Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 June 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 June 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor (S Nash), Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza (Deputy Chairperson), Garcia, Matson, Moore, Neilson, Roberts, Seng, Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos (Chairperson) & Stevenson

 

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 - 13 May 2014

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 66 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W13/14     Tree Removal - Outside 9 Waratah Avenue, Randwick................................ 1

W14/14     Significant Tree Register – Additional Inclusion of Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) at 60 Clovelly Road, Randwick ....................................................................... 9

W15/14     Lurline Bay - Suburb naming proposal..................................................... 15    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Works Committee                                                                                                   10 June 2014

 

 

Works Report No. W13/14

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Outside 9 Waratah Avenue, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The owners of 9 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, wrote to Council on 3 June 2011 advising of a range of ongoing and increasing damage within the front of their property and adjacent public infrastructure being caused by the roots of a mature Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) street trees growing on the nature strip outside.

 

Since that time the adjacent footpath has been removed on several occasions, root pruning undertaken and the footpath reinstated in bitumen to allow retention of the subject public tree asset.

 

Issues

 

Council’s Tree Preservation and Maintenance Officer (North) inspected this fig tree and its surrounds on 31 January 2014 after the adjacent footpath had been removed to allow Council’s Tree Gang to expose any tree roots in the immediate vicinity.

 

There have been a number of service requests lodged with Council over the past five years involving ongoing problems associated with the roots of this tree, including roots invading the adjacent property’s stormwater line, destroying the nearby driveway and crossover and tree branches severely overhanging the property and growing into overhead powerlines and service wires. There have also been ongoing problems relating to footpath damage, alleged cracking of the internal driveway area within the adjacent unit block and protruding tree roots in the nature strip causing a serious trip hazard. The last service request logged with Council was on 17 April 2013 which nominated serious footpath damage and the associated liability issues as justifiable reasons for the tree to be removed.

 

The adjacent driveway crossover had to be recently replaced in bitumen because major root pruning was not possible and the footpath area and roadway regularly flood and pond whenever there is a rain event. A stormwater pit immediately adjacent to the footpath has blocked completely because of leaf litter accumulation and there is a Telstra pit located within three metres of the tree.

 

The subject tree is approximately eighteen metres in height with a canopy spread of around twenty metres. It is in good health and contributes quite significantly to the Waratah Avenue streetscape. It is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of native birdlife and other fauna. Council’s Tree Gang advises that it would not be possible to remove the amount of damaging tree root material required to abate the damage being caused by the tree’s roots without seriously compromising its stability and long-term viability. Council’s north area arborist supports this assessment and as a result of his recent inspection he has halted all infrastructure repair works until the matter of the tree’s removal or retention is resolved.

 

The tree has to be regularly pruned away from overhead powerlines and domestic service wires to maintain statutory clearances and branches have to be regularly pruned back because they overhanging into adjacent residences.

 

Although inconclusive, there are cracks in the parking area inside the unit block at 9 Waratah Avenue that align with fig tree roots uplifting the footpath between the Council street tree and the property alignment.

 

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

 

It is estimated that the removal of the Hill’s Weeping fig outside 9 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, and its replacement with two advanced Cupaniopsis anarcardioides (Tuckeroos) would cost in the vicinity of $6,000. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The mature Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree growing outside 9 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, has significant visual and historic significance.

 

It is estimated to be approximately sixty years old and up until this point Council has been committed to retaining it, despite the fact that associated tree root damage has progressively increased in both frequency and severity.

 

The 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 damage being caused by its roots, the impact of removal on land degradation would be negligible. Using Australian Standard ASDR99307 the tree has been assessed as having an amenity value of $14,000. It has also been calculated that the tree has a moderate hazard rating but this will probably increase as the tree ages and weather events become more severe. Because of the size and amount of root material required to be removed 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 Tree Preservation and Maintenance Officer (North) when the footpath adjacent to where the tree is located was recently excavated.

