongoing 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 an unreasonable amount of money to retain.

 

There are a number of mature street trees of the same species growing around the subject tree and this would help negate the impact the removal and replacement of this tree would have on the surrounding streetscape.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That approval be granted to remove the Council-owned Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark) growing on the nature strip outside 275 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford, 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 28/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

FOUR COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' STREET TREES GROWING ADJACENT TO 20 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY

 

 

DATE:

24 April, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owners of 20 Greville Street, Clovelly, have written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of four Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip adjacent to their property.

 

ISSUES:

 

The four trees in question are all approximately twelve metres in height with canopy spreads of 10-12 metres.

 

They are all growing on the eastern side of the street at the northern end and they form part of a significant single species streetscape.

 

All four trees have had to be extensively pruned on the eastern side to clear the adjacent property boundary and overhead powerlines and two have had to be regularly pruned away from street lights and power poles.

 

A visual inspection indicates that three of the four trees have extensive internal root decay that will inevitably spread inside the trunk of the trees and this will eventually compromise the internal structure of all affected trees.

 

The entire section of footpath adjacent to the subject property has had to be removed because of severe tree root damage. In fact, an elderly person recently tripped on a damaged footpath slab and has lodged a damages claim with Council.

 

The liability problem has become so serious along the entire length of Barry Street, Clovelly, that these four trees form only a relatively small part of a much bigger problem.

 

However, the problems associated with these four particular trees need to be specifically addressed because of the seriousness of damage being caused to the property at 20 Greville Street and adjacent public infrastructure.

 

The owners of the property have chronicled a variety of issues that have occurred since their purchase of the property in the mid-1970s and these have been forwarded in writing to Council for action.

 

These issues range from ongoing plumbing problems to the entire replacement of a rear bathroom, as well as damage to an external outdoor fish pond, undulating level changes and ponding in the rear of the property, to cracks and lifting of tiles and pathway areas along the entire length of the property.

 

The owners of the property estimate that up until this point in time it has cost them in excess of $13,000 to rectify damage caused by the roots of the four adjacent Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees (copy of correspondence attached) and this will inevitably increase significantly as a result of the size that intruding roots have now become.

 

The owners have categorised the current situation in relation to structural damage to their property and this ranges from the side and rear pathways being broken and uneven (rear significantly damaged) to small cracks in the house brickwork (northern side in particular) and cracking and lifting of the front patio and pathway.

 

The damaged footpath adjacent to the property has been removed by Council staff and this clearly shows substantial tree roots undermining the side fence and entering the property at several locations adjacent to where the four subject trees are situated.

 

The trees have been pruned away from the property alignment and around overhead powerlines for a number of years and this means that the majority of canopy on all four trees now overhangs the roadway.

 

Any attempt to remove/sever the roots entering the property and/or the installation of any sort of tree root barrier would not only affect the long-term health of the trees but would seriously compromise their stability.

 

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

 

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

 

The four trees have been calculated as having an average amenity value of $3,900 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind the four subject trees and to replace them with four x 100-litre replacement Jacarandas would be in the vicinity of $10,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree maintenance budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

The footpath next to the trees – and along the entire length of the street on both sides - has to be continually repaired because of tree root damage and, if given the chance, large tree roots will inevitably cause serious structural damage the residence itself at some time in the future.

 

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

 

Council’s tree trimming contractors have continually had to prune the canopies of all these trees away from the residence and around powerlines and this has meant that a predominance of canopy now overhangs the roadway.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the range of problems being caused by these four trees is to remove them all and to replace them with an appropriate number of advanced Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacarandas).

 

The property owners highlight in their correspondence to Council that because of the benefits the trees have provided to themselves and the broader community over a long period of time they have put off the inevitable and allowed damage caused by the trees to get progressively worse.

 

However, they now realise that the only realistic way to deal with the damage being caused by the roots of these trees is to remove them completely and to replace them with a more appropriate species – in this case Jacarandas. 

 

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 four (4) Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing adjacent to 20 Greville Street, Clovelly, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacarandas) – as per Council’s original removal/replacement strategy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Correspondence to Council from owners of 20 Greville Street, Clovelly

2. Four tree assessment reports from Council's Tree Management Officer (under separate cover)

3. Request and photos from Council's Technical Officer relating to footpath damage and public liability concerns.     

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 








 

General Business

 

Notice of Rescission Motions