RFI - Aboricultural Impact Assessment

Page 2

This document was prepared for the sole use of Town Planning Alliances, on behalf of the client and
any regulatory agencies involved in this project. No other party should rely on this information without
the prior written consent of Consult Arborist and the client.

The findings laid out in this report are valid for 12 months from the date of the assessment.

If the advice and recommendations made in this report are not strictly adhered to, no responsibility will
be taken for the continuing health and condition of retained trees. Trees are dynamic living organisms
that respond to changes in their environs; repeat assessments are key to maintaining tree vitality,
structural integrity and reducing any potential risk they may pose.


C OPYRIGHT N OTICE
This document is copyrighted and remains the property of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd under the Copyright
Act 1968 (Australia). Unauthorised reproduction, distribution, or modification is strictly prohibited. No
part of this document may be copied, reproduced, or used without prior written permission.

Permitted Use:
   • Hard Copies: Clients may print full copies for internal use or project liaison only.
   • Electronic Copies: The document must remain in its original PDF format and may only be
        shared with agreed parties directly involved in the project.

Consult Arborist Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for unauthorised or partial use of this report. By using
this document, the recipient agrees to abide by these terms.


D OCUMENT C ONTROL
The latest approved version of this 25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve should be available to all
personnel involved in the Project in consultation with Consult Arborist Pty Ltd.

Each new revision should be distributed to all key personnel for review and endorsement.

 Version                    Date                           Written             Reviewed             Approved
 V1                         21/10/2025                     MJD                 SD                   MJD




D OCUMENTS R EVIEWED
The following documents have been reviewed, analysed, and referenced during the production of this
report.

 Reference / Date                    Title / Details
 07/07/2025                          Noosa Council - 2025.07.07 - Information Request
 17/04/2025                          Studio Workshop Architects - Proposal Plans
 22/05/2025                          MPN Consulting - 22-05-25 Civil Engineering Report_Issue A
 22/05/2025                          MPN Consulting - 22-05-25 SWMP_Issue A
 06/04/2021                          21_04_06_TMP_RGSP_Bottle Brush
Note: Extracts from the above document have been used to illustrate the text within this report but should be read with the full
document.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                                Page 2 of 19

Page 3

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Copyright Notice ................................................................................................................... 2

Document Control ................................................................................................................. 2

Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 2

1     Brief ............................................................................................................................... 4

2     Site Inspection ............................................................................................................... 4

3     Scope & Limitations ....................................................................................................... 5

4     Project Design Review ................................................................................................... 6

5     Tree Plan ....................................................................................................................... 6

6     Findings ......................................................................................................................... 7

    6.1       Tri-stem Tree ......................................................................................................... 7
      6.1.1       Early Work Tri-stem Tree ................................................................................... 9
    6.2       Tree at #21 .......................................................................................................... 10
      6.2.1       Early Works ..................................................................................................... 10
7     Site Plans..................................................................................................................... 11

8     Arborist Attendance / Hold Points ................................................................................ 12

9     Tree Protection Plan .................................................................................................... 13

10         Tree Protection Specifications ................................................................................. 14

    10.1      Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) ............................................................................ 15
    10.2      Hard Surface / Asphalt Removal .......................................................................... 16
11         References: ............................................................................................................. 17

12         Disclaimer and Limitations of Liability ...................................................................... 17

Appendix 1: Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 18

Appendix 2: TPF Sign ......................................................................................................... 19




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                                            Page 3 of 19

Page 4

1 B RIEF
Town Planning Alliances commissioned this Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report on
behalf of their client.

The Arborist Report is to respond to the Noosa Council (NC) Information Request seeking an
Arborist Report with a focus on the location of services and the subject trees' long-term
retention. Tree Protection Specifications and Plan have been provided to aid in this response,
as guided by AS 4970:2025 Protection of trees on development sites.

The Arborist Report provides information on the trees impacted by the project design and the
location of the required services.

The Tree Survey plot plan, completed by LSD Survey, accurately illustrates the location and
size of each tree and the vegetation areas within the council verge. This Tree Survey Plan is
used in this report, where a modified extract was used to form the Tree Protection Plan.

