Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 August 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Works Committee

10 August 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 10 August 2010 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor, J Procopiadis, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, Hughes, Matson, Matthews (Chairperson), Nash, Notley-Smith, Seng, Smith, Stevenson, Tracey, White (Deputy Chairperson) & Woodsmith

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE:    At the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 September 2004, the Council resolved that the Works Committee be constituted as a committee with full delegation to determine matters on the agenda.

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Works Committee Meeting - 20 July 2010

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W16/10     Fibro Fragments (Asbestos Issue)

W17/10     Street Tree Issues - Outside 1 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

W18/10     Tree Removal - Outside 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

W19/10     Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) for Kensington and parts of West Kingsford    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Works Committee

10 August 2010

 

 

 

Works Report No. W16/10

 

 

Subject:                  Fibro Fragments (Asbestos Issue)

Folder No:                   F2008/00197

Author:                   Zaman Shamsuz, Environmental Engineer     

 

Introduction

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 March 2008, Council resolved (Matson/Woodsmith):

 

“that the sampling and testing program continue at Heffron Park once per year”

 

Issues

 

Council has conducted annual air monitoring at six locations during asbestos removal in the Heffron Park on 24 June 2010, which includes the site boundaries, netball court and sand basin area. Six air sampling instruments have been installed;

 

·      Netball Courts No 1 & No 2, on light pole

·      Netball Court Administration Building, Fitzgerald Avenue, on light pole,

·      Sand Basin on, South East, on light pole

·      Mackie Playing Field on light pole

·      Pump House, Aussie Rules field, Jersey Road

·      Matraville Tigers Amenities Building, Cnr of Jersey & Bunnerong Roads

 

Sampling has been conducted by Pickford & Rhyder Consulting Pty Ltd and analysis in NATA endorsed laboratory. Filters have been examined in accordance with the April 2005 National Occupational Health & Safety Commission "Guidance Note on the Membrane Filter Method for Estimating Airborne Asbestos Fibres" (2nd Edition), as per Laboratory Method MFM/1.

 

The results for airborne asbestos samples taken are below the detection limit of the method of 10 fibres per 100 fields or less than 0.01 fibres per millilitre of air, and are therefore completely satisfactory. These results indicate that no measurable amounts of airborne fibres were present.

 

Annual Asbestos Inspection and Removal

Pickford Ryder Pty Ltd was engaged to carry out annual asbestos cement inspection survey in entire park on 31 May and 1-2 June 2010. Lidoran Environmental Services, a licensed asbestos removal contractor was engaged to remove all visible AC fragments from the surface of the soil through handpicking on 24 and 25 June 2010 from locations mentioned in the annual asbestos survey report prepared by Pickford Ryder Pty Ltd. A visual clearance inspection was also conducted by Lidoran Environmental Services and Pickford Ryder Pty Ltd on 28 June 2010 after removing visible asbestos from the park.

 

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

 

The cost to complete the Annual asbestos survey in the entire park, clearance inspection and air monitoring is $10,675.50 (GST Exclusive).

 

The cost of asbestos removal by Lidoran Environmental Services is $7,500.00 (GST Exclusive).

 

Conclusion

 

Air monitoring was conducted during annual asbestos removal in the entire park. The test results indicate that no measurable amounts of airborne fibres were present in air in the Park.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Visual Clearance Inspection Report, Annual Asbestos Monitoring Report and Certificate of Analysis and Annual Asbestos Inspection Survey, Heffron Park prepared by Pickford & Rhyder Consulting Pty Ltd - May 2010 – INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Works Committee

10 August 2010

 

 

 

Works Report No. W17/10

 

 

Subject:                  Street Tree Issues - Outside 1 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 7 July 2010 the owner of 1 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, wrote to Council highlighting a number of issues associated with several Council owned street trees growing on the nature strip outside that property.

 

Issues

 

There are several matters detailed in that correspondence that are impacting adversely on the quality of life of the two elderly owners – specifically as they relate to the eight street trees growing on the nature strip surrounding their property.

 

On the Chapman Avenue frontage there are two semi-mature Hibiscus tileaceus (Cottonwoods) located on the nature strip with average heights and canopy spreads of between four-six metres. The western-most tree is growing on an angle towards the roadway and has had to be regularly uplifted to allow vehicular thoroughfare along the street. There are six other Council owned street trees running along the Maxwell Avenue frontage that are also directly impacting on the referred-to property. These are two additional medium Hibiscus tileaceus, one small Eucalyptus scoparia (Wallangarra White Gum), one smallish Quercus robur (English Oak), one large Lophostemon confertus (Brushbox) and one very large Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum).

 

The male property owner is seventy-three years old and is recovering from a serious stroke. He advises that because of his health he can no longer cope with cleaning up the debris that the three Cottonwoods continually drop - which he also considers a serious slip hazard and liability issue for Council.

 

The canopies of these trees in particular block out a significant amount of sunlight, which is affecting both the health of the owners and the growth of native shrubs and other plants within their property. The owner has been advised by his doctor that it would be beneficial to his recovery for him to obtain as much sunlight as he can and to continue with mild exercise such as gardening – two activities being severely impacted upon by the Council owned Cottonwood trees.

