Arboricultural Report - Smith St, Kempsey 2440 · 2019. 9. 16. · 5.3 AS4970-2009 also states that...

Arboricultural Report

Site location: Smith St, Kempsey

2440

Prepared for: KSC c/- Col Scullion

Prepared by: Rhys Mackney

Accomplished Tree Management Pty Ltd

12th January 2019

Site location: Smith St, Kempsey 2440


Prepared by: Rhys Mackney, Accomplished Tree Management Pty Ltd, [email protected], (02) 6583 7631

Date: 12th January 2019

i

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ II

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2. SCOPE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................................. 1

3. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 2

4. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 3

5. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF A TREES ROOT SYSTEM ................................................................... 4

6. SITE LOCATION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 6

7. OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 6

8. MITIGATION OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 9

9. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 10

10. PHOTOGRAPHS .......................................................................................................... 11

11. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 17

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 18

13. LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 18





ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been commissioned by Col Scullion of Kempsey Shire Council to

inspect five trees located along (an approximate 130 meter linear area) Smith St

Kempsey. Mr Sculliomn informed that the trees we under scrutiny as a consequence

of previous whole tree failures that took place sometime earlier (See appendix 1 for

site map).

This report has been undertaken to meet the following objectives.

a) Assess root development of the subject trees;

b) Estimate the safe, useful life expectancy of respective subject trees;

c) Carryout individual tree risk assessments;

d) Make recommendations regarding work methods for pavement/gutter

amelioration/replacement within drip line of trees (where applicable).

The trees are all mature age class with similar spread, height and calliper. Similarly

(when considering the above ground parts), they all displayed good health and

structure.

In all cases the trees have bowed/broken and/or begun to envelop kerb and

guttering due to being established in a soil profile of inadequate depth/volume.

Tree1, tree 2 (and to a lesser extent tree 4) are beginning to develop reliance on kerb

for support.

The large size of the trees and confined space makes mitigation challenging and

presumably expensive due to the position of the trees adjacent a major

thoroughfare. Further, any mitigation option previously discussed for tree 1 or tree 2

will have ramifications in terms of risk factors associated e.g. low clearance under stay

wires. As such further assessment by KSC will be required to discuss viability/cost

effectiveness.

Tree 3 and tree 4 are causing potential trip hazards due to the surface rooting.

The trip hazard can be reduced by reducing the difference between the highest

point of the root and grade level

The footpath adjacent tree 4 is being significantly displaced by tree roots and should

be repaired in a manner that better accommodates the trees roots.





1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report has been commissioned by Col Scullion (client) of Kempsey Shire

Council (KSC), to Inspect five Street trees located on Smith St Kempsey in

response to concerns arisen from whole tree failures that occurred in close

succession some months earlier.

1.2 The previous failures were attributed to sudden dynamic changes in the trees

rooting area as a consequence of beautification activities that were recently

undertaken; namely the removal and reinstallation of kerb and guttering that

was originally contiguous with the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of said trees.

1.3 Subsequently I have been asked to provide a written arboricultural report in

relation to the aforementioned trees root development areas; a site map

(including tree# locations) has been provided in appendix 1.

1.4 I have based this report on my site visit, observations, and the information

provided. My conclusions and recommendations are based on my knowledge

and experience, details of which are provided in appendix 2.

1.5 An email from the client (dated 23 November 2018) provided some relevant

historical information, work progress photographs of kerb/guttering

reinstallation (see photo 1) and a failed root plate (See photo 2). No additional

information was supplied.

1.6 I carried out one site visit on 7th of December 2018 at 11:00am to assess the

subject trees. I was onsite for approximately 1 hour, during which I conducted a

visual assessment of the trees; weather conditions were calm and clear with

average visibility. I did not carry out any excavations or detailed tests.

2. SCOPE OF THE REPORT

2.1 This report has been undertaken to meet the following objectives.

e) Assess root development of the subject trees;

f) Estimate the safe, useful life expectancy of respective subject trees;

g) Carryout individual tree risk assessments;

h) Make recommendations regarding work methods for pavement/gutter

amelioration/replacement within drip line of trees (where applicable).





2

3. LIMITATIONS

3.1 My observations and recommendations are based on my site inspection. The

findings of this report are based on the observations and site conditions at the

time of inspection.

