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

5 June 2007

WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

 

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

90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK ON TUESDAY, 12TH JUNE 2007 AT 6:00 PM

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor, Cr P. Tracey, Crs Andrews, Belleli (Chairperson), Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Matson, Notley-Smith, Seng & 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/Granting of leave of absences

 

2           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 8TH MAY 2007.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addressing to Committee by Members of the Public

 

5           Urgent Business

 

6           Works

 

6.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 25/2007 - REMOVAL OF FICUS'HILLII' IN DUKE STREET, KENSTINGTON.

2

6.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 26/2007 - STREET TREE MASTERPLAN - ADDITIONAL TREE SPECIES.

13

6.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 27/2007 - ELECTRONIC WASTE MANAGEMENT.

32

6.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 28/2007 - RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING DROP OFF CENTRE.

37

6.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 29/2007 - REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIVE ON FLOOD PLAN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

40

6.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 30/2007 - ONGOING ASBESTOS ISSUE AT HEFFRON PARK.

42

6.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 31/2007 - RECENT FLOODING IN RANDWICK AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT STORMWATER LEVY.

47

7           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

8           Notices of Rescission Motions

………………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 25/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

REMOVAL OF FICUS'HILLII' IN DUKE STREET, KENSTINGTON

 

 

DATE:

5 April, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As a result of the obvious decline in health of several mature Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) street trees growing in the roadway in Duke Street, Kensington, Council’s Tree Preservation and Maintenance Co-ordinator commissioned two independent arborists to provide an assessment and tree report on the health and long-term viability of three trees outside 23, 20-24 and 50 Duke Street, Kensington.

 

ISSUES:

 

Duke Street, Kensington, forms one of the most impressive and significant avenues of Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees within the entire Randwick City area. There are 26 fig trees growing along both sides of the street and they have been nominated in Council’s draft Register of Significant Trees as having important historic, visual, aesthetic, cultural and social values.

 

Most of these trees are in reasonably good health, however, a long history of heavy pruning/alignment pruning has compromised the integrity and original form of most of them.

 

It is believed that the figs were planted during the inter-war period (c.1915-1940) as part of Kensington’s development as a garden suburb with broad tree-lined avenues and attractive bungalows.

 

Although the numerous avenues of this tree species throughout the Randwick City area are recognised for their historic and aesthetic importance, there are a number of management and health issues, which are now compromising their retention in the longer term.

 

Several have had to be removed because of basal fungal infections, which have compromised their structural integrity, and there are increasing numbers, which have been removed because of the range of infrastructure and structural damage caused by their vigorous root systems.

 

Because of the significance of the figs in Duke Street and mindful of Council’s duty of care obligations it was considered prudent to have the three declining trees inspected by two qualified arborists independent of Council’s tree management department.

 

Their reports detail the dimensions of the subject trees, their health, vigour and vitality, structural integrity, maintenance history, cultural conditions and Safe Useful Life Expectancy (S.U.L.E.). Their assessments concentrated particularly on the biological aspects of vitality within the trees as well as any mechanical defects.

 

The visual assessments, management options and recommendations for each tree are summarised below:

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 23 Duke Street, Kensington

 

This tree is approximately 14 metres in height with a canopy spread of between 11-13 metres. It is in serious decline with severe dieback and less than 20% leaf cover remaining within the canopy.

 

There are no obvious signs of decay to the roots or within the first order branches, however, the roots on the western side of the root plate have been ground at a distance less than 1.5 metres from the base of the tree and these roots have not formed wound wood. There is also obvious damage to the buttress roots on the northern side of the trunk

 

There is included bark at the main fork of the tree and the main trunk is hollow between the stems. This large cavity contains an active bee hive and swelling around the base of the tree indicates that this hollow could be quite extensive.

 

The tree has asymmetric form because it has been regularly pruned on the northern side to maintain statutory clearance of overhead powerlines. This has meant that the structure of the tree has been severely modified over a prolonged period.

 

The tree is growing within the roadway and its roots are surrounded by asphalt. The roots on the western side have in the past been ‘shaved’ to allow vehicular access to the adjoining property and constant vehicular movement over the roots all around the tree has compacted the surrounding soil.

 

The tree’s low vigour may be due to root damage over a long period and changes in climatic conditions – particularly the availability of water. Compacted soils also reduce the capacity of roots to develop in an ordered/natural way and the combination of compacted soils and a reduced root surface area decreases water and nutrient availability – thus reducing shoot development.

 

This tree has been assessed in both reports, as having no S.U.L.E. and the recommendation of both arborists is that it be removed at the earliest opportunity.

 

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 20-24 Duke Street, Kensington

 

This tree is approximately 12-14 metres in height with a canopy spread of between 10-12 metres. It is also in serious decline with less than 10% leaf cover remaining within the canopy.

 

There are no obvious signs of decay to the roots or within the first order branches, however, the roots on the north/north-eastern side of the tree (road side) have been mechanically damaged. These roots have not formed wound wood.

 

There is a large wound on the northern side of the trunk and although it has calloused over reasonably well there is obviously extensive internal decay within the lower trunk area. Calloused wounds further up the trunk also indicate that internal decay is probably present throughout the length of the entire trunk.

 

This tree is also growing within the roadway and its roots are surrounded by asphalt. The roots on both sides have been exposed to constant vehicular movement over a long period of time and this has obviously compacted the surrounding soil.

 

The tree’s low vigour may be due to root damage over a long period and changes in climatic conditions – particularly the availability of water. Nutrient and water availability are considered to be poor.

 

Compacted soils also reduce the capacity of roots to develop in an ordered/natural way and the combination of compacted soils and a reduced root surface area decreases water and nutrient availability – thus reducing shoot development.

 

This tree has been assessed in one report as having no effective S.U.L.E. and in the other as having a short S.U.L.E. of less than 15 years. One report recommended immediate removal and the other that the tree be retained in the short term and monitored.

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 50 Duke Street, Kensington

 

This tree is around 14 metres in height with a canopy spread of between 10-12 metres. It is also in decline with less than 30% total canopy leaf coverage. There are visible signs of dieback within the tree, most notably around the site of previous pruning on second and third order branches.

 

In this particular specimen, there are no obvious signs of decay within the roots or first order branches. Its low vigour may be due to changes in climatic conditions, including the availability of water and nutrients.

 

This tree is also growing within the roadway and its roots are surrounded by asphalt. The roots on both sides have been exposed to constant vehicular movement over a long period of time and this has obviously compacted the surrounding soil.

 

Compacted soils reduce the capacity of roots to develop in an ordered/natural way and the combination of compacted soils and a reduced root surface area decreases water and nutrient availability – thus reducing shoot development.

 

This tree has been assessed in one report as having no effective S.U.L.E. and in the other as having a S.U.L.E. of less than 15 years. One report recommended immediate removal and the other that the tree be retained in the short term and monitored.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:          A healthy environment.

Direction 10b:         Environmental risks and impacts are strategically managed.

