EPPING STORE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN€¦ · 1.01 THE PROJECT BRIEF The landscape architectural...

Kaufland Epping Store (2038) Cover

FORMium Pty Ltd Landscape Architects ABN: 61 636 470 354 November 2018

KAUFLAND AUSTRALIA PTY LTD EPPING STORE

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REVIEW EXPERT WITNESS REPORT

Prepared by: Mark McWha, Registered Landscape Architect

Submission to: Planning Panel Victoria Advisory Committee Proceeding November 2018

Kaufland Epping Store (2038) Contents

FORMium Pty Ltd ABN: 61 636 470 354 November 2018

KAUFLAND EPPING SHOPPING CENTRE LANDSCAPE EXPERT WITNESS REPORT CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.01 The Project Brief 1.02 Credentials for Evidence 1.03 Local Authority Planning Policies

2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 2.01 Site Location 2.02 Existing Ground Conditions 2.03 Existing Micro Climate

3.0 EXISTING VEGETATION

4.0 THE PROPSED ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT 4.01 Store Location on Site 4.02 Vehicle Access and Circulation 4.03 Pedestrian Access and Circulation

5.0 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT OVERVIEW

6.0 KEY LANDSCAPE AREAS 6.01 High Street Frontage + Main Front Carpark 6.02 Cooper Street Approach 6.03 Store Entry and Front Concourse 6.04 Pedestrian Sitting Nodes 6.05 Rear Service Loading Area 7.0 HARD LANDSCAPE DETAILS 7.01 Carpark Paving and ‘Shared Zones’ 7.02 Feature Concourse Paving 7.03 Seating Node Plaza 7.04 Feature Seats 7.05 Precast Concrete Planters 7.06 Bike Rails

8.0 PLANTING THEMES 8.01 Theme Trees 8.02 Ground Cover Plants

9.0 AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION

10.0 IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS

11.0 ONGOING MAINTENANCE

12.0 CONCLUSION

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Aerial Image of Existing Site Figure 2 Existing Tree Survey Figure 3 Landscape Concept Plan Figure 4 Landscape Detail Sheet 3 Figure 5 Landscape Detail Sheet 1 Figure 6 Landscape Detail Sheet 2 Figure 7 Car Park Section Figure 8 Plant Schedule Figure 9 Plant Photo Sheet ATTACHEMENTS: Attachment A: Mark McWha CURRICULUM VITAE

Attachment B: Treelogic: Arborists Report

Kaufland Epping Store (2038) Page 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.01 THE PROJECT BRIEF

The landscape architectural practice FORMium Pty Ltd of which Mark McWha is director / principal, was engaged by Kaufland Australia Pty Ltd, to undertake the landscape design for their first six stores in Victoria. This included the Epping store.

The main elements of the brief included the following: > Liaison and coordination with the client, Kaufland, and their consultant team, including their internal

project managers, planning consultants, PPP; the architects, Leffler Simes; traffic consultants, GTA; and the arborists,Treelogic.

> In preparing this statement and landscape design, I have had regard to the architects plans ‘Rev A1’ as exhibited and amended plans based on consultant inputs (as I have been Instructed).

> To visit the site and to undertake a site investigation; including review of the existing site infrastructure; review of the site context; review of adjacent land uses and interfaces; review of the existing site character, and views into and out of the site; review of existing site access, and circulation and potential pedestrian desire lines; existing trees and vegetation, and to assess the local growing conditions.

> To review the proposed architectural design and site layout; and to prepare a preliminary draft landscape concept plan; and to present and review it with the client / consultant team.

> To incorporate ongoing feedback, and to develop the landscape plan and landscape design themes and details.

> To develop planting themes and design framework, to meet the clients functional and aesthetic requirements, and suited to the growing conditions of the site.

> To take into account and place emphasis on environmental sustainability in the landscape design.

> To take into account and place emphasis on reducing ongoing maintenance requirements in the landscape design, where possible.

> To create a safe and ‘pedestrian friendly’ environment for site users.

> To take into account commercial visibility, and the sense of approach, to and from the site. This includes maintaining clear sightlines, where possible, to key strategic identification signs, and the approach to the main store entrance.

> To develop a suite of high quality landscape and site furniture details, for consistent use on Kaufland’s Australian projects, to enhance Kaufland’s local sense of identity.

> To prepare a final landscape design of high quality; with a strong visual character, which provides a functional layout with high landscape amenity for Kaufland, personnel, store users, and the adjacent and broader community. One which Kaufland and the local community can be proud of.

> Finally, as directed and instructed by Kaufland’s planners; and their legal representatives, to prepare this report, and act as an ‘independent’ expert witness, for Planning Panels Victoria (PPV) Advisory Committee proceedings.

> In preparing the report, I have had regard to the ‘Guide to Expert Evidence’ prepared by Planning Panels Victoria.



1.02 CREDENTIALS FOR STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

Mark McWha is a registered landscape architect and registered architect (Vic) with over 40 years experience in practice, including the following: > Over 30 years as principal /director of a successful landscape architectural practice, with numerous

peer and industry awards. > Landscape architect and designer lead for the majority of Melbourne’s stand alone retail shopping

centres.

> International experience, with an office in Melbourne and Shanghai, with an extensive portfolio of award winning international commercial projects.

> Extensive local project experience, and knowledge of local authority expectations and requirements.

> Extensive experience in liaison and a coordination role with a project client/consultant team,

including architects, project managers, planners, civil engineers, service engineers, DDA consultants, ESD consultants, and arborist for an integrated design outcome.

> Experience in application and integration of WSUD and sustainable environmental principles for a landscape design.

> Extensive knowledge of plant species and local growing conditions; including the appropriate use of

plant material – exotic plants, native plants and indigenous species; and local plant availability and supply requirements.

> Extensive experience with stand alone retail shopping centres, and the constraints of both the

functional site layouts; and day to day user requirements, and potential ongoing user impacts on the landscape.

> Extensive experience with the professional practice process of seeing a project through to implementation, and an up to date knowledge of the local landscape contractor/construction trade industry, and best practice performance.

NOTE : Mark’s practice undertook the landscape design for the various stages of the Epping Plaza Shopping centre, located directly opposite the site; so he is very familiar with the local growing conditions.

Mark’s curriculum vitae is attached as Attachment A. 1.03 LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING POLICIES

In preparing the landscape plans, I have taken into account the local City of Whittlesea planning policies, relevant to landscape, in particular:

> Clause 21.05 Environmental and Landscape Values > Clause 21.06 Natural Resource Management > Clause 21.07 Environmental Risk > Clause 22.03 Bushfire Management Policy > Clause 22.10 River Red Gum Protection Policy

http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/whittlesea/ordinance/21_mss05_wsea.pdf



http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/whittlesea/ordinance/22_lpp03_wsea.pdf

http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/whittlesea/ordinance/22_lpp10_wsea.pdf



2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT

The site is located on the east side of High Street, Epping, directly opposite the Epping Plaza Shopping Complex.

A recent aerial photo of the existing site is shown on Figure 1. Aerial Image of Existing Site.

The site was a former Bunnings store, with the building still in place, and with the existing the carpark still intact, and the former landscape also retained.

There is a wide grassed nature strip on the High street road reserve with almost no street trees. The site sits within a broader commercial site, and even the central section of the front carpark, facing onto High street, sits within a larger carpark that services the existing large format retail buildings to the north and south side, as can be seen on Figure 1.

The adjacent landuse behind the centre, to the east side consists of a large Epping railway station warehouse depot building and an associated carpark. And there is local regional electrical substation complex to the north side of the store building, with access off Cooper Street. This sits within a larger allotment, leaving an area of grassed open space between the store and the substation.

2.02 EXISTING GROUND CONDITIONS

The site is underlain by northern suburbs heavy and reactive basaltic grey clay and deeper basalt bedrock. Virtually all of the site was disturbed by the earlier construction of the Bunnings store and carpark. However, the condition of the trees, and the vegetation on nearby sites show that the local growing conditions are can be favourable once appropriately selected vegetation is established.

2.03 EXISTING MICROCLIMATE

The site enjoys Melbourne’s moderate, albeit at times unpredictable climate; and rainfall is slightly less than average for the broader Melbourne area.

The predominant winds are south-westerly, which are colder in winter; and northerly, which can be hot and dry in summer.

Again, the condition of vegetation in nearby areas, even without supplementary irrigation, shows that the local growing conditions can be favourable.



3.0 EXISTING VEGETATION

An arborists report has been prepared for the site by Treelogic. This is attached as Attachment B.

Existing trees are identified, and have been shown on Figure 2, Existing Trees Survey, based on the arborist report.

Most of the residual former carpark trees, which were planted in diamond bays in the carpark, still exist.

The existing main carpark theme tree is Spotted Gum, Corymbia maculata. Although still immature trees, these are very large trees. Most are planted in diamond bays at the intersection of four car parking spaces. Almost all of the trees have had their lower branches pruned off, leaving the trees as very tall ‘lollypops’ with lamp post like trunks. This tree species is one which is likely to drop limbs in high winds, so requires a significant amount of monitoring and management. It is not really a suitable for a carpark situation.

There is an ‘avenue’ of small exotic trees on the main entry drive off High Street. These are Robinia, Robinia pseudoacacia, varietals. These trees vary in height, and condition, but most are in poor condition, and should be removed, and be replaced. Unlike some other species, these trees do not perform well, with confined type root spaces, and their braches can be brittle, and subject to wind damage in exposed locations, which appears to have occurred here.

On the access road which runs off Cooper Street to the north, a line of Ornamental Pears, Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’, have recently been planted on the east side, behind the existing footpath. A couple have been damaged and need to be replaced. Although these trees are planted within the site, the trees appear to have been planted by the ‘Council’. Nevertheless, their ongoing management will be the responsibility of Kaufland. The selection of this species was in my opinion, a suitable choice.



