Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 14 August 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, 14 August 2012 at 6pm.

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor (S Nash), Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Matson, Matthews (Chairperson), Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Seng, Smith, Stevenson, Tracey, White 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 - 10 July 2012

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W16/12     Fibro Fragments (Asbestos Issue) at Heffron Park

W17/12     Tree Removal - Outside 84 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

W18/12     Road Safety Steering Committee Meeting - Minutes - May 2012

W19/12     Kensington / West Kingsford - Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Traffic Study

W20/12     Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 14 Athol Street, South Coogee

W21/12     Roads and Maritime Services Grant Funding and other road related projects

W22/12     Council of the City of Sydney's Trial of Pedestrian Countdown Timers at Traffic Signals

W23/12     Proposed Pedestrian Facility across Fitzgerald Avenue near Robey Street, Maroubra

W24/12     Open Space Consultative Committee    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W16/12

 

 

Subject:                  Fibro Fragments (Asbestos Issue) at Heffron Park

Folder No:                   F2008/00197

Author:                   Zaman Shamsuz, Environmental Engineer     

 

Introduction

 

On 25 March 2008, Council resolved to carry out an annual sampling and testing program continue at Heffron Park once per year. The sampling and testing is to investigate levels of asbestos fibres across the park.

 

Issues

 

Council has conducted annual airborne asbestos fibres monitoring at Heffron Park in conjunction with the asbestos removal work on 26, 27, 28 June 2012, 2 and 3 July 2012. The test concluded less than 0.01 fibres per millilitre of air (<0.01 fibres/ml) which is below the lowest detectable level using the membrane filter method [NOHSC:3003(2005)].

 

The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission recommended maximum exposure level for airborne asbestos fibres is 0.1 fibres per millilitre of air (as an 8 hour time weighted average). Based on the results of the visual inspections and airborne asbestos fibre monitoring, the removal of fragments of asbestos cement sheet debris from the ground surfaces at Heffron Park has been satisfactorily completed.

 

In the event that fragments of asbestos cement become exposed, these pieces need be collected and disposed of as asbestos waste in accordance with the requirements of the asbestos management plan for the site and the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (NSW OEH).

 

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 undertake an asbestos survey, air monitoring and asbestos removal was $19,230 excluding GST.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Visual Clearance Inspection Report

 

2.View

Annual Asbestos Monitoring Report and Certificate of Analysis- Airborne Asbestos Fibres

 

3.View

Annual Asbestos Inspection Survey, Heffron Park, June 2012

 

 

 

 


Visual Clearance Inspection Report

Attachment 1

 

 



Annual Asbestos Monitoring Report and Certificate of Analysis- Airborne Asbestos Fibres

Attachment 2

 

 















Annual Asbestos Inspection Survey, Heffron Park, June 2012

Attachment 3

 

 

































Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W17/12

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Outside 84 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 13 February 2012 the owner of 84 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford, logged a service request with Council requesting that something be done to rectify the ongoing ponding of large amounts of water in the gutter and roadway immediately outside her residence.

 

Issues

 

The property owner has been experiencing a range of problems directly associated with a large Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside her property for nearly a decade and these problems have become increasingly worse over that period. They range from tree roots damaging the driveway and footpath adjacent to the property to root damage being caused to the front brick fence of the residence.

 

In recent years tree roots have entered and blocked the stormwater pipes within the property and they have lifted the kerb and gutter to the extent that severe ponding occurs after any rain event. The adjacent footpath and driveway have been replaced on a number of occasions over the past decade and fig tree roots have been severed or shaved as much as possible to facilitate those repairs.

 

As a result of the service request lodged on 13 February 2012 Council’s road gang removed the footpath, driveway and kerb and gutter surrounding the subject fig tree to assess what management options might be available in an effort to retain this significant street tree asset.

 

The tree is approximately 16-18 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 20 metres. It is in excellent health and contributes significantly to the visual amenity of the streetscape. It is the only example of this species growing along the western side of Tunstall Avenue and it provides habitat and food source for a variety of birdlife and native fauna. There are no overhead powerlines within the vicinity of the tree and as a result it has had very little regular or ongoing canopy pruning.

