Mr. Michael Sun 41 Fisher Street, Malvern East, Vic, 3145

Transcription

Arboricultural Report – Ref 15228
October 2015
Lloyd Hetrick
Consulting Arborist
15 Beilby Street, Bayswater, 3153
Ph/Fax: 03 97380691, Mob: 0418 336156
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.lloydhetrick.com
ARBORICULTURAL REPORT
For
Mr. Michael Sun
SITE ADDRESS
41 Fisher Street, Malvern East, Vic, 3145
REPORT ON:
Trees growing at and adjacent to 41 Fisher Street, that will or maybe affected by the proposed building
of a multi-unit development with basement car parking on the property.
PREPARED BY:
Lloyd Hetrick – Consulting Arborist
Certificate Horticulture Oakleigh Tech
Certificate Arboriculture Oakleigh Tech
Certificate 4 Horticulture (Arboriculture) Melbourne
Diploma Horticulture (Arboriculture) Melbourne
Experience Summary
• 1979-81 Melbourne City Council – Trainee Arborist – Leading Hand
• 1981-84 City of Malvern - Arborist
• 1984-85 City of Box Hill – Arborist.
• 1985-2007 Private contracting arboriculture with extensive experience in domestic
settings, insurance work and development sites, combined with contractual arboriculture
for city councils such as Whitehorse City Council.
• 2007 ----- Self employed as a Consulting Arborist.
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY:
Daniel Filice
Archten Pty Ltd
600 Waverley Road, Malvern East, Vic, 3145
Ph: 03 9530 4910
Email: [email protected]
DATE:
18th October 2015
Author: Lloyd Hetrick – Consulting Arborist
Ref: 15228
©Lloyd Hetrick – October 2015
Page 1 of 21
October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
!
For ............................................................................................................................................................1!
REPORT ON:..............................................................................................................................................1!
PREPARED BY: .........................................................................................................................................1!
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY: ...................................................................................................................1!
SUMMARY: ................................................................................................................................................3!
1.! INTRODUCTION: .................................................................................................................................4!
2.! KEY OBJECTIVES: .............................................................................................................................4!
3.! METHODOLOGY: ................................................................................................................................4!
4.! DOCUMENTS VIEWED: .......................................................................................................................5!
5.! INSPECTION DATE AND TIME:............................................................................................................5!
6.! SITE PLAN: ........................................................................................................................................5!
7.! SITE INFORMATION:...........................................................................................................................5!
8.! TREE DETAILS: ..................................................................................................................................6!
9.! TREES THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED:...................................................................................................7!
10.! NEIGHBOURING TREES:...................................................................................................................8!
11.! NATURESTRIP TREE: .......................................................................................................................9!
12.! CONCLUSION:..................................................................................................................................9!
13.! REPORT PREPARED BY: ................................................................................................................10!
14.! REFERENCES: ...............................................................................................................................10!
15.! APPENDIX:.....................................................................................................................................11!
15.1.! Description of terms and ratings used.....................................................................................11!
15.2.! Photos:.....................................................................................................................................12!
15.3.! Building in the Vicinity of Trees Guidelines ..........................................................................16!