 

Effectively, therefore, the only practicable long-term management option is to remove the subject tree and to replace it with a more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan. The removal of this tree will certainly have a detrimental impact on the Waratah Avenue streetscape that will in no way be able to be realistically mitigated in the shorter term by the planting of one-two advanced replacement trees.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 9 Waratah Avenue, Randwick, be removed and replaced with two advanced Cupaniopsis anarcardioides (Tuckeroos) – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs of the subject tree and its visual importance in the streetscape and the damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by its roots.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs of the subject tree and its visual importance in the streetscape and the damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by its roots.

Attachment 1

 

 

Subject fig tree is one of sixteen growing along the length of Waratah Avenue

 

Severe ponding occurs with any rain event and severely impacts on footpath users

Very large fig tree root protruding above kerb and gutter restricts access to vehicles

 

Driveway was removed because of root damage and had to be replaced in bitumen 


Cracking to driveway inside property is directly in line with intruding fig tree roots

 

Large fig root running parallel to crossover and entering front of unit block


 

Uplifted driveway slab inside property at 9 Waratah Ave adjacent to fig tree root

 

Several stormwater pipes have been destroyed or regularly blocked by fig tree roots


Several large fig roots have undermined adjacent footpath and entered property

 

Fig tree root snaking across verge, footpath and into adjacent property


Works Committee                                                                                                   10 June 2014

 

 

Works Report No. W14/14

 

 

Subject:                  Significant Tree Register – Additional Inclusion of Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) at 60 Clovelly Road, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On 6 February 2014 a request was made by Councillor Kathy Neilson for Council tree management officers to inspect a large and historic Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) growing within the rear of the Randwick Literary Institute and to assess its suitability for inclusion on Randwick City Council’s Register of Significant Trees.

 

Issues

 

Randwick City Council’s Significant Tree Register identifies and recognises the importance of significant trees in the Randwick landscape, guides their management and ensures their protection for future generations. This Register lists trees of significance growing on both public and private land which have been recognised as having helped shape Randwick's cultural landscape and character.

The assessment methodology for determining significant trees is based on the criteria developed for the Register of the National Estate, in accordance with the Burra Charter. This is a nationally consistent approach to heritage identification and assessment which is applied to all types of heritage places and items.

A thorough physical examination of nominated trees in relation to their natural occurrence or cultural history is conducted and supported through extensive field work and examination to evaluate their importance in relation to the following criteria:

 

·           Historic and/or natural value (i.e. indigenous/cultivated origin)

·           Botanic/scientific value

·           Social, cultural and commemorative value

·           Visual and aesthetic value.

 

Listed trees are assessed on their comparative points of importance relating to both cultural and natural significance. Therefore, the heritage values of a significant tree or group of trees are almost always multi-layered.

In early April 2014 the subject Chinese Elm was inspected by the heritage consultant who drafted the original Register of Significant Trees for Council and he assessed this multi-trunked specimen as being an early cultural planting of high local heritage significance (i.e. significant at the local and LGA levels).

 

Although not considered to be an outstanding specimen for this taxa nor visually prominent as a component of the Clovelly Road streetscape, this tree has significance in terms of its historic, commemorative and cultural values.

 

This Chinese Elm was planted on 6th February 1913, only two days after the laying of the foundation stone of the Randwick Literary Institute (RLI) by the NSW Governor, Lord Chelmsford. The planting coincided with the Chinese New Year celebrations – the Year of the Water Ox. In the dedication speech, Mr Searl of Searl’s Garden Emporium, Botany, described the tree as a symbol of community unity and learning – sharing the ideal that like the tree, the Institute as a dedicated place of learning would also grow and flourish over time.

