arboricultural impact assessment, proposed development … · arboricultural impact assessment,...

nts aiasc 2.01 0.1 1 8 cover sheet

arboricultural impact assessment, proposed development 22-26 smallwood avenue, homebush 25th September 2014

prepared by Melanie Howden - Ass. Dip. Hort. (Haw. Ag. C.), SoA. Arb. MAIH, MIACA Executive Summary This report has been prepared to assess the condition and significance of a number of trees on the properties known as 22, 24 & 26 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush and assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the identified trees.

The report was commissioned by Develotek Management PL and site instructions have been provided by PBD Architects. The site inspection and arboricultural assessments were conducted on 12th August 2014.

The assessments carried out in this report are based upon the Australian Standard 4970 - 2009, Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The terminology used in this report is also consistent with that used in the AS 4970-2009. The definition of a tree in this report is consistent with that described in Strathfield Council’s Tree Preservation Order, 2007 being “any tree having a height greater than four (4.0) metres or a girth greater than half (0.5) metre measured at a point one (1.0) metres above ground level”.

The site is situated on the eastern side of Smallwood Avenue and is a gently sloping site that falls towards the street frontage. The site is currently developed and contains 3 residential dwellings with detached garages and sheds. The landscape character consists of intermittent trees which are dominated by exotic and non-indigenous native plantings. The proposed development involves demolition of the existing built structures on the site and construction of multi-level apartments with basement car parking (PBD Architects, 2014) with associated landscaping (ATC, 2014).

There are 25 trees that have been considered in this report of which, 18 trees are located on the site, 3 trees are located within the road reserve & 4 trees are located on the adjoining allotments. Of the 25 trees considered in this report based upon the proposed plans:

5 trees are to be retained (0 on the site, 1 within the road reserve & 4 on the adjoining allotments), and 20 trees are proposed to be removed (18 on the site & 2 within the road reserve).

Contents

sheet 1 - this cover page

sheet 2 - existing site - tree locations & reference numbers

sheet 3-4 - arboricultural assessment - tree data sheets

sheet 5 - proposed development - tree retention & removal

sheet 6-7 - impact of proposed development on individual trees

sheet 8 - tree protection measures and report summary

RH 19.55

RH 18.63

RH 19.29

RH

19.

68

GTR 16.97

GTR17.07

GTR 17.26

GTR

17.

31

GTR 16.68

RH 19.41

FL14.23

14.37

14.52

14.59

14.89

14.75

14.60 14

.9414

.99

15.27

15.44

15.38

15.49

15.52

15.64

15.67

15.8015

.61

FL15.38GTR

17.

20

RH

18.

39

RH 18.95

FL14.24

13.75 13.95

14.20

13.47

13.41

13.43

13.43

13.40

13.34

13.35

13.32

13.27

13.20

13.76

13.61

13.65

13.30

13.38

13.47

13.35

13.28

13.44

13.58

13.49

FL 14.24

GTR 16.99

13.06

13.64

13.65

13.64

13.91 14

.2014

.19

13.9013

.65

13.72

13.75

13.93

13.93 14

.05

14.21

14.19

FL 14.19

14.25

14.30

14.47 14

.57

FL14.87

14.36

14.38

14.44

14.58

14.58 14.61

14.78

14.62

RH 18.23

GTR

16.

31

GTR

17.

22

GTR16.69

GTR

16.

46

RH

20.

30

RH

18.

75

RH 20.21

13.03

13.06

FL14.33

13.49

13.46

13.4613.36

13.31

GTR 17.21

FL 14.47

RH 17.07

14.26

14.27

14.25

14.25

14.24

14.37

14.43

14.54

14.56

14.99

15.05

14.8614

.79

14.74

14.64

14.77

14.99

15.06

FL 14.27

12.98

12.90

12.93

12.97

13.11

PP

TELGMR

WMR

VERANDA

TEL

MET

AL A

WN

ING

RH 20.10

PIT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY

BRIC

K

WAL

L

FEN

CE

HOUSE TILE ROOF No. 24

RENDERED BRICKSINGLE STOREY

GARAGE

WMR

GTR 17.04

RETAINING WALL

CONCRETE DRIVEWAY

CONCRETE DRIVEWAY



GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

CLAD GARAGE

BRICK GARAGE

GARAGE



LOT 5 DP 9481

GARAGE

LOW

BR

ICK

WAL

L FE

NC

E

METAL FENCE

FLAT ROOF

TIM

BER

FEN

CE

LOW

R

ETAI

NIN

G

TIM

BER

WAL

L

CO

NC

RET

E

FOO

T

PA

TH

COLOUR BOND FENCE

56°5

7'00"

11.47

5

290°59'30"61.435

110°59'30"42.67

110°59'30"42.67

290°59'30"42.67

200°

59'3

0"12

.19

20°5

9'30

"12

.19

200°

59'3

0"12

.19

17°4

2'30

"2.