 

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 84 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford, and its replacement with a super-advanced alternative species will cost in the vicinity of $3,000. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing outside 84 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford, is in very good health and is an excellent example of the species. The subject 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.

 

The tree has been assessed as having important scenic and amenity value and with providing 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 $14,400. However, because of the size and amount of root material required to be removed from the tree to effectively deal with the damage being caused by its roots, further root pruning is no longer a viable option. This is supported by the findings and recommendations of Council’s two Tree Gang arborists when a trench was recently dug adjacent to where the tree is located.

 

The only feasible long-term management option would be to remove the tree entirely and to replace it with a more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 84 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with an advanced Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) – 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 by its roots.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs detailing the importance of the subject tree in the streetscape and the range of damage being caused by its roots.

Attachment 1

 

 

Ficus ‘Hillii’ is prominent in the streetscape and in very good health

 

Adjacent kerb and gutter and driveway have been removed because of root damage

Fig has significant buttressing and roots are ‘locked in’ by adjacent infrastructure

 

Tree roots are located underneath entire surrounding footpath and driveway area

Roots extend into the driveway area of the adjacent property at 84 Tunstall Avenue

 

Masses of fig tree roots have undermined the adjacent kerb/gutter and roadway area

Fig tree roots have lifted and dislodged recently laid concrete within private property

 

Footpath and driveway dislodged/removed because of tree root activity/intrusion

 

 


Minutes - Road Safety Steering Committee 30 May 2012  /

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Works Report No. W18/12

 

 

Subject:                  Road Safety Steering Committee Meeting - Minutes - May 2012

Folder No:                   F2010/00008

Author:                   Heidi Leadley, Community Road Safety Officer       

 

Introduction

 

The Road Safety Steering Committee was established in November 2005 to provide the Community Road Safety Officer with strategic direction and a forum to discuss road safety projects. 

 

The committee meets once to twice a year with the minutes being reported to the Works Committee.  This report provides the recent minutes for the committee and provides the Works Committee members with some of the documents and information that were discussed at this forum.

 

Issues

 

The attached minutes are from the meeting held on 30 May 2012.  The minutes include; the final report for the 2011-12 Restraint checking program, the final report for the SLOW DOWN in Randwick project, as well as the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) approved Road Safety Action Plan for 2012-2013.

 

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

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The minutes are an accurate reflection of the discussions of the Road Safety Steering Committee meeting.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the minutes from the Road Safety Steering Committee held on 30 May 2012, be noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Minutes - Road Safety Steering Committee 30 May 2012

 

2.View

Road Safety Action Plan 2012-2013 including Crash Data Analysis 2006-2010

 

 

 

 
















Road Safety Action Plan 2012-2013 including Crash Data Analysis 2006-2010

Attachment 2

 

 













Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W19/12

 

 

Subject:                  Kensington / West Kingsford - Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Traffic Study

Folder No:                   F2011/00463

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

The Council has resolved to undertake a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) traffic study of Kensington and parts of West Kingsford and a draft consultant’s brief has now been prepared.  In order to maintain the confidence of the community in the process, it was agreed that a copy of the draft brief be referred to the Kensington Precinct prior to the commencement of the Study.  The intent was to enable the precinct to add input into the brief with a report coming back to Council with the details. This report examines these issues.

 

Background

 

The Works Committee has previously resolved (Andrews/Nash) that:

 

•        “the three staged approach to the introduction of traffic devices in the Kensington/ West Kingsford, as identified in this report, be adopted.

•        all residents in the designated precinct be notified by flyer of the three (3) staged action to ensure the endorsement of the community of each of the three proposed stages.

•        the Terms of Reference of the LATM Study be referred to the Kensington Precinct prior to the commencement of the draft LATM Study to enable the precinct to add input to the terms of reference and that a report come back to Council with the details.

•        Day Avenue be included in the study area.”

 

Local Area Traffic Management or “LATM” refers to “the use of physical devices, streetscaping treatments and other measures (including regulations and other non-physical measures) to influence vehicle operation, in order to create safer and more liveable local streets” (ARRB 2008).

