Notice of Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

bsc_logo_150dpi_rgb

 

 

 

Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting

 

 

A Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting of Byron Shire Council will be held as follows:

 

Venue

Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby

Date

Thursday, 3 March 2016

Time

2.00pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip Holloway

Director Infrastructure Services                                                                  I2016/158

                                                                                                                       Distributed 25/02/16

 

 


CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§  The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§  The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a)   the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b)   the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§  If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§  Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§  Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§  A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§  The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a)   at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b)   at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to  the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§  It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§  Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§  Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§  Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1)   In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a)   including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b)   not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2)   The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3)   For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4)   Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5)   This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting

 

 

BUSINESS OF MEETING

 

1.    Apologies

2.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

3.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

3.1       Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2015

4.    Business Arising From Previous Minutes

5.    Staff Reports

Infrastructure Services

5.1       Status report on 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program........................ 4

5.2       Capital Renewal and Maintenance of Rural Drainage Assets........................... 8

5.3       Level of Service - Sealed Road Network......................................................... 14

5.4       Update Report on Restoration of 2012 & 2013 Landslips............................... 31

5.5       Update report about Federal Drive, Goonengerry........................................... 34

5.6       Quality Control in Road Construction Works and Pothole Filling ................... 42   

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                           5.1

 

 

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

 

  Report No. 5.1           Status report on 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program

Directorate:                  Infrastructure Services

Report Author:            Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No:                         I2015/1503

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

This report provides a summary of the status of the implementation of the overall 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program and its individual projects.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes that the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee notes the actions taken to implement the 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program as at 15/2/16, e2016/9116 , page 7  

 

 


 

Report

 

A status report was presented to the CIAC on 3 December 2015 and the recommendation of the Committee was:

 

That Council notes that the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee notes the actions taken to implement the 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program.

 

A separate status report on the Federal Drive, Goonengerry project is also presented to this CIAC Meeting.

 

1.   2015/16 Construction Program

 

The attached Gantt chart (E2016/9116) details the 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program sorted by work type and then supervisor as at 15 February 2016.

 

At this stage, the works proposed to be undertaken by contract and not Council staff include:

·    bitumen reseal works

·    concrete roundabout at Lawson/Massinger Street, Byron Bay

·    intersection upgrade at Broken Head Road/Clifford Street, Suffolk Park

 

Other projects may be added to this list depending upon the scope, extent of and type of work of the individual projects and the progress of Council staff and subcontractors in delivering their nominated projects.

 

It should be noted that Council holds formal periodic contracts for:

1.   bitumen resealing

2.   asphalt works, including wearing surface and deep lift AC pavement layers

3.   supply of quarry products

4.   supply of ready mix concrete

5.   plant and equipment hire

6.   truck hire

7.   traffic control services

 

These periodic contracts will be used on individual projects in conjunction with Council staff in the overall delivery of the 2015/16 local roads capital works program.

 

There are a number of projects that are only part funded in 2015/16 with funding indicated for 2016/17 in our 10 Year Financial Plan to complete the project. 

 

These include:

·    Broken Head Road, Broken Head between Sugarcane Road and Rose Apple Place

·    intersection Broken Head Road / Clifford Street, Suffolk Park

·    intersection Lawson Street / Lighthouse Road / Massinger Street, Byron Bay

·    Bangalow Road, Hayters Hill

·    Federal Drive, Goonengerry

 

This current scenario of funding for 2016/17 may be impacted by the management budget process currently underway for 2016/17. This will be reported in draft form to Councillor’s before public exhibition of the draft integrated planning documents in April / May 2016.

 

There are also a number of projects where funding has been provided in 2015/16 to allow for project investigation, survey, design, ecological assessment, review of environmental factors, etc to be completed in advance of actual works in 2016/17 or a later financial year.


 

Works completed to date during 2015/16 by Council staff and our subcontractors include:

1.   Carpark at Station Street, Mullumbimby.

2.   Roadworks at Booyong Road, Booyong

3.   Bus bay outside Wilsons Creek Primary School

4.   Footpath works outside Mullumbimby High School

5.   Roadworks at Left Bank Road and Azalea Street, Mullumbimby

6.   Reseal preparation works for all roads.

7.   Myocum Road.

8.   Site clean up – Bayshore Drive, Byron Bay

9.   Middleton Street, Byron Bay

10. Reseals – visit 1, 2 & 3.

11. Fingal Street, Brunswick Heads

12. Two (2) lanes in bound project Shirley Street / Lawson Street, Byron Bay

13. Footpath for DoE at Wilsons Creek Primary School

14. Blackspot Project at Wilsons Creek Road, Laverty’s Gap

15. Mtce grading and construction / sealing of a section of Seven Mile Beach Road.

16. Drainage at Wordsworth Street, Byron Bay

 

 

At the time of writing this report, works currently in progress by Council staff in our subcontractors include:

1.   Tweed Valley Way, north of Jones Road

2.   Massinger St, Byron Bay – Kipling St to Carlyle St

3.   Replacement of damaged kerb and gutter program

4.   Replacement of damaged footpath program

 

Works to be undertaken in March / April 2016 include:

1.   Coolamon Scenic Dr Safer Roads project

2.   Kolora Way, Ocean Shores

3.   Broken Head Road, Suffolk Park – south of Clifford St

4.   Myocum Rd, Myocum at Barlow’s diary

 

Consultation:

 

There has been consultation within the Works Team for the preparation of this report; implementation of the 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program and the individual projects at our weekly construction meetings; periodic preconstruction meetings; and one off site and office meetings on individual projects.  This will continue throughout 2015/16.

 

Status reports of the delivery of the 2015/16 Local Roads Capital Works Program will be provided to each meeting of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee during this FY.

 

Financial Implications

 

All projects are fully funded by Council for delivery in 2015/16.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

There are no negative impacts proposed in this report.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                    5.1 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                           5.2

 

 

Report No. 5.2             Capital Renewal and Maintenance of Rural Drainage Assets

Directorate:                  Infrastructure Services

Report Author:            James Flockton, Drainage Flood Engineer

Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No:                         I2016/40

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Asset Management

 

 

Summary:

 

At Council’s Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee meeting of 10 September 2015 it was requested ‘That the Committee receive a report on the costs and benefits relating to the construction and maintenance of drainage assets in high rainfall areas where landslips have occurred in the hinterland areas’

 

The following provides that information.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee notes the report.

 

2. That the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the information in this report be used to inform future budget planning and the provision of additional funds for rural drainage assets in conjunction with funding for other asset classes.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

At Council’s Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee meeting of 10 September 2015 it was requested ‘That the Committee receive a report on the costs and benefits relating to the construction and maintenance of drainage assets in high rainfall areas where landslips have occurred in the hinterland areas’

 

Reporting Area

 

This report has considered all drainage assets outside the urban areas of the shire, i.e., all rural drainage assets.

 

The whole shire can be subject to high and intense rainfall and therefore it is difficult to split the shire up into areas that don’t receive high rainfall.

 

Landslips in the hinterland or hilly areas were requested as a particular focus for this report. However, the risk of a culvert or causeway failure or other asset due to high flows and / or scour in the flatter areas during intense rainfall is also a real risk.

 

Any catastrophic failure of an asset can close roads for long periods of time and impose access issues for the residents that use these roads to access their properties. Therefore, all rural areas have also been included in this report.

 

The assets

 

Council has various drainage related assets in rural areas, they include, sealed and unsealed roads, unlined and lined table drains, box and pipe culverts, causeways and bridges.

 

This report does not include information on bridges because they are a significant separate asset class.

 

The following details current levels of service (LOS), best practice LOS for drainage assets and risk based LOS, along with comment on how each can affect the risk of landslips or asset failures.

 

LOS based on current budgets

 

Council’s rural road & drainage maintenance budgets for 2015/16 are as follows:

 

Rural Drainage Maintenance           $   107,000

Total Road, Bridge & Drainage       $2,959,600

 

The proposed budget for financial year 2016/17 is likely to see the above budgets to increase by approximately 1.8%.

 

This LOS is low and certainly not best practice and could lead to severe damage to assets and even catastrophic asset failures.

 

Irregular resealing of sealed rural roads and / or pot holes can contribute to the risk of catastrophic asset failures occurring in hinterland areas, by allowing water to penetrate the seal and soak the road sub grade.  This makes the sub grade lose strength and become too heavy and landslips can occur.

 

Similarly irregular regrading of gravel roads can leave stormwater running in concentrated paths rather than sheet flows across the road.  This leads to erosion, increased damage to roads and increased pressure on downstream drainage assets such as culverts or causeways.  This can send water to places that allow the sub grade to become saturated causing landslips.

 

If culverts or table drains are blocked, stormwater will bypass the asset sending water where it is not designed to flow in higher volumes, causing damage to roads or other drainage assets.  This damage can cause catastrophic asset failures because they are overloaded and cannot cope.

 

Poorly maintained causeways may scour during an event or gradually over numerous events making the asset at risk of total failure during larger events.  Should total failure occur the road maybe closed for significant periods if a temporary road around the assets can’t be built quickly.