15.4.! Tree Protection Zone...............................................................................................................17!
15.5.! Trees and Driveway Guidelines..............................................................................................17!
15.6.! Arboricultural Recommendations ...........................................................................................18!
15.7.! Calculating tree protection zones............................................................................................18!
15.8.! Site plan with trees numbered as per this report .....................................................................19!
15.9.! Ground floor plan showing building encroachment into the TPZs.........................................20!
Disclaimer: ..........................................................................................................................................21!
Ref: 15228
Page 2 of 21
October 2015
SUMMARY:
The site is in the City of Stonnington, and no vegetation protection overlays apply to this site.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It is planned to build a three storey multi-unit development with basement car parking on the
site for this to happen all the vegetation including trees will need to be removed.
The trees are within or to close to the proposed building footprint to be retained.
The trees and other vegetation on the site all have a low retention value and there should be no
problems with their removal.
None of the trees on the site are protected by the local law.
There are four trees on the adjacent properties that maybe affected by the proposal.
The building encroaches into the TPZ of the tree on the northern side by 15%, as this tree is in
decline it should be removed. If it cannot be removed then care must be taken and any roots
found pruned back from the excavation, the loss of these roots will not affect this tree.
The building encroaches into the TPZs of two of the trees on the southern side by
approximately 3 to 4% therefore they will not be affected and standard construction methods
can be used where the building is within the TPZs of these trees.
The trees on the adjacent properties will need tree protection fences erected around the as much
of the TPZs as practical where the TPZs are within the subject site as the existing boundary
fences will not give enough protection.
There is one tree on the naturestrip, a London Plane, it will not be affected by the proposal but
it will need a tree protection fence erected around it.
Arboriculturaly providing care is taken where specified there are no reasons that the
development should not proceed as planned.
Ref: 15228
Page 3 of 21
October 2015
1. INTRODUCTION:
We have being engaged by Daniel Filice of Archten, to inspect and write a report on the trees growing
at and adjacent to 41 Fisher Street, Malvern East and how they will be affected by the proposed
building of a three storey multi-unit development with basement car parking on the site. Six trees
growing on the subject site, four trees growing on the adjacent properties and one tree on the
naturestrip were assessed. Only trees over 4 metres tall on the subject site and trees 4 metres and taller
on the adjacent properties were assessed.
I have inspected the trees, identified, given a basic description of them and their faults, and assessed
the proximity to the proposed building, basement and driveway. It is planned to clear the site of all
trees and other vegetation, the trees to be removed are within or to close to the proposed building and
driveway footprints or are unsuitable for retention and will need to be removed for the proposal to go
ahead as planned. Most of the other vegetation to be cleared is mostly fruit trees and shrubs. I have
indentified all the other vegetation using their common names on the attached plan.
The Australian Standard “AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites” has being used to
work out the area for the structural root zones (SRZ) and tree protection zones (TPZ) of neighbours’
trees.
2. KEY OBJECTIVES:
•
•
•
•
To describe the trees and their present health and condition.
To assess the impact any construction works will have on them.
To state tree protection methods for trees that will be retained.
To state reasons for removal.
3. METHODOLOGY:
The trees were inspected from the ground, health and structure was assessed and the trunk diameter
and width were measured using a tape measure and height was estimated. Site conditions were
assessed and photos taken.
Visual assessment was based on:
• Mattheck C. – Visual Tree Assessment & The Body Language of Trees
• Matheny and Clark – Evaluation of Hazard Trees & Trees and Development
• Personal experience over 30 years
Tools used: diameter tape measure; clinometer; digital camera
Limitations:
• Weather – fine and sunny
• Time – late morning
Ref: 15228