 

Current Position

To date all residents of the Kensington and West Kingsford area have been notified of the Council’s three staged approach by way of a letter distributed to each household in the area.

 

Work progressed so far include the undertaking of pneumatic tube traffic counts at 58 individual locations.  The results of these traffic counts have been placed upon the Council’s ‘Have My Say - Community Consultation – Kenso Traffic Study’ website.  In addition to the tube counts a number of detailed origin/destination surveys have been conducted.

 

The draft consultant’s brief for the LATM study was finalised and distributed to the Kensington Precinct for comment.  It was also distributed to the ward councillors and the previous members of the Precinct executive. Feedback has now been received from the Kensington Precinct’s representative and from the former Kensington Precinct executive. The matters which they have raised are listed and addressed in the attached table (see attachment 1).  It would seem that, for the most part, the former and current precinct representatives are content with the proposed consultant’s brief.  A small number of minor changes have been made to the brief as a direct result of their feedback.

 

The Council, the draft brief will be used to engage an appropriate consultant to undertake the required study.  It should be noted that a significant component of the Study will be consultation with the community.

 

The LATM study will take some time and may create quite a bit of discussion within the community.  Given the consultation required and given the technical aspects requiring investigation and analysis, it has to be acknowledged that exact timings for final endorsement of the outcomes of the study may be difficult to accurately forecast.

 

It is most likely that arising out of the Study will be a number of recommendations regarding the introduction of a Local Area Traffic Management Scheme.  These recommendations are likely to include the construction of a number of physical devices within the area.

 

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:       Develop and implement policies, programs and strategies to manage environmental risks and impacts.

 

Financial impact statement

 

As detailed within the Mayoral Minute of 27 March 2012 (25/12), funding has been set aside, within the Council’s reserves, for the implementation of projects arising from this process.

 

Conclusion

 

Council will engage the consultants to commence the study.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct - LATM - Traffic Study - Precinct Feedback

 

 

 

 


Kensington/West Kingsford Precinct - LATM - Traffic Study - Precinct Feedback

Attachment 1

 

 

 

No.

Raised

by

Section of

Brief

Issue Raised

Council Response

Outcome

 

1

 

Kensington Precinct Representative

 

3

Pg 3

 

Objectives page 3 - The following additional objectives be inserted

 

" Any proposed solutions or recommendation shall consider the following:-

 

* In improving identified streets that were identified in Traffic/Speed Counts that proposed solutions ensure the KWK precinct does not not engage a cascading/nock on effect within the study area by improving one street only to increase traffic flows on another street within the study area.

 

* Consideration be given to partial road closures on worst effected streets and or partial closure during peak hours to discourage rat runners.

 

*  Speed humps discouraged as a device solution and alternatives be explored.

 

* Devices minimise disruption to residential amenity by carefully considering localities within effected streets.

 

·      Ensure that devices are designed to visually enhance streetscape (landscaping/planting etc)."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- The intent of this input is acknowledged and understood.  These are worthy objectives; however, depending on how the process develops it may be that these objectives cannot always be fully accommodated.

 

- Peak time only road closures are not appropriate due to likely motorists’ confusion.

 

- Any recommendations for vertical devices (speed humps) in residential areas would not likely be supported due to localised noise impacts.

 

As a result of this community feedback, additional wording has been added to the brief.

 

 

2

 

 

Former Kensington Precinct Representatives

 

 

3

Pg 3

 

 

Tailored solutions

 

We are pleased to see that the brief expressly requires the study to identify "viable, effective and, as far as possible, innovative solutions".  However, the brief should also expressly require the consultant to be challenged to take a step further by developing varied solutions that are individually tailored to the local conditions.   In other words, the proposed solutions should not be an "all or nothing, one size fits all, broad brush, cookie cutter" approach.

 

For example, an inclined long and wide local street is likely to be have more noisy and faster traffic compared with a level, narrow and short local street, and therefore different tailored solutions are needed for each respective street.  Further, the construction of speed humps all along local streets outside residential homes is likely to be met with disapproval, however if their construction was confined to sections of the local streets where there were no residential homes (eg outside schools and sporting grounds), their approval would be more likely without necessarily diminishing their effectiveness as traffic deterrents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted.  See comments above. 