4.0 THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT

4.01 STORE LOCATION ON SITE

The store generally occupies the location of the former Bunnings store, at the ‘rear’ eastern side of the site.

The main building elevation presents to the main carpark, fronting onto the High Street side. There are also smaller carparks on the north side, and the southern side.

The main entry to the store is on the north –west corner of the building.

4.02 VEHICLE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION (GENERAL)

The main vehicle circulation is similar to the former Bunning’s site. The main vehicle access is retained from High Street in its present location. As for the existing situation, there is the same secondary entry /exit from Cooper street, and from the service road which runs along behind the south boundary behind the existing adjacent large format retail properties.

The loading area is still located on the north –eastern corner of the building, and an external service area, with water storage tanks and a pump room, is located on the south side of the building- both areas are accessed from the south side rear service road, which comes off High Street.

The finished level of the existing main carpark is intend to be dropped slightly, in order to improve the grade on the carpark, and to facilitate the use of shopping trolleys. This is shown on Figure 7, Car Park Section.

The ‘Shared Zone’

The main carpark access road in front of the building is intended to be a shared vehicle/pedestrian zone. The road surface will be highlighted with a special textured surface. The paving will consist of charcoal dye coloured concrete with a 500x500mm modular saw-cut treatment, with a light shot –blast, or acid wash finish, to simulate sawn bluestone pavers. This ‘textured’ finish is intended to alert traffic to slow down, in an area of more concentrated pedestrian use.

4.03 PEDESTRAIN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

Like all shopping centres, pedestrians will move and filter through the carpark, towards and from the main store entrance. So in a sense, the whole carpark is a ‘Shared Zone’. But as noted above, the road adjacent to the building will have a special treatment.

There are footpaths immediately adjacent to the building, on each of the two main carpark sides (north and west side), which lead to the store entry.

The main pedestrian ‘concourse’, with modular stone paving, runs along the main north-west frontage of the building, and terminates at a wide pedestrian forecourt at the north corner store entrance.

There are two radial footpaths, which link out from the store entry, to High Street, and to Cooper Street, linking to perimeter external footpaths.



5.0 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT OVERVIEW The landscape concept plan is shown on Figure 3, with supporting enlargement plans, illustrative sections and elevations, on the Landscape Details Sheets, Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7. The landscape design intent is to provide an attractive landscape of high amenity, with a strong sense of individual character, which can be identified as a ‘Kaufland’ store. The landscape treatment includes: > Pedestrian links through the carpark to the main store entry.

> A pedestrian ‘plaza’ sitting, resting, meeting area within the carpark, on the southern side.

> High quality pavement treatments with modular paved stone pavers, at the entry forecourt, and the pedestrian concourse.

> High quality bespoke planter and seat details

> Improved landscape gardenbed planting to the Cooper Street approach, and within the main carpark.

> Removal and replacement of existing trees on a staged basis.

> Carpark shade theme trees

> Stormwater harvesting for use in irrigation

The landscape concept is described in more detail in the following section.



6.0 KEY LANDSCAPE AREAS

6.01 HIGH STREET FRONTAGE AND MAIN FRONT CARPARK A community footpath link will run through the carpark, directly to the main store entry. This link will be visually reinforced with a line of Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’, Chanticleer Ornamental Pears.

Shade Trees are carried through the carpark, planted in diamond bays. These will be Eucalyptus ‘Little Spotty’. These will be planted as advanced trees, 100 litre supply size, about 3 metres height. This species has performed well in diamond planting bay situations – the planting detail is shown on Figure 6.

At the front of the existing carpark, where the levels are not intended to be adjusted, the existing Spotted Gums will be retained. As previously noted, these trees will need to be carefully managed. At some time in the medium term, these trees can be removed, and replaced with the Eucalyptus ‘Little Spotty’.

6.02 COOPER STREET APPROACH

The line of recently planted Chanticleer Pears will be reinforced with new trees on the opposite side of the road, to create the sense of an avenue.

The garden bed strip adjacent to the carpark will be mass planted with low ground cover plants.

6.03 STORE ENTRY FORECOURT AND FRONT CONCOURSE

The store entry is architecturally highlighted with a special angled and offset box element, with Kaufland graphics, which strongly articulates and designates the point of entry.

This is complemented in the hard landscape with similarly angled paving pattern, on the wide entry forecourt plaza.

The paving here, and on the pedestrian concourse, running along the building frontage, consists of sawn stone pavers. The paving pattern is shown on Figure 6.

Well designed, robust and sustainable precast concrete planters, are located on the plaza and the concourse, to direct and control pedestrian movement. These will be planted with a variety of clipped low hedges, Ficus ‘Flash’, which will be planted at an advanced size, to provide an immediate soft edge to the plaza and the concourse. The planter detail is shown on Figure 6.

It is my recommendation that the detail of these planters, and their layout, is slightly different to that shown on the amended architectural drawings. This is in order to make the planters more sturdy, and to provide soil volumes that make the planters more sustainable over a longer period of time.

A line of high quality stainless steel bicycle hoops, located on the north edge of the plaza will provide a convenient location for local bicycle users.

The adjacent carpark access road surface is treated as ‘shared zone’ for mixed pedestrian vehicle use, as previously described. This is intended to reinforce to drivers that they are entering a zone where pedestrians will be more concentrated, and appropriate care should be taken.



6.04 PEDESTRIAN SITTING NODES

Two separate seating plazas have been provided in the carpark – one located at the southern end of the store building; and one on the axis of the main central footpath linking form High Street. Both utilise the same high quality stone paving, and feature seat detail, as the store entry forecast.

They have a surrounding wide garden bed with a low clipped Westringia hedge, which provides separation from the adjacent carparks.

6.05 REAR LOADING AREA

The loading area is located on the north east corner of the building, and is ‘tucked away’ from most of the site, with access from the rear east side service road.

The rear boundary gardenbed strip will have a line of Eucalyptus ‘Euky Dwarf’, and be massed planted with hardy Lomandra ground cover.



7.0 HARD LANDSCAPE DETAILS

The following hard landscape details have been adapted, or developed, for the intended consistent use across all of the Kaufland stores in Victoria, and potentially other parts of Australia. This is intended to enhance and contribute to a general sense of consistent identity, and an integrated character of high quality, for the Kaufland stores in Australia.

All of the detail guidelines have been developed for Australia, but elements such as the feature concourse stone paving, have been adapted from theme patterns, common to the urban locations of the Kaufland European stores; but using local materials. In my opinion, all of the details are of a somewhat higher standard, than those used for equivalent stand alone stores in Australia.

7.01 CARPARK PAVING AND ‘SHARED ZONES’

Carpark paving consists of standard grey - black asphalt (bituminous concrete) with plain grey concrete kerb and channels.

The ‘shared zone’ pavement along the building frontage consists of charcoal dye coloured concrete paving, with a modular 500 x 500 mm saw-cut pattern, which will simulate sawn bluestone paving. This is intended to alert and slow drivers, in an area where pedestrian desire lines will be concentrated.

7.02 FEATURE CONCOURSE PAVING

The pedestrian concourse along the building frontage, and the broad pedestrian forecourt at the main entry, will be paved with high quality modular sawn stone paving. This will consist of bands of sawn bluestone, reinforcing the rhythm of the architectural elevation. This will be combined with exfoliated granite pavers in a running stretcher bond pattern, perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian movement.

7.03 SEATING NODE PLAZA

The pedestrian seating node plazas will be highlighted with the same sawn stone pavers and pattern, as the concourse. The seats will be the same high quality contemporary seats, described in the next clause.

7.04 FEATURE SEATS

These seats will be a be-spoke contemporary design. The support base is a charcoal coloured precast concrete unit, with a light grit-blast finish, to reinforce the ‘bluestone’ component of the stone paving, and the ‘shared pedestrian zone’. The cantilever heavy sawn natural timber battens are to be of durable hardwood, such as spotted-gum or ironbark timber, with a natural finish.

7.05 PRECAST CONCRETE PLANTERS

These large precast concrete planters (2000x600x500 wide) also have a charcoal dye colour finish, with a similar grit-blast texture, to continue the ‘bluestone’ colour theme. The planters have integrated drainage and automatic irrigation. The planters will be used to direct and control pedestrian movement. As previously noted, the detail and the layout is slightly different to that shown on the architects drawings.

7.06 BIKE RAILS

Bicycle hoops will be standard high quality polished stainless steel hoops, as recommended and approved by ‘Bicycle Victoria’.



8.0 PLANTING THEMES The proposed planting pallet species are listed in the Plant Theme Schedule, Figure 8, and photos of the main plant theme species are shown on the Plant Theme Photo Sheet, Figure 9. The plant species have been selected because they are attractive, hardy species, of low water demand, which have been used and proven in a relatively harsh Melbourne urban environment, and are suited to the local Epping growing conditions.

8.01 THEME TREES

Most of the existing Yellow Box boundary trees, Eucalyptus melliodora, will be retained, and managed. This species is a fairly stable tree. They can grow to a large size, so they will need to be managed amenity pruned, and limb reduced. In time, when they become too large, they may need to be replaced, with similar smaller trees.

The main new carpark trees are:

• Eucalyptus ‘Little Spotty’ • Eucalyptus ‘Euky Dwarf’

These two native trees, are cultivars, which are medium size trees, which should only grow up to about 6 to 8 metres height, by 5 metres spread, on this site. This is a good manageable size for a carpark situation. The trees at this size, will still provide shade, and positive landscape amenity. The theme tree used to highlight the pedestrian link is Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’, Chanticleer Ornamental Pear. All trees will be supplied, and planted as advanced trees, 100 litre pot size, about 3 metres height. In a carpark situation, advanced trees are less likely to be trampled, vandalised, or stolen, and will act as directional markers for the orientation of pedestrians.

