Agenda of Works Committee Meeting

Works Committee 6 December 2011

Works Committee Meeting

Notice is hereby given that a Works Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 at 6:00pm.

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 - 8 November 2011

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W40/11 Council-Owned FICUS 'HILLII' (Hill's Weeping Fig) Growing Outside 6 Barry Street, Clovelly

W41/11 Abbott Street, Coogee - Resident Parking

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

Works Committee 6 December 2011

Works Report No. W40/11

Subject: Council-Owned FICUS 'HILLII' (Hill's Weeping Fig) Growing Outside 6 Barry Street, Clovelly

Folder No: F2004/07359

Author: Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer

Introduction

The owner of 6 Barry Street, Clovelly, has written to Council detailing a range of serious structural damage to his property being caused by the roots of a large Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) street tree growing on the nature strip outside that property.

Issues

The owner of this property has been experiencing a range of tree root-related issues for many years and has requested the removal of the tree outside on more than one occasion.

A recent site inspection confirmed these problems and reinforced the fact that roots from the tree were causing serious internal damage to the property, including pushing over the front fence, lifting the entrance pathway and tiles and damaging the side access path.

The tree concerned is in good health and is one of several of the same species growing along both sides of Barry Street, Clovelly. The tree is approximately 16 metres in height with a canopy spread of around 10-12 metres. It is an important provider of habitat and food source and provides significant visual amenity.

The subject tree has been root pruned on a number of occasions over many years to the extent that no further root shaving or pruning is a viable option. In fact, Council’s Tree Gang arborist has identified serious fungal decay in a number of large roots that have been shaved in the past to allow the asphalt footpath to be replaced because of root damage.

In addition, the canopy has had to be regularly pruned away from the roof and domestic service wires of this and adjacent properties.

Relationship to City plan

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

The cost to remove and stump grind this tree and to replace it with a super-advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly) would be in the vicinity of $2,500 and this would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

Conclusion

The roots of this tree have been causing a range of damage to public infrastructure and adjacent private property for a number of years and this damage has become progressively worse – particularly in the last five years or so.

The adjacent footpath has had to be repaired/replaced on a number of occasions and in fact the footpath along the entire length of the western side of Barry Street has had to be replaced in asphalt instead of concrete because of the size and spread of fig tree roots on that side of the street. As a consequence of this, no further root pruning of this particular tree is possible and large roots that have been ‘shaved’ in the past to allow bitumen footpath reconstruction are now showing signs of fungal decay that will eventually have a severe impact on the tree’s health and medium-term viability.

Several trees of the same species have had to be removed within the past decade along both sides of Barry Street because of severe and increasing tree root damage, including three adjacent to 20 Greville Street, Clovelly.

The damage to private property caused by the roots of this particular tree has escalated to the point that removal/replacement is now the only viable option.

The removal and replacement of this tree would fall within the parameters originally set out in Council’s resolution relating to aggressive-rooted street trees, although its removal would certainly have a negative impact on the overall visual amenity of the streetscape.

Recommendation

That the Council-owned Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 6 Barry Street, Clovelly, be removed and replaced with two super-advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pillys) – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

Attachment/s:

1.View

Series of photographs highlighting tree root damage to public infrastructure and the property at 6 Barry Street, Clovelly

Works Committee 6 December 2011

Works Report No. W41/11

Subject: Abbott Street, Coogee - Resident Parking

Folder No: F2010/00149

Author: Jorde Frangoples, Director City Services

Introduction

An Abbott Street resident has asked the Council to introduce the resident parking scheme to her street, despite a recent resident survey indicating that 84% of the Abbott Street respondents did not support introduction of the scheme.

Issue

Mrs Ghosh, 0f 17 Abbott Street, Coogee, has expressed concerns to the Council about the difficulties which she has with parking in her street. She advises that this is most often a problem in the evenings. She considers that the Council should introduce the resident parking scheme to her street.

Introduction of the resident parking scheme to an area results in the installation of parking time limits from which eligible residents would be exempt. It should be noted that the Council’s resident parking scheme generally only applies during business hours in order to ‘protect’ residents from commuters parking in their street.

Only near night time attractors have some streets had restrictions imposed which extend into the evening hours. Abbott Street on-street parking is generally residential in nature.

