25 holbeche road arndell park nsw

1

Tree Assessment

25 Holbeche Road Arndell Park NSW.

Prepared by:

Stuart Pittendrigh FAILA FAIH M.Arb.Aust

Registered Landscape Architect

Registered Horticulturist/Consultant Arborist

January 2021

2

. Introduction This Tree Report has been compiled for Kitchen City for the development of the property known as 25 Holbeche Road, Arndell Park NSW. The report reflects the condition of the trees growing on the subject site and 4 trees on the adjoining property to the west. A site inspection and collection was carried out by the writer in accordance with AS4970-2009 which states that the project arborist will be suitably experienced and competent in arboriculture and horticulture having acquired through training, qualifications (minimum Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) Level 5, Diploma of Horticulture (Arboriculture)) and/or equivalent experience, through the knowledge and skills enabling that person to perform the tasks required by this Standard. The purpose of this report is to assess the potential impact from the proposed development on the subject trees, together with recommendations for amendments to the design or construction where if necessary, to minimise any adverse impact. The report also provides recommended tree protection measures to ensure the long-term preservation of the trees to be preserved where appropriate. This Arborists report has been prepared in accordance with Blacktown City Council’s Tree Management Plan guidelines and in accordance with Section 2 Planning and the Tree Management Process Cl. 2.3.2 Preliminary Tree Assessment of AS 4970-2009 The Protection of Trees on Development Sites Soils Soils of this area are typical of the Blacktown (bt) Landscape Group (as classified on the Soil Landscapes map and accompanying publication of the Sydney 1:100,000 Sheet).

The site soil generally consists of shallow to moderately deep hard setting mottled texture

contrast soils, Red and Brown Podzolic soils on crests grading to Yellow Soils on lower slopes and in drainage lines. Limitations – moderately highly plastic subsoil, low fertility, poor soil drainage. Vegetation. The original remnant native vegetation of this area consists of open woodland comprising Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey box) and Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow leaved iron bark) Summary A total of 32 trees were assessed on the subject and adjoining site. All trees assessed on the site have been tagged and numbered for ease of identification.

• 24 are recommended for removal due to encroachment within their Tree Protection Zones, failing condition, pooh health or short safe useful life expectancy.

• 4 Trees are recommended for preservation on the subject site and 4 trees that are growing close to the common boundary assessed on the adjoining site to the north.

• Plans referenced in the preparation of this report are as follows:

• Site survey No. 2190506 dated 22-10-2019 prepared by Landair Surveys

• Landscape Master Plan No. 102 Issue B prepared by Site Image Landscape Architects.

3

Stuart Pittendrigh Consultant Arborist and his field assistant conducted the site assessment on the 02 December 2020.

Site view 25 Holbeche Road, Arndell Park NSW.

4

Street view 25 Holbeche Road, Arndell Park NSW. Aims The aims of this report are to:

• Address Council’s policies and Tree Protection Order

• Identify the subject trees shown on the plan provided

• Appraise and assess the trees’ condition, health, structure physical dimensions and form at the time of inspection

• Determine the Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of the tree (s)

• Assess the landscape amenity provided by each individual tree

• Identify trees to be retained and

• Identify trees to be removed due to the proposed development. Methodology The comments and recommendations in this report are based on observations and findings from the site inspection. The trees were assessed from ground observation using standard methods of visual assessment criteria. No probing or coring, testing of woody tissue and no invasive root investigations were carried out Tree health was determined by: Canopy density, extension growth, foliage size applicable to the species, and colour. Presence of pest and disease Termite activity The amount of deadwood and dieback throughout the crown Small branch and twig dieback and Presence of epicormics Tree structure was assessed by Visual evidence of structural faults and potential points of failure Evidence of past poor pruning practices Physical and or storm damage

5

The heights of the trees were measured using an electronic clinometer; the crown spread and trunk diameters were measured at chest height (DCH) in accordance with AS 4970 –2009 Protection of trees on development sites. The nominated Tree Protection Zones and Structural Root Zones were determined by applying the methodology detailed in Section 3 of AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. Refer to Appendix A - Terms used in tree report. Tree Assessment. This tree report shall be read in conjunction with the following documents

• Appendix B - Tree Survey Assessment Sheets

• Appendix C Recommended Actions

• Tree Location plans TP01-TP03 showing the location of the trees assessed. Arboricultural Impact Statement

• No species on the site is considered rare or endangered.

