Tree Assessment & Development Impact Report

4 August 2021

Tree Assessment & Development Impact Report

22 James Street

Sorrento, Vic

Version 1

Report Prepared By

Jarrad Miller (dip. arb.)

Report Commissioned By

David Natoli

Report Reference Number

2 0 1 9 5 S O R

m. 0 4 0 1 1 7 2 1 8 4

e. [email protected]

acn. 6 3 8 8 5 8 5 6 3

mailto:[email protected]

22 James Street, Sorrento 4 August 2021

JMA Consultancy Pty Ltd of 41

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Background ......................................................................................................................... 5

1.2. Report Objectives ................................................................................................................ 5

1.3. Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................... 5

2. Statutory Controls ................................................................................................................ 6

3. Site Maps ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1. Site Context ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Site Plan with Tree Numbers ............................................................................................... 8

4. Site Overview ....................................................................................................................... 9

5. Off-Site Trees ..................................................................................................................... 12

6. Trees Proposed for Removal ............................................................................................... 13

6.1. Site Trees Proposed for Removal ...................................................................................... 13

6.2. Road Reserve Trees Proposed for Removal ...................................................................... 13

7. Tree Protection Zones ......................................................................................................... 15

7.1. Preamble ........................................................................................................................... 15

7.2. Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 15

7.3. TPZ / SRZ Dimensions ........................................................................................................ 15

7.4. Management of the TPZ .................................................................................................... 15

8. Development Impact Assessment ....................................................................................... 16

8.1. Tree Protection Zone Plan ................................................................................................. 16

8.2. Impact Summary ............................................................................................................... 17

8.3. Trees with no Encroachment of the TPZ ........................................................................... 17

8.4. Trees with a Minor Encroachment of the TPZ ................................................................... 17

8.5. Trees with a Major Encroachment of the TPZ ................................................................... 18

8.6. Tree 1 ................................................................................................................................ 18

8.7. Tree 19 .............................................................................................................................. 19

8.8. Tree 23 .............................................................................................................................. 20

8.9. Tree Pruning ...................................................................................................................... 21



Table of Contents (continued)

9. References ......................................................................................................................... 22

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 23

Appendix A. Recorded Tree Data ................................................................................................. 24

Appendix B. Photographic Catalogue .......................................................................................... 26

Appendix C. Tree Descriptors ...................................................................................................... 34

Appendix D. TPZ / SRZ Dimensions .............................................................................................. 37

Appendix E. Tree Protection Plan ................................................................................................ 38

Appendix F. Assumptions & Limitations ...................................................................................... 41



Executive Summary

• It is proposed to construct a studio and associated decking to the rear of the existing dwelling at

22 James Street and to upgrade the existing driveway which is currently very narrow and difficult to enter.

• Sixteen (16) trees were assessed throughout the subject site.

• Thirteen (13) trees were assessed on adjoining properties and the road reserve.

• A total of eleven (11) trees are proposed for removal.

• Eight (8) trees within the subject property are proposed for removal to accommodate the design intent.

o These trees are all exempt from planning controls once a permit to construct the studio has been approved.

• Three (3) trees on the road reserve are proposed for removal to expand and upgrade the existing driveway.

o One tree was considered to be of moderate arboricultural value; however, both stems of the tree are severely fractured at/near the base and are expected to completely fail in the short-term.

o The removal of these trees will require approval from the Mornington Peninsula Shire and will trigger schedule 1 of the vegetation protection overlay.

o The removal of these trees are not subject to the conditions of clause 52.17 of the Victorian planning scheme under an exemption to enable vehicle access across a road reserve.

• Retained and off-site trees will require protection throughout the development phase. This can be achieved by determining and establishing tree protection zones (TPZ).

o The TPZ of fourteen (14) trees will not be encroached by the proposed building or driveway footprint. If the full extent of each TPZ is isolated from construction activity and soil alteration, the long-term health and stability of these trees are not likely to be affected.

o The TPZ of one (1) tree will be encroached by less than 10% of area and outside of the SRZ. As per Australian Standards (AS 4970), this is considered a minor encroachment and no further investigation is required. If the remaining portion of the TPZ is isolated from construction activity and soil alteration, the long-term health and stability of this tree is not likely to be affected.

o The TPZ of three (3) trees will be encroached by more than 10% of area and/or inside the SRZ. As per Australian Standards (AS 4970), this is considered a major encroachment. If the recommendations of this report are implemented, the long-term health of these trees is unlikely to be affected.



1. Introduction

1.1. Background

It is proposed to construct a studio and associated decking to the rear of the existing dwelling at 22 James Street.

1.2. Report Objectives

• Assess all trees within the subject property, and peripheral trees on adjoining properties and the road reserve that are in proximity to the proposed works.

• Provide information on species, origin, age, dimensions, condition, useful life expectancy and arboricultural value for each tree.