8.02 GROUND COVER PLANTS

All garden beds will be planted with massed swathes of low ground cover plants, with contrasting foliage colours and textures. The main species are: - Lomandra ‘Tanika’ Tanika Mat Rush - Dietes grandiflora ‘Variegata’ Variegated Wild Iris - Dianella ‘Little Jess’ Little Jess Dianella - Westringia ‘Mundi’ Mundi Native Rosemary

These plants will be spaced at relatively close 450mm staggered centres, for a fairly complete gar coverage from the outset.



9.0 AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION

All general soft landscape areas within the site are to be irrigated. This includes all garden beds, and the freestanding planters on the front concourse. Rainwater will be harvested from the roof, and directed to large above ground storage tanks (60,000 litre capacity) at the rear of the building. There will be a back-up supply from mains water, if the tanks become empty. The water will be filtered, and pumped to pressurise an irrigation loop main. A small digital irrigation controller will be located in a rear store room. It will have twenty – four stations, and be programmable for controlled water use for each season. The soft landscape areas will be divided up into separate manageable areas, determined by aspect, exposure and size. The irrigation distribution will consist of efficient in-line drip emitters, furrowed into the topsoil surface, and secured below the gardenbed mulch, at 500mm nominal centres. All selected plant material is very hardy with low water demand species; and the watering regime will be just sufficient to maintain the plants in good horticultural condition. A manual with the autoCAD irrigation design layout and a faults check – list; and emergency call – out number will be retained on site, in a cabinet with the automatic irrigation controller.

10.0 IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS

The current landscape plans are at advanced concept stage. FORMium Landscape Architects have been engaged by Kaufland to provide full landscape architectural services for this project. The next stage will include ‘Landscape Design Development’ and then after review and coordination with the client/consultant team, move on to full ‘Construction Documentation’. That includes complete hard landscape detailing, and a full planting layout, with plant schedule with all plant quantities and supply sizes (generally in accordance with the attached plant schedule). Where necessary, plant material will be pre-ordered, to meet the supply requirements for the significant quantities involved in these works. The landscape works are to be tendered, together with the building works. A nominated range of approved landscape contractors will be specified, who are experienced in this type of high quality commercial project. The works will be inspected for the quality of materials and workship, and there will be an extended 52 week defects liability/maintenance period, prior to Final Completion. All plant material should be well established at final handover.



11.0 ONGOING MAINTENANCE

After final handover, the soft landscape will be maintained on a regular weekly visitation basis. At this stage, Kaufland have not decided whether the landscape will be maintained by external professional landscape maintenance contractors; or whether they will employ an in-house team of suitably experienced Kaufland employees, to maintain their various sites. The latter is the way they maintain their sites in Europe, which has certain advantages, because the horticultural maintenance staff have knowledge of the site, and a sense of stewardship. Regardless, the site is intended to be maintained to a high standard.

12.0 CONCLUSION

Although I am author of the landscape design described in this evidence, I believe that I can objectively claim that the landscape design will provide a landscape outcome of very high quality, and good amenity. One which enhances the architectural layout, and one which will improve the landscape character of the site. The following are some key landscape upgrades, that might not be found on an equivalent similar development site. > Removal and replacement of existing trees on a staged basis. > Pedestrian links/footpaths leading from external streets directly into the store main entrance

forecourt.

> Plant densities with advanced plant material, at the rate of five plants per square metre, which will

provide a full cover from the time of opening.

> Modular stone paving to the generous store entry forecourt, and the main pedestrian concourse.

> A shared vehicle / pedestrian zone treatment, to calm traffic and enhance amenity.

> High quality ‘bespoke’ seating and planter details.

> Two pedestrian plazas- sitting, resting, meeting nodes, within the carpark.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Advisory Committee.

Kaufland Epping Store (2038) Attachment A


KAUFLAND EPPING STORE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN PLANNING PANEL VICTORIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCEEDING EXPERT WITNESS REPORT

Attachment A Mark McWHA – CURRICULUM VITAE

FORMium PTY LTD Landscape Architects April 2018

M A R K M c W H A - C U R R I C U L U M V I T A E

BIOGRAPHICAL Mark Rippon McWha, B Arch M.L. Arch, AAILA

Date of Birth: 20 November 1952 Nationality: Australian

QUALIFICATIONS Master of Landscape Architecture, University of Melbourne 1982 Bachelor of Architecture, University of Melbourne 1976 Registered Landscape Architect AILA No. 289 Registered Architect ARBV No. 13231

EMPLOYMENT FORMium, Landscape Architects, Director 2007 - 2018 PCDI Shanghai and FANGMA, Changzhou Design Director 2011 - 2018 Mark McWha, Landscape Architects, Director 1985 - 2007 Gerner Sanderson and Partners, Landscape Architects Director, 84-85 1982 - 1985

Mark McWha | Director ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE

FORMium Landscape Architects Lecturer – RMIT, Urban Design, MLA Design Studio 1989 -1995 Lecturer – University of Melbourne, Landscape Masters Studio 1984 -1986 KEY AWARDS

Numerous UDIA Excellence Awards – Medium Density Housing Projects East Melbourne Housing : USA Gold Nugget Award Jade Lagune Residential Development: Best Landscape in China

Springthorpe Residential Development, Bundoora: AILA Merit Award Chinatown, Little Bourke St, urban Design, Melbourne, AILA Merit Award Hays Paddock: Playground, AILA Merit Award Dyeworks Park: RAIA Merit Award Carnegie Library Plan Space: Kids Safe National Playground Design Award

MAJOR PROJECT EXPERIENCE

HOUSING PROJECTS

One East Melbourne Jolimont Railyards, East Melbourne Project Kensington Village Social Housing Project Copelen Housing Project, South Yarra The Port, The Park and Portside, Port Melbourne Springthorpe Housing Project, ULA/Urban Pacific Divercity Mixed Use Project, Waterloo Sydney Prima Tower Apartments, Southbank Domain Apartments, St Kilda Road Da Hu Mansions, Olympic Precinct, Beijing Wuhan Wanda Mansions Versailles Mansions, Shijianzhuang

URBAN DESIGN

Bridge Mall, Ballarat, Streetscape Development Yarra Trams Port Melbourne Urban Junction Tullamarine Freeway Essendon Airport Interface Chinatown, Little Bourke Street, Streetscape Design Lower Yarra River, Urban Design Framework and Guidelines Mildura City Heart Development, Streetscape Design Essendon Fields Business Park Changzhou Heng Tang River Urban Eco Wetland Shijianzhuang Town Centre, Urban Renewal, Ningxia Brunie, Bandar Capital, Streetscape Riverfront Urban Design

OPEN SPACE PROJECTS

Melbourne Cricket Ground and Yarra Park Landscape Redevelopment State Netball & Volleyball Centre Lake Wendouree Masterplan, Ballarat Brighton Foreshore, Coastal Management Plan Mt Bulla Athletes Walk Hays Paddock Parkland, Kew Packer Park, Redevelopment, Carnegie The Briars, Landscape Master Plan and Wetland Development Koonung Creek Wetland

MARK MCWHA CV

FORMium PTY LTD Landscape Architects April 2018

OPEN SPACE PROJECTS Cont.

Como House Heritage Mansion and Gardens Ripponlea Heritage Mansion and Gardens Phillip Island Nature Reserve Warnambool Harbour Foreshore Upgrade Ballarat Avenue of Honour, Landscape Management Plan Dyeworks Park, Urban Plaza Shanghai Stadium Landscape Redevelopment Changzhou XinBei Forest Park New Delhi Commonwealth Games Stadiums

PLAYGROUNDS

Hays Paddock Playground for Children of All Abilities Carnegie Library Book Worm Playground Cranbourne Botanic Gardens Children Exhibit Garden Gardiners Creek Playground, Markim Reserve Hastings Foreshore Playground

COMMERCIAL PROJECTS

Chadstone Shopping Centre Eastland Shopping Centre and Town Square The Glen Shopping Centre Redevelopment Highpoint Shopping Centre WaterGardens Town Centre Essendon Fields Business Park Sydney Avenue Office Developments, Canberra La La Port Shopping Centre, Yokohama, Japan Wanda Wuhan Han Jie, Pedestrian Street

HOTEL, RESORT, THEME PARKS

The Puli 5 Star Hotel, Shanghai Westin 5 Star Hotel, Wuhan Guangzhou Wanda Entertainment Resort Qingdao Wanda Beach Resort Land of Siam Resort, Thailand Chong Qing Wanda Theme Park Guangzhou Fantasy Garden Theme Park Dino Watertown (Kong Long) Theme Park, Changzhou Dino Watertown Bar Street and Hotel Precinct Shanghai Ocean World, Haichang Theme Park Hezhou International Garden Expo, Guangxi Changde Sweet Land Leisure Eco Resort

ROOF GARDENS

One East Melbourne Upper Westside Urban Green Roof Prima Towers Roof Garden and Green Walls, SouthBank Multiplex HQ Roof Garden, Swanston Street Ryan and Leveson Apartments, North Melbourne ANZ HQ, South Melbourne

CAMPUS AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS

La Trobe University, Mont Park Campus Melbourne University College Square Graduate School of Management, University of Melbourne Swinburne University, Prahran Campus Changzhou New University Campus St Kevins College, Toorak Campus St Kevins Collage, Tooronga Sports Campus Xavier College, Burke Hall Campus and Sportsfield Development Carey Grammar, Campus Entry, Performing Arts Centre & Sports Field Redevelopment Strathcona Hawthorn Yarra River Campus Evandale Sculpture Walk, Gold Coast City Gallery

HEALTH CARE AND AGED CARE PRJOECTS

Austin Mercy Hospital, Heidleberg Caritis Christi, Studley Park Jewish Care Centre, St Kilda Road Weroona Regis Aged Care Rhylands Age Care, Brighton Brighton Classic Residences

Kaufland Epping Store (2038) Attachment B


KAUFLAND AUSTRALIA PTY LTD EPPING STORE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN PLANNING PANEL VICTORIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCEEDING EXPERT WITNESS REPORT

Attachment B

ARBORICULTURAL REPORT TREELOGIC Pty Ltd

Treelogic Pty Ltd Unit 4, 21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood VIC 3134 Tree Report I 592-694 High Street, Epping 1

Summary

Treelogic was engaged to undertake an arboricultural assessment and prepare a report for 592-694

High Street, Epping (subject site). The primary purpose of the report was to record attributes of the

trees including their species, type and condition, to review any planning overlays relating to the trees

and to advise on their arboricultural value and suitable tree protection zones to be employed should

trees be retained along with proposed site development.