• A Project Arborist shall be appointed to the project to supervise any works within the Tree Protection Zones of the trees on or adjacent to the development site that are likely to be impacted by the proposed development.

• Excavation associated with the demolition works may involve the use of a small rubber tracked excavator / backhoe. To avoid damage to any underlying tree roots and adjacent ground the work shall be carried out under the direction of an arborist. The machine shall work to minimise incursion within the TPZ of all trees to avoid compaction of the underlying adjacent surrounds.

• Any exposed roots shall be brought to the attention of an arborist prior to removal. Tree protection Zones A Tree protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established around nominated trees for preservation. Refer to Appendix B or C for the calculated tree protection zones. The following activities shall be avoided within the TPZ. Excavation, trenching and civil works; Ripping and cultivation of soil; Mechanical removal of soil; Unless directed by an Arborist no disturbance of the soil within the TPZ shall occur; Movement and storage of plant, vehicles and equipment; Erection of site sheds; Affixing of signs, ropes or hoardings to any tree; Disposal of waste materials and chemicals including paint, cement, solvents, grout/slurry, fuel, oil and other toxic liquids; Other physical damage to the trunk or root system; Filling, reduction of existing levels or compaction within the TPZ of the tree unless approved by an Arborist and Any other site activity that is likely to cause damage to the tree. Protective fencing. Protective fencing must be erected around each tree nominated for preservation before site clearing and establishment and before any materials are brought on site and prior to the commencement of civil and construction works. The protective fencing shall remain in place for the duration of the works. Protective fencing shall comprise1800mm.high chain link wire mesh fixed to 50 mm. galvanised steel posts. Portable chain link fencing may be installed. Coloured plastic tape fencing or plain strained fencing wire fixed to steel droppers is unacceptable. Chain link portable panels must be securely fixed top and bottom to avoid separation.

6

All areas enclosed by protective fencing must have the entire ground surface mulched to a depth of 100 mm with composted Eucalyptus leaf and woodchip to help retain soil moisture and reduce erosion. Trunk Protection. Where space does not permit the installation of protective fencing trunk protection shall be necessary. Trunk protection shall comprise the placement of 2.0 metre lengths of 100 mm x 50 mm hardwood spaced at 150 mm centres around the trunk secured in place by metal strap bindings or 10-gauge fencing wire fixed at 300 mm centres. Prior to placing battens install a soft protective padding which shall be installed to ends of timbers to prevent damage to bark and conducting tissue. Trunk protection must remain in place for the duration of all site works. Warning Signs. Advise contractors and visitors to the site of the purpose for protecting and preserving trees by the placement of suitable warning signs fixed to all tree protection fences and trunk protection throughout the site. Demolition Demolition or bulk earth works within the TPZ of trees to be preserved shall be carried out so as to avoid damage to the tree’s roots. Manual excavation shall be carried out under the supervision of the project Arborist to identify roots critical to trees protection zone when installing the new structures.

Where the project Arborist identifies roots to be pruned within or at the outer edge of the TPZ, they should be pruned with a final cut to undamaged wood. Pruning cuts should be made with sharp tools such as secateurs, pruners, handsaws or chainsaws. Pruning wounds should not be treated with dressings or paints. It is totally unacceptable for roots within the TPZ to be 'pruned' with machinery such as backhoes or excavators. Where roots within the TPZ are exposed by excavation, temporary root protection should be installed to prevent them drying out. This may include jute mesh or hessian sheeting as multiple layers over exposed roots and excavated soil profile, extending to the full depth of the root zone. Root protection sheeting should be pegged in place and kept moist during the period that the root zone is exposed. Ground protection If any construction access or works is required within the TPZ of any trees to be preserved ground protection measures shall be required. Ground protection shall include temporary access for machinery, vehicular and foot traffic within the TPZ of trees on the site. The purpose of ground protection is to prevent root damage and soil compaction within the TPZ. The measures may include a permeable membrane such as geo-textile fabric beneath a layer of mulch or crushed rock below rumble boards as per Clause 4.5.3 Ground protection AS4970-2009 The protection of trees on development sites.