 

The owners have also highlighted anecdotal problems with the roots of this species blocking sewer pipes along the street and with the roots protruding above the nature strip and creating trip hazards. The amount of sunlight they block out also has an effect on the growth of turf along the nature strip and all these issues contribute to the species being considered highly inappropriate as a street tree species by the property owners.

 

The large Brushbox and the very large Sydney Blue Gum drop leaves into the gutters on an ongoing basis and are regularly pruned back to the property alignment by Council to negate any nuisance.

 

The English Oak and the small Wallangarra Gum are both fairly innocuous and are not causing any issues for the adjacent property owners.    

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.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is estimated that the removal and replacement of the three Hibiscus tileaceus as requested by the adjacent property owners will cost in the vicinity of $2000. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The main issues the owners of 1 Chapman Avenue have with the Council owned street trees surrounding their property predominantly involve the species Hibiscus tileaceus, the shade their canopies cast and the liability concerns they have with debris continually dropping onto the nature strip and into their property. This species also impacts adversely on the ability to grow turf underneath the canopies and the roots can cause a liability issue with sewer pipe intrusion and with protruding above the nature strip.

 

At a street meeting with the owners on the morning of 19 July 2010 they advised that they would be happy if Council removed the two Cottonwoods in Maxwell Avenue and the northern-most Cottonwood in Chapman Avenue and replaced them with five Banksia ericifolia (Heath Banksias) – as well as undertaking remedial pruning of all other trees overhanging into their property. The canopy of the Cottonwood in Chapman Avenue is overhanging into the property and this is a species that does not respond well to canopy thinning or pruning – they often sucker up profusely and the canopy becomes much denser than if it had been left alone. The northern-most Cottonwood in Maxwell Avenue is severely stunted and deformed and its removal would have a negligible impact on the streetscape. Although the removal of the three requested Cottonwoods would have an effect on the natural amenity of the area, this would be mitigated to some degree by the fact that there are a number of mature street trees in the immediate vicinity that provide screening, shade, habitat and food source. This would be enhanced in the longer term with the planting of five Banksia ericifolia as replacements for the three subject Cottonwoods. These shrubs would also allow significantly more sunlight into the property and would be responsible for much less debris.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council removes three of the four Hibiscus tileaceus (Cottonwoods) growing on the nature strip outside 1 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, and replaces them with five advanced Banksia ericifolia (Heath Banksias).

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs of Council owned street trees surrounding the property at 1 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs of Council owned street trees surrounding the property at 1 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

Attachment 1

 

 

Trees surrounding property on corner of Chapman Ave and Maxwell Ave, Maroubra

 

 

English Oak, two Hibiscus tileaceus and Eucalyptus saligna in Maxwell Avenue

Brushbox canopy overhanging roof of residence at 1 Chapman Avenue

 

 

Large Sydney Blue Gum overhanging into properties at 1 Chapman Ave and 1 Maxwell Ave


Works Committee

10 August 2010

 

 

 

Works Report No. W18/10

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Outside 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Solicitors representing the owner of 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, have written to Council detailing a variety of damages issues associated with the roots of a large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside that property and requesting that the tree be removed and replaced with “a non-invasive tree”.  The correspondence includes a series of photographs that clearly show Ficus ‘Hillii’ tree roots growing immediately adjacent to a damaged section of front brick fence and a section of internal paving which has lifted.

 

Council has removed a section of footpath between the tree and the fence of the property and Council’s Tree Gang has trenched along the property alignment to expose tree roots.

 

Issues

 

The owner of 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, has requested the removal of this particular street tree on a number of occasions but this has essentially not been approved because root pruning was always undertaken and several trees of the same species had been removed from the street within a relatively short timeframe.

 

The subject tree is approximately eighteen metres in height with a canopy spread of around 20 metres.

 

Over the past decade the adjacent footpath has had to be repaired on a number of occasions because of tree root damage and roots have once again entered the front of the property. Council recently again trenched along the front of this particular property and this revealed several large tree roots undermining the front fence and entering the property.

 

Council’s Tree Gang advises that in the long term it would not be feasible to remove the amount of damaging tree root material required without affecting the health and long-term viability of the subject tree.

 

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.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is estimated that the removal of this tree and its replacement with a super-advanced alternative species will cost in the vicinity of $2,500. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 


Conclusion

 

This large street tree is an important visual component of the streetscape of Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington. The tree is estimated to be at least sixty years old and up until this point every effort has been made to retain it, despite the fact that tree root damage has progressively increased in both frequency and severity.

 

Council records indicate that a substantial payment was made by Council to the property owner in July 2004 for damage caused to their property by the roots of this tree. In November 2008 the owner wrote to Council requesting the removal of the subject tree and expressing concerns about cracks appearing in the walls of their residence. Extensive root pruning was undertaken at the time to mitigate damage and retain the tree.

