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

 

 

4 July 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, 11TH JULY 2006 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, 13TH JUNE, 2006.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Report of Committee

 

5                        

REPORT OF THE GREENING RANDWICK COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH JUNE, 2006.

2

 

6           Works

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 50/2006 - ROAD CLOSURE - LENTHALL STREET CLOSURE.

4

 

6.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 51/2006 - SIX COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII'  (HILLS WEEPING FIGS) GROWING OUTSIDE 19, 31, 33, 40, 50 AND 58 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

12

 

6.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 52/2006 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 43 MILROY AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

19

 

6.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 53/2006 - TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIGS) GROWING OUTSIDE 96-100 GALE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

36

 

 

7           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER.

 


REPORT OF GREENING RANDWICK COMMITTEE MEETING OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANDWICK

HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH JUNE 2006 AT 5.00 PM 

 

PRESENT:

 

Cr M .Matson (Chairperson) (East Ward)

 

North Ward                                         -           Crs P. Tracey & M. Woodsmith

 

East Ward                                            -           Cr B. Notley-Smith (Deputy Chairperson)

 

West Ward                                          -           Cr S. Nash (arrived 5.13 pm)

 

Central Ward                                                   Cr A. Andrews (arrived 5.05 pm)

 

Community Representatives                  -           Mr R. Creaton, Ms J. McGirr &

Ms R. Wade (arrived 5.10 pm)

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:

 

General Manager                                                                                  Mr. R. Brownlee.

Director, City Services                                                              Mr. J. Frangoples.

Senior Administrative Coordinator                                                        Ms. J. Hartshorn.

 

1.         APOLOGIES:

 

Apologies were received from Crs Seng and White and from Ms. J. Batty.

 

RESOLVED:  (Matson/Tracey) that the apologies from Cr Seng and Cr White and Ms. J. Batty for non-attendance at the Greening Randwick Committee Meeting of the Council held on Tuesday, 13 th June, 2006 be received & accepted.

 

2.         DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY & NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

 

Nil.

 

3          ADDRESSES TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE PUBLIC

 

Nil.

 

4          GREENING RANDWICK

 

4.1       DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 35/2006 - TRANSPLANTING OF ESTABLISHED COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' STREET TREES.  (F2004/07359)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Tracey/Notley-Smith) that the report be received and noted.

 

4.2       DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 36/2006 - DOLPHIN STREET, RANDWICK - CLEARING AND REVEGETATION OF EMBANKMENT AND ADJOINING LANDSCAPED AREAS.  (F2004/07359)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Woodsmith/Notley-Smith) that:

 

a)                  the contents of the Director City Services’ Report be received and noted;

b)                  the procedure for managing requests for clearing and revegetation works be circulated to all Committee Members;

c)                  the “Plant Species List” be amended to include suitable trees (being species between 3m & 15m) with a view to re-establishing habitats to there original state and that the amended list be circulated to all Committee Members;

d)                  the Committee Members be given two (2) weeks to comment on the amended “Plant Species List” and the procedure for managing requests;

e)                  after consultation with Committee Members, the amended “Plant Species List” be circulated to residents in the area of the Dolphin Street embankment and adjoining landscaped areas; and

f)                    the General Manager be delegated authority to undertake the relevant community consultation and continue with the revegetation and landscaping works.

 

5.         GENERAL BUSINESS.

 

5.1       GENERAL BUSINESS – PRINCE HENRY BUSHLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN. (DA0763/2004-03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Woodsmith/Matson):

 

That a report be prepared for the next Committee Meeting in relation to the Prince Henry Bushland Management Plan (R7 Area – Lot 66) and, in particular whether the bushland that has been removed is in accordance with the Vegetation Plan.

 

5.2       GENERAL BUSINESS – ENVIRONMENTAL PARK – BUNDOCK STREET. (F2004/06778)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Matson/Woodsmith):

 

That a status report be prepared on the proposed Environmental Park for the Bundock Street site and, in particular, details of what Council and the community will receive from the Department of Defence.

 

6.         NOTICE OF RESCISSION MOTIONS.

 

Nil.

 

The meeting closed at 5.30 pm.

………………………………….