Key Action:              Implement policies, programs and strategies to manage                                          environmental risks and impacts.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost to remove and stump grind these three trees and to replace them with three super-advanced 100-litre replacement trees would be in the vicinity of $10,000 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All three of the subject Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees are in a declining state of health – with the two trees outside 20-24 and 20 Duke Street in a particularly parlous state.

 

There is no evidence that the trees have been poisoned or that they are suffering attack from fungal pathogens – although fruiting bodies may present themselves during the winter months, particularly after rain.

 

Neither arborist has given a definitive reason as to why these three trees are declining in health so rapidly.

 

However, the general consensus is that they are growing in very harsh conditions and that their poor health is the result of cultural constraints such as root damage, soil compaction, compromised internal structure, etc.

 

Improvements in cultural practices are unlikely to improve the health of any of these trees because their decline is probably due to their inability to resist strain. Difficulties in improving vitality will always be an issue for these figs as they struggle for available water and nutrients within compacted and often water repellent soils.

 

Of most importance is the fact that the condition of the two trees outside 20-24 and 23 Duke Street has deteriorated to the point that they now pose a very serious public liability issue for Council that must be negated.

 

The health of the tree outside 50 Duke Street is not as bad as these two and its condition should be monitored to regularly assess the liability issue. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a) the two declining Ficus ‘Hillii’  (Hill’s Weeping figs) street trees growing in the roadway outside 20-24 and 23 Duke Street, Kensington, be removed and replaced with two super-advanced 100-litre Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elms); and

 

(b) the Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree growing in the roadway outside 50 Duke St, Kensington, be monitored over the proceeding twelve months to assess its health and potential risk to persons and/or property.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Photographs of Council-owned Ficus 'Hillii' growing in the roadway outside 20-24, 23 and 5 Duke Street, Kensington.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 


Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 20-24 Duke St – virtually devoid of foliage

 

Tree roots covered in bitumen, extremely compacted and mechanically damaged

Tree roots damaged and surrounded in bitumen

 

Extensive internal decay within the trunk of tree

Internal decay within the upper trunk of the tree

 

Internal decay within the branches of the tree

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 23 Duke St – virtually devoid of foliage

 

Internal decay on the northern side within the base of the tree

Tree roots surrounded by bitumen and mechanically damaged

 

Extensive internal decay (harbouring bee hive) within trunk fork of tree

Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 50 Duke St – less than 30% canopy foliage cover

 

Tree roots situated in compacted soil, surrounded by bitumen

Tree roots situated in compacted soil, surrounded by bitumen

 

 

 

Dieback and internal decay where previous pruning has occurred

 

 


 

 

Director, City Services' Report 26/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

STREET TREE MASTERPLAN - ADDITIONAL TREE SPECIES

 

 

DATE:

5 April, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Since its adoption on Tuesday, 26 November, 2002, there have been a number of requests for additional species to be added to Council’s Street Tree Masterplan - for reasons as varied as people wanting more colour, introducing more hardy species, incorporating more appropriate replacement species for large trees removed, to increasing the provision of food source and habitat for a variety of native birdlife and other fauna. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Although most tree species contained in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan are native or indigenous to the Randwick City area, some have not performed as well as anticipated – particularly as replacements for Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) and other large but problematic species.

 

In the period since its adoption Council tree management staff have investigated the cultural requirements and hardiness of a variety of tree species, with the view to incorporating the most appropriate species into the Street Tree Masterplan.

 

When assessing the appropriateness of any particular species, tree officers utilised a range of criteria including drought tolerance, overall hardiness, stock availability, ability to replicate removed undesirable species, habitat and food source provision, floristic, etc.

 

In order to replicate as much as possible the overall growth habit and food source provision of Ficus ‘Hillii’ the fig species Ficus superba (Deciduous fig) was selected. This is a deciduous fig tree that will attain a height at maturity of between 8-10 metres with a canopy spread of around six metres.

 

As a result of Jewel Beetle infestation large numbers of established Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas trees) have had to be removed throughout the entire City area and it is recommended that these be replaced by Feijoa sellowiana (Guava tree) – a species with a very similar growth habit, foliage and flowers as Metrosideros sp.

 

In order to add a splash of colour throughout the City, particularly during the Autumn months, Koelreutaria paniculata (Golden Rain tree) and Tibouchina granulosa (Lasiandra) were selected, as well as Delonix regia (Poinciana) – a magnificent tree species that is amenable to pruning under wires and which creates impressive avenues of floral colour during Spring and Summer.

 

This species would be particularly well suited to the Coogee Bay and Maroubra Bay Coastal Slope precincts.

 

 

Albizia julibrissin (Silk tree) was also selected because of its floral display and its ability to be directionally pruned under powerlines.

 

Native tree/shrub species such as Banksia aemula (Wallum Banksia), Banksia spinulosa (Hairpin Banksia), Callistemon pearsonii (Pearson’s Bottlebrush) and Leptospermum Flavescens (Tantoon) were selected for habitat and food source provision as well as for coastal planting where views are an ongoing issue.

 

Ceratonia siliqua (Carob tree), Fraxinus griffithii (Evergreen Ash) and Geijera parvifolia (Wilga) were selected because they are particularly hardy once established and Michelia champaca (Golden Champa) and Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) have very attractive green foliage and add a splash of colour during their flowering period.

 

Most of the recommended species grow well in the Sydney region and are utilised as street trees by a variety of other Local Government authorities. They also comply with one of the aims of the Masterplan document in that they reach between five-eight metres at maturity and are amenable to planting under overhead powerlines.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:   Leadership in sustainability

A ‘Sustainable City’ is one that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their environmental needs.

 

Outcome 10: A healthy environment

Direction 10c: Land use, planning and management enhance and protect biodiversity and natural heritage.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The incorporation of the recommended additional tree species into Council’s Street Tree Masterplan would have no additional financial impact on Council’s existing tree management budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Street Tree Masterplan is a document that is under constant review in relation to its objectives and recommendations for tree management.

 

One of the most important components of this document is the species nominated for planting throughout the City and whether those species are performing as well as intended. This is particularly important in the long-term context of climate change and restricted water availability.

 

As previously stated, some of the nominated species already contained in the Masterplan (Callistemon pinifolius, Banksia robur and Syzygium leuhmannii) have not done as well as expected – although this does not mean that they should be removed from the document – while the majority have performed very well in often hostile environments.

