works and community committee · 2016. 1. 20. · works and community committee report page 2...

Works and Community Committee

AGENDA NO. 12/10

Meeting Date: Tuesday 7 December 2010 Location: Committee Room 1, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 4.30pm

NOTICE OF BUSINESS Item CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Meeting held on 02 November 2010........... 2 2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE ............................................................... 6 3 TREE MANAGEMENT REVIEW - 89 Monash Road, Gladesville .................... 7 4 TREE MANAGEMENT REVIEW - 29 Cox's Road, North Ryde ..................... 33 5 TREE MANAGEMENT REVIEW - 27 Darcy Street, Marsfield ....................... 42 6 BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MEETING HELD 18 OCTOBER

2010 ............................................................................................................... 63 7 ROUNDABOUT NORTH ROAD AT INTERSECTION WITH WILLOW

CRESCENT AND CLERMONT AVENUE ...................................................... 75 8 SIGHTLINES FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS......................... 80 9 TRAFFIC MATTERS PRESENTED TO RYDE LOCAL TRAFFIC

COMMITTEE HELD 28 OCTOBER 2010....................................................... 83

Works and Community Committee Report

Agenda of the Works and Community Committee Report No. 12/10, dated Tuesday 7 December 2010.

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Meeting held on 02 November 2010

File No.: GRP/10/3/001/5 - BP10/706

In accordance with Clause 3.4.4 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, a motion or discussion with respect to such minutes shall not be in order except with regard to their accuracy as a true record of the proceedings. RECOMMENDATION: That the Minutes of the Works & Community Committee 11/10, held on Tuesday 16 November 2010, be confirmed. ATTACHMENTS 1 Minutes of meeting held on 16 November 2010

Works and Community Committee ITEM 1 (continued) ATTACHMENT 1


Works and Community Committee

MINUTES OF MEETING NO. 11/10

Meeting Date: Tuesday 16 November 2010 Location: Committee Room 1, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 4.34pm Councillors Present: Councillor Maggio (Chairperson) and Councillors Perram and Tagg. Councillor Petch arrived at 4.45pm and apologised for his late arrival. He was not present for Items 1, 2 and 3. Apologies: Councillors Campbell and Li Staff Present: Group Manager – Community Life, Group Manager - Public Works, Manager Access, Manager Parks, Parks Community Liaison Officer, Manager Governance and Senior Administration Co-ordinator. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST There were no disclosures of interest. PART A - ITEMS TO BE DETERMINED BY COUNCIL ON 23 NOVEMBER 2010 There are no Items to be determined by Council on 23 November 2010. NOTE: Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were determined by the Committee under delegated authority and are CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER on pages 2 and 3 – (Part B) of the Works and Community Committee Report No. 11/10.



PART B - ITEMS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Meeting held on 19 October 2010 RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Perram and Tagg) That the Minutes of the Works & Community Committee Meeting 10/10, held on Tuesday 19 October 2010, be confirmed. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous. 2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Tagg and Perram) That Items 3, 4 and 5, as submitted to Works and Community Committee Meeting 11/10, be dealt with in seriatim. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous. 3 COMMUNITY GARDENS REPORT AND REVISED POLICY RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Maggio and Perram) That Council adopt the Draft Community Gardens Policy. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous. 4 BUS SHELTERS - Relocated and New Location Priorities Note: Councillor Petch arrived at 4.45pm during discussion of this item.

RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Perram and Maggio) (a) That Council advise Adshel to relocate the four (4) shelters to the locations

listed in the report at their cost in accordance with the terms of the contract. (b) That Council staff liaise with Adshel to find suitable locations for another three

(3) shelter relocations from the priority ranking list to be done in accordance with the terms of the contract.



(c) That Council consider an on-going program to provide and renew seats at all

bus stops throughout the City Of Ryde when reviewing the next four year delivery cycle as part of the budget review process.

Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous. 5 MOTOR BIKE PARKING MACQUARIE PARK IN PAY AND DISPLAY AREAS RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Perram and Petch) That Council allocate on-street parking space in Macquarie Park for motor cycle parking within the pay and display areas, subject to the locations being agreed to by the Local Traffic Committee. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous.

The meeting closed at 4.50pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010.