Eighty-five (85) individual trees were included in the assessment. Based on the size and age, it is

presumed that all the assessed trees were planted specimens, therefore are not subject to Clause

52.17 of the local planning scheme. There does not appear to be any specific planning overlays

governing retention of the assessed trees.

Most of the trees were Spotted Gum and Golden Robinia specimens growing in the surrounds of the

existing asphalt carpark. There were seven (7) street trees, and eight (8) trees located in the

neighbouring property at 51 Cooper Street.

There were no trees rated as having a high arboricultural value. Sixty-one (61) trees (72% of the

population) were within the Moderate value range and twenty-four (24) were of Low value. From an

arboricultural perspective it would be preferable to retain higher-rated trees over those of lower

value.

Tree Protection Zones have been calculated for each of the trees which, if preserved free of

development-related impacts, would allow the condition of the trees to be maintained. The existing

infrastructure adjacent to most of the trees will also dictate a design approach.

592-694 High Street, Epping

6 th September 2018 T ree Logic Ref. 009451

Prepared for Kaufland Australia Pty. Ltd.

Prepared by Timothy Burgess – Tree Logic Pty. Ltd.

Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0409 735 758

mailto:[email protected]

Treelogic Pty Ltd Tree Report I 592-694 High Street, Epping 2

1 Objectives

1.1 To undertake an inspection of trees within and immediately adjacent to the nominated

study area within the subject site at 592-694 High Street, Epping.

1.2 To record tree characteristics including species, type, age category, health, structure and

useful life-expectancy.

1.3 To establish the arboricultural merit of the trees and assign an arboricultural rating.

1.4 To calculate Tree Protection Zones to inform decisions in relation to future site use.

2 Method

2.1 An inspection of trees within the study area was undertaken on 3 September 2018.

2.2 The trees were inspected from ground level and no inspection of below ground or internal

tree parts was undertaken. Only trees within and immediately adjacent to the nominated

area of study were assessed and data collected.

2.3 Observations were made of the assessed trees to determine their species, age category

and condition. Tree heights were measured with a height meter, crown width was paced,

and trunks measured with a diameter tape where accessible. A selection of photographs of

the trees and their environs were taken for further reference and inclusion in the report.

2.4 Assessment details of individual trees are listed in Appendix 1 and a copy of the tree

location plan can be seen at Appendix 2. Descriptors used in the assessment can be seen

in Appendix 3.

2.5 Each of the assessed trees was attributed an ‘Arboricultural Rating’. The rating correlates

the combination of tree condition factors (health and structure) with tree amenity value. It

should be noted that the arboricultural rating and TPZ calculations may be different to the

conservation/ecological values and protection methods used by other professions.

2.6 The trees have been allocated tree protection zones (TPZs). The Australian Standard,

AS4970-2009, has been used with the City of Whittlesea tree protection guidelines as a

guide in the allocation of TPZs for the assessed trees. This method provides a TPZ that

addresses both the stability and growing requirements of a tree. TPZ distances are

measured as a radius, from the centre of the trunk at (or near) ground level. TPZ

measurements for all assessed trees are provided in Appendix 1.

2.7 The site falls within the City of Whittlesea and is covered by Schedule 1 to the Activity

Centre Zone (ACZ1). The subject site does not appear to be covered by any specific tree

regulations.


3 Observations

3.1 The subject site was a commercial allotment covering approximately 3.1 hectares located

on the eastern side of High Street in Epping. The area was highly modified and formed part

of the retail shopping precinct known as ‘Epping Hub’. The site was bordered by Cooper

Street to the north, High Street to the West and the Mernda railway line to the west.

• See Figure 1 below for an indication of the nominated study area.

3.2 The vast majority of the assessed trees were of a similar size and age growing in the

surrounds of the existing carpark.

Figure 1: Shows the subject site at 592-694 High Street, Epping.

3.3 Eighty-five (85) individual trees were inspected which included seven (7) council managed

street trees and eight (8) trees growing within the neighbouring property at 51 Cooper

Street. Based on the size and age, it is presumed that all the assessed trees were planted

specimens, therefore are not subject to Clause 52.17 of the local planning scheme.

3.4 In general, the assessed trees were displaying overall condition that would be considered

typical of the species growing in this area of Melbourne under recent climatic conditions.

3.5 The most prevalent species on site were Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and Golden

Robinia (Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’), both of which made up 65% of the tree population.

Almost all of these trees were growing in confined asphalt cut-outs in the surrounds of the

existing carpark.

3.6 The cultivar of Robinia is a useful urban tree due to its tolerances, however the assessed

specimens were not remarkable, being of a reduced size and significance in the landscape.

Any tree species is going to be below expected performance within the site constraints of a

typically designed car park.


3.7 The largest and most prominent tree was Tree 85, a Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata)

specimen located along the southern boundary of the study area. Along with this tree, other

trees which were considered to be of a greater arboricultural merit included Trees 8 and 10

and 22, all Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) and Tree 19-21, all Spotted Gums.

3.8 Each tree assessed was assigned an arboricultural rating. The rating reflects tree retention

value from an arboricultural perspective and can be used to assist with decisions relating to

tree retention and management. A tree may be assigned an arboricultural rating of High,

Moderate, Low or None.

3.9 The Moderate category often accounts for a large proportion of any tree population and is,

therefore, further divided into three separate groups (Moderate A, B and C). Arboricultural

ratings are indicated on the plan in appendix 2. Descriptors relating to the ratings are

provided at Appendix 3.

3.10 The ratings will not always be consistent with those attributed by other professions as trees

may also have specific heritage, landscape or ecological values not necessarily considered

in an arboricultural assessment.

3.11 Table 1 provides a breakdown of the arboricultural ratings attributed to the thirty-two trees

assessed. Sixty-one (61) trees (72% of the population) were within the moderate value

range and twenty-four (24) were of Low value. From an arboricultural perspective it would

be preferable to retain higher-rated trees over those of lower value.

Table 1: Tree Nos. by arboricultural rating.

Arboricultural rating Number of trees

Moderate

A 2

B 39

C 20

Low 24

Figure 2: Breakdown of trees by arboricultural rating.


4 Images

Figure 3: A view looking south, showing the relative size, condition and location of Tree 85, a Mod. A rated Spotted Gum specimen.

Figure 4: A view looking south, showing the relative size, condition and location of Tree 10, a Mod. B rated Tuart specimen.

Figure 5: A view looking east, showing the relative size, condition and location of Trees 8 and 9, both Tuart specimens

8 9


Figure 6: A view looking north, showing the typical spread of Spotted Gum and Golden Robinia specimens in the surrounds of the existing carpark.

5 Tree Management

5.1 The subject site’s redevelopment is being considered and existing vegetation could

represent either an opportunity or a constraint to future site use.

5.2 A review of the Planning Property Report for the site, accessed at ‘planning.vic.gov.au’,

reveals that there are no specific planning overlays within the local planning scheme

governing the management of vegetation at the site. However, being over 4000m2 in area,

Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) and the permit requirement within it, would apply to

Victorian native vegetation.

5.3 Within Clause 52.17 is an exemption to the requirement for a permit to remove, destroy or

lop native vegetation if the vegetation has been planted. With respect to the subject site,

this would cover all the assessed trees.

5.4 Permit requirements aside, the arboricultural ratings attributed to the assessed trees

provide a valuable means of determining which trees would be most suitable to retain along

with changes at the site. Low-rated trees are either small and could be replaced relatively

easily or they are in relatively poor condition and, therefore, they should not be a constraint

on site development. Moderately-rated trees would be better candidates for retention with

Moderate A and B trees offering greater benefits than those in the Moderate C category.


5.5 The condition of Moderate rated trees is such that, provided they are afforded appropriate

space and protection or existing infrastructure alignments are maintained, they have the

capacity to remain viable for many years. The most suitable means of achieving this is by

establishing and maintaining suitable Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) which are then kept

free from significant changes or impacts.

5.6 The trees have been allocated tree protection zones (TPZs). The Australian Standard,

AS4970-2009, has been used with the City of Whittlesea tree protection guidelines as a

guide in the allocation of TPZs for the assessed trees. This method provides a TPZ that

addresses both the stability and growing requirements of a tree. TPZ distances are

measured as a radius, from the centre of the trunk at (or near) ground level.

• TPZ measurements for all assessed trees are provided in Appendix 1. A diagrammatic

representation of City of Whittlesea tree protection guidelines can be found at

Appendix 5.

5.7 Maintaining the existing hard surface alignments adjacent to the trees could also reduce

impacts and may also inform design. Tree root growth is opportunistic and occurs where

the essentials to life (primarily air and water) are present. Heterogeneous soil conditions,

existing barriers, hard surfaces and buildings may have inhibited the development of a

symmetrically radiating root system.