This Arborist Impact Assessment reflects the current project design completed by MPD
Consulting.

2 S ITE I NSPECTION
Consult Arborist, led by Director and Principal Arborist Matthew Duncan, is a trusted authority
in arboricultural consulting. With over 30 years of industry experience, Matthew holds an AQF
Level 5 Diploma of Arboriculture (AHC50510) and an ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification
(valid 2015–2030) and undertook the Visual Tree Assessment on the site from a ground level
on Thursday, 2 October 2025. Since founding Consult Arborist in 2011, he has provided expert
arboricultural guidance for private, civil, and capital works projects across Queensland. As a
Qualified Member and Approved Consultant of the Queensland Arboricultural Association
(QAA), Matthew ensures professional, informed, and tailored solutions for clients seeking
high-quality tree assessment and management services.




                            Figure 1: Google overview of the site outlined




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                   Page 4 of 19

Page 5

                           Figure 2: Overview of the site / Bottlebrush Ave



3 S COPE & L IMITATIONS
The purpose of this report is to provide advice and guidance on the subject trees and
vegetation within the SCC verge to be retained.

Where appropriate, guidance is offered for tree protection measures that are to be
implemented to support the long-term viability of the protected vegetation.

Consult Arborist has reviewed the supplied documentation relating to the site, the existing
trees/vegetation, and the site layout with consideration to the design, future use, and
buildability of the Project. This report aims to provide guidance and direction on the practical
consideration of the suitable retention or removal of the trees.

No trunk decay detection equipment or ground radar was used as part of this Arboricultural
Assessment; no conclusive comments on what may have been or may be happening within
the internal structure of the tree or the tree’s roots will be made. No tissue or soil samples
have been collected or submitted for testing.

The information contained in this report is the author’s opinion and is a ‘snapshot in time’ of
each specific tree’s health and structure at the time of the inspection, and no guarantee can
be given that faults or issues may not arise in the future. The information is directed by the
documents provided and listed in Documents Reviewed. The information provided is taken to
be true and accurate and will be discussed as so.

This report does not take into consideration changes to the site design or activities for which
Consult Arborist has not been requested to comment or been advised.

See attached photographs, plan extracts, and maps for identification purposes. Photographs
of the subject trees have been taken on an iPhone/iPad when required, and the light/exposure
has been adapted to improve the clarity of the picture quality.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                    Page 5 of 19

Page 6

4 P ROJECT D ESIGN R EVIEW
The project design and plans propose to redevelop the site by removing the existing dwelling
and constructing an apartment-style building with semi-basement carparking. To complete the
project design, it is anticipated that ground disturbance will occur across the majority of the
site.

The confirmed scope is to assess the trees within the NC verge, with the focus on a mature
tri-stem Scribbly Gum in the southeast corner at the front right-hand side of the site.

To the left of the site, in front of 21 Bottlebrush Avenue, stands a mature Scribbly Gum that
will be discussed due to its proximity to the site and its current structural condition.

No trees or vegetation are proposed to be retained within the completed site, and as such, no
comments will be made on their condition or protection.

No additional trees or vegetation in front of the site within the council’s verge is proposed to
be retained, except the subject Tri-stem Scribbly Gum and, as such, no comments will be
made on their condition or protection.

The council verge area is proposed to be landscaped and planted as part of the project, with
similar planting to complement the subject Tri-stem Scribbly Gum.

5 T REE P LAN




   Figure 3: The LSD site survey depicts the existing trees with illustrations added to aid identification.
       Proposed removal or retention status of each tree, either within the site or on the NC verge
                           Green circles = Retain      Red crosses = Remove




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                       Page 6 of 19

Page 7

6 F INDINGS
The assessment focused on the two Scribbly Gums, Eucalyptus racemosa, within the Noosa
Council road reserve, with one outside the adjacent property at #21, and the larger tri-stem
tree outside the site at #23.

