arboricultural impact report - strathfield …...arboricultural impact report – 86-87 the crescent...

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT REPORT

86-87 THE CRESCENT

HOMEBUSH WEST NSW

8 OCTOBER 2015

PREPARED FOR HOMEBUSH WEST HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Prepared by:

Guy Paroissien

Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd.

ABN 53 110 564 102

T/F. 9943 6510, M. 0425 342 051

40 Timbarra Road St Ives NSW 2075

E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Arboricultural Impact Report – 86-87 The Crescent Homebush West

Prepared by Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd - Issue B – 8th October 2015 2

1. BACKGROUND

Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd has been engaged by Homebush West Holdings Pty Ltd to

prepare an Arboricultural report in respect to 14 trees potentially affected by a proposed

residential development proposal at 86-87 The Crescent Homebush West (the site). The

trees assessed for this report are located on the nature strip frontage of the site and in the

front and rear garden areas of 87 The Crescent.

This report has been prepared by Guy Paroissien a Director of Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd.

The site was inspected on 28th May 2015. The assessment of the trees was based upon a

visual inspection of the trees from ground level using elements of the Visual Tree

Assessment (VTA) approach developed by Mattheck & Breloer (1994). The visual

inspection included examination of the trees’ dimensions, foliage density and foliage

health, form, structure, structural condition, overall health and vigour and landscape

significance.

The inspection was limited to visual inspection of the trees without dissection, probing or

coring. No aerial inspection of the trees was carried out and the assessment did not

include any woody tissue testing or subterranean root investigation.

The tree heights and canopy spreads were estimated and expressed in metres and the tree

diameters at breast height (DBH) were measured with a standard metal tape at

approximately 1.4 metres above ground level and expressed in millimetres.

Measurements from the trees referred to in this report are to be taken as if measured from

the centre of the trees’ trunks.

2. TREES ASSESSED FOR THIS REPORT

14 mature trees have been assessed in preparing this report. The trees assessed for this

report are located on the nature strip frontage of the site and in the front and rear garden

areas of 87 The Crescent. The location and context of the trees and the site is illustrated

in the photograph on the cover page of this report.

A summary of these trees, their dimensions, condition, Useful Expectancy (ULE) and

landscape significance is attached in Appendix B. The ULE categories identified in

Appendix B follow those of Barrell (1996).

The locations of the trees are shown on the attached Survey Plan prepared by Geosurv

dated 28/04/2015 and identified as Plan Reference Number 150455_A.

The fourteen trees are summarised in table 1 as follows:



Table 1: Summary of trees assessed at 86-87 The Crescent Homebush West

Tree

No.

Species and Common

Name

Summary

1 Lophostemon confertus

(Brushbox)

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 8 metres in height with a canopy spread of 8 metres and a diameter

at breast height (DBH) of 440mm. In good health and of moderate landscape significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple regrowth following severe past pruning for OH wire clearance

- not considered at risk of failure in the short term. Canopy bias due to past pruning for OH wire clearance.

2 Ulmus parvifolia

(Chinese Elm)

A mature, twin trunked specimen approximately 16 metres in height with a canopy spread of 12 x 16 metres and

DBH of 340 and 440mm. In good health and of moderate to high landscape significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leader from 1 metre with evidence of poor attachment at

the junction (minor inclusion) - not considered at risk of failure in the short term.


(Brushbox)

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 11 metres in height with a canopy spread of 9 metres and a DBH of

550mm. In good health and of moderate landscape significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple regrowth following severe past pruning for OH wire clearance

- not considered at risk of failure in the short term.

4 Cinnamomum camphora

(Camphor Laurel)

A mature, multi trunked specimen approximately 9 metres in height with a canopy spread of 8 metres and DBH of

180, 220 and 250mm. In good health and an environmental pest species of moderate visual significance.

The tree displays fair to poor branch attachment with multiple leaders from 1.2 metres with some evidence of poor

attachment at the junction - not considered at risk of failure in the short term. At the time of inspection the tree was

of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of dieback. Environmental pest species.