91

20°5

9'30

"12

.19

20°5

9'30

"12

.19

110°59'30"12.19

LOT 4 DP 9481

LOT 5 DP 9481

LOT 6 DP 9481

TIMBER FENCE

projectdate dwg no. rev.arboricultural impact assessment- 22-26 smallwood avenue, homebush

25/09/14 aiatn2.01 0.1 existing site - tree locations &reference numbers

scale at A3 sheet of3 8

prepared by

1: 200melanie howden

This plan is based upon:

Detail and Level Survey, Dwg. No. 9525 DET, Issue A, Dated 17/12/13,(CityServ Pty Ltd, Strathfield, NSW)

In addition to the trees identified on the survey 18 trees have beenadded to this plan as they are of a size / dimensions covered by StrathfieldCouncil's Tree Preservation Order. The additional trees are Tree No. 1, 2, 5,7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 & 25 and their locations,whilst based upon surveyed features, are approximate.

The tree canopy spreads on this plan have been adjusted from those on thesurvey to better reflect the actual canopy spreads however they remain asindicative graphics.

tree locations &reference numbers

tree legend

999

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10111213141516

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

melanie howden nts 25/09/14 aiasd 2.01 0.1 3 8

project arboricultural impact assessment - 22-26 smallwood ave. homebush

drawing title arboricultural assessment – tree data sheet

tree significance

significance in the environment Trees need to be considered in the overall environment and are subject to specific legislation such as:

Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) 1995, and Noxious Weeds Act (NSW) 1993.

Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) 1995 The Threatened Species Conservation Act lists in its schedules a number of species, populations or ecological communities that are either endangered or vulnerable. The Act requires the preparation of a species impact statement if an activity or development is going to have a significant effect on species, populations or endangered ecological communities listed in the schedules of the Act. Where identified on or adjacent the site, threatened tree species are considered in this report, however no attempt is made to identify threatened ecological communities or populations.

Noxious Weeds Act (NSW) 1993 The Noxious Weeds Act provides the Minister with the powers to issue an Order declaring a plant noxious and these plants can be either agricultural or significant environmental pest species. The Minister’s declaration may specify a plant to be noxious in part or all of the State and the Minister also may specify the level of noxious weed control required for that species.

Environmental Pest Species There are a number of environmental pest species that commonly cause problems in developed urban areas or readily spread into natural bushland areas. In urban areas these species can have aggressive root systems and cause damage to built structures or services. Alternatively some species can be problematic in natural bushland areas degrading habitats and reducing natural biodiversity. Many of these are not considered noxious but are recognised by Councils as pest species and are exempt from protection under Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

significance in the landscape Assessment of a tree’s significance in the landscape is generally categorised as either:

Very High Landscape Significance- prominent from a broad landscape perspective; High Landscape Significance - prominent from a neighbourhood perspective; Moderate Landscape Significance - prominent from adjacent areas surrounding the site,

and Low Landscape Significance - prominent from a site perspective only.

tree condition & life expectancy

condition The assessment of the trees condition is undertaken by visual inspection of the trees themselves, surrounding vegetation and the site conditions. An assessment of each tree is undertaken taking into account the condition of the tree’s roots, trunk, branches, foliage, previous pruning works, pests and disease, nesting hollows, fauna scratchings and the surrounding environment that may influence the condition of the tree.

Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) The condition information is used to determine the Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of each tree and takes into account the age of the tree, the life span of the species, local environment conditions, estimated life expectancy, the location of the tree and safety aspects. The SULE method takes into account whether a tree can be retained with an acceptable level of risk based on the information available at the time of inspection. A SULE assessment is not static as it relates to the tree’s health and the surrounding conditions. Whilst it is recognised that changes to the tree’s condition will affect the assessment, changes to the surrounding environment may result in changes to the SULE assessment.