 

Some landslips are caused by poor construction practices at the time of construction or existing geological factors outside the road footprint.  In this instance improved drainage maintenance will not prevent a landslip from occurring, but it could reduce the severity of the landslip and/or extend the timeframes in which it occurs.

 

Completing regular maintenance cleaning and minor repairs to all drainage assets will reduce the chances of failure and greatly increase their useful life.  Current LOS does not allow for any repairs on failing assets and does not complete sufficient maintenance tasks.

 

Council’s budget for the capital renewal of rural drainage assets is non-existent, assets are only replaced when they catastrophically fail or failure is imminent. This again is not best practice.

 

To reduce Councils risk of road closures following heavy rainfall a percentage of all rural drainage assets in poor condition should be replaced each year.  This will prevent asset failure but also prevent damage to other assets such as roads.

 

Current LOS is not sustainable in the long term.  Assets will continue to degrade at increasing rates, which in increases the risk of catastrophic asset failures during extreme weather events.

 

LOS based on best practice

 

The following costs are based on Council crews completing all works on a regular and planned program.  The initial 2-3 years costs maybe slightly higher in order for the asset conditions to achieve a more easily maintainable level.

 

Maintenance cost

 

Road and drainage maintenance involves the correction of minor defects such as potholes, edge breaks, damaged signs, guardrail defects, missing guideposts, blocked drains, broken kerb and gutter and overgrown vegetation as the need arises.  Therefore discussion regarding road resealing and regrading can be found in the capital renewal section of this report.

 

Pot holes, edge breaks, damaged signs, guardrail defects, missing guideposts and overgrown vegetation are currently resolved when they occur, because of the hazard they create and they are visually obvious. Therefore, current LOS for these tasks is generally considered suitable, given current funding levels.

 

Maintenance of drainage infrastructure is not resolved as quickly or at all, mainly because it is not so visually obvious and is not considered such a high hazard.  Although poorly maintained drainage infrastructure can be highly hazardous to road users and may increase the risk of catastrophic asset failures.

 

The preferred maintenance frequency for shoulder grading is every 2 years.  There is no available best practice manual on this activity.  The target frequency is based on a review of previous reseals and reconstruction projects over the last 5 years to ascertain how long a road shoulder provides an adequate level of service after grading.  For the purposes of this report and ease of costing a rate of 50% of unlined table drains per year has been adopted.

 

Lined table drains such as kerb and gutter or V-drains should be cleaned out using a street sweeper and crew at a rate of 100% of assets per year.

 

Box culverts should be inspected and cleaned to ensure they are 100% clear of debris at a rate of 100% of assets per annum.  Additionally $20,000 should be available per annum to make minor repairs to the culvert following inspections.  This will help the asset reach its design life and not fail early.

 

Pipe culverts should be inspected and cleaned to ensure they are 100% clear of debris at a rate of 50% of assets per annum.  Additionally $20,000 should be available per annum to make minor repairs to the culvert following inspections.  This will help the asset reach its design life and not fail early.

 

Causeways should be inspected and cleaned to ensure they are 100% clear of debris at a rate of 100% of assets per annum.  Additionally $20,000 should be available per annum to make minor repairs to the causeways following inspections.  This will help the asset reach its design life and not fail early.

 

The table below provides costing’s for the above best practice maintenance frequencies.

 

Asset

Amount

Unit

Cost per maintenance visit

Amount maintained each year

Annual maintenance cost per asset class

Unlined table drains

392

Km

$8000 / km

196km

$1,568,000

Lined table drains

4.2

Km

$4000 / km

4.2km

$16,800

Box culverts

81

Number

$1000

81

$81,000

Pipe culverts

1308

Number

$1000

654

$654,000

Causeways

85

Number

$1000

85

$85,000

Total cost per annum

$2,404,800

 

It is noted that the clearing of culverts and table drains at the above frequencies is not sufficient to prevent all blockages.  Debris loads in the Byron hinterland is significant and ongoing.  Cleaning three to four times per year would achieve this; however, it is unfeasible and not practical to offer such a high level of service.

 

Maintenance service levels as recommend would significantly reduce Councils capital renewal liability. It would reduce pot hole repairs, allow reseals and regrades to last longer and more importantly reduce Councils risk of catastrophic asset failures during heavy rainfall and flood events.

 

Capital Renewal costs.

 

The following discusses best practice capital renewal frequencies for rural road and drainage assets. The table below details the likely costs for Council to achieve the recommended frequencies.

 

Unsealed rural roads required frequency for light and heavy grading is variable as it is a function of traffic volume and environmental factors.  Some roads require 6 monthly grading while others once every 2 or 3 years.  For the purposes of this report and ease of costing a rate of 50% per year has been adopted, i.e. grading all rural roads once every 2 years on average.  If unsealed rural roads are regularly maintained reconstruction should rarely be required.

 

The Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 3: Pavement Surfacing Table 3.8 advises a typical service life for sprayed seals of 8-15 years.  For the purposes of this report and ease of costing a rate of 10% per year has been adopted.  This allows for all sealed rural roads to be resealed once every 10 years.  This period may improve if previously discussed maintenance activities are preformed regularly.

 

A reseal program as above would achieve a need to reconstruct sealed rural roads at a rate of approximately once every 50 years. To achieve this 2% of Council’s sealed rural roads need to be reconstructed each year. This would achieve a best practice capital renewal frequency.

 

Lined table drains have a life expectancy of approximately 50 years, replacement of 2% each year achieves total replacement of all assets every 50 years.  This would achieve a best practice capital renewal frequency.

 

Box culverts have a life expectancy of 50-100 years, replacement of 1% each year achieves total replacement of all assets every 81 years.

 

Pipe culverts have a life expectancy of 50-100 years, replacement of 2% each year achieves total replacement of all assets every 100 years.

 

Causeways have a life expectancy of 70-100 years, replacement of 1% each year achieves total replacement of all assets every 85 years.

 

The capital renewal frequencies discussed above are considered best practice; they would have a significant impact on reducing Council’s risk of catastrophic asset failures during heavy rainfall and flood events.

 

 

Asset

Amount

Unit

Average capital renewal cost per asset

Amount replaced each year

Annual capital renewal cost per asset class

Rural road grading

107

Km

$8,000 / km

107km

$856,000

Rural road reseal

290

Km

$48,000 / km

29km

$1,392,000

Sealed rural road reconstruction

290

Km

$500,000 / km

6km

$3,000,000

Lined table drains

4.2

Metres

$120 / m

84m

$10,080

Box culverts

81

Number

$40,000

1

$40,000

Pipe culverts

1308

Number

$15,000

13

$195,000

Causeways

85

Number

$200,000

1

$200,000

Total cost per annum

$5,593,080

 

It is noted that the above renewal rates and costs are general best practice figures, some assets may achieve longer life spans, some shorter.  Use, construction quality, maintenance levels and environmental factors can all affect the life expectancy of an asset.

 

Actual maintenance and capital renewal rates should be dictated by inspections, not budget. Therefore, the above figures would likely change year to year depending on asset conditions.

 


 

LOS based on risk and liability

 

Council’s recent work with the ‘Fit for the Future’ program provided asset maintenance and capital renewal backlog figures based on asset condition rather than best practice LOS.  This is achieves a lower level of service to best practice, while minimising Council’s risk and liabilities.  This approach is likely to be more achievable with Council’s current and projected funding levels.

 

Council’s submission for ‘Fit for the Future’ was not based on a complete condition assessments dataset for all assets, rather a percentage of each asset class.  Regular inspection of all Council assets would be needed to improve the accuracy of the backlog calculations and manage Councils real risk and liability to a satisfactory level.

 

Whilst not best practice, this LOS is an improvement on current LOS.  It is potentially feasible with proposed increases in revenue streams and will help reduce Council’s risk of catastrophic asset failure during extreme weather events.

 

Climate Change

 

Whilst rainfall predictions for the future climate are varied.  It is widely accepted that storms and floods will become more intense and dry periods could become longer.  Both create increased risks to Council assets.

 

Extended dry periods can be just as damaging to Council assets as more intense rainfall. Therefore climate change is very likely to increase the amount of catastrophic asset failure Council experiences, especially if current LOS are continued.

 

Climate change is certainly an additional reason to increase Councils maintenance and capital renewal programs.

 

Financial Implications

 

The most cost efficient method of improving Council’s rural drainage maintenance would be to have a dedicated specialist rural drainage maintenance team.  This team would gain extensive asset knowledge and become more efficient at programing and completing all the necessary tasks.

 

An increase in Council’s LOS for rural drainage assets is recommended.  The level to which service increases is dependent on available funding levels and the need to maintain all of Council’s assets, not just rural drainage related assets.