3.2 The report reflects the subject tree(s) as found on the day of inspection. Any

changes to the growing environment of the subject tree(s), or tree

management works beyond those recommended in this report may alter the

findings of the report. There is no warranty, expressed or implied, that problems

or deficiencies relating to the subject tree(s), or subject site may not arise in the

future.

3.3 Tree identification is based on accessible visual characteristics at the time of

inspection. As key identifying features are not always available the accuracy of

identification is not guaranteed. Where tree species is unknown, it is indicated

with a spp.

3.4 All diagrams, plans and photographs included in this report are visual aids only,

and are not to scale unless otherwise indicated.

3.5 Alteration of this report invalidates the entire report.

3.6 The ultimate safety of any tree cannot be categorically guaranteed. Even trees

apparently free of defects can collapse or partially collapse in extreme

weather conditions. Trees are dynamic, biological entities subject to changes in

their environment, the presence of pathogens and the effects of ageing. These

factors reinforce the need for regular inspections. It is generally accepted that

hazards can only be identified from distinct defects or from other failure-prone

characteristics of a tree or its locality.





3

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 The assessment was carried out according to ISA’s Best management

practices: Tree risk assessment methods, using Level 2 - Basic assessment.1 I

walked completely around the subject tree(s) during my assessment.

4.2 The accuracy of my target assessment including frequency of use and property

value is limited to a brief analysis during my site assessment and discussion with

the client.

4.3 The following information was collected during the assessment of the subject

tree.

4.3.1 Tree common name;

4.3.2 Tree botanical name;

4.3.3 Tree age class;

4.3.4 Health (see appendix for definition);

4.3.5 Structural condition (see appendix for definition);

4.3.1 Amenity value (see appendix for definition);

4.3.2 Estimated remaining contribution years (SULE).2

4.4 An assessment of the trees condition was made using the visual tree

assessment (VTA) model (Mattheck & Breloer, 1994).3

1 Dunster, Julian A., Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Manual, Champaign,

Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture (2013). 2 Barrell Tree Consultancy, SULE: Its use and status into the New Millennium, TreeAZ/03/2001,

http://www.treeaz.com/ 3 Mattheck, C. & Breloer, H., The body language of trees - A handbook for failure analysis, The Stationary Office,

London, England (1994).

http://www.treeaz.com/





4

5. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF A TREES ROOT SYSTEM

5.1 It is generally accepted that the root system of a tree has four main functions;

a) Support and anchor the tree in the soil.

b) Absorb and conduct water.

c) Absorb and conduct nutrients required for tree growth.

d) Provide storage for starch.

5.2 AS4970-2009 describes that ‘the main functions of roots include the uptake of

water and nutrients, anchorage, storage of sugar reserves and the production of

some plant hormones required by the shoots. In order for roots to function, they

must be supplied with oxygen from the soil. The root system of trees consists of

several ‘types’ of roots found in different parts of the soil and is generally much

more extensive than commonly thought’.4

5.3 AS4970-2009 also states that the root system of a tree consists of three main types

of roots and these include the following;

a) Structural woody roots - Required for anchorage, storage and transport.

b) Lower order roots - Required for anchorage, storage and transport.

c) Non-woody or fibrous roots - Required for

absorption of water and nutrients, extension,

synthesis of amino acids and growth regulators.

Image (from AS4970-2009) indicates the structure of

a trees root system in a normal (unobstructed)

growing environment.

4 Council Of Standards Australia, AS4970 Protection of trees on development sites (2009) page 24.

Figure 1-Conventional Root Growth





5

5.4 A trees root system is generally located far shallower in the soil than is normally

considered. The majority of a trees root growth is usually found in the 500mm of

the soil closest to the surface, but a percentage of the roots will extend to

deeper in the soil. AS4970-2009 says that ‘root growth is opportunistic and takes

place wherever the soil environment is favourable. The most limiting factor for

root growth is air. A number of studies have indicated that roots are much more

extensive than commonly thought. In general roots extend outward from the

trunk and occupy irregularly shaped areas 4 to 7 times larger than the projected

crown area with an average diameter of two or more times the height of the

tree’.5

5.5 The shape of the root system will vary greatly depending on a number of

different factors which control the direction and extent of root growth and as

these factors are not uniformly distributed in the soil, the shape of the trees root

system will be very irregular. For example, Biddle (1998) says that ‘a deep well

drained soil will encourage a deep root system, where as a shallow soil over rock

or waterlogged subsoil can produce a root system which is virtually restricted to

the surface 200mm or less’.6

5 Council Of Standards Australia, AS4970 Protection of trees on development sites (2009), page 25. 6 Biddle, P. G., Tree Root Damage To Buildings volume 1, Willowmead Publishing Ltd, Wantage, England (1998),

page 25.





