Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 2 December 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                                                                                             2 December 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, 2 December 2014 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:          The Mayor T Seng, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza (Deputy Chairperson), Garcia, Matson, Moore, Nash, Neilson, Roberts (Chairperson), Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos & 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 - 11 November 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 69 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W36/14     Tree Removal - Adjacent 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington............................ 1

W37/14     Malabar Beach Stormwater Outlet - Consideration of removal of stormwater pipe to improve visual amenity....................................................................... 19

W38/14     Marjorie Crescent, Maroubra - Resident petition reporting a footpath construction      43   

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

Confidential Works Report

W39/14     DRLC 12 Month Operations Report

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Works Committee                                                                                             2 December 2014

 

 

Works Report No. W36/14

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Adjacent 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer      

 

Introduction

 

The owner of 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington, logged a service request with Council on 17 September 2014 advising of a range of ongoing and increasing damage to both their residence and adjacent public infrastructure being caused by the roots of three mature Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs) street trees growing on the nature strip adjacent to their property in Day Avenue.

 

Issues

 

There have been a number of service requests lodged with Council over the past four-five years involving ongoing problems associated with the roots of these trees, including roots damaging the adjacent property’s brick fence in both Eastern Avenue and Day Avenue and tree branches severely overhanging the property and residence and growing into overhead powerlines and service wires.

 

There have also been problems relating to ongoing footpath damage, the blocking of guttering and downpipes, cracking of the PVC stormwater pipe and protruding tree roots in the nature strip causing an ongoing trip hazard.

 

Council’s Road Services section has had to replace the footpath along Day Avenue adjacent to these three fig trees on several occasions over the past decade and the damage associated with their roots has increased exponentially over that period.

 

The property owner replaced several sections of the brick wall in Day Avenue only two years ago and this has cracked again as a result of fig tree root intrusion underneath the footings which can no longer be addressed in any way by root pruning. 

 

The subject trees average eighteen metres in height and their canopies are between eighteen-twenty metres in diameter. They are all in good health and they contribute significantly to this section of the Day Avenue streetscape. They are all important providers 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 trees’ roots without seriously compromising their stability and long-term viability. Council’s previous North Area Tree Preservation and Maintenance Officer supported this assessment and as a result of an inspection he undertook when trenching was carried out on 25 August 2014 he halted all infrastructure repair works until the matter of the trees’ removal or retention was resolved.

 

All three fig trees have 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 the adjacent residence at 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington.

 


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 all three Council owned Hill’s Weeping figs adjacent 26 Eastern Avenue and their replacement with four-five advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys) would cost in the vicinity of $20,000. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The three subject Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree assets growing adjacent to the property at 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington, have very important visual and historic significance. They are estimated to be approximately sixty years old and up until now Council has been committed to retaining all three, despite the fact that associated tree root damage has progressively increased in both frequency and severity.

 

The trees have been assessed as having significant scenic and amenity value and with providing important habitat and food source for a variety of native fauna, particularly the Grey-headed Flying Fox. Ironically, these Flying Foxes are currently having a very detrimental impact on the ability of the adjacent property owners to enjoy the use of their rear yard and entertaining area and barbecue. Because of the damage being caused by their roots, the impact of removal on land degradation would be negligible.

 

Using Australian Standard ASDR99307 the three trees have been assessed as having a combined amenity value of $36,000. It has been calculated that the trees have a moderate hazard rating but this will increase as they age 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 roots of these three trees, root pruning is no longer 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 trees are located was recently excavated. Effectively, therefore, the only practicable long-term management option is to remove the subject trees and to replace them all with a more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

The removal of any or all of these trees would certainly have a detrimental impact on the Day Avenue streetscape that will in no way be able to be realistically mitigated in the shorter term by the planting of four-five advanced replacement trees. Considering the fact that a number of these fig trees assets have been removed from within the Randwick LGA within the past twelve months, the removal of these three trees would not be well received by the Kensington community and would potentially reflect very poorly upon Randwick City Council. Although the roots of all three trees are causing ongoing and increasing damage to both private property and public infrastructure the most severe and adverse impacts are being caused by the western-most tree. This is the tree which is located directly adjacent to the rear yard/entertaining area of the neighbouring property and its roots have cracked the brick wall in several locations. The canopy is overhanging into the property by a number of metres and even though all three figs have been extensively pruned back towards the property alignment, leaf and fruit drop from this particular tree have the most serious and detrimental impact on the ability of the property owners to enjoy the amenity of their property.