• Identify trees that are proposed for removal.

• Determine the tree protection zone (TPZ) and structural root zone (SRZ) for each tree and assess the impact on retained and off-site trees from the proposed development.

• Recommend strategies to minimise the impact on retained and off-site trees from the proposed development.

1.3. Assessment Methodology

Trees 1 – 20 were assessed by Jarrad Miller on 15/10/2020. Trees 21 – 29 were assessed by Jarrad Miller on 29/07/2021. Trees 1 – 20 were looked over during the second assessment to ensure there were no material changes, which there were not.

DBH (trunk diameter at breast height) was determined by measuring the circumference of the tree stem(s) and dividing by Pi (π). Stem diameter was recorded as close as possible to 1.4 metres above ground level; however, tree form ultimately dictated where the measurements were taken to ensure an accurate representation of DBH.

Tree height was measured with a TruPulse 200 Range Finder and rounded to the nearest metre. Tree height was estimated for trees with an estimated height less than 4m.

The canopy spread for each tree was estimated on the widest axis and rounded to the nearest metre.

The inspection was limited to a superficial, ground-based assessment. The trees were not climbed and root exploratory excavation was not carried out. Qualitative assessments (such as health, structure, etc.) were determined by the assessor based on their training, research and experience.

The identification of tree species was limited to seasonal features available at the time of assessment.

Trees 17 – 24 are located on third party owned property and were viewed from within the subject property. A thorough, panoramic assessment was not conducted and trunk diameters were estimated for these trees.

Tree protection zones (TPZ) and structural root zones (SRZ) were calculated as per Australian Standards – Protection of trees on development sites (AS 4970-2009).



2. Statutory Controls

Address of the Land 22 James Street, Sorrento

Municipality Mornington

Zone General Residential Zone (GRZ) Schedule 1 (GRZ1)

Local Planning Overlays

Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) Schedule 1 (BMO1)

Design & Development Overlay (DDO) Schedule 4 (DDO4)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) Schedule 1 (VPO1)

Bushfire Prone Area? Yes

Bushfire Exemptions

Pursuant to clause 52.12-1 of the Victorian planning scheme, a permit is not necessary to remove trees within 10 metres of the existing dwelling. The plan of survey prepared by Speedie Development Consultants (2020) plots trees 3 – 9 within 10m of the existing dwelling and its associated structures.

Pursuant to clause 52.12-5 of the Victorian planning scheme, a permit is not necessary to remove any of the vegetation within the site if it is required to be undertaken by a condition of a planning permit under clause 44.06 of this scheme (bushfire management overlay) for the construction of a dwelling. Note that this exemption does not apply until such planning permit has been issued.

Permit required to remove road reserve vegetation?

The removal of vegetation on the road reserve will require approval from the Mornington Peninsula Shire and will trigger schedule 1 of the vegetation protection overlay.

The removal of vegetation to extend the existing vehicle crossing is not subject to the conditions of clause 52.17 of the Victorian planning scheme under the following exemption:

Vehicle access from public roads

Native vegetation that is to be removed, destroyed, or lopped to the minimum extent necessary to enable the construction or maintenance of a vehicle access across a road reserve from a property boundary to a public road. The total width of clearing must not exceed 6 metres.

Planning advice provided above is the consulting arborist’s interpretation of the planning scheme and may not necessarily be current at the time of reading. If utilising a permit exemption, it is advisable to seek confirmation from the Mornington Peninsula Shire or a suitably experienced and qualified planning consultant prior to removing vegetation from the site.



3. Site Maps

3.1. Site Context

Figure 3.1. Aerial imagery (Landchecker, 2020) with approximate title boundaries in yellow (J. Miller).



3.2. Site Plan with Tree Numbers

Green

Trees located within the subject property

Blue

Trees located on adjoining properties or the road reserve

Tree 5 is a prostrate Tea Tree with two stems growing at

opposing angles. The base of the tree was

plotted approximately by the consulting

arborist with arrows leading to the

respective canopies plotted by the

surveyor.

Trees 28 and 29 were not included in the original survey and

were plotted approximately by the consulting arborist in

the position they were perceived to be in.

Figure 3.2. Existing site plan (Speedie Development Consultants, 2020) with tree numbers (J. Miller).



4. Site Overview

The subject site is set on approximately 1,212m2 with a small single residence located centrally on the south eastern boundary. It is proposed to construct a studio and associated decking to the rear of the dwelling and upgrade the existing driveway which is currently very narrow and difficult to enter.

A total of sixteen (16) trees were assessed throughout the subject site.