6

6. SITE LOCATION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION

6.1 The site is located in the Kempsey Shire Council (KSC) Local Government Area

(LGA) and the subject trees are protected under the KSC Local Environmental

Plan (LEP) 2012 and Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013.

6.2 The five subject trees are located along Smith St Kempsey in a 130 linear metre

area stretching from Kempsey KFC to #97.

7. OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

7.1 Overview

7.1.1 The subject trees are all Toona ciliata Red Cedar, of freestanding habit and

makeup an avenue planting which was established sometime in the 80’s as a

historical reference to the original endemic flora of the area.

7.1.2 Each respective tree has a high amenity and intrinsic (sentimental) value.

7.1.3 The trees are all mature age class with similar spread, height and calliper.

Similarly (when considering the above ground parts), they all displayed good

health and structure.

7.1.4 Tree 1 and tree 2 are planted in garden beds whereas tree 3, tree 4 and tree 5

are planted in the verge.

7.1.5 In all cases the trees have bowed/broken and/or begun to envelop kerb and

guttering. This was confirmed without the need for any excavation.

7.2 Damage to adjacent structures

7.2.1 Trees can cause damage to structures when a part of the trees root system or

trunk comes into direct contact with a structure. The root or trunk can cause

direct physical damage to a structure through pressures exerted by the radial

growth. This type of damage usually only occurs in close proximity to the base

of the tree and reduces rapidly with distance.7

7.2.2 Tree roots can distort around the foundations or footings after coming into

contact, which can often lead to a build up of roots against the footings of a

structure in close proximity to a tree as the tree roots produce a swelling of

callous growth from mechanical stimulus at the points of contact. The

combined pressure of several roots together can cause significant damage to

a structure. Biddle (1998) suggests that the most significant pressures that are

associated with roots and damage to structures are generated by the

secondary growth of roots. That is to say, when a feeder root continues its

development to form conducting or structural roots, and when pressures are

exerted radially from said roots. This can cause lateral and/or vertical pressure

against the point of contact with the structure.

7 Roberts, J., Jackson, N., & Smith, M., Tree Roots in the Built Environment, The Stationary Office, London, England

(2006), page 359





7

7.2.3 The larger the contact area between the roots and the structure, the more

pressure is exerted and the higher the likelihood of direct damage.8 Biddle

(1998) also identifies that ‘roots will frequently produce irregular growth or

excrescences, often as a reaction to exposure to light, mechanical stimulus or

minor injury. The callous growth produced in this way can often be far larger

than the root it is growing on, so that, on assumption that the cellular pressure it

exerts is similar, the overall force produced by the callus may be far greater’.9

7.3 Tree 1 and tree 2 (see photo 3 – photo 6)

Botanical

Name: Toona ciliata Common Name: Red Cedar

Age Class: Mature SULE: Long – 1b

Risk of

Failure Low - Moderate Health: Good

Structural

Condition: Good - Fair Amenity Value: High

Notes:

Above ground parts in good condition however soil volumes

inadequate for a tree of this size.

Some reliance on guttering for support.

7.3.1 Both of these trees appear to have the most confined root space available

due to kerbing being installed in a 360˚ circumference around each respective

tree. This has caused the visible roots to develop similar to those you would

observe in a container grown scenario (eventuating in the kerbing being

displaced or lifted).

7.3.2 Tree 1 and tree 2 have (in varying degrees) grown over the top lip of the

kerbing and now have begun to rely on the adjacent structure (similar to that

of a prop). In these instances it cannot be stressed enough the importance of

the built structure beneath and the critical nature it plays in support of the tree

immediately above.