Background

Abbott Street is approximately 8.5 metres wide with parking permitted on both sides of the street. Six of the dwellings (from no.11 through to no.21) sit behind a sandstone wall which is approximately 55 metres long and of varying height (it is approximately 2.8 metres high near no.17). Access from the kerb to the property would require drivers and/or passengers to walk from the vehicle to the nearest point where the wall finishes, in order to then turn back and access the property.

The Council previously resolved to review the resident parking scheme in a number of areas, including Coogee. Accordingly, the Council has undertaken numerous surveys, and introduced resident parking zones as appropriate in Kensington, Kingsford, North Randwick, The Spot, Maroubra Junction and Maroubra Beach.

The approach taken has been to survey all of the residences in a prescribed area where parking may be considered to be under some pressure. The returned surveys are then analysed on a street by street basis. The Council’s practice has been to recommend introduction or expansion of the scheme into a street only where the majority of respondents have indicated that they support the introduction of the scheme.

Where there was no majority resident respondent support for the introduction of the scheme no action has been proposed. For each area surveyed the results of the surveys have been reported to Councillors via the Traffic Committee minutes.

In April 2010, the Council surveyed some 3,500 Coogee residents in the areas surrounding the existing Coogee resident parking zones. These existing zones currently extend to locations approximately 600 metres from Coogee Beach. The survey extended to the areas beyond the existing zones. The results of these surveys are attached.

Mrs Ghosh has indicated as a substantial number of residents have some off street parking that she is unfairly penalised by the survey results. Furthermore, as she lives behind the sandstone wall she has less of a opportunity to provide her property with off street parking.

Council officers’ observations suggest that event if Mrs Ghosh was to find an on street parking space in front of her premises she faces a reasonable walk to her front door as she needs to walk around the wall.

Because it is Mrs Ghosh’s neighbours that are parking on the street at night, Mrs Ghosh has requested that the parking restrictions apply for 24 hours/7 days a week. Council Officer’s have indicated that as our Rangers only work to 10.00pm this is difficult to enforce. However, they do work to 10.00pm. So if anything the restrictions would be to 10.00pm.

On the basis of Mrs Ghosh’s particular circumstances Council officers could recommend (4 on street resident parking spaces). However, as discussed the on street parking pressure is from other local residences. That either have insufficient off street parking or choose to not utilise their off street parking. Hence, the residents that have insufficient off street parking (particularly, others behind the wall(s) and residents in a typical 2 bedroom unit) would be entitled to a permit.

Overall, the majority response (71%) for the new areas surveyed was against the expansion of the scheme. Of the forty three streets surveyed, only from one street (Beach Street, near Neptune Street) was there majority support for the expansion of the scheme. Hence a resident parking zone has been introduced into a section of Beach street.

In Abbott Street some 140 surveys were distributed with twenty five (18%) responses being returned. Four residents (16% of the respondents) voted in favour of the introduction of the resident parking scheme into Abbott Street and twenty one (84% of the respondents) voted against the proposal. No responses were received from any of the dwellings ‘behind the wall’, adjacent to no’s 11-21 Abbott Street. As a result of the responses received from the residents of Abbott Street it was recommended by the Traffic Committee that no changes be made to the parking restrictions in their street.

The Council’s authority to introduce parking restrictions with public roads is granted by delegation (under Section 50 of the Transport Administration Act 1988) from the Roads & Maritime Services – R&MS (formerly the Roads and Traffic Authority- RTA). NSW legislation (specifically the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999) provides that a roads authority (the Council) must not issue a parking permit except in accordance with the R&MS Permit Parking manual. It should be noted that any restrictions require Traffic Committee consideration.

In a ruling of the New South Wales Supreme Court dated 23rd February 2001, it was

found that Council’s resolution of 4th March 1997 to introduce a residents preferential

parking scheme in the Spot, Randwick, was invalid, void, and of no force or effect. As a consequence of this ruling, all residents parking introduced in the Spot under

Council’s 1997 resolution was removed forthwith by Council. The court’s lengthy ruling raised several issues which brought into question Council’s past implementation strategy and its management of permit parking schemes.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 9: Integrated and Accessible Transport.

Direction 9e: Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.