Scribbly Gums are a common Eucalypt species found within the coastal area of Noosa. As a
species, they are often highlighted for habitable hollows within the branch and trunk structures,
which are caused by the tree’s natural, poor timber compartmentalisation, resulting in internal
decay and termite activity. Although beneficial for habitat, this often results in ‘random’ branch
failure, which raises questions regarding its suitability as a species in high population areas.

6.1 TRI-STEM TREE
Located on the right-hand side of the site entrance, the existing mature Scribbly Gum has a
multi-trunk/leader configuration and broad spreading canopy.

The tree’s general health and condition are classed as Good to Fair, with some branch defects
noted, as is typical for the species at this age.

The tree stands 14-16m in height with a canopy radius of over 10m toward the property side.

Having a tri-stem trunk, the tree’s Notional Root Zone (NRZ) radius has been calculated at
over 8.5m, with a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) radius over 3m.

Due to current ground conditions, with multiple in-ground obstructions and likely past ground
disturbance, the subject tree cannot have an even root spread that conforms to the AS 4970
calculations




                                                                                           .
   Figure 4: Subject tree with Tri-stem trunk and existing in-ground infrastructure conflict with the root zone.

The project has been designed with the subject tree in mind, with the site access/driveway
and major services all sharing a similar alignment on the opposite side of the site frontage. As
part of the design, a Fire Booster is to be located within the property and connected to the
existing water main that runs parallel to the property boundary.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                      Page 7 of 19

Page 8

The existing old driveway cuts through what would normally be perceived as the tree's main
rooting area. The subject tree would, however, have been much smaller or may even have
grown up since the current driveway and roadway were constructed in the 70s / 80s, and
consequently, the tree has grown and adapted to its current situation, taking advantage of
available suitable growing conditions and deep sandy soils.

It is proposed that while a standard Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) cannot be achieved when
undertaking the project, all available space is protected to create an Exclusion Zone in which
the tree’s root zone can be retained with minimal disturbance.

The project design intrudes greater than 20% of the tree’s NRZ, and as such, this is classed
as a major root zone intrusion; however, no completed design is anticipated to occur in the
Structural Root Zone (SRZ) as per the Noosa Council requirements in the Information
Request. This level of intrusion, although not ideal, frequently occurs in suburban
redevelopment sites where existing larger trees clash with permittable development footprints.
In these cases, compromises need to be reached to achieve both outcomes.




                            Figure 5: Subject tree and existing driveway




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                  Page 8 of 19

Page 9

6.1.1 EARLY WORK TRI-STEM TREE
   •   All non-retained vegetation and trees within the site and verge are to be removed to
       low stumps, with ground vegetation (ferns) beneath the subject tree kept at this time.

   •   The area beneath the tree, from the edge of the driveway to the boundary, is to be
       flagged to create a temporary Exclusion Zone during the house/site demolition.

   •   The existing driveway is to be retained as ground protection during house/site
       demolition works to protect the tree’s root zone beneath.

   •   The existing driveway is to be carefully removed; see Hard Surface removal.

   •   The Exclusion Zone is to be extended to the left-hand/western side of the old driveway
       outside the trees’ Structural Root Zone. This area will be the Exclusion Zone for the
       majority of the project timeframe; see Tree Protection Fencing.

   •   New access is to be established where the new driveway alignment is to be.

   •   Canopy pruning to occur to reduce the canopy spread with a focus on longer lateral
       branches on the site side and a light reshape to balance the canopy form and
       aesthetics. Ideally, these works are not to exceed 20% live growth removal. These
       works are to be undertaken by a suitably qualified Level 3 Arborist.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                 Page 9 of 19

Page 10

6.2 TREE AT #21
The second tree is located outside #21 Bottlebrush Avenue and stands within a raised garden
bed and measures 12-14m in height with a canopy radius of 4-5m. Being a younger tree with
a smaller trunk diameter, its NRZ has been calculated at just over 4m.