CHAIRPERSON


 

Director, City Services' Report 50/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROAD CLOSURE - LENTHALL STREET CLOSURE

 

 

DATE:

24 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00084

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting held on 13 September, 2005, on the Motion of Councillor Nash and Councillor Hughes, Council resolved that:

 

(a)      “The information contained in the Director City Services’ Report dated 30 August, 2005 be noted;

 

(b)      a Resident Survey regarding the proposal to close Lenthall Street as detailed in this report be undertaken;

 

(c)      a report be brought back to Council providing an analysis of the outcome of the residents’ survey and suggesting an appropriate way forward to achieve the implementation of the proposals supported by local residents; and

 

(d)      the State Member for Heffron be advised of Council’s decision.”

 

With regard to part (b) of the above resolution and as part of Council’s ongoing commitment to reduce vehicle volumes on Lenthall Street, a survey was issued to the residents of that part of Kensington bounded by Todman Avenue, Lenthall Street and Dowling Street to gauge their sentiments regarding a closure, or half closure, of Lenthall Street at the Southern Cross Drive underpass.

 

The intended function of Lenthall Street is for it to be used by residents of Kensington to access Todman Avenue and Epsom Road.  The position of Lenthall Street on Council’s western boundary, coupled with the both the Link Road exit from Southern Cross Drive and the traffic demand at the signalised intersection of Todman Avenue and South Dowling Street, has resulted in large volumes of through traffic utilising Lenthall Street as a means of bypassing the congested State Road network.

 

In considering the extent of the resident survey, it was determined that the survey be issued to the residences bounded by Todman Avenue, Lenthall Street and Dowling Street, as these residents would be the most impacted by any changes to traffic conditions in Lenthall Street. Residents were requested to indicate whether they were in favour of or opposed to a full or partial road closure in Lenthall Street.  Those in favour of a partial road closure were also given the option of indicating the direction of traffic flow they would prefer the closure to impact upon.  Approximately 576 surveys were issued of which 372 were returned. A copy of the letter and survey form issued to residents is attached.

 

ISSUES:

 

The surveys were issued to residents on Friday, 17 February 2006.  It was requested of residents that all surveys be returned to Council by Monday 6 March 2006. Due to the large number of responses received, the deadline for closure was extended by sometime to ensure all surveys returned to Council were included in the analysis.  

 

When distributing the survey, a single survey was issued to each residence.  In analysing the results of the survey, it was discovered that in some cases, more than one response was being received from a residence.  To ensure the correct weighting was being allocated to each residence only one submission was recorded per household from those that responded with numerous surveys. In only allocating a single response per household, the number of responses used in the assessment of the survey data was reduced from 372 to 254.   Once all responses had been received, the survey data was forwarded to Council’s Organisational Policy and Planning Unit for analysis.  A full copy of the Organisational Policy and Planning Unit’s assessment is attached.  In regards to a full closure of Lenthall Street

 

·      149 (58.7%) indicated they were opposed.

·      70 (27.6%) indicated were in favour.

·      35 (13.8%) did not indicate their preference.

 

In regards to a partial closure of Lenthall Street:

 

·      137 (53.9%) indicated they were opposed

·      60 (22.6%) indicated they were in favour of a partial closure eastbound that would continue to allow traffic to travel westbound (towards Zetland). 

·      9 (3.5%) indicated they were in favour of a partial closure westbound that would continue to allow traffic to travel eastbound (towards Randwick).

·      37 (14.6%) indicated they were in favour of a partial closure in either direction.

·      11 (4.3%) did not indicate their preference.

 

Further to this, the survey data was sorted by street to ascertain the preferences of particular streets within the area surveyed.  A table showing the survey results sorted by street is attached.

 

Surveys were also received from residences in the Raleigh Park Estate situated on the eastern side of Todman Avenue.  In distributing the survey, only those single residences on the eastern side that had a Todman Avenue frontage were issued with surveys. As the exact number of residences in the Raleigh Park Estate that were given a copy of the survey could not be established, this data could not be included in the survey assessment as this would skew the results.

 

The view that many of the non-Lenthall Street residents have against any interference to their local access is understandable.  They would regularly utilise Lenthall Street as an access to the Eastern Distributor or to Zetland etc; or as an access from Southern Cross Drive or from Zetland.  Interference with this access may result in some delay being experienced by them.

