Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 12 July 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                    12 July 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, 12 July 2011 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor (M Matson), Andrews, Belleli (Chairperson), Bowen, Hughes, Matthews, Nash, Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Seng, Smith, Stevenson, Tracey, White (Deputy Chairperson) and 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 - 14 June 2011

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W19/11     Sister City Signage

W20/11     Council-Owned Ficus 'Hillii' (Hill's Weeping Fig) Growing Outisde 8-10 Greville Street, Clovelly

W21/11     Tree Removal - Outside 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

W22/11     Impact of Council-owned trees on Photovoltaic Cells and Solar Hot Water Systems

W23/11     5-9 Wolseley Road, Coogee - Footway Construction    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

…………………………………………………….

Sima Truuvert

ACTING General Manager

 

 

Works Report No. W19/11

 

 

Subject:                  Sister City Signage

Folder No:                   PROJ/10575/2011

Author:                   Joe Ingegneri, Manager Technical Services; Angus Palmer, Landscape Architect     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 July 2010, resolved as follows:

 

“(Smith/Andrews) that Council considers a report on:

 

a)   erecting a signpost in front of the Town Hall showing direction and distance to its established Sister Cities; and

b)   installing an information board next to this signpost explaining what a Sister City is and the nature of the relationship.”

 

This report outlines options for installing signage that recognises the Sister Cities of Randwick City. The resolution requests that the signage be located in forecourt of the Town Hall along Avoca Street, Randwick.

 

Background

 

Over the past six years, Randwick City Council has formed relationships with various cities within NSW, Australia and globally. Currently Randwick City Council has established six formal ‘Sister City’ agreements between other councils and/or cities.

 

The Sister Cities of Randwick City are:

 

1.     Albi, France

2.     Island of Castellorizo, Greece

3.     Temora, NSW, Australia

4.     Narrabri, NSW, Australia

5.     Randwick, England

6.     Hangzhou, China.

 

A Sister City Relationship is an agreement between two councils, whereby each council agrees to promote mutual understanding, friendship and professional conduct for the benefit of both communities and the promotion of local government. The goal of Sister City relationships is to help develop enduring networks of communication between the cities of the world to cut across boundaries and reduce the likelihood of polarisation and conflict among nations.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Town Hall is an iconic heritage building in the City of Randwick. We have considered how the types of signs would complement the forecourt of the building. Consideration of the design of the signage includes the following:

 

·    suitability and visual impact on the heritage façade of the building

·    flexibility to install additional sister cities signs in the future

·    costs.

 

In response to the resolution, council officers have developed three concept designs that provide distance, direction and information about the sister cities.  These options are:

 

1.     An information board/plinth (Attachment 1 & 2).

2.     Cast bronze plaques placed within the driveway (Attachment 3).

3.     A signpost with blades (Attachment 4).

 

A summary of each concept is provided in the following table:

 

CONCEPT

SUITABILITY/VISUAL IMPACT

FLEXIBILTY

COST

Option 1. Plinth Sign (Attachment 1 & 2 )

A full colour 1200mm high x 500mm wide plinth with map of the world finished with anti-graffiti protective coating. Informative text on each city provided with country flag and information about the Sister City relationship.

 

Minimal impact on the heritage façade of the Town Hall building.

 

This option adheres to the RCC Urban Elements Design Manual. This concept is informative and simple in its design.

 

 

If an additional city is required in the future, the map can be readily replaced by new images.

$3000 + GST

Option 2. Cast Bronze Plaques.(Attachment 3)

A 300mm diameter cast bronze plaque fixed flush into the ground for each Sister City. Raised graphics and brief informative text with country flag provided on each plaque and direction shown of each particular city.

 

No negative visual impact on the façade of the building.

 

This option is similar to the cast bronze plaques at ‘The Spot’.

 

Additional plaques can be added.

$6500 + GST

Option 3. Street Blade Sign (Attachment 4)

A custom made street sign with six double bladed signs pointing in the direction of the Sister City and an information sign to describe the Sister Cities.

 

Negative visual impact on the forecourt of the Town Hall building. Adds clutter to forecourt. Dated as a concept.

 

This option will require an information sign as per option 1 to provide information about the sister cities.

Difficult to install more blades in future.

$7500 + GST

 

Recognition of Sister City relationships is important to Randwick City Council and its community.  The three options described above have been developed for installation in the Town Hall forecourt.