Having grown up in a verge setting, its root zone is unlikely to be even in spread. On reviewing
Google Street View, it appears that sometime around 2018, the timber retaining wall structure
was replaced and upgraded with two support posts created within the tree’s SRZ. This likely
impacted the roots and caused physical damage to the lower trunk. 6 years later, this damage
is manifesting as basal trunk decay that was noted during the site inspection.




        Figure 6: Overview of the subject tree      Figure 7: Retaining wall and damage to trunk



As previously highlighted, this species of           tree   is   renowned       for   poor    timber
compartmentalisation, resulting in rapid decay.

The project design illustrates that the development design will require excavation up to the
property boundary and along the side of the retaining wall return. Although this would be
classed as an NRZ intrusion, it does not require the removal of the subject tree by the project.

However, the tree’s long-term suitability for retention is questionable; Noosa Council should
consider its removal and replacement within the coming years.

6.2.1 EARLY WORKS
   •   Remove the understory vegetation from the council verge in front of the site.

   •   Erect boundary site fencing, which will also act as the Exclusion Zone fencing.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                       Page 10 of 19

Page 11

7 S ITE P LANS




                                       Figure 8: Existing Site plan




                                    Figure 9: Project design site plan




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                        Page 11 of 19

Page 12

8 A RBORIST A TTENDANCE / H OLD P OINTS
To ensure the suitable retention of the two (2) subject trees, the following Arborist Attendance
/ Hold Points should be incorporated in the project schedule.

A suitably qualified and experienced Project Arborist is to be engaged by either the Client or
the awarded Builder.

Before Construction

   •   Trees for retention at the site are to be clearly identified with green tape; those for
       removal can be clearly marked.

   •   Exclusion fencing to be installed as guided by the Tree Protection Plan and maintained
       by the builder for the life of the project.

   •   Arborist to attend Council pre-start.

   •   Undertake canopy pruning to remove branch conflict during the construction phase
       and assist with ongoing management. Pruning to be undertaken by a suitably qualified
       AQF level 3 Craft Arborist and overseen by the Project Arborist.

During Construction

   •   Monthly inspections during the life of the build – Site Note records of findings

   •   Project Arborist attendance to oversee and document excavation of the boundary wall
       foundations and installation of services adjacent to the retained trees / TPZ.

Post Construction

   •   Final Arborist Certification of Compliance as per Noosa council conditions that includes
       the above project documentation.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                   Page 12 of 19

Page 13

9 T REE P ROTECTION P LAN




   •   Retained trees circled with a broken green line
   •   Tree to be removed circled with a broken red line
   •   Indicative TPZ / Exclusion Zone fencing broken orange line.
   •   New driveway alignment to function as site access route.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                    Page 13 of 19

Page 14

10 T REE P ROTECTION S PECIFICATION S
The trees shown to be retained are to be protected from damage with temporary fencing as
specified in AS 4970:2025 Protection of Trees on Development Sites and this Arborist report.
Temporary fencing must be erected at the boundary of the TPZ/Exclusion Zone marked areas
and must be installed per AS4970 before works commence.

All works within a designated TPZ of retained vegetation must be supervised by the Project
Arborist (AQF Level 5).

Take all necessary precautions, including but not limited to the following:

•   Appropriate signage, i.e., ‘Tree Protection Zone’ and ‘No Go Zone’ must be erected at the
    boundary of TPZ to prevent vehicles from entering and prevent stockpiling from occurring
    near retained trees/vegetation.
•   No damage to be caused to tree trunks and bark (i.e., do not attach guides or stays to
    trees/vegetation).
•   No excavation works/open trenching to encroach within the TPZ of retained trees unless
    under the direct supervision of the Project Arborist.
•   Where necessary to cut roots, this shall be undertaken by the Project Arborist.
•   No storage or otherwise placing of spoil, bulk or potentially harmful materials (i.e.,
    construction refuse, concrete waste, herbicides, diesel, etc.) under or within 1m of TPZs.
    Prevent windblown materials such as cement from harming trees and plants.
•   Avoid ground compaction under trees. If compaction occurs (i.e., from site access or the
    location of a construction plant or vehicle parking), notify the Project Arborist and obtain
    their instructions.
•   Ground Protection: Where construction encroaches into the TPZ of trees to be retained,
    it shall be necessary to install protection to avoid compaction of the ground surface, lateral
    and absorbing roots.
•   Any damage to trees during work is to be rectified according to AS 4373/96 Pruning of
    Amenity Trees and best horticultural practices. The Project Arborist must oversee work.
•   Where deemed beneficial, mulch the entire ground surface within TPZ with Forest Blend
    Organic Mulch or site mulch to a depth of 100mm and install a temporary irrigation system
    or manually water to ensure that soil moisture levels are adequately maintained.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                    Page 14 of 19