 

 

These specific comments regarding tailored solutions will be passed onto the consultant.

 

3

 

Former Kensington Precinct Representatives

 

5.3

Pg 7

 

Data - more clarity and specificity needed

 

The brief does not seem sufficiently clear and specific about data.

 

It would seem more appropriate to provide a specific list of data that is currently available to the consultant for the study so that there is no confusion.  For example, the draft brief's reference to "recent and some historic collision data" is too vague.  Presumably, the Kensington-West Kingsford PAMP study should also be made available to the consultant.  In due course, we would like the opportunity to review all the data to be made available to comment on its adequacy (eg is it up to date?). 

 

Further, the brief should clearly indicate whether the consultant is only required to review existing data made available by Council, or whether the consultant is also required to collate additional (and more recent) data that it considers would be relevant and helpful to the study.  Presumably, it is the latter.

 

 

 

The consultant will be provided with all available traffic count data.  This data is available to the public at all times on the Council website. If additional data is required the consultant will have to arrange for its collection.

 

The most recently available crash data (collated and provided to the Council by RMS; based upon Police reports) will be provided.

 

As a result of this community feedback, additional wording has been added to brief. 

 

4

 

Kensington Precinct Representative

 

6.1

Pg 8

 

We would like the stakeholders list to be amended as follows

 Main Stakeholders -  Residents and KWK Precinct Committee

 

 Secondary Stakeholders -

NSW Police, Emergency Services, RMS and Local Businesses

 

And, remove UNSW from the list as their input may not positively benefit the objectives of the Study

 

 

 

It is suggested that indicating the primacy of one group of local stakeholders over another may be a catalyst for local tensions and possible conflict. The UNSW should be included as they have proven to positively contribute to previous Council initiatives.

 

The indicated listing of key stakeholders be retained.

 

5

 

Former Kensington Precinct Representatives

 

6.1

Pg 8

 

Light rail

 It would seem worthwhile mentioning in the brief that there may be major infrastructure introduced along the adjacent major road, Anzac Parade, comprising light rail, which will likely have a significant increased impact on traffic flows.  Thus, the consultant should have regard to this in assessing and designing the adequacy of proposed traffic measures.

 

 

At this time an announcement on future Light rail proposals have not been made.  It may well be that such an announcement happens during this study. 

 

As a result of this community feedback additional wording has been added to brief.

 

6

 

Kensington Precinct Representative

 

6.2

Pg 9

 

 

Add - "As the main stakeholder consultation with local residents shall be carried out outside standard business hours to allow residents to have the opportunity of attending and engaging with the process. Consultation shall also be extended to the KWK  Precinct Committee."

 

 

The actual timing of consultation may vary amongst different stakeholder groups. Consultation with residents (including the Precinct) will occur in the evenings or on weekends to meet their access needs. 

 

As a result of this community feedback, additional wording has been added brief. 

 

 

 

7

 

Former Kensington Precinct Representatives

 

7.3

Pg 11

 

Timeframe - the most important issue

 

Details of Council's expectations about the timeframe for the LATM project need to be included in the brief, and also the timeframe needs to be made a critical and prominent element of the LATM study.

 

Presumably, Council has a broad timeframe in mind for key stages of the project, including when the quotes should be submitted to Council (eg two weeks after the brief is sent), when the LATM study should be completed (eg by 1 September 2012), when construction works should begin (eg 1 November 2012) and when all construction works should be finally completed (eg 30 June 2013).

 

 

As Council is the "paying customer", we would have thought that Council should be the party that is setting/ imposing the timeframe, not the consultant (who understandably will have input into the detailed timings in due course).  Council can draw from its experienced inhouse expertise to reasonably estimate and set the timeframe.

 

From our perspective, the lack of any overall timeframe being set by Council to-date seems to have contributed to there being slow and limited progress on the LATM project.  Without clear milestones and a timeframe, there seems to be confusion and no accountability.  The involvement of a third party consultant will only serve to further challenge effective progress (and also potentially lead to cost overruns) unless there is clarity about the timeframe.