 

To minimise Council’s risk of catastrophic asset failure, increases in rural drainage maintenance has a very high priority.  This would be a better outcome using a risk based LOS and would require additional funding.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Council needs to provide reasonable and safe infrastructure, as resources and priorities permit.  Where existing infrastructure becomes known to be inadequate for any reason within the control of Council, maintenance, repair, renewal and upgrade of assets is a fundamental component of meeting Council’s obligations to its community.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                           5.3

 

 

Report No. 5.3             Level of Service - Sealed Road Network

Directorate:                  Infrastructure Services

Report Author:            Blyth Short, Acting Asset Management Coordinator  

File No:                         I2016/108

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Asset Management

 

 

Summary:

 

Sustainable Asset Management requires balancing service levels and performance with cost and risk.  To determine how a road network is performing you must consider the objectives of Road Asset Management: road safety, road condition, road use and travel time.  To measure performance you must determine what levels of service your customers expect and define technically against industry standards what the measures are.

 

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) requires Council to report on the state of the transport infrastructure and any emerging trends in terms of deterioration or improvement in those areas (ALGA, 2012, p8). Councils are asked to report on three measures used in the Customer Level of Service (LoS) these being Physical condition (Quality), Function and Capacity/ Utilisation for aggregation and reporting at the State and national level (IPWEA, 2014).  By determining levels of service with measurable performance indicators Council can report against these in their Annual Report (KPI’s) and thus provide transparency to the customer.

 

To determine the following levels of service (Technical and Customer), five other Councils have been reviewed, including neighbouring Councils.  The following tables in this report define the road pavement levels of service only. It includes the sealed road surface, signs, guardrails, and roadside barriers.  It does not include: Bridges, Footbridges, Footpaths/cycleways, Unsealed Roads, traffic control devices, car parks, retaining walls, and roadside furniture.

 

The basis for defining Performance Targets has been driven by a “Risk Based” approach to Asset Management.  At all times the priority has been to reduce and or address high risk/critical assets wherever possible.

 

It is intended that the Community are consulted via the planned Community Satisfaction Survey in June 2016 to establish defined Customer Levels of Service for the sealed road network.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee considers the draft  Levels of Service for the road network and provides feedback on a preferred  consultation approach.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

Council’s road asset management has previously been driven by funding availability and remained reactive to customer requests.  It is intended that Council shifts towards a strategic approach to effective asset management to provide greater accountability, sustainability, risk management, service management and financial efficiency.

Sustainable Asset Management requires balancing service levels and performance with cost and risk.  To determine how a road network is performing you must consider the objectives of Road Asset Management: road safety, road condition, road use and travel time.  To measure performance you must determine what levels of service your customers expect and define technically against industry standards what these measures are.

 

The following items will be explained before the levels of service are detailed in this report to ensure that there is clear understanding of the factors involved:

 

·    Levels of Service – Customer & Technical Definitions

·    Community Expectations and Perceptions

·    Road Hierarchies

·    Road Inspection Frequencies

·    Road Condition Parameters – Roughness

·    Sealed Road Condition – State of Assets

 

Levels of Service

 

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) requires Council to report on the state of their transport infrastructure and any emerging trends in terms of deterioration or improvement in those areas (ALGA, 2012, p8). Councils are asked to report on three measures used in the Customer Level of Service being Physical condition (Quality), Function and Capacity/ Utilisation for aggregation and reporting at the State and national level (IPWEA, 2014). By determining levels of service with measurable performance indicators, Council can report against these in their Annual Report (KPI’s) and thus provide transparency to the customer.

 

Table 1 - Quality, Function and Capacity/Utilisation Service Objectives, Criteria and Poor/Very Poor Descriptions (IPWEA, 2014)

 

Service

Quality

Functions

Capacity/Utilisation

Sealed Roads

Service objective – Roads are smooth, with no potholes or ponding of water and accessible at all times

Criteria – Road condition meets hierarchy requirements for condition measures.

Description of Poor and Very Poor Ratings

Poor – Condition Rating 4 eg roads are potholed, have rough ride quality, major pavement failures and access is limited at times

Very Poor – condition rating 5 eg roads are almost untrafficable, have extensive surface defects and pavement failures and access is severely constrained.

Service objective – Road network is appropriate to user’s needs

Criteria – Roads meet service hierarchy requirements for traffic volumes, design speed, width, alignment, access etc.

Description of Poor and Very Poor Ratings

Poor – road network requires major upgrade to suit users needs and or segments require major upgrades to meet appropriate hierarchy requirements for traffic volumes, design speed, width, alignment, access etc.

Very Poor  - road network requires extensive upgrade and or road segments require extensive upgrades to meet appropriate hierarchy requirements

Service objective – Sealed road capacity is appropriate to service hierarchy

Criteria – Traffic congestion and delays are minimal. Road width is appropriate to service hierarchy

Description of Poor and Very Poor Ratings

Poor – extensive traffic delays are experienced at peak times or usage is very minimal. Road is under or over designed for current use.

Very Poor – extensive traffic delays are experienced throughout the day or usage is almost zero. Road is grossly under or overdesigned for current use.

Customer levels of service consider:

·       Intangible levels of service such as staff attitudes towards complaints and their experiences when dealing with Council like regular pothole complaints

·       Tangible levels of service are the physical appearances of infrastructure or disruptions to service. They can include corrugated unsealed roads, edge breaks, or traffic jams.

·       Service criteria such as quality, quantity, availability or safety are broadly considered by customers. These could include traffic accidents relating to blind spots on corners, alternative traffic routes, or pedestrian crossings.

Technical levels of service considered by staff:

·       Condition such as roughness, rutting and texture values that can be obtained by laser profiling road networks

·       Safety can be measured by traffic fatalities, injuries or tow away data provided by Roads and Maritime Services.

·       Cost effectiveness can be measured by the budget expenditure of maintenance of potholes, reseal programs, capital renewal budgets, grading of unsealed roads annually compared to the cost benefit of sealing roads

·       Accessibility could consider access to public transport services such as buses, trains, trams, or taxis. The provision of parking facilities.  Mobility considerations and compliance with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992, for example the upgrade of bus stops to comply with the DDA to ensure mobility ramps etc are available.

 

Customer and technical levels of service are not mutually exclusive. Whilst customers generally have perceptions of customer levels of service they can also be very interested in any associated technical measures.  To determine what the customers expectations are through a consultation process with the community, the use of quantitative and qualitative survey methods need to be utilized. Performance measures and targets need to be determined to gauge improvements. 

 

Community Expectations and Perceptions

 

The benefits of community and stakeholder engagement to determine Levels of Service is discussed in the Austroads Guide to Asset Management Part 2: Community and Stakeholder Requirements, 2009. 

 

The following are the benefits for road authorities divided into two main categories:

 

Relationships:

 

·    Enhance two way community between all involved

·    Stronger working relationships

·    Shared understanding of the reasons behind decisions or actions

·    Building trust and support between agencies, stakeholders and the community

·    Enhanced community awareness of how governments work

·    Proactive identification and management of disaffected groups

 

Asset Management decision making:

 

·    Clarity of intervention priorities and program objectives

·    Focus on outcomes

·    Development of strategies and approaches that are more likely to be supported and adapted

·    Identification of alternative solutions

·    Better, more cost-effective outcomes

·    Identification of unknown risks

·    Reduced tendency to monitor and survey what can be readily collected, rather than what is important to the community

(Austroads, 2009 Part 2)

 

Road Hierarchies

 

As funds are always limited there needs to be a balance between fundable engineering standards and community level of service expectations.  It is generally not financially viable to maintain an equal level of service throughout an entire road network.  As such the adoption of formal road hierarchies to a network are applied.  The creation of a road hierarchy grades roads according to increasing (or decreasing) importance of traffic task/ function or importance in the network. 

 

It considers factors such as, strategic importance, traffic volumes and traffic mix (including the volume and value of freight or tourist frequency) (Austroads AGAM02-09).

 

The intent is to then apply different levels of service and intervention levels and response times accordingly. Below are Councils adopted Road Hierarchy and Inspection intervals.

 

The Level of Service hierarchy combined with the type of defects (risk based matrix) drives the repair programs, and inspection frequency as per table 2. Thus, intervention levels are dependant upon the road hierarchy.

 

Table 2 -  Road Hierarchy (Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures and General Fund Asset Management Plan, 2012)


 

 

FREQUENCY

HIERARCHY

DESCRIPTION

AADT*

5

Regional

a classified road under the care and control of Council having regional significance and are the more important roads in the Shire

>7000

5

Distributor

the highest order of road within an urban or rural environment which has as its main function the convenient and safe distribution of traffic generated within the area

~ 3001-7000

3

Collector

the second highest order of road within an urban environment having a residential function but also carries higher volumes of traffic collected from lower order streets

~ 401-3000

2

Local

the next level road that provides a balance between the status of that street in terms of its access and residential amenity functions

~ 201-400

1

Access

the lowest order road within the shire’s urban environment having as its primary function residential space – amenity features which facilitate pedestrians and cycle

~ 50-200

4

Rural Major

a rural road linking towns and villages within the shire

~ 101-2000

2

Rural Minor

a local rural road providing access to land uses other than the Rural Major Roads

~ 21-100

1

Rural Access

the lowest order road within the shire’s rural environment having as its primary function residential space – amenity features which facilitate pedestrians and cycle movements, and where vehicular traffic is subservient in terms of speed and volume, to those elements of space, amenity, pedestrians and cyclists

<20

*Note: Approximate assumptions made until the traffic count data can be collected

 

Road Inspection Interval Frequency

 

Table 3 - Inspection Frequency

 

Inspection Frequency

Criteria

Inspection Interval

5

Regional and Distributor

MONTHLY

12 in any 12 Month period

4

Rural Major

QUARTERLY

4 in any 12 Month period

3

Collector

4 MONTHLY

3 in any 12 Month period

2

Local and Rural Minor

½ YEARLY

2 in any 12 Month Period

1

Access, Rural Access

YEARLY

1 in any 12 Month period

 

Road Condition Parameters

 

Council has engaged specialized services in 2010 and 2015 to collect the Road condition parameters on sealed roads using a Multi-laser profilometer.  For the purpose of Levels of Service, only the Roughness values will be used at the road segment level.