 

In the speech he publicly honoured and praised the contribution of Chinese immigrant labourers working at his 17-acre (6.7 Ha) nursery (Inscription on commemorative plaque and M. McIntosh, personal communication, 17.03.2014). The Chinese Elm was imported possibly as early as the mid-nineteenth century. This particular tree appears in the 1901 edition of Searl’s nursery catalogue (Searl & Sons General Catalogue, Sydney, 1901, p.93).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 10:       A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10c:      Land use planning and management enhances and protects biodiversity and natural heritage.

Key Action:         The protection and enhancement of biodiversity is facilitated through partnerships with the community.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

The inclusion of this tree on Council’s Register of Significant Trees would have a negligible financial impact for Council.

 

Conclusion

 

The Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia), also known as lace bark elm, is an ornamental exotic deciduous species with smooth to flaky, mottled bark and a broadly spreading canopy often hanging to the ground. Chinese Elms are a highly adaptable species and tolerant of poor soil conditions, variable pH, wind exposure and drought (Leopold 1980).

 

Unfortunately, this ageing tree appears to be in slow decline with a broken and open canopy (possibly storm-damaged), extensive deadwood and poor vigour. The small raised planter box around its base is further compromising growth and opportunities to improve the tree’s health and long-term sustainability.

 

The Institute managers (Council) have been advised that for further detailed assessment of health, condition and tree management issues, a qualified and experienced arborist (heritage trees) should be consulted. It has been recommended that such an inspection and remedial action is delivered without delay.

 

Despite the fair condition of this tree, however, it does have high local cultural and heritage value in terms of its historic, commemorative and cultural significance that makes it worthy of inclusion on Council’s Register of Significant Trees.

 

Recommendation

 

That the one hundred year old Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) growing within the rear of the Randwick Literary Institute be added to Randwick City Council’s Register of Significant Trees.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Annexure to Randwick City Council’s Register of Significant Trees drafted on 19 April 2014 by LandArc Pty Limited.

 

  


Annexure to Randwick City Council’s Register of Significant Trees drafted on 19 April 2014 by LandArc Pty Limited.

Attachment 1

 

 

Significant Trees: Other Government/ Institutional

SURVEY DATA SHEET

 

Randwick City Council                                                                                                      MAP REF: C 04

Register of Significant Trees                                                                                          DATE: 16.04.14

PRECINCT 1:  RANDWICK

 

 


Randwick Literary Institute (RLI)

60 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 


SUMMARY OF SCHEDULED ITEMS (CULTURAL PLANTING)

 

SCHEDULED ITEMS:            INDIVIDUAL SPECIMEN

SIGNIFICANCE:                      INDIVIDUAL – LGA/ LOCAL

 

1 №     Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia)

 


DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULED TREE SPECIES

 

Botanical Name:                    Ulmus parvifolia (family: Ulmaceae)

Common Name:                    Chinese Elm

Significance Attributes:         exotic specimen planting

commemorative

cultural/ historic and social

                                      visual/ aesthetic (local)

Origin:                          ornamental/ cultivated (China, India, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan &

                                      Vietnam)

Location:                     Single specimen tree located in small raised sandstone planter

                                      within rear (eastern) garden and children’s playground (Randwick

                                      Literary Institute).

Extent of Influence:    Canopy largely contained within this property and extends to

                                      adjacent public verge and footpath. The root zone is likely to extend

                                      to a similar area of influence.

Height:                                      10 metres

Canopy Spread:                     16 metres (asymmetrical form)

Trunk Diameter:                     900mm @ 1.0 metre above ground level

Estimated Age:                       101 years+

Condition/ Health:               This specimen tree appears to be in decline. Health and vigour is considered to be fair-poor. The upper central crown is broken with extensive cross-branching and substantial dead wood throughout. The tree is contained within a very small raised planter and extensive tree root damage to low walls and paving is evident.

Management

Recommendations:  For further detailed assessment of health, condition and tree

management issues, a qualified and experienced arborist (heritage

trees) should be consulted. It is recommended that an inspection

and remedial action is delivered without delay.