 

Notwithstanding this understandable view, it has to be acknowledged that the residents in the “triangle” bound by Lenthall Street, South Dowling Street and Todman Avenue have benefited significantly by the full road closures (and noise walls) put in place when the Eastern Distributor was constructed.  Not only was noise amelioration provided but through traffic was also removed from their streets.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The survey results received indicate that the more than 50% of residents in the area bound by Todman Avenue, Lenthall Street and Dowling Street are opposed to any form of road closure on Lenthall Street.  If a partial road closure was to be considered, the survey data indicates that approximately 40% would prefer the closure to operate in an easterly direction (which would still allow traffic to travel west towards Zetland.)

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         the information recorded from the survey issued to the residents of Kensington bound by Todman Avenue, Lenthall Street and Dowling Street be noted;

b)         Council support the view that Lenthall Street have imposed a partial closure eastbound that would continue to allow traffic to travel westbound (towards Zetland); and

c)         Council notify the RTA and Sydney City Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Letter advising of proposed traffic controls issued to Residents

2.  Survey Form - Lenthall Street Traffic Proposals

3.  Analysis of results prepared by Council's Organisational Policy and Planning Unit

4.  Resident responses sorted by street  

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TONY LEHMANN

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR,

TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT GROUP


Attachment 1 –

Letter issued to Residents

 

17 February 2006

 

 

To The Resident/s

of a Section of

KENSINGTON

 

 

LENTHALL STREET, KENSINGTON – PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROLS

(Reference: F2004/08251)

 

Dear Resident/s

 

Council has been concerned for some time about the high volume and speed of traffic in Lenthall Street, Kensington, and is considering implementation of further traffic control measures to improve the situation for the residents of the street.

 

At a Committee meeting, held on 13 September 2005, Council considered the legal process required to implement a closure or half closure of the street.  As a result Council resolved that all residents in the area bounded by Lenthall Street, South Dowling Street and Todman Avenue be surveyed to ascertain the level of local support for the suggested options.

 

It would therefore be appreciated if you could carefully consider the options shown on the survey overleaf and indicate your preference by ticking the option/s which you most prefer, and then returning the survey to Council.

 

Council officers will then consider the residents’ responses and, if appropriate, will prepare a Traffic Management Plan - including an assessment of the impact of the proposed measures on the surrounding street network. The Traffic Management Plan will then need to be submitted to the Roads and Traffic Authority for its consideration.

 

If the RTA grants its approval, the matter would subsequently be referred to Randwick Traffic Committee for its concurrence, prior to submission to Council for final approval.

 

Should you require any further information, or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephoning 9399 0559.  Thankyou for your input into this process. 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Tony Lehmann

Coordinator

Transport Management Group


Attachment 2 –

Survey Form issued to Residents

 (17/2/06)

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council - Lenthall Street Traffic Proposals

 

Resident Survey February 2006

 

Please indicate your preference by ticking the option/s which you most prefer, and then returning the survey to Council.

 

Proposed Full Road Closure

 


I support the full closure of Lenthall Street at Epsom Road.

 

 


I DO NOT support the full closure of Lenthall Street at Epsom Road.

 

 

Proposed Half Road Closures

 

I support a half closure of Lenthall Street at Epsom Road, permitting traffic to travel westbound only (toward Zetland).

(note that local bus services and emergency vehicles would still be able to travel in both directions).

 

I support a half closure of Lenthall Street at Epsom Road, permitting traffic to travel eastbound only (toward Randwick).

(note that local bus services and emergency vehicles would still be able to travel in both directions).

 

 


I DO NOT support either of the proposed half closures of Lenthall Street.

 

Please print your name and address:

 

………………………………………………………………..

                                                  

…………………………………….…………………………..                                

                                                       ………………………………………………………………..

 

Your comments (if any): ……………………………………………………………………………………………

                                

…………………………………….………………………………………………………                          

Please return your response to Council by Monday 6 March 2006.

You can return this survey by either handing it in at the Council offices (at 30 Frances Street, Randwick); or you may forward your response via mail to the same address; via fax to 9319 1510; or you may send a scanned copy via email to Transport.Management@randwick.nsw.gov.au

-   Thankyou.


Attachment 3 –

Analysis of results prepared by Council’s Organisational

Policy and Planning Unit

Lenthall Street Kensington

Proposed Traffic Controls

Community Feedback


A community consultation was undertaken with residents between February and March 2006 on proposed road closures in Lenthall Street.

 

576 surveys were released to households requesting nominations from residents on proposed full road closures and / or half road closures.