Table 1 Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE), (Barrell, 2001) Category Description

1 Long -Life span greater than 40 years

2 Medium - Life span from 15 to 40 years

3 Short - Life span from 5 to 15 years

4 Should be removed within 5 years

5 Small, Young or Regularly Pruned, Trees that can readily be moved or replaced.

In addition to the categories listed above, trees that show signs of imminent structural failure are listed as ‘Unstable’.

Unstable Unstable in the ground or have significant trunk damage rendering them structurally hazardous.

development planning & general impacts on trees

tree protection zones Where trees are intended to be retained, development footprints should be located away from trees so as to provide adequate clearances for a tree protection zone. Disturbance within Tree Protection Zones can be detrimental to the tree’s root system and in turn affect the stability, health and condition of the tree. In many cases damage to the root systems is the major cause of tree decline in urban areas. Figure 3.1 Typical diagram of a Tree Protection Zone & Structural Root Zone of a tree based upon AS 4970 – 2009.

Where trees are multi-trunk specimens assessment needs to be made based upon the number of trunks and the diameter of each trunk. Based upon the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites, AS 4970 – 2009, the DBH of multi-trunk trees is calculated by:

development design & Tree Protection Zones

Where trees are intended to be retained, proposed developments must provide an adequate Tree Protection Zone around trees. This Tree Protection Zone is set aside for the tree’s root zone and it is essential for the stability and longevity of the tree. Existing soil levels should be retained within the Tree Protection Zone. Based upon the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites, AS 4970 – 2009, the radius of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is calculated as: TPZ = 12 x DBH with a minimum 2.0m radius and a maximum 15m radius.

developments within the Tree Protection Zone

Minor encroachments into Tree Protection Zones Based upon AS 4970 – 2009 some development activity can occur within the vicinity of trees and minor encroachments can occur within the calculated Tree Protection Zone provided that: no more that 10% of the area (m2) of the Tree Protection Zone is removed (0.7 x

TPZ radius on 1 side only); the encroachment does not extend into the Structural Root Zone, and the area (m2) to be removed is compensated for by increasing the distance of the

Tree Protection Zone in other directions so that there is no net loss in area (m2) of the Tree Protection Zone

Major encroachments into Tree Protection Zones Where the proposed development activity is greater than that described as a minor encroachment (refer above); the activity is considered to be a major encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone. Where major encroachments are to occur within the Tree Protection Zone of trees intended to be retained, it must be demonstrated that the works or activities will not have a significant impact on the health and condition of the tree. To demonstrate this detailed root mapping investigation by non invasive methods may be necessary; and other factors such as the age class, health & vigour, trunk lean, disturbance tolerance of the species, and building design may need to be taken into account in the arboricultural assessment. Where major encroachments are proposed to occur into the Tree Protection Zone the tree’s Structural Root Zone should also be taken into account.

developments within the tree’s Structural Root Zone The Structural Root Zone is the area surrounding the tree where the severance of roots and excavation is likely to affect the structural stability of the tree and is likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the health & condition of the tree. Based upon AS 4970 – 2009 the radius of a tree’s Structural Root Zone (SRZ) is determined by measuring the diameter of the trunk immediately above the root buttress (DAB) and calculated by: SRZ = (DAB x 50) 0.42 x 0.64. Developments should not encroach into the tree’s Structural Root Zone and existing soil levels must remain unchanged. Excavation should not occur within this area unless a detailed arboricultural assessment is undertaken and Specific Tree Protection measures will be required.

Tree No Genus Species Common

Name Height

(m) Canopy Spread

(m) DBH (mm)

DAB (mm) Description

Environmental / Landscape

Significance Condition Foliage

Condition

% Canopy

Dead Wood

Evidence of Pests, Disease, Cavity, Bracket Fungi SULE On / off

site TPZ

Radius (m)

Area of

TPZ (m2)

1 Tristaniopsis laurina Water Gum 4 2 120 220 Semi-mature single trunk tree with an upright rounded form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

Low L/scape Sig. The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears sound. The tree is considered to be in good health and displays good vigour.

Good 5% The tree has hollows at the base and at 0.7m on the eastern site.