Pathway from Holbeche Road To reduce the impact within the TPZ on Trees 16,17 and 19 it is recommended to lay the path on grade using a no fines concrete or permeable paving. Any site activity within the TPZ and SRZ of the trees to be preserved must have elevated protection installed clear of the ground to avoid compaction and damage to roots. Protection may comprise timber planks or metal decking supported on scaffolding or the like. Site Access and Site Establishment. Site access, sheds, stock piling and storage of materials must be placed clear of the TPZ of the trees nominated for preservation. Tree Work / Pruning. No tree (s) shall be pruned or removed unless written consent or permit is granted by the LGA. Pruning shall be carried out by AQF Level 4 Arborist in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees and Occupational Health and Safety Act 2001.

7

Hydraulic plans Copies of the current stormwater and sewer plans have not been provided. It is understood that new hydraulic system will connect to the existing facilities.

• Should it be unavoidable sub soil stormwater may be installed within the TPZ and SRZ of trees nominated for preservation however trenching for stormwater / sewer installation within the TPZ and SRZ shall be avoided. The adoption of directional drilling and approved under boring techniques as per Section 4 of AS4970 CL.4.4.5 to avoid adverse impacts on tree roots would be required.

• The directional drilling bore should be at least 600 mm deep. The project Arborist shall assess the likely impacts of boring and bore pits on retained trees. Bore pits, channel drains shall be hand dug under the direction of an Arbores.

Consultant Arborist M. Arb. Aust. (#2003) Registered Landscape Architect (#331) Registered Horticulturist (#063)

8

References Fakes, J. (2004) Introduction to Arboriculture RYDE TAFE Hewett, P. in National Arborists Association of Australia (1997) Assessing Hazardous Trees and their Safe Useful Life Expectancy, NAAA Workshop, June 1997 Jeremy Barrel SULE- Data collection & SULE 11 Presentation of Data in association with the National Arborists Association of Australia (2001) Management of Mature Trees Seminar & Workshops 2001 Richard W. Harris Arboriculture – Integrated Management of Landscape Trees

Standards Australia AS 4970 Protection of trees on development sites. John Roberts, Nick Jackson & Mark Smith Tree Roots in the Built Environment

9

Appendix A Terms used in Tree Report Age Class (Y)-Young refers to a well established but juvenile tree. (SM)-Semi-mature refers to a tree at growth stages between immaturity and full size or a tree that has reached First Adult Form i.e. displays adult fruit and leaf characteristics. (M)-Mature refers to a full size tree with some capacity for further growth. (OM)-Over-mature refers to a tree approaching decline or already declining. Health refers to the tree’s vigour, growth rate, disease and/or insects. Condition summarises observations about the health and structure of the tree on a scale of 1-5

(G) Good - (F) Fair. Trees that are in reasonably good to fair condition (any minor structural or health problems can be mitigated), will survive for many tears, and can recover from injury or respond to site and environmental changes.

(A) Average Tree has health or structural problems that would require considerable treatment, has limited life expectancy, or is less desirable of preservation.

(P) Poor and (VP) Very Poor Tree is in poor or very poor condition, has short safe expectancy, or has low value in the landscape. Retention of trees in this category may be hazardous in severe weather events resulting in injury and damage to property.

Height expressed in metres refers to estimated overall height of tree Spread expressed in meters refers to estimated spread of crown at the drip line. Diameter at Chest Height (DCH) expressed in millimetres refers to the trunk diameter at 1.4 meters above ground level. (DRB) Diameter above Root Buttress (DRB) expressed in millimetres refers to the trunk diameter measured immediately above root buttress. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) refers to a specific radial offset expressed in metres to provide a specified area above and below the ground and at a given distance from the trunk set aside for the protection of a tree’s roots and crown to provide for the viability and stability of a tree to be retained where it is potentially subject to damage by development. The TPZ shall be calculated as a radial measurement based on twelve times the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). A TPZ shall not be less than 2m.radius nor greater than a 15m radius as measured from the centre of the stem at ground level. If an encroachment is less than 10% of the area of the TPZ and is outside the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) detailed root investigation should not be required. Encroachments greater than 10% within the TPZ are considered major. Incursions greater than 10% or inside the SRZ root investigation using non- destructive methods may be required. Non-destructive investigation methods may include pneumatic, hydraulic or penetrating radar. Any encroachment should be compensated for elsewhere and be contiguous with the TPZ.