 

A total of 352 responses were received.  When reviewing the responses it was shown that in some cases more than one resident in a household returned a nomination form.  Double entries were removed from the responses so that the sample included only one response per household.  This is statistically important as the double entries were in all cases the same vote and would have influenced the overall outcome.  As surveys were released one per household the votes returned should also reflect one vote per household.

 

Therefore 252 surveys were collated resulting in a 43.7% response rate.  The error rate is calculated at 4.6% at the 95% confidence interval.  This means that if 50% of residents agree to a full road closure then the true result is between 45.4% and 54.6%.

 

Sound research studies usually allow for a 5% error margin in responses.  The result achieved here is statistically sound and therefore the results presented below can be said to accurately reflect the target population living in and around Lenthall Street.

 

The results are shown separately for full road closures and half road closures.

 

Full Road Closure

 

The majority of residents in the sample nominated against a full road closure (58.7%).  27.6% said they were in favour and 13.8% did not indicate their preference.

 

Number of Reponses

Percentage of Responses

Not Indicated

35

13.8

For

70

27.6

Against

147

58.7

Total

252

100.0

 

 

 

 


Half Road Closure

 

The majority of residents in the sample nominated against a half road closure (53.9%).  This comprised over half the sample.  Of the remaining nominations even with specific voting categories for traffic in various directions, the highest percentage gained was ‘For Traffic Westbound’ (23.6%) followed by ‘Either’ (14.6%).

 

 

Number of Reponses

Percentage of Responses

Not Indicated

11

4.3

For Traffic Westbound

59

23.6

For Traffic Eastbound

9

3.5

Against

136

53.9

Either

37

14.6

Total

252

100.0

 

 

Conclusions

It can be said from the above data that the residents surveyed are not in favour of full or half road closures.  There is some evidence that if a half road closure was undertaken that nearly a quarter of the residents might be in favour of a closure that allows traffic westbound.


Attachment 4 –

Resident responses sorted by street.

 

 

 

FULL ROAD CLOSURE

Street Name

Not Indicated

For

Against

Total

NOT INDICATED

0

0

2

2

BAKER ST

3

9

1

13

BROMPTON RD

0

0

23

23

CARMINYA ST

0

0

2

2

DOWLING ST

2

1

15

18

INGRAM STREET

2

0

7

9

LENTHALL ST

6

45

9

60

McDOUGALL ST

4

9

14

27

MILROY AVE

4

2

15

21

MYRTLE ST

4

0

2

6

TODMAN AVE

2

0

41

43

VIRGINIA ST

7

4

11

22

WINKURRA ST

1

0

5

6

Total

35

70

149

252

 

 

 

HALF ROAD CLOSURE

Street Name

Not Indicated

Closure Eastbound

Closure Westbound

Against

Either

Total

NOT INDICATED

0

0

0

2

0

2

BAKER ST

3

2

1

2

5

13

BROMPTON RD

0

0

0

23

0

23

CARMINYA ST

0

0

0

2

0

2

DOWLING ST

1

1

2

14

0

18

INGRAM ST

0

3

1

5

0

9

LENTHALL ST

2

28

3

5

22

60

McDOUGALL ST

2

5

0

12

8

27

MILROY AVE

1

4

1

15

0

21

MYRTLE ST

0

3

0

3

0

6

TODMAN AVE

0

2

0

41

0

43

VIRGINIA ST

2

11

1

6

2

22

WINKURRA ST

0

1

0

5

0

6

Total

11

60

9

137

37

252

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 51/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

SIX COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII'  (HILLS WEEPING FIGS) GROWING OUTSIDE 19, 31, 33, 40, 50 AND 58 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.  

 

 

DATE:

7 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

During a recent inspection of a number of mature, established Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees growing on both sides of Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, Council’s Tree Management Officer became concerned that several trees exhibited signs of declining health as well as displaying evidence of extensive basal decay.

 

As a result of those concerns and in the interests of public safety he commissioned a qualified tree surgeon and botanist to inspect these trees and to provide a report on their health and long term prospects.

 

ISSUES:

 

On 28 April, 2006, that tree surgeon/botanist inspected six mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees growing on the nature strip outside 19, 31, 33, 40, 50 and 58 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, and conducted extensive visual field assessments, diagnostic Resistograph tests and risk/hazard assessments on all six trees.

 

Because of the extensive basal decay that necessitated the removal of two other Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees in Ritchard Avenue only two-three months previously, Council’s Tree Management Officer instructed this tree surgeon to investigate whether or not a fungal pathogen such as Armillaria sp may have been primarily responsible for the deterioration of the figs in the street.