 

 

 

The experience of qualified consultants will guide the Council as to the likely timings of this study.  It is considered that, in the first instance, the consultants should not be hindered by an arbitrary timeframe imposed upon them.  The Council wants to ensure a quality outcome.  Obviously, if the suggested timelines are unrealistically excessive, the Council will impose tighter controls on timings. 

 

 

With the significant weighting being given to community consultation it is cautioned that tight timelines may introduce artificially constraining time frames.  These may hinder effective consultation.

 

The current wording relating to timeframes  is to be retained

 


Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W20/12

 

 

Subject:                  Ficus ‘Hillii’ outside 14 Athol Street, South Coogee

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer      

 

Introduction

 

The owners of 14 Athol Street, South Coogee, have written to Council requesting the removal of a mature Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside their property.

 

Issues

 

The subject tree is one of several planted in the nature strip along both sides of the street more than fifty years ago. Several trees of the same species have been removed from Athol Street in the past decade because of serious root damage to both public infrastructure and private property. The tree in question is approximately 16 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 14-16 metres. It is in good health and contributes significantly to the streetscape. It has had to be regularly pruned away from powerlines to maintain statutory clearances.

 

The adjacent property owners have regularly requested that branches overhanging into their property be removed to allow more light to enter the residence and to negate the amount of leaf litter collecting inside the front yard of the property. This tree has had to be root pruned on an irregular basis to deal with root damage to adjacent infrastructure and as much root pruning as is considered appropriate has been undertaken within the past four-five years.

 

In 1994 the front brick fence collapsed as a result of fig tree root damage and had to be replaced as a result. The front path into the property has also had to be replaced, as has the common boundary retaining wall adjacent to 16 Athol Street. There has been a history of sewer blockages at this property dating back to 1986 and the owners estimate that during that period there have been approximately 50 call outs to clear those blockages. They advise that they have upgraded their sewer system to PVC plastic but despite this they still experience regular sewerage overflows. They also state that they have had to replace the carpets in two rooms as a result of overflows. In addition, they claim that a range of structural damage is currently being caused by the roots of the fig outside their property, including damage to the cement veranda, movement of the facia on the front steps away from the residence and damage to the retaining wall adjacent to the driveway.

 

In short, the range of problems being caused by the roots of this tree are typical for the species and they are likely to continue and get worse for as long as the tree remains.

 

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 this fig tree and to replace it with two more appropriate tree species would be in the vicinity of $3,500 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

In addition to the problems and damage detailed above there are several other issues associated with this tree that are problematic for the owners of 14 Athol Street, South Coogee. Although an important provider of habitat and food source for the Grey Headed Flying Fox, the adjacent property owners see their presence as a serious health hazard.

 

One of the owners suffers from non Hodgsons lymphoma and at times has an extremely low white cell count. Although unsubstantiated, his wife claims that their doctor advises that during the fruiting period this tree constitutes a dangerous health hazard. The range and seriousness of problems associated with this particular Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree are typical of the species and have been able to be managed by Council for well over a decade. However, they are ongoing and increasing in seriousness and if the tree is not removed within the near term the damage caused by its roots is likely to cost Council a considerable amount of money well into the future.

 

A number of trees of the same species have been removed from Athol Street over the past decade because of increasing and severe root damage to both public infrastructure and private property. The problems associated with this particular tree cannot be isolated and further major root pruning is unable to be undertaken because of long-term impacts on the health of the tree and liability implications for Council.

 

Council’s Tree Gang has trenched along the front of the property and has identified a network of large and widespread fig tree roots damaging and undermining the front brick retaining wall and entering the property. They have provided a report which recommends that the subject fig tree be removed because the amount of tree root material requiring removal would render the tree unstable.

 

The removal of this tree 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 Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) street tree growing on the nature strip outside 14 Athol Street, South Coogee, be removed and replaced with two advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys).

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs detailing tree root damage and the significance of the tree in the streetscape.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs detailing tree root damage and the significance of the tree in the streetscape.