Chairperson



2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE

File Number: GRP/10/3/001/5 - BP10/707

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, Council can determine those matters on the agenda that can be adopted without the need for any discussion. RECOMMENDATION: That the recommendations in respect of items 3 to 9 inclusive, as submitted to Works & Community Committee Meeting 12/10, be adopted with the exception of items as determined by the Council.



3 TREE MANAGEMENT REVIEW - 89 Monash Road, Gladesville

Report prepared by: Co-ordinator Natural Areas Report dated: 25 November 2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/5 - BP10/715

INSPECTION

Report Summary At Council Meeting No. 17/10, dated 9 November 2010 the following was resolved: That any tree that is subject to a safety evaluation within the City of Ryde as a

result of a complaint or an application be subject to a report to the Works & Community Committee for determination. This includes but is not limited to trees which could be classified as at risk to human life and/or infrastructure.

As stated in their attached arborists report by Bradshaw Tree Services Pty Ltd dated 27 June 2010 “The owners have been comfortable with this tree, yet the problem with this tree that has lead to this report being written is that the owner wants to put solar on the roof of the property and he has been informed that the company will not install the solar due to this tree blocking the majority of the sunlight.” Under the current City of Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 9.6: Tree Preservation it is not considered a valid reason to remove a tree to increase natural light. Due to the maturity, prominence, habitat value and overall heath of the Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) it is recommended that the request for removal be declined and that pruning to remove deadwood as stated in Councils letter of 7 August 2010 be granted. This should reduce any potential of damage and relieve some of the initial concerns. Ongoing care and maintenance of the tree should be undertaken to ensure the longevity of the tree and reduce danger to persons or property. RECOMMENDATION: That the request for removal be declined and that pruning to remove deadwood as stated in Councils letter of 7 August 2010 be granted.

Works and Community Committee Report ITEM 3 (continued)


ATTACHMENTS 1 Original Tree Management Application 16 Pages2 Letter from owner of 98 Monash Road 6 Pages 3 Letter of support 1 Page Report Prepared By: Adam Smith Co-ordinator Natural Areas Report Approved By: Simon Harrison Manager Open Space Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background A Tree Management Application No.TMA2OIO/0369 (ATTACHED) was received at Council on the 27 July 2010 for the removal of one (1) Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) located on the property of 89 Monash Road, Gladesville. The owners of 98 Monash Road stated on their application that the tree posed a danger to their neighbours and themselves (see application for full details). The application also contained an Arborists report from Bradshaw Tree Services Pty Ltd. The Arborists report by Bradshaw Tree Services Pty Ltd dated 27 June 2010 states: “The initial inspection of this tree has revealed that this tree is in excellent health, but fair condition. The tree has normal foliage cover, colour and density with minimal dead wood throughout the canopy of the tree. However this tree has dropped a number of branches over the years. I have inspected this tree on a regular occurrence over the last 7 years and over that time this tree has dropped branches ranging from a diameter of 30mm to 130mm. This is why a large portion of the tree has been pruned away from the house to prevent any limb failure onto the roof of the property. The tree has grown considerably larger over the last 5 years and the larger this tree gets the higher the potential for a larger limb to fail from this tree and do serious damage. It has been reported to me that the tree is located directly over sewer for the property and that it has been causing problems. The owners have retained this tree for as long as possible reducing the threat when possible. The owners have been comfortable with this tree, yet the problem with this tree that has lead to this report being written is that the owner wants to put solar on the roof of the property and he has been informed that the company will not install the solar due to this tree blocking the majority of the sunlight. In this situation pruning the tree will not create a solution. It is requested that this tree be removed because this tree will grow to be too large for its position, has a history of limb failure, is situated over the sewer for the property and the owner cannot have solar cells installed while this tree remains.” Under the current City Of Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 9.6: Tree Preservation it is not considered a valid reason to remove a tree to increase natural light. Council will also not consider the removal of trees that have entered a drainage or sewer system where the system is found to be in poor condition or in disrepair.



A City of Ryde Tree Management Officer inspected the tree on 29 July 2010. At the time of inspection it was determined that, under the provisions of the Tree Preservation Order and Tree Management Policy, insufficient reason had been provided for the removal of this tree. For these reasons permission to remove this tree was denied, as outlined in the letter 7 August 2010. Permission however was granted to undertake pruning to remove deadwood as described under Clause 7.2.2 of Australian Standard 4373-2007 ‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’. The owners had requested on their application that they be contact at the time of inspection. The Council Officer did ring the owners at the time of inspection by did not get an answer. The Officer also knocked on the door but did not get a reply. As Council’s Tree Management Officers assess approximately four to six Tree Management Applications a day (1057 per year) it is not possible and not standard practice to meet the applicant’s onsite for all applications. Report At Council Meeting No. 17/10, dated 9 November 2010 the following was resolved:

That any tree that is subject to a safety evaluation within the City of Ryde as a result of a complaint or an application be subject to a report to the Works & Community Committee for determination. This includes but is not limited to trees which could be classified as at risk to human life and/or infrastructure.