 


STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia), also known as lace bark elm, is an ornamental exotic deciduous species with smooth to flaky, mottled bark and a broadly-spreading canopy often hanging to the ground. Chinese Elm is a highly adaptable species and tolerant of poor soil conditions, variable pH, wind exposure and drought (Leopold 1980). This multi-trunked specimen tree is an early cultural planting of high local heritage significance (i.e. significant at the local and LGA levels). Notably, this tree provides a visual and aesthetic focus for this internal garden space. The large canopy creates a “green ceiling” over the play area defining a special character and charm. 

 

Although not considered to be an outstanding specimen for this taxa nor visually prominent as a component of the Clovelly Road streetscape, this tree has significance in terms of its historic, commemorative and cultural values. This Chinese Elm was planted on 6th February 1913, only two days after the laying of the foundation stone of the Randwick Literary Institute (RLI) by the NSW Governor, Lord Chelmsford. The planting coincided with the Chinese New Year celebrations – the Year of the Water Ox. In the dedication speech, Mr Searl of Searl’s Garden Emporium, Botany described the tree as a symbol of community unity and learning – sharing the ideal that like the tree, the Institute as a dedicated place of learning, would also grow and flourish over time. In the speech he publicly honoured and praised the contribution of Chinese immigrant labourers working at his 17-acre (6.7 Ha) nursery (Inscription on commemorative plaque and M. McIntosh, personal communication, 17.03.2014). The Chinese Elm was imported possibly as early as the mid-nineteenth century. This tree appears in the 1901 edition of Searl’s nursery catalogue (Searl & Sons General Catalogue, Sydney, 1901, p.93).

 

Unfortunately, this ageing tree appears to be in decline with a broken and open canopy (possibly storm-damaged), extensive dead wood and poor vigour. The small raised planter box is further compromising growth and opportunities to improve the tree’s health and long-term sustainability. It is recommended that an arborist is consulted to address these issues.

 


DSC_0413.jpg

Randwick Literary Institute – 60 Clovelly Road. View of Chinese Elm

(Ulmus parvifolia) [centre] (eastern garden).

 

 

DSC_0411.jpg

Randwick Literary Institute – 60 Clovelly Road. Chinese Elm [right

foreground]. Detail of trunk and raised sandstone planter.

 

 

References:

Fu, L., Xin, Y. & Whittemore, A. 2003. Ulmaceae, in Wu, Z. & Raven, P. (eds) Flora of China, Vol. 5 (Ulmaceae through Basellaceae). Science Press, Beijing, and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, USA, p.1-10

http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/PDF/PDF05/Ulmus.pdf

 

Leopold, D.J. Chinese and Siberian Elms, Journal of Arboriculture 6(7): July 1980, p.175

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=1664&Type=2

 

NSW Heritage Office/ NSW Heritage Council, 2011 Assessing heritage significance

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/listings/assessingheritagesignificance.pdf

 

NSW Heritage Office/NSW Heritage Council, 2008 Levels of Heritage Significance

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/levelsofheritagesignificance2008.pdf

 

NSW Heritage Office/ NSW Heritage Council, 2006 Assessing Historical Importance – A guide to State Heritage Register Criterion A

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/infohistoricalimportance.pdf

 

NSW Heritage Office/ NSW Heritage Council, 2000 Assessing Historical Association – A guide to State Heritage Register Criterion B

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/infohistoricalassociation.pdf

 

NSW Heritage Office/ NSW Heritage Council, 2010 Technical Note: Managing risk with heritage trees

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/ManagingriskwithheritagetreesDecember2010.pdf

 

NSW Heritage Office/ NSW Heritage Council, n.d. Extract: Federation Gardens: Appendix A – Plant Lists (Searl & Sons General Catalogue, Sydney, 1901).