7.3.3 Having said this root development has almost certainly occurred beyond the

aforementioned area as there is evidence of uplifted guttering which

corresponds with radial development of the trees root system. This would most

likely have caused distortion of the tension roots as they developed beneath

(in conjunction with physical contact). The tree is expected to have

compensated for this specific issue which in my opinion is confirmed by the

lifting of the kerb/gutter. That being said the deformation of the roots will persist

and as a consequence pose root congestion issues long term.

8 Biddle, P. G., Tree Root Damage To Buildings volume 1, Willowmead Publishing Ltd, Wantage, England (1998),

page 159. 9 Biddle, P. G., Tree Root Damage To Buildings volume 1, Willowmead Publishing Ltd, Wantage, England (1998),

page 160





8

7.3.4 Entry of pathogen via points of contact with kerb/gutter is another possibility

and should be considered if there is evidence to suggest presence of microbial

activity i.e. fungal fruiting bodies.

7.3.5 The likelihood of wind-throw or failure at the root plate is unlikely, however the

variable reliance of the tree on a comparatively lightweight man made

structure is of concern.

7.3.6 As yet there is no evidence the guttering supporting the trees has begun or is

beginning to collapse, even with the potential compressive force of a wind

loaded tree upon it. However should the kerbing fail suddenly or to any great

extent, it would be fair to expect the respective tree may topple in the

absence of the supporting structure.

7.4 Tree 3, tree 4 and tree 5 (see photo 7 – photo 12)

Botanical

Name: Toona ciliata Common Name: Red Cedar

Age Class: Mature SULE: Long – 1b

Risk of

Failure Low Health: Good

Structural

Condition: Good Amenity Value: High

Notes:

Above ground parts in good condition however soil compaction

has caused shallow development of SRZ.

Kerbing adj. tree 3 and 5 disassociated.

Tree 4 developing some reliance on guttering for support.

7.4.1 The trees on the eastern side of the road have a far greater unimpeded root

development area as a consequence of not being effectively “cut off” from

the nearest substantial sources of hydration/sustenance by kerbing etc. There is

however compaction issues (as you might expect adjacent a footpath) which

has caused many of the roots to develop along the surface of the substrate.

7.4.2 The unfortunate outcome is there has been lifting of the pavement nearest tree

3 and tree 4 with the later being the most pronounced. This appears to have

been identified by KSC at some point in the past as there has been mitigation

of the associated trip hazard.

7.4.3 Tree 4 (similar to the scenario described in section 7.3.6) is beginning to

develop callus around the topside of the kerbing. I cannot be sure if this

structural root is unable to grow down below grade because of soil

compaction; subsequently if this is because of compaction then it would be of

greater concern as it could indicate that the tree is more dependent on the

kerbing for support than initially suspected.

7.4.4 Tree 5 is probably the smallest of the group and as such has cause the least

damage and appears to have a deeper root profile when compared against

the others. Having said this, the kerbing adjacent has been disassociated and is





9

being pushed into the roadway. This may have been how tree 3 looked before

the kerbing was removed (presumably by KSC).

8. MITIGATION OPTIONS

8.1 Tree 1 and Tree 2

8.1.1 Significant Canopy Reduction Pruning, Stay-wire Installation and replacement

of affected kerb and guttering to allow for future SRZ development

8.1.2 The effectiveness of such action could provide for long term retention of the

trees as wind sail reduction would reduce forces being exerted on the possibly

compromised SRZ, whilst anchorage installed to restrain the respective trees

would fortify them in the ground enough to remove the damaged guttering.

Reinstallation of new hardscape could then be undertaken. Anchorage would

then need to remain in situ for some years (periodically being released) to

allow the trees to compensate for the significant changes that have occurred.

8.1.3 Such a prescription would be challenging not to compromise the axiom of

uniform stress10, in addition to KSC being potentially liable for any injury, or

property damage arisen from installation of anchorage in four opposite

directions (cardinal points) from the trees.

8.2 Tree 3 and Tree 4

8.2.1 These trees have similar circumstance given the degree of surface rooting and

as such pose similar risks in terms of trip hazard. Options to reduce trip hazard

associated with the trip hazard is difficult given the close proximity of the

roadway as the easiest way to reduce overall height of the root is to import

matured wood mulch and spread to the respective height of each root.

Unfortunately in this instance without an effective method of retention, mulch

would more likely end up on the road and the storm water drain. Having said

this, it is probably the best biological option for the trees.