 

For the range of reasons highlighted above, I think at this stage it would be prudent to consider the removal and replacement of the western Hill’s Weeping fig only and that the root damage being caused by the other two trees be regularly monitored into the future. Although not entirely happy with this strategy, the adjacent property owners are prepared to accept this short-medium term management proposal.

   

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the western-most Council owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing adjacent to 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington, be removed and replaced with two advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys) – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs of the three Hill’s Weeping figs adjacent 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington, and their visual importance in the streetscape and the damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by their roots.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs of the three Hill’s Weeping figs adjacent 26 Eastern Avenue, Kensington, and their visual importance in the streetscape and the damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by their roots.

Attachment 1

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



Works Committee                                                                                             2 December 2014

 

 

Works Report No. W37/14

 

 

Subject:                  Malabar Beach Stormwater Outlet - Consideration of removal of stormwater pipe to improve visual amenity

Folder No:                   F2004/08208

Author:                   Stephen Audet, Coordinator Engineering Services      

 

Introduction

 

At its meeting of 9 October 2012, Council resolved as follows:

 

“(Garcia/Andrews) that, on completion of the stormwater drainage diversion works at Malabar Beach, Council considers in the 2013-14 budget the removal of the large (green) Council storm water pipeline that previously discharged into the Malabar Beach area.”

 

Issues

 

An assessment of the feasibility of removing the pipe and also a range of other treatments has been undertaken.  This report discusses the outcomes of the assessment.

 

The stormwater diversion works at Malabar Beach were designed to divert stormwater flows from Council’s stormwater pipe into the adjacent Sydney Water ocean outfall sewerage tunnel subject to capacity in the tunnel to accept stormwater volumes.  The capacity of the Sydney Water ocean outfall tunnel is determined by a number of factors including tides and the severity of rainfall events. 

 

The design of the diversion from Council’s stormwater pipe is based on the ocean outfall tunnel being capable of accepting flows in events up to a six monthly rainfall event.  A six monthly rainfall event is a storm of intensity that would only be statistically expected once every six months, although the actual number of storms of that severity may be less or more in any six month period. 

 

When the ocean outfall is running at capacity, an automated gate prevents further flows entering the tunnel from the Randwick City Council stormwater system.  This means that in larger storm events, the diversion is bypassed with stormwater flowing down its former path through the large green pipe and discharging at the northern end of Malabar Beach. The stormwater catchment above the beach is large and generates substantial volumes of stormwater in these large rainfall events and the existing stormwater pipe continues to perform an important function at these times.

 

The stormwater diversion project has resulted in the consistent base flow in the pipe and more frequent rainfall events being diverted away from the beach.  The Office of Environment and Heritage’s Beachwatch Program reports a measurable improvement in water quality at Malabar since the completion of the diversion works. With the stormwater pipes, a function in mind, Council’s Technical Services Team engaged the services of marine and coastal engineering consultant to assist in the development and assessment of options to remove the pipe, or improve the visual amenity of the beach in relation to the existing pipe. The report considers options to remove the pipe and/or improve beach aesthetics and a copy is attached.  The report describes and considers each option, outlines the associated advantages and disadvantages and provides sketches to visually demonstrate how the option would present on the beach.  The report identifies six options as follows:

 

Option 1: Extend the vegetated rock berm to bury the pipe and hide it from view;

Option 2: Remove pipe and relocate pipe outlet to back of beach;

Option 3: Partial removal of pipe;

Option 4: Convert existing pipe to an open channel (remove top portion of pipe);

Option 5: Replace pipe with an open channel (construct new open channel);

Option 6: Do nothing; maintain rock in front of pipeline.

 

The analysis of the options

 

Options 2, 4 and 5 best satisfy the brief outlined in the Council Resolution.  However, these 3 options were also identified as being highly disadvantageous due to the environmental impacts to the beach and inshore reefs that would result by the erosion caused by discharges from the pipe in larger rainfall events.  For this reason, options 2 and 4 were considered as unviable.