 

Walker, M. & Marquis-Kyle, P., 2004 The Illustrated Burra Charter: good practice for heritage places Australia ICOMOS

http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/

 

 

 

 



Works Committee                                                                                                   10 June 2014

 

 

Works Report No. W15/14

 

 

Subject:                  Lurline Bay - Suburb naming proposal

Folder No:                   F2004/07141

Author:                   Joe Ingegneri, Manager Technical Services     

 

Introduction

 

At the Works Committee held on 8 October 2013, Council resolved as follows:

 

“(Andrews/Seng) that:

 

a)     the proposed new suburb of Lurline Bay, be in accordance with the red line shown on the map on Attachment 2 as the ‘requested suburb boundary alignment’, subject to the line being continued down the northern side of The Corso to Marine Parade (ie. The 3 properties on the western side of Marine Parade, between Torrington Road and The Corso are to be included in the proposed new suburb of Lurline Bay) and that the proposal be submitted to the Geographical Names Board for its consideration.

 

b)     the residents on southern side of Torrington Road be surveyed while the proposal is being considered by the Geographic Names Board.”

 

Issues

 

Community Consultation with the 73 residents and property owners that were added to the proposed suburb area was undertaken in October 2013.  45 responses were received and the results are summarized in the table below.

 

New boundary added properties

Agree with proposed Lurline Bay suburb

42

93%

Disagree with proposed Lurline Bay suburb

3

7%

 

45

100%

 

The suburb naming proposal was submitted to the Geographical Names Board in accordance with the requested suburb boundary alignment.  The Geographical Names Board considered the proposal at their Board Meeting held on 25 March 2014 and resolved to reject the proposal.  Correspondence from the Board on this determination is shown in Attachment 1.

 

The Board resolved to reject the Lurline Bay suburb naming proposal based on the following criteria:

 

·           There is no significant change in land use

·           It is not a new community

·           The proposed area is too small

·           Proposed area does not have a unique character compared to the surrounding area

·           The proposal must have the overwhelming support of the surrounding community as well as the residents in the proposed new area.

 

The key criterion stated for the refusal of the proposal includes the size of the suburb area and the overwhelming support from the surrounding area.

 

Size of the proposed Lurline Bay suburb

There are limited options available to increasing the area for the proposed Lurline Bay suburb.  Any expansion to the north will decrease the size of the South Coogee suburb.  This suburb is already relatively small.

 

Alternatively, the proposed area can be expanded to the south, taking more of the Maroubra suburb.  This opportunity is limited as it will encroach on Maroubra beach.  Therefore, achieving an area of a size that will be supported by the Geographical Names Board will require the proposed area to be expanded to the west.

 

Both options begin to lose their ties with the actual Lurline Bay after which the proposed suburb name is derived.

 

Support from the surrounding community

In order to obtain overwhelming support from residents of the surrounding area for the Lurline Bay suburb proposal, a communication campaign that outlines the justification for the proposal would need to be undertaken.

 

Such a campaign and survey should be undertaken following establishment of a new proposed suburb area to which to apply the Lurline Bay name.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:      New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

It is estimated that community consultation to establish a new area will cost $10,000.  This cost will be covered by staff salaries and postage.

 

Conclusion

 

The Geographical Names Board have resolved to reject the Lurline Bay naming proposal.  The key reasons for refusal are the size of the proposed area and the need to have overwhelming support by residents outside the proposed area.  The Geographical Names Board have advised that Council may respond to their letter addressing the criteria for a suburb.  The proposal will then be reconsidered by the Board.

 

To determine a suitable area for the proposed suburb, it is proposed that community consultation be undertaken to seek community feedback on the various options. Alternatively, Council may consider naming the area in question as an Urban Place.  As this area is already known as Lurline Bay as a locality rather than a suburb as suggested by the Geographic Names Board.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council undertake community consultation on options for a larger area proposed for a new suburb named Lurline Bay.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Determination letter from the Geographical Names Board

 

 

 

 


Determination letter from the Geographical Names Board

Attachment 1