10

Structural Root Zone (SRZ) The area around the base of a tree required for the tree’s stability in the ground that is necessary to hold the tree upright. The SRZ is nominally circular with the trunk at its centre and is expressed by its radius in metres. This zone considers a tree’s structural stability only, not the root zone required for a tree’s vigour and long term viability, which will usually be a much larger area. The SRZ only needs to be calculated when major encroachment into a TPZ is likely to occur

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.O

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

STEM DIAMETER (D) m

ST

RU

CT

UR

AL R

OO

T Z

ON

E R

AD

IUS

m

SRZ radius

D

The curve can be expressed by the following formulaRSRZ = (D X 50) O.42 x 0.64

R SRZ

NOTES

1 is the structural root zone radius2 D is the stem diameter measured immediately above to root buttress

3 The SRZ for trees less than 0.15 m diamater is 1.5m4 The SRZ formula and graph do not apply to palms, other monocots, cycads & tree ferns5 This does not apply to trees with an asymmetrical root plate

STRUCTURAL ROOT ZONE

S.U.L.E. Safe useful Life Expectancy Refer to attachment

11

Landscape Amenity Rating Scale The landscape amenity value provided by trees indicates:

• How highly the tree is regarded as part of the local landscape

• How the tree provides and enhances the visual quality of the site

• The importance of the tree’s historical and cultural significance

• The provision of habitat and vegetation linkages within development sites, streetscapes, recreation areas or open space.

The protection, preservation and enhancement of the landscape amenity, particularly community and residential amenity is a core objective of site design, land use and planning. The following rating scale is designed to assist in the site planning process for the proposed site works/development. Each tree in Schedule B is rated accordingly. No 1 Rating - Significance

• Recognised landmark

• Contributes to high visual amenity

• Major contribution to the sites landscape amenity

• Excellent condition, health, structure and form

• Forms part of a listed Critically Endangered Ecological Community

• Significant introduced native species that has successfully adapted to the site conditions and environment.

• Significant introduced evergreen or deciduous species that has successfully adapted to the site conditions and environment

• Indigenous to the locality

• Significant remnant species indigenous to site and locality

• Historic importance

• Cultural importance

• Recorded on significant tree register

• Listed as a threatened species

• Identified habitat tree

• Contributes to the bio-diversity of native vegetation within the locality No 2 Rating – High retention value

• Contributes to good visual amenity

• Makes substantial contribution to the sites landscape amenity

• Good/Fair condition, health, structure and form



• Remnant species indigenous to site and locality

• Introduced native species that has adapted to the site conditions and environment.

• Introduced evergreen or deciduous species that has adapted to the site conditions and environment

• Listed as a threatened species

• Possible habitat tree

• Contributes to the bio-diversity of native vegetation within the locality

12

No 3 Rating –Moderate retention value

• Minor contribution to the sites landscape amenity

• Fair/Average condition, health, structure and form

• Average/poor visual amenity


• Introduced species


• Growth and development suppressed

• Wounds, structural fault extensive storm damage

• Observance of Pests and disease impacting on health and condition.

• Hazardous tree

No 4 Rating – Low retention value

• Little or no contribution to the sites landscape amenity

• Poor/very poor visual amenity

• Growth and development over-mature / suppressed

• Major structural faults that cannot be mitigated

• Recognised undesirable species.

• Decline in vigour

• Dangerous tree

• Dead tree

• Species unsuitable for site conditions and environment

• Species exempt LGA Tree Protection Order/Management Plan

-

NOTES ON SAFE USEFUL LIFE EXPECTANCY (SULE RATING) AS USED IN TREE DESCRIPTION TABLE In a planning context the time a tree can expect to be usefully retained is the most important long-term consideration. Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) is the life expectancy of the tree modified first by its age, health, condition, safety and location (to give safe life expectancy), then by economics, effects on better trees and sustained amenity (Barrel! 1993 and 1995). Trees with short SULE may at present be making a contribution to the landscape but their value to the local amenity will decrease rapidly towards the end of this period, prior to their being removed for safety or aesthetic reasons. SULE categories

1 LONG SULE 2 MEDIUM SULE 3 SHORTSULE 4 REMOVALS 5 MOVED OR REPLACED

A

A

Long: appeared to be retainable alt the time of assessment for over 40 years with an acceptable degree of risk, assuming reasonable maintenance.