# Botanical Name Common Name Origin DBH (cm)

Height (m)

Arb. Value

1 Eucalyptus cornuta Yate Native 59 12 Low

2 Eucalyptus conferruminata Bald Island Marlock Native 40 4 Low

3 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 17, 19 6 Moderate

4 Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum Vic Native 10, 10, 10,

12, 13 6 Low

5 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 25, 25, 30 5 Moderate

6 Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle Native 12, 18, 18, 20, 20, 22

5 Low

7 Eucalyptus botryoides Southern Mahogany Gum Vic Native 24 8 Low

8 Eriobotrya japonica Loquat Exotic 8* 3 Low

9 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 11, 11, 13, 13, 22, 28

5 Moderate

10 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 20 2 Low

11 Ficus carica Common Fig Exotic 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10

4 Low

12 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 55* 3 Moderate



15 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 15 4 Moderate

16 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 15, 15 4 Low

Table 4.1. Trees assessed within the subject site

* DBH measured at base



4. Site Overview (continued)

Figure 4.2. Subject property as viewed from the existing driveway entry

Figure 4.3. Rear yard of subject site



4. Site Overview (continued)

Figure 4.4. Existing driveway/crossing (as viewed from within the subject site)

Figure 4.5. Tree 1 (Yate) in poor condition with a windswept form



5. Off-Site Trees

Thirteen (13) trees were assessed on adjoining properties and the road reserve.


Height (m)

Location

17 Eucalyptus globulus Southern Blue Gum Vic Native 70 13 18 James St

18 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous 10, 20 7 18 James St

19 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous 35, 35, 35, 40, 40, 40

10 18 James St

20 Melaleuca armillaris Bracelet Honey Myrtle Vic Native 20 5 18 James St

21 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous 14 4 18 James St

22 Melaleuca armillaris Bracelet Honey Myrtle Vic Native 6, 8 3 18 James St

23 Eucalyptus gomphocephala Tuart Native 35, 60 7 18 James St

24 Melaleuca nesophila Showy Honey Myrtle Native 10 3 18 James St

25 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 8, 9, 12 3 Road Reserve

26 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 9, 9, 9, 9 3 Road Reserve

27 Myoporum insulare Boobialla Indigenous 15, 15, 18 2 Road Reserve

28 Myoporum insulare Boobialla Indigenous 4, 5 2 Road Reserve

29 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous 6, 7 2 Road Reserve

Table 5.1. Trees assessed on adjoining properties and the road reserve



6. Trees Proposed for Removal

6.1. Site Trees Proposed for Removal

Eight (8) trees within the subject property are proposed for removal to accommodate the design intent. These trees are all exempt from planning controls once a permit to construct the studio has been approved (refer 2. Statutory Controls, page 6).


Height (m)

Arb. Value


6 Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle Native 12, 18, 18, 20, 20, 22

5 Low

7 Eucalyptus botryoides Southern Mahogany Gum Vic Native 24 8 Low

8 Eriobotrya japonica Loquat Exotic 8* 3 Low

9 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 11, 11, 13, 13, 22, 28

5 Moderate

10 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 20 2 Low

11 Ficus carica Common Fig Exotic 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10

4 Low

12 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous 55* 3 Moderate

Table 6.1. Trees proposed for removal

6.2. Road Reserve Trees Proposed for Removal

Three (3) trees on the road reserve are proposed for removal to expand and upgrade the existing driveway. Tree 27 was considered to be of moderate arboricultural value; however, both stems of the tree are severely fractured at/near the base and are expected to completely fail in the short-term (see figures 6.3. and 6.4. over page).

The removal of these trees will require approval from the Mornington Peninsula Shire and will trigger schedule 1 of the vegetation protection overlay (refer 2. Statutory Controls, page 6).


Height (m)

Arb. Value

27 Myoporum insulare Boobialla Indigenous 15, 15, 18 2 Moderate

28 Myoporum insulare Boobialla Indigenous 4, 5 2 Low

29 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous 6, 7 2 Low

Table 6.2. Trees proposed for removal

* DBH measured at base



6.2. Road Reserve Trees Proposed for Removal (continued)

Figure 6.3. Structural failure at base affecting the north eastern stem Figure 6.4. Partial failure in south western stem



7. Tree Protection Zones

7.1. Preamble Trees generally grow according to a genetic blueprint; however, each individual specimen adapts their roots and canopy to specific site conditions over many years. A sudden change in a trees environment or physical injury may lead to a decline in health, pre-mature death and/or structural failure in some cases.

To ensure the continued viability of retained and off-site trees; their trunks, branches and roots must be isolated from any potentially damaging works. This can be achieved by determining and establishing tree protection zones.

7.2. Definitions Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) A circular area radiating from the tree trunk set aside for the protection of a tree’s roots and canopy where it is potentially subject to damage from development works. Structural Root Zone (SRZ) SRZ Usually a smaller area than the TPZ, theoretically encompassing the roots required for the tree’s stability in the ground.

Figure 7.1. Illustrative example of a tree protection zone with barrier fencing

7.3. TPZ / SRZ Dimensions The prescribed TPZ and SRZ dimensions were calculated as per Australian Standards – AS 4970 2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites) using DBH and DAB measurements recorded on-site.