The plinth (option 1) and the plaques (option 2) have less visual impact on the façade of the Town Hall.

 

The blade sign (option 3) is a dated concept.  Due to the number of blades on the post, this option will create a visual impact on the façade of the Town Hall.  The locations of 4 of the Sister Cities will result in 4 of the blades pointing in the same general direction (Europe and Asia).  This option will need to have an information sign along side it to describe the Sister Cities and therefore it is the most expensive option.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 7:         Heritage that is protected and celebrated.

Direction 7a:        Local and cultural history is recognised, known, preserved and celebrated (through events, media, etc).

 

Financial impact statement

 

If Council installs one of the options listed above, the cost will be between $3,000 and $7,500.

 

Conclusion

 

Each of the 3 options will provide the relevant information about the Sister Cities. Option 1 provides a visual representation of the locations and is accompanied by relevant information.  The location of this option is flexible and will have minimal visual impact on the Town Hall façade.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approve the installation of an information/plinth sign in the Town Hall forecourt to recognise Randwick City Council’s Sister Cities.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Options for Sister City Signs

 

 

 

 


Options for Sister City Signs

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment 1: Plinth Sign Image

Attachment 2: Plinth Sign Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 3: Plan Example of Cast Bronze Plaque

Attachment 4: Example of Street Blade Sign


Works Committee                                                                                                    12 July 2011

 

 

Works Report No. W20/11

 

 

Subject:                  Council-Owned Ficus 'Hillii' (Hill's Weeping Fig) Growing Outisde 8-10 Greville Street, Clovelly

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 20 April 2011 the owner of 8 Greville Street, Clovelly, wrote to Council expressing concern about the damage being caused to their property by the roots of a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 10 Greville Street, Clovelly.

 

Issues

 

The owners of 8, 10, 12 and 14 Greville Street, Clovelly, have experienced a range of tree root related issues for many years and all four property owners have requested the removal of the subject tree on more than one occasion. Specifically, the owner of 8 Greville Street has cited root damage to their front gate and pylon, instability of the wrought iron fence, damage to the front pathway and internal rising damp as problems being caused by this street tree.

 

A recent site inspection confirmed the tree root problems associated with all four properties and also highlighted the fact that roots were causing ongoing and increasing damage to the nearby footpath, kerb and gutter and roadway.

 

The tree concerned is in good health and is the only one remaining on the southern side of Greville Street, Clovelly. Two other mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees outside 2-4 Greville Street were removed in May 2007 as a result of the serious and ongoing damage that was being caused to adjacent properties by their extensive root systems. This particular tree is approximately 15-16 metres in height and around 18-20 metres across the canopy. It is an important provider of habitat and food source and provides important visual amenity along this section of the street.

 

The tree has been root pruned on a number of occasions over many years and the canopy has been regularly pruned out of adjacent service wires. The most recent root pruning exercise was undertaken on 27 May 2011 and, although several large roots were severed, there are a large number that had to be left because cutting them would seriously compromise the health and stability of the tree.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:         A Healthy Environment.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

The cost to remove and stump grind this large fig tree and replace it with two-three advanced replacement species would be in the vicinity of $2,500 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.


Conclusion

 

The roots of this tree are causing ongoing and worsening damage to the adjacent footpath and roadway and they have now intruded into the four adjacent properties and begun to cause serious structural damage.

 

Branches have to be regularly pruned out of the domestic service wires/ overhead powerlines and the canopy creates significant shadowing of adjacent properties during winter months

 

Two other adjacent street trees of the same species had to be removed in 2007 because of serious and increasing tree root damage and this situation is likely to recur if this tree is retained.

 

Council’s Tree Gang recently severed as many tree roots as they possibly could to allow re-instatement of the damaged footpath area but significant roots had to be left in situ because it was not possible to remove them and retain the tree. Consequently, the only possible way to deal with the root damage being caused to private property in particular by this tree and to ensure that it does not continue and get worse is to remove the tree and replace it with something more appropriate.

 

To retain this tree any longer than necessary will mean that the damage being caused to public infrastructure and private property is likely to increase quite sharply and cost Council a large amount to rectify. Any such measures would only be a temporary solution, as it is impossible to sever the roots required to completely abate tree root damage. The removal and replacement of this tree would certainly fall within the parameters originally set out in Council’s resolution relating to the removal and replacement of aggressive-rooted street trees.