Page 4 of 21
October 2015
4. DOCUMENTS VIEWED:
Survey and Feature Plan as drawn by Goodison and Associates dated 17/09/2015
Design Concept – Ground and First Floor Plans as drawn by Archten dated 23/09/2015
5. INSPECTION DATE AND TIME:
13th October 2015 – late morning
6. SITE PLAN:
See attached plan at rear showing location of trees, numbered as in this report, and common names of
all other trees and shrubs.
7. SITE INFORMATION:
Council Zoning: City of Stonnington GRZ10
Lot / Plan: Lot 87 LP2888
Council Property Number: 17067
Planning Overlays: No overlays affect this site.
Local Law: City of Stonnington General Local Law 2008 (No.1) (Part 7, Division4, Clause 719)
applies and protects trees with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at
1.5 metres above its base – a DBH of 45 centimetres or greater. No trees on or adjacent the site
are affected by this law.
Site character: Single storey rendered brick dwelling with attached garage
Soil type: Sandy based loam on a clay base
Aspect: Land is reasonably level
Prevailing wind: Westerly
Melway Map ref: 68 J2
Ref: 15228
Page 5 of 21
8.
October 2015
TREE DETAILS:
Tree
#
1
Botanical
name
Platanus x
hispanica
Syzygium
smithii
Olea
europaea
Common
name
London
Plane
Lilly Pilly
Origin
Exotic
DBH
cm
11
TPZ
m
1.8
SRZ
m
1.5
Size
m
4x3
Native
20
2.4
1.7
4x3
Olive
Exotic
27
3.2
1.9
5x6
4
Prunus
persica
Peach
Exotic
25
3.0
1.8
4x4
5
Juglans regia
Walnut
Exotic
16
1.9
1.5
4x5
6
Juglans regia
Walnut
Exotic
12
1.8
1.5
4x4
7
Ficus carica
Fig
Exotic
32
3.8
2.1
4x6
8
Prunus
armeniaca
Apricot
Exotic
27
3.2
1.9
5x5
In
decline
9
Callistemon
sp.
Acacia
floribunda
Bottlebrush
Native
10
1.8
1.5
5x3
Sally Wattle
Native
35
4.2
2.1
Variegated
Pittosporum
Exotic
15
1.8
1.5
2
3
10
11
Pittosporum
eugenioides
Abbreviations: DBH = Trunk diameter at breast height.
SULE = Safe useful life expectancy
Ref: 15228
Age
SULE
years
40
plus
Less
than 5
10 to
20
Health
Structure
Form
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
In
decline
Less
than 5
Fair
Poor
Poor
Semi
mature
Semi
mature
Mature
20 to
40
20 to
40
Less
than 5
Less
than 5
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Leaning
Low
Good
Poor
Fair
Low
Less
than 5
Less
than 5
Poor
Poor
Poor
5x6
In
decline
Mature
Leaning,
wounds,
deadwood
Dieback
Good
Poor
Fair
Low
4x4
Mature
Less
than 5
Good
Poor
Fair
Multi
stemmed,
low limbs
Multi
stemmed,
climber, low
limbs
Young
In
decline
Mature
Defects
Retention
value
High
Stump
regrowth
Exposed
roots,
deadwood
Stump
regrowth,
deadwood,
wounds
Previous
limb failure
Low
Low
Low
Low
TPZ = Tree Protection Zone in metres as a radius from the trunk
SRZ = Structural Root Zone in metres as a radius from the trunk
Page 6 of 21
Low
Low
Low
October 2015
9. TREES THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED:
It is planned to remove all the vegetation growing on the property including the following trees:
Tree
#
2
Common
name
Lilly Pilly
DBH
cm
20
Size
m
4x3
3
Olive
27
5x6
5
Walnut
16
4x5
6
Walnut
12
4x4
7
Fig
32
4x6
8
Apricot
27
5x5
Age
Health
Structure
Form
In
decline
Mature
Good
Poor
Poor
Retention
value
Low
Good
Fair
Fair
Low
Semi
mature
Semi
mature
Mature
Good
Fair
Good
Low
Good
Good
Good
Low
Good
Fair
Poor
Low
In
decline
Good
Poor
Fair
Low
These trees are all small and insignificant in the landscape, none of them are protected by the local law and
can be removed at any time whether the proposed development proceeds or not.
Arboriculturally as they have a low retention value there should be no problems with the removal of these
trees, which will allow the proposed development to proceed as planned.
All the other vegetation on the site consists of smaller trees, mainly fruit trees and shrubs all of which can
also be removed.
Space should be allowed as part of the development to plant at least two canopy trees to make up for the loss
of vegetation from the area.
Ref: 15228
Page 7 of 21
10.
October 2015
NEIGHBOURING TREES:
There are four trees on the adjacent properties within 4 metres of the boundary, one is growing in the
property to the north and the other three are growing in the property to the south, they are:
Tree
#
4
Common
name
Peach
DBH
cm
25
TPZ
m
3.0
SRZ
m
1.8
Size
m
4x4
9
Bottlebrush
10
1.8
1.5
5x3
10
11
Sally Wattle
Variegated
Pittosporum
35
15
4.2
1.8
2.1
1.5
5x6
4x4
Age
Health
Structure
Form
In
decline
In
decline
Mature
Mature
Fair
Poor
Poor
Retention
value
Low
Poor
Poor
Poor
Low
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Low
Low
Tree 4 the Peach is growing close to the northern boundary and both its TPZ and SRZ extend into the
subject site. The proposed building encroaches into the TPZ of this tree and this encroachment is
approximately 15% of the TPZ, as this is the case care will need to be taken not to damage any roots when
doing the excavation for the basement and the footings of the wall. Any roots found will need to be pruned
back from the wall; the loss of these roots will not affect this tree as it is already in decline.