Page 15

10.1 TREE PROTECTION FENCING (TPF)
The Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) is to be steel mesh panels (as detailed in AS4687-2007
Temporary fencing and hoardings) and held in place with concrete feet, the nut and bolt
holding the clamps are to be secured and tightened with a spanner to prevent the fence from
being easily moved and to restrict access to those with permission only. Shade cloth or
something similar can be attached to the fence to protect the area from airborne matter if
required. Uneven ground and/or exposed sites may require additional staking to hold the
fencing in place. Care is to be taken when installing the additional bracing, not to damage tree
roots or hit underground services.

Where the adequate TPZ is not achievable, the TPF can be erected in a non-standard
alignment and additional measures, including ground protection, e.g., steel plates/geo fabric
and mulch to spread the load of site activities and minimise ground disturbance. These
measures will be established between the developer and the Project Arborist.

As an alternative to steel mesh panels for temporary or low access areas, TPZ fencing may
consist of 1m high plastic orange mesh barrier fencing or a double row of flagging with star
pickets with end caps as support, spaced at 4 – 5m and attached with zip ties. This style of
fencing is deemed suitable for larger sites when work activities are generally to be within the
central area of the site, with the proposed retained trees on the periphery and away from main
site activities.




                  Figure 10: TPZ fencing using star pickets and orange mesh




           Figure 11: Tree Protection through natural bushland to create accessways




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                   Page 15 of 19

Page 16

10.2 HARD SURFACE / ASPHALT REMOVAL
Where the Project requires the removal of existing roadways/hard surfaces adjacent to the
subject retained trees, these require careful removal overseen by the onsite Project Arborist
working alongside the contractors.

Cut sections of the old surface can be removed with the use of an excavator sitting and working
away from the tree. Hand jackhammers or concrete cutting tools may be required when in
proximity to the tree/roots. Begin the process of removal in the area closest to the tree and
work removing smaller sections away from the tree until in a safe location. Machinery is not to
be used on non-protected or bare ground within the TPZ or Exclusion Zone.

The excavation of any ground within or adjacent to retained trees should be cut
perpendicularly to the tree to reduce the likelihood of roots being split or damaged
longitudinally; works are to be overseen by the Project Arborist.

Exposed roots are to be covered with either damp hessian or sandy loam to protect the roots
from drying out before the construction of the new surface.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                  Page 16 of 19

Page 17

11 R EFERENCES :
•     Australian Standards AS 4970:2025 Protection of trees on development sites.
•     Australian Standards AS 4373 – 2007 Pruning of amenity trees. (2007).
•     Barton, A. (2003). Wild plants of greater Brisbane. South Brisbane, Qld, Australia: Published by the Queensland Museum,
      in partnership with the Environment and Parks Branch of the Brisbane City Council.
•     Dunster, J., Smiley, E., Matheny, N. and Lilly, S. (n.d.). Tree risk assessment manual.
•     Haslam, S. and Hauser, J. (2011). Noosa's native plants. Tewantin (Qld.): Noosa Integrated Catchment Assoc. Inc.
•     Hayes, E. (2001). Evaluating tree defects. [S.l.]: Safetrees.
•     Lonsdale, D. (1999). Principles of tree hazard assessment and management. London: Forestry Commission.
•     Mattheck, C., Breloer, H., Lonsdale, D. and Strouts, R. (2003). The body language of trees. London: The Stationery Office.
•     Strouts, R. and Winter, T. (1998). Diagnosis of ill-health in trees. Colegate, Norwich: Crown.