5.8 Existing infrastructure around some trees may be within the TPZ or root plate radius. The

roots of some trees may have grown in response to the site conditions and therefore if

existing hard surfaces and building alignments are utilised in new designs the impacts on

the retained trees should be minimal.

5.9 The TPZ forms an area around a tree that addresses both the stability and growing

requirements of the tree and is best preserved free of any impacts. Should any

construction or works be proposed within the TPZs of trees to be retained, they need to be

carefully assessed to determine if the trees could tolerate the impacts being proposed and

remain viable. Note that the area of disturbance within an allocated TPZ must include all

areas that will be disturbed by the proposed work, including the areas required for over-dig,

stockpiling, construction traffic, vehicular access and construction staging.

5.10 Additional tree impact assessments or comment may be required during the ongoing

design of the proposed redevelopment. Retained trees will require tree protection

measures, such as the installation of tree protection fencing and ground protection systems

to minimise the impacts on the trees. Once a design has been confirmed the development

of a tree management plan may be required to respond to perceived impacts of the

proposed redevelopment.


6 Conclusions 6.1 Eighty-five (85) individual trees were assessed within or immediately adjacent to the

nominated study area at 592-694 High Street, Epping to provide information to assist with

planning for proposed redevelopment at the site.

6.2 The vast majority of the assessed trees were of a similar size and age growing in the

surrounds of the existing carpark. In general, the trees were displaying overall condition

that would be considered typical of the species growing in this area of Melbourne under

recent climatic conditions.

• Individual tree details are shown in the Tree Assessment Table at Appendix 1 and

their locations indicated at Appendix 2.

6.3 The site is not covered by any specific overlays relating to vegetation, Though Clause

52.17 ‘Native Vegetation’ and the permit requirement within it applies to Victorian native

vegetation. Based on the size and age, it is presumed that all the assessed trees were

planted specimens, therefore are not subject to permit requirements under Clause 52.17.

6.4 There were no trees rated as having a high arboricultural value. Sixty-one (61) trees (72%

of the population) were within the Moderate value range and twenty-four (24) were of Low

value. From an arboricultural perspective it would be preferable to retain higher-rated trees

over those of lower value.

6.5 Allocated TPZs are best maintained in their entirety, or design should emulate existing

infrastructure. More specific information on the potential impacts of any minor TPZ

encroachments or other tree-related issues could be provided as the planning and design

phases for the site progress. It is recommended that TPZs of all trees intended or required

to be retained are added to all design plans.

Under no circumstance shall this report be reproduced unless in full.

Signed

Timothy Burgess BEnvSc, GradCertArb M 0409 735 758

Consultant Arborist E [email protected]

Treelogic Pty Ltd Unit 4, 21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood VIC 3134 Tree Report I 592-694 High Street, Epping Appendix 1: Page 1

Appendix 1: Tree Assessment Data: 592-694 High Street, Epping Refer to the following four (4) pages. Key: DBH = Diameter at breast height, 1.4m up trunk, unless otherwise indicated. H x W = Height x width. ARB rating = arboricultural rating. Mod. = Moderate. TPZ = Tree protection zone radius in metres. SRZ = Structural root zone radius in metres. Definition of the descriptor categories used in the assessment can be seen in Appendix 3. Red shaded columns indicate canopy widths plus one metre which are greater than the nominated TPZ under the British Standard. In these cases, the TPZ must be extended to move 1 metre beyond the canopy dripline. A diagrammatic example is provided in Appendix 5

Appendix 1: Tree Assessment Data 592-694 High Street, Epping 6/09/2018

North South East West

1Corymbia citriodora

(Lemon-scented Gum)Early maturity

Australian native 26 32 7 4 3 3 4 5 4 4 5 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 4.0



Australian native 33 42 13 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 Fair Good Mod. A 21 to 40 6.5



Australian native 38 44 13 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. B 21 to 40

Congested primary union;Past branch failure 6.5





Acute forks;Codominant stems;Past branch failure;Limb decay 4.0


(Lemon-scented Gum)Semi-mature

Australian native 10 12 5 2 2 3 1 3 3 4 2 Fair Fair Low >40 2.5




Fair to poor Mod. B 21 to 40 6.0


(Lemon-scented Gum)Semi-mature


Fair to poor Low >40 2.0

8Eucalyptus gomphocephala

(Tuart) MaturingAustralian native 46 59 8 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Fair


Acute forks;Decay below fork in western limb over carpark 5.5


(Tuart) MaturingAustralian native 43 51 8 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Lopped;Trunk decay 4.0


(Tuart) MaturingAustralian native 55 66 10 4 5 6 5 5 6 7 6 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 7.0

11Robinia pseudoacacia 'Frisia'(Golden Robinia) Maturing

Exotic deciduous 24,19,16 49 8 3 5 4 3 4 6 5 4 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. B 21 to 40 Multi-stemmed 5.0


Exotic deciduous 26,16 36 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20

Acute forks;Included bark;Limb wounds 4.0

13Eucalyptus cladocalyx

(Sugar Gum) MaturingAustralian native 44 58 10 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Past branch failure;Past limb failure 6.5


(Sugar Gum)Early maturity


Fair to poor Low 11 to 20

Epicormic crown;Previous failures;Suppressed 4.0


(Sugar Gum) MaturingAustralian native 52 65 11 4 4 2 5 5 5 3 6

Fair to poor Fair Mod. C 11 to 20

Basal wounds;Codominant stems;Epicormic shoots;Minor 8.5


(Sugar Gum) MaturingAustralian native 41 50 5 2 2 3 1 3 3 4 2

Fair to poor Poor Low 6 to 10 Stump resprout 4.0

17Eucalyptus leucoxylon

(Yellow Gum)Early maturity

Victorian native 25 27 5 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 3

Fair to poor

Fair to poor Low 6 to 10 Suppressed 2.5


(Sugar Gum) MaturingAustralian native 52,29 68 11 8 9 5 7 9 10 6 8 Fair Poor Low 6 to 10

Decay;Epicormic shoots;Limb wounds;Previous failures 8.0

19Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum) MaturingVictorian native 50 57 14 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. B 21 to 40 Codominant stems;Minor dieback 7.0

20Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum) MaturingVictorian native 45 50 13 2 5 5 3 3 6 6 4 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 6.5

21Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum)Early maturity

Victorian native 40 45 11 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 5.5


(Tuart) MaturingAustralian native 49 53 8 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 Congested primary union 5.5

23Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum) MaturingVictorian native 41 51 12 8 6 7 6 9 7 8 7 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 Codominant stems 6.0

24Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum) MaturingVictorian native 42 53 12 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 5 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 Codominant stemsin 6.0

25Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 30 37 12 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 4 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 Root damage 6.0

StructureArb. Rating

ULE(yrs) Comments

BS TPZ(m radius)Species

Tree No. Health

Canopy Spread (m)Height(m)

Basal Ø(cm)

DBH(cm)OriginAge N+1 S+1 E+1 W+1

Prepared for Kaufland Australia Pty. Ltd. Page 1 of 4 Prepared by Treelogic


North South East West StructureArb. Rating

ULE(yrs) Comments


Tree No. Health


Basal Ø(cm)


26Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum)Semi-mature


27Corymbia maculata



28Corymbia maculata



29Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 29 36 10 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 3 Fair Fair Mod. B 11 to 20 Trunk wounds 5.0

30Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 36 40 9 1 4 5 3 2 5 6 4 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. B 21 to 40 Codominant stems 4.5

31Pyrus sp. (Pear) Maturing

Exotic deciduous 21 24 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Fair

Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Suckers;Trunk wounds 3.5



Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 4.0


Exotic deciduous 17 20 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Fair Poor Low 11 to 20 Lopped 1.0


Exotic deciduous 13 15 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Fair Poor Low 11 to 20 Lopped;Trunk wounds 1.0



36Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 32 38 13 6 5 5 5 7 6 6 6 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 Codominant stems 6.5

37Corymbia maculata



38Corymbia maculata



39Corymbia maculata



40Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 20 26 9 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 Fair Fair Mod. B 11 to 20 Exposed roots;Root damage 4.5

41Corymbia maculata



42Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 20 24 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Fair Fair Mod. C 11 to 20 2.5

43Corymbia maculata



44Corymbia maculata



Fair to poor Fair Mod. C 11 to 20

Reduced foliage density;Surface roots cut 5.0

45Corymbia maculata



46Corymbia maculata



Fair to poor Fair Low 6 to 10

Reduced foliage density;Trunk wounds 3.0

47Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 10 12 5 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 Fair Fair Low 6 to 10 2.5

48Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 12 13 6 2 3 2 1 3 4 3 2 Fair Fair Low 21 to 40 Girdling 3.0

49Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 23 29 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Fair Good Mod. B 21 to 40 4.5

50Corymbia maculata






ULE(yrs) Comments


Tree No. Health


Basal Ø(cm)


51Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 25 29 11 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 4 Fair Fair Mod. C 21 to 40 5.5

52Corymbia maculata




Codominant stems;Included bark forks 5.5

53Corymbia maculata


Victorian native 21 25 11 4 5 7 4 5 6 8 5 Fair Fair Mod. B 21 to 40 Past limb failure 5.5

54Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum) MaturingVictorian native 32,19 44 11 2 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 Fair Poor Low 6 to 10 Codominant stems;Included bark 5.5


Exotic deciduous 22 25 6 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 Fair Fair Mod. C 11 to 20 3.0

56Robinia pseudoacacia 'Frisia'(Golden Robinia)

Early maturity

Exotic deciduous 17 20 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Fair Fair Mod. C 11 to 20 2.5



Fair to poor Low 6 to 10 Included bark 2.5


Exotic deciduous 27,17 34 5 5 4 3 3 6 5 4 4 Fair Fair Mod. C 11 to 20 3.0



Fair to poor Low 6 to 10 Leaning trunk;Trunk wounds 2.0


Early maturity






Acute forks;Codominant stems;Included bark 3.0



Fair to poor Mod. B 11 to 20 Acute forks 4.5



Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Acute forks;Extended surface roots 3.0


Early maturity


Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Acute forks 2.5


Early maturity


Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Acute forks 2.0


Early maturity


Fair to poor Low 11 to 20 Acute forks;Leaning trunk 2.0


Early maturity





Fair to poor Mod. C 11 to 20 Acute forks;Past limb failure 2.5





70Corymbia maculata



Fair to poor Mod. B 11 to 20 Swollen bole from past trunk wound 4.0








Exotic deciduous 18 20 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Fair Poor Low 6 to 10 Lopped;Trunk wounds 1.0






ULE(yrs) Comments


Tree No. Health


Basal Ø(cm)






78Corymbia maculata



79Corymbia maculata







81Corymbia maculata



Fair to poor Low 21 to 40 1.5

82Corymbia maculata



83Corymbia maculata



84Corymbia maculata



85Corymbia maculata

(Spotted Gum) MaturingVictorian native 45 55 15 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 Good Fair Mod. A 21 to 40 Codominant stems 7.5


Treelogic Pty Ltd Tree Report I 592-694 High Street, Epping Appendix 2: Page 1

Appendix 2: Tree Location Plan:592-694 High Street, Epping Refer to the following page.