 

Roughness

 

Road Roughness (International Roughness Index - IRI) value provides insight into the distress of a pavement, especially when considering other condition parameters and field observations.

 

A range of distress types can lead to an increase in road roughness, including: localized depressions, ruts, potholes, patches, corrugations, shoving, delamination/ debonding, stripping, cracking and installation of services.

 

One of the most significant off-pavement contributors to increase pavement roughness is the inability of the drainage system to prevent moisture ingress to the pavement structure (Austroads, 2007 AGAM05B/07).

 

Sealed Road Condition – State of Assets

 

Diagram 1 - Sealed Roads Condition

 

Based on the assessments associated with the 2015 road revaluation, Council has 42% of its sealed road network in condition 4 and 5 as the diagram above indicates.

 

This needs to be considered when defining the level of services.

 

Council has increased funding for roads and the longer term effect on the overall condition of the sealed road network is yet to be determined.

 

Levels of Service – Sealed Road Surface

 

To determine the following levels of services (Technical and Customer) five other Council’s Roads Level of Service has been reviewed including neighbouring Councils.  The following tables include suggestions to define the road pavement levels of service only.  It includes the sealed road surface, signs, guardrails, and roadside barriers. It does not include: Bridges, Footbridges, Footpaths/ cycleways, Unsealed Roads, traffic control devices, car parks, retaining walls, and roadside furniture.  These will be covered in the future.

 

The basis for defining Performance Targets has been driven by a Risk Based approach to Asset Management. At all times the priority has been to reduce high risk/critical assets (Diagram 1 Condition 4 & 5) wherever possible.


 

 

 

SEALED ROADS

 

CUSTOMER LEVELS OF SERVICE

 

Key Performance Measure

Community Expectation

Performance Measure

Performance Target

Current Performance

Quality*

Satisfactory and suitable road network

Customer Requests for road surface performance

<1000 per year for sealed roads (potholes/edge break only)

Customer Request Module (CRM) recording process to be reviewed (523 Pothole Requests- 2014).

2015 Expenditure

(APPENDIX A Diagram 2)

Pothole/Edge Break

$1,132,619

Heavy Patching

$121,314

Customer Satisfaction

Road network meets community expectations

Customer Survey

LGA Benchmark value of 2.7 satisfaction (‘Moderately low’ level of satisfaction)

2013 Community Research Satisfaction (E2013/77916)  Local Roads = 1.8 (‘Very low’ level of satisfaction)

Function/Safety*

Provide a safe network

Line marking/

Delineation – Customer Requests

 

Street Signs – Customer Requests

 

Guideposts

·   Prioritise line-marking in accordance with the Road Hierarchy and a Risk Based Approach of Heavy Rural Traffic/High Speed

·   Target Road signs with a risk based approach within the available budget and the Signs Hierarchy Appendix A.

·   Guidepost standards APPENDIX A - Table 1  are achieved within the available budget

·   Roadside Barriers (Prioritise Hierarchy TBC)

Customer Request Module (CRM) recording process to be reviewed to include road Street Signs classification

2015 Expenditure

(Diagram 2)

Linemarking $66,398, Road Signs (New & Replacement) $161,195,Guidepost $25,808, Roadside Barriers $3,769

Function/

Accessibility

Roads will be accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Road Closures –Customer Requests/TRIM

95% Compliance. In the instance of where a road network is closed to users for reasons such as special events, maintenance, or capital works, then appropriate notifications shall be published in advance. Note: This does not include natural disaster events, causeways/culverts that flood and Roads such as Possum Shoot (4.5t) that have permanent Heavy Vehicle load limits from previous slip events.

CRM process to be reviewed to record Road Accessibility in the classifications.

 

Function/Ascetic

Provide roads and streets that are clean and free from dust and refuse

Street Sweeping

Programmed Street Maintenance of 2,159 Km/year with current budget of $223,900. Byron Streets CBD Daily & Twice Weekly areas (16.516km/wk) Brunswick Heads CBD Daily (6.44km/wk)

Mullumbimby CBD Daily (12.07km/wk) Bangalow CBD Mon, Wed, Fri (6.492km/wk)

(Appendix A - Maps)

As per schedule except where circumstances prohibit water main breaks

 

2015 Expenditure

(Diagram 2)

$276,129

Responsiveness

Response Times

Response time of Defects in accordance with Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure (E2014/62240) Road Risk Rating Section 1.6.

< TBC % overdue outstanding defects

REFLECT Reporting

Current Surface Response Performance in 2015 – 58% were completed late and 61% were overdue (Diagrams 3 & 4)

Travel

Travel delays

Peak Traffic congestions

<7minutes on all local roads

 

 

R545 Study DM844180 -Travel time between the Tennyson Street / Browning Street Roundabout and

McGettigans Lane increases from 7 minutes in 2008 to 9 minutes in 2028 in the PM peak (this represents a 30% increase in travel time, which is considered unacceptable).

 


 

 

SEALED ROADS

 

TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE

 

Key Performance Measure

Technical Description

Performance Measure

Performance Target

Current Performance

Road

Condition Parameter * 1

Roughness

International Roughness Index (IRI) values

Rating 1 = 0 to  <2

Rating 2 = 2 to 4

Rating 3 = >4 to 6

Rating 4 = > 6 to 8

Rating 5 = >8

(E2015/21480)

No decline in 5 year revaluation cycle.

 

Note: Acceptable values of Roughness for isolated areas is <6 IRI/m/km

Table 7.1 Austroad AGAM05B/07

2015 % splits

Rating 1 = 4

Rating 2 = 19

Rating 3 = 35

Rating 4 = 24

Rating 5 = 18

Condition - Road

Renewal

Reseals

kms Resealed

TBC

Seal Design Life

Bitumen 8 years (335km) = 41.87km / year

Asphalt Cement  – 15 years (165km) = 11 km

Concrete – 40 years (1.959km)

Reseals ** 2015/16 – 30,863kms

Reseals 2014/15 – 8,177kms

Condition - Road

Renewal

Reconstruction

kms Reconstructed

TBC

Road Design Life 20 years = 25km / year

2015/16–3.84km

2014/15–1.45km

Condition – Kerb and Gutter

Technical Condition Assessment

As per the Asset Condition Assessment document E

Critical High Risk failed kerb and gutter to be repaired in accordance with the available budget

TBC length of kerb and gutter replaced per year with 2015 Budget of

$ 27,000

Safety*

Provide a safe network

Crash/Accident Data - Roads & Maritime.

Query:

CRASURF = 1 (sealed)

CRAHAZ = ANY

CRAROAD = 3 (other classified road) and 4 (unclassified road)

 

<20 crashes / year caused by loose grave on rural high speed eg, gravel on shoulder, potholes, corrugations/roughness, slippery surface, flooded/submerged or other hazardous feature

2014- 16 Crashes

2013- 8 Crashes

2012- 12 Crashes

2011- 5 Crashes

2010- 15 Crashes

(APPENDIX A Diagram 5)

Risk

High Speed >80km/Rural Areas are given priority for reseals and reconstructions

Crash Data Analysis

Priority on Rural Roads High speed (>80km/hr)

 

Injuries = TBD

Fatalities = TBD

 

 

2014 Rural Roads High speed

Injuries = 27

Fatalities = 3

Majority into trees, 50% overcast/raining, 20/30 travelling 100km/hr

Function*

Road network is functionally fit for purpose

Seal Widths (Carriageway minimums)

Urban

Distributor – 13m

Collector – 11m

Local – 7-9m

Access – 6m

Rural

Major– 7.5m

Minor 500 to 1000 AADT – 7m; 150 to 500 AADT – 6m

Minor Access 6m

(NSW DDS- D1, 2013)

Avg. Estimates on available data

Regional =11.45m

Distributor=10.12m

Collector = 8.09m

Local = 7.20m

Access = 6.17m

Rural major=6.08

Rural minor=5.08m

Ruralaccess=4.74m

Capacity

Load

Load Limits

<5% with load limited roads, except those affected by slip sites affected by natural disasters.