 

The inclusion of these additional tree species into the Street Tree Masterplan will complement the palette of species already contained in the document while at the same time enhancing habitat and food source provision, year-round floral display and visual amenity throughout the City.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council incorporates the additional sixteen (16) tree species (as referred to in the attachment to the report) into its Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Descriptions of additional species recommended for inclusion on Council's Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Albizia julibrissin                                                                        Silk Tree

(Al-biz-ia juli-bris-sin)

 


Statistics

Family

Mimosaceae

Origin

Japan and Western Asia

Flowering

Spring-early Summer

Size

Generally up to 5 metres with a 4-5 metre spread

Form

Broad, open canopy with lacy leaves

 

Description

Small-medium deciduous tree with an open canopy and lacy foliage. Benefits from formative pruning to standardise. Ideal for planting under powerlines

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Coogee Valley Floor, Maroubra Valley Floor, Leeward Slopes (south/central/north), Plateau, Remnant Dunes (north/south)

 

Fruit     Long flat legume, green at first, ripening to brown and splitting     

Flowers     Terminal panicle of ‘powder puff’ flowers. Creamy white at base, pink at tips    

Leaves     Compound and bipinnate – dark green above, becoming yellow in Autumn    

Bark     Pale grey/orange, relatively smooth – becoming slightly mottled


Banksia aemula                                                                        Wallum Banksia

(Bank-sia aem-ula)

 


Statistics

Family

PROTEACEAE

Origin

Coastal heaths and dune areas of NSW and Qld

Flowering

Late Spring to Autumn

Size

Generally up to 4 metres in height with a spread of 3 metres

Form

Rounded small tree/large shrub

 

Description

Hardy and adaptable small tree ideal for coastal situations. Prefers soil moisture but will adapt to poorly drained sites. Ideal for planting under wires

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Exposed Coastal Strip, Leeward Slopes (south), Swamp Valley Floor (south)

 

Fruit     Erect dark grey-brown cone with large     

Flowers     Greenish yellow cylindrical spikes

Leaves     Bright green and leathery, serrated margins    

Bark     Dark reddish brown and profusely mottled    

 


Banksia spinulosa                                                                 Hairpin Banksia

(Bank-sia spinu-losa)

 


Statistics

Family

PROTEACEAE

Origin

Eastern Australia

Flowering

Late Spring to Autumn

Size

Compact shrub to two metres in height with similar width

Form

Compact rounded shrub with large golden flower spikes

 

Description

Smallish rounded shrub suited to poorer soils. Profuse flowerer and good bird attracter. Ideal for confined situations and under wires

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Exposed Coastal Strip, Leeward Slopes (south), Swamp Valley Floor (south)

 

Fruit     Vertical grey-brown cone with woody follicles    

Flowers     Dense terminal spike – orange/gold in colour    

Leaves     Linear, light green above, paler beneath with spiky margins

Bark     Dark reddish brown and mottled with lenticels    

 

 


Callistemon pearsonii                                                  Pearson’s Bottlebrush

(Callis-temon pearson-ii)

 


Statistics

Family

PROTEACEAE

Origin

Newcastle area

Flowering

Spring-Summer

Size

Grows to a height of 2 metres with similar spread

Form

Evergreen Rounded shrub

 

Description

Hardy small shrub with compact growth habit. Masses of red flowers – excellent bird attracter

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Coogee Valley Floor, Maroubra Valley Floor, Maroubra Bay Coastal Slopes, Coogee Bay Coastal Slopes

 

Fruit    Woody capsular fruits growing on stem   

Flowers     Dense red spikes – shaped like small ‘bottlebrush’    

Leaves     Narrow, flat, soft – mid green on both sides    

Bark     Reddish-brown, rough and slightly stringy    

 

 


Ceratonia siliqua                                                                                 Carob Tree

(Cera-tonia sili-qua)

 


Statistics

Family

CAESALPINEACEAE

Origin

Middle East

Flowering

Spring to Autumn

Size

Generally 7-8 metres tall with a spread of 5-6 metres

Form

 

 

Description

Broad-domed tree with slightly pendulous branches. Dense canopy of dark green leaves. Edible fruit. Conducive to wire pruning

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Swamp Valley Floor (north/central/south)

 

Fruit     Elongated flattened black pod     

Flowers     Axillary raceme – grow profusely on branches. Green-red calyx and stamens    

Leaves     Compound, glabrous, dark green above, paler beneath    

Bark     Grey-brown and smooth, slightly flaky    

 


Delonix regia                                                                             Royal Poinciana

(Del-onix re-gia)

 


Statistics

Family

CAESALPINEACEAE

Origin

Madagascar

Flowering

Spring-Summer

Size

Up to 10 metres tall with a spread of 8-9 metres

Form

Upright spreading tree with arching branches

 

Description

Often referred to as one of the most beautiful of all flowering trees. Profuse covering of bright red flowers. Conducive to wire pruning. Spectacular specimen tree

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Plateau, Coogee Valley Floor, Maroubra Valley Floor, Maroubra Bay Coastal Slopes, Coogee Bay Coastal Slopes

 

Fruit     Elongated flattened legume becoming brown with age   

Flowers     Large terminal raceme. Flower rotate and scarlet in colour    

Leaves     Compound, bipinnate, bright green becoming dark green with age    

Bark     Creamy grey-brown, finely textured    

 


Eucalyptus mannifera                                                            Red Spotted Gum

(Euca-lyptus mann-ifera)

 


Statistics

Family

MYRTACEAE

Origin

Central NSW

Flowering

Appear in Autumn and Summer

Size

Approx 10 metres in height with a spread of 5-6 metres

Form

Erect trunk with an open canopy of pendulous leaves

 

Description

Beautiful tree that is especially suited to streets and parks. Does well in poor soils and has a lovely smooth bark

 

Nominated Precincts

Remnant Dunes (north/south)

 

Fruit     Dark brown, valved capsules   

Flowers     Creamy on axillary umbels   

Leaves     Dull green, lanceolate, prominently veined   

Bark     Smooth, pale green to grey. Often with white powdery ‘bloom’   

 


Feijoa sellowiana                                                                      Fruit Salad Tree

(Fei-joa sellow-i-ana)

 


Statistics

Family

MYRTACEAE

Origin

Southern Brazil

Flowering

From Spring to Summer

Size

Average 3-4 metres in height by 3 metre spread

Form

Small globose tree best formatively pruned

 

Description

Small tree/large shrub with a dense canopy which is useful for planting under wires and as a replacement for NZ Xmas trees

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Exposed Coastal Strip, Leeward Slopes (central/south)

 

Fruit     Dull green, oval with a pineapple flavour    

Flowers     Staminate and Fuchsia like, dark red/crimson    

Leaves     Ovate, greyish green above, paler under    

Bark     Dark grey-brown and flaky, fibrous    

 

 


Ficus superba                                                                              Deciduous Fig

(Fi-cus su-perb-a)

 


Statistics

Family

MORACEAE

Origin

Coastal Qld and NSW

Flowering

Appear in Spring

Size

Usually around 8-10 metres tall with a canopy spread of 6-8 metres

Form

Single trunk with a broad, dense crown

 

Description

Shapely deciduous tree ideal for planting in parks or wide nature strip areas. Good replacement for larger Ficus varieties removed because of inappropriateness

 

Nominated Precinct/s

All precincts – Special Plantings only - wide nature strips, parks and Open Spaces

 

Fruit     Yellow, fleshy and globose – ripening to dark purple    

Flowers  Insignificant and rarely seen    

INSIGNIFICANT

Leaves     Glossy, dark green, ovate-elliptical, paler and dull underneath   

Bark     Redish brown and deeply furrowed - buttressed    


Fraxinus griffithii                                                                       Evergreen Ash

(Frax-i-nus griffith-ii)

 