“Collectively and individually trees contribute to the appeal and quality of life in Ryde. Trees contribute to a healthy and biologically diverse environment by providing elements such as shelter for fauna, climate control, and a positive contribution to the streetscape. Therefore, the retention of trees is very important. However, effective management of trees as a natural resource recognises that the long-term retention of trees depends upon appropriate tree location, species selection and maintenance” (page 3, Development Control Plan 2010, Part: 9.6 Tree Preservation). A further letter was received by Council Officers on the 25 November 2010 (ATTACHED) from the owners of 89 Monash Road outlining their issues and request to remove the tree. A letter of support (ATTACHED) was also received from a neighbour. No other information has been received. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable



Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options The tree be removed. Conclusion Under the current City Of Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 9.6: Tree Preservation it is not considered a valid reason to remove a tree to increase natural light. The tree was found to be in excellent health, but fair condition. “A large portion of the tree has been pruned away from the house to prevent any limb failure onto the roof of the property” (Bradshaw Tree Services Pty Ltd, 27 June 2010). As stated in their attached arborists report by Bradshaw Tree Services Pty Ltd dated 27 June 2010 “The owners have been comfortable with this tree, yet the problem with this tree that has lead to this report being written is that the owner wants to put solar on the roof of the property and he has been informed that the company will not install the solar due to this tree blocking the majority of the sunlight.” Under the current City Of Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 9.6: Tree Preservation it is not considered a valid reason to remove a tree to increase natural light. Due to the maturity, prominence, habitat value and overall heath of the Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) it is recommended that the request for removal be declined and that pruning to remove deadwood as stated in Councils letter of 7 August 2010 be granted. This should reduce any potential of damage and relieve some of the initial concerns. Ongoing care and maintenance of the tree should be undertaken to ensure the longevity of the tree and reduce danger to persons or property.



4 TREE MANAGEMENT REVIEW - 29 Cox's Road, North Ryde


INSPECTION

Report Summary At Council Meeting No. 17/10, dated 9 November 2010 the following was resolved:


An undated Notice of Intent was handed to Council Officers on the 25 November 2010 for the removal of one (1) Sydney Blue Gum and one (1) White Stringy Bark. As the Notice of Intent has been requested to go to the Works and Community Committee for determination the trees have not been inspected by Council Officers. It is recommended that the adopted tree assessment process of 2001 be followed. RECOMMENDATION: That the adopted tree assessment process of 2001 be followed. ATTACHMENTS 1 Notice of Intent 6 Pages Report Prepared By: Adam Smith Co-ordinator Natural Areas Report Approved By: Simon Harrison Manager Open Space Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background A Notice of Intent was received at Council on the 29 February 2008 (ATTACHED) for the removal of one (1) Sydney Blue Gum and one (1) White Stringy Bark. The application stated that the Sydney Blue Gum was located 2.4 metres from the sewer line and the White Stringy Bark was located 2.1 metres from the sewer. It also stated that the “trees and their roots are a threat to the sewer line which is clearly demonstrated by displaced ground and growing roots where the sewer line runs”. No other information was found on this application.

Report At Council Meeting No. 17/10, dated 9 November 2010 the following was resolved:


An undated Notice of Intent was handed to Council Officers on the 25 November 2010 (ATTACHED) for the removal of one (1) Sydney Blue Gum and one (1) White Stringy Bark. The application stated that the Sydney Blue Gum was located 2.4 metres from the sewer line and the White Stringy Bark was located 2.1 metres from the sewer. It also stated that “these two trees and their roots are a threat to the sewer line which is clearly demonstrated by displaced ground and growing roots where the sewer line runs”. No other information has been submitted on this application. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met.



Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. These Other Options As the Notice of Intent has been requested to go to the Works and Community Committee for determination the trees have not been inspected by Council Officers. Conclusion Under the current City Of Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 9.6: Tree Preservation Council may take into consideration the following points:

• The damage or potential damage the tree may cause in accordance with the following:

o The tree, its trunk, or its root system is causing damage to a structure and the damage cannot be controlled by measures such as the installation of a root barrier;

o The tree is damaging other property, retaining walls and the like, and root pruning or modification of the property cannot stop further damage;

o Council will not consider the removal of trees that have entered a drainage or sewer system where the system is found to be in poor condition or in disrepair.

As the Notice of Intent has been requested to go to the Works and Community Committee for determination the trees have not been inspected by Council Officers.



5 TREE MANAGEMENT REVIEW - 27 Darcy Street, Marsfield


INSPECTION

Report Summary At Council Meeting No. 17/10, dated 9 November 2010 the following was resolved:


A Tree Management Application No.TMA2010/ 0452 (ATTACHED) was received at Council on the 10 September 2010 for the removal of one (1) Cupressus sempervirens (Cypress Pine) located on the property of 27 Darcy Street, Marsfield. A further Review of Determination (ATTACHED) was lodged on the 11 November 2010 with the addition of a letter from the owner of 27 Darcy Street. This Review of Determination has not been completed. It is recommended that the adopted tree assessment process of 2001 be followed and that the tree be assessed by Councils qualified arborist Tree Management Officers.. RECOMMENDATION: That the adopted tree assessment process of 2001 be followed. ATTACHMENTS 1 27 Darcy Street TMA and Review 21 Pages Report Prepared By: Adam Smith Co-ordinator Natural Areas Report Approved By: Simon Harrison Manager Open Space Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background A Tree Management Application No.TMA2010/ 0452 (ATTACHED) was received at Council on the 10 September 2010 for the removal of one (1) Cupressus sempervirens (Cypress Pine) located on the property of 27 Darcy Street, Marsfield. The owners of 27 Darcy Street stated on their application that the “tree is dangerous – over the last few years several large limbs greater than tree metres in length have broken off and fallen into the backyard next to the close line. It overhangs two adjoining properties including a swimming pool, our cloths line. When hanging or retrieving washing you have to be constantly alert to the creaks and groans especially on windy days”. The application also contained an Arborists report from Naturally Trees Arboricultural Consulting. A City of Ryde Tree Management Officer inspected the tree on 14 September 2010. At the time of inspection it was determined that, under the provisions of the Tree Preservation Order and Tree Management Policy, insufficient reason had been provided for the removal of this tree. For these reasons permission to remove this tree was denied, as outlined in the letter 15 September 2010. Permission however was granted to undertake pruning to remove deadwood as described under Clause 7.2.2 of Australian Standard 4373-2007 ‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’. Report At Council Meeting No. 17/10, dated 9 November 2010 the following was resolved:


A further Review of Determination REV2007/0007 (ATTACHED) was lodged on the 11 November 2010 with the addition of a letter from the owner of 27 Darcy Street. This Review of Determination has not been completed as a request was received by Councillor Perram that the matter be referred to the Works and Community Committee. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable



City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. These Other Options The tree be removed. Conclusion A further Review of Determination (ATTACHED) was lodged on the 11 November 2010 with the addition of a letter from the owner of 27 Darcy Street. This Review of Determination has not been completed. It is recommended that the adopted tree assessment process of 2001 be followed and that the tree be assessed by Councils qualified arborist Tree Management Officers.



6 BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MEETING HELD 18 OCTOBER 2010

Report prepared by: Manager Access Report dated: 18/11/2010 File No.: GRP/10/1/001/5 - BP10/694

Report Summary To present the Minutes of the Meeting of the Bicycle Advisory Committee held on 18 October 2010 and for Council to consider adopting the recommendations requiring Council resolution as discussed in the report. RECOMMENDATION: That Council urge the RTA and their contractor Leightons to update the M2 Alternative Cycle Route Road Safety Audit (June 2010) as recommended by the Ryde Bicycle Advisory Committee and to incorporate the associated measures into the works. ATTACHMENTS 1 BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Minutes of Meeting held 18 October 2010 Report Prepared By: Anthony Ogle Manager Access Report Approved By: Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Background The Bicycle Advisory Committee held a Meeting on 18 October. This Committee holds six (6) Ordinary Meetings per annum to allow input from the local community and to make recommendations to Council relating to cycling issues, initiatives and proposals. Report The Minutes of the Bicycle Advisory Committee held on 18 October 2010 are ATTACHED. A Committee item was the Lucinda Street Bridge (Shrimptons Creek) where members recommended that the existing two (2) white bollards on the bridge approach, be removed as they did not appear to serve a “safety” function. This will be done as an operational works item. Matters requiring resolution of Council: There is one matter which requires resolution of Council, which relates to the M2 Alternative Cycle Route. The Committee members recommended that the proponents’ contractor (Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd) update the current Bicycle Road Safety Audit (June 2010) to cover : • An off-road shared path at the intersection of Agincourt Road / Herring Road /