Medium: appeared to be retainable at the time of assessment for 15 to 40 years with an acceptable degree of risk, assuming reasonablemaintenance.

Short- appeared to be retainable at the timeof assessment for 5 to 15 years with an acceptable degree ofrisk, assuming reasonable maintenance.

Removal: trees which should be removed within the next 5 years.

Moved or Replaced: Trees which can be readily moved or replaced

B

B

Structurally sound trees located in positions that can accommodate future growth

Trees that may only live between 15 and 40 more years

Trees that may only live between 5 and 1 5 more years.

Dead, dying, suppressed or declining trees through disease or inhospitable conditions

Small trees less than 5 metres (m) in height

C

Trees that could be made suitable for long-term retention by remedial tree care.

Trees that may live for more than 40 years but would be removed for safety or nuisance reasons.

Trees that may live for more than 15 years but would be removed for safety ornuisance reasons.

Dangerous trees through damage, structural defect, instability or recent toss of adjacent trees.

Young trees less than 1 5 years old but over5m in height

D

D

Trees of special significance for historical, commemorative or rarity reasons that would warrant extraordinary efforts to secure their long term retention.

Trees that may live for more than 40 years but should be removed to prevent interference with more suitable individuals or to provide space for new planting.

Trees that may live for more than 15 years but should be removed to prevent interference with more suitable individuals or to provide space for new planting.

Dangerous trees through structural detects including cavities, decay, included bark, wounds or poor form.

Trees that have been regularly pruned to artificially control growth'

R

E Trees that could be

made suitable for retention in the medium term by remedial tree care

Trees that require substantial remedial tree care and are onlysuitable for retention in the short term.

Damaged trees that are' clearly not safe to retain

F

F

Trees that may live for more than 5 years but should be removed to prevent interference with more suitable individuals or to provide space for new planting

G

G

Trees that are damaging or may cause damage to existing structures within 5 years

H

H

Trees that will become dangerous after removal of other trees for the reasons given in A) to F).

Appendix B - Tree Survey Assessment Sheet

Tree No.

Botannical Name AgeClass

Height Spread DCH DRB TPZ SRZDescription, Condition and Comments SULECommon Name

25 Holbeche Road, Arndell Park NSW.

L/Sc Amen.m m mm mm m. rad. m. rad.

1 14.5 6 330 415 4 2.3 Located on the adjoining property to the west, evergreen native tree introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species,minor small branch and twig die back

2aMCorymbia maculata

Spotted gum

2

Area m2 50 17

2 12.4 7 258 335 3.1 2.1 Located on the adjoining property to the west, evergreen native tree introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, small branch and twig die back


Spotted gum

2

Area m2 30 14

3 15.4 7.5 378 525 4.5 2.5 Located on the adjoining property to the west, evergreen native tree introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species.


Spotted gum

2

Area m2 64 20

4 11 7 272 390 3.3 2.2 Located on the adjoining property to the west, evergreen native tree introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species.


Spotted gum

2

Area m2 34 15

5 11 8 380 650 4.6 2.8 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, fair condition, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, small branch and twig die back

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 66 25

6 11 6.5 310 553 3.7 2.6 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, minor small branch and twig die back

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 43 21

7 10.6 5.5 270 525 4.5 2.5 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, fair to good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union, minor small branch and twig die back

2aSMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak 255

2

Area m2 64 20

8 9 9 320 488 3.8 2.4 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, fair condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union, minor small branch and twig die back, thinning crown

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 45 18

Page 1Friday, 4 December 2020


Tree No.





9 3 4 Multi stem 192 3 1.7 Small evergreen tree/tall shrub introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union, minor small branch and twig die back

2aMMelaleuca quinquenervia

Broad leaf paper-bark

2

Area m2 28 9

10 4 5.5 130 345 3.1 2.1 Small evergreen tree/tall shrub introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union.


Broad leaf paper-bark 152

160

2

Area m2 30 14

11 11.2 8 445 500 5.3 2.5 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 88 20

12 11.4 8 315 520 3.8 2.5 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 45 20

13 3 2.5 2X55 155 0.9 1.5 Small evergreen tree/tall shrub introduced to the site, fair condition, suppressed

2eSMMelaleuca quinquenervia


2

Area m2 3 7

14 10.8 5 287 525 3.4 2.5 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, minor mall branch and twig die back

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 36 20

15 12.4 5 285 555 3.4 2.6 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, structure and form typical of the species, co-dominant stems, strong union, partially suppressed, minor storm damage

2eMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 36 21

16 9.4 5.5 272 392 3.3 2.2 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, fair condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, thinning crown

2aMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 34 15



Tree No.





17 9.2 4 265 385 3.2 2.2 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, fair condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, partially suppressed

2eMCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

2

Area m2 32 15

18 3.5 5 3x115 274 2.4 1.9 Small evergreen tree/tall shrub introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species



2

Area m2 18 11

19 17.8 8 720 540 8.6 2.6 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species

2aMEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

2

Area m2 232 21

20 20.6 12 555 1030 9.5 3.4 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union, minor mall branch and twig die back


Forest Red gum 570

2

Area m2 284 36

21 19 8.5 465 460 5.6 2.4 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species


Forest Red gum

2

Area m2 99 18

22 7 6 195 235 2.3 1.8 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, suppressed

2aSMEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

2

Area m2 17 10

23 20.4 13 550 750 6.6 2.9 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, fair condition, the species is not rare or endangered, thinning crown.

3eMEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

2

Area m2 137 26

24 6.5 3 248 267 3 1.9 Deciduous tree introduced to the site, average to poor condition, the species is not rare or endangered, most growth and foliage from epicormics. Removal and replacement recommended.

3eOMPlatanus x hybrida

Plane tree

3

Area m2 28 11



Tree No.





25 6 4 137 200 1.6 1.7 Deciduous tree introduced to the site, average to poor condition, the species is not rare or endangered, most growth and foliage from epicormics. Removal and replacement recommended.


Plane tree

3

Area m2 8 9

26 5.2 2.5 145 180 1.7 1.6 Deciduous tree introduced to the site, average to poor condition, the species is not rare or endangered, most growth and foliage from epicormics. Removal and replacement recommended.


Plane tree

3

Area m2 9 8

27 7.2 5 216 225 2.6 1.8 Deciduous tree introduced to the site, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, retention recommended.

2aMPlatanus x hybrida

Plane tree

2

Area m2 21 10

28 5.2 3 110 180 1.3 1.6 Deciduous tree introduced to the site, average to poor condition, the species is not rare or endangered, most growth and foliage from epicormics. Removal and replacement recommended.


Plane tree

3

Area m2 5 8

29 9.6 12 460 550 5.5 2.6 Evergreen native tree introduced to the site, average condition, fair condition, small branch and twig die back, thinning crown, tree stressed, decline in vigour

3aMEucalyptus nicholii

Narrow leaf peppermint

3

Area m2 95 21

30 9.5 18 810 1260 9.7 3.6 Evergreen native tree introduced to mthe site, Poor to average condition, the species is not rare or endangered, small branch and twig die back, canopy dieback and hazardous deadwood, thinning crown, tree stressed, decline in vigour. Remove dead wood to avoid injury and damage to property,

3eMEucalyptus nicholii


3

Area m2 296 41

31 16 18 270 1440 10 3.9 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, co-dominant stems, strong union, canopy dieback and hazardous deadwood, small branch and twig die back


Forest Red gum 300

728

2

Area m2 314 48

32 17 12 434 630 5.2 2.7 Evergreen tree indigenous to the locality, good condition, the species is not rare or endangered, structure and form typical of the species, small branch and twig die back


Forest Red gum

2

Area m2 85 23


Appendix C - Impact on Trees and Recommendation

Tree No.

Botannical NameComments / RecommendationsConditionCommon Name


TPZ SRZ

m. rad. m. rad. TPZ SRZ

Encroachment

1 Tree located on adjoining property, TPZ clear of impacts from development on subject siteGoodCorymbia maculata

Spotted gum

4 2.3

Area m2 50 17 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

2 Tree located on adjoining property, TPZ clear of impacts from development on subject siteCorymbia maculata

Spotted gum

3.1 2.1

Area m2 30 14 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


Spotted gum

4.5 2.5

Area m2 64 20 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


Spotted gum

3.3 2.2

Area m2 34 15 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

5 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate proposed driveway.GoodCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

4.6 2.8

Area m2 66 25 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


Swamp oak

3.7 2.6

Area m2 43 21 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


Swamp oak

4.5 2.5

Area m2 64 20 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

8 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate proposed driveway.FairCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

3.8 2.4

Area m2 45 18 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

9 Removal recommended., encroachment into TPZ considered major.GoodMelaleuca quinquenervia


3 1.7

Area m2 28 9 11.7 0

41.8% 0.0%

10 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate the intended site planning approach and proposed developmentGoodMelaleuca quinquenervia


3.1 2.1

Area m2 30 14 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

11 Removal recommended., encroachment into TPZ considered major.GoodCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

5.3 2.5

Area m2 88 20 27.5 0

31.3% 0.0%

Page 1Monday, 18 January 2021


Tree No.



TPZ SRZ


Encroachment

12 Retain tree, protect and manage tree during development in accordance with Section 4 Tree protection Measures set out in AS4970-2009 The Protection of Trees on Development Sites

GoodCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

3.8 2.5

Area m2 45 20 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

13 Removal recommendedFairMelaleuca quinquenervia


0.9 1.5

Area m2 3 7 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


Swamp oak

3.4 2.5

Area m2 36 20 13.6 0

37.8% 0.0%


Swamp oak

3.4 2.6

Area m2 36 21 9.2 0

25.6% 0.0%

16 Retain tree To reduce impact on tree lay path on grade using no fines concrete or permeable pavers.FairCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

3.3 2.2

Area m2 34 15 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

17 Retain tree, protect and manage tree during development in accordance with Section 4 Tree protection Measures set out in AS4970-2009 The Protection of Trees on Development SitesTo reduce impact on tree lay path on grade using no fines concrete or permeable pavers.

FairCasuarina glauca

Swamp oak

3.2 2.2

Area m2 32 15 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

18 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate proposed driveway.GoodMelaleuca quinquenervia


2.4 1.9

Area m2 18 11 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

19 Retain tree, retain tree, protect and manage tree during development in accordance with Section 4 Tree protection Measures set out in AS4970-2009 The Protection of Trees on Development Sites.To reduce impact on tree lay path on grade using no fines concrete or permeable pavers.

GoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

8.6 2.6

Area m2 232 21 21.45 0

9.2% 0.0%

20 Removal recommended., encroachment into TPZ considered major.GoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

9.5 3.4

Area m2 284 36 55.5 0

19.5% 0.0%

21 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate proposed driveway.GoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

5.6 2.4

Area m2 99 18 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

22 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate proposed driveway.GoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

2.3 1.8

Area m2 17 10 0 0

0.0% 0.0%



Tree No.



TPZ SRZ


Encroachment

23 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate proposed driveway.

To reduce impactoTocccccccci I

GoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

6.6 2.9

Area m2 137 26 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

24 Removal recommended, tree displays failing / poor health and condition, declining vigour, short safe useful life expectancy.

PoorPlatanus x hybrida

Plane tree

3 1.9

Area m2 28 11 0 0

0.0% 0.0%



Plane tree

1.6 1.7

Area m2 8 9 0 0

0.0% 0.0%



Plane tree

1.7 1.6

Area m2 9 8 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

27 Removal recommended, companion plantings are all over mature and are recommended for removal.GoodPlatanus x hybrida

Plane tree

2.6 1.8

Area m2 21 10 0 0

0.0% 0.0%



Plane tree

1.3 1.6

Area m2 5 8 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


FairEucalyptus nicholii


5.5 2.6

Area m2 95 21 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


AverageEucalyptus nicholii


9.7 3.6

Area m2 296 41 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

31 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate the intended site planning approach and proposed developmentGoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

10 3.9

Area m2 314 48 0 0

0.0% 0.0%

32 Tree will need to be removed to accommodate the intended site planning approach and proposed developmentGoodEucalyptus tereticornis

Forest Red gum

5.2 2.7

Area m2 85 23 0 0

0.0% 0.0%


25 holbeche road arndell park nsw

Documents