Statistics

Family

OLEACEAE

Origin

Central and Eastern Asia

Flowering

Appear in Autumn

Size

Average 5-6 metres in height with canopy spread of 4 metres

Form

Single trunk, upright tree with broad canopy

 

Description

Attractive small-medium tree with a relatively dense canopy that is well suited to street tree planting. Benefits from good soil moisture but very hardy once established

 

Nominated Precinct/s

All precincts – except Exposed Coastal Strip and Plateau

 

Fruit     Large clusters of whitish winged seeds appearing in Autumn    

Flowers     Panicles of small white flowers    

Leaves     Glossy pinnate leaves, mid-green above, paler beneath    

Bark     Mid-grey and relatively smooth with some mottling   

 


Geijera parviflora                                                                                           Wilga

(Gei-jera parvi-flora)

 


Statistics

Family

RUTACEAE

Origin

Native of inland NSW areas

Flowering

Appear in Spring-Summer

Size

Generally 5-6 metres tall with a spread of between 4-5 metres

Form

Small to medium tree with a glossy, weeping canopy

 

Description

Smallish tree growing naturally in open, dry areas of inland NSW. Ideal small tree for street tree planting.

 

Nominated

Precinct

Leeward Slopes (central)

 

Fruit     Small, green fleshy berries   

Flowers     Small, creamy, bell shaped - produced in loose panicles      

Leaves     Light glossy green, narrow lanceolate, pendulous. Aromatic     

Bark     Grey-brown and deeply fissured   

 


Koelreutaria paniculata                                                       Golden Rain Tree

(Koel-reu-tari-a pan-icu-lata)

 


Statistics

Family

SAPINDACEAE

Origin

Native to China

Flowering

Appear in Summer through to Autumn

Size

Average 6-7 metres in height with a spread of 4-5 metres

Form

Erect, upright tree with dense canopy

 

Description

Erect upright medium-sized deciduous tree ideal for sheltered situations where there is plenty of sun. Profusion of yellow flowers in Autumn. Amenable to wire pruning

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Plateau, Swamp Valley Floor (north), Remnant Dunes (north/south), Coogee Valley Floor

 

Fruit     Dark brown 3-sided papery pods with 3 black seeds inside    

Flowers     Small, yellow occurring in panicles    

Leaves     Dark green imparipinnate leaflets with serrated margins

Bark      Reddish brown texture, deeply fissured and flaky with age        

 


Leptospermum flavescens                                                                  Tantoon

(Lepto-sperm-um flav-esc-ens)

 


Statistics

Family

Myrtaceae

Origin

Coastal plains of NSW and Qld

Flowering

Late Winter to Summer

Size

Average 2-3 metres by 2 metres in width

Form

Rounded shrub with arching branches

 

Description

Hardy medium sized shrub/small tree with a rounded compact form. Profuse flowering in Spring. Ideal for confined spaces and under powerlines

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Exposed Coastal Strip, Leeward Slopes (south), Swamp Valley Floor (south)

 

Fruit     Brown 5-valved woody capsules    

Flowers     White, 5-petalled and profuse     

Leaves     Oblanceolate (narrow), glabrous, light green    

Bark     Dark brown, rough and stringy    

 

 


Michelia champaca                                                      Golden Champa

(Mich-el-ia cham-paca)

 


Statistics

Family

MAGNOLIACEAE

Origin

Southern Asia

Flowering

Summer to mid-Autumn

Size

Up to 8 metres in height and 4-5 metres across canopy

Form

Erect, upright tree with conical shaped canopy

 

Description

Evergreen, upright tree with attractive foliage and highly perfumed flowers. Ideal specimen tree in sheltered/gully situations with good soil moisture. Not to be planted under wires

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Coogee Bay Coastal Slopes, Coogee Valley Floor, Leeward Slopes (north)

 

Fruit     Ovoid, pale green and spotted, becoming dark brown    

Flowers     Conical, linear stamens, deep yellow/orange, highly perfumed    

Leaves     Simple, elliptical, bright green and shiny above, duller beneath. Undulated margin    

Bark     Grey-brown and relatively smooth – uniformly mottled    


Pyrus calleryana                                                                                Callery Pear

(Py-rus cal-leri-ana)

 


Statistics

Family

ROSACEAE

Origin

Eastern Asia

Flowering

Early Spring

Size

Generally 6-7 metres tall and 4-5 metres in width

Form

Single trunked, upright with a conical canopy

 

Description

Upright semi-deciduous tree with a relatively dense canopy. Can be planted under wires where they are 5-6 metres above ground. Leaves turning to crimson/ruby in Autumn

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Plateau, Leeward Slopes (north)

 

Fruit     Small globular pome, dark brown-green with spots    

Flowers     Umbellate cluster of white petalled flowers     

Leaves     Simple, ovate, bright green at first ripening to dark green    

Bark     Reddish-brown and fissured all over at maturity    

 


Tibouchina granulosa                                                            Purple Glory Bush

(Tibou-china granu-losa)

 


Statistics

Family

MELASTOMATACEAE

Origin

Brazil

Flowering

Late Summer to early Winter

Size

Up to 5-6 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 4 metres

Form

Upright trunk with arching branches

 

Description

Small evergreen tree suitable for street planting in coastal areas with reasonable soil moisture. Prefers sheltered site. Ideal for Autumn flowering. Confined spaces

 

Nominated Precinct/s

Exposed Coastal Strip, Swamp Valley Floor (north), Leeward Slopes (central/north)

 

Fruit     Dull red 5-valved capsule. Seeds dark brown    

Flowers     Terminal panicle ranging in colour from violet/purple/pale purple    

Leaves     Elliptical-ovate, dark green and shiny above, paler beneath    

Bark     Light grey-brown and slightly mottled    


 

Director, City Services' Report 27/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

ELECTRONIC WASTE MANAGEMENT

 

 

DATE:

1 June, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/0

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Electronic waste includes computers, entertainment  electronics, mobile phones and other items that have been discarded by their original users. Despite its common classification as a waste, disposed electronics are a considerable category of secondary resource due to their significant suitability for direct reuse, refurbishing, and material recycling of its constituent raw materials.

 

At its Ordinary Coucil meeting of November 2006, Council resolved on the motion of Councillors Notley-Smith and Belleli that:

 

a)    a report be brought back to Council on the possible implementation by Council of an ongoing program to allow residents to deposit unwanted computer equipment at a Council depot or other location, with the view to passing-on working equipment to those in our City without a computer and recycling and safe disposal of remaining equipment: and

 

b)     the Randwick Council website  include a list of organisations that recycle computers.”

 

At its Ordinary Coucil meeting of December 2006, Council resolved on the motion of Councillors Matson and Woodsmith that:

 

“ a)   Council call on the NSW Government to require manufacturers to collect and recycle waste computers as enabled under the WARR Act; and

 

b)     a report is brought forward to a future meeting looking at the option of Council initiating a “return to sender” action where an account for the cost and/or responsibility for e-waste collected by Council or its waste contractors is given to computer manufacturers, or either symbolically or in reality.”