 

As this particular species of tree does not represent at least fifty percent of total vegetative canopy cover within Greville Street 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 microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 8-10 Greville Street, Clovelly, be removed and replaced with an appropriate number of more appropriate tree species – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs detailing the importance of the Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree in the streetscape and the damage being caused by its expansive root system.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs detailing the importance of the Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree in the streetscape and the damage being caused by its expansive root system.

Attachment 1

 

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree showing size and prominence in the streetscape

 

 

Large tree roots undermine the entranceways/gateways into both 8 and 10 Greville St

Large roots run along the property frontage at 10 Greville St and regularly damage footpath

 

 

Root damage caused to the front fence at 8 Greville St. Roots severed under stormwater pipe

Large fig tree roots running along the front fence of 10 Greville St and under footpath area

 

 

Adjacent roadway and kerb have recently been repaired but cracking in bitumen still evident

Some roots were able to be severed from outside 12 Greville St but many still remain

 

 

Large mass of roots running underneath front fence and entranceway into 12 Greville Street

Another large root running under the front fence and brick pillar at 14 Greville Street


Works Committee                                                                                                    12 July 2011

 

 

Works Report No. W21/11

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Outside 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The owner of 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, has advised Council’s insurers that he has dug several trenches within the front yard of his property and this has revealed that a number of large roots from the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing directly outside have entered the property and are growing under the foundations of the residence and causing structural damage.

 

Issues

 

The issue of tree root damage to this property was initially brought to Council’s attention in November 2009 and as a result Council resolved on 7 December 2010 to remove the Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing between 22-24 Figtree Avenue because root pruning was not an option for dealing with the serious problems associated with the roots of that particular tree. At that time some minor root pruning was undertaken on the tree directly outside 24 Figtree Avenue in order to retain it and because the majority of identified root damage to properties at 22 and 24 Figtree Avenue was being caused by the tree situated on the nature strip between those two properties. Minor root pruning of the tree outside 24 Figtree Avenue was undertaken because to sever all the roots entering the adjacent property would have destabilised the tree and would have necessitated its removal and replacement.

 

The subject tree is approximately 18 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 14 metres. It is in reasonable health and contributes significantly to the Figtree Avenue streetscape. It is a recognised provider of habitat and food source for a variety of native birdlife and other fauna. It forms part of a predominantly single species streetscape which is listed in Council’s Register of Significant Trees – primarily because the eighteen figs growing along both sides of the avenue have notable visual, aesthetic, cultural and social importance.

 

Over the past decade the adjacent footpath and driveway areas have had to be repaired on a number of occasions because of tree root damage but roots continue to enter the adjacent property, as well as causing ongoing and increasing damage to public infrastructure.

 

The majority of canopy structure is on the western side of the tree as branches on the eastern side have all but been removed to maintain the statutory clearance of overhead powerlines.

 

Council’s Tree Gang advises that it would not be possible to remove the tree roots growing into the front of the adjacent property without destabilising the tree and having a profoundly detrimental impact on its health. Due to the significance of this avenue of Hill’s Weeping figs and the fact that one was only recently removed outside 22-24 Figtree Avenue, Council engaged an independent consulting arborist to assess this particular tree and to provide comments on its long-term viability should all intruding/damaging roots be removed. The arborist provided a report discussing a number of management options, including the installation of a tree root barrier. However, the conclusions of that report support the long-held view that in the case of most Ficus species root barriers are only ever a temporary option and that within a very short period of time roots will either grow under or over any such barrier. The severance of intruding roots on the western side of the tree was not supported as it could lead to destabilisation and/or tree failure.   

 

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 the tree outside 24 Figtree Avenue 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

 

The Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing outside 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, has significant visual and historic significance. Figtree Avenue is one of only three streets containing numbers of this species which are listed on Council’s Register of Significant Trees.

 

The tree is estimated to be approximately sixty years old and up until this point every effort has been made to retain it, despite the fact that associated tree root damage has progressively increased in both frequency and severity.

 

Council has already settled a claim for $45,715 for damage caused to the adjacent property, but this was before the large number of roots inside the front yard area and under the actual residence were exposed.