Financial impact statement:

The construction of steps at some point of of the stone wall would cost approximately $40,000.

Conclusion:

Whilst noting that the majority (84%) of residents that completed the survey rejected resident parking given the extenuating circumstances relating to the length of the wall fronting No’s 11 to 21 Abbott Street, consideration should be given to trialling a small amount of resident parking in Abbott Street in front of the wall.

Recommendation

That:

a) Council refer this issue back to the Traffic Committee seeking a one (1) year trial of four (4) resident parking spaces in Abbott Street from 8.00-10.00pm, seven (7) days a week; and

b) Council consider the construction of the steps in future capital works budgets.

Attachment/s:

1.View	Resident survey results
2.View	Photo of Abbott Street, Coogee, Showing rock wall

Resident survey results /

Attachment 1

COOGEE RESIDENT PARKING EXTENSION POPOSAL

- RESULTS FROM THE APRIL 2010 RESIDENT SURVEY

(as reported to the Traffic Committee in July 2010)

Street	Area (proposed)	Voting		No of existing resident parking spaces	Recommendation
		YES	NO
Abbott Street	CO5	4(16%)	21(84%)	0	No Change
Bream Street	CO5	16(47%)	18(53%)	17	No Change
Byron Street	CO5	2(18%)	9(82%)	0	No Change
Carr Street	CO5	2(40%)	3(60%)	0	No Change
Coogee Bay Road	CO5	13(46%)	15(54%)	0	No Change
Carrington Road	CO5	17(44%)	22(56%)	0	No Change
Dolphin Street	CO5	4(40%)	6(60%)	0	No Change
Powell Street	CO5	2(11%)	17(89%)	0	No Change
Melody Street	CO5	15(32%)	32(68%)	0	No Change
Mount Street	CO5	0	0	0	No Change
Nathan Street	CO5	5(50%)	5(50%)	0	No Change
Stark Street	CO5	1(33%)	2(67%)	0	No Change
Beach Street	CO4	3(19%)	13(81%)	0	No Change
Alison Road	CO4	8(21%)	30(79%)	0	No Change
Arden Street	CO4	3(18%)	14(72%)	0	No Change
Brook Street	CO4	5(16%)	25(84%)	0	No Change
Bream Street	CO4	0	2(100%)	0	No Change
Hamilton Street	CO4	2 (8%)	24 (92%)	0	No Change
Gordon Avenue	CO4	1 (2%)	40 (98%)	0	No Change
Leeton Avenue	CO4	2(14.2%)	12(85.8%)	0	No Change
Mount Street	CO4	3(10.7%)	25(89.3%)	0	No Change
Division Street	CO4	1(6.6%)	14(93.4%)	0	No Change
Moore Street	CO4	3(21.4%)	11(78.6%)	0	No Change
Major Street	CO4	4(23.5%)	13(76.5%)	0	No Change
Quail Street	CO4	1(20%)	4(80%)	0	No Change
Woodland Street	CO4	2(28.5%)	5(71.5%)	0	No Change
Smithfield Avenue	CO4	0	2(100%)	0	No Change
Arden Street	CO6	7(33%)	14(67%)	0	No Change
Alexander Street	CO6	0	0	0	No change
Brook Street	CO6	8(27.5%)	21(72.5%)	0	No change
Bay Street	CO6	4(36%)	7(64%)	0	No change
Beach Street	CO6	9 (69%)	4 (31%)	0	Install 12 spaces
Berwick Street	CO6	6(50%)	6(50%)	0	No Change
Byron Street	CO6	6(35%)	11(65%)	0	No Change
Clifford Street	CO6	3(42.8%)	4(57.2%)	0	No Change
Dudley Street	CO6	5(31%)	11(69%)	0	No Change
Dundas Street	CO6	5(41.6%)	7(58.4%)	0	No Change
Edgecumbe Avenue	CO6	4(50%)	4(50%)	0	No Change
Oberon Street	CO6	7(21.8%)	25(78.2%)	0	No change
Mount Street	CO6	19(31%)	42(69%)	0	No change
Rainbow Street	CO6	1(8.3%)	11(91.6%)	0	No change
Wolseley Road	CO6	0	1(100%)	0	No change
Neptune Street	CO6	3(23%)	10(77%)	0	No change