Kent Road; • 90 degree parking along Cox’s Road in front of shops and businesses covering

199 to 203 Cox’s Road to be “front to kerb only”; • Supplementary signs be installed at the front of 90 degree parking spaces

stipulating “watch for cyclists”; and • Final drawings are submitted to Council covering the above point(s). With the inclusion of these, the expectation would be that the RTA would require Leighton’s to implement these the measures: Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable



External public consultation included:- • Not applicable Comments As this is a report on the Advisory Committee meeting, consultations are not required. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact for Council. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options The matter requiring Council resolution, being the M2 alternative cycle route, has the option for the Committee to not make the request to update the safety audit and forego the measures that would be expected to follow from that. Conclusion The report provides to Council via this Committee the advice of the Bicycle Advisory Committee.



7 ROUNDABOUT NORTH ROAD AT INTERSECTION WITH WILLOW CRESCENT AND CLERMONT AVENUE


Report Summary To confirm proceeding with traffic facility project in the 20010/11 Capital Works Program of constructing a roundabout at the intersection of North Road with Willow Crescent and Clermont Avenue to the original double annulus configuration. RECOMMENDATION: That Council proceed with finalising the design and construction of the roundabout at the intersection of North Road with Willow Crescent and Clermont Avenue to the original double annulus configuration. ATTACHMENTS 1 NORTH WILLOW ROUNDABOUT DOUBLE ANNULUS Report Prepared By: Anthony Ogle Manager Access Report Approved By: Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works

Works and Community Committee Report Item 7 (continued)


Background The project to install a roundabout at the location was recommended to Council through the Local Traffic Committee of 29th October 2009. The Committee considered several options with the preferred one being a double annulus (bean shape) to deal with the acute angles and offset arms of the intersection. The configuration was agreed subject to the results of a resident survey, which was presented to the Council via the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Council meeting of 17th November 2009 subsequently adopted by Council. The project was included in the 2010/11 capital works program with a budget to cover the configuration. During the design phase for the project, it was identified that the configuration carried a high probability of traffic from the side streets (i.e. willow and Clermont) driving over the annulus. Although intended to be mountable to allow larger vehicles to negotiate the roundabout, routinely driving over the annulus is not desirable. The project has evolved and design and consultation done so far on a single annulus. This would be cheaper to construct, reducing the estimated project cost by about $50,000 from $150,000, and reduce the frequency of the annulus being driven over. This configuration has been approved by the Local Traffic Committee members. However, on the driveability of the design has found that in addition to the residents who were originally opposed to the roundabout, there are now more residents who have issue with the facility due to the problems with right turn exits from the side streets resulting from the single annulus. Report A letter box distribution was done to 87 households covering Willow Crescent, Clermont St around to and including Jennifer St, and North Rd from Heath St to Eulo Pde, advising of the project and seeking their comments. The area of distribution was slighter larger than the original consultation of 81 households. Subsequent to this multiple site meetings were held with resident who raised concerns, endeavouring to adjust the design to accommodate those concerns. Following from the re-construction of section of the kerb and resurfacing the road in preparation for the annulus, the road was marked with the size and location of the annulus so that drivers could physically assess the driveability of the configuration proposed. A survey seeking information on this was distributed tot same original 87 households. This survey shows there are 14 resident objecting to the roundabout being installed at all, with all except 2 of those from Clermont Ave and Jennifer St. As this is an increase from when Council agreed to the project, the single annulus configuration is now being re-assessed. Although it would be cheaper, it is not able to achieve the same outcome in terms of community acceptance.