12 D ISCLAIMER AND L IMITATIONS OF L IABILITY
The information contained in this report has been prepared independently, free of any bias and represents the honest opinion of
the consulting arborist.

All data is based on visual inspection of the tree(s) and their location at the time of writing unless otherwise stated. The report
includes opinions, advice, and recommendations based on information gathered during site inspections conducted by the author
and data supplied by the Client (Town Planning Alliances ).

All information received from the Client shall be deemed to be true, accurate and up to date.

To the extent permitted by law, you agree Consult Arborist Pty Ltd is not liable to you or any person or entity for any loss of or
damage (including loss or damage resulting from negligence), either directly or indirectly, arising from your use of the information
presented in this report. In no event will the author be liable for any lost revenue or profits, or for any special, indirect,
consequential, or incidental damages (however caused and regardless of the theory of liability) arising out of or related to your
use of this information, even if the author has been advised of the possibility of such a loss or damage.

Consult Arborist Pty Ltd cannot be held responsible for the effects of non-conforming works carried out by inadequately qualified
staff or without the supervision of Consult Arborist.

Unless otherwise stated, this report may not be used in a court of law or any legal proceeding without the prior consent of Consult
Arborist Pty Ltd. The author is not required to provide testimony or attend court based on this report unless subsequent contractual
arrangements have been made.

The information contained in this report pertains solely to the tree(s) that were inspected on 2/10/2025 and reflects their condition
at the time of the inspection.

No warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made that the problems or deficiencies identified in the plants or property will
not arise in the future. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could potentially lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms
that fail in ways not fully understood, and conditions can often remain hidden within a tree or below ground. Consult Arborist Pty
Ltd, and the author cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for a specified period.

This report does not account for the possibility of extreme weather events or other factors beyond the control of Consult Arborist
Pty Ltd.

Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services, such as property
boundaries, ownership issues, disputes between neighbours, sightlines, landlord-tenant matters and similar concerns. Consult
Arborist Pty Ltd cannot address such issues unless complete and accurate information is provided. Furthermore, Consult Arborist
Pty Ltd cannot be held responsible for the authorisation or non-authorisation of any recommended treatment or remedial measure.

Arborists are specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures
to enhance the beauty and health of trees and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. While trees can be managed, they
cannot be controlled. To live or work near a tree involves inherent risks, and the only way to eliminate all risks associated with a
tree is to remove it entirely.

Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd or to seek additional advice.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                                   Page 17 of 19

Page 18

A PPENDIX 1: D EFINITION OF T ERMS
 Age Class (AC): Is based on tree size and general visual characteristics of growth
 Y        Young:
          Early stage of growth, immature size and characteristics.
 EM       Early Mature:
          A fast-growing, well-established tree which has not yet reached its mature size.
          Strong upright growth habit with a dominant apical leader.
          Increased internode spaces between leaves and twigs.
          Slender lower trunk.
 M        Mature:
          The tree reached its mature size for the species and location.
          Exhibiting slowing growth rates with reduced internode spaces between leaves and twigs.
          Reduced apical dominancy with a more divisional growth habit.
          Minor naturally forming dead or dysfunctional wood.
          An increasing trunk girth to height ratio.
          Minor hollows.
 AA       Advanced Age:
          The tree has reached a mature size and is unlikely to increase noticeably in height or mass.
          The vigour/growth rate has reduced to the point that extension growth is very limited, if achieved.
          Canopy density is lessening and/or with some visible dieback/early retrenchment.
          Retrenchment of the upper crown, with increased vegetative vitality in the lower crown, creates a more compact
          form.
          The tree is displaying aged characteristics, including trunk swelling, enlarged buttress flare, trunk growth ridges,
          enlarged burrs, hollows, etc.
          Fungal activity and wood decay, and increased colonisation by flora and fauna.
 V:       Veteran:
          A tree with advanced retrenchment, reduced crown size and annual increment growth, extensive hollowing, crown
          collapse, low vigour, advanced heartwood decay, and advanced colonisation by fauna and flora.
          The former canopy is replaced with secondary adventitious growth.
          Sections of branches on the trunk are dead or dysfunctional – potential stag.
 Health (H): Is based on the tree’s general appearance and vigour, weighed against its genetic potential
 G        Good:
          Full canopy with foliage having good colour, size, and density of leaves.
          Strong vigour with a high canopy ratio, typically found in trees up to a mature age class.
          Minimal pathogen damage.
 F        Fair:
          The majority of the canopy has foliage with average colour, size, and density of leaves; discolouration may be
          present, typical for the species in the location.
          Slowed vigour and average canopy ratio; typically found in Mature and Advanced-Age classes or on younger trees
          under stress.
          Some minor twig or small-diameter deadwood, the canopy may be unbalanced.
          Minor pathogen damage.
          General health could be restored to Good with mitigation measures.
 P        Poor:
          A tree with a depleted canopy and limited to no vigour
          The canopy has notable dieback and a low canopy ratio.
          Detrimental pathogen damage.
          The tree may be in irreversible decline.
 D        Dead
          Dead and/or dysfunctional tree with minimal canopy ratio.
          Branches predominantly have no life.
 Structure (St): Is based on a visual assessment of the tree’s general form and visible defects
 G        Good:
          Structurally sound with no major visual defects.
          Trunk and buttress with no major wounds or decay.
          Canopy with sound stem and branch unions.
          The root system appears undamaged.
          No tree part failure is predicted
 F        Fair:
          A tree with minor defects or disorders which are notable in the canopy.
          Small areas of bark are missing, and small cavities are on stems and the main trunk.
          Canopy with asymmetrical growth resulting in an uneven canopy form.
          Tall phototropic growth habits.
          Minor damage due to root zone intrusion.
          Limited tree part failure is predicted.
 P        Poor:
          A tree with visual defects and disorders that are negatively affecting the tree's structural condition.
          Defects in the canopy, weak unions, actively decaying wounds and cavities, and problematically damaged roots.
          Increased tree part failure is predicted.
 H        Hazardous:
          A tree with a major defect and visual faults that may fail at any time
          Active tree part failure is occurring.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                              Page 18 of 19

Page 19

 Abbreviations:
 DSH         Diameter at Standard Height:
             Trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level.
 NRZ         Notional Root Zone:
             the primary trigger for arboricultural input on a development site.
             NRZ RADIUS = 12 x DSH
 TPZ         Tree Protection Zone:
             as per AS 4970-2025 Protection of trees on development sites, it is the principal means of protecting trees on a
             development site. The TPZ is a combination of the root and crown area requiring protection to be isolated from
             construction disturbance so that the tree can remain in a viable condition. The TPZ incorporates the SRZ.
 SRZ         Structural Root Zone:
             as per AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, it is a mathematical calculation of the surface
             area of protection required to maintain a tree’s stability – a larger area is required to maintain a tree in viable
             health. It is only necessary to calculate the SRZ when a major encroachment into a TPZ is proposed.
 Arborists:
 Consulting A suitably qualified and experienced tree expert who provides independent, professional advice about the care,
 Arborist    management, preservation, industry standards / best practice, hazard mitigation and risks associated with trees—
             typically in urban or development contexts.
             Experience in written Arborist Reports, Tree Management Plans and Expert Advice.
             Minimum Qualification AQF level 5 + 5 years
 Project     An arborist specifically appointed to a construction or development project to oversee and manage tree-related
 Arborist    matters in line with planning conditions, Arborist Reports, Environmental guidelines, and industry standards.
             Minimum Qualification AQF level 5
 Craft       An AQF 3 qualified hands-on tree professional who specialises in the physical work of tree care and management,
 Arborist    such as climbing, pruning, removing, or planting trees.


A PPENDIX 2: TPF S IGN
Sample Tree Protection Zone sign for inclusion at the TPZ boundaries.




25_10_21_AIA_TPA_23BottlebrushAve                                                                                Page 19 of 19