The TPZ and SRZ for each assessed tree is provided in Appendix D. TPZ / SRZ Dimensions (page 37)

7.4. Management of the TPZ Tree protection zones should be established for all retained and off-site trees prior to any works occurring within the site.

All portions of a TPZ that occupy the subject property should be fenced off and completely isolated from construction activity and soil alteration, unless specified in this report.

Further recommendations are detailed in Appendix E. Tree Protection Plan (pages 38 – 40).



8. Development Impact Assessment 8.1. Tree Protection Zone Plan

Figure 8.1. Proposed site plan (West Valentine Building Designers, 2021) Blue Circles = Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) Red Circles = Structural Root Zones (SRZ)

The TPZ for tree 5 was extended to account for canopy protection Pink Hatching = Proposed building & driveway footprint



8.2. Impact Summary

Description Tree #’s # of Trees

Trees assessed 1 – 29 29

Trees proposed for removal 3, 6 – 12, 27 – 29 11

Trees with no encroachment of the TPZ 1, 4, 13 – 18, 20 – 22, 24 – 26 14

Trees with a minor encroachment of the TPZ

( <10% TPZ encroachment, outside SRZ ) 2 1

Trees with a major encroachment of the TPZ

( >10% TPZ encroachment and/or inside SRZ ) 5, 19, 23 3

Table 8.2. Impact summary

8.3. Trees with no Encroachment of the TPZ

The TPZ of fourteen (14) trees will not be encroached by the proposed building or driveway footprint. If the full extent of each TPZ is isolated from construction activity and soil alteration, the long-term health and stability of these trees are not likely to be affected (see Appendix E. Tree Protection Plan, pages 38 – 40).

8.4. Trees with a Minor Encroachment of the TPZ

The TPZ of one (1) tree will be encroached by less than 10% of area and outside of the SRZ. As per Australian Standards (AS 4970), this is considered a minor encroachment and no further investigation is required. If the remaining portion of the TPZ is isolated from construction activity and soil alteration, the long-term health and stability of this tree is not likely to be affected (see Appendix E. Tree Protection Plan, pages 38 – 40).

Tree # TPZ Encroachment (%) SRZ Encroachment (%)

2 5.9 0.0

Table 8.3. Minor TPZ encroachments



8.5. Trees with a Major Encroachment of the TPZ

The TPZ of three (3) trees will be encroached by more than 10% of area and/or inside the SRZ. As per Australian Standards (AS 4970), this is considered a major encroachment and further discussion is provided below and on subsequent pages.

Tree # TPZ Encroachment (%) SRZ Encroachment (%)

5 16.4 0.0

19 10.2 0.0

23 16.9 0.0

Table 8.4. Major TPZ encroachments

8.6. Tree 1

Tree 5 is a Coastal Tea Tree (Leptospermum laevigatum) located within the subject site. The proposed studio will encroach on the TPZ of this tree by 3.3% (pink area, figure 8.5.), which in isolation is permissible as a minor encroachment under Australian Standards (AS 4970). The remaining encroachment (green area, figure 8.5.) is from steps and pavers. If these structures can be installed without any significant alteration of the existing ground level, then this area should not be considered lost to the TPZ.

Figure 8.5. Zoned TPZ encroachment of tree 5



8.7. Tree 19

Tree 19 is a Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata) located on the adjoining property at 18 James Street. The proposed studio will encroach on the TPZ by 10.2% of area. This is only slightly more (0.2%) than what is permissible as a minor encroachment under Australian Standards (AS 4970).

When given a wide growing space, Moonahs typically develop multi-stemmed forms. Six stem diameters were estimated from the fence line, resulting in a combined DBH of 92cm, which is then used to calculate TPZ. At just over 11 metres radius, the prescribed TPZ for this tree is considered by the consulting arborist to be superfluous to the tree’s needs. Moonahs do not typically develop extensive root systems and an encroachment of 10.2% is unlikely to have any effect on the long-term health of tree 19.

As a matter of precaution, any excavation within the TPZ should be carried out in a sensitive manner so that encountered roots may be severed cleanly before they are smashed or fractured by machinery.

Figure 8.6. TPZ encroachment of tree 19 Figure 8.7. Tree 19



8.8. Tree 23

Tree 20 is a Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) located on the adjoining property at 18 James Street. Upgrades to the existing gravel driveway will encroach on the TPZ by 16.9% of area.

If the driveway upgrades occur at or above the natural ground level within the TPZ and the surface remains permeable, the works are not expected to affect tree health. It is noted that the tree currently presents with extensive dieback, and continuing decline should not necessarily be associated with the works.

Apart from minor scalping (no more than 20mm), no excavation should be carried out within the TPZ.