 

Option 5 would involve the construction of a significant channel structure at the northern end of the beach.  Whilst the pipe would be removed, the aesthetics of the beach would be significantly impacted as would general beach amenity due to the loss of beach space and the division of part of the beach and the rocky northern shoreline caused by the introduction of the channel.

 

Option 6 retains the pipe and allows minor clean up of displaced boulders along the length of the pipe.  Whilst this option meets the operational requirements of the stormwater system and does not impact environmentally, it does not achieve the objectives of the brief.

 

Consequently, only Options 1 and 3 balance the environmental and aesthetic criteria and are therefore considered the strongest options to improve the visual amenity that is impacted by the stormwater pipe at the northern end of Malabar Beach.

 

Option 3 involves removal of 3 sections of pipe.  The extent (approximately 7.2m) of removal was selected to balance both improved aesthetics with minimising the environmental impacts of beach erosion during pipe discharge events.  However, the current pipe has been constructed to act as a retaining structure for the embankment behind.  The major disadvantage with Option 3 is that the removal of pipe will necessitate the introduction of a retaining wall and pipe outlet headwall between the existing and future outlets to retain the vegetated embankment below Fishermans Road.  It is considered that these structures will counteract the aesthetic benefits of partial removal of the pipe.

 

To the west of the beach, the pipe is buried in the embankment below Fishermans Road.  Option 1 proposes to extend the rock armour and vegetated embankment to the east and continue to bury the pipe.  This option would hide the pipe from view with exception to the last few sections which may remain visible due to the competing interests of slope stability and the maintenance of access to the rock platforms on the north side of the beach. 

 

In Option 1, the embankment is extended beyond the pipe generally in area currently covered by displaced boulders at the base of the pipeline as shown in Photo 1.

 

Description: M:\Technical Services\Engineering Services\Drainage\Photos or video\Malabar\Malabar Beach outlet\Parissa\SAM_6998.JPG

Photo 1:  Displaced boulders at base of pipeline.

 

Photo 2 is an existing image of the pipeline.  The rock armoured and vegetated embankment can be seen to the west of the pipeline. 

 

Photo 2: Existing view of Malabar Beach Outlet Pipe and rock armoured and vegetated embankment covering pipe to the west.

 

 

Photos 3 and 4 are a visual representation of Option 1.

 

Photo 3:  Visual representation of Option 1 from the beach.

 

Photo 4:  Visual representation of Option 1 from the rock shelf at the northern end of the beach.

 

Option 1 is considered as the strongest option because it removes most of the visible pipe from view, maintains essential stormwater system functionality and introduces no environmental impacts to the beach and inshore reefs.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6b:      Our centres, beaches, streets and other public spaces are safe,                             inviting, clean and support a recognisable image of our city.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of extending the rock armoured and vegetated embankment is within the allowance made for the project within the 2014-15 Drainage Capital Works Program.

 

Conclusion

 

The stormwater pipe at the northern end of Malabar Beach maintains an essential stormwater function but detracts from the beauty of this stunning beach location.  A range of options have been considered to remove and or improve the visual amenity of the pipeline location.

 

Factors including stormwater functionality, beach amenity and environmental impacts were considered in the assessment of each option.  The strongest option, Option 1, involves burying the pipe under a rock armoured and vegetated embankment consistent with the existing treatment over the pipe at the back of the beach.  This option maintains stormwater functionality, involves no increase in environmental impacts and retains beach existing beach amenity whilst largely removing the pipe from view.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council proceed with Option 1 to bury the existing stormwater pipe under a   rock armoured and vegetated rock berm.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Malabar Stormwater Outfall Preliminary Options Report, by GHD, 11 November 2014

 

 

 

 


Malabar Stormwater Outfall Preliminary Options Report, by GHD, 11 November 2014

Attachment 1

 

 



















Works Committee                                                                                             2 December 2014

 

 

Works Report No. W38/14

 

 

Subject:                  Marjorie Crescent, Maroubra - Resident petition reporting a footpath construction

Folder No:                   F2004/07382

Author:                   Stephen Audet, Coordinator Engineering Services      

 

Introduction

 

A footpath was proposed for Marjorie Crescent in 2004.  The residents of Marjorie Crescent petitioned Council and at its Works Committee meeting of 7 September 2004 (Item W56/04), Council resolved as follows:

 

“(Tracey/White) the residents of Marjorie Crescent be advised that Council has investigated their request and agreed to abandon the footpath works in this street.”