Accordingly, the original double annulus will now be pursued to finalise the design and construction. The configuration is shown in ATTACHMENT 1, which shows the right turn movements from the side streets can be executed by driving between the annuli to deal with the sharp angle of the intersection. The original recommendation to Council for the facility justified the roundabout on the basis of reducing the incidence and degree of speeding along North Rd which would allow better egress from the side streets and improve safety. As these factors have not changed, and there has always some resident opposition to the roundabout that was factored into the decision to install the roundabout, it is considered acceptable to proceed with the project on the basis of the original configuration. It is noted that the intersection has been improved by the pavement resurfacing and reconstruction of the dish drain across the entrance of Willow Cres. However, these improvements do not impact on traffic speeds on North Rd and the difficulties for egress from the side streets, which is the main reason for the roundabout. In proceeding with the design and construction with a double annulus, the 87 households would be advised of the decision and given a further opportunity to provide feedback on the design details of that configuration. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Traffic Committee External public consultation included:- • Residents around the facility most affected by the roundabout. • There have been multiple site meetings with various residents who have raised

concerns about the roundabout. Comments The consultation is discussed earlier in the report as it is a critical element of the report.



Critical Dates Although there are no critical dates or deadlines to be met, the project is substantially underway with construction of the kerbs and pavement for the intersection having already been done. There is a broader community expectation that projects are completed without a significant break in works and within the financial year planned. Financial Impact The funds for the project are already allocated in the current capital works program Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options The alternatives would be to either not proceed with construction any annulus so that there is not a roundabout, or re-consider the alternative facilities and devices covered in the original Traffic Committee report such as speed platforms Conclusion The modification of the annulus design for the roundabout has created an increase in the number of residents concerned or opposing the roundabout. As the decision to construct the roundabout was made cognisant of a certain level of opposition, it is recommended the design proceed based on the original configuration as that preserves the community viewpoint on the facility.



8 SIGHTLINES FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS


Report Summary Council receives requests from residents to install parking restrictions around their driveway to improve their ability to see oncoming traffic and enter the roadway. These parking restrictions often require the removal of on street parking outside other properties, and are often not agreed by the neighbours when consulted on the issue. As on street parking is a widespread and valuable amenity within the road network, any consistent approach of restricting on street parking to make driveway exiting easier would create a precedent that incrementally and significantly affects this amenity. RECOMMENDATION: That any requests for on street parking restrictions to increase sightlines for egress from driveways be advised that Council does not support this measure as it does not consistently or equitably address the loss of on street parking for other residents and road users. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Anthony Ogle Manager Access Report Approved By: Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Background Requests have recently been received for new or increased parking restrictions in front of neighbouring properties to improve drivers’ line of sight at :

• 188-190 Balaclava Road, Marsfield • units at No. 58 Doomben Avenue, Eastwood • units at 1-3 Beazley Street, Ryde.

These requests are awaiting a reply, so that a consistent response can be given to these and all future requests of this nature. Report The practice has been to consult the residents of properties affected by the restrictions. Where there has been agreement, the restriction has been installed. However, there has been no review mechanism, and incrementally the approval of parking restrictions can reduce the availability of on-street parking. In all likelihood all driveways along a street have similar issues, it is just that only some residents have requested the assistance of the parking restriction so far, and if all residents requested similar treatment then on street parking would disappear. It is also noted that in the case where vehicles are parked either side of a driveway the Australian Road Rules (rule 74) places the onus on the driver exiting the property driveway to “giveway to any pedestrian crossing, giveway to all vehicles in the road into which the driver is turning and wait until it is safe to enter the traffic flow.” Experience with previous consultations is that the affected residents are reluctant to give up access to the convenience of their on-street parking, and many requests are not agreed to. As a result, the potential for antagonism between neighbours has been set, with both looking to Council to resolve what is an “un-winnable” situation. Council’s Traffic Engineers investigating the requests have also found that in a majority of cases the driver could exit their driveway safely if they manoeuvred their vehicles cautiously and/or an alternative counter measures like painting perpendicular lines at the edge of the driveway layback is used to keep the full driveway unobstructed. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Regulatory Services Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable



External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Comments As this is a decision that provides a consistent approach for managing parking and driveway access across the local government area, the only choice is to whether to agree with this proposal or rely on a case by case consultation. In the case of a uniform approach, no action is proposed rather a consistent explanation is provided. Wide scale consultation is not considered appropriate. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications The adoption of the recommendation would become part of “policy” with regard to the management of on street parking and traffic management. Other Options The alternative would be continue with the current practice of investigating each request on a case by case basis and relying on agreement of affected property owners. Conclusion A consistent approach to not agreeing to these types of requests is considered better than relying on the agreement of residents of affected properties