As the tree is in decline the neighbour should be approached to see if it can be removed, it this is allowed
and the tree is removed then normal construction methods can be used. But if the tree is retained it will need
a tree protection fence that encloses the section of the SRZ that is within the property prior to works
commencing and the fence must remain in place until final landscaping is being carried out.
The TPZs of trees 9, the Bottlebrush, 10, the Wattle and 11, the Pittosporum all extend into the subject site
and the proposed building encroaches into the TPZs of trees 10 and 11 by less than 10 % as this is the case
standard construction methods can be used where the building is adjacent these trees. These trees will also
need a tree protection fence that encloses as much of the TPZs as practicable erected around them where the
TPZs are within the subject site.
No trenches should be excavated within the TPZs of these trees instead underground boring methods must
be used if underground services must be within the TPZs.
The TPZs of the row of Cypresses adjacent the south west corner of the property do not extend into the
building envelope and therefore they will not be affected and as they will not be affected I have not included
their details in this report.
Arboriculturally providing care is taken where appropriate in regards these trees there are no reasons the
proposal cannot be built as planned.
Ref: 15228
Page 8 of 21
11.
October 2015
NATURESTRIP TREE:
There is one young tree, a London Plane growing on the naturestrip, its details are:
Tree
#
1
Common
name
London
Plane
DBH
cm
11
TPZ
m
1.8
SRZ
m
1.5
Size
m
4x3
Age
Health
Structure
Form
Young
Good
Good
Good
Retention
value
High
Though it won't be affected by the proposal it will require a tree protection fence around it while the
demolition and construction works are being carried out to protect it from damage especially from vehicles
delivering materials and machinery to the site.
The fence must enclose as much of the TPZ as possible without obstructing the road or footpath, it must be
made of chain mesh and be a minimum of 1.5 metres high. It must be erected prior to any demolition works
commencing and remain in place until final landscaping is being carried out. A lay of organic mulch a
minimum of 100mm deep should also be spread over the ground inside the fence.
12.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CONCLUSION:
It is planned to build a three storey multi-unit development with basement car parking on the site for
this to happen all the vegetation including trees will need to be removed.
The trees are within or to close to the proposed building footprint to be retained.
The trees and other vegetation on the site all have a low retention value and there should be no
problems with their removal.
None of the trees on the site are protected by the local law.
There are four trees on the adjacent properties that maybe affected by the proposal.
The building encroaches into the TPZ of the tree on the northern side by 15%, as this tree is in
decline it should be removed. If it cannot be removed then care must be taken and any roots found
pruned back from the excavation, the loss of these roots will not affect this tree.
The building encroaches into the TPZs of two of the trees on the southern side by approximately 3 to
4% therefore they will not be affected and standard construction methods can be used where the
building is within the TPZs of these trees.
The trees on the adjacent properties will need tree protection fences erected around the as much of
the TPZs as practical where the TPZs are within the subject site as the existing boundary fences will
not give enough protection.
There is one tree on the naturestrip, a London Plane, it will not be affected by the proposal but it will
need a tree protection fence erected around it.
Arboriculturaly providing care is taken where specified there are no reasons that the development
should not proceed as planned.
Ref: 15228
Page 9 of 21
13.
October 2015
REPORT PREPARED BY:
Lloyd Hetrick - Diploma of Horticulture (Arboriculture) Melbourne
14.
REFERENCES:
Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, by Nelda P. Matheny & James R. Clark 1994
Trees and Development, by Nelda P. Matheny & James R. Clark 1998
Trees and Building Sites by Dr. Gary W. Watson & Dr. Dan Neely 1995
Modern Arboriculture, by Dr. Alex Shigo 1991
The Body Language of Trees, by Claus Mattheck & Helge Breloer 1994
The Landscape Below Ground 2 by Dr. Gary W. Watson & Dr. Dan Neely 1998
Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines, by Richard W. Harris, James
R. Clark & Nelda P. Matheny 2004
Environmental Weeds – A Field Guide for SE Australia, by Kate Blood 2001
AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, prepared by the Australian Standards Committee
EV-018, Arboriculture 2009 and amended March 2010
AS 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees, prepared by the Australian Standards Committee EV-018,