2 Within road reserve

2.00 12.57

2 Lagerstroemia indica

Crepe Myrtle 5 6 1*120, 2*200, 1*180, 2*160

500 Mature multi trunk tree with an upright spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.


Deciduous None

10% Decay present in some branch stubs 2 On site 4.85 74.04

3 Rondeletia amoena - 4 4 15-20-40

300 Mature multi trunk tree with a low spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.


Good 10% Ivy is growing throughout the tree. 3 On site 2.00 12.57


Crepe Myrtle 6 5 3*140 320 Mature multi trunk tree with a broad spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. Lower limbs of the tree have been pruned to 3m.


Deciduous None

<5% None evident 2 On site 2.38 17.74

5 Melaleuca sp. 7 6 1*300, 2*200

500 Dead multi trunk tree with an upright spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

Low L/scape Sig. The tree stability is suspect and its branch attachment appears poor. The tree is considered to be dead and displays no signs of any vigour.

None 100% The tree is dead Unstable On adjacent allotment

4.95 76.94

6 Cinnamomum camphora

Camphor Laurel

15 14 1*500, 1*400. 1*600

1600 Mature multi trunk tree with an upright spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

High L/scape Sig. The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears sound. The tree is considered to be in moderate health and displays fair vigour.

Good 10% None evident 1 On site 10.53 348.48

7 Erythrina crista-galli Cockscomb Coral Tree

11 7 1*400, 1*240

600 Mature twin trunk tree with a broad spreading form; an upright trunk/s and majority of canopy and branch development is towards the south east. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

Moderate L/scape Sig.

The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears sound. The tree is considered to be in moderate health and displays fair vigour.

Deciduous None

10% The tree appears to be suppressed by the adjacent vegetation

2 On adjacent allotment

5.60 98.48

melanie howden nts 25/09/14 aiasd 2.01 0.1 4 8

project arboricultural impact assessment - 22-26 smallwood ave. homebush

drawing title arboricultural assessment – tree data sheet

Tree No Genus Species Common

Name Height

(m) Canopy Spread

(m) DBH (mm)

DAB (mm) Description

Environmental / Landscape

Significance Condition Foliage

Condition

% Canopy

Dead Wood

Evidence of Pests, Disease, Cavity, Bracket Fungi SULE On / off

site TPZ

Radius (m)

Area of

TPZ (m2)

8 Ligustrum lucidum Large Leaf Privet

7 4 5*200 300 Mature multi trunk tree with an upright elliptical form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

Noxious Weed The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears sound. The tree is considered to be in moderate health and displays fair vigour.

Good 5% None evident 2 On adjacent allotment

5.37 90.51

9 Callistemon viminalis

Weeping Bottlebrush

8 7 2*400 550 Mature multi trunk tree with a broad spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

Moderate L/scape Sig.

The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears sound. The tree is considered to be in good health and displays good vigour.

Good 10% Some epicormic growth appearing on 1st order branches.

3 On site 6.79 144.82

10 Cupressus sp. Cypress 5 2 3*160 260 Semi-mature twin trunk tree with an upright pyramidal form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.


Good <5% None evident 2 On site 3.33 34.76

11 Cupressus sp. Cypress 5 1 4*160 260 Semi-mature multi trunk tree with an upright pyramidal form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.






13 Cupressus sp. Cypress 5 2 200 260 Semi-mature single trunk tree with an upright pyramidal form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.






15 Cupressus sp. Cypress 5 2 2*160, 1*180

260 Semi-mature multi trunk tree with an upright pyramidal form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.



16 Cupressus sp. Cypress 5 2 1*180, 2*160

260 Semi-mature multi trunk tree with an upright pyramidal form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.



17 Tristaniopsis laurina Water Gum 5 6 1*200, 1*150, 1*160

380 Mature multi trunk tree with a broad spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. Appears that the central leader has been pruned/removed at 5m to provide clearances to overhead wires.

Low L/scape Sig. The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears fair. The tree is considered to be in poor health and displays poor vigour.

Poor The tree has sparse foliage and twiggy dead wood through the canopy. Decay is present in branch stubs and the tree has a lower trunk wound on the southern side.

4 Within road reserve

15.00 707.14

18 Tibouchina sp. - 4 3 3*100, 1*120, 1*200

500 Over mature multi trunk tree with a low spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. Appears that the central leader has been pruned/removed at 2m and the upper branches have been pruned at 3m for overhead wire clearances.

Low L/scape Sig. The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears fair. The tree is considered to be in moderate health and displays fair vigour.