5 Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet)

A mature, multi trunked specimen approximately 7 metres in height with a canopy spread of 6 metres and DBH of up

to 240mm. In good health and an environmental pest species of low visual significance.

The tree displays poor branch attachment with multiple leaders from ground level with evidence of poor attachment at

the junction - the junction of leaders is a weak point in the tree with increased risk of failure. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of dieback. Environmental

pest species.

6 Dead tree The tree is dead.

7 Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet)

A mature, multi trunked specimen approximately 9 metres in height with a canopy spread of 9 metres and DBH of up

to 220mm. In good health and an environmental pest species of low to moderate visual significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leader from 0.4 metres - not considered at risk of failure in

the short term. Environmental pest species.



8 Ulmus parvifolia

(Chinese Elm)


up to 420mm (900mm above the root flare). In good health and of high landscape significance.

The tree displays fair to poor branch attachment with codominant leaders from 0.6 metres with evidence of poor

attachment at the junction - the junction is a weak point in the tree's structure with increased risk of failure.

9 Grevillea robusta (Silky

Oak)

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 28 metres in height with a canopy spread of 14 metres and a DBH

of 660mm. In good health and of high landscape significance.

At the time of inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of dieback.

10 Carya illinoinensis

(Pecan Nut Tree)


of ca. 900mm. In good health and of high landscape significance.

Located on adjoining property.

11 Pittosporum

rhombifolium (Diamond

Leaved Pittosporum)


up to 270mm (520mm above the root flare). In good health and of moderate landscape significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple leaders from 0.5 metres with a juvenile Large Leaved Privet

growing in the junction - not considered at risk of failure in the short term.

12 Celtis sinense (Chinese

Hackberry)

A semi mature, single trunked specimen approximately 8 metres in height with a canopy spread of 8 metres and a

DBH of 190mm. In good health and an environmental pest species of low visual significance.

The tree's past canopy development has been significantly suppressed. Environmental pest species.


(Camphor Laurel)

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 17 metres in height with a canopy spread of 9 metres and a DBH of

590mm. In good health and an environmental pest species of high visual significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leader from 2.5 metres - not considered at risk of failure in

the short term. Environmental pest species (high visual significance).


Oak)


of 690mm. In moderate health and of high landscape significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with evidence of past branch failures at 9 metres and recent past failure in

upper canopy (hanging branch present). At the time of inspection the tree was of moderate health and fair vigour and

exhibited reduced foliage density and moderate to high levels of dieback in the upper canopy. Short ULE.

None of the trees assessed for the report is listed individually as a threatened species on the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.



3. IDENTIFICATION OF SETBACKS FOR THE TREES

A number of methods to determine the likely extent of root zones and appropriate setbacks for tree root protection zones for trees on

development sites have been developed in the past. The key criteria used in determining setbacks is the tree’s trunk diameter at breast

height (DBH) in conjunction with other factors including the sensitivity of the species in question to environmental

disturbance/change, the age of the tree and the tree’s health and vigour at the time.

Harris et al (2004) provide formulae for calculating tree protection zones based on the above criteria and modified from the 1991

British Standard for protection of trees on construction sites (BS 5837:1991). The 2005 version of the British Standard (BS

5837:2005) recommends a radius of 12 times the tree’s DBH. For multi trunked trees BS 5837:2005 recommends a setback of 10

times the basal trunk diameter.

The Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Construction Sites also identifies a ‘Tree Protection Zone’ of 12 times

the tree’s DBH. The Australian Standard also provides a formula for calculating the “Structural Root Zone’ of trees on development

sites.

The tree protection zones identified below have been calculated using the Australian Standard AS 4970 Protection of Trees on

Construction Sites and are the optimum setback from the trees where disturbance (e.g. soil level changes, compaction, excavation etc)

should be minimised to reduce potential impacts on the long term health of the trees.

Table 2: Tree Protection Zones – 86-87 The Crescent Homebush West

Tree

No.

Species and Common Name Tree Protection Zone Structural Root

Zone 1 Lophostemon confertus (Brushbox) 5.3 metres 2.5 metres

2 Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) 7 metres 2.8 metres

3 Lophostemon confertus (Brushbox) 6.6 metres 2.8 metres

4 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) 5.9 metres 2.4 metres

5 Ligustrum lucidum (Large Leaved Privet) 6.6 metres 2.6 metres

6 Dead tree N/A N/A

7 Ligustrum lucidum (Large Leaved Privet) 4.3 metres 2.2 metres

8 Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) 10.8 metres 3.2 metres



9 Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) 7.9 metres 2.9 metres

10 Carya illinoinensis (Pecan Nut Tree) 10.8 metres 3.3 metres

11 Pittosporum rhombifolium (Diamond Leaved

Pittosporum) 6.2 metres 2.5 metres

12 Celtis sinense (Chinese Hackberry) 2.3 metres 1.7 metres

13 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) 7.1 metres 2.8 metres

14 Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) 8.3 metres 3.1 metres

Preferably, no more than 10% of the tree protection zone should be disturbed with compensation made by extension of other areas of

the TPZ to compensate for the area(s) disturbed. Where greater than 10% of the tree protection zone is potentially disturbed the tree’s

viability needs to be investigated and demonstrated by the project arborist.

The structural root zone is the area required for stability and where disturbance of any sort should be avoided.

4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE TREES

The impacts have been assessed using the Ground Floor Plan prepared by Platform Architects dated 08/10/2015 and identified as

Drawing Number 02, Revision A. The extent of impacts to the trees has been rated using the following guideline:

0% of TPZ impacted – no impact of significance

0 to 10% of TPZ impacted – low level of impact

10 to 15% of TPZ impacted – low to moderate level of impact

15 to 20% of TPZ impacted – moderate level of impact

20 to 25% of TPZ impacted – moderate to high level of impact

25 to 35% of TPZ impacted – high level of impact

>35% of TPZ impacted – significant level of impact

The tree protection zone calculations referred to in table 3 were made using scale drawings of the trees’ identified tree protection

zones (TPZ) in a CAD program (TurboCAD®) with potentially affected areas added to the drawing. The area of potential impact was



converted to a percentage of TPZ using a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel®). No allowance was made for ‘over-excavation’ as the

basement is proposed to the boundary and it is assumed the excavation will not extend into the adjacent public land during works.

The extent of potential impacts to the trees is summarised in the table 3 as follows:

Table 3: Summary of potential impacts on the trees – 86-87 The Crescent Homebush West

Tree

No.

Species and Common

Name

Summary


(Brushbox) The NE corner of the proposed entrance path area is located 4.1 metres from the tree at the closest

point and is calculated to encroach within 0.97m2 or 1.11% of the tree’s identified tree protection

zone (TPZ) – this is a low level of impact and within an acceptable threshold.

The proposed retaining walls and basement are 7.68 metres from the tree at the closest point and

outside the TPZ. 2 Ulmus parvifolia

(Chinese Elm) The proposed retaining wall for the basement entrance ramp is located 3.89 metres from the tree

at the closest point and is calculated to encroach within 8.64m2 or 5.58% of the tree’s identified

TPZ – this is a low level of impact and within an acceptable threshold. 3 Lophostemon confertus

(Brushbox) The proposed retaining wall for the basement entrance ramp is located 3.89 metres from the tree

at the closest point and is calculated to encroach within 19.59m2 or 14.32% of the tree’s identified

TPZ – this is a low to moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold. 4 Cinnamomum camphora

(Camphor Laurel) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.

5 Ligustrum lucidum (Large

Leaved Privet) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.

6 Dead tree The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.

7 Ligustrum lucidum (Large

Leaved Privet) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.

8 Ulmus parvifolia

(Chinese Elm) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.


Oak) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.



10 Carya illinoinensis

(Pecan Nut Tree) The SW corner of the proposed deck area is located 8 metres from the tree at the closest point and

is calculated to encroach within 3.16m2 or 0.86% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is a low to

moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold.

The SW corner of the proposed building is located 8.7 metres from the tree at the closest point

and is calculated to encroach within a further 4.32m2 or 1.18% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this

is a low to moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold. 11 Pittosporum

rhombifolium (Diamond

Leaved Pittosporum)

The SW corner of the proposed deck area is located 4.99 metres from the tree at the closest point

and is calculated to encroach within 2.93m2 or 2.4% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is a low to

moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold.

The SW corner of the proposed building is located 5.85 metres from the tree at the closest point

and is calculated to encroach within a further 0.63m2 or 0.52% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this

is a low to moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold. 12 Celtis sinense (Chinese

Hackberry) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.


(Camphor Laurel) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.


Oak) The tree is within or adjacent to the proposed works and is identified to be removed.

The potential impacts can be summarised as follows:

The proposed works will impact on less than 10% of the identified TPZs of tree numbers 1, 2, 10 and 11 – this is a low level of

potential impact and within an acceptable threshold for these trees.

The proposed works will encroach within 14.32% of the identified TPZ of tree number 3 – this is a low to moderate level of

impact and within an acceptable threshold for this tree.

Tree numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 are proposed for removal as part of the works.



5. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

The following generic tree protection measures are recommended to assist in minimising

potential impacts to other trees that may be proposed for retention on the site.

A. Measures to be implemented prior to the commencement of any works on the

site.

1. Trees to be retained are to be clearly identified by signage as protected trees.

2. The tree protection zones of trees to be retained are to be protected by fencing during

the entire construction period except for specific areas directly required to achieve

construction works.

3. The tree protection fence shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metre spacing

and connected by securely attached chain mesh fencing to a minimum height of 1.8

metres and shall be installed prior to work commencing.

4. The tree protection fencing shall be installed as closely as possible to the alignment of

the identified tree protection zone and shall be approved and certified by the site arborist

prior to commencement of any construction or demolition works on the site.

B. Measures to be implemented and maintained during the life of construction

works on the site. 5. Any excavation within the identified root protection zones of trees to be retained shall

be carried out by hand to minimize disturbance to tree roots. Roots greater than 25mm

are not to be damaged or severed without prior assessment by an arborist to determine

likely level of impact and the restorative actions required to minimise the impacts of root

damage.

6. Tree roots between 10mm and 25mm diameter, severed during excavation, shall be cut

cleanly by hand by an experienced Arborist/Horticulturist with a minimum qualification

of the Horticulture Certificate or Tree Surgery Certificate.

7. The following activities/actions are prohibited from the tree protection zones:

Soil cut or fill including excavation and trenching

Soil cultivation, disturbance or compaction

Stockpiling storage or mixing of materials

The parking, storing, washing and repairing of tools, equipment and

machinery

The disposal of liquids and refueling

The disposal of building materials

The sitting of offices or sheds

Any action leading to the impact on tree health or structure



8. Canopy pruning of trees identified for protection which is necessary to accommodate

approved building works shall be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard

4373-2007 ‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’.

6. CONCLUSION

Fourteen mature trees have been assessed for this report. The trees comprise a mix of

environmental pest species, exotic trees and planted Australian species. The trees are

located on the nature strip frontage of the site and in the front and rear garden areas of 87

The Crescent.

The majority of the trees were of good health at the time of inspection and did not exhibit

any visual evidence of significant pest or disease. However, tree number 14 was of

moderate health and fair vigour and tree number 6 is a dead tree.

In addition to the above, tree numbers 4, 5 and 8 exhibited fair to poor branch attachment

with multiple leaders and evidence of poor attachment at branch junctions – these

junctions are at increased risk of failure.

The potential impacts can be summarised as follows:

The proposed works will impact on less than 10% of the identified TPZ of tree

numbers 1, 2, 10 and 11 – this is a low level of potential impact and within an

acceptable threshold for these trees.

The proposed works will encroach within 14.32% of the identified TPZ of tree

number 3 – this is a low to moderate level of impact and within an acceptable

threshold for this tree.

Tree numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 are proposed for removal as part of the

works.

Generic tree protection measures are identified in section 5 of the report to identify

measures that could be used to assist in minimising potential impacts to trees on and

adjacent to the site that are proposed for retention.

Due to the proximity of tree numbers 1, 2 and 3 to the proposed works and the

foreseeable need for construction access in their vicinity it is recommended trunk and

ground protection, in accordance with Figure 4 of AS4970-2009, be installed prior to

commencement of any works at the site (including demolition works).

Guy Paroissien, MAIH, MIACA, MISAAC

M Env. Mgt & Restor., Dip. Arboriculture, Hort Cert., Tree Care Cert.

Director

Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd

8th October 2015



BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES

Australian Standards Association (2007) AS 4373- 2007 - Australian Standard 4373-2007

‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’.

Australian Standards Association (2009) AS 4790- 2009 - Australian Standard 4790-

2009 ‘Protection of trees on development sites’.

Barrell J (1996) - Pre-planning Tree Surveys: SULE is the Natural Progression.

Arboricultural Journal 17, 33-46.

Geosurv (2015) - Survey Plan prepared by Geosurv dated 28/04/2015 and identified as

Plan Reference Number 150455_A.

Harris et al (2004). Harris RW, Clark JR, Matheny NP: Arboriculture – Integrated

Management of Landscape Trees Shrubs and Vines 4TH Edition. Prentice Hall, New

Jersey 07458.

Mattheck & Breloer (1994) – The Body Language of Trees – a handbook for failure

analysis - Research for Amenity Trees No. 4. Published by TSO (The Stationary Office)

Norwich UK.

Platform Architects (2015) - Ground Floor Plan prepared by Platform Architects dated

08/10/2015 and identified as Drawing Number 02, Revision A.

UBD Sydney Street Directory. 35th Edition. Published by UBD Australia.



APPENDIX A

Photograph 1: Tree # 2 – Illustrating the codominant leader from 1 metre with evidence

of poor attachment at the junction (minor inclusion).

Photograph 2: Tree # 4 – Illustrating the multiple leaders from 1.2 metres with some

evidence of poor attachment at the junction.



.

Photograph 3: Tree # 8 – Illustrating the codominant leaders from 0.6 metres with

evidence of poor attachment at the junction.

Photograph 4: Tree # 3 - Illustrating the multiple leaders from 0.5 metres with a juvenile

Large Leaved Privet growing in the junction.



Photograph 5: Tree # 14 - Illustrating the reduced foliage density and moderate to high

levels of dieback in the upper canopy.

Photograph 6: Tree # 14 – Illustrating evidence of past branch failures at 9 metres.



Photograph 7: Tree # 14 – Illustrating the recent branch failure in the upper canopy.

Photograph 8: Illustrating the existing ground conditions in the vicinity of trees 1- 3.

Tree #1 Tree # 3

Tree #2

APPENDIX B - TREE DATA SUMMARY - 86-87 THE CRESCENT HOMEBUSH WEST

Tree

No.

Genus, Species

(Common Name)

Height

(m)

Canopy

(m)

DBH

(mm)

DBH for

TPZ

DGL for

SRZ

Foliage

Condition Age Class Trunk

Trunk

Lean

Crown

balance Past Pruning Stability

Branch

Attachment Health Vigour

Dead

Wood Pest or disease ULE

Landscape

Significance

Retention

Value* Comments

1

Lophostemon

confertus (Brushbox) 8 8 440 440 530

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the south

due to past

pruning for

OH wires

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres,

upper branches

pruned for OH

wires in

centre/north

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple

regrowth following severe past pruning for OH wire

clearance - not considered at risk of failure in the short

term. Canopy bias due to past pruning for OH wire

clearance.

2

Ulmus parvifolia

(Chinese Elm) 16 12 x 16

340,

440 585 650

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres,

upper branches

pruned for OH

wires in centre,

main leader

removed in

past at 1.3

metres on SW

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate to

high

landscape

significance 2

The tree displays fair branch attachment with

codominant leader from 1 metre with evidence of poor

attachment at the junction (minor inclusion) - not

considered at risk of failure in the short term.

3

Lophostemon

confertus (Brushbox) 11 9

520 x

580 550 650

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres,

upper branches

severely

pruned for OH

wires in centre,

main leader

removed in

past at 1.3

metres on SW

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


regrowth following severe past pruning for OH wire

clearance - not considered at risk of failure in the short

term.

4

Cinnamomum

camphora (Camphor

Laurel) 9 8

180, 22,

250 490 480

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Fair to poor

branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Environmental

pest species 4

The tree displays fair to poor branch attachment with

multiple leaders from 1.2 metres with some evidence

of poor attachment at the junction - not considered at

risk of failure in the short term. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited

reduced foliage density and low levels of dieback.

Environmental pest species.

5

Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet) 7 6

Up to

240

(480 x

620

above

root

flare) 550 550

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 2 metres

Appears

stable

Poor branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Environmental

pest species 4

The tree displays poor branch attachment with multiple

leaders from ground level with evidence of poor

attachment at the junction - the junction of leaders is a

weak point in the tree with increased risk of failure At

the time of inspection the tree was of fair vigour and

exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of

dieback. Environmental pest species.

6 Dead tree 7 6

Up to

230

(480

above

root

flare) Dead 100% 4 The tree is dead.

7

Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet) 9 9

Up to

220

(360

above

root

flare) 360 360

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Environmental

pest species 4


codominant leader from 0.4 metres - not considered at

risk of failure in the short term. Environmental pest

species.

Tree

No.

Genus, Species

(Common Name)

Height

(m)

Canopy

(m)

DBH

(mm)

DBH for

TPZ

DGL for

SRZ

Foliage

Condition Age Class Trunk

Trunk

Lean

Crown

balance Past Pruning Stability

Branch

Attachment Health Vigour

Dead

Wood Pest or disease ULE

Landscape

Significance

Retention

Value* Comments

8

Ulmus parvifolia

(Chinese Elm) 16 18

Up to

420

(850 x

950

above

root

flare) 900 900

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Appears

stable

Fair to poor

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1

The tree displays fair to poor branch attachment with

codominant leaders from 0.6 metres with evidence of

poor attachment at the junction - the junction I a weak

point in the tree's structure with increased risk of

failure.

9

Grevillea robusta

(Silky Oak) 28 14

640 x

680 660 730

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the north

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour

5 to

10%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1

At the time of inspection the tree was of fair vigour and

exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of

dieback.

10

Carya illinoinensis

(Pecan Nut Tree) 26 18 Ca. 900 900 990

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the north

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 8 metres

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1 Located on adjoining property.

11

Pittosporum

rhombifolium

(Diamond Leaved

Pittosporum) 10 9

Up to

270

(520

above

root

flare) 520 520

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


leaders from 0.5 metres with a juvenile Large Leaved

Privet growing in the junction - not considered at risk of

failure in the short term.

12

Celtis sinense

(Chinese Hackberry) 8 8 190 190 210

Good

foliage

condition

Semi

Mature

Single

trunk

Distinct

trunk

lean to

SW

Majority of

canopy to

the SW

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Environmental

pest species 4

The tree's past canopy development has been

significantly suppressed. Environmental pest species.

13

Cinnamomum

camphora (Camphor

Laurel) 17 9 590 590 660

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 8 metres on

south side

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Environmental

pest species 4


codominant leader from 2.5 metres - not considered at

risk of failure in the short term. Environmental pest

species (high visual significance).

14

Grevillea robusta

(Silky Oak) 28 16

640 x

740 690 840

Fair foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 5 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Moderate

health

Fair

vigour

10 to

15%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

3 Short (5 to

15 years)

High

landscape

significance 3

The tree displays fair branch attachment with evidence

of past branch failures at 9 metres and recent past

failure in upper canopy (hanging branch present). At

the time of inspection the tree was of moderate health

and fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density

and moderate to high levels of dieback in the upper

canopy. Short ULE.

ca = approximate diameter at breast height (DBH) estimated from nearest property boundary or fence where trees were located on adjoining properties

* Retention Values: 1 - High (Priority for retention); 2 - Moderate (Consider for retention); 3 - Low or short ULE (Not warranting specific design consideration) and 4 - Remove (very short ULE, structurally unsound, weed species etc.)

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

T

H

E

C

R

E

S

C

E

N

T

1

DP185470

1

DP185470

C

O

N

C

R

E

T

E

K

E

R

B

0

.

1

5

H

I

G

H

C

O

N

C

R

E

T

E

K

E

R

B

0

.

1

5

H

I

G

H

BENCHMARK PLACED

CUT IN KERB

RL 8.865 AHD

(ORIGIN SSM114531)

CONCRETE

DRIVEWAY

CO

NC

RE

TE

D

RIV

EW

AY

CO

NC

RE

TE

D

RIV

EW

AY

C

O

N

C

R

E

T

E

P

A

T

H

W

A

Y

TOG RL 12.13

TOG RL 11.37

TOG RL 12.54

RID

GE

RL 14.70

RID

GE

RL 13.31

RIDGE

RL 15.72

RID

GE

RL 13.37

FFL 9.13

FFL 9.00

FFL 9.78

B

R

I

C

K

R

E

T

.

W

A

L

L

TOG RL 11.74

RIDGE

RL 14.18

R

I

D

G

E

R

L

1

9

.

6

3

T

O

G

R

L

1

7

.

9

1

NO 87

SINGLE STOREY

BRICK RESIDENCE

TILE ROOF

NO 86

SINGLE STOREY

BRICK RESIDENCE

TILE ROOF

NO 85

SINGLE STOREY

BRICK RESIDENCE

TILE ROOF

NO 88

SINGLE STOREY

BRICK RESIDENCE

TILE ROOF

NO 2

TWO STOREY

BRICK APARTMENT

TILE ROOF

NO 4

TWO STOREY

BRICK APARTMENT

TILE ROOF

GRASS

AREA

GRASS

AREA

METAL

CARPORT

GRASS

AREA

GRASS

AREA

WH11.08

WS10.40

WH11.26

WS9.87

WH11.24

WS9.89

WH11.24

WS10.34

WH11.24

WS10.34

W

H

1

7

.

5

4

W

S

1

6

.

4

8

W

H

1

4

.

4

8

W

S

1

3

.

3

8

W

H

1

7

.

5

4

W

S

1

6

.

4

8

W

H

1

4

.

4

8

W

S

1

3

.

3

8

W

H

1

7

.

5

4

W

S

1

6

.

4

8

W

H

1

4

.

4

8

W

S

1

3

.

3

8

W

H

1

7

.

5

7

W

S

1

6

.

4

8

W

H

1

4

.

4

3

W

S

1

3

.

1

3

W

H

1

7

.

2

7

W

S

1

5

.

8

8

W

H

1

4

.

3

7

W

S

1

2

.

9

7

W

H

1

7

.

2

7

W

S

1

6

.

2

7

W

H

1

5

.

8

6

W

S

1

4

.

3

6

W

H

1

7

.

2

7

W

S

1

6

.

2

7

W

H

1

5

.

8

6

W

S

1

4

.

3

6

WH19.92

WS18.90

WH17.38

WS16.31

WH19.92

WS18.90

WH14.79

WS13.70

NO 8

MULTI-STOREY

BRICK APARTMENT

TILE ROOF

TOG RL 20.12

ENTERTAINING

AREA

CLAD

GARAGE

CONCRETE

AREA

STEPS

ST

EP

S

BRICK

GARAGE

BRICK

GARAGE

CLAD

GARAGE

9

1

°

0

7

'

5

1

"

1

6

.

8

6

5

9

1

°

0

7

'

5

1

"

1

3

.

2

7

5

207° 19' 55"

49

.1

45

2

7

4

°

2

9

'

2

1

"

1

2

.

1

4

5

2

7

4

°

2

9

'

2

1

"

1

6

.

4

3

5

26° 28' 21"

15.710

26° 28' 21"

15.270

26° 28' 21"

15.955

26° 28' 21"

48.005

Plot D

ate:

Cad F

ile N

o:

11 M

ay 2015

- 2:50 P

M

AC

AD

-150455_A

- H

OM

EB

US

H.dw

g

PREPARED FOR:

AMENDMENTSDATEREV.

PLAN SCALE ON A3 SHEET 1:200

PLAN SCALE ON A1 SHEET 1:100

DEPOSITED PLAN:

SECTION NUMBER :

AREA BY DP:

AZIMUTH :

DATUM:

DATE OF SURVEY:

SURVEY BY:

CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY:

CONTOUR INTERVAL

ORIGIN OF DATUM:

DATE OF PLAN:DRAWN BY:

DATE OF CHECKING:

DATE OF APPROVAL:

PLAN REF: SHEET No OF SHEETS

LOT NUMBER:

LOCALITY: LGA:

PLAN SHOWING:

NOTES:

1. RELATIONSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BOUNDARIES IS DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY.

2. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES OF BOUNDARIES ARE BY TITLE AND/OR DEED ONLY.

3. CONSTRUCTION WORKS MUST BE RELATED TO THE BENCHMARK AND NOT LEVELS OF STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.

4. LIMITED BOUNDARY SURVEY MADE. IF CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN OF ANY NEW STRUCTURE IS INTENDED WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE BOUNDARIES OR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS, A FURTHER SURVEY SHOULD BE REQUESTED TO MARK BOUNDARIES AND/OR DIMENSION WALL TO BOUNDARY DISTANCES.

5. THE TREE TRUNKS SHOWN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. THE TRUE TRUNK RADIUS ARE STATED IN THE PLAN. TREE SPREADS & TRUNK RADIUS SHOWN ARE

DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND TREE HEIGHTS ARE ESTIMATED. IF ANY OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE CRITICAL TO DESIGN (IN PARTICULAR DRIP LINES) MORE SPECIFIC

DETAILS SHOULD BE REQUESTED FOR ACCURATE LOCATION.

6. CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. SPOT LEVELS SHOULD BE USED IN REFERENCE TO CONTOUR LEVELS. FEATURES AND LEVELS CRITICAL TO DESIGN SHOULD

BE LOCATED BY A MORE ACCURATE SURVEY. ALL SET OUT WITH REGARD TO LEVELS SHOULD REFER TO THE BENCHMARK.

7. NO SERVICES SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT FOR THIS SURVEY. SERVICES SHOWN ARE INDICATIVE ONLY. POSITIONS ARE BASED ON SURFACE INDICATORS

LOCATED DURING SURVEY. APPROPRIATE DIAL BEFORE YOU DIG SEARCHES SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE. SEE DIAL

BEFORE YOU DIG CONTACT INFORMATION ON THIS PLAN.

8. THIS SURVEY IS FOR CONTOUR AND DETAIL PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE

fax: 1300 859 564

e-mail: [email protected]

tel: 1300 554 675

www.geosurv.com.au

© 2014 Geosurv Pty Ltd. This plan and any information contained within is

and shall remain the property of Geosurv Pty Ltd. Any use of this plan or

the information contained within, either in part or whole, except for it's

intended purpose and without permission is deemed infringement of

copyright.

m²

OF

MM

AHD

PG

MJC

DLM

150455_A

1 & 5

HOMEBUSH

0.25

28/04/15

08/05/15

N/A

STRATHFIELD

1 1

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

OVER NO 86 & 87 THE CRESCENT

HOMEBUSH, NSW

DP652732 &

DP135827

SSM114531

08/05/15

08/05/15

MJC

JIM MARVIS

LEGEND:

WATER METERWM

BENCHMARK

LIGHT POLELP

MANHOLEMHS

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

T1

matrix

Typewritten Text

T2

matrix

Typewritten Text

T3

matrix

Typewritten Text

T4

matrix

Typewritten Text

T5

matrix

Typewritten Text

T6

matrix

Typewritten Text

T7

matrix

Typewritten Text

T8

matrix

Typewritten Text

T9

matrix

Typewritten Text

T10

matrix

Typewritten Text

T11

matrix

Typewritten Text

T12

matrix

Typewritten Text

T13

matrix

Typewritten Text

T14

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Typewritten Text

matrix

Oval

matrix

Oval

matrix

Line

matrix

Line

matrix

Line

matrix

Line

matrix

Line

arboricultural impact report - strathfield …...arboricultural impact report – 86-87 the crescent...

Documents