Arboriculture 2007
Ref: 15228
Page 10 of 21
15.
October 2015
APPENDIX:
15.1.
Description of terms and ratings used.
Tree # is the number of the tree, and corresponds to the tree on the attached map
Size = Height & Width were measured or estimated depending on access to the tree. Spread is the average of the diameter of
the canopy drip line between the widest and narrowest axis
DBH* = Diameter of trunk at breast height (estimated at 1.4m above ground level) Diameter of multi-trunked trees was
estimated below the main fork.
SRZ = Structural Root Zone: the essential root area the tree needs to maintain stability in the ground, the woody root
growth and soil cohesion in this area are necessary to hold the tree upright. The SRZ is nominally circular with the trunk
at its centre and is expressed by a radius in metres. This zone considers a trees structural stability only, not the root zone
required for a tree’s vigour and long term viability, which will usually be a much larger area.
TPZ = Tree Protection Zone: An area above and below and at a given distance from the trunk set aside for the protection of
a tree’s roots and crown to provide for the viability and stability of a tree being retained where it is potentially subject to
damage by development. It must be securely fenced off from any works; the temporary fence used to secure building
sites is ideal.
SULE* = Safe Useful Life Expectancy. Estimation of approximately how long I expect the tree can be retained safely and
useful in the landscape.
Dead – Tree is dead and longer of amenity value
Unsafe – Tree is considered hazardous and no longer of amenity value
Less Than 5 Yrs – Tree under normal circumstances and without extra stress should be safe and have a value up to 5
years, but will need to be replaced. During this period, normal inspections and maintenance will be required.
Replacement trees should be planted if possible.
5 - 10 Yrs - Tree under normal circumstances and without extra stress should be safe and have a value up to 10 years.
During this period, normal inspections and maintenance will be required. Tree removal or pruning will generally be
required so replacement plants can become established.
During this period, normal inspections and maintenance will be required.
During this period, normal inspections and maintenance will be required.
More than 40yrs – Tree will live longer than 40 years with proper care and maintenance.
Health summarises observations made in the field
Excellent – The tree is demonstrating exceptional growth, exhibits a full canopy of foliage, and is free of pest and
disease problems.
Good – The tree is demonstrating good growth, a full canopy of foliage and may have minor evidence of pest or disease
problems.
Fair – The tree is in reasonable condition, showing average growth rates, maybe some deadwood in the crown and may
show signs of pest or disease problems. Foliage may be slightly discoloured (chlorosis) or sparse in some areas of
the canopy.
Poor – Tree has poor growth rates, extension growth of the laterals is minimal, canopy is becoming thin or sparse, large
amounts of deadwood throughout the crown, significant pest or disease problems may be present, generally tree is
starting to decline because of stress factors.
Very Poor – Tree is showing signs of major decline, canopy is very sparse, foliage, most likely is discoloured,
significant amount of deadwood present throughout the canopy, and usually evidence of significant pest and disease
problems.
Dead – Tree is dead
Structure, summarises observations of tree structure made in the field; structural problems for each tree are listed in the
defects column of the tree details table
Good – All forks are sound with no defects evident in trunk, branches, or buttress. Tree is considered a good example of
the species.
Ref: 15228
Page 11 of 21
October 2015
Fair – The tree has some minor problems in the crown with some branch unions exhibiting minor structural faults like
included bark, may be evidence of previous minor failures of limbs and decay may be occurring in the damaged
areas, may also be some signs of decay present in minor faults in the trunk or buttress areas.
Poor – Major problems present in the area of branch unions with lots of evidence of included bark, Trunk may be
bifurcated, or it may have multiple trunks present with weak unions. May be evidence the limbs are regrowth from
previous work or tree failure points and are poorly attached.
Hazardous – Tree has major problems where failure maybe imminent. Any tree classed as hazardous should be removed
as soon as possible
Form: summarises the shape of the tree
Good – tree has a full and balanced shape.
Minor asymmetrical – Tree is slightly out of balance, the canopy shape favours one side, and tree might also have a
slight lean.
Major asymmetrical – Tree is out of balance; the canopy will be mostly all to one side or deformed from limb or trunk
failure. Trunk will generally also be leaning.