Fair 15% There is epicormic growth through the tree and some cracking in the lower trunk.

4 On site 3.49 38.20

19 Tristaniopsis laurina Water Gum 4 5 1*180, 1*280, 2*60

420 Mature multi trunk tree with a low spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.

Low L/scape Sig. The tree appears stable and its branch attachment appears sound. The tree is considered to be in moderate health and displays fair vigour.

Good 10% None evident 2 Within road reserve

4.12 53.40

20 Camellia japonica Camellia 4 2 7*40 200 Mature multi trunk tree with a low rounded form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.


Very Good 5% None evident 2 On site 2.00 12.57

21 Camellia japonica Camellia 4 2 2*40, 1*50, 1*60

200 Mature multi trunk tree with a low rounded form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.



22 Grevillea banksii Crimson Grevillea

6 6 220 400 Over mature single trunk tree with an upright spreading form; an upright trunk/s and majority of canopy and branch development is towards the north No evidence of significant branch pruning.


Fair 20% None evident 4 On site 2.64 21.90

23 Leptospermum petersonii

Lemon-Scented Tea Tree

6 5 300 380 Mature single trunk tree with an upright spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. Lower limbs of the tree have been pruned to 2m.


Fair 5% Dieback is evident in the upper canopy where there is twiggy dead wood. The tree has a trunk wound on the southern side at 2-3m where a leader has failed.

3 On site 3.60 40.73

24 Grevillea robusta Silky Oak 6 3 180 220 Immature single trunk tree with an upright pyramidal form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.



25 Howea forsteriana Kentia Palm 5 3 180 200 Mature single trunk tree with an elevated spreading form; an upright trunk/s and balanced canopy and branch development. No evidence of significant branch pruning.


Very Good 5% None evident 2 On adjacent allotment

1.00 3.14

RH 19.55

RH

18.

39

RH

18.

75

FL 14.47

PP

TEL

VERANDA

TEL

PIT

BRICK GARAGE

GARAGE

56°5

7'00"

11.47

5

290°59'30"61.435

290°59'30"42.67

200°

59'3

0"12

.19

20°5

9'30

"12

.19

200°

59'3

0"12

.19

17°4

2'30

"2.

91

20°5

9'30

"12

.19

20°5

9'30

"12

.19

110°59'30"12.19

GEN

TLE

SLO

PE

RL 14.2

6

RL 15.4

4

RL 15.6

4

RL 15.6

4

RL 15.6

1

RL 15.2

7

RL 14.8

9

RL 14.5

9

RL 13.7

9

SITE

BO

UN

DAR

Y

SITE BOU

ND

ARY

SITE

BO

UN

DAR

Y

projectdate dwg no. rev.arboricultural impact assessment- 22-26 smallwood avenue, homebush

25/09/14 aiatn2.01 0.1 proposed development - treeretention & removal

scale at A3 sheet of5 8

prepared by

1: 200melanie howden

This plan is based upon:

Detail and Level Survey, Dwg.No. 9525 DET, Issue A, Dated 17/12/13,(CityServ Pty Ltd, Strathfield, NSW)

Ground Floor Plan. Dwg.No. DA05, Issue A, Dated 17/09/14,(PBD Architects, Surry Hills, NSW)

In addition to the trees identified on the survey 18 trees have beenadded to this plan as they are of a size / dimensions covered by StrathfieldCouncil's Tree Preservation Order. The additional trees are Tree No. 1, 2, 5,7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 & 25 and their locations,whilst based upon surveyed features, are approximate.

The tree canopy spreads on this plan have been adjusted from those on thesurvey to better reflect the actual canopy spreads however they remain asindicative graphics.

trees to be retained

tree legend

trees to be removed

tree protection fencing

999

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10111213141516

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

999

melanie howden nts 25/09/14 aiasi 2.01 0.1 6 8

project

arboricultural impact assessment - 22-26 smallwood ave. homebush

drawing title impact of proposed development on individual trees

typical application of Australian Standard 4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites

Tree No Genus Species DBH

(mm)DAB (mm) SULE

Env./ L/scape

Sig.

TPZ Radius

(m)

Area of TPZ (m2)

Radius of 90% of TPZ area

(7/10)

SRZ Radius

(m) Adjacent Works Influence on Tree Plan Status On / off

site

1 Tristaniopsis laurina

120 220 2 Low L/scape

Sig.