Appendix 3: Arboricultural Descriptors (June 2017) Note that not all the described tree descriptors may be used in a tree assessment and report. The assessment is undertaken in respect of contemporary arboricultural practices and consists of a visual inspection of external and above-ground tree parts.

1. Tree Condition

The assessment of tree condition evaluates factors of health and structure. The descriptors of health and structure attributed to a tree evaluate the individual specimen to what could be considered typical for that species growing in its location under current climatic conditions. For example, some species can display inherently poor branching architecture, such as multiple acute branch attachments with included bark. Whilst these structural defects may technically be considered arboriculturally poor, they are typical for the species and may not constitute an increased risk of failure. These trees may be assigned a structural rating of fair-poor (rather than poor) at the discretion of the assessor.

Diagram 1 provides an indicative distribution curve for tree condition to illustrate that within a normal tree population most specimens are centrally located within the condition range (normal distribution curve). Furthermore, that those individual trees with an assessed condition approaching the outer ends of the spectrum occur less often.

2. Tree Name

Provides botanical name, (genus, species, variety and cultivar) according to accepted international code of taxonomic classification, and common name.

3. Tree Type

Describes the general geographic origin of the species and its type e.g. deciduous or evergreen.

Category Description

Indigenous Occurs naturally in the area or region of the subject site. Remnant.

Victorian native Occurs naturally within some part of the State of Victoria (not exclusively) but is not indigenous (component of EVC benchmark). Could be planted indigenous trees.

Australian native Occurs naturally within Australia but is not a Victorian native or indigenous

Exotic deciduous Occurs outside of Australia and typically sheds its leaves during winter

Exotic evergreen Occurs outside of Australia and typically holds its leaves all year round

Exotic conifer Occurs outside of Australia and is classified as a gymnosperm

Native conifer Occurs naturally within Australia and is classified as a gymnosperm

Native Palm Occurs naturally within Australia. Woody monocotyledon

Exotic Palm Occurs outside of Australia. Woody monocotyledon

4. Height and Width

Indicates height and width of the individual tree; dimensions are expressed in metres. Crown heights are measured with a height meter where possible. Due to the topography of some sites and/or the density of vegetation it may not be possible to do this for every tree. Tree heights may be estimated in line with previous height meter readings in conjunction with assessor’s experience.

Crown widths are generally paced (estimated) at the widest axis or can be measured on two axes and averaged. In some instances, the crown width can be measured on the four cardinal direction points (North, South, East and West).

Crown height, crown spread is generally recorded to the nearest half metre (crown spread would be rounded up) for dimensions up to 10 m and the nearest whole metre for dimensions over 10 m. Estimated dimensions (e.g. for off-site or otherwise inaccessible trees where accurate data cannot be recovered) shall be clearly identified in the assessment data.

5. Trunk diameters

The position where trunk diameters are captured may vary dependent on the requirements of the specific assessment and an individual trees specific characteristics. DBH is the typical trunk diameter captured as it relates to the allocation of tree protection distances. The basal trunk diameter assists in the allocation of a structural root zone. Some municipalities require trunk diameters be captured at different heights, with 1.0 m above grade being a common requirement. The specific planning schemes will be

Diagram 1: Indicative normal distribution curve for tree condition

Poor Fair Good Tree condition (Health & structure)


checked to ascertain requirements.

Stem diameters shall be recorded in centimetres, rounded to the nearest 1 cm (0.01 m).

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Indicates the trunk diameter (expressed in centimetres) of an individual tree measured at 1.4m above the existing ground level or where otherwise indicated, multiple leaders are measured individually. Plants with multiple leader habit may be measured at the base. The range of methods to suit specific trunk shapes, configurations and site conditions can be seen in Appendix A of Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. Measurements undertaken using foresters’ tape or builders tape.

Basal trunk diameter

The basal dimension is the trunk diameter measured at the base of the trunk or main stem(s) immediately above the root buttress. Used to ascertain the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) as outlined in AS4970.

6. Health

Assesses various attributes to describe the overall health and vigour of the tree. Category Vigour, Extension

growth Decline symptoms, Deadwood, Dieback

Foliage density, colour, size, intactness

Pests and or disease

Good Above typical. Excellent. Full canopy density

Negligible Better than typical Negligible

Fair Typical vigour. >80% canopy density

Minor or expected. Little or no dead wood

Typical. Minor deficiencies or defects could be present. Minor, within damage thresholds

Fair to Poor Below typical - low vigour

More than typical. Small sub-branch dieback

Exhibiting deficiencies. Could be thinning, or smaller Exceeds damage thresholds

Poor Minimal - declining Excessive, large and/or prominent amount & size of dead wood

Exhibiting severe deficiencies. Thinning foliage, generally smaller or deformed

Extreme and contributing to decline

Dead N/A N/A N/A N/A

7. Structure

Assesses principal components of tree structure (Diagram 2).

Descriptor Zone 1 - Root plate & lower stem

Zone 2 - Trunk Zone 3 - Primary branch support

Zone 4 - Outer crown and roots

Good No obvious damage, disease or decay; obvious basal flare / stable in ground

No obvious damage, disease or decay; well tapered

Well formed, attached, spaced and tapered. No history of failure.

No obvious damage, disease, decay or structural defect. No history of failure.

Fair Minor damage or decay. Basal flare present.

Minor damage or decay Generally, well attached, spaced and tapered branches. Minor structural deficiencies may be present or developing. No history of branch failure.

Minor damage, disease or decay; minor branch end-weight or over-extension. No history of branch failure.

Fair to Poor Moderate damage or decay; minimal basal flare.

Moderate damage or decay; approaching recognised thresholds

Weak, decayed or with acute branch attachments; previous branch failure evidence.

Moderate damage, disease or decay; moderate branch end-weight or over-extension. Minor branch failure evident.

Poor Major damage, disease or decay; fungal fruiting bodies present. Excessive lean placing pressure on root plate

Major damage, disease or decay; exceeds recognised thresholds; fungal fruiting bodies present. Acute lean. Stump re-sprout

Decayed, cavities or has acute branch attachments with included bark; excessive compression flaring; failure likely. Evidence of major branch failure.

Major damage, disease or decay; fungal fruiting bodies present; major branch end-weight or over-extension. Branch failure evident.

Very Poor Excessive damage, disease or decay; unstable / loose in ground; altered exposure; failure probable

Excessive damage, disease or decay; cavities. Excessive lean. Stump re-sprout

Decayed, cavities or branch attachments with active split; failure imminent. History of major branch failure.

Excessive damage, disease or decay; excessive branch end-weight or over-extension. History of branch failure.


Structure ratings will also consider general branching architecture, stem taper, live crown ratio, crown symmetry (bias or lean) and crown position such as tree being suppressed amongst more dominant trees.

The lowest or worst descriptor assigned to the tree in any column could generally be the overall rating assigned to the tree. The assessment for structure is limited to observations of external and above ground tree parts. It does not include any exploratory assessment of underground or internal tree parts unless this is requested as part of the investigation. Trees are assessed and then given a rating for a point in time. Generally, trees with a poor or very poor structure are beyond the benefit of practical arboricultural treatments.

The management of trees in the urban environment requires appropriate arboricultural input and consideration of risk. Risk potential will consider the combination of likelihood of failure and impact, including the perceived importance of the target(s).

8. Age class

Relates to the physiological stage of the tree’s life cycle.


Young Sapling tree and/or recently planted. Approximately 5 or less years in location.

Semi-mature Tree increasing in size and yet to achieve expected size in situation. Primary developmental stage.

Early-mature Tree established, generally growing vigorously. > 50% of attainable age/size.

Mature Specimen approaching expected size in situation, with reduced incremental growth.

Over-mature Mature full-size with a retrenching crown. Tree is senescent and in decline. Significant decay generally present.

9. Useful life expectancy

Assessment of useful life expectancy provides an indication of health and tree appropriateness and involves an estimate of how long a tree is likely to remain in the landscape based on species, stage of life (cycle), health, amenity, environmental services contribution, conflicts with adjacent infrastructure and risk to the community. It would enable tree managers to develop long-term plans for the eventual removal and replacement of existing trees in the public realm. It is not a measure of the biological life of the tree within the natural range of the species. It is more a measure of the health status and the trees positive contribution to the urban landscape.

Within an urban landscape context, particularly in relation to street trees, it could be considered a point where the costs to maintain the asset (tree) outweigh the benefits the tree is returning.

The assessment is based on the site conditions not being significantly altered and that any prescribed maintenance works are carried out (site conditions are presumed to remain relatively constant and the tree would be maintained under scheduled maintenance programs).