Defects = Identifies the faults the tree has so that the best action to take can be assessed, this may involve removing the tree,
pruning it or taking some other action.
Retention rating = rates viability of retaining the tree. This will include contribution to the landscape and it is based on the
overall health and structure of the tree.
High – The tree may be significant in the landscape and generally be in good health with good structure, and it offers
something to the landscape in that it performs a vital function in the location like shade, screening, windbreak,
erosion control, habitat, flowers, fruit etc.
Medium – The tree will be in reasonable condition and may offer some screening or serve a particular function in the
location
Low – The tree offers very little in the way of screening or amenity in the location and will usually be in fair to poor
health and or have structural faults. It will normally be of smaller size and usually be easily replaced.
Nil – Tree has no amenity value and serves no useful purpose.
15.2.
Photos:
Figure 1: Tree 1 – the London Plane
Ref: 15228
Figure 2: Tree 2
Page 12 of 21
October 2015
Figure 3: Tree 4 though it can’t be clearly seen this tree is in decline and should be removed
Figure 4: Trees 5, 6 and 7.
Ref: 15228
Page 13 of 21
October 2015
Figure 5: Tree 8.
Figure 6: Trees 9, 10 and 11
Ref: 15228
Page 14 of 21
October 2015
Figure 7: The row of Cypresses at the rear wont be affected.
Figure 8: Some of the other vegetation that will be removed.
Ref: 15228
Page 15 of 21
15.3.
October 2015
Building in the Vicinity of Trees Guidelines
Building can occur within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of trees providing the following conditions are
followed. It should be kept clear of the structural root zone (SRZ)
• When new buildings are positioned within the TPZ of established trees consideration must be given
to the protection of the trees root systems.
• Roots over 20mm in diameter are considered to be structural roots these are generally found in the
area called the structural root zone (SRZ). These should not be damaged at all and if found changes
to the building design maybe required so that these roots are avoided.
• It is advisable that buildings and services be kept out of the SRZ area.
• Construction methods that can allow encroachment into the TPZ are pier and beam, suspended slabs,
cantilevered building sections, screw piles, and contiguous piling.
• Where reactive clay is present then pier and beam or screw piles are the best methods to use.
• Allowance must be made at the planning stage for piers to be moved if structural roots are found.
• It is recommended that non-invasive ground penetrating radar be used to locate all major roots, this
will map out the roots and give their depth as well. This will allow the architect or structural engineer
to place piers so that major and structural roots are avoided at the design stage.
• Other non-destructive methods to locate the distribution of roots are pneumatic, hydraulic, or hand
digging.
• If location of roots hasn’t being mapped out at the design stage then the first 600mm of any holes for
piers should be dug by hand to make sure there are no major roots present or likely to get damaged.
• If any structural roots are found then piers may need to be relocated slightly to avoid damaging them.
• Any other roots found can be removed and should be cleanly cut back to current Arboricultural
standards with sharp tools
• An Arborist must be on site to supervise, give advice and carry out the pruning back of roots found
during any excavation works inside the TPZ providing they are not structural roots
• Soil levels should not be altered within the TPZ. If it is necessary then the Arborist must first be
consulted and his advice followed. He should also supervise these works.
• Garages can also be constructed above grade using piers for support of walls as well as floors
• The concrete floor should be poured on top of coarse sand or 3/4inch or larger screenings, (not
crushed rock), which has being placed on top of existing grade this will help to support the floor and
reduce compaction to the soil underneath thus allowing for healthy root growth. The floor wants to
be well reinforced
• Provision should be made for water to still be able to reach the roots underneath. This can be
achieved by using flexible agi pipe winding through the base layer.
• Where underground services have to go through a TPZ then underground-boring methods must be
used. You should always try to keep services outside of the TPZ if at all possible
• The tree protection zone of any tree is anywhere within 12 times the diameter of the DBH (diameter
at 1.4metres) as a radius from the trunk.
Ref: 15228
Page 16 of 21
15.4.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tree Protection Zone
This area must be fenced off during all demolition and construction works, or as much of this area as