Possum Shoot Road has a 4.5 tonne limit

Travel

Heavy Vehicles

AADT Heavy Vehicle %

Roads do not exceed the Heavy Vehicle Design Loads

TBC

 

Note: *TBC – To be confirmed, ** Reseals (2015/16 - E2015/60537, 2014/15 - E2014/54910)

 

 

How can these Performance Indicators improve?

 

The Key Performance Indicators should ideally have the following characteristics:

 

·    They should be directly relevant to the assessment of current asset condition, to facilitation of the asset management and to prediction of future asset performance

·    They should be capable of being managed by the agency

·    They should include objective, quantitative measures, whose derivation is clearly understood and whose accuracy is widely accepted

·    Their procurement should be affordable and not impose excessive costs on road management agencies or companies

·    The specified criterion associated with each measure should be achievable within the foreseeable future, and be established with funding availability in mind

·    They should be repeatable and reproducible

(Austroads, 2009 Part 1)

 

Continuous Improvement

 

It is worth noting that the levels of services detailed in this report are the starting point of a continuous improvement cycle.

 


APPENDIX A

 

Expenditure by Work Order Maintenance

 

Diagram 2 - Road Network 2015 Expenditure by Work Order Maintenance - Task Codes

 

Sign Hierarchy

The maintenance of signs is prioritised according to function and the condition of disrepair or defect. Prioritisation is as follows or within budget constraints:

·   Priority 1: Signs that need to be in place to enable legislation to be enforced. Stop signs, pedestrian crossing markings, school zone signs and parking control signs.

·   Priority 2: Signs that provide drivers and road users with a warning of potential safety threats and hazardous conditions.

·   Priority 3: Signs that provide guidance to road users negotiating their way around the network. Maintenance priority is also given to tourist areas and to signs along the main approach routes in and out of Byron Shire.

 

Guideposts

Table 1 Guidepost Standards (Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures)

 

Radius 1

Radius 2

Comments

Guidepost Spacing (Outside of Curve)

On Straights

Straight

Straight

Minimum 2 Pairs Visible

150

On Curves

Various

Various

First Post at Beginning of Curve

see below

Culverts

<5 m length

 

1 at each headwall on approach

2 posts

Culverts

>5 m length

 

2 at each headwall

4 posts

Crests on Straights

 

 

Minimum 2 Pairs Visible

2 pairs visible

Street Sweeping Maps../../../GIS/AMS_WRMS_arcmap_mxds/_2016/street%20sweeper/Street_Sweeping_Map_RevA_BRUNSWICK%20HEADS.jpg../../../GIS/AMS_WRMS_arcmap_mxds/_2016/street%20sweeper/Street_Sweeping_Map_RevA_BYRON%20BAY.jpg../../../GIS/AMS_WRMS_arcmap_mxds/_2016/street%20sweeper/Street_Sweeping_Map_RevA_MULLUMBIMBY.jpg

 

 

Responsiveness

 

Diagram 3 -Sealed Defects Completed vs Outstanding

 

 

 

Diagram 4 - 2015 Monthly Defects by comparison Raised vs Completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crash Data

 

Diagram 5 - Safety - Crash data Road surface hazard cause of accident

 

 

 

REFERENCES:

 

ALGA, 2012, National State of the Assets Pilot 2012, Canberra, Australian Local Government Association, Pg 8

 

Austroads Guide to Asset Management Part 5B – Roughness, 2007 (AGAM05B/07)

 

Austroads, Guide to Asset Management Part 1: Introduction to Asset Management.

AGAM01-09, 2009

 

Austroads, Guide to Asset Management Part 2: Community Stakeholder Requirements AGAM02-09, 2009

 

IPWEA, 2014, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, ‘Levels of Service & Community Engagement, Practice Note 8’, Levels of Service, pg 17 & 18

 

Financial Implications

 

Road Maintenance Budgets

 

Road Capital Budgets

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Australian Local Government Associations

 

Council’s Annual Special Schedule 7 Infrastructure Report


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                           5.4

 

 

Report No. 5.4             Update Report on Restoration of 2012 & 2013 Landslips.

Directorate:                  Infrastructure Services

Report Author:            Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No:                         I2016/115

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

This report provides a summary of the status of the restoration of the landslips across the Council area from the 2012 and 2013 Natural Disasters and is the last update report to be provided to the CIAC.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee recommend to Council:

 

That Council note that 11 of the landslips from the 2012 and 2013 Declared Natural Disasters are complete and the restoration of the one (1) remaining landslip at Upper Wilsons Creek – end of road will be complete in March 2016.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

A status report was presented to the CIAC meeting on 3 December 2015 and the recommendation of the Committee was:

 

That Council notes that 11 out of 12 of the landslips from the 2012 and 2013 Declared Natural Disasters are complete and the restoration of the one remaining landslip at “Upper Wilsons Creek – end of road” is in progress.

 

A summary of all the landslips from the 2012 and 2013 Natural Disasters is contained in Table 1.

 

Table 1

 

Location

Status

2012 Natural Disaster

 

Wilsons Creek Road at primary school

Completed

2013 Natural Disaster

 

Upper Coopers Creek

Completed

Federal Drive

Completed

Possum Shoot Rd (lower)

Completed

Possum Shoot Rd (upper)

Completed

Wilsons Creek Rd at Laverty’s Gap

Completed

Wanganui Road south

Completed

Wanganui Road main

Completed

Huonbrook Road

Completed

Upper Wilsons Creek Road

Design and Construction contract in progress

 

The information relevant to the landslip restoration at Upper Wilsons Creek Rd – end of road in detailed in Table 2.

 

Table 2

 

Upper Wilsons Creek Road – end of road

Status

Open  with no load limit.

Report

The construction contract has been awarded to the Warner Company for approximately $2.4 million exc GST. 

Construction works includes the installation of a series of micropiles along the top of the embankment, construction of a concrete edge capping beam, shotcrete face and reinstatement of the road. The remediation works for the Western end of the wall has now been completed including pavement remediation works against the kerb and a shotcrete face below the concrete capping beam to stabilise the embankment.

 

The final design package has been completed for the Eastern portion of the wall and the status of works activities for this section are:

·      Micropiling completed and large drilling rig demobilised from site.

·      Capping beam poured

·      Road reinstated behind capping beam

·      15/2/16 completion of all drilling activities for shotcrete facing.

·      16 to 27 Feb Shotcrete facing

·      29 Feb to 4 Mar guardrail installation.

·      Progressive clean up of site and demobilisation occuring

·      Forecast Practical completion – 12 March 2016.

 

Site limitations requiring the road to be blocked by large plant and equipment from Mon-Fri during the period 8.00am to 4.30pm and Sat between 8.00am and 1.00pm will continue until the works are completed.  Traffic Control will be in place between the hours of 7.00am and 5.00pm Mon-Fri and 7.00am and 1.30pm on Sat.

In consideration of the low volumes of traffic that use the road during the day and to assist with increasing the production rate of the works the contractor will be making arrangements to open the road every two hours (9.00am, 11.00am, 1.00pm, 3.00pm,) for a short period of time, in lieu of the previous hourly arrangement, to effect the movement of local traffic through the site. Outside of these planned opening times, where required, the contractor will move the plant to accommodate local traffic through the area. However, please be advised that in these circumstances delays of up to 15 minutes whilst the plant is moved may be experienced.

Project Contact details as follows:

Contractor - Warner during and after hours is 0147 166907 or alternatively 0266840116

Council's Contract Management Team- GHD Pty Ltd, is via the Council Works Depot on 02 6685 9300

Repair methods

Micropile wall and slope drainage

Where to next?

Installation of a shotcrete face on eastern section and installation of guard rail.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

All projects are fully funded by Natural Disaster funds.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 – Part 7 Tendering will apply to the process of undertaking the restoration work of the landslips by contract.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                           5.5

 

 

Report No. 5.5             Update report about Federal Drive, Goonengerry

Directorate:                  Infrastructure Services

Report Author:            Rob Serventi, Contract Engineer

File No:                         I2016/118

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Federal Drive, Goonengerry road project to the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC).

 

Progress achieved includes completion of the detailed design, ecological assessment, scope and costing.

 

Next items to complete include statutory environmental planning approvals, the funding allocation for construction in the 2016/17 year and registration of the road reserve and private Lot boundary Deposited Plan with the Department of Primary Industry – Lands.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee notes:

 

1.         The status of the planning and preconstruction activities for the Federal Drive, Goonengerry Road reconstruction project.

 

2.         The expected start date for the road works as mid 2016, dependant upon the property boundary adjustment process.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Relevant Title Plans for Federal Drive Road Works, E2016/10757 , page 38  

2        Federal Drive Survey Diagrams, E2016/10771 , page 40  

 

 


 

Report

 

Background

 

The section of Federal Drive, Goonengerry to be reconstructed starts 250m south of the Mafeking / Federal Drive intersection, and extends southward along Federal Drive for 440m. 