2.00 12.57 1.40 1.75 The existing concrete footpath is within 0.5m (east) of the tree and the path is likely to be replaced.

No significant impact with appropriate Tree Protection Measures.

Retained with Specific Tree Protection Measures

Within road reserve


1*120, 2*200, 1*180, 2*160

500 2 Low L/scape

Sig.

4.85 74.04 3.40 2.47 The proposed basement car park and ground floor terrace spatially conflicts with the location of the tree.

Not applicable To be Removed

On site

3 Rondeletia amoena

15-20-40

300 3 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site


3*140 320 2 Low L/scape

Sig.

2.38 17.74 1.66 2.05 The proposed basement car park spatially conflicts with the location of the tree.


On site

5 Melaleuca sp. 1*300, 2*200

500 Unstable Low L/scape

Sig.

4.95 76.94 3.46 2.47 The proposed paved external landscape terrace is within 4.1m (south) of the tree.


Retained with General Tree Protection Measures

On adjacent allotment

6 Cinnamomum camphora

1*500, 1*400. 1*600

1600 1 High L/scape

Sig.

10.53 348.48 7.37 4.03 The proposed paved external landscape terrace is within 1.8m (south) of the tree.

Excavation is likely to involve severance of significant tree roots resulting in the decline of the tree and/or rendering it unstable.

To be Removed

On site

7 Erythrina crista-galli

1*400, 1*240

600 2 Moderate L/scape

Sig.

5.60 98.48 3.92 2.67 No proposed works apart from soft landscaping within the tree's Tree protection Zone.




8 Ligustrum lucidum

5*200 300 2 Noxious Weed





9 Callistemon viminalis

2*400 550 3 Moderate L/scape

Sig.

6.79 144.82 4.75 2.57 The existing garage is to be demolished within 0.6m (south east) of the tree and

Likely to be damaged in conjunction with the proposed demolition works

To be Removed

On site

10 Cupressus sp. 3*160 260 2 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site


Sig.



On site


Sig.



On site

13 Cupressus sp. 200 260 2 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site


Sig.

3.33 34.76 2.33 1.88 The proposed building footprint spatially conflicts with the location of the tree.


On site

melanie howden nts 25/09/14 aiasi 2.01 0.1 7 8

project


drawing title impact of proposed development on individual trees

Tree No Genus Species DBH

(mm) DAB (mm) SULE

Env./ L/scape

Sig.

TPZ Radius

(m)

Area of TPZ (m2)

Radius of 90% of TPZ area

(7/10)

SRZ Radius

(m) Adjacent Works Influence on Tree Plan Status On / off

site

15 Cupressus sp. 2*160, 1*180

260 2 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site

16 Cupressus sp. 1*180, 2*160

260 2 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site


1*200, 1*150, 1*160

380 4 Low L/scape

Sig.

15.00 707.14 10.50 2.20 The existing concrete footpath is within 0.5m (east) of the tree and the path is likely to be replaced.

No significant impact however the tree is in poor condition.

To be Removed

Within road reserve

18 Tibouchina sp. 3*100, 1*120, 1*200

500 4 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site


1*180, 1*280, 2*60

420 2 Low L/scape

Sig.

4.12 53.40 2.89 2.30 The proposed driveway crossing spatially conflicts with the location of the tree.


Within road reserve

20 Camellia japonica 7*40 200 2 Low L/scape

Sig.



On site

21 Camellia japonica 2*40, 1*50, 1*60

200 2 Low L/scape

Sig.

2.00 12.57 1.40 1.68 The proposed basement car park is within 0.5m (west) of the tree.

Excavation is likely to involve severance of significant tree roots resulting in the decline of the tree and/or rendering it unstable.

To be Removed

On site

22 Grevillea banksii 220 400 4 Low L/scape

Sig.

2.64 21.90 1.85 2.25 The proposed landscape path is within 1.7m (west) of the tree.

No significant impact however, the tree is considered to be in poor condition.

To be Removed

On site

23 Leptospermum petersonii


Sig.


No significant impact however, retention of the tree conflicts with the landscape plan.

To be Removed

On site

24 Grevillea robusta 180 220 2 Low L/scape

Sig.


No significant impact however, retention of the tree conflicts with the landscape plan.

To be Removed

On site

25 Howea forsteriana


Sig.





Figure 7.1 Tree No. 1 within the Smallwood Avenue road reserve outside 22 Smallwood Avenue.