possible should be fenced off and at least a 150mm thick layer of tree or other organic mulch should
be spread over and beyond this area.
The TPZ is fenced off to prevent entry and access is only available under the supervision of the
Arborist. This is to ensure that no damage detrimental to the tree occurs.
The temporary fencing used to secure building sites is ideal for this.
Fencing must be a minimum of 1.5 metres high.
The TPZ must have signs on it identifying it as such along with the Arborist details on it.
Activities prohibited within the TPZ are; machine excavation including trenching, cultivation,
storage, preparation of chemicals and concrete products, parking of vehicles and plant, refuelling,
dumping of waste, cleaning or washing down of equipment, placement of fill, lighting of fires, soil
level changes, temporary or permanent installation of utilities and signs and physical damage to the
tree.
If vehicles need to access a site over a TPZ area then a minimum of a 20cm layer of mulch must be
spread and the depth maintained for the length of the job. A layer of boards or plywood sheets is then
placed over the mulch, similar to the requirements for protecting existing crossovers. This will help
to spread the load and minimise compaction.
Mulching the area inside a TPZ will help to minimise compaction over the root system as well as
provide nutrients for the tree as it breaks down (decomposes) and assist the soil in retaining moisture.
It is also recommended that once construction work is finished that the area around the affected trees
be aerated and the trees fertilized to promote new healthy root growth. An Arborist must carry out
this work.
It is recommended to include a tree protection clause in the construction contract forbidding grading,
filling, trenching, equipment parking, or material storage within the tree protection zone or zones.
Include penalties for violations of the tree protection clause and damage to tree or trees.
15.5.
•
October 2015
Trees and Driveway Guidelines
Driveways should be placed outside of the SRZ of adjacent trees the exception being where existing
driveways are already within this area.
The driveway should be placed on top of the existing grade when it’s placed anywhere inside the
TPZ.
The drive way surface can be made up of any suitable surface if it’s placed on a coarse sand or
3/4inch or larger screenings base. A coarse base allows for some air and water movement to reach
the roots underneath.
The sand or screenings can also flex a bit to allow for future root growth underneath.
If drainage is required it should be made up of surface drains anywhere that’s under the trees canopy
and provision should be made for some of this water to reach the roots underneath.
A layer of plastic flexible agi pipe that is laid, winding underneath the drive will aid water and air
reaching the root system underneath. The pipe should be covered in a Geo-textile fabric to prevent
holes being clogged up.
A layer of geo-textile fabric should also be laid over the base before the final surface is laid.
Alternatively products like Gravelpave® and Ecocell® could be used
The driveway can be made of any suitable surface like toppings, granetic gravel, pebbles or concrete.
Ref: 15228
Page 17 of 21
15.6.
•
•
•
•
•
October 2015
Arboricultural Recommendations
An Arborist must be on hand to supervise any earthworks inside the tree protection zones of any
retained trees
Care must be taken when removing trees not to damage retained trees
If any roots are found of retained trees during excavation works they must be pruned by the arborist.
All tree pruning must also be carried out by the arborist or done under his supervision
Regular inspections preferably monthly should be carried out by an Arborist to check on the
condition of the tree/s during all periods of construction and for a least a growing season after
construction is finished.
15.7.
Calculating tree protection zones
Determining the tree protection zone (TPZ)
The radius of the TPZ is calculated by multiplying the tree’s DBH x 12
TPZ = DBH x 12 (0.85cm x 12 = 10.2 metres)
Where the DBH = trunk diameter measured at 1.4 metres above ground level.
To work out the square area to be protected multiply the radius by π (3.142). Sometimes encroachment of
up to 10% can be allowed providing the area of such encroachment is compensated for elsewhere.
Ref: 15228
Page 18 of 21
15.8.
October 2015
Site plan with trees numbered as per this report
Trees are numbered in red and other vegetation named in red will need to be removed, neighbour’s trees are number or if small named in blue. The TPZs of neighbours’ trees are shown as blue circles and the SRZs are shown as orange
circles. All other vegetation has been identified showing common names only.
Almond
5
6
Nectarine
Apple
Apple
4
Crab
Apple
Cabbage
Tree
Photinia hedge
7
Bay
Tree
Orange
Olive
Orange
Lemon
Plum
720m²
Plum
Loquat
8
Plum
3
Crab
Apple
Cypresses
Not affected
Protea
11
9
10
Ref: 15228
Page 19 of 21