9 TRAFFIC MATTERS PRESENTED TO RYDE LOCAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE HELD 28 OCTOBER 2010

Report prepared by: Senior Traffic Engineer; Manager Access Report dated: 18/11/2010 File No.: GRP/10/1/001/5 - BP10/697

Report Summary The Ryde Local Traffic Committee (LTC) is a technical advisory committee which advises on and approves matters referred to it by Council where Council is considering exercising its delegations from the RTA for traffic control measures. The Minutes of the Ryde LTC Meeting held on 28 October 2010 are distributed to Councillors and made available on Council’s web site once confirmed by the LTC. This report advises the approval (or not) and requirements of the items presented to the LTC and provides further discussion and recommendations on how Council may proceed with the proposed traffic control measures. The recommendations to this Committee are for those items that specifically require a Council resolution. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Parramatta City Council be advised that City of Ryde has no objections to

the proposed double barrier centre lines in Wingate Ave Eastwood. (b) The Council regulate the direction of thirty (30) perpendicular parking spaces on

the southern side of Cox’s Road in the town centre to “front to kerb”. (c) That Council install double barrier centrelines at the bend where Stansell Street

changes name to Concord Place and associated “No Parking” on the inside of the bend.

(d) That Council proceed with the roundabout at Shaftsbury Road and Glen Street

Eastwood on the basis of the design agreed by the Local Traffic Committee including any requirements of the RTA.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Harry Muker Senior Traffic Engineer Anthony Ogle Manager Access Report Approved By: Terry Dodds Group Manager - Public Works



Background The matters reported to the LTC meeting were: Parking Restrictions: • Progress Avenue, Eastwood • Wingate Avenue, Eastwood • Cox’s Road, North Ryde (south side) • Stansell Street/Concord Place, Gladesville • Badajoz Road and Twin Road, East Ryde Traffic Facilities: • Roundabout Shaftsbury Road and Glen Street, Eastwood Report The details of the proposed measures relating to each situation are described in the individual reports items to the LTC. A discussion of each item follows. Disabled Parking Zones - Progress Avenue, Eastwood The proposal was to convert the existing sub standard three (3) contiguous disabled spaces to two (2) complying length spaces, to which the LTC agreed. As this change is a compliance issue, implementation has been arranged an operational works matter. The proposal also included substituting an additional disabled zone into the time restricted parking on the other side of the street near the intersection. The LTC recommended against this until an assessment of the number and location spread of all the disabled zones through the town centre was done so that the distribution of these spaces is appropriately done. Double Barrier Centre Lines - Wingate Avenue, Eastwood This road is on the border with Parramatta City Council, who have requested Ryde’s concurrence to the centre line to deal with vehicles cutting the apex of the curve creating a safety problem with oncoming vehicles. This measure does not affect parking on the inside of the apex within the Ryde local government area as the parking is perpendicular and within indented bays. The LTC agreed to the proposal. Direction of Perpendicular Parking - Cox’s Road, North Ryde (south side) The proposal was to change the current unregulated direction of thirty (30) perpendicular parking spaces on the southern side to “front to kerb”. The reasoning is to improve the amenity for the outdoor footpath dining areas that Council has licensed, and normally Council would agree to or instigate controlling parking in this manner. The RTA representative provided a copy of "Table 7.2: Relative merits of front-in versus tail-in parking" from the "Guide to Traffic Management - Part 11: Parking" to the Traffic Committee for Council's consideration upon making their final decision.