Figure 7.2 Tree No. 17 within the Smallwood Avenue road reserve outside 24 Smallwood Avenue.

melanie howden nts 25/09/14 aiacp 2.01 0.1 8 8

project


drawing title tree protection measured & report summary

tree protection measures

specific tree protection measures

Proposed Works within the Vicinity of Tree No. 1

Prior to demolition or construction, secure protective fencing is to be erected around Tree No. 1 along the western side of the existing concrete footpath as shown on sheet 5 of this report.

The existing concrete footpath is within 0.5m (east) of the Tree No.1 and the path is likely to be replaced. To minimise disturbance to the root zone of the tree, all works within the 2m radius of Tree Protection Zone must be undertaken under the supervision of an experienced and qualified project arborist in accordance with the specification below.

general tree protection during construction

Prior to demolition or construction, the trees identified as being removed shall be removed ensuring that no damage occurs to the root system, trunk, branches or foliage of trees identified as being retained.

Prior to demolition or construction, secure protective fencing is to be erected incorporating Tree Protection Zone Signage

The building contractor shall ensure that at all times during site works no activities, stock piles, storage or disposal of materials shall take place within the fenced off areas and that all Protective Fences remain secure throughout the development work period.

All access within the tree protection fencing for temporary and permanent works must be carried out under the instructions of an experienced and qualified project arborist.

Tree Protection Fencing shall remain in functional condition for the duration of building works and can be removed to allow for works identified in the landscape plan.

Specific excavation for services that require critical fall (eg. sewer, stormwater) may be undertaken within the tree protection zones only under the direct supervision of the project arborist.

Outside the approved building footprints or retaining walls, landscape works in the vicinity of the trees must be sympathetic to tree retention and existing ground levels within the Tree Protection Zones (refer TPZ sheets 6-7) must remain unchanged.

Any tree damage that occurs to trees or tree roots during site works is to be treated by an experienced and qualified arborist.

Should branch pruning be required, all pruning works including the removal of deadwood are to be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and the work is to be undertaken by an experienced and qualified arborist.

tree report summary

conclusion

This report has been prepared to assess the condition and significance of a number of trees on the properties known as 22, 24 & 26 Smallwood Avenue, Homebush and assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the identified trees.

The assessments carried out in this report are based upon the Australian Standard 4970 - 2009, Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The terminology used in this report is also consistent with that used in the AS 4970-2009. The definition of a tree in this report is consistent with that described in Strathfield Council’s Tree Preservation Order, 2007 being “any tree having a height greater than four (4.0) metres or a girth greater than half (0.5) metre measured at a point one (1.0) metres above ground level”.

The site is situated on the eastern side of Smallwood Avenue and is a gently sloping site that falls towards the street frontage. The site is currently developed and contains 3 residential dwellings with detached garages and sheds. The landscape character consists of intermittent trees which are dominated by exotic and non-indigenous native plantings. The proposed development involves demolition of the existing built structures on the site and construction of multi-level apartments with basement car parking (PBD Architects, 20414) with associated landscaping (ATC, 2014).

There are 25 trees that have been considered in this report of which, 18 trees are located on the site, 3 trees are located within the road reserve & 4 trees are located on the adjoining allotments. Of the 25 trees considered in this report based upon the proposed plans:

• 5 trees are to be retained (0 on the site, 1 within the road reserve & 4 on the adjoining allotments), and

• 21 trees are proposed to be removed (18 on the site & 2 within the road reserve)

Details of the 5 Trees to be Retained Adjacent the Site Condition Environmental / Landscape Significance

Noxious Env. Pest (Exempt

from TPO)

Low L/scape

Sig.

Moderate L/scape

Sig.

High L/scape

Sig.

Very High L/scape

Sig.

SULE - 1 SULE - 2 1 2 1 SULE - 3 SULE - 4 Unstable 1

Details of the 20 Trees to be Removed On Site & within Road Reserve

Condition Environmental / Landscape Significance

Noxious Env. Pest (Exempt

from TPO)

Low L/scape

Sig.

Moderate L/scape

Sig.

High L/scape

Sig.

Very High L/scape

Sig.

SULE - 1 1 SULE - 2 13 SULE - 3 2 1 SULE - 4 3 Unstable

arboricultural impact assessment, proposed development … · arboricultural impact assessment,...

Documents