 

This report analyses the issues related to electronic equipments, and NSW Governments views and actions, and Randwick City Council’s activities in relation to electronic waste.

ISSUES:

 

Concerns of Electronic Wastes

 

Electronic waste is of concern largely due to the toxicity of some of the substances if processed improperly. The toxicity is due in part to lead, mercury, cadmium and a number of other substances. A typical computer monitor may contain more than 6% lead by weight, much of which is in the lead glass of the CRT. Up to thirty-eight separate chemical elements are incorporated into electronic waste items. The unsustainability of discarded electronics and computer technology is another reason for the need to recycle – or perhaps more practically, reuse – electronic waste.

 

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

 

Extended Producer Responsibility is a concept that aims to provide incentives for producers to incorporate environmental considerations into planning and design, and shifts responsibility for managing end-of-service-life products away from local governments to producers. The main approaches to EPR include product take-back schemes, economic instruments and the stipulation of performance standards. International experience shows EPR schemes have been successful in preventing waste generation at source, promoting more environmentally compatible product design, and facilitating efficient product or material recovery and recycling.

 

Specific benefits of EPR are:

 

·     Stimulate resource recovery and recycling industries.

·     Improve resource efficiency through better product design.

·     Reduce waste management costs.

·     Reduce environmental impact of product waste.

 

However, implementation of EPR requires legislative framework that will involve both State and Federal Governments.

 

NSW EPR Priority Statement

 

EPR policy was introduced in NSW through Part 4 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 “Waste Act”. Section 15 defines EPR scheme as one in which producers’ responsibilities for their products (physical or financial) are extended to the post-consumer stage of the products’ life cycle.

 

Section 18 of the Act requires the Director-General of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) to publish an annual priority statement on EPR schemes that the Director –General propose to recommend for implementation under the Act.

The first Priority Statement was published in 2004 that listed 16 ‘wastes of concern’. E-waste items of computers, televisions and mobile phones were included in the ‘priority focus' list of nine.

 

In 2004, an Expert Reference Group (ERG) was established to advise the Minister for the Environment and the Director-General of DEC on current and proposed EPR schemes and other industry action. Following ERG’s report to the Minister and the Director-General in 2005, the Minister has written to the relevant industry groups seeking specific actions and reporting against these. ERG’s analyses and the Minister’s requests of each industry sector are reflected in a new “Priority Statement 2005-06” that replaces the “Priority Statement 2004.”

 

Computers, mobile phones and televisions are included in the ‘priority focus list’.  

 

Sections 16 and 17 of the Waste Act allow the Minister to make regulations to implement EPR schemes if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. At this stage, EPR schemes are voluntary ones. Computer giants like Dell, IBM, HP and others are introducing their take-back programmes.

 

Following its resolution at its meeting of December 2006, Council has written to the NSW Minister for the environment asking NSW Government to require manufacturer to collect and recycle waste computers as enabled under the WARR Act.

 

Recycling Options

 

Challenges remain, when materials cannot or will not be reused, conventional recycling or disposal via landfill often follow. Standards for both approaches vary widely by jurisdiction, whether in developed or developing countries. The complexity of the various items to be disposed of, cost of environmentally sound recycling systems, and the need for concerned and concerted action to collect and systematically process equipment are the resources most lacked - though this is changing. Many of the plastics used in electronic equipment contain flame retardants. These are generally halogens added to the plastic resin, making the plastics difficult to recycle.

 

E-waste recycling industry in Australia is in its infancy and the recycling involves remarketing, demanufacturing and recycling of components. Remarketing of computers or like is associated with some risks. There is a potential for recovery of confidential information stored in computer hard disk which can be recovered by recyclers or new users.

 

There are several emerging computer recycling organisations in NSW that accept only computers for either repair and reuse or recycle. They mostly work with individual users. Very few organisations are involved in recycling of all electronic items. In both cases, the cost of recycling is about $1,000 per tonne.

 

It is obvious that appropriate EPR schemes and regulations are the best solution to the mounting concerns in relation to managing e-waste and the current and potential risks of environmental pollutions.

 

Council’s Current E-waste Management Activities

 

E-waste Recycling Trial

 

Council conducted an e-waste recycling trial in 2006 in cooperation with SIMS Recycling Solutions and Collex Pty Ltd. Residents dropped off their unwanted computers, printers, monitors, CD-players, TVs, VCRs and peripherals at Council’s Recycling Facility on a designated day. SIMS Recycling Solutions and Collex Pty Ltd removed the 3,220 kg e-waste for processing at a cost of $4347 ($1.35 per kg). In comparison, Council’s current cost of kerbside collected dry recycling is about $170 per tonne or $0.17 per kg.

 

The trial identified that some of the electronic equipments collected had identifiable producer’s names and others were orphans – no identifiable producers. Also, showed that e-waste can be diverted from landfill by collecting from designated drop-off points with the support of the community, but at a high cost to Council.

 

The Bower - Referral Services

 

The Bower is a community registered charity and is a not-for-profit enterprise that collects from the community unwanted furniture, appliances, etc. for low-cost resale or hire. In April 2006, with the financial support of SSROC councils ($3,100 each council), they have introduced a Reuse Referral Service for the residents of the participating councils.

 

Under this service, the residents can call or visit the Bower to find a home for their unwanted goods including e-waste. If the Bower itself is able to take goods, they will either come and collect the item(s) or arrange for drop-off at their facility at Addison Road, Marrickville.

 

Otherwise, the callers will be referred to a recycler or reseller from a database of more than 400 Sydney-based businesses. Staff at the Bower try to find appropriate services near to the caller, so that they can take their unwanted material to a convenient facility.

 

This referral service has been publicised through Council’s website as well as in the local newspaper (Southern Courier). Through this referral service Randwick City Council’s residents were able to divert more than 190 cubic metres of materials, including e-waste, from landfill over the July – December 2006 period. 

 

Mobile Phone Recycling

 

Council has organised for its residents a mobile phone recycling programme initiated by the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association (AMTA) as part of their voluntary EPR programme.

 

Under this programme, Council has installed mobile phone collection containers provided by AMTA at its Randwick, Bowen and Matraville libraries and Administrative building. The containers will be emptied on a regular basis and the collected mobile phones and batteries will be recycled.

 

Website information

 

Council website provides information on e-waste recycling options available to the local residents. The website has created links to e-waste recyclers in Sydney area (Randwick City Council Website à Council Services à Waste Management à Other Waste Servicesà  E-Waste à Planet Ark Recycling Near You )   . Using the links the residents are able to brows through websites of recyclers and find appropriate facilities for their unwanted electronic equipments.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:             A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10e:           Our community is encouraged to implement waste minimisation strategies.

Key Action:                Waste to resource initiatives are implemented.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

E-wastes include electronic products that were used for data processing, telecommunications and entertainment. This type of waste is of concern largely due to the toxicity of some of the substances if processed improperly.

 

The e-waste recycling industry is facing enormous challenges due to the complexity of the various items to be disposed of and cost of environmentally sound recycling systems. Reuse of computer is associated with risks of confidential data being recovered and misused by third party. E-waste recycling is costly and is currently about $1,000 per tonne.