 

This species of tree is prone to attack by a variety of fungal diseases, with the most prevalent being Phellinis sp and Armillaria luteobubalina.

 

Armillaria sp, in particular, has recently been responsible for the removal of large numbers of Ficus ‘Hillii’ throughout the Sydney region. This is a virulent fungal disease that attacks the roots and basal area of trees and spreads from one tree to another through the soil.

 

Infected wood becomes dry, brittle and powdery and in large trees this usually compromises the structural integrity of the tree within a relatively short period of time.

 

Regrettably, it is a disease that is almost impossible to treat and contain and because it spreads through the soil it is not possible to isolate uninfected trees – particularly in an avenue situation involving sandy soils.   

 

In conjunction with his inspection and assessment of the six subject trees, he has made the following recommendations in relation to the health and long-term management of all those trees.

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 19 Ritchard Avenue

 

This tree is approximately 15 metres tall with a canopy spread of around 12 metres. It has good canopy cover and makes an important contribution to the visual amenity of the streetscape.

 

The tree has good photosynthetic tissue, good structure and an apparently sound root system. On the eastern side of the tree at ground level, however, there is a patch of discoloured tissue that exhibits patterns consistent with the early phases of Armillaria infestation.

 

The Resistograph results for this tree indicate strong tissues within the heartwood and sapwood of the tree. Although associated measurements indicate the early stages of Armillaria disease, the tree at this stage is internally healthy.

 

However, any root pruning or root shaving that may be undertaken to repair the adjacent damaged footpath would leave the roots of this tree susceptible to accelerated fungal infestation, thereby increasing the likelihood of failure within the basal region of the tree.

 

At present the results indicate that the tree is structurally sound and poses no threat of failure from the points tested.

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 31 Ritchard Avenue

 

This tree is approximately eight metres tall with a canopy spread of four-five metres. It has good leaf cover although it has poor form and has been severely pruned over a number of years.

 

Visible decay is evident on the north eastern side of the tree and this extends approximately 160mm into the centre of the tree. The Resistograph test revealed a significant amount of internal decay within the base of the tree – producing a 31.5cm pocket of decay.

 

Evidence from local residents (annual mushroom-like structures growing around the tree base) and the structure of the decay pattern indicate that this tree has been infected with a root pathogen – notably Armillaria sp.

 

These root pathogens will continue to spread throughout unaffected tissue within the base of the tree and will eventually cause the tree to fail.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that this tree be removed to eliminate the potential for failure within a relatively narrow street with high pedestrian/vehicular traffic.

 

An inspection undertaken by Council’s Tree Management Officer assesses the tree as having a medium hazard rating and with providing low environmental amenity. It has also been assessed as being only a moderate provider of habitat and food source.

 

Removal has been assessed as having a negligible impact on soil stability and land degradation.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of only $200.00, using draft Australian Standard AS – DR99307.

   

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 33 Ritchard Avenue

 

This tree is approximately eight metres tall with a canopy spread of around six metres. It has reasonable canopy cover and contributes to the significance of the streetscape.

 

A visible cavity is evident on the south eastern side of the tree and this measures approximately 350mm by 600mm.

 

The subsequent Resistograph test revealed a significant amount of internal decay within the base of this tree – at 1100mm above ground level it represented 77 percent within heartwood tissue.

 

Again, evidence from local residents of mushroom-like structures growing around the base of the tree and the extent of internal decay indicate that this tree has also been infected with Armillaria sp.

 

Due to the sheer amount of decay found within the basal area of this tree, it is strongly recommended that it be removed in the interests of public safety as soon as practicable.

 

An inspection undertaken by Council’s Tree Management Officer assesses the tree as having a medium hazard rating and with providing moderate environmental amenity. It has also been assessed as being only a moderate provider of habitat and food source.

 

Removal has been assessed as having a negligible impact on soil stability and land degradation.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $1,600, using draft Australian Standard AS – DR99307.

 

 

 

 

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 40 Ritchard Avenue

 

This tree is approximately ten metres tall with a canopy spread of around eight metres. It is a poor specimen with disproportionate growth and makes a reasonable contribution to the surrounding streetscape.

 

The tree has been severely pruned (pollarded) over a number of years and roots have damaged the adjacent footpath area to the point that it constitutes a trip hazard.