Figure 8.8. TPZ encroachment of tree 23 Figure 8.9. Tree 23



8.9. Tree Pruning

In accordance with bushfire management specifications, tree 4 (Sweet Pittosporum) will require pruning to uplift the canopy by 2 metres and isolate it from the existing dwelling. Sweet Pittosporums are a hardy species and tree 4 is likely to be tolerant of this pruning. The eastern stem of tree 5 (Coastal Tea Tree) will require removal to accommodate the proposed studio. The removal of this stem equates to a reduction of approximately 50% of the canopy. Generally this extent of pruning would not be advisable; however, the alternative is removal and so the retention of half the tree is considered a positive outcome. It is further noted that Coastal Tea Trees are commonly observed in this area with half to two thirds of their crown removed and are able to sustain healthy growth.

Figure 8.10. Tree 5



9. References

International Society of Arboriculture (2020). Glossary of Arboricultural Terms. Champaign, IL: Martin One Source. Landchecker (2020). Aerial Imagery. Available at: https://landchecker.com.au/ [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020]. Matheny, N. and Clark, J. (1998). Trees and development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. Planning Schemes Online (2020). Particular Provisions - Clause 52.12 - Bushfire Protection: Exemptions. Planning Schemes Online (2018). Particular Provisions - Clause 52.17 - Native Vegetation. Speedie Development Consultants Pty Ltd (2020). Plan of Survey. Version: 1. Drawn: A. Dixon. Surveyor: MJ, GH. REF No: 12368RF. Sheet: 1 of 1. Date: 6 January 2020. Standards Australia (2007). Pruning of amenity trees, AS 4373:2007. Standards Australia (2009). Protection of trees on development sites, AS 4970:2009. Victoria State Government (2020). Planning Property Report. Available at: https://production-planning-report-pdf.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/22-James-Street-Sorrento-Vicplan-Planning-Property-Report.pdf [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020]. West Valentine Building Designers (2021). Proposed Site Plan. Drawing No: TP-03. Drawn By: MW KV. Date: Jan 2021.



Appendices

Appendix A. Recorded Tree Data 24

Appendix B. Photographic Catalogue 26

Appendix C. Tree Descriptors 34

Appendix D. TPZ / SRZ Dimensions 37

Appendix E. Tree Protection Plan 38

Appendix F. Assumptions & Limitations 41



Appendix A. Recorded Tree Data

# Botanical Name Common Name Origin Age DBH (cm) H x S (m) Health Structure ULE (yrs) Arb. Value

1 Eucalyptus cornuta Yate Native Mature 59 12 x 20 Fair-Poor Fair-Poor 5 - 10 Low

2 Eucalyptus conferruminata Bald Island Marlock Native Mature 40 4 x 6 Fair Fair-Poor 5 - 10 Low

3 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Semi-Mature 17, 19 (25) 6 x 5 Fair Fair 10 - 20 Moderate

4 Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum Vic Native Semi-Mature 10, 10, 10, 12, 13 (25) 6 x 5 Fair-Poor Fair 0 Low

5 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Mature 25, 25, 30 (46) 5 x 18 Fair Fair-Poor 5 - 10 Moderate

6 Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle Native Semi-Mature 12, 18, 18, 20, 20, 22 (46) 5 x 8 Poor Fair 0 Low

7 Eucalyptus botryoides Southern Mahogany Gum Vic Native Semi-Mature 24 8 x 6 Fair-Poor Fair 5 - 10 Low

8 Eriobotrya japonica Loquat Exotic Semi-Mature 8* 3 x 3 Fair Fair 10 - 20 Low

9 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Mature 11, 11, 13, 13, 22, 28 (43) 5 x 7 Fair Fair 5 - 10 Moderate

10 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Mature 20 2 x 8 Fair Fair 5 - 10 Low

11 Ficus carica Common Fig Exotic Semi-Mature 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 (24) 4 x 6 Fair Fair 20 - 30 Low

12 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Semi-Mature 55* 3 x 8 Fair Poor 10 - 20 Moderate



15 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Semi-Mature 15 4 x 5 Fair Fair 10 - 20 Moderate

16 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Semi-Mature 15, 15 (21) 4 x 4 Fair-Poor Fair 5 - 10 Low

17 Eucalyptus globulus Southern Blue Gum Vic Native Semi-Mature 70 13 x 15 Fair-Poor Fair 10 - 20 Low

18 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous Semi-Mature 10, 20 (22) 7 x 6 Fair Fair 20 - 30 Moderate

19 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous Mature 35, 35, 35, 40, 40, 40 (92) 10 x 14 Fair Fair 10 - 20 High

20 Melaleuca armillaris Bracelet Honey Myrtle Vic Native Semi-Mature 20 5 x 5 Fair Fair 5 - 10 Low

21 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous Semi-Mature 14 4 x 3 Fair Fair 20 - 30 Low