 

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a concept that aims to provide incentives for producers to incorporate environmental considerations into planning and design, and shifts responsibility for managing end-of-service-life products away from local governments to producers. The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 allows NSW Minister for the Environment to mandate producer take-back if the industry fails to take the responsibility. Computers, mobile phones and televisions are included in the EPR ‘priority focus list’ of 2005-06 Priority statement.

 

Appropriate EPR schemes and regulations are best solution to the mounting concerns in relation to managing e-waste and the current and potential risks of environmental pollutions. Both Federal and State Governments should work to get the best outcome in relation to e-waste management. The LGSA NSW has called for imposition of EPR scheme for e-waste.

 

Council currently facilitates recyling of e-waste through the Bower referral services and  collection of mobile phones, initiated by the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association,  at Council’s service facilities and provides information to the community through its website. Council web-site has been linked to the organisatins that recycle computers.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That it be noted that Council currently facilitates the e-waste recycling through supporting the Bower Referral Service and by providing relevant information to the community on Council’s website.   

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR WASTE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director, City Services' Report 28/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING DROP OFF CENTRE

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/08408

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Recently Council has shifted operations for the Residential Drop off of recycling from Perry Street Matraville and combined it with the Recycling Centre at Bumborah Point Road.

 

These changes require some formalisation of operating times, acceptable material and what public access to the site is allowed.  Randwick provides these services to the ratepayers of the LGA, and as such these rules of operations need to be detailed and advertised.

 

ISSUES:

 

There are three issues that need to be formalised; operating times, allowable material and allowable patronage.

 

1.     Operating Times: As the residential drop off is located within the Recycling Centre similar opening and closing times are appropriate.  The recommendation would be to open the residential drop off as follows.

 

·          Monday to Friday 8am to 3pm

·          Saturday and Public Holidays 8am to 11am.

 

        The Commercial operations at the Recycling Centre operate 6am to 3pm Monday to Friday; the two (2) hour difference would allow the staff to access the residential operations for maintenance and cleaning.

 

2.     Allowable Material: The residential drop off should mirror what is acceptable for recycling in Randwick’s kerbside program, as such, the following is a recommended list of allowable materials:

 

·    Paper and cardboard

·    Glass bottles

·    Aluminium cans

·    Steel cans

·    White goods and other household metal items

·    Garden organics (green waste).

 

        Room has been allocated for expansion of acceptable material in the future, once the environmental controls are in place, the facility will accept car batteries and waste oil.

 

3.     Allowable Patronage:  As a precautionary approach both from a logistic and financial position, it is recommended that this site be limited to only Randwick City Council residents and small office/home office type businesses within the Randwick LGA.  There have been some instances of businesses outside the area trying to us the facility.

 

        To control the access and restrict to Randwick City Council residents and businesses it will be necessary for suitable identification to be produced on entering the site.  For local residents a driver’s licence would be suitable, however this may not be suitable for businesses whose owner may live outside the area, as such a business card, rates notice or other notification of the location of the business should be sufficient.  Although the above methods are not 100%, it is sufficient to provide a deterrent whilst allowing effective operations.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:     A Healthy Environment.   

Directions 10e: Our community is encouraged to implement waste minimisation strategies.   

Key Actions:    Waste to Resource initiatives are implemented. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There will only be a very modest budget impact for the erection of signs entering the facility detailing the operating times, what material is accepted and conditions of entry.  It is anticipated that the likely figure is below $1,000.00 and will be funded from existing programs.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The co-location of the residential and commercial recycling centres in Randwick allows for reduced costs associated with duplicated resources across the City.  Council provides this as a service to the community and as such some restrictions in patronage and material allowed is justifiable.  The Centre now mirrors the acceptable material allowed in the both the kerbside recycling and green waste bins and the bulk metal goods that council would accept from kerbside collections.  There is scope for an expansion of allowed materials if Council feels that these are necessary but at present the full compliment of materials are collected with the available resources. 

 

The operating times allow for effective supervision of the site whilst allowing for the convenience of the customers.  The restriction of patronage to residents and local small businesses prevents over burdening the domestic recycling program whilst increasing the capture of bulky recyclable materials, that would either be illegally dumped or end up in landfill.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Randwick Residential Recycling Centre policy, establishing the framework for the operation of the facility, be approved.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Residential Recycling Centre Policy.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRENDAN GALWAY

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

PROJECT MANAGER

 


 

ATTACHMENT 1

 

 

 

 

 

RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING CENTRE POLICY

 

File No.           F2004/01045

 

1.         OBJECTIVE

 

To establish the hours of operation and legitimate use of the residential recycling drop off facility located at Gate B8 Bumborah Point Road.

 

2.         POLICY STATEMENT

 

2.1    Hours of Operation

 

The drop off facility (the facility) will be open for residential use:

 

·   Monday to Friday 8am to 3pm

·   Saturday and Public Holidays 8am to 11 am

 

2.2    Material Accepted

 

The materials accepted for residence to drop off are limited to the following:

 

·     Paper and cardboard

·     Plastic Containers numbered 1 to 7

·     Glass Bottles

·     Aluminium Cans

·     Steel Cans

·     White Goods and other household steel products

·     Green Waste

 

2.3          Condition of Entry

 

·       The facility is in operation for Residents and Small Office/Home Office businesses operating within the Randwick Local Government area

·       Representatives of Randwick Council on site may ask for appropriate Identification of your residency or business location within the Randwick Local Government Area.

·       If council representatives are not satisfied that you are a local resident they may refuse you access to the site.

·       On entry to the site any safety directions given by Council representatives must be adhered to.

·       If you present incorrect material you will be asked to take the incorrect material back with you.

·       You will be under camera surveillance during entry, whilst on the site and on exit from the site.

·       General public access is prohibited to the commercial operations area of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:            /2007                Meeting Date:                      Date Amended:


  

Director, City Services' Report 29/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIVE ON FLOOD PLAN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/06608

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Maroubra Beach catchment drains to Maroubra Beach near the intersection of McKeon Street and Marine Parade. The catchment covers an area of approximately 172 ha. The catchment is fully developed with low, medium and high-density residential housing, which encompasses part of the suburb of Maroubra.

 

Existing flooding problems have been reported within the catchment at two low points located behind the coastal dunes. These are located at Fenton Street/Chapman Avenue and Marine Parade between McKeon Street and Fitzgerald Avenue. These are two significant low points within the catchment that do not have natural overland flow paths.

 

There are two trunk drainage lines connecting to the outlet. The larger of these collects runoff from approximately 70% of the catchment. The major drainage line for this part of the catchment is located along Fitzgerald Avenue and then along Marine Parade to McKeon Street. The other major drainage line runs along McKeon Street from Duncan Street to Marine Parade. This conduit collects runoff for the remainder of the catchment.

 

The main cause of flooding in the area is insufficient conduit capacities in combination with no natural overland flow paths.

 

Some studies have been performed in parts of the catchment area, in the past.  The drainage data has changed since this time due to construction of new drainage lines and changes in the catchment due to development. This has lead to a lack of confidence in the existing studies. Commissioning a comprehensive flood study will provide an accurate representation of flood behaviour within the catchment.