Attachment 1

 

 

Subject Ficus ‘Hillii’ is large and significant in the Athol St streetscape

 

 

Large matted section of tree roots located directly outside entrance into 14 Athol St

 

Significant fig tree roots running into property at 12 Athol St, Coogee

 

 


Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W21/12

 

 

Subject:                  Roads and Maritime Services Grant Funding and other road related projects

Folder No:                   F2005/00767

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

Each year Council officers make submissions to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS - the former RTA) seeking funding for roads related projects. This report details the results of the most recent submissions.  This report also details recommendations, in line with methodology previously adopted by the Council, relating to transport projects which did not attract RMS funding in the 2012 / 2013 Capital Works Program. 

 

Issues

 

RMS Funded Projects

Each year Council officers make application to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for funding or co-funding of various projects in line with their guidelines.  These submissions cover a range of specific project types, from pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities through to road safety treatments at  locations where many collisions are occurring.  In some years the Council is unsuccessful with these submissions, whilst in other years a significant level of funding is offered.

 

Blackspot funding is made available by the state and federal governments for the treatment of sites with a proven history of crashes. In considering the eligibility of nominated sites, RMS examines the likely savings to the community (from the expected reduction in the number and / or severity of crashes) against the cost of a proposed remedial treatment.

 

This is referred to as the benefit to cost ratio.  All sites nominated across New South Wales are assessed and funding is released for those projects which have the best benefit to cost ratios.  The requirement of a history of crashes ensures that those sites that have a recurrent problem are targeted first for treatment.

 

Formal advice received from Roads and Maritime Services, in June and July this year, offered funding for the following projects:

 


PROGRAM NAME

and CODE

Project No.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Council General Revenue

 $

RMS Funds

$

Environ-ment Levy

$

TOTAL COST

$

Federal Nation Building Blackspot Program

(26309)

- fully funded

(D01492195)

S/06758

 

Protected right-turn bay in Clovelly Road at Darley Road, Randwick.

0

62,550

0

62,550

2012/13 State Blackspot Program

(26301)

- 50/50 funding

(D01508192)

S/06934

Roundabout at Dolphin and Mount Streets, Coogee

49,975

49,975

0

99,950

S/06926

Roundabout at Boyce Road and Cooper Street, Maroubra

60,050

60,050

0

120,100

S/06962

Roundabout at Walsh Avenue and Wild Street, Maroubra

60,050

60,050

0

120,100

S/07002

Intersection treatment at Carrington Road / Carr Street / Dudley Street / Howard Street, Randwick / Coogee

89,950

89,950

0

179,900

Bicycle Facilities (27305)

- 50/50 funding

(D01513147)

T/05640

Alison Road, Randwick – shared path upgrade

0

100,000

100,000

200,000

 

Each of the five blackspot locations detailed above are sites where a significant number of collisions have occurred.  The proposals suggested at these intersections have the objective of reducing the number and/or the severity of crashes occurring at these sites. It should be noted that Project S/07002 is proposed at an intersection which will prove to be a particularly challenging design process.  It is considered that, even at this early stage, RMS be advised that the Council may seek to have this project funded across two financial years.

 

The Bicycle Facilities project (Alison Road shared pathway upgrade) was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 26 June, 2012.  The Council resolved (Matson/Hughes) in essence that the proposed cycling facility works along Alison Road should take into account any state government announcement, regarding reintroduction of light rail to Randwick  It was agreed that the state government should be asked to incorporate high quality ‘greenway’ style pathways into any proposed light rail roll out.  Also, if light rail is indeed proposed for Alison Road, it was agreed that this $200,000 should be redirected to another commensurate cycling infrastructure project. And, it was mentioned that an option similar in scale to the Alison Road shared path is the construction of a shared path along Anzac Parade between Doncaster Avenue and University Mall (entrance to UNSW).

 

Pending any state government announcement regarding light rail, planning for an upgrade to the existing identified Alison Road shared path project will progress.

 

Traffic Committee Recommended Projects

Each year, through the Traffic Committee process, Council endorses a number of traffic and transport related projects for future implementation.  These projects range in size from small kerb nibs through to major intersection realignments or roundabouts etc.