22 Melaleuca armillaris Bracelet Honey Myrtle Vic Native Semi-Mature 6, 8 (10) 3 x 3 Poor Fair-Poor 0 Low

23 Eucalyptus gomphocephala Tuart Native Semi-Mature 35, 60 (69) 7 x 8 Fair-Poor Fair-Poor 5 - 10 Low

Table A.A. Recorded tree data (continued on next page)



Appendix A. Recorded Tree Data (continued)

# Botanical Name Common Name Origin Age DBH (cm) H x S (m) Health Structure ULE (yrs) Arb. Value

24 Melaleuca nesophila Showy Honey Myrtle Native Semi-Mature 10 3 x 2 Fair Fair 5 - 10 Low

25 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Semi-Mature 8, 9, 12 (17) 3 x 3 Fair Fair 5 - 10 Low

26 Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea Tree Indigenous Semi-Mature 9, 9, 9, 9 (18) 3 x 2 Fair Fair 5 - 10 Low

27 Myoporum insulare Boobialla Indigenous Mature 15, 15, 18 (28) 2 x 8 Fair Poor < 5 Moderate

28 Myoporum insulare Boobialla Indigenous Juvenile 4, 5 (6) 2 x 2 Fair Fair 20 - 30 Low

29 Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah Indigenous Juvenile 6, 7 (9) 2 x 2 Good Fair 30 + Low

Table A.A. Recorded tree data (continued from previous page)

DBH = Trunk diameter @ breast height (1.4m above ground level) H x S = Height x Spread ULE = Useful Life Expectancy

* DBH recorded at base The combined DBH (as per AS 4970) for trees with multiple stems is provided in brackets



Appendix B. Photographic Catalogue

Figure B.A. Tree 1 (Yate) Figure B.B. Tree 2 (Bald Island Marlock)

Figure B.C. Tree 3 (Coastal Tea Tree) Figure B.D. Tree 4 (Sweet Pittosporum)



Appendix B. Photographic Catalogue (continued)

Figure B.E. Tree 5 (Coastal Tea Tree)

Figure B.F. Tree 6 (Willow Myrtle) Figure B.G. Tree 7 (Southern Mahogany Gum)




Figure B.H. Tree 8 (Loquat) Figure B.I. Tree 9 (Coastal Tea Tree)

Figure B.J. Trees 10 (Coastal Tea Tree) and 11 (Fig)




Figure B.K. Tree 12 (Coastal Tea Tree)

Figure B.L. Trees 13 and 14 (Coastal Tea Trees)




Figure B.M. Trees 15 and 16 (Coastal Tea Trees) Figure B.N. Tree 17 (Southern Blue Gum)

Figure B.O. Tree 18 (Moonah) Figure B.P. Tree 19 (Moonah)




Figure B.Q. Tree 20 (Bracelet Honey Myrtle) Figure B.R. Tree 21 (Moonah)

Figure B.S. Tree 22 (Bracelet Honey Myrtle) Figure B.T. Tree 23 (Tuart)




Figure B.U. Tree 24 (Showy Honey Myrtle) Figure B.V. Tree 25 (Coastal Tea Tree)

Figure B.W. Tree 26 (Coastal Tea Tree)




Figure B.X. Tree 27 (Boobialla)

Figure B.Y. Tree 28 (Boobialla) Figure B.Z. Tree 29 (Moonah)



Appendix C. Tree Descriptors

C.A. Botanical Name The botanical name or binominal name of a plant, consists of the genus name followed by the species name.

Genus is the classificational term used for grouping one or a number of closely related species, all of which share the generic name.

Species is the basic unit in the classification of plants. A species is the specific type of plant within the larger grouping of a genus.

C.B. Common Name The colloquial and informal name of a plant.

C.C. Origin The naturally occurring origin of the plant (refer table below).

Indigenous The plant occurs naturally within the area it was found.

Native (Vic) The plant is native to the state of Victoria but does not occur naturally within the area it was found.

Native The plant is native to Australia but does not occur naturally within the state of Victoria.

Exotic The plant does not occur naturally within Australia.

n/a The plant is dead and/or the species was not identified.

C.D. Age The age class of the plant (refer table below).

Juvenile The plant is developing rapidly and is still establishing itself in the current location.

Semi-Mature The plant has established itself in the current location and is still actively growing.

Mature The plant has reached the expected size for the species and location.

Early Maturity The plant has not reached the expected size for the species and location and is in a state of decline.

Senescent The plant is mature and in a state of decline.

Dead The plant is dead.



C.E. Health The overall health and vigour of the plant (refer table below).

Good

Foliage of plant is entire, with good colour, very little sign of pathogens and of good density. Growth indicators are good i.e. Extension growth of twigs and wound wood development. Minimal or no canopy dieback (deadwood).