 

This project has been initiated in order to identify flood prone areas, develop a comprehensive program of strategies to reduce regional flooding in the area and to allow opportunities to develop a management plan for Council’s infrastructure. The study will be used to identify flood levels so that new developments can be designed in a manner that will not affect or be adversely affected by floodwater.

 

ISSUES:

 

Prior to the study commencing, an application for funding under the Natural Disaster Mitigation Programme (NDMP) was submitted to supplement the cost of conducting the study.

 

The NDMP has matching funding for Council’s funding from both the State and Federal Governments. A letter from the State Minister for Emergency Services was received stating that the grant application was successful subject to a number of conditions, offering $33,333.00 of funding. A letter from the Federal Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads was received stating that the grant application was successful subject to a number of conditions, offering $33,333.00 of funding. Conversations with officers within the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) have indicated additional funding may also be available in the future.

 

Council has already received payment for the stormwater drainage survey stage of the project. Council is currently claiming for the initial components of the flood study stage.

 

A condition of accepting this grant is to comply with the Floodplain Development Manual guidelines for conducting flood studies.  This includes the formation of a Floodplain Management Committee. 

 

A Floodplain Management Committee acts as both a focus and a forum for the discussion of technical, social, economic, ecological and cultural issues and for the distillation of viewpoints on these issues into a floodplain risk management plan. 

 

The Floodplain Management Committee is proposed to consist of, but not limited to, the following members:

 

·    A Councillor representing the Central Ward

·    Appropriate Council officers

·    Members of the local precinct groups (2)

·    Member from the local chamber of commerce

·    A representative from DECC

·    Council’s drainage study consultant

·    A representative from the SES.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The funding agreement for the NDMP was signed by Council and the NSW State Emergency Management Committee. This outlined the costs to perform the study in accordance with the Flood Plain Development Manual. The cost was estimated to be $100,000.00 which is funded on a one third basis being Federal: State: Local (1:1:1).  Council’s portion is able to be funded from existing funding in the drainage program.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In the formation of a Floodplain Management Committee for this flood study, it is requested that one Central Ward Councillor be nominated to represent Council on the Maroubra Beach Floodplain Management Committee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council nominate one (1) Central Ward Councillor to be a member of the Maroubra Beach Floodplain Management Committee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

PAUL TATHAM

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS ENGINEER


 

Director, City Services' Report 30/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

ONGOING ASBESTOS ISSUE AT HEFFRON PARK

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07462

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES          

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 25 May 2007 in accordance with Mayor’s minute 36/2007 resolved that Council “responds to this community concern by resolving to review Council’s Asbestos Management Plan for Heffron Park at the next meeting of Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

For a number of years the Council has been managing asbestos-containing fragments that have been found in various locations in the park. It is most likely that this material has been unearthed having worked its way up to the surface of the park through the action of wind and rain on the soil.

 

The Council has an Asbestos Management Plan for Heffron Park (Attachment 1 - copy attached) and the issue is also dealt with in the Council’s adopted Heffron Park Plan of Management. In accordance with the Council’s Asbestos Management Plan, Heffron Park is regularly monitored for asbestos material and extensive inspections of the area are conducted. Any asbestos-containing material is treated as asbestos waste and removed and disposed of according to strict regulations, using properly qualified contractors and approved work safety methods. Once the asbestos has been removed, an independent inspection is carried out by a specialist consultant.

 

Airborne particles are the main public safety hazard, so when removing asbestos the Council’s contractors use an air monitoring system to identify any asbestos fibre in dust that leaves the site whilst the removal is occurring. According to the test results of the air monitoring system over the last few years, there have been no airborne asbestos particles in the air on the site.

 

The Council’s asbestos consultants inspected Heffron Park on Thursday, 2 May, 2007. Four people conducted a ‘walk through’ audit of the majority of the park, and found asbestos-containing fragments on the ground in several areas. The Council has engaged a licensed asbestos removal company to remove this asbestos material as soon as possible. The consultant will then re-inspect the park to ensure all the asbestos has been removed and issue the Council with an asbestos clearance certificate.

 

Based on the recent SGS Test Report for asbestos identification analysis where asbestos was found in soil samples taken on the site, the samples were found to contain asbestos-cement fragments and asbestos fibres attached to small fragments and large bundles of asbestos fibres in millimetre unit dimensions.  In each of these classifications the form of asbestos contains ‘non-respirable’ asbestos fibres.

 

The source of the asbestos fibre bundles is believed to be attributed to release of fibre bundles from asbestos-cement sheeting during demolition of buildings prior to 1980 (by driving bulldozer through building knocking wooden frame out and allowing cement clad walls and roofing to collapse).

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6: A Liveable City.

Direction 6a.          Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Key Action:   Assets are managed strategically to deliver intergenerational equity and to meet Council’s obligation as the custodian of our community’s assets.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The air monitoring undertaken by Council’s contractors when removing asbestos from the Park has indicated no airborne particles in the air during these processes.

 

Asbestos-cement is generally classified as “bonded” asbestos material by the New South Wales WorkCover Authority (WCA) which implies that the asbestos fibres are usually well encapsulated within the matrix of the product and therefore not able to be rendered into ‘respirable’ asbestos fibres unless released by high speed machining processes.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1.  Asbestos Management Plan for Heffron Park (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

2.  Photos of site.   

 

……………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

zaman shamsuz

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

environmental management officer

 


         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Areas west of the netball courts that contain AC fragments, AC contamination is heavier between the edge of the asphalt and the koppers log barrier fence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                     Photograph of AC fragments collected in one of the gully areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          AC contamination is present on the grassed strip between the netball courts, higher AC contamination is evident in the ungrassed track where lighting eservices have been installed.



Director, City Services' Report

31/2007  

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

RECENT FLOODING IN RANDWICK AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT STORMWATER LEVY

 

 

DATE:

29 May, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07213

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES                

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Randwick Local Government Area (LGA) is considered a well-established older LGA that has limited and ageing drainage infrastructure.  Council has many areas within the LGA where the drainage system is deemed to be under capacity or in a state of disrepair.

 

Council has been fortunate, with regard to flooding, as very few heavy storms have occurred in the last 10 years.  Despite the low level of rainfall there has been a number of overland flow and flooding complaints received from the community.  These complaints have indicated that there are areas where Council’s drainage infrastructure is either deteriorating or under capacity.

 

As the City continues to develop, combined with more intense storms it is expected the number of stormwater flooding events will increase.

 

The City was subjected to moderate rainfalls in recent storms, which occurred on 4 April 2007 and 23 April 2007 resulting in a number of flooding incidents within our community.

 

During these storms a number of residents experienced overland flow ranging from nuisance flooding to damage to property resulting from “above floor flooding”.

 

This report is provided to inform Council of the impacts of relatively common rainfall events upon our community and potential funding solutions that can be utilised to reduce the community impacts.