 

No major defects were identified and the Resistograph test revealed that internal tissues remain strong, the tree is structurally sound and poses no threat of failure from the points tested.

 

However, a number of years ago this tree (along with all the Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing in Ritchard Avenue) was injected with a growth retardant and the spherical cores where it was injected are now showing signs of fungal infection. 

 

For this reason it is recommended that this poor specimen be removed and replaced with a species that is considered resistant to fungal infection.

 

An inspection undertaken by Council’s Tree Management Officer assesses the tree as having a medium hazard rating and with providing high environmental amenity. It has also been assessed as being an important provider of habitat and food source.

 

Removal has been assessed as having a negligible impact on soil stability and land degradation.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $8,100, using draft Australian Standard AS – DR99307.

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 50 Ritchard Avenue

 

This tree is approximately ten metres tall with a canopy spread of around six metres. It has reasonable canopy cover and contributes to the amenity of the streetscape – even though the canopy disproportionately overhangs the road.

 

A visible cavity was found on the eastern side of the tree at ground level and a subsequent Resistograph test revealed that the tree was suffering extensive internal decay at 300mm above ground level.

 

This result indicates a significant reduction in heartwood tissue by up to 69 percent, with this tree exhibiting similar characteristics to the trees growing outside 31 and 33 Ritchard Avenue.

 

With failure rates increasing quite disproportionately with trees suffering this amount of internal rot, current research raises serious questions as to the stability of such trees.

 

For this reason it has been recommended that this tree be removed to eliminate the very real potential for failure in a narrow street with regular pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

 

An inspection undertaken by Council’s Tree Management Officer assesses the tree as having a medium hazard rating and with providing moderate environmental amenity. It has also been assessed as being an average provider of habitat and food source.

 

Removal has been assessed as having a negligible impact on soil stability and land degradation.

 

The tree has been calculated as having an amenity value of $2,400, using draft Australian Standard AS – DR99307.

 

 Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 58 Ritchard Avenue

 

This tree is approximately ten metres tall with a canopy spread of around eight metres. It has good canopy cover and contributes significantly to the amenity of the streetscape.

 

Roots have lifted the adjacent footpath and roots have been severed in the past to allow previously damaged slabs to be replaced.

 

Resistograph tests reveal some internal cavities at 220mm above ground level but these defects are only minor and pose no direct threat to the stability of the tree.

 

There is a high degree of probability that this tree, along with many other figs in Ritchard Avenue, has been infected with Armillaria spp, as the tree has a basal infection point and is in close proximity to other infected trees.

 

However, at this stage the heartwood of the tree is sound, it has good sap flow and has a sufficient root system to support the weight of the tree.

 

It is therefore recommended that at this stage this tree is to be retained, as there is little supportive evidence to suggest that it is structurally unsafe and warrants removal.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost to remove and stump grind the four Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees recommended for removal and to replace them with more appropriate super-advanced 100-litre tree species would be in the vicinity of $10-12,000. These funds 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 where these are growing and wherever they are grown as street trees they present a wide range of serious and often unmanageable problems associated with their retention.

 

The footpath adjacent to all the subject trees has had to be repaired previously because of tree root damage and large tree roots continue to damage adjacent infrastructure.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier is not a feasible option because it would compromise the stability of all these 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 these trees and eventually tree roots would simply grow over or under any such barrier.

 

The presence of Armillaria sp in the soil indicates that most if not all the Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees along Ritchard Avenue have or will become infected at some stage and the health of all these trees will have to be regularly monitored by Council tree management staff. 

 

Four of the trees have been assessed as being structurally unsound and with having an unacceptable and potentially dangerous amount of basal rot within the trunks.

 

The only effective long-term solution to dealing with the declining health and structural defects within these four particular trees and to negate any potential liability issues would be to remove them all and replace them with an appropriate number of advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly).

 

Because of the size and number of trees concerned, their removal would have a serious effect on this significant streetscape.

 

However, their retention for any longer than necessary, particularly in view of an independent arborist’s assessment that they are a danger to persons and/or property and should be removed, could seriously compromise Council’s duty of care obligations.

 

The removal of any of these trees would certainly exceed the five percent per annum limit placed on the removal of Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees in streets of significance but the public safety implications of retention should be the paramount concern to Council.

 

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

 

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

 

It is therefore 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:

 

a.   the four Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip outside 31, 33, 40 and 50 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, be removed and replaced with several advanced Syzygium luehmannii (Lilly Pilly) – as per the originally adopted strategy for the removal and replacement of all aggressive rooted street trees growing within the City of Randwick.