Useful Life Expectancy Typical characteristics <1 year (No remaining ULE)

Tree may be dead or mostly dead. Tree may exhibit major structural faults. Tree may be an imminent failure hazard. Excessive infrastructure damage with high risk potential that cannot be remedied.

1-5 years (Transitory, Brief)

Tree is exhibiting severe chronic decline. Crown is likely to be less than 50% typical density. Crown may be mostly epicormic growth. Dieback of large limbs is common (large deadwood may have been pruned out). Tree may be over-mature and senescing. Infrastructure conflicts with heightened risk potential. Tree has outgrown site constraints.

4

3

2

1

4 4

Adapted from Coder (1996)

Diagram 2: Tree structure zones 1. Root plate & lower stem 2. Trunk 3. Primary branch support 4. Outer crown & roots


6-10 years (Short)

Tree is exhibiting chronic decline. Crown density will be less than typical and epicormic growth is likely to present. The crown may still be mostly entire, but some dieback is likely to be evident. Dieback may include large limbs. Over-mature and senescing or early decline symptoms in short-lived species. Early infrastructure conflicts with potential to increase regardless of management inputs.

11-20 years (Moderate)

Tree not showing symptoms of chronic decline, but growth characteristics are likely to be reduced (bud development, extension growth etc.). Tree may be over-mature and beginning to senesce. Potential for infrastructure conflicts regardless of management inputs.

21-40 years (Moderately long)

Trees displaying normal growth characteristics, but vigour is likely to be reduced (bud development, extension growth etc.). Tree may be growing in restricted environment (e.g. streetscapes) or may be in late maturity. Semi-mature and mature trees exhibiting normal growth characteristics. Juvenile trees in streetscapes.

>40 years (Long)

Generally juvenile and semi-mature trees exhibiting normal growth characteristics within adequate spaces to sustain growth, such as in parks or open space. Could also pertain to maturing, long-lived trees. Tree well suited to the site with negligible potential for infrastructure conflicts.

Note that ULE may change for a tree dependent on the prevailing climatic conditions, sudden changes to a tree’s growing environment creating an acute stress or impact by pathogens.

The ULE may not be applicable for trees that are manipulated, such as topiary, or grown for specific horticultural purposes, such as fruit trees.

There may be instances where remedial tree maintenance could extend a tree’s ULE.

10. Arboricultural Rating

Relates to the combination of tree condition factors, including health and structure (arboricultural merit), and conveys an amenity value. Amenity relates to the trees biological, functional and aesthetic characteristics (Hitchmough 1994) within an urban landscape context. The presence of any serious disease or tree-related hazards that would impact risk potential are considered.


High

Tree of high quality in good to fair condition; good vigour. Generally, a prominent arboricultural/landscape feature. Particularly good example of the species; rare or uncommon. Tree may have significant conservation or other cultural value. These trees have the potential to be a medium- to long-term components of the landscape (moderately long to long ULE) if managed appropriately. Retention of these trees is highly desirable.

Moderate

General - Tree of moderate quality, in fair or better condition. Tree may have a condition, and or structural problem that will respond to arboricultural treatment. These trees have the potential to be a moderate- to long-term component of the landscape (moderate to long ULE) if managed appropriately. Retention of these trees is generally desirable. The following sub-categories relate predominately to age and size and amenity.

A. Moderate to large, maturing tree. Contributes to the landscape character. Tree may have conservation or other cultural value.

B. Moderate sized, established tree, > 50% of attainable age/size. Contributes to the landscape character.

C. Small and/or semi-mature tree, established, >5 years in the location. May not be a dominant canopy. No special qualities.

Low

Unremarkable tree of low quality or little amenity value. Tree in either poor health or with poor structure or a combination. Short to transitory useful life expectancy. Tree is not significant because of either its size or age, such as young trees with a stem diameter below 15 cm. Tree < 5 years in location. These trees are easily replaceable. Trees regularly pruned to restrict size. Tree (species) is functionally inappropriate to specific location and would be expected to be problematic if retained. Retention of such trees may be considered if not requiring a disproportionate expenditure of resources for a tree in its condition and location.



None

Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining ULE of < 5 years. Tree has either a severe structural defect or health problem or combination that cannot be sustained with practical arboricultural techniques and the loss of the tree would be expected in the short term. Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline. Tree infected with pathogens of significance to either the health or safety of the tree or other adjacent trees. Tree whose retention would not be viable after the removal of adjacent trees (includes trees that have developed in close spaced groups and would not be expected to acclimatise to severe alterations to surrounding environment – removal of adjacent shelter trees). Tree has a detrimental effect on the environment, for example, the tree is a recognised environmental woody weed with potential to spread into waterways or natural areas. Unremarkable tree of no material landscape, conservation or other cultural value.

Trees have many values, not all of which are considered when an arboricultural assessment is undertaken. However, individual trees or tree group features may be considered important community resources because of unique or noteworthy characteristics or values other than their age, dimensions, health or structural condition. Recognition of one or more of the following criteria is designed to highlight other considerations that may influence the future management of such trees.

Significance Description

Horticultural Value/ Rarity Outstanding horticultural or genetic value; could be an important source of propagating stock, including specimens that are particularly resistant to disease or exposure. Any tree of a species or variety that is rare.

Historic, Aboriginal Cultural or Heritage Value

Tree could have value as a remnant of an important historical period or a remnant of a site or activity no longer in action. Tree has a recognised association with historic aboriginal activities, including scar trees.

Tree commemorates an occasion, including plantings by notable people, or having associations with an important event in local history.

Ecological Value Tree could have value as habitat for indigenous wildlife, including providing breeding, foraging or roosting habitat, or is a component of a wildlife reserve.

Remnant Indigenous vegetation that contribute to biological diversity

Bibliography:

Coder, K D. (1996) Construction damage assessments: trees and sites, University of Georgia, USA

Hitchmough, J.D. (1994) Urban landscape management, Inkata Press, Australia

Gooding, R.F., Ingram, J.B., Urban, J.R., Bloch, L.B., Steigerwaldt, W.M, Harris, R.W. and Allen, E.N. (2000) Guide for plant appraisal, 9th edition, International society of Arboriculture, USA

Pollard, A. H. (1974) Introductory statistics: a service course, Pergamon Press Australia, Australia.

Standards Australia (2009) Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.


Appendix 4: Tree protection zones

Tree logic Pty. Ltd. © 2015 Introduction To sustain trees on a development site, consideration must be given to the establishment of tree protection zones.

The physical dimensions of tree protection zones can sometimes be difficult to define. The projection of a tree’s crown can provide a guide but is by no means the definitive measure. The unpredictable nature of roots and their growth, differences between species and their tolerances, and observable and hidden changes to the trees growing environment, because of development, are variables that must be considered.

Most vigorous, broad canopied trees survive well if the area within the drip-line of the canopy is protected. Fine root density is usually greater beneath the canopy than beyond (Gilman, 1997). If few to no roots over 3cm in diameter are encountered and severed during excavation the tree will probably tolerate the impact and root loss. A healthy tree can sustain a loss of between 30% and 50% of absorbing roots (Harris, Clark, Matheny, 1999), however encroachment into the structural root system of a tree may be problematic.

The structural root system of a tree is responsible for ensuring the stability of the entire tree structure in the ground. A tree could not sustain loss of structural root system and be expected to survive let alone stand up to average annual wind loads upon the crown. Allocation of tree protection zone (TPZ)

The most important consideration for the successful retention of trees is to allow appropriate above and below ground space for the trees to continue to grow. This requires the allocation of tree protection zones for retained trees

The method of allocating a TPZ to a tree will be influenced by site factors, the tree species, its age and developed form.

Once it has been established, through an arboricultural assessment, which trees and tree groups are to be retained, the next step will require careful management through the development process to minimise any impacts on the designated trees. The successful retention of trees on any particular site will require the commitment and understanding of all parties involved in the development process. The most important activity, after determining the trees that will be retained is the implementation of a TPZ.

The intention of tree protection zones is to:

• mitigate tree hazards;

• provide adequate root space to sustain the health and aesthetics of the tree into the future;

• minimise changes to the trees growing environment, which is particularly important for mature specimens;

• minimise physical damage to the root system, canopy and trunk; and

• define the physical alignment of the tree protection fencing

The Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites has been used as a guide in the allocation of TPZs for the assessed trees. The TPZ for individual trees is calculated based on trunk (stem) diameter (DBH), measured at 1.4 metres up from ground level. The radius of the TPZ is calculated by multiplying the trees DBH by 12. The method provides a TPZ that addresses both the stability and growing requirements of a tree. TPZ distances are measured as a radius from the centre of the trunk at (or near) ground level. The minimum TPZ should be no less than 2m and the maximum no more than 15m radius. The TPZ of palms should be not less than 1.0m outside the crown projection.


Encroachment into the TPZ is permissible under certain circumstances though is dependent on both site conditions and tree characteristics. Minor encroachment, up to 10% of the TPZ, is generally permissible provided encroachment is compensated for by recruitment of an equal area contiguous with the TPZ. Examples are provided in Diagram 1. Encroachment greater than 10% is considered major encroachment under AS4970-2009 and is only permissible if it can be demonstrated that after such encroachment the tree would remain viable.

Diagram 1: Examples of minor encroachment into a TPZ.

(Extract from: AS4970-2009, Appendix D, p30 of 32) The 10% encroachment on one side equates to approximately ⅓ radial distance. Tree root growth is opportunistic and occurs where the essentials to life (primarily air and water) are present. Heterogeneous soil conditions, existing barriers, hard surfaces and buildings may have inhibited the development of a symmetrically radiating root system.