 

The extent of root intrusion by this tree species can be demonstrated by the fact that the owners of 22 Figtree Avenue have now discovered fine hair-like Ficus ‘Hillii’ roots pushing off the wallpaper in their front bedroom, hallway and bathroom. This particular tree has been assessed as having significant scenic and amenity value and with providing important habitat and food source for a variety of fauna. Because of the increasing and widespread 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 $14,400. Due to the amount of root material required to be removed from the tree to effectively deal with the damage being caused by its roots, root pruning is not in any way a viable option. This is supported by the findings and recommendations made by Council’s Tree Gang arborists and an independent arborist engaged by Council when a trench was dug adjacent to where the tree is located. The only feasible long-term management option would be to remove the tree outside 24 Figtree Avenue and to replace it with a more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

The removal of this tree would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape but this would be mitigated to some degree by replacing it with a super-advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly). A number of these trees have already been planted along both sides of Figtree Avenue and once established they are fast growing and provide increasing visual amenity.

 

The removal of this tree would contravene Council’s resolution that in streets where Hill’s Weeping figs are the predominant species no more than five percent canopy cover is removed within any one calendar year but its retention would mean that the range of problems/damage being caused by its roots will not be able to be dealt with. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, be removed and replaced with one-two Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly) – 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 its roots.

 

2.View

Arborist’s report on Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick.

 

 

 

 


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 its roots.

Attachment 1

 

 

Fig tree roots have destroyed the brick fence between 22 and 24 Figtree Avenue

 

 

Several Ficus ‘Hillii’ roots growing into front of property at 24 Figtree Avenue

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig tree roots have undermined the front brick fence at 24 Figtree Avenue

 

 

Large fig root growing underneath/adjacent to internal water pipe

One of several fig tree roots requiring removal to replace front brick fence

 

 

Dog-legged fig tree root has undermined/cracked sandstone veranda footings

Typical fig tree root running through front yard of 24 Figtree Avenue

 

 

Fig tree roots criss-cross the entire front yard area of 24 Figtree Avenue

Tree root running along southern boundary of property and underneath front bedroom

 

 

Large fig root running underneath front veranda area of 24 Figtree Avenue

Ficus ‘Hillii’ root running along north side of 24 Figtree Ave and underneath residence

 

 

Roots are even suckering up in between gatepost brickwork outside 22 Figtree Ave


Hairline fig tree roots underneath wallpaper in hallway of 22 Figtree Avenue


Fig tree roots running across the front yard area at 22 Figtree Avenue

 

 

Cracking to front brick fence at 22 Figtree Ave caused by Ficus ‘Hillii’ tree roots


Arborist’s report on Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick.

Attachment 2

 

 









 


Works Committee                                                                                                    12 July 2011

 

 

Works Report No. W22/11

 

 

Subject:                  Impact of Council-owned trees on Photovoltaic Cells and Solar Hot Water Systems

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 resolved:

 

“(Notley-Smith/Andrews) that a report be prepared for Council addressing the issue of Council-owned street trees and their potential to shade domestic installations of photovoltaic cells and solar hot water heat exchangers.”

 

Issues

 

Although there are currently no particular issues associated with Council tree assets adversely impacting on the efficiency and effectiveness of photovoltaic cells and solar hot water heat exchangers installed within private properties, this may very well change into the future. As residents become more aware of climate change issues and the benefits of installing and utilising renewable energy sources, conflicts may very well emerge between not only Council and private property owners but also between neighbouring property owners about the shading caused by tree canopies.

 

Specifically, however, there is currently enough scope within Council’s Tree Preservation Order to deal with any such issues as they arise. There is enough scope within Council’s Tree Preservation Order to facilitate the pruning of nominated tree assets where it can be demonstrated that any such tree/s are adversely impacting on the effectiveness of domestic installations of photovoltaic cells and solar hot water heat exchangers to a considerable degree.

 

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

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Should a property owner request the removal or pruning of a Council tree or trees that are adversely impacting on solar panels within their property, Council would require a detailed assessment comprehensively outlining the extent that the tree/s were overshadowing any such panels. Council would then inspect and assess the subject tree/s, taking into account their health, structural integrity, safe useful life expectancy and overall significance. If the tree/s are diseased, senescing, or have limited visual or environmental amenity and the affected property owner has provided documentation that they are affecting the efficiency of installed solar panels, Council would then approve removal and replacement (if appropriate) at the property owner’s expense. If the tree/s were of local or regional significance or were listed on Council’s Register of Significant Trees then an alternative location for the installation of solar panels would need to be assessed.  