 

The deteriorated state of the road is due in part to the lack of suitable surface and subsurface drainage.  The existing road departs from an acceptable level of conformance with the minimum Austroads design standards in alignment, design speed and stopping sight distance.

 

At the Council Meeting on 10 December 2015 Council resolved as follows:

 

Res 15-668:

 

1)   That Council Notes the status of the planning and preconstruction activities for the Federal     Drive, Goonengerry Road reconstruction project.

 

2)   That Council authorizes:

 

a)   The land acquisition and/or boundary adjustments through negotiation with adjoining property owners.

b)   Affixing the Council seal by the General Manager to all necessary documents that affect the acquisitions and/or boundary adjustments.

 

3)   That a status report on this project be presented to the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee meeting proposed to be held on 3 March 2016

 

 

Progress made since 10 December 2015 Council Report

 

·    site meeting with owners to explain boundary re-alignment (Dec 2015)

·    initial discussion with owners and agreement in principle (AIP) consent obtained (Dec 2015)

·    no net land acquisition is required by Council (Dec 2015)

·    property boundary / road reserve adjustment drawing completed (Jan 2016)

·    no net loss of private property achieved in civil design (Jan 2016)

·    road redesigned to minimize cut / fill batters, scope and cost of the project (22 Jan)

·    project scope reviewed and revised estimate prepared on final design (2 Feb)

·    ecological survey by the ecologist of trees planned for removal

·    Owner’s consent letter sent with Lot / road reserve re-alignment (15 Feb)

·    purchase order raised for land survey after three quotes obtained

·    Department of Primary Industries (DPI) – Lands Dept. request to dedicate a section of Crown Road to Council (16 Feb)

 

Next Tasks to complete

 

Task

Description

Completion date

1

owner’s consent (letter signed)

16 Feb to 15 March 2016

 

2

land survey

3 March to 20 March

 

3

Title Plan preparation

24 March 2016

 

Task

Description

Completion date

4

DPI Lands consent crown road dedication

24 March 2016

 

5

surveyor prepare Deposited Plan administration sheets for signing by mortgagees (banks) / property owners and other parties with interest on title

 

13 April 2016

6

surveyor lodge Plan of Subdivision application to Council

 

13 April 2016

7

GM sign / issue Subdivision Certificate - Approval Subdivision Application

 

19 April 2016

8

Council legal title searches identify encumbrances etc

 

19 April 2016

9

BSC Lawyer arrange distribution of Deposited Plan administration sheets for signing by interested parties noted on title

 

15 May 2016

10

surveyor collate Deposited Plan and signed admin sheets and submit to LPI (Crown Lands / Land Property Information) for registration

 

15 May 2016

11

complete REF

 

15 May 2016

12

Director approval project package

 

15 May 2016

13

prepare project package (works and purchase orders, community notification, etc)

 

15 June 2016

16

start construction

Asap after 1 July 2016, subject to completion of current works in progress (WIP) projects as at 30/6/16

 

 

Letters have been issued to the owners and DPI seeking consent for the property boundary adjustments and dedication of a small section of Crown road to Council.

 

All owners have been met on site in December 2015, and have confirmed approval in principle to the boundary re-alignments on the basis of all costs paid by Council and that each Lot affected will have a small net gain in area.

 

Proposed Boundary Adjustments at Federal Drive

The proposed boundary re-alignment and changes to each Lot size is shown in the Attachment.

 

 

Financial Implications

There are sufficient funds in the 2015/2016 budget to arrange and finalise the necessary design development, survey, property boundary adjustments, revised ecological assessment, revised REF and all other required preconstruction activities.

 

The estimated construction cost for the project is $730,000 and has been used to inform the current 2016/17 budget process for determination of a DRAFT budget for presentation to Councillors at a workshop around April 2016.

 

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Statutory

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, part 2 Division 1 Subdivision 38, provide that subdivision of the land, for the purpose only of any one or more of the following, is exempt development:

 

(a)  widening of a public road

(b)  realignment of boundaries

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                    5.5 - Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                    5.5 - Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                           5.6

 

 

Report No. 5.6             Quality Control in Road Construction Works and Pothole Filling

Directorate:                  Infrastructure Services

Report Author:            Henry Spangler, Acting Works Engineer

Sophie Mulhall, Assistant Works Engineer

File No:                         I2016/119

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

The report provides information about the Quality Control processes and requirements in road and stormwater drainage construction and pothole filling.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee note the information contained in the report.

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        24.2013.15.1 - ITP Checklist - Flexible Pavement, E2014/35673 , page 50  

2        24.2013.15.1 - Stormwater - Reinforced Concrete Pipe - ITP Checklist, E2014/72010 , page 54  

 

 


 

Report

 

Road Construction and Stormwater Drainage Quality Control

 

Summary

All Council’s internal roadworks and stormwater drainage works are built to specification as per the Northern Rivers Government Construction Manual (Construction Manual).

To ensure road and stormwater quality standards are met during construction, the Works Team engineers’ most common inspections and testing are highlighted below:

Roads

·    Materials used are in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Manual and verified by conformance reports;

·    Meets strength requirements;

·    Follow construction procedures as set by the Construction Manual;

·    Perform proof rolling to visually inspect and compaction test at each layer:

Subgrade,

Subbase, and

Base;

·    Undertake compaction testing

·    Final grade is within tolerances;

·    Appropriate seals for existing conditions are placed and are allowed to cure as necessary; and

·    Placement of AC meets required thickness and desired grade.

 

Stormwater Drainage

·    Materials used are

In accordance with the requirements of the Construction Manual;

Meet strength requirements, and

Verified by conformance reports;

·    Trench is excavated as per pipe support type;

·    Bedding of pipes meets specifications and is placed as per the Construction Manual;

·    Pipes are laid to grade and alignments on plan and are within tolerance; and

·    Backfill of trenches is placed, compacted and tested in specified layers.

 

Northern Rivers Government Construction Manual

The Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manual has been developed as a resource sharing initiative involving the following councils:

·    Ballina Shire Council,

·    Byron Shire Council,

·    Clarence Valley Council,

·    Kyogle Council,

·    Lismore City Council, and

·    Richmond Valley Council.

 

The Development and Design Manual is a regional approach to provide uniform development standards via a clear and comprehensive set of requirements for development infrastructure design and construction.

Both the community and the development industry have clear instructions for development infrastructure requirements throughout the Northern Rivers area.

The manual has been derived from the Aus-Spec Development Specification series and modified to suit the specific needs of the Northern Rivers Region.

The development industry is encouraged to utilise these guidelines before planning begins, enabling faster and more effective processing of developments through Council.

The Works Team checks all products, construction sequencing and testing in accordance with the requirements stated within the Construction Manual.

As the quality control mechanisms for a wide range of products and construction applications within the Construction Manual are robust, highlighted excerpts will be used to illustrate the Works Team Quality Assurance and Quality Controls protocol.

 

Typical Construction Profiles

Council builds flexible pavement roads.  Flexible pavement roads consist of granular pavement in the base and subbase layers (gravel), a bituminous primer seal and a wearing surface (either bitumen seal or asphalt cement).  These sections of road can be seen below in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Typical Cross Section for Flexible Pavement

 

Council will also use geotextiles incorporated in the base and subbase layers to provide additional strength.

Stormwater drainage construction consists of laying and compacting bedding material, pipes and accessories, and overlay material and pavements.  See Figure 2 below for typical profiles for stormwater drainage.

Figure 2 - Typical Cross Sections of Stormwater Drainage Pipes

 

Product Quality Assurance

All materials used in the construction of roads and stormwater drainage have certain criteria that are specified in the Construction Manual and must be met before they can be used by the Works Team. 

Common materials used in road construction are:

·    Gravel pavement – subbase and base,

·    Bitumen,

·    Asphalt cement,

·    Pipe bedding and backfill materials

 

Specifications for materials for gravel pavements include particle size distribution and other engineering qualities including liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity, maximum dry compressive strength, particle shape, wet and dry strengths and CBR.

Each gravel product used by the Works Team is checked for compliance against all of the categories.  Council is limited in suppliers of these quarry products due to compliance issues.  For instance, Council’s only current supplier of commonly used DGB20 product is Council’s Myocum Quarry.

Thorough geotechnical testing is performed on a sample set to ensure the manufactured product consistently meets the technical specifications.

Bitumen products are used as a waterproofing agent, as a binding substrate between asphalt cements and the gravel pavement, and as a final wearing surface.  These products are supplied under a contract and applied by bitumen contractors.  As there are many applications for bituminous products, there are just as many guidelines for delivery and quality of each product.  Specifications and product data sheets are produced for each delivery and application for each job by the contractor.  The sheets are checked for compliance against the standards set within the Construction Manual and other industry wide specifications.

Like bitumen, asphalt cement has it own unique set of standards that must be met for the product to be used on Council roads.  The process of the contractor supplying a data sheet that details the product being used and its qualities is submitted to the Works Team. 

Council has contracts and working relationships with companies that consistently provide product that meet specifications and also apply the products within the construction guidelines.  