2
Cotoneaster
1
15.9.
October 2015
Ground floor plan showing building encroachment into the TPZs
E DESIGN
Ref: 15228 CONCEPT - 41 FISHER STREET, MALVERN EAST
UT PLAN
- SCALE 1:100
73.03 m
Page 20 of 21
October 2015
Disclaimer:
Although Lloyd Hetrick uses all due care and skill in providing you the information made available in this report, to the
extent permitted by law Lloyd Hetrick otherwise excludes all warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied.
To the extent permitted by law, you agree that Lloyd Hetrick is not liable to you or any other person or entity for any loss or
damage caused or alleged to have been caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence), either directly or
indirectly, by your use of the information (including by way of example, arboricultural advice) made available to you in this
report. Without limiting this disclaimer, in no event will Lloyd Hetrick be liable to you for any lost revenue or profits, or for
special, indirect, consequential or incidental damage (however caused and regardless of the theory of liability) arising out of
or related to your use of that information, even if Lloyd Hetrick has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damage.
The law in force in the State of Victoria, Australia governs this disclaimer
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions of Arboricultural Consultancy
Lloyd Hetrick, 15 Beilby Street, Bayswater, Vic, 3153
1. Any legal description provided to Lloyd Hetrick is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property
are assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters outside the consultant’s control.
2. Lloyd Hetrick assumes that any property or project is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes
or other local, state or federal government regulations.
3. Lloyd Hetrick has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as
possible; however Lloyd Hetrick can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of the information
provided by others not directly under Lloyd Hetrick’s control.
4. Lloyd Hetrick shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent
contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
5. Loss of this report or alteration of any part of this report not undertaken by Lloyd Hetrick invalidates the entire
report.
6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by anyone but
the client or their directed representatives, without the prior consent of Lloyd Hetrick
7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of Lloyd Hetrick consultant arborist and Lloyd
Hetrick’s fee is in no way conditional upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a
subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
8. Sketches, diagrams, graphs and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale
and should not be construed as engineering or architectural drawings, reports or surveys.
9. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) Information contained in this report covers only those items that were covered in the
project brief or that were examined during the assessment and reflect the condition of those items at the time of
inspection; and 2) The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible components without dissection,
excavation or probing unless otherwise stipulated.
10. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied by Lloyd Hetrick, that the problems or deficiencies with the
plant or plants or site in question may not arise in the future.
11. All instructions (verbal or written) that define the scope of the report have been included in the report and all
documents and other materials that Lloyd Hetrick has been instructed to consider or to take into account in
preparing this report have been included or listed within the report.
12. To the writer’s knowledge all facts, matter and all assumptions upon which the report proceeds have been stated
within the body of the report and all opinion contained within the report have been fully researched and referenced
and any such opinion not duly researched is based upon the writers experience and observations.
This report is copyright and remains the property of Lloyd Hetrick, it cannot be used in way what so ever
until full payment is received. Once payment has been received the client can then only use this report for
the purposes for which it was intended. Unless payment has been received we retain the right to withdraw
this report from any submissions to council or legal matters depending on how the report is to be used.
Ref: 15228
Page 21 of 21

Mr. Michael Sun 41 Fisher Street, Malvern East, Vic, 3145

Transcription

Similar documents

A Dendrologist`s Handbook

Year 2013

The Little Plant

Casas Rurales y Aptos. Turisticos

Fall 2015 - Arborist Enterprises

the baron in the trees il barone rampante

Keeping Your Power On

Value and Benefits of Trees

Inżynier Utrzymania Ruchu – Elektryk

Black Knot Information Sheet