 

Most trees being utilised for street and park tree planting within the Randwick LGA are unlikely to attain a height at maturity of more than six-eight metres and they are generally far enough away from residential and commercial buildings so as to have a negligible impact on roof top solar panels and/or solar hot water systems. A rule of thumb being applied in several jurisdictions is that where trees have been planted prior to the installation of solar panels any adversely affected property owner is precluded from requiring that any such trees be pruned or removed.

 

This may be something that Council would need to consider in the future if this becomes a legitimate and increasing problem.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Works Committee                                                                                                    12 July 2011

 

 

Works Report No. W23/11

 

 

Subject:                  5-9 Wolseley Road, Coogee - Footway Construction

Folder No:                   DA/426/2007/B

Author:                   Joe Ingegneri, Manager Technical Services     

 

Introduction

 

As part of DA/426/2007/B, the owner/developer constructed the driveway and a garden on the footway without Council authorisation. Once Council staff became aware of the work, the owner/developer was advised that the works were unauthorised and did not comply with Council’s policies.

 

This report outlines the issues of non compliance and the proposal by the owner to meet Council’s requirements.

 

Issues

 

The work undertaken along the frontage of the property includes construction of a vehicular crossing with large pebble stones laid on a mortar bed with inlaid concrete pavers, large boulders within a landscaped garden and large timber sleeper steps. See attachment 1.

 

The footway does not provide pedestrian access past the property.

 

The work undertaken does not comply with Council’s policies for the following reasons:

·           The pebble surface is uneven and could lead to trips and falls.

·           There is no pedestrian access past the property.

·           Two gardens have been built at either side of the frontage with large stone boulders placed on public land.  We do not permit gardens on public land unless it is difficult to maintain.

·           The timber sleepers have been used as steps.  Their interface with the mortar creates an uneven surface.

·           The material used are more expensive to maintain than those currently used by Council.

 

Due to the use of uncommon material, it is difficult to restore the surface should a service authority need to access or install services.  Further, when maintenance is required in the future, Council will have to seek the material and the expertise to conduct the work.  This will be at a much greater cost to Council than for footway material currently used.    

 

A meeting was held with the owner to discuss the non compliance of work undertaken.  The owner outlined that the gardens were in keeping with the landscaping along Trenerry Reserve further north along Wolseley Road.  However, he did acknowledge the issue relating to pedestrian access and pedestrian safety.

 

Subsequently, the owner has submitted a plan to address the non compliance issues.  The plan includes a plain concrete pathway constructed at the rear of the kerb along the entire frontage to address the pedestrian access issue.  To address any risk of trips and falls, the owner has proposed to infill the pebble stones or to grind the stones to create a smooth surface.  The owner plans to keep the garden including the large stone boulders.  The plan also maintains the timber sleepers leading to the front door.

 

Pedestrian Access

The owner proposes to address pedestrian access by constructing a plain concrete footpath at the rear of the kerb.

 

Pedestrian Safety

The owner plans to infill or grind the pebble stones to create a smooth surface so that the risk of trips and falls is acceptable.

 

Gardens

Whilst Council does not generally permit gardens on the footway, in this instance, they are in keeping with the landscaping along Trenerry Reserve to the north of the site.

 

Future Maintenance

The pebble stone hard stand area is within the vehicular crossing.  The responsibility for cost associated within vehicular crossings lies with the owner.

 

Service Authority Restorations

Should a service authority need to open the footway, the owner has been advised that Council would restore the trench with plain concrete.

 

Based on the information above, the proposal addresses the issues that Council raised with the owner. 

 

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

 

Council staff became aware that work was undertaken along the frontage of 5-9 Wolseley Road that was unauthorised.  When the issues of non compliance were raised with the owner, he subsequently submitted a proposed plan to address the issues. The revised plan meets Council’s requirements by addressing all the key issues associated with public land and the particular site. On this basis, it is recommended that Council permit the work to be undertaken in accordance with the revised plan, drawing CD780, revision A.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

a)     The proposed work submitted by the owner as outlined on drawing CD780, revision A be approved.

b)     That the work be undertaken to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

5 - 9 Wolseley Road - Proposed CD780 Driveway

 

2.View

5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 1

 

3.View

5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 2

 

4.View

5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 3

 

5.View

5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 4

 

 

 

 


5 - 9 Wolseley Road - Proposed CD780 Driveway

Attachment 1

 

 


5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 1

Attachment 2

 

 

 


5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 2

Attachment 3

 

 

 


5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 3

Attachment 4

 

 

 


5 - 9 Wolseley Road. Document 4

Attachment 5