 

ISSUES:

 

During the recent storms dated 4 April 2007 and 23 April 2007 residents of Randwick City Council experienced overland flows to varying degrees.  The areas in which Council received correspondence following these storms are listed below.

 

1.     20, 22 & 24 Market St experienced below floor and above floor flooding in both storms.

2.     14 Figtree Ave experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

3.     13 Centennial Ave experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

4.     Properties in Castle Lane, Challis Lane and surrounding areas including Clovelly Road experienced below floor and above floor flooding in both storms.

5.     Properties in Clovelly Road near Earl St experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

6.     325 and 327 Alison Rd experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

7.     82 and 84 Brook St and properties in Smithfield Ave experienced below floor and above floor flooding in the 4 April storm.

8.     Corner of Barker and Perouse Rd (99-105 Perouse Road) experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

9.     4 Mulcray St experienced below and above floor flooding in both storms.

10.    Cook St experienced road flooding in both storms.

11.    Malabar Road at Coogee Bowling Club experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

12.    171-173 Mount St experienced below floor and road flooding in both storms.

13.    73 Perry St experienced below floor flooding in both storms.

14.    Anzac Parade at Gibson Place experienced below floor flooding in the 23 April storm.

15.    101 Bundock St experienced above floor flooding in the 23 April storm.

16.    In Carrington Road near Dolphin Lane a pipeline nearing failure is causing a road to subside

17.    A pipeline in Endeavour Ave experienced a blow out causing severe erosion in a reserve.

18.    119 Haig St experienced above floor flooding in both storms.

19.    Properties in Harold Street experienced above and below floor flooding.

 

Please Note:           There are numerous other areas and properties within the City that experienced flooding in the moderate storm events but have not reported them to Council.  Technical Services has prepared a more comprehensive list of stormwater drainage rehabilitation and upgrading works to better manage and resolve many of the flooding problems. A 10-year stormwater drainage works program has been prepared to address stormwater drainage deficiencies and flooding problems within the City.

 

Most of the areas mentioned above have no simple or “cheap” solution and Council’s response to these residents’ is that currently nothing can be done to alleviate their problem.

 

Initial budget estimates for the above-mentioned problem areas is tabulated below.

 

No.

Description

Works

Cost Est.

1. 

20, 22 & 24 Market St, Randwick

Major Pipeline

$1.6M

2. 

14 Figtree Ave, Randwick

Major Pipeline

$350K

3. 

13 Centennial Ave, Randwick

Incld No.1

Incld No.1

4. 

Properties in Castle Lane, Challis Lane, Randwick

Major Pipeline

$1.75M

5. 

Properties in Clovelly Road near Earl St, Randwick

Incld No.4

Incld No.4

6. 

325 and 327 Alison Rd, Coogee

Incld No.7

Incld No.4

7. 

82 & 84 Brook St & properties in Smithfield Ave, Coogee

Major Pipeline

$1.3M

8. 

99-105 Perouse Road, Randwick

Minor Pipeline in Private Property

$35K

9. 

4 Mulcray St, Maroubra

Minor Pipeline

$31K

10.

Cook St, Randwick

Medium Pipeline

$115K

11.

Malabar Road at Maroubra Bowling Club, Maroubra

Major Pipeline

$1.33M

12.

171-173 Mount St, Coogee

Major Pipeline+ Infiltration/Detention

$1.14M

13.

73 Perry St, Matraville

Major Pipeline

$1.6M

14.

Anzac Parade at Gibson Place, Chiefly

Major Pipeline

$1.17M

15.

101 Bundock St, Randwick

Minor Pipeline

$56K

16.

Carrington Road near Dolphin Lane, Coogee

Medium Pipeline

$91K

17.

Endeavour Ave, La Perouse

Minor Pipeline in Private Property

$110K

18.

119 Haig St, Maroubra

Minor adjustments

$38K

19.

Harold St, Matraville

Major Pipeline

Inc Item 13

 

Potential funding sources to address Stormwater Flooding and drainage deficiencies.

 

As illustrated above, a significant amount of funding is needed to rectify the flooding issues reported in 2 recent events.

 

Council is currently funding its stormwater drainage renewal and rehabilitation at $315,000 per annum from general rate revenue.

 

The State Government Stormwater Levy was introduced by the State Government to assist Local Government in addressing stormwater drainage deficiencies and flooding. Many councils have successfully implemented the State Government Stormwater Levy and carried out significant works to address stormwater drainage deficiencies within their Local Government areas.

 

The following neighbouring Council’s have successfully implemented the State Government Stormwater Levy:

 

·     City of Botany Bay

·     City of Sydney Council.

 

The communities within these Council’s have accepted the State Government Levy as they can see their Council has a funded plan of action to eventually address drainage deficiencies and flooding affecting their properties.

 

Waverley Council and Woollahra Municipal Council have been implementing a stormwater levy within their environmental levies for a number of years prior to the State Government Stormwater Levy. Next financial year Woollahra Municipal Council will remove the Stormwater Levy component from its Environmental Levy and apply the State Government Stormwater Levy.

 

Randwick could expect to raise approximately $1,300,000 from applying the recommended levy, which could be immediately utilised to address the flooding problems experienced by our community.

 

The State Government Stormwater Levy is charged at a rate of $25 per residential property, $12.50 per residential unit and approximately $25 per 350 square metres for commercial properties.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:      A liveable City.

Outcome 6a      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Direction 6a      Assets are managed strategically to deliver intergenerational equity and to meet Council’s obligation as the custodian of our community’s assets.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The application of the State Government Levy will have a positive financial impact providing additional income of approximately $1,300,000 per annum to undertake stormwater drainage works in addition to general rate revenue in the amount of $315,000 per annum.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Significant flooding occurs in many areas throughout the city.  Many of these areas are affected due to lack of capacity in the drainage system.

 

Council has the opportunity to address stormwater drainage deficiencies and flooding problems implementing the State Government Stormwater Levy. The Stormwater Levy may be used to attract matching funds under State and Federal flood mitigation programmes.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council undertake a community consultation program as part of the 2008/09 Management Plan to consider the implementation of the State Government Stormwater Levy in the financial year commencing July 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   Photos of recent inundated areas

2.   Department of Local Government Circular No. 06-47 - Stormwater Management Services Charges Guidelines (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

3.   Drainage Works 10 Year Program Summary (UNDER SEPARATE COVER).           

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

mark leong

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSET engineer drainage

 


Water Level

 
  

Water Level

 
Inside and Outside of Bike Shop on Clovelly Road from Challis Lane

 

   

Rear of Cater St in Challis Lane                          48 Clovelly Road in Castle Lane

Water Level

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Water Level

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


48 Clovelly Road in Castle Lane                          48 Clovelly Road in Challis Lane

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Level

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


22 Market St In and Outside Garage

 

                    

 

                    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anzac Parade @ Gibson Place

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front Yard and Porch 325 Alison Road

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front Porch 325 Alison Road                              82 Brook St on 04-04-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82 Brook St on 04-04-2007                               20 Smithfield Ave on 04-04-2007

 

 

 

 



 

Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

Notices of Rescission Motions