 

A subsequent petition was received by Council on 29 May 2014 requesting that a footpath be constructed.  Shortly thereafter, further correspondence was received objecting to the construction of the footpath.

 

Issues

 

Marjorie Crescent is a culdesac that enters from Storey Street near Snape Park.  The street currently has no footpaths.  Eastmore Place runs between Marjorie Crescent and Bunnerong Road.  Marjorie Crescent is an important access route for the residents of Eastmore Place.

 

Pedestrian volumes within Marjorie Crescent are very low and consistent with a local residential street where pedestrians are predominantly residents.  A traffic count completed in 2011 found that there is an average of 174 daily traffic movements in Marjorie Crescent with the 85th percentile speed being 28 km/h.

 

The topography of the nature strip prevents a footpath installation on the east side of Marjorie Crescent at its approach to Storey Street.  The west of Marjorie Crescent is planted with numerous street trees.  The footpath works planned in 2004 would have required the removal of street trees.  The sentiment of the 2004 petition against the construction of a footpath was that the trees were not to be removed.

 

The 2014 petition requests that a footpath be constructed however the cover letter for the petition states that the residents “would prefer if possible, to keep the trees on the footpath.”  This petition was signed by residents of fourteen at the sixteen properties with addresses in Marjorie Crescent and all twelve residents of adjacent Eastmore Place. A number of residents who had signed the petition called and or wrote to Council objecting to the petition.  The subject of the trees was a strong theme in all correspondence.  A resident engaged a consultant Arborist to provide advice regarding the trees. 

 

An assessment of the trees was undertaken by Council staff and it was determined that the construction of a footpath would require the removal of six existing street trees.  The six trees to be removed were assessed as providing important screening, habitat and food source but of being in reasonably poor health. In considering the request for a footpath, the opinion of the Technical Services team was that the removal of these trees would allow the planting of significantly more new replacement trees as well as incorporating additional new supplementary planting along the opposite side of the street. Due to sensitivity surrounding the trees and the apparent divide in community sentiment, Council’s Engineering Services team conducted a survey of all residents.  The survey advised that the construction of a footpath in Marjorie Crescent would necessitate the removal of six trees and requested that residents confirm their support for or against the footpath on that basis.  A total of twenty nine responses were received. The survey also offered residents an opportunity to have an additional tree planted in front of their property.  Four properties requested that a tree be planted and consideration is now underway to assess the suitability of these locations. Responses were received from fourteen of the 16 properties with addresses in Marjorie Crescent.  Two of these responses supported the footpath and twelve were in opposition to the footpath. Responses were received from nine of the twelve properties with addresses in Eastmore Place.  All nine of these responses from Eastmore Place supported the construction of a footpath in Marjorie Crescent. A further five responses were received from residents of properties in Storey Street either on the corner of, or opposite Marjorie Crescent with all five responses objecting to the construction of a footpath in Marjorie Crescent.  One response against the footpath construction was also received from a resident in nearby Percival Street.

 

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 and funded to meet the community expectations and defined service levels.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of constructing a 1.3m wide concrete path could be included in a future Footpath Capital Works Program.

 

Conclusion

 

In 2004 Council supported the sentiment of residents to not remove trees for the purpose of constructing a footpath in Marjorie Crescent.  A 2014 survey demonstrates that the sentiment within Marjorie Crescent and nearby Storey Street has not changed with twelve of the fourteen respondents objecting to the construction of a footpath. 

 

A total of twenty nine residents responded to Council’s survey with eighteen objecting to the construction of a footpath in Marjorie Crescent.

 

The community in adjacent Eastmore Place is however in support of a footpath in Marjorie Crescent.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council not proceed with the footpath in Marjorie Crescent.

 

b)     the residents of both Marjorie Crescent and Eastmore Place to be advised accordingly.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Marjorie Crescent Locality Plan

 

2.View

Resident Petition for footpath - May 2014

 

3.View

Copy of Council survey and Cover letter

 

 

 

 


Marjorie Crescent Locality Plan

Attachment 1

 

 


Resident Petition for footpath - May 2014

Attachment 2

 

 





Copy of Council survey and Cover letter

Attachment 3