 

Council officers annually examine the endorsed projects and assess each project on the basis of:

 

·       Safety

·       Residential Amenity

·       Public Transport Benefits

·       Through Traffic Mitigation

·       Pedestrian Amenity

·       Cyclist Amenity, and

·       Equity.

 

This results in the Transport Project Ranking List which is used as a guide for the setting of priorities for expenditure on traffic and transport related projects.  This assessment is reviewed annually; taking into account newly listed projects and any situational changes.

 

It is proposed that, in line with methodology previously adopted by the Council, the $100,000 which the Council has allocated toward Traffic Committee Works be allocated toward the projects as listed in the Transport Project Ranking List.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       Integrated and Accessible Transport.

Direction 9a:      A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities; and

Direction 9d:      Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic management.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Roads and Maritime Services are this year offering the Council funding to assist with the implementation of projects valued at $782,600. Regarding funding matters only one of these projects (S/06758 / $62,550) is proposed to be fully funded by the federal government (through RMS). With regard to the bicycle facility project (T/05640), the Council had already allocated co-funding this year, from the Environmental Levy, to the extent of $100,000. Accordingly, the RMS is seeking a commitment from the Council to co-fund (on a 50/50 basis) the remaining projects.  The sum total of these remaining co-funded projects is $520,050; requiring a Council commitment of $215,050 for this financial year.

 

Given the benefits to our community which would flow from the implementation of these projects, it is considered that this $215,050 be drawn forward from reserves, so that the Council may then formally accept the funding offers from RMS and implement these projects this financial year.

 

It should be noted that the $100,000 indicated for Traffic Committee Works had already been provided for within the Council’s 2012-13 Budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The majority of the funding offered by Roads and Maritime Services is for treatments at road safety ‘blackspots’.  Treatments at these sites will reduce the incidence of vehicular collisions or reduce the severity of such collisions if they occur at these sites.  The Alison Road shared pathway upgrade will also have positive road safety implications in that a safe, comfortable, alternate route will be provided for the shared use of pedestrians and cyclists.  Given these benefits it is considered that the Council should match the funding offered by the RMS and arrange for the implementation of each of these projects within the 2012-13 year.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     fund the $260,025 from the Infrastructure reserves, so that it may accept the offers of funding from Roads and Maritime Services.

 

b)     formally accept Roads and Maritime Services’ offers of funding for the traffic projects detailed within the body of this report; and

 

c)     inform Roads and Maritime Services that, given the likely challenging design process, the Council seeks to have Project S/07002 funded across two financial years.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W22/12

 

 

Subject:                  Council of the City of Sydney's Trial of Pedestrian Countdown Timers at Traffic Signals

Folder No:                   F2005/00825

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

The Council had previously resolved (Belleli/Andrews) that a report comes back to Council regarding the outcome of the City of Sydney Council’s trial of countdown timers on the walk signal at traffic lights to improve pedestrian safety.  This report provides feedback on the trial.

 

Issues

 

At a number of locations throughout the world different roads authorities have installed digital countdown clocks in association with the pedestrian lights at traffic signal installations. 

 

The City of Sydney sought the cooperation of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS – the former RTA) to undertake a trial of such a facility.  The trial has now been finalised and a report has been produced. 

 

The conclusions from the trial are:

 

·       Safety: There was no net change in pedestrian safety–while late starters were more successful finishing crossing (prior to the start of the Steady Don’t Walk – SDW - interval) where Pedestrian Countdown Timers - PCTs - were installed, the late starters were offset by a reduction in pedestrians starting during the Walk interval.

 

·       Compliance: The level of compliance by pedestrians appears to have decreased at wider crossings where PCTs were installed. There was an increase in late starters that started crossing during the Flashing Don’t Walk - FDW - interval, although non-compliant vehicles may have contributed to this effect.

 

·       Amenity: Results suggested that pedestrian amenity may have been improved due to the reduction in the number of pedestrians required to wait until the next Walk interval to cross.

 

·       Location: The influence of PCTs was greatest at the wider crossings and during periods with the highest number of pedestrians crossing per cycle.