The LTC noted that although the M2 alternative Bike Route passes along these spaces, the safety audit done by the RTA’s contractor had determined that the risk for front to kerb parking in this area is acceptable. The LTC agreed to the proposal. Stansell Street/Concord Place, Gladesville The proposal is to install double barrier centrelines at the bend where Stansell Street changes name to Concord Place. The road is narrow and the bend is sharp and greater than 30 degrees, with problems of vehicles navigating the apex creating conflict with vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. This proposal includes the need to restrict parking on the inside of the curve to ensure the statutory clearance between the lines and parking on the outside of the bend, using “No Stopping” given the need to keep the reduced width clear. At present there is parking on both sides with insufficient room for cars to pass on the remaining clear central area. This is a major traffic safety risk and can only be dealt with by either making the street one way or introducing the centrelines and parking controls as proposed. The LTC agreed to the proposal. East Ryde Public School - Badajoz Road and Twin Road, East Ryde This matter was reported firstly to the Works Committee of 19 October 2010 to determine Council’s position and seek LTC advice. The LTC agreed with Council’s proposal to manage the Twin Road entrance to the school as the primary entrance, and to liaise with the school including its P&C to provide improved Kiss and Ride parking. The LTC also agreed to adjust the bus zones in Twin Road subject to direct agreement with Sydney Buses and the RTA to enable adjustments to the parking. Generally the adjustment of bus zones is implemented directly through Sydney buses and RTA concurrence as an operational issue rather than specific adoption via Council report. In this case the zones are not outside residential properties and a consultation process is in place which includes the school’s P&C requesting the change, the matter will be dealt with operationally. With regard to the No Parking across the frontage 37 Badajoz Road or just the driveway across this property, the LTC advice was to proceed only with perpendicular lines marking the edge of the driveway to encourage it to be kept clear at all times. The reasoning was that the problem being dealt with is prevalent around schools and the precedent issues of moving straight to the restrictions would become a significant creating a potentially costly and difficult to enforce regime of additional signage and controls. A further report to this Committee will be forthcoming once the LTC has agreed to the final details of the changed regulatory controls that will be developed in consultation with the school.



Roundabout Shaftsbury Road and Glen Street, Eastwood Council’s 2010/11 Capital Works Program has listed construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Shaftsbury Road and Glen Street Eastwood. The roundabout is identified in the “Eastwood Town Centre – Transport Management and Access Plan” as an integral component within the “Traffic Management Plan” study report undertaken by Cardno Eppell Olsen in 2008 for the City of Ryde (Section 16.0 Recommended Traffic Management Plan – T5) to improve vehicle priority and minimise intersection accidents. The RTA provided confirmation in June 2010 that the roundabout has been successful in receiving 100% Federal Funding under the “Nation Building Program”. A configuration plan has been consulted with the surrounding residents to take into account any issues raised as much as practical, particularly driveways, and was discussed at the LTC meeting. There are two (2) property owners remaining who do not want the roundabout, with one of these making a personal presentation at the LTC meeting. Their concerns relate to loss of right turn access into their driveway. Although the design enabled this, both they and the RTA felt it too high a risk of confusion and possible rear end collision. The RTA accordingly require the design to be modified to have solid splitter islands to prevent the turn. However, this has increased the resident's objections as they would be required to alter travel routes to approach from only one direction to do a left turn in. Some other residents have flagged conditional support on the basis of the following being included such as alternatives to the loss of three (3) unrestricted on-street parking spaces being provided along Glen Street (closest to Shaftsbury Road) in close proximity to the business. The Committee agreed to these changes being incorporated into the design. Council also received correspondence from three (3) residents in Shaftsbury Road who are not directly affected by the proposal confirming their objection to the roundabout in general. As the loss of some kerb side parking around intersections and restricted access for properties adjacent to the intersection is intrinsic to roundabouts, they are not considered sufficient to warrant not proceeding with the roundabout as this issue was part of Council's deliberation in resolving to construct the roundabout in the first place. The RTA's required changed as well as the requested alternative parking changes will be reflected in a revised plan that will be distributed to the residents which will include notification of Council's intent with the project.



Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Regulatory Services. Internal Workshops held:- • Not applicable. City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included as required:- • Bicycle Advisory Committee for the relevant items. External public consultation included:- • NSW Police, RTA, STA, relevant Local Members of Parliament and community

organisations, through the LTC • Directly affected community on specific items as indicated. Comments Any consultation done for items is included in the discussion above. Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: The construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Shaftsbury Road / Glen Street must be completed by 30 June, 2011 to receive Federal funding under the National Black Spot program. Financial Impact All other items (apart from the Shaftsbury Road / Glen Street roundabout) will be covered under the operating budget for traffic facilities and signage. The Shaftsbury Road / Glen Street roundabout is currently listed in Council’s 2010 – 2011 Capital Works Program under the category “Traffic Facilities (NEW)”. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through the adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Other options (where considered) are listed under each report as appropriate. Conclusion The items requiring Council resolution to proceed have a recommendation based on the discussion with each item. The other items presented to the LTC can be dealt with operationally as covered within the relevant item.

works and community committee · 2016. 1. 20. · works and community committee report page 2...

Documents