Tennyson Road Pedestrian Pathway Community Consultation

13 August - 3 September 2018

Online Community Engagement Software

Tennyson Road Pedestrian Pathway Consultation

FAQS

The community was encouraged to provide feedback during the consultation period of 13 August to 3 September (5pm) 2018 via the online survey or sending a submission via email.

 

Additionally, community members were invited to discuss the community consultation outcomes and a preferred design option with Mayor Angelo Tsirekas and council staff on Wednesday 5 September at 6.30pm in the Community Hall, 50 Village Drive, Breakfast Point.

Council assesses both the quantitative and qualitative feedback provided by the community. Ultimately, Council will proceed with the option which is most favoured by the community based on the feedback assessment.
Yes, Option 1, will require the removal of 10 parking spaces and Option 2, will require the removal of 7 parking spaces. Option 3 does not result in any parking loss.
Paperbark tree, any of several small trees belonging to the genus Melaleuca, in the myrtle family (Myrtaceae), characterized by their whitish papery bark. They are native to Australia and nearby islands.

Melaleuca quinquenervia, also called punk tree and tea tree, grows to a height of 8 metres (25 feet); it has spongy white bark that peels off in thin layers. M. leucadendron, also called river tea tree, is sometimes confused with the former; its leaves provide cajeput oil, used for medicinal purposes in parts of the Orient. The common name swamps paperbark is applied to M. ericifolia, which often grows in clumps, and to M. rhaphiophylla. These shrubs and small trees are sometimes cultivated in warm areas for their whitish to yellowish terminal flower clusters.
Extracted from Encyclopedia Britannica
 
The eight trees assessed contain somewhat low retention values where tree anchorage, root zone conflicts and structural faults are likely to become problematic within the short term (5-15 years), with increased risk within the midterm (15+ years).
 
  • Tree 1: Somewhat low retention value due to basal pathogen or viral infection
  • Tree 2: Viable tree with no foreseeable issues within the risk assessment period.
  • Tree 3: Somewhat low retention value due to anchoring root condition & tree lean
  • Tree 4: Low retention value due to anchoring root condition, tree lean & main stem junction fault
  • Tree 5: Low retention value due to structural fault of main branch bark inclusion
  • Tree 6: Low retention value due to poor radial anchoring root development and structural fault of main branch bark inclusion
  • Tree 7: Low retention value due to structural fault of main branch bark inclusion
  • Tree 8: Viable tree with no foreseeable issues within the risk assessment period
 
Notes:
Tree 2: In age progression the three main stem junctions may become problematic as stem inclusions are considered a weak fault having the ability to fail (split apart).
Tree 8: In age progression the stem inclusion at 3m may become a problematic as stem inclusions are considered a weak fault having the ability to fail (split apart).

The trees are estimated to be 45-50 years old.