 

b.   the two Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip outside 19 and 58 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee, be retained and that their health be regularly monitored by Council tree management staff.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Resistograph report on six Ficus 'Hillii' street trees growing outside 19, 31, 33, 40, 50 and 58  Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

2. Council Tree Assessment Data sheets detailing attributes of and drainage caused by all six trees -  all under separate cover.

   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER.

 

 

 

                 

       


 

Director, City Services' Report 52/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIG) GROWING OUTSIDE 43 MILROY AVENUE, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

7 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES           

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 43 Milroy Avenue, Kensington, has written to Council detailing a number of problems associated with the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing in the roadway outside his property and requesting that Council remove the tree and replace it with a more appropriate species.

 

ISSUES:

 

There is a variety of tree root damage to both public infrastructure and private property being caused by the roots of the subject tree and the owner of 43 Milroy Avenue has detailed them as follows:

 

Damage to private property

 

1.   The brick pier adjacent to the eastern property boundary has moved due to the uplift caused by the invasive root system;

 

2.   The Besser block wall directly behind that pier is defective as a direct result;

 

3.   The footpath leading from the front gate to the house has been uplifted and tiles have cracked;

 

4.   The brick pier to the front gate adjacent to the western boundary has been lifted and is unstable;

 

5.   The brick archway over the driveway has cracked due to movement caused by the root system;

 

6.   Cracking has occurred over the majority of windows in the eastern elevation and one of the windows in the western elevation;

 

7.   The rear patio has been uplifted and tiles have cracked.

 

Damage to public infrastructure

 

1.   The footpath directly outside these premises and 41 Milroy Avenue has uplifted and is dangerous to pedestrians;

 

2.   The driveway has been uplifted;

 

3.   The kerb and gutter has been uplifted and as a result stormwater does not drain to the drainage pit;

 

4.   The road has subsided and appears to have damaged the stormwater line directly below.

 

The owner makes the point that he has put up with these problems for a number of years and that he is now requesting that Council rectify the damage caused by the street tree.

 

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 $10,800 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost to remove and stump grind this tree, repair and re-instate the footpath and damaged roadway and to replant with a 100-litre replacement tree would be in the vicinity of $6,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The removal and replacement of this tree would certainly fall within the parameters set out in Council’s adopted resolution relating to aggressive-rooted street trees.

 

However, Milroy Avenue has been recognised as a street  of significant Ficus ‘Hillii’ plantings and any proposal to remove trees in this street has in the past met with fierce opposition from not only property owners in the street itself but also from residents living far more a field.

 

The range of issues detailed by the property owner could be negated in the shorter term by root pruning and then repairing any damaged private property and public infrastructure.

 

It should be pointed out that this is only a short term solution and that this action would deal with this type of damage for a period of perhaps five-ten years.

 

The installation of a root barrier is not a viable option with this species of tree as experience has shown that roots either grow over/under/around any such barrier within a very short period of time.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 43 Milroy Avenue, Kensington, be retained and that appropriate remedial action be undertaken to deal with the issues raised by the owner of that property.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Series of photographs detailing significance of tree and damage caused by tree roots.

Correspondence sent to Council by the owner of 43 Milroy Avenue, Kensington.

Tree Assessment data sheet of Ficus 'Hillii' street tree details completed by Council’s Tree Officer.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Photograph of tree showing significance in streetscape

 

 

Root damage to kerb and stormwater pipe

 

Tree roots protruding in roadway – both sides of tree

 

 

Branch snapped by trucks

 

Footpath outside 41 Milroy Ave uplifted

 

 

Tree roots damaging roadway


 

Tree roots protruding in roadway – east side of tree

 

 

Damaged footpath outside 43 Milroy Avenue

 

Gate pier uplifted by tree roots

 

 

Front gate unable to be closed because of root damage to pier

 

 

 

 






 

Director, City Services' Report 53/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

TWO COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' (HILLS WEEPING FIGS) GROWING OUTSIDE 96-100 GALE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

 

 

DATE:

8 June, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 98 Gale Road, Maroubra, has written to Council requesting the removal of the two mature Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees growing in the nature strip outside 96 and 100 Gale Road, Maroubra.