Construction Quality Control

Maintaining quality in road and stormwater construction is achieved from good initial design, planning and monitoring of the construction. The Works Team is responsible for the full project delivery cycle from the planning, then design and ultimately construction.

Through good planning, design is reviewed and construction sequencing is established.  Site meetings with engineers and supervisors are held to review the plans and construction staging.  Goals and targets are set and monitored throughout the project delivery.  Project Manuals are issued for each job that includes a variety of documents prior to the start of the job covering the following areas:

·    Preconstruction

·    Works site Induction

·    Daily reporting forms

·    WHS,

·    Design Documentation, and

·    Quality Management.

 

The Project Manuals incorporate all applicable Construction Manual literature and the Works Team Issued Inspection Test Plan checklists.

The Works Team has developed Inspection Test Plan (ITP) checklists that cover requirements specified in the Construction Manual in a consolidated document.  Examples of these documents are included in the Attachments.  By following the ITP checklists throughout the construction process, all conformance and tolerance qualities are effectively monitored.  Non-complying works are either reworked or replaced. 

Finalised IPT checklists are archived for future reference.  The intention is to assist in recording what the Works Team were accomplished.  In the event of road pavement or stormwater drainage failure, the document may assist in identifying the contributing factor.

Contract Management

There are two contracts in place for road construction and maintenance services:

·    Bitumen Spray Sealing services – NSW Spray Sealing – (T2014/0005), and

·    Supply and Laying of Asphalt – Clark Ashpalt – (T2014/0006).

 

These contracts were finalised in July and Jun 2014, respectively.

 

Both contracts secure rates for which product is supplied and placed, working terms and conditions and relevant specifications in which materials and services are provided. All materials and services provided are in accordance with the Australian Standards, and the Northern Rivers Local Government Specifications.

Upon completion of works, contractors must submit their pre-determined quality assurance documents in the form of: job sheets (identifying products, areas, site conditions, and other relevant information), site safety documents and job specific documents. These documents are all reviewed and recorded by council prior to payment of works.

Additionally, quality control of the services provided by these contractors is in accordance with the Construction Manual and with Council Inspection Test Plan Checklists.  This includes visual inspections by Works Engineer and Road Construction Team Leader to ensure there are no defects prior to final payment.

 

Pothole Filling Quality Control

 

Definition

 

For the purpose of this report, potholes are defined as sharp holes in a sealed road surface where the bitumen and pavement materials have been removed. This removal of material may have been caused by water ingress into pavement, vehicular traffic removing pavement material, or unsuitable underlying material. Pothole development is accelerated by the combination of free water and the impact forces from passing vehicles.

 

Objective

 

Council’s primary objective with responding to potholes is to minimize the risk the hazard causes to road users and their vehicles by means of waterproofing and patching in a timely manner as to make the road safe and prevent the further growth of the hazard.

 

Method of Prioritization

 

Council follows the Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure (ISRMS) to ensure potholes are filled within an appropriate response time. Potholes are prioritized by the risk they pose to the road users based on the road speed, number of vehicles and the location and size of the pothole. I.e. Hazards that are causing high risks to road users are given a shorter time to be filled.

 

In using the priority assigned to each defect, the Works Team are able to be programmed so that defects are completed within their assigned response times. This system allows for planned maintenance approach. This is the most efficient method of repair with respects to achieving the most production in a given timeframe and area. Currently there is a council crew and a contract crew on pothole filling and both of these crews operate on a program. However, pothole filling is still largely a reactive maintenance activity as the more severe the defect, the urgent the repair.

 

This prioritized system of pothole filling works using the Reflect software system and the ISRMS has previously been reported to the CIAC.

 

Methods of Filling

 

It is important to note that filling the potholes to make the road safe is not repairing defect and does not mitigate the risk of them reoccurring. NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) specification for Routine Maintenance (M3) define pothole repair to have the following steps:

 

“4.2.2 Standard of Work

(a) The failed area must be squared up and the edges trimmed to obtain vertical sides. Enough of the underlying unsound material must be removed such that a solid base is reached and a proper repair can be ensured. Any loose material ensuing from the operation or otherwise must be removed.

(b) Apply a tack coat to the bottom and sides of the patch.

(c) Potholes must be filled and compacted to within +5 millimetres of the surrounding pavement surface. Compaction must achieve a uniformly dense, free from segregation and well bonded repair sufficient to ensure that it is not displaced, shoved, deformed, or picked up by traffic…”

 

This process mitigates all previously mentioned development mechanisms of potholes. Council does not have adequate budget to complete this full process on its extensive rural and urban road network. Instead Council follows the procedures of clearing the holes and compacting the material to achieve its previously defined objective of minimizing the risk to the road user and to prevent future development of the hazard due to water ingress and loose pavement. To do this, Council employs three processes for pothole filling as described below: 

1.   Bitumen/Emulsion spray

2.   Hotmix Asphaltic Concrete (AC)

3.   Coldmix Asphaltic Concrete (AC)

Bitumen Emulsion Spray

 

A bitumen emulsion repair is a mixture of bitumen/emulsion binder and aggregate applied from Council’s Jetmaster.  The Jetmaster blows out the hole with compressed air to remove excess water and loose material then the binder and stone are mixed and placed bringing the defect back to road height.  A layer of dry stone is left within 5mm above the existing road surface to ensure binder is not picked up by vehicle tyres.  Compaction is achieved as the materials are blasted via the same nozzle using compressed air.

 

The Bitumen/Emulsion treatment is used on Council’s Rural Roads following the 6 day / week programmed schedule ensuring an entire road length is complete and made safe before beginning the next. Typically the Jetpmaster is not used as a responsive unit.

 

IMG_3017_0

Figure 3 Council's Jetpatcher machine with pothole filling nozzle extended

Hotmix AC

 

Potholes are filled with AC by Council’s contracted asphalt provider using a flowcon truck and crew. Potholes are cleared of loose material and water then AC is placed using shovels and mechanically compacted using a vibraplate or heavy roller.  The AC is left above the existing road surface by not more than 5mm but extends to for a rectangular patch over the pothole, therein providing a waterproofed surface to the new and existing pavement join.

 

AC is used primarily in the urban townships, again under a program developed from the risk management procedure. The crew operates on 2 days a week, with a rotation of one week per one of Council’s 5 townships.

 

 

Figure 4 Compaction vibraplate (Left) and Flocon Truck (Right)

 

Coldmix AC

 

Coldmix AC is the least desirable filling method in terms of quality control, yet the most effective in being responsive to high risk hazards. Coldmix comes in the form of buckets which are able to be tipped into the pothole and malleable enough to be hand compacted into the form of the pothole.

Council does not have a crew designated to Coldmix filling as this treatment is purely used as an emergency response and during AH.

    

Figure 5 Coldmix Asphalt delivered in 20kg buckets

Council has previously discussed other methods pothole filling and results can be viewed in: Potholes in Road Pavements (E2013/51068).  Preventative maintenance activities are also undertaken within council in the form of road resealing.  As a prerequisite for resealing, the road is prepared such that there is no opportunity for water to pond on the roadway and heavy patching is undertaken as per RMS Standard M4 for Heavy Patching.  This ensures underlying pavement is repaired and all potholes are filled.  The reseal itself acts as a waterproofing layer, and increases the strength and ride quality of the road.

 

Contract Management

 

As with Road Works and Maintenance, there is a contract in place for Supply and Laying of Asphalt with Clark Asphalt - (T2014/0006).  All contract management requirements are as per the Contract Management section in Road Construction and Stormwater Drainage Quality Control.

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no negative implications proposed in this report.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

There are no negative implications proposed in this report.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                         5.6 - Attachment 1

 

FIELD CHECKLIST & CONFORMANCE

Subject:

Flexible Pavement

Page 1 of 4

 

Reference Details

 

 

Lot No:

   – C242 – FP –

Date:

         /        /

 

Description:

 

 

 

Chainage:

Start: ______________m           End: _____________m

Design Line:

 

 

 

 

 

Offsets:

From: ______________m          To: ______________m

Finish Date:

 

 

Responsible Engineer:

 

Supervisor:

 

 

Item No.