 

The conclusions from the trial suggest that with regards to safety, there was no net improvement as a result of PCTs. The RTA may wish to consider whether PCTs provide an opportunity to improve the amenity for pedestrians. In doing so it would be necessary to accept that this may include degradation in compliance due to pedestrians starting during the FDW interval.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:     Integrated and Accessible Transport.

Direction 9a:    A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The outcome of the RMS/City of Sydney trial of pedestrian countdown timers at traffic signals indicates that there is no road safety benefit. Accordingly, it is suggested that the Council not pursue introduction of such a facility with RMS. It is noted, however, that within New South Wales there is no constant reminder, for people who use traffic signals, as to the meaning of “Don’t Walk”, “Flashing Don’t Walk” and “Walk” phases of traffic signals. Other jurisdiction within Australia has prominent stickers above each pedestrian button indicating what each phase means.  In order to remind people (when they are pedestrians but also when they are motorists) of the obligations associated with each phase it is recommended that the Council request that RMS install similar signage at pedestrian facilities throughout New South Wales.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report by the RTA regarding the trial of pedestrian countdown timers at traffic signals be noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Summary of Report

 

 

 

 


Summary of Report

Attachment 1

 

 





Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W23/12

 

 

Subject:                  Proposed Pedestrian Facility across Fitzgerald Avenue near Robey Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   F2005/00825

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

At its meeting of 27 March 2012, the Council resolved (Andrews/Hughes) that:

 

a)   Council investigate the installation of a pedestrian crossing on Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra (between the intersections of Robey and Paine Street) to improve pedestrian access to Heffron Park; and

 

b)   this matter be referred to the Randwick Traffic Committee for consideration and a report be brought back to Council.

 

Issues

 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS - the former RTA) has very strict warrants which it requires to be met prior to any approval being allowed for the introduction of pedestrian (zebra) crossings.  These warrants ensure that pedestrian crossings are established only at those locations where there are specific minimum number of pedestrians crossing the road and a number of specific minimum number of vehicles travelling along the road.  There are recognised road safety reasons for these warrants being applied. 

 

The pedestrian volumes at the Fitzgerald Avenue/Robey Street intersection would not meet the minimum requirements for a zebra crossing. 

 

At a location such as this a more acceptable treatment would be the installation of a pedestrian refuge.  Pedestrian refuges allow people crossing the road to “stage” their crossing of the road by giving them a relatively safe place to wait in the centre of the road.  Such refuges can also help reduce the speed of passing motorists.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       Integrated and Accessible Transport.

Direction 9a:      A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter at this stage.

 

Conclusion

 

Given that RMS would not support the introduction of a zebra crossing across Fitzgerald Avenue, at Robey Street, Maroubra, it is suggested that Council officers investigate the possibility of installing a pedestrian refuge in the vicinity of this intersection.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)       Council officers investigate the possibilities for the installation of a pedestrian refuge in Fitzgerald Avenue in the vicinity of Robey Street, Maroubra.

 

b)       this matter be reported to the Traffic Committee.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Works Committee                                                                                                14 August 2012

 

 

Works Report No. W24/12

 

 

Subject:                  Open Space Consultative Committee

Folder No:                   F2010/00097

Author:                   Jorde Frangoples, Director City Services     

 

Introduction

 

Council has previously resolved (Notley-Smith/Belleli): that Council establish a consultative committee comprising Councillors, Council staff, community representatives and sports team representative to review the process by which open space in the Randwick LGA is allocated for organised sporting activities.

 

Issues

 

It is proposed to set up a one-off Committee to review the process of field allocation to Community representatives, the Councillors on the sports Committee and representatives of the South Sydney Juniors Rugby League, Randwick Rugby Union Club, representatives of one large soccer club and two (2) Council officers.

 

The Community representatives will be selected by the Precinct Committees of up to four (4) representatives in total.

 

The purpose of the Committee is to explain how council officers allocate grounds for sports.

 

Council officers have provided a briefing session to Councillors relating to the management of sports fields in the past.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities.

Direction 5b:      A range of sporting and leisure activies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The one-off Committee will clearly explain the procedures of our sports field booking processes. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil