TREE INSPECTION [email protected] For: Mr. Nazih Toumer On. 26/82020 TREEHAVEN...

TREEHAVEN ENVIRONSCAPES –. Tree report at 14 Rochester Street Homebush NSW 2140. For Mr. Nazih Toumer - Page 1 of 30

TREE INSPECTION REPORT. On: Tree Specimens Location: 14 Rochester Street Homebush NSW 2140 TREEHAVEN ENVIRONSCAPES. 128 Showground Road Castle Hill. NSW 2154 [email protected] For: Mr. Nazih Toumer On. 26/82020

mailto:[email protected]


CONTENTS

1 Introduction............….…………………………………………….……Pg 3

2 Site Description.........……………………………………..….…......…Pg 3

3 Methodology........…………………………………………….…...……Pg 4

4 Description of Trees...........……………………………………………Pg 5

5. Discussion............………………………………………………...……Pg 5 6. Conclusions and Recommendations..................……….….…….….Pg 6 7. The Author’s Qualifications and Experience....................…......…..Pg 7

8 References.....…………………………………………….…….….......Pg 8 Appendix 1a- Table of Tree on site.....………………………………………Pg 9

Appendix 1b. Figures 2 to 5 Photo of trees on the site……………………Pg 10 Appendix 2 – SULE ratings table ………………………………….………Pg 15 Appendix 3 - Excerpt from Strathfield Council DCP Part O..……….......Pg 17


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The property at Rochester Street Homebush, hereafter referred to as the Site, is owned by Mr. Nazih Toumer who is proposing a development on his property which will involve the removal of several trees from the Site.

1.2 The property is within the jurisdiction of Strathfield Council (SC) which have in place Tree Management Controls (TMC) which prohibits the pruning, removal, ringbarking, topping, lopping, injury or wilful destruction of trees over 4m in height, or 0.5m girth as measures at 1m from the ground, without Council’s written consent. For the removal or major pruning of trees covered by the TMC, SC requires an arborist report whose purpose is to examine and appraise them. Consequently Idraft plans, on behalf of Mr. Toumer, has engaged Mr. Stephen McLoughlin of Treehaven Environscapes to visit the site and examine 19 trees, which will be affected by the development, and prepare this report.

1.3 This report details my site visit on 11/8/2020 and the examination of 19

specimens (See Figs. 2 to 16).

1.4 This report contains empirical data collected regarding the tree specimens supported by digital photos, a Discussion regarding the relevance of the specimen and presents Conclusions and Recommendations as to the future treatment of the trees. Tables and plans relating to this report are included and utilize the Australian Standard 4790-2009 Trees on development sites and 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees as a set of guiding principles.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The land on which the trees are sited is on a North Easterly facing slope with a slight gradient heading towards Powell’s Creek to the North East (see Fig 1).

2.2 The Site at present has a single storey masonry clad dwelling on it with a garage to the North East of the existing dwelling.

2.3 19 tree specimens were examined and documented in this report designated T1 to T19 inclusive. .

2.4 Soil types in the area are derived from Wianamatta shale and it is

assumed that the tree is are growing in clay loam typical of the clay / shale formations which are prevalent in the area.


Fig1. Aerial photo of the site from Six Maps showing position of the trees (in red Circles)

referred to in this report. 3. METHODOLOGY.

3.1 The tree specimens were visually assessed using non-destructive means by employing the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) as developed by Matteck and Broeler (2006).

The information gathered was used to

i) Calculate Tree protection Zones (TPZ) and Structural

Root Zones (SRZ) with reference to the Australian

Standard (AS) 4970-2009 and

ii) Provide a qualitative assessment of the tree utilizing

Jeremy Barrell’s Safe Usable Life Expectancy (SULE) of

which a table outlining the different categories appears in

Appendix 3 of this document.

3.2 No invasive procedures, such as coring or drilling, were used in the examination of the specimen.

3.3 Structural Root Zone (SRZ) calculations provided in section 3.3.5 of Australian Standard 4970 -2010 are given as

SRZ = (D x 50)0.42 x 0.64

Where D is the diameter of the tree as measured just above the root buttress and the result is the radius of a circle enclosing the tree. This is referred to as the tree’s Diameter at Ground Level (DGH) in the table in Appendix 1.

T1

T2

T3

T5 T6

T13

T17 T18 T19

T4


Also section 3.2 Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) is given as,

TPZ = DBH x 12

Where DBH is the diameter of the trunk of the trunk measured at 1.4m from the ground. In the case of tree T2, which has multiple stems at 1.8m from the ground, DBH was determined by using the following formula as advised in AS4970-2009 Total DBH = �(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷1)2 + (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷2)2 + (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷3)2

3.4 The position of the trees has been determined by survey plans as

forwarded from Idraft Plans.

3.5 AS4970-2009 advises that a Major Encroachment is greater than 10% of a tree’s TPZ and a Minor Encroachment is less than or equal to 10% of a Tree’s TPZ.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE TREEs (See Appendix 1).

4.1Tree T1 is a Lophostemon confertus which is growing in the nature strip to the West of the Site (see Fig. 2). The tree is a planted native specimen and not endemic to the area.

4.2 Trees T2 & T3 are both Cupressus sempervirens or ‘Mediterranean Cypress’ which is growing in the front yard to the North of the dwelling (See Figs. 3 & 4). Impact from the development: These trees will be subjected to a Major Encroachment into its TPZ and SRZ from the new building footprint to the degree where they are unviable to retain (See Appendix 2b).

4.3 Trees T4 to T16 are all Thuja occidentalis or ‘Northern White Cedar’ which have been planted. Impact from the development: These trees will be subjected to a Major Encroachment into its TPZ and SRZ from the new building footprint to the degree where they are unviable to retain (See Appendix 2b).

4.4 Tree T17 is a Ligustrum lucidum or ‘Large leaved Privet’ which is a noxious weed in the Strathfield LGA and can be removed without Council consent.

Impact from the development: This tree is well outside the building footprint but is scheduled to be removed to make way for new plantings in the landscaping for the project (See Appendix 2b).

4.5 Tree T18 is a Cupressocyparis x leylandii or ‘Leighton’s Green in good

health and condition. The tree was in good health and vigour. Impact from the development:


This tree is will be subjected to a Minor Encroachment into its TPZ and SRZ from the new building footprint and is already adequately protected by the existing border fence (See Appendix 2b).

4.6 Tree T19 is a Chamaecyparis obtusa or ‘Hinoki Cypress’ which is an

exotic conifer from Japan. The tree was in poor condition at the time of my inspection (See Fig. 16). Impact from the development: This tree is will be subjected to a Minor Encroachment into its TPZ and SRZ from the new building footprint and is already adequately protected by the existing border fence (See Appendix 2b).

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 All the trees in this report are planted specimens and, in the case of T17, a noxious weed. Most of the trees are exotic conifers which have been planted as hedge screen trees and have been allowed to grow tall. Many are supressed by surrounding vegetation.

5.2 In compensation of the removal of 15 trees from the Site the proposal is offering 4 replacement trees being;

• 1 x Tristainiposus laurina ‘Luscious’ in 45 Litre • 3 x Thuja occidentalis in 75 Litre

(See Appendix 2d)

5.3 Encroachments into the TPZ of T1 include; • Replacement and extension of the concrete footpath crossover

by 1m to the South (Fig. 17). • Construction of OSD basin in front yard of the site of which the

front border fence is already occupied by a masonry wall (See Fig. 18).

• Trenching and installation of a stormwater exit pipe to the street to be hand dug within the TPZ of this specimen (See Appendix 2c).

6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMENDATIONS


6.1 For the development to proceed as planned trees T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, T12, T13 & T17 will need to be removed. Trees T14, T15 & T16 are to be retained and protected. Tree T1 is a Council Asset and will require protective fencing, Trees T18 and T19 are located in neighbouring property to the South East and are already adequately protected by the existing border fence (See Fig 2).

6.2 Council will require replacement trees in the new landscaping for the

Site. To this end the proposal offers

6.3 As advised by AS4970-2009 a Project Arborist (PA) is advised to be appointed to supervise and document tree protection works during the development. As advised by AS4373-2005 Tree removal work is to be undertaken by a fully insured tree removal contractor and supervised by an arborist with a minimum AQF level 3 accreditation.

S. McLOUGHLIN BSc.(Environ), Dip. Hort / Arb AQF5,Hort. Cert, Dip. Environmental Systems Management Conservation & Land Management.Cert.III

Australian Arborist Member # 2158 Australian Association of Bush Regenerators Member QTRA assessor

7. THE AUTHOR’S QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE.

Stephen McLoughlin obtained a Horticultural Certificate (1982) with Arboriculture as

the third year elective whilst an employee of 10 years service with Baulkham Hills Shire Council


(BHSC) now The Hills Council. Most of this time employed in the Council’s Parks and Gardens

and street tree plantings and, later, managing the Council’s Nursery. This was augmented with

a Bush Regeneration Certificate (1987) where he studied native plant communities, the means

necessary to protect and restore them and the identification and eradication of weed species.

Additional to this he obtained a Bachelor of Environmental Science Degree (1997) involving the

study of natural environments, Ecology, data collection, analysis and documentation, report

writing as well studies in relevant Common Law, current Environmental and Heritage

Legislation. Since obtaining his degree Stephen writes reports on a regular basis covering

Environmental, Heritage and Horticultural / Arboricultural subjects.

Further to this he upgraded his qualifications to that of Arborist Qualification 5 (AQF5)

having completed the Associate Diploma of Horticulture / Arboriculture, a standard of

qualification which is currently expected by many Local Government and statutory bodies.

Stephen also has a current NSW Structural Landscaper’s Licence and has been

involved in regular landscape construction works as both Principle and Sub Contractor on many

Public, Private and Commercial ventures since commencing his contracting business in 1989.

He has many garden and estate maintenance contracts, and Bush Regeneration projects

involving large scale properties with many trees under his care, including the providing of advice

and practical solutions to the issues of Bush Fire Asset Protection Zones.

Consequently Stephen has well grounded experience in both Public and Private tree

plantings, the care and maintenance of them as well as hands on experience of what occurs

on construction sites and the results of mechanical disturbance to trees on such sites.

The Author is also an accredited Root Barrier Australia ® installer and has been

involved with many excavations involving tree roots.

In 2014 Stephen completed his Diploma of Environmental Management at the Ryde

campus of North Sydney TAFE involving studies with regard to Bushfire Management, Global

Information Systems (GIS), Mapping, Managing Native Fauna (for which he obtained a

distinction) and River Restorations.

Also he has recently completed the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Course (QTRA)

Yours sincerely

S. McLOUGHLIN BSc.(Environ), Dip. Hort / Arb AQF5,Hort. Cert, Dip. Environmental Systems Management Conservation & Land Management.Cert.III

Australian Arborist Member # 2158 Australian Association of Bush Regenerators Member QTRA assessor


REFERENCES Australian Standard 4373 1996 Pruning of amenity trees. Australian Standard 4790 2009 Trees on development sites. Barrell, J. 1996. ‘Predevelopment tree assessment’ Strathfield Council 2003 Tree Management Order Matteck C and Breloer H. 2006 ‘The Body Language of Trees’

Six Maps. Aerial view of site (fig 1).


Specimen name

Est. Height

Diameter DBH* DGH**

Crown Comments

SULE*** TPZ SRZ

T1 Lophostemon confertus Common Name ‘Queensland Brushbox’ Age class 50 years See Fig. 2.

14m 68cm 74cm at the base

N 5m E 5m S 5m W 6m

A native tree endemic to Northern NSW and Queensland which has been planted in the nature strip to the West of the Site. The specimen was in good health and vigour at the time of my inspection with no significant pathogens or defects. The tree has been pruned significantly to accommodate overhead wires.

A1 8.16m 2.89m

T2 Cupressus sempervirens Common Name ‘Monterey Cypress’ Age class 50 years See Fig. 3.

6m Multiple 28cm at the base

N 0.5m E 0.5m S 0.5m W 0.5m

An exotic conifer endemic to The Mediterranean which has been planted in the property to West and adjacent to the front entrance of the dwelling. The specimen was in poor condition with multiple stems and branches and has been supressed in its growth due to a confined area into which it has been planted.

A4 2m Min TPZ

1.5m Min SRZ

T3 Cupressus sempervirens Common Name ‘Monterey Cypress’ Age class 50 years See Fig. 4.

6m Multiple 25cm at the base

N 3m E 1m S 3m W 2m

An exotic conifer endemic to The Mediterranean which has been planted in the property to West and adjacent to the front entrance of the dwelling. The specimen was in poor condition with multiple stems and branches and has been supressed in its growth due to a confined area into which it has been planted.

A4 2m Min TPZ

1.5m Min SRZ

T4 Thuja occidentalis Common Name ‘Northern White Cedar’ Age class 50 years See Fig. 5.

8m 1 x 9cm 1 x 12cm 1 x 15cm 1 x 18cm 45cm at the base

N 3m E 2m S 2m W 3m

An exotic conifer endemic to North America which has been planted in the property near the northern border of the Site. The specimen was in good health with 4 stems meeting in a ‘V’ shaped stem junctions. There were no significant pathogens nor signs of mechanical damage.

A2 7.15m 2.37m

APPENDIX 1a. Schedule of trees identified on the site listing condition and physical dimensions of trees on the site.



4m Multiple stems 22cm at the base

N 0m E 1m S 2m W 1m

An exotic conifer endemic to North America which has been planted in the property near the northern border of the Site. The specimen was in good health with a strong bias in its crown to the South West. The tree has been suppressed in its growth to the North by overarching vegetation. The specimen is just on 4m in height and not protected by the

A5 2m Min TPZ

1.5m Min SRZ



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m

An exotic conifer endemic to North America which has been planted in a row, along with several others of the same species, in the property near the northern border of the Site. The specimen was in good health and vigour. The tree has been suppressed in its growth to the North East and the South West by adjacent vegetation.

A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m




N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m


7m 1 x 10cm 1 x 12cm 27cm at the base

N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m




N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m



N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m

T17 Ligustrum lucidum Common Name ‘Large leaved Privit’ Age class 20 years See Fig. 7.


N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


B3 N/A N/A

T18 Cupressocyparis x leylandii Common Name ‘Leighton’s Green’ Age class 20 years See Fig. 15.


N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m


A2 3.24m 1.9m

T19 Chamaecyparis obtuse Common Name ‘Hinoki Cypress Age class 50 years See Fig. 16.


N 2m E 1m S 2m W 1m

An exotic conifer endemic to Japan which has been planted in a row, along with several others of the same species, in the property near the northern border of the Site. The specimen was in good health and vigour. The tree has been suppressed in its growth to the North East and the South West by adjacent vegetation.

A2 3.24m 1.9m

Table describing trees growing on the development site. Tree numbers correspond with numbers on site plan appendix. 2. *DBH Diameter at Breast Height. **DGH Diameter at Ground Height. ***SULE ratings are included as Appendix 3 of this report.


Fig. 2 Photo of Tree T1 a Lophostemon confertus. Fig. 3. Photo of T2 a Cupressus sempervirens


Fig. 4 Photo of Tree T3 a Cupressus sempervirens. Fig. 5. Photo of T4 a Thuja occidentalis


Fig. 6. Photo of Tree T5 a Thuja occidentalis. Fig. 7. Photo of T6 a Thuja occidentalis


Fig. 8. Photo of Tree T7 a Thuja occidentalis. Fig. 9. Photo of Trees T8, T9 & T10 all Thuja occidentalis


Fig. 10. Photo of Trees T10, T11 & T12 all Thuja occidentalis. Fig. 11. Photo of Tree T10 a Thuja occidentalis


Fig. 12. Photo of Tree T13 a Thuja occidentalis. Fig. 13. Photo of Trees T14, T15 & T16 all Thuja occidentalis


Fig. 14. Photo of Tree T17 a Ligustrum lucidum. Fig. 15. Photo of Tree T18 a Cupressocyparis x leylandii


Fig. 16. Photo of Tree T19 a Chamaecyparis obtusa


APPENDIX 2a. Excerpt from Site Survey showing the positions of the trees in this report. Trees marked in red are scheduled to be removed.

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6 T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, T12 T13

T17

No tree observed here

T14

T15

T16

T18 T19


APPENDIX 2b. Excerpt from Site Plans showing the location of trees of the trees in relation to the proposed building footprint.


APPENDIX 2c. Excerpt from Site Plans showing the encroachments into the TPZ and SRZ of Tree T1.

OSD basin occupies roughly same size as

existing front

New footpath crossover and driveway occupies roughly same position as existing

entrance plus 1 meter added to the width on the South side

New stormwater pipe from control pit to the street to

be hand excavated.


Fig. 17. View from Google street view showing extension of driveway x 1m to the South. Fig. 18. View from Google Street view showing existing brick

wall along footpath verge to West of the Site.

New footpath crossover and driveway occupies roughly same position as existing

entrance plus 1 meter added to the width on the South side

Existing brick wall corresponds with proposed OSD basin retaining wall


APPENDIX 2d. Excerpt from Landscaping plans showing the location of replacement Trees labelled 44 and 45.

44

45 45

45


APPENDIX 2. TABLE 2. SULE CATAGORIES AND SUB-CATEGORIES. 1 2 3 4 5

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

Medium SULE: Appeared to be retainable at the time of assessment for 15 to 40 years with and acceptable degree of risk assuming reasonable maintenance.

Short SULE: Appeared to be retainable at the time of assessment for 5 to 15 years with and acceptable degree of risk assuming reasonable maintenance.

Remove: Trees which should be removed within the next 5 years.

Small young or regularly clipped: Trees that can be reliably transplanted or replaced.

A Structurally sound trees located in positions that can accommodate future growth

Trees that may only live for 15 and 40 more years.

Trees that may only live for between 5 and 15 more years

Dead, Dying suppressed or declining trees through disease or inhospitable conditions.

Small trees less than 5 m in height.

B Trees that could be made suitable for retention in the long term by remedial care.

Trees that may live for than 40 years, but would need to be removed for safety or nuisance reasons

Trees that may live for than 15 years, but

would need to be removed for safety or

nuisance reasons

Dangerous trees through instability or recent loss of adjacent trees.

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

C Trees of special significance for historical, commemorative or rarity reasons that would warrant extraordinary efforts

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

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

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

Trees that have been regularly pruned to artificially control their growth


to secure their long term retention.

provide space for new plantings

provide space for new plantings

D Trees that could be made suitable for retention in the medium term by remedial care

Trees that require substantial remedial care and are only suitable for retention in the short term.

Damaged trees that are clearly not safe to retain.

E 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 plantings.

F Trees that may cause damage to existing structures within 5 years.

G Trees that will become dangerous after removal of other surrounding trees

Table 2 Ref Barrell, Jeremy (1996). Predevelopment tree assessment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Trees and Building Sites (Chicago)


General Tree Information

Part O - Tree Management of Strathfield Council’s Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2005 prohibits the following:

• Cutting down, removing, injuring or poisoning any part of a tree above or below ground, having a height greater than four (4.0) metres or a girth greater than half (0.5) metre measured at point one (1.0) metres above ground level.

• Undertaking works within 5 metres from the base of a tree • Failing to plant, protect or care for a tree which is required to be planted,

protected or cared for as a condition of consent.

Council consent is not required for:

• Pruning, control and eradication or removal of trees, which are listed as noxious weeds by the Department of Primary Industries for the Strathfield Local Government Area. Refer to the website: Department of Primary Industries for the Strathfield Local Government Area

• The following trees - Ficus elastica (Rubber Tree), Privet (large and small leaf), Umbrella Trees, Rhus Trees, and commercial fruit tree varieties.

• Exempt species area listed in Appendix 1 of the DCP unless the trees are or form part of a heritage item and/or are a contributory element to the heritage significance of a conservation area or where the tree is listed on Council's Significant Tree Register.

• Removal of dead branches from a tree in accordance with AS 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees.

Owners must notify their neighbours of any proposed tree removal or pruning prior to commencement of work.

Property owners or agents/strata management may only apply to remove a tree wholly located within a property.

Council recommends that photos be taken by property owners prior to the removal of the above in order to confirm the identity of trees should the need arise.

Important Note:

The NSW Department of Primary Industries under the NSW Biosecurity Act 2007 does not list camphor laurel as a weed for the Strathfield Local Government Area and the removal or pruning of Camphor Laurel trees under 8 metres in height require Council approval.

APPENDIX 3. Excerpt from Strathfield Council’s Development Control Plan Part O General Tree Information.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app-application?sq_content_src=%252BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZ3d3dpLmFncmljLm5zdy5nb3YuYXUlMkZ0b29scyUyRnZpZXdjb3VuY2lsLmh0bWwmYWxsPTE%253D&council_id=101http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app-application?sq_content_src=%252BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZ3d3dpLmFncmljLm5zdy5nb3YuYXUlMkZ0b29scyUyRnZpZXdjb3VuY2lsLmh0bWwmYWxsPTE%253D&council_id=101


CommentsGeneral Tree Information

TREE INSPECTION [email protected] For: Mr. Nazih Toumer On. 26/82020 TREEHAVEN...

Documents

Transcript of TREE INSPECTION [email protected] For: Mr. Nazih Toumer On. 26/82020 TREEHAVEN...