Fair

The plant is showing one or more of the following symptoms; < 25% dead wood, minor canopy dieback, foliage generally with good colour though some imperfections may be present. Minor pathogen damage present, with growth indicators such as leaf size, canopy density and twig extension growth typical for the species in this location.

Fair-Poor

Tree is showing one or more of the following symptoms of tree decline; > 25% deadwood, canopy die back is observable, discoloured or distorted leaves. Pathogens present, stress symptoms are observable as reduced leaf size, extension growth and canopy density.

Poor

Tree is in severe decline; > 50% deadwood, very little foliage, possibly epicormic shoots, minimal extension growth.

Dead

The plant is dead.

C.F. Structure The overall form and structural integrity of the plant (refer table below).

Good

Trunk and scaffold branches show good taper and attachment with minor or no structural defects. Tree is a good example of the species with a well-developed form showing no obvious root problems or pests and diseases.

Fair

Tree shows some minor structural defects or minor damage to trunk e.g. bark missing, there could be cavities present. Minimal damage to structural roots. Tree could be seen as typical for this species.

Fair-Poor

The tree or a part thereof is identified as having an increased likelihood of failure. This may include but is not limited to: poor formation of a major union, brittle deadwood, stem decay or a history of limb failures.

Poor

There are major structural defects, damage to trunk or bark missing. Poor structure with likely points of failure. Girdling or damaged roots obvious.



C.G. Arboricultural Value The subjective value of the plant (refer table below).

High

The tree can be described by one or more of the following statements;

• The tree is rare, ecologically important or botanically significant.

• The tree is associated with historical, commemorative or sentimental values.

• The tree is a prominent feature of the site and is visually remarkable.

Moderate

The tree does not fulfil the criteria for high or low arboricultural value and can be described by all of the following statements;

• The tree is a desirable species for the area and/or fulfills a useful purpose.

• The tree is established in an appropriate location.

• The tree is in reasonable health/vigour and of sound structure.

Low

The tree does not fulfil the criteria for high significance and can be described by one or more of the following statements;

• The tree could be replaced within ten years with an advanced nursery specimen.

• The tree is an undesirable and/or weed species in the area.

• The tree is a common species to the area and its removal would have a minimal, negligible or positive impact on the immediate and greater landscape.

• The tree is in an inappropriate location, or requires onerous management to merit its inclusion within the landscape.

• The tree is creating a nuisance or impacting on a fixed asset.

• The tree is dead, declining or adversely affected by pest/disease.

• The tree has developed a defective form or structural fault(s) that cannot be rectified by cost proportionate and industry accepted methods.

• The risk presented by the tree exceeds the benefit that the tree provides.

C.H. Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) The extent of time that the plant is expected to make a positive contribution to the landscape, based on the assumption that the tree and its immediate environment remain unaltered (concept created by Jeremy Barrell, 2000).

0 Years The plant no longer contributes to the landscape in a positive way or is a weed species.

< 5 Years The plant is approaching the end of it’s ULE and will require removal within 5 years.

5 – 10 Years The plant appears to be retainable for a further 5 – 10 years.



30 + Years The plant appears to be retainable for more than 30 years.



Appendix D. TPZ / SRZ Dimensions

Tree # TPZ (mm) SRZ (mm)

1 7080 2812

2 4800 2388

3 3059 1977

4 2971 1953

5 5564 2541

6 5468 2523

7 2880 1927

8 2000 1500

9 5159 2462

10 2400 1785

11 2939 1944

12 6600 2575

13 3394 2065

14 2203 1722

15 2000 1582

16 2546 1830

17 8400 3021

18 2683 1871

19 11047 3390

20 2400 1785

21 2000 1537

22 2000 1500

23 8335 3011

24 2000 1500

25 2040 1667

26 2160 1708

27 3339 2051

28 2000 1500

29 2000 1500

Table D.A. TPZ / SRZ dimensions (to be applied as radius from the center of the trunk at ground level)



Appendix E. Tree Protection Plan

E.A. Awareness of the Tree Protection Program E.A.A. All personnel involved in the development process must attend an induction that conveys the

importance of the tree protection program and the recommendations of this report. E.A.B. Each induction must be recorded and stored appropriately.

E.B. Tree Removals E.B.A. A reputable and insured contractor should be engaged to undertake the tree removals. E.B.B. Trees to be removed should be marked with paint (similar). E.B.C. Tree removal methods must not impact on protected trees. E.B.D. Stump removal methods must not impact on the existing roots of protected trees.

E.C. Tree Pruning E.C.A. The pruning of any tree under protection should occur on a requisite basis only and must comply with

any applicable planning controls. E.C.B. All pruning must be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced and qualified arborist (minimum

AQF level 3) in accordance with Australian Standards – AS 4373 2007 (Pruning of Amenity Trees). E.C.C. Pruning of an off-site tree must be undertaken in consultation with the respective land owner(s) and/or

comply with current right of abatement laws.