Characteristic

Acceptance Criteria

INSPECTED

Remarks

RESP

Compliance

Y / N

Sign

Date

1.0

Pavement Design

1.1

Design completed in accordance with Australian Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design

Prior to commencement

 

Hold Point

WE

 

 

 

HP

2.0

Materials Supply – Testing of Base Course       

2.1

 

* PSD per Table C242.3 (attached)

* PI = max 6

* Liquid limit (if non-plastic) = max 20

* Plastic limit (if plastic) = max 20

* Wet/Dry Strength Variation per Table C242.3

Minimum CBR 80

Testing Intervals:

* 1/1000t

 

* 1/1000t

* 1/1000t

 

* 1/1000t

 

* 1/5000t

 

Hold Point

 

C242.08

 

WE

 

 

 

HP

 

Material Sourced from:

______________________

 

Test results Document Number:

E_____________________

3.0

Materials Supply – Testing of Subbase Course

3.1

* PSD per Table C242.4 (attached)

* PI = max 12

* Liquid limit (if non-plastic) = max 23

* Plastic limit (if plastic) = max 20

* Wet/Dry Strength Variation = max 60

Minimum CBR as per pavement design = 9

* Each load

 

* Each stockpile

* Each stockpile

 

* Each stockpile

 

* 1/5000t

 

Hold Point

C242.08

 

WE

 

 

 

HP

 

Material Sourced from:

______________________

 

Test results Document Number:

E_____________________

4.0

Materials Supply – Delivery and Stockpiling

 

* Material delivered sufficiently damp

* Stockpiles free of vegetation, free-draining and compacted to 95%

* Stockpile height 3m max

* Stockpile batter <1.5:1, and >3:1

* Stockpiled material to be maintained sufficiently damp

* Each load

 

* Each stockpile

 

 

* Each stockpile

* Each stockpile

SS

 

 

5.0

Commencement of Construction of Each Layer

5.1

The underlying layer shall have a moisture content of less than 90%

Prior to Commencement

Hold Point

C242.14

WE

 

 

 

HP

6.0

Proof roll of underlying layer

6.1

Proof rolling of underlying layer shall be undertaken

Witness Point

Prior to Commencement

 

WE

 

 

 

WP

7.0

Placement of pavement – Layer Thickness

7.1

Compacted thickness of each layer is not greater than 200mm or less than 100mm

Each layer

 

C242.14

SS

 

 

 

 

8.0

Placement of pavement – Moisture Content

8.1

Moisture content of the full depth of the layer is maintained during placing, compaction and finishing to within 60-90% of the Optimum Moisture Content

10/5000m2 layer or min 3/lot

 

Max Lot size is 1 layer 500m2 or 1 day’s placement.

 

AS1289.5.2.1

SS

 

 

 

 

9.0

Placement of pavement – Compaction

9.1

* Each layer to be uniformly compacted

10/5000m2 layer or min 3/lot

 

C242.15, C242.17, C242.18, C242,19,

C242.20, AS1289.5.4.1, AS1289.5.8.1

SS or WE

 

 

 

 

9.2

* Proof Roll - Subbase

Each lot

WE

 

 

 

HP

9.2

* Proof Roll - Base

Each lot

WE

 

 

 

HP

9.3

* Achieve minimum Dry Density Ratio of (in accordance with C242.19):

* Subgrade: 95% standard compaction

Max Lot size is 1 layer 500m2 or 1 day’s placement.

 

SS or WE

 

 

 

HP

9.4

* Subbase: 100% standard compaction

 

SS or WE

 

 

 

HP

9.5

* Base: 100% standard compaction

 

SS or WE

 

 

 

HP

9.6

No subsequent layers to be placed until test results of each layer have been accepted.

NOTE

SS or WE

 

 

 

 

10.0

Reworking of rejected unbound layers

10.1

* Lots or areas of pavement that have been rejected in regard to compaction shall be reworked before resubmission for compaction assessment.

For Each rejected area or lot

 

Witness Point

 

C242.21

 

Works Engineer to confirm

SS or WE

 

 

 

WP

10.2

* Material that has become degraded, segregated or reduced in quality by reworking shall be rejected and removed from site and replaced with fresh complying material.

SS or WE

 

 

 

 

10.3

* The fresh material shall be compacted and tested in accordance with C242.18 and C242.19.

SS or WE

 

 

 

 

11.0

Tolerances

11.1

* Each lot shall be tested for conformity with tolerance requirements

Each Lot

 

Witness Point

 

C242.22

Surveyor or WE

 

 

 

WP

11.2

* Pavement width:

* Design centre-line to edge of constructed pavement: -50mm to +300mm of dimensions on drawings

* Average width: The average width from 3 random sites over any 200m of road length (or part thereof) shall not be less than the specified width

Surveyor or WE

 

 

 

 

11.3

* Surface level:

* Subbase: max +/-10mm from design level

* Base: max +/-10mm from design level

Surveyor or WE

 

 

 

 

11.4

* Base adjacent to kerb and gutter: max +/-5mm from gutter lip level minus thickness of wearing surface

Surveyor or WE

 

 

 

 

11.5

* Shape: Deviation from 3m long straightedge on base surface shall be less than 12mm

WE

 

 

 

WP

12.0

Correction of rejected areas and non-conforming works

12.1

Any area identified as rejected or non-conforming during construction and/or testing shall be rectified to comply with the requirements of the specification.

As required

 

Witness Point

 

 

SS or WE

 

 

 

WP

13.0

Correction of rejected areas and non-conforming works

13.1

* Lot conforms to all requirements of the specification.

* Any maintenance work rectified.

* Any non-conforming areas complete.

* All test results comply and / or approved.

All test results and certificates attached.

Each lot

WE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFORMANCE CERTIFICATION (please tick one box as appropriate)

On behalf of BSC I certify that the works defined by this conformance report are complete and comply with the Specification requirements.

 

Tests results conform

Yes or No

 

 

 

 

 

Lot fully conforms

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot conforms except for approved concessions as detailed on NCR(s), CAR(s)

 

 

 

 

Signed:

 

Date:

          /            /

 

Works Engineer (Name & Sign)

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                         5.6 - Attachment 2

 

FIELD CHECKLIST & CONFORMANCE

Subject:

Stormwater

Type: Pipe Placement

Page 1 of 4

 

Reference Details

 

 

Lot No:

 C221– SW –

Date:

         /        /

 

Description:

 

 

 

Chainage:

Start: ______________m           End: _____________m

Design Line:

 

 

 

 

 

Offsets:

From: ______________m          To: ______________m

Finish Date:

 

 

Responsible Engineer:

 

Supervisor:

 

 

 

 

Item No.

Characteristic

Acceptance Criteria

INSPECTED

Remarks

RESP

Compliance

Y / N

Sign

Date

1.0

General Requirements

1.1

* C221.03, AS4058, AS4139

* Details of proposed materials and conformance certificates to be submitted for approval

* Minimum design life must be satisfied

-SRCP - 100yrs

-FRCP – 50 yrs

-Culverts – 60yrs

Each line/drainage structure

 

 

WE

 

 

 

 

1.2

* C221.03.3

* Each unit shall be marked with class, size, manufacturers name and date of casting.

 

Each line/drainage structure

 

 

WE

 

 

 

 

2.0

Siting and alignment of pipe

2.1

* C220.06

* Set-out the inlet and outlet locations and levels as shown on the drawings for approval

Each line/drainage structure

 

Hold Point

 

C220.06                                 

 

 

 

 

HP

7.0

Excavation

7.1

* DBYD, identify and locate services

Each line/drainage structure

SS

 

 

 

 

7.2

* Trench depth and width as per pipe support type

SS

 

 

 

 

7.3

Pipe Support Type

 

SS

 

 

 

 

Pipe OD

 

Trench Width

 

9.0

Bedding – Precast Reinforced Concrete pipes RRJ

9.1

* Bedding materials to have a PSD as specified in Table C221.2.

* Bedding material PI ≤6

Each line/drainage structure

 

NATA Certificates

 

Witness Point

 

C221.06,

AS3725,

C221.1

C221.2

C221.3

WE

 

 

 

WP

9.2

* Foundation and bedding to achieve 95% standard relative compaction

* Moisture content to be between 60-95% of optimum

WE

 

 

 

WP

9.3

* Bedding and backfilling of pipes as per pipe support type HS3.

* Material to be compacted in layers ≤150mm, unless approved directly above the pipe crown to protect the pipe.

WE

 

 

 

WP

13

Installation – Precast Reinforced Concrete pipes RRJ

13.1

* Pipes to be laid to the grades and alignments shown on the drawings within the following tolerances:

* +/- 10mm in grade line

* +/- 10mm in horizontal alignment

 

Each line/drainage structure

 

Witness Point

 

 

WE

 

 

 

WP

13.2

* Lifting holes in pipes to be sealed with pre-formed plastic plugs, or 3:1 sand:cement mortar

WE

 

 

 

WP

13.3

* Approval to backfill

Hold Point

WE

 

 

 

HP

17

Backfilling of trenches – Precast Reinforced Concrete pipes RRJ

17.1

* Backfilling shall be compacted as follows (standard relative compaction):

*   Below 1.5m of finished surface: 95%

*   Within 1.5m of finished surface: 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.2

* Moisture content to be between 60-95% of optimum

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.3

* Material to be compacted in layers ≤150mm, unless approved directly above the pipe crown to protect the pipe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.4

Backfill Conforms

Hold Point

WE

 

 

 

HP

 


 

 

CONFORMANCE CERTIFICATION (please tick one box as appropriate)

On behalf of BSC I certify that the works defined by this conformance report are complete and comply with the Specification requirements.

 

Tests results conform

Yes or No

 

 

 

 

 

Lot fully conforms

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot conforms except for approved concessions as detailed on NCR(s), CAR(s)

 

 

 

 

Signed:

 

Date:

          /            /

 

Works Engineer (Name & Sign)