 

ISSUES:

 

These two trees have been a problem for a number of years not only for Council but also for the property owners of 96, 98 and 100 Gale Road, Maroubra, and those problems range from blocked and damaged sewer pipes to structural damage to front fences, driveways, paving, etc.

 

The two trees are mature specimens approximately 10-12 metres in height with canopy spreads of 10-11 metres. They are part of a sporadic planting of this species of tree along this section of road and they are located under overhead powerlines.

 

Although they are both in excellent health they have to be regularly pruned out of the wires, cleared away from domestic service wires and the canopies pruned as much as possible back to the property alignments.

 

The roots of both trees have damaged the adjacent footpath areas over a number of years and footpath damage adjacent to the tree outside 100 Gale Road currently constitutes a tangible trip hazard.

 

In the past all three property owners have expressed a desire to have these trees removed and none would object to their removal and replacement.

 

Within the past two years Council has removed three trees of this species in the immediate area – one in Gale Road and two in Everett Street – and the owner of a property on the corner of Gale Road and Royal Street regularly writes to Council detailing the range of issues associated with two trees of the same species growing adjacent to his property.

 

In short, the problems associated with the two Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing outside 96 and 100 Gale Road are typical of the type and nature of damage and nuisance caused by these trees wherever they are growing.

 

Both trees have been inspected and assessed by Council tree officers and copies of those assessment/data sheets are attached. 

  

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

 

They both have moderate scenic/environmental amenity and provide average habitat/food source. The effect of removal on soil stability/land degradation would be negligible.

 

The two trees have been calculated as having separate amenity values of $5,400 – using the Standards Australia AS – DR99307 valuation guide.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The total cost to remove and stump grind these two trees and to re-instate the damaged nature strip areas would be in the vicinity of $6,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

These two trees are causing, and will continue to cause, a range of problems and infrastructure damage typical of this species.

 

The only feasible long-term method of dealing with these issues in an effective manner and of ensuring they do not continue to get worse would be to remove the subject trees and to replace them with more appropriate species – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.  

 

The removal and replacement of these trees would certainly fall within the parameters set out in Council’s 2002 resolution relating to aggressive-rooted street trees.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the two Council-owned Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) growing on the nature strip outside 96 and 100 Gale Road, Maroubra, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of native trees – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Correspondence from the owners of 98 Gale Road requesting removal of two Council-owned Ficus 'Hillii' street trees.

2. Memorandum from Council's Tree Preservation and Maintenance Coordinator (South) including Tree Assessment/Data sheets on both trees.     

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
Memorandum

 

 

 

TO:

Bryan Bourke

 

FROM:       Marianne Nicholls

 

DATE:        8 June 2006                        FILE: F2004/07359

 

SUBJECT:   96-100 Gale Road, Maroubra - Fig Trees

 

Bryan

 

Council has received a letter from the owner - Mr Adam Seifman - of 98 Gale Road, Maroubra regarding two Ficus microcarpa ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping Fig) growing on the nature strips outside 96 & 100 Gale Road.

 

I have inspected the trees and completed a Tree Assessment Sheet on each – see attached.  Amenity Valuation has come to $5400 each.

 

The trees are both semi-mature to mature and appear in good health.  However, they have each been gully-pruned to clear from the powerlines, which has diminished their aesthetic value and branch structure, encouraging undesirable, epicormic growth.

 

The Council footpath has lifted adjacent to the trees.  At this stage damage to the footpath is minor, although it appears that a section of the footpath has previously been replaced.

 

The paved footpath within 98 Gale Road, directly adjacent to the residence, has been lifted by the Fig Tree roots.  Mr Seifman also showed me a mass of roots which had recently been cleared from his sewer line.  The western pedestrian access gate to 98 Gale Road is now unable to be used as the gate cannot open, due to the pillar having shifted – I have not seen evidence that the Fig Tree/s roots are responsible for this damage.

 

Should Council consider the removal of one of the Fig Trees to avoid possible, future property damage, then consideration would certainly have to be given to removing both of the Fig Trees, due to 98 Gale Road being located between the two trees.  Removal of only one tree would not solve the matter of future property damage.

 

In my opinion, the evident property damage from the Fig Tree roots is relatively minor at this time therefore root pruning may suffice to minimise future damage.  This would also involve lifting the Council footpath to access and assess the tree roots entering the subject property.

 

 

 

 

Marianne Nicholls

TREE PRESERVATION & MAINTENANC CO-ORDINATOR 

 

 

 







 

Notice of Rescission Motions