E.D. Tree Protection Fencing E.D.A. Tree protection fencing must be installed to the full extent of the recommended TPZ(s) prior to any

works occurring within the site (see E.E. over page for permitted exceptions). E.D.B. The tree protection fencing must be a minimum of 1.5 metres high and be constructed of prefabricated

wire mesh or high visibility barricade mesh supported by a straining wire. E.D.C. The tree protection fencing must be fixed so that it cannot be easily shifted by development personnel

personnel. E.D.D. Once erected, the tree protection fencing must be maintained in good condition.



E.E. Variations to the Tree Protection Fencing E.E.A. It is not practical or necessary to install tree protection fencing on adjoining properties. Only portions

of a TPZ that occupy the subject property require protection. E.E.B. Where an endorsed encroachment of a TPZ will occur, the tree protection fencing may be reduced by

the minimum extent necessary to facilitate construction. E.E.C. The extent and specifications of tree protection fencing on public land (such as a nature strip) should

be discussed with the relevant authority prior to installation.

E.F. Tree Protection Fencing Signage E.F.A. Explanatory signs must be displayed on tree protection fencing that clearly indicates that access is

prohibited and provides contact details for the project arborist and/or site supervisor. E.F.B. Signs must be displayed on each TPZ or at intervals not exceeding five metres. E.F.C. Signs must remain legible and visible throughout the construction phase.

E.G. TPZ Restrictions E.G.A. Access to a TPZ by personnel, vehicles or plant is prohibited, unless specified within this report. E.G.B. The base area of the TPZ(s) must not be altered by cut, fill, trenching, fertilizers or liquid chemical

overland flow, unless specified within this report. E.G.C. Building materials and waste must not be stored within a TPZ.

E.H. Installation of Underground Services within a TPZ E.H.A. If the installation of underground services within a TPZ cannot be avoided, trench excavation must

occur under the direct supervision of a suitably experienced and qualified arborist (minimum AQF level 5).

E.H.B. Tree protection fencing must not be reduced or dismantled to facilitate access prior to the supervising

arborist arriving at the site and must be immediately re-instated once the trench has been backfilled. E.H.C. Excavation may occur by hand digging, air-spade, hydro excavation or hydraulic excavator (<= 3 tonne

unless sufficient ground protection is provided). E.H.D. Care must be taken to retain all roots within the trench equal to or greater than 30mm in diameter

unless authorised by the supervising arborist. E.H.E. Works must cease immediately if directed by the supervising arborist and alternative methods

investigated.



E.I. Construction of Boundary & Internal Fences within a TPZ E.I.A. Construction of boundary or internal fences should be scheduled before or after the construction phase

when tree protection fencing is not in place. Relevant TPZs must be marked on the ground with paint (or similar) to identify where sensitive construction measures are required.

E.I.B. Vehicles or machinery must not access a TPZ at any anytime E.I.C. The existing soil level within a TPZ must not be altered by cut or fill (excluding post holes, see below). E.I.D. Post holes within a TPZ must be carefully excavated with hand tools and relocated as necessary to avoid

severance of or injury to roots exceeding 30mm in diameter. E.I.E. No part of the fence may be attached to a tree’s trunk or branches. Voids left in the fence to

accommodate a tree must consider the future growth of the tree. E.I.F. Pruning of a tree to facilitate construction of a fence should be avoided if it is practical to do so. If

pruning is required, refer to E.C. Tree Pruning (page 38).

E.J. Tree Roots Located Outside of TPZs E.J.A. If tree roots are encountered outside of a TPZ, they should be protected where practical. E.J.B. If the removal of a tree root outside of a TPZ is required, it must be severed cleanly with a sharp,

disinfected hand saw. E.J.C. Tree roots located outside of a TPZ must not be pulled, ripped, torn or smashed.

E.K. Reporting E.K.A. Any physical damage to the trees under protection must be immediately reported to the project

arborist and the determining authority. This may include physical damage to branches, trunks or roots. E.K.B. Any noticeable change in the appearance of a tree under protection must be immediately reported to

the project arborist and the determining authority. This may include: dieback; discolouration or wilting of foliage; excessive exudation of fluids; pest infestation; branch shed; root plate movement; or a noticeable trunk lean.

E.K.C. Any confusion or uncertainty about the trees under protection or the protection program itself should

be referred to the project arborist without hesitation.



Appendix F. Assumptions & Limitations

Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant / appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others.

Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent.

Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.

The consultant / appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual agreements are made, including payment of a negotiated additional fee for such services.

Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent.

Diagrams, sketches, graphs and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys.

Unless expressed otherwise, the information contained in this report covers only those items that were inspected / examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants of property in question may not arise in the future.

This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant / appraiser, and the consultant / appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated results, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.

Tree Assessment & Development Impact Report

Documents

Transcript of Tree Assessment & Development Impact Report