Existing infrastructure around some trees may be within the TPZ or root plate radius. The roots of some trees may have grown in response to the site conditions and therefore if existing hard surfaces and building alignments are utilised in new designs the impacts on the trees should be minimal. The most reliable way to estimate root disturbance is to find out where the roots are in relation to the demolition, excavation or construction works that will take place (Matheny & Clark, 1998). Exploratory excavation prior to commencement of construction can help establish the extent of the root system and where it may be appropriate to excavate or build.

The TPZ should also consider the canopy and overall form of the tree. If the canopy requires severe pruning to accommodate a building or other works and in the process the form of the tree is diminished it may be worthwhile considering altering the design or removing the tree.

Diagram 1A Diagram 1B


General tree protection guidelines The most important factors are:

• Prior to construction works the trees nominated for tree works should be pruned to remove larger dead wood. Pruning works may also identify other tree hazards that require remedial works.

• Installation of tree protection fencing. Once the tree protection zones have been determined the next step is to mulch the zone with woodchip and erect tree protection fencing. This must be completed prior to any materials being brought on-site, erection of temporary site facilities or demolition/earth works. The protection fencing must be sturdy and withstand winds and construction impacts. The protection fence should only be moved with approval of the site supervisor. Other root zone protection methods can be incorporated if the TPZ area needs to be traversed.

• Appropriate signage is to be fixed to the fencing to alert people as to importance of the tree protection zone.

• The importance of tree preservation must be communicated to all relevant parties involved with the site. • Inspection of trees during excavation works.

Exploratory excavation The most reliable way to estimate root disturbance is to find out where the roots are in relation to the demolition, excavation or construction works that will take place (Matheny & Clark, 1998).

Exploratory excavation prior to commencement of construction can help establish the extent of the root system and where it may be appropriate to excavate or build. This also allows management decisions to be made and allows time for redesign works if required.

Any exploratory excavation within the allocated TPZ is to be undertaken with due care of the roots. Minor exploration is possible with hand tools. More extensive exploration may require the use of high pressure water or air excavation techniques. Either hydraulic or pneumatic excavation techniques will safely expose tree roots; both have specific benefits dependent on the situation and soil type. An arborist is to be consulted on which system is best suited for the site conditions.

Substantial roots are to be exposed and left intact. Once roots are exposed decisions can be made regarding the management of the tree. Decisions will be dependent on the tree species, its condition, its age, its relative tolerance to root loss, and the amount of root system exposed and requiring pruning.

Other alternative measures to encroaching the TPZ may include boring or tunnelling.

How to determine the diameter of a substantial root The size of a substantial root will vary according to the distance of the exposed root to the trunk of the tree. The further away from the trunk of a tree that a root is, the less significant the root is likely to be to the tree’s health and stability.

The determination of what is a substantial root is often difficult because the form, depth and spread of roots will vary between species and sites. However, because smaller roots are connected to larger roots in a framework, there can be no doubt that if larger roots are severed, the smaller roots attached to them will die. Therefore, the larger the root, the more significant it may be.

Gilman (1997) suggests that trees may contain 4-11 major lateral roots and that the five largest lateral roots account (act as a conduit) for 75% of the total root system. These large lateral roots quickly taper within a distance to the tree, this distance is identified as the Structural Root Zone (SRZ). Within the SRZ distance, all roots and the soil surrounding the roots are deemed significant.

No root or soil disturbance is permitted within the SRZ.

In the area outside the SRZ the tree may tolerate the loss of one or a number of roots. The table below indicates the size of tree roots, outside the SRZ that would be deemed substantial for various tree heights. The assessment of combined root loss within the TPZ would need to be undertaken by an arborist on an individual basis because the location of the tree, its condition and environment would need to be assess


Table 1: Estimated significant root sizes outside SRZ

• Height of tree • Diameter of root • Less than 5m • ≥ 30mm • Between 5m - 15m

• ≥ 50mm • More than 15m

• ≥ 70mm

Ground buffering

(Extract from: AS4970-2009, Appendix D, pg17)

Where works are required to be undertaken within the tree root zone, surface, ground buffering and trunk and limb protection must be provided to minimise the potential for soil to become compacted and avoid potential for impact wounds to occur to surface roots, trunk or limbs. Refer below.

Diagram 2 buffering an: Examples of ground d trunk and limb protection.

TREE PROTECTION ZONE BASED ON BRITISH STANDARD 5837

TREE TRUNK

ADDITIONAL 1.0 METRE OUTSIDE CROWN AS SPECIFIED BY COUNCIL GUIDELINES

OUTLINE OF CROWN

TREE PROTECTION ZONE

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)

NOTES:

The outer extent of the areas marked in red (above) indicates the Tree Protection Zone required during construction. The TPZ based on the British Standard is a function of the dimensions of the tree but does not take into account the typical non-symmetrical nature of many of the River Red Gums throughout the City of Whittlesea. The additional 1 metre outside the crown attempts to provide for this situation.

The TPZ for a tree intended to be retained within a proposed development is an area which is a no go zone. For the City of Whittlesea, the TPZ is a shape defined by a circle, whose centre point is the centre of the tree trunk at ground level, and whose radius is equal to half the height of the tree or half the crown width (which ever is greater) plus the tree canopy plus one metre.

This TPZ can only be varied if it can be proven beyond doubt that works proposed within the zone will not damage any part of the tree within this zone, including canopy, branches, trunk and roots. However, any encroachment beneath the crown should be avoided.

Any works within a TPZ will require written approval from Parks and Open Space and these works will be required to be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced consulting Arborist.

Council's tree protection zone guideline shall supersede AS4970 2009 and/or any other tree protection zone standard/calculation. In this regard, Council's guideline considers both the on-going health of the tree and has been developed to protect people, infrastructure and property (ie the shape considers the impact of falling limbs and delineates a pedestrian exclusion zone) whereas AS4970 2009 only considers the impact of works on the on-going health of the tree.

STANDARD DETAILDate: 3 November 2014Revision: A

SDL.2.01

HA

LF T

HE

HE

IGH

T

HALF THE WIDTH

RADIUS CALCULATION = HALF THE HEIGHT OR HALF THE WIDTH (WHICH EVER IS GREATER).

OR

CANOPY PLUS 1.0m

CANOPY CALCULATION = VERTICAL OUTLINE OF CROWN PLUS 1.0 METRE

PARKS & OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Timothy.Burgess

Text Box

Appendix 5: City of Whittlesea tree protection requirements

Treelogic Pty Ltd Tree Report I 592-694 High Street, Epping

Tree Logic Pty. Ltd.

Unit 4, 21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood Vic 3134

RE: Arboricultural Consultancy

Copyright notice

©Tree Logic 2018. All rights reserved, except as expressly provided otherwise in this publication.

Disclaimer

Although Tree Logic Pty Ltd (ACN 080 021 610) (Tree Logic) uses all due care and skill in providing you the information made available in this Report, to the extent permitted by law Tree Logic otherwise excludes all warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied.

To the extent permitted by law, you agree that Tree Logic is not liable to you or any other person or entity for any loss or damage caused or alleged to have been caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence), either directly or indirectly, by your use of the information (including by way of example, arboricultural advice) made available to you in this report. Without limiting this disclaimer, in no event will Tree Logic be liable to you for any lost revenue or profits, or for special, indirect, consequential or incidental damage (however caused and regardless of the theory of liability) arising out of or related to your use of that information, even if Tree Logic has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damage.

This disclaimer is governed by the law in force in the State of Victoria, Australia.

Reliance

This Report is addressed to you and may not be distributed to, or used or relied on by, another person without the prior written consent of Tree Logic. Tree Logic accepts no liability to any other person, entity or organisation with respect to the content of this Report unless that person, entity or organisation has first agreed in writing to the terms upon which this Report may be relied on by that other person, entity or organisation.

Report Assumptions

The following qualifications and assumptions apply to the Report:

• Any legal description provided to Tree Logic is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters outside of Tree Logic's control.

• Tree Logic assumes that any property or project is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other local, state or federal government regulations.

• Tree Logic shall take care to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data shall be verified insofar as possible; however, Tree Logic can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others not directly under Tree Logic’s control.

• No Tree Logic employee or contractor shall be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of the Report unless subpoenaed or subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.

• Loss of the report or alteration of any part of the report not undertaken by Tree Logic invalidates the entire Report and shall not be relied upon by any party.

• The Report and any values expressed therein represent the opinion of Tree Logic’s consultant and Tree Logic’s fee is in no way conditional upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.

• Sketches, diagrams, graphs and photographs used in the Report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural drawings, reports or surveys.

• Unless expressed otherwise: i) Information contained in the Report will cover those items that were outlined in the project brief or that were examined during the assessment and reflect the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and ii) The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible components without dissection, excavation or probing unless otherwise stipulated.

• There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied by Tree Logic, that the problems or deficiencies of the plants or site in question may not arise in the future.

• All instructions (verbal or written) that define the scope of the Report have been included in the Report and all documents and other materials that the Tree Logic consultant has been instructed to consider or to take into account in preparing the Report have been included or listed within the Report.

• The Report is strictly limited to the matters stated in it and does not apply by implication to any other matters.

• To the writer’s knowledge all facts, matter and all assumptions upon which the Report proceeds have been stated within the body of the report and all opinion contained within the report will be fully researched and referenced and any such opinion not duly researched is based upon the writer's experience and observation.

Kaufland Epping Store (2038) Figures


KAUFLAND EPPING STORE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN PLANNING PANEL VICTORIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCEEDING EXPERT WITNESS REPORT

FIGURES Drawings Reduced to A3 size

EPPING STORE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN€¦ · 1.01 THE PROJECT BRIEF The landscape architectural...

Documents

Transcript of EPPING STORE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DESIGN€¦ · 1.01 THE PROJECT BRIEF The landscape architectural...