8.3 Removal and Replacement of Footpath Adjacent Tree 4

8.3.1 Attempts to mitigate footpath being deflected have already been undertaken

however there is a significant change to pavement levels which should be

properly repaired rather than “patched”. As such the concrete sections need

to be replaced in a manner that doesn’t damage the roots that exist

immediately beneath.

8.3.2 This can be achieved by either lifting manually (by hand) of utilising a mini

excavator (or similar device) situated atop the concrete in a manner that it

displaces none of its weight on unprotected roots, essentially peeling the

concrete back as it progresses.

10 Mattheck, C. & Breloer, H., The body language of trees - A handbook for failure analysis, The Stationary Office,

London, England (1994) page 240.





10

8.3.3 Once concrete has been removed satisfactorily the replacement concrete

should be suspended on piers which should be dug by hand tools only.

8.3.4 These actions must be overseen by KSC’s arborist or suitably qualified person.

9. CONCLUSIONS

9.1 The trees are in good health and are good examples of the species; however

they are all too close to hardscape and probably established in inadequate

soil volume/depth.

9.2 Tree1, tree 2 (and to a lesser extent tree 4) are beginning to develop reliance

on kerb for support.

9.2.1 The large size of the trees and confined space makes mitigation challenging

and presumably expensive due to the position of the trees adjacent a major

thoroughfare. Further, any mitigation option previously discussed for tree 1 or

tree 2 will have ramifications in terms of risk factors associated e.g. low

clearance under stay wires. As such further assessment by KSC will be required

to discuss viability/cost effectiveness.

9.3 Tree 3 and tree 4 are causing potential trip hazards due to the surface rooting.

9.3.1 The trip hazard can be reduced by reducing the difference between the

highest point of the root and grade level

9.3.2 The footpath adjacent tree 4 is being significantly displaced by tree roots and

should be repaired in a manner that better accommodates the trees roots.





11

10. PHOTOGRAPHS

Above: Photo 1 – Looking at one of the previously failed trees with kerbing removed. Note the root

congestion adjacent where the kerbing was originally situated (red arrows).

Below: Photo 2 – Looking at separate failed tree root plate. Note asymmetric formation of root plate

that developed as a consequence of the confinement within original planting area.





12

Above: Photo 3 – Looking north at tree 1. Purple arrow indicates area of partial envelopment of

kerbing.

Below: Photo 4 – Looking south at deflection of kerbing, as indicated by yellow arrow.





13

Above: Photo 5 – Looking north at tree 2. Purple arrow indicates area of significant envelopment of

kerbing.

Below: Photo 6 – Looking south. Similar to tree 1 deflection of kerbing is present however more

pronounced. Yellow arrow indicates uplifted guttering.





14

Above: Photo 7 – Looking north at tree 3. Purple arrow indicates absent kerbing, loosened sections

appear to have been previously removed. It is uncertain if the tree has begun to

envelop roadway.

Below: Photo 8 – Looking north rooting area , yellow arrow indicates lifted sections of pavement





15

Above: Photo 9 – Looking north at tree 4. Purple arrow indicates area of partial envelopment of

kerbing.

Below: Photo 10 – Looking north east at deflection of pavement.





16

Above: Photo 11 – Looking north at tree 5.

Below: Photo 12 – Looking south at disassociation of kerbing.





17

11. RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Required work: Carryout works in the table below subject to approval by KSC.

Tree # Schedule of Works

Option #1

Tree Species Priority Residual Risk

1 & 2 Toona ciliata High n/a

Remove and replace the tree.


Option #2


1 & 2 Toona ciliata High Moderate

Canopy reduction and install stay wires to anchor tree



3

Toona ciliata High Low

Install mature wood much or increase soil volume adjacent trip hazard caused by

shallow rooting.



4

Toona ciliata High Low

Install mature wood much or increase soil volume adjacent trip hazard caused by

shallow rooting.

Remove and replace concrete footpath utilising techniques discussed in section

8.3.



5 Toona ciliata Low Low

Inspect every 12 months

11.2 Implementation of works: I advise that the work should be carried out by a

qualified and experienced arborist. The contractor should carry out all tree works

in accordance with NSW Work Cover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree

Industry (1998) and AS4373 Pruning of amenity trees (2007), as modified by

current research.





18

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Australia, C. O. S., n.d. AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

s.l.:Standards Austrllia.

Barrell Tree Consultancy, April 2001. SULE: Its use and status into the New Millennium,

TreeAZ/03/2001, http://www.treeaz.com/.. Sydney, NAAA Conference.

Briddle, P., 1998. Tree Root Damage to Buildings volume 1. Wantage, England:

Willowmead Publishing Ltd.

Julian A. Dunster, T. S. N. M. a. S. L., 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign,

Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture.

Lonsdale, D., 1999. Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management. Fifth

Impression (2007) ed. London: The Stationary Office.

Mattheck, C. &. B. H., 1994. The Body Language of Trees - A handbook for failure

analysis. Sixth impression (2001) ed. London, U.K.: The Stationery Office.

Roberts, J. J. N. &. S. M., 1999. Tree Roots in the Built Environment. London, England:

The Stationary Office.

Shigo, A. L., 1986. A New Tree Biology. Durham, New Hampshire: Shigo and Trees,

Associates.

13. LIST OF APPENDICES

The following are included in the appendices:

Appendix 1 - Site plan

Appendix 2 - Brief description of author's qualifications and experience

Appendix 3 - Tree Health categories

Appendix 4 - Structural Condition categories

Appendix 5 - SULE categories

Appendix 6 - Amenity Value

Rhys Mackney

Consulting Arborist

Accomplished Tree Management Pty Ltd

Diploma of Arboriculture (AQF5)

APPENDIX 1 - SITE PLAN

Tree locations (Image courtesy of https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au accessed 12/01/1019).

5

4

2

3

1

https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/

APPENDIX 2 - AUTHORS BRIEF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Horticultural/Arboricultural Qualifications:

Certificate II in Horticulture (Arboriculture (AQF2))

Certificate III in Horticulture (Arboriculture (AQF3))

Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture (AQF5))

Experience: 2008 to Present - Director of Accomplished Tree Management Pty Ltd:

Qualified as a consulting arborist in 2015, covering all aspects of written and

verbal arboricultural consultancy for commercial and residential clients,

including tree condition assessment and development related arborist reports

and providing advice in relation to trees and development.

2011 to present - Contract climbing for several companies in addition to

private work within the Sydney metro area and more recently (January 2016

onwards) the Port Macquarie Hastings and surrounding areas. Professional

tree work has focused on residential/commercial aspects of arboriculture,

predominantly removals and pruning. This in turn has led to further

development as a climbing Arborist through greater exposure to skills and

techniques utilised within the Arboricultural industry.

2008 to 2011 - Maintaining Energy Australia's (Ausgrid's) assets in the Hunter

Valley, Gosford and Hornsby contracts for Active Tree Services and later on

the Northern Beaches and Upper/Lower North Shore of Sydney for Australian

Urban Tree Services. Tree climbing and EWP work involved pruning and

removal of trees in either live or de-energised environments. Voltages ranged

from Low Voltage – 132KV.

2005 to 2008 - Arborist (Leading Hand) Ryde City Council. This included a

month's experience working in the role of Tree Management Officer (TMO).

2001 to 2005 - Ground Crew/Stump Grinder Operator. Bolans Tree Service.

APPENDIX 3 - PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION AND HEALTH

Category Example Condition Summary

Good

Crown has good foliage

density for species.

Tree shows no or minimal signs

of pathogens that are unlikely

to have an effect on the

health of the tree.

Tree is displaying good vigour

and reactive growth

development

The tree is in above

average health and

condition and no remedial

works are required.

Fair

The tree may be starting to

dieback or have over 25%

deadwood.

Tree may have slightly reduced

crown density or thinning.

There may be some

discolouration of foliage.

Average reactive growth

development.

There may be early signs of

pathogens which may further

deteriorate the health of the

tree.

There may be epicormic

growth indicating increased

levels of stress within the tree.

The tree is in below average

health and condition and

may require remedial works

to improve the trees health

Poor

The may be in decline, have

extensive dieback or have

over 30% deadwood.

The canopy may be sparse or

the leaves may be unusually

small for species.

Pathogens or pests are having

a significant detrimental effect

on the tree health.

The tree is displaying low

levels of health and removal

or remedial works may be

required.

Dead The tree is dead or almost

dead.

The tree should generally be

removed.

APPENDIX 4 - STRUCTURAL CONDITION

Category Example Condition Summary

Good

Branch unions appear to be strong

with no sign of defects.

There are no significant cavities.

The tree is unlikely to fail in usual

conditions.

The tree has a balanced crown

shape and form.

The tree is considered

structurally good with

well developed form.

Fair

The tree may have minor structural

defects within the structure of the

crown that could potentially

develop into more significant

defects.

The tree may a cavity that is

currently unlikely to fail but may

deteriorate in the future.

The tree is an unbalanced shape or

leans significantly.

The tree may have minor damage

to its roots.

The root plate may have moved in

the past but the tree has now

compensated for this.

Branches may be rubbing or

crossing.

The identified defects

are unlikely to cause

major failure.

Some branch failure

may occur in usual

conditions.

Remedial works can be

undertaken to alleviate

potential defects.

Poor

The tree has significant structural

defects.

Branch unions may be poor or

weak.

The tree may have a cavity or

cavities with excessive levels of

decay that could cause

catastrophic failure.

The tree may have root damage or

is displaying signs of recent

movement.

The tree crown may have poor

weight distribution which could

cause failure.

The identified defects

are likely to cause either

partial or whole failure

of the tree.

APPENDIX 5 - SAFE USEFULE LIFE EXPECANCY (SULE) (BARRELL TREE

CONSULTANCY, APRIL 2001)

A trees safe useful life expectancy is determined by assessing a number of different factors

including the health and vitality, estimated age in relation to expected life expectancy for

the species, structural defects, and remedial works that could allow retention in the existing

situation.

Category Description

1.Long - Over 40

years

(a) Structurally sound trees located in positions that can accommodate future

growth.

(b) Trees that could be made suitable for retention in the long term by

remedial tree care.

(c) Trees of special significance for historical, commemorative or rarity reasons

that would warrant extraordinary efforts to secure their long term

retention.

2 Medium - 15 to

40 years

(a) Trees that may only live between 15 and 40 more years.

(b) Trees that could live for more than 40 years but may be removed for safety

or nuisance reasons.

(c) Trees that could live for more than 40 years but may be removed to

prevent interference with more suitable individuals or to provide space

for new planting.

(d) Trees that could be made suitable for retention in the medium term by

remedial tree care.

3. Short - 5 to 15

years

(a) Trees that may only live between 5 and 15 more years.

(b) Trees that could live for more than 15 years but may be removed for safety

or nuisance reasons.

(c) Trees that could live for more than 15 years but may be removed to

prevent interference with more suitable individuals or to provide space

for new planting.

(d) Trees that require substantial remedial tree care and are only suitable for

retention in the short term.

4 Remove - Under

5 years

(a) Dead, dying, suppressed or declining trees because of disease or

inhospitable conditions.

(b) Dangerous trees because of instability or recent loss of adjacent trees.

(c) Dangerous trees because of structural defects including cavities, decay,

included bark, wounds or poor form.

(d) Damaged trees that are clearly not safe to retain.

(e) Trees that could live for more than 5 years but may be removed to prevent

interference with more suitable individuals or to provide space for new

planting.

(f) Trees that are damaging or may cause damage to existing structures within

5 years.

(g) Trees that will become dangerous after removal of other trees for the

reasons given in (a) to (f).

(h) Trees in categories (a) to (g) that have a high wildlife habitat value and,

with appropriate treatment, could be retained subject to regular review.

5 Small/Young

(a) Small trees less than 5m in height.

(b) Young trees less than 15 years old but over 5m in height.

(c) Formal hedges and trees intended for regular pruning to artificially control

growth.

APPENDIX 6 - AMENITY VALUE

To determine the amenity value of a tree we assess a number of different factors

which include but are not limited to the information below.

• The visibility of the tree to adjacent sites.

• The relationship between the tree and the site.

• Whether the tree is protected by any statuary conditions.

• The habitat value of the tree.

• Whether the tree is considered a noxious weed species.

Arboricultural Report - Smith St, Kempsey 2440 · 2019. 9. 16. · 5.3 AS4970-2009 also states that...

Documents

Transcript of Arboricultural Report - Smith St, Kempsey 2440 · 2019. 9. 16. · 5.3 AS4970-2009 also states that...