 

The subject tree has been assessed as having high scenic amenity value and with providing important habitat and food source for a variety of fauna. Because of the damage being caused by its roots, the impact of removal on land degradation would be negligible. Using Australian Standard ASDR99307 it has been calculated that the tree has an amenity value of $8,100. This relatively low amount is primarily due to its inappropriateness as a street tree specimen in the long-term and the fact that its roots are causing ongoing and increasingly serious damage to both private property and public infrastructure, which is impacting adversely on the amenity of the adjacent property owner.

 

It has been calculated that the tree has a moderate hazard rating but this will increase as the tree ages and the impact of regular root pruning begins to become evident as the tree progressively declines in health. Because of the size and amount of root material required to be removed in the longer term to abate the range of damage now being caused by this tree, root pruning will be required to be both widespread and ongoing. The only feasible long-term management option would be to remove this tree and to replace it with a more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

To retain the tree any longer will mean that the damage being caused to private property in particular is likely to increase quite sharply and this will inevitably cost Council a considerable amount to deal with. Any such measures would only be a temporary solution, as it is impossible to sever the roots required to completely abate tree root damage. Because this species of tree does not represent at least fifty percent of total vegetative canopy cover within Inglethorpe Avenue its removal/replacement will not contravene Council’s resolution that “no more than five percent of Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) street trees be removed in any twelve-month period from streets where there are designated significant plantings of this species”.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 16 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs detailing the importance of the subject tree in the streetscape and the range of damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by the tree's roots

 

 

 


Series of photographs detailing the importance of the subject tree in the streetscape and the range of damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by the tree's roots

Attachment 1

 

 

Photograph showing significance of tree in Inglethorpe Avenue streetscape

 

Tree roots running underneath adjacent footpath and into the property

Tree roots are undermining and damaging the front brick fence of the property

 

Pavers inside the property are being lifted by tree roots – potential for damage to gates

Recently replaced section of footpath cracked as a result of tree root damage/undermining

 

Tree roots are within close proximity to sewer pipes, new driveway and footpath area


Works Committee

10 August 2010

 

 

 

Works Report No. W19/10

 

 

Subject:                  Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) for Kensington and parts of West Kingsford

Folder No:                   F2010/00161

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its Works Committee held on 13 October 2009, resolved (Hughes/Mayor, Cr J Procopiadis) that:

 

“(h)  A Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) to enhance pedestrian access and safety within the Kensington and West Kingsford areas be considered. (Funding for this study may be available from the RTA.)”

 

An application to the RTA for funding of such a study had earlier been submitted by Council’s Integrated Transport officers.  This application was successful and consultants have now been engaged to undertake the study.

 

Following some community consultation a draft report has been prepared. This report is seeking the Council’s endorsement to release the draft “Kensington and parts of West Kingsford Pedestrian and Mobility Plan” for public comment.

 

Issues

 

For some time community members have been concerned about road safety as they walk in the Kensington and the West Kingsford area.  This was identified in the 2009 traffic study of the area whereby it was recommended that some attention be paid to pedestrian safety issues in this area. 

 

Arup Consulting were engaged to undertake a Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) study of the area.

 

The overarching aims of the Kensington and west Kingsford area PAMP are to improve the pedestrian network in terms of:

 

·           Safety;

·           Coherence;

·           Directness;

·           Comfort;

·           Attractiveness; and

·           Equity of access.

 

Likely outcomes of the study will be:

 

·           To improve pedestrian access throughout the Kensington and West Kingsford areas through the provision of enhanced infrastructure and facilities which cater to the needs of all pedestrians for persons including those with disabilities, school children, carers and seniors.

 

·           To identify and resolve pedestrian crash clusters to highlight areas that restricts safe and convenient accessibility and mobility for pedestrians.

·           To provide links with other transport modes including links to bus stops.

 

·           To facilitate the integration of walking as a legitimate mode to discourage the use of private motor vehicles for short trips.

 

·           To reduce pedestrian access severance and enhance safe and convenient crossing opportunities on major roads.

 

·           To link existing plans (e.g.: Access Plan, Bike Plans, Footpath Maintenance Programs etc) and any other associated issues identified, in a coordinated manner.

 

It is now proposed that the draft report be placed on public exhibition. At the conclusion of the public exhibition period the community feedback will be reported to Council. Amendments to the final report may be considered, based upon the community feedback received.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

Direction 6c:             The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The study and other associated costs (surveys/traffic counts etc) will amount to approximately $30,000. As a result of the successful application to the RTA half of the costs for the study will be funded by the RTA.

 

Funding for the study was allocated within Council’s 2009-10 budget and has been carried over into this year’s budget.

 

Conclusion

 

As this Pedestrian and Mobility Plan study examines closely some of the considerable concerns in the community and as it will propose actions to address these concerns, it is considered that the draft report should be released for a public comment period. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the draft report on the Pedestrian and Mobility Plan for Kensington and parts of West Kingsford be placed on public exhibition;

 

b)     the community feedback received be reported to Council at the conclusion of the public exhibition period;

 

c)     the final report be amended, where appropriate, based upon the community feedback.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Kensington and parts of West Kingsford Pedestrian and Mobility Plan – INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER