Original source · versioned page text
ECM_22343519_v1_Aboricultural Impact Assessment
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd
ARBORICULTURAL
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Site Address: 2 Arakoon Crescent
Sunshine Beach, QLD, 4567
Commissioned by: Adapt Planning
On behalf of: Property Owner
Responsible Council: Noosa Council
Date: 10 February 2023
Prepared by:
Matthew Duncan
Director / Principal Arborist
AQF Level V, TRAQ, QMQAA
e: [email protected]
m: 0450 355 770
ABN: 68 153 548 531
T O D A Y ’ S T R E ES F O R T O M O R R O W
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 41 pages
Page 2
Consult Arborist
This document was prepared for the use of the Client, Adapt Planning, and any regulatory agencies
involved in this Project. No other party should rely on this information without the prior written consent
of the 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
This report/document is subject to copyright laws and penalties @280c per word per incident, no part
may be reproduced or used without the written permission of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd. No responsibility
will be accepted by Consult Arborist Pty Ltd for unauthorised or partial use of this report.
General Permission of use as subject to Consult Arborist Pty Ltd copyrights:
1. Customer permission: No more than three hard copies to exist at any one time.
2. Customer email permissions: Must be original PDF format and limited to agreed Parties with a
direct and vested interest in the case.
D OCUMENT C ONTROL
The latest approved version of this 23_02_10_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon 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
One 10/02/2023 MJD SCD MJD
Two 22/02/2023 MJD SCD MJD
D OCUMENTS R EVIEWED
The following documents have been reviewed, analysed, and referenced during the production of this
report.
Reference / Date Title / Details
230124 2205 Kelly Arakoon Cres (DA)
23/01/2023 23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon - Consult Arborist
Draft Plan extract
Note: Extracts from the above document have been used to illustrate the text within this report but should be read with full documents.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 2 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 3
Consult Arborist
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Copyright .............................................................................................................................. 2
Document Control ................................................................................................................. 2
Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. 3
1 Brief ............................................................................................................................... 4
2 Site Inspection ............................................................................................................... 5
3 Scope and Limitations .................................................................................................... 5
4 Introduction and Site Details .......................................................................................... 6
4.1 Site Plans ............................................................................................................... 7
5 Site assessment............................................................................................................. 9
5.1 Tree Retention Schedule ........................................................................................ 9
6 Findings and Observations .......................................................................................... 11
6.1 Tree 8 ................................................................................................................... 11
6.2 Trees 6, 7, & 9 ...................................................................................................... 12
6.3 Additional Removals ............................................................................................. 12
6.4 Tree 14 ................................................................................................................. 13
7 Tree Protection Exclusion Fencing (TPF) ..................................................................... 14
8 Tree Protection Guidelines ........................................................................................... 16
8.1 The Role of the Project Arborist and Tree Protection ............................................ 16
8.2 Calculating Tree Protection ................................................................................... 17
8.2.1 Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) ........................................................................... 17
8.2.2 Structural Root Zone (SRZ) ........................................................................... 17
8.3 Establishing Tree Protection / Veg Exclusion Flagging ......................................... 18
8.4 TPZ Signs ............................................................................................................. 18
8.5 Restricted Activities Within the TPZ ...................................................................... 19
8.6 TPZ Standard Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 19
9 General Excavation Methodologies .............................................................................. 20
9.1 Hard Surface / Asphalt Removal ........................................................................... 21
References: ........................................................................................................................ 22
Assumptions and Disclaimer ............................................................................................... 22
Appendix 1 - Definition of Terms ......................................................................................... 23
Appendix 2 – Sample TPZ Fencing Sign ............................................................................. 24
Appendix 3 – Arborist Survey Report .................................................................................. 25
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 3 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 4
Consult Arborist
1 B RIEF
This report was commissioned by Adapt Planning on behalf of the client, the property owner.
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd has been requested to conduct an independent arborist assessment
and produce a report on the subject trees predominantly within the adjacent the Noosa Council
road reserve of The Esplanade on the south western side of the property of 2 Arakoon
Crescent, Sunshine Beach, with consideration of the project design. The report is to be
included in the application submission to Noosa Council for approval.
The project involves the redevelopment/renovation of the existing dwelling, including the
reconfiguration and realignment of the property driveway and road reserve crossover.
Figure 1: Google overview of the site and surrounding area
The successful protection of the trees will be bettered by the education and cooperation of all
parties during the design and construction phases, with the input and presence of the Project
Arborist on site to assist and advise during the construction phase for all works carried out
adjacent to the TPZ of retained and protected trees.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 4 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 5
Consult Arborist
2 S ITE I NSPECTION
Matthew Duncan, the Director and Principal Arborist of Consult Arborist, undertook the Visual
Tree Assessment on the site from a ground level on Thursday, 12 January 2023. Matthew
holds an AQF Level 5 Diploma of Arboriculture (AHC50510), an International Society of
Arboriculture’s Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, valid from 2015 to 2025, and has worked
in the arboricultural industry since 1994. Since its establishment in 2011, Consult Arborist has
been engaged to provide arboricultural advice and guidance on private, civil, and capital works
projects from cross-sector clients throughout Queensland where he is a Queensland
Arboricultural Association (QAA) Qualified Member and Approved Consultant.
3 S COPE AND L IMITATIONS
The purpose of this report is to provide advice and guidance on the subject trees within an
influencing distance of the proposed project works and to provide guidance on tree protection
measures during the construction stage of the project so that retained trees can be suitably
protected to achieve the desired outcomes.
Tree project measures will be in accordance with Noosa Council’s final approval conditions.
The subject trees detailed within the report have received an International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Level 1 assessment with consideration to the design and future use
of the Project.
See attached photographs, plan extracts and maps for identification purposes.
This report does not take into consideration changes to the site design or activities on which
Consult Arborist has not been requested to comment nor advised.
This report does not take into consideration extreme weather events or future pest and disease
outbreaks which may affect the tree’s health, condition and retainability.
All assessments of the retained tree/s have been made visually from the ground and include
the use of basic tools and techniques, i.e., cavity probing, minor root collar excavation,
measuring tapes and devices and photography to gather information. No additional specialist
equipment was used and no conclusive comments on what may have or might be happening
within the internal structure of the tree will be made. No tissue or soil samples have been
collected or submitted for testing.
The information contained in this report is based on a visual inspection of the tree/s and their
location/s, species, health, and condition at the time of the inspection from a ground level. The
additional information provided is the author's opinion and is a 'snapshot in time' of the specific
tree's health and condition at the time of the quoted inspection and no guarantee can be given
that faults or issues may not arise in the future.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 5 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 6
Consult Arborist
4 I NTRODUCTION AND S ITE D ETAILS
The site at 2 Arakoon Crescent, in the Noosa Council coastal suburb of Sunshine Beach. The
existing private dwelling is located on the corner of The Esplanade and behind the foreshore
dunal area.
The project plans to renovate the existing house and realign the driveway alignment that
traverses the Noosa Council road reserve on The Esplanade.
Within the property are trees and palms of differing ages and sizes, most of which were planted
many years ago by the past and current property owner. The more significant vegetation is
located within the Noosa Council verge on the southern side of the property. The most
significant are located towards the south eastern corner of the property, they are the two
mature Cook Island Pines within the property, and one mature Cook Island Pine on the Council
verge; these are proposed to be retained and protected. The fourth Cook Island Pine stands
mid-way along the southern boundary on the Council verge of The Esplanade, this tree is very
close to the property boundary and dwelling.
The Esplanade verge has been maintained by the property owner over many years, who have
cared for it as their own, and they wish to continue to do so. This includes weed control and a
sympathetic planting of local coastal species to maintain a vegetative screen to the property
that enhances the local street scene.
The primary design feature that conflicts with the existing vegetation on The Esplanade verge
is the new driveway alignment. I have been advised that the existing driveway is narrow and
at an unsuitable angle for safe entry and exit close to the road junction. With the road at a
higher elevation to the property, the driveway slopes down requiring either a retaining wall
and/or some reshaping of the verge levels. It is these works that conflict either directly or
indirectly with a number of trees and palms on the council verge.
Engineering solutions and the design plan have been reviewed in an attempt to minimise the
vegetation conflict, however, despite this a number of trees and palms will require removal
and transplanting. It is proposed that the new design will afford a position for replacement tree
and landscaping to be planted as part of the landscape design. This will ultimately replace and
replenish the vegetation for the future.
Mitigation measures and compromised solutions have been assessed to reduce the conflict
with and the reduced size of, the TPZs of retained trees. A Project Arborist will need to be
engaged prior to any site activities commencing to provide onsite guidance to the building
contractor. Regular presence and assistance from a Project Arborist will be needed throughout
the project build.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 6 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 7
Consult Arborist
4.1 S ITE P LANS
Figure 2: Plot map of trees and palms within and adjacent to the site.
Figure 3: Contour and details survey plan
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 7 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 8
Consult Arborist
Figure 4: Lower-Level Plan with new driveway alignment and the location of Tree 8
illustrated
Figure 5: Previous concept design that attempted to retain Tree 8 but resulted in major
TPZ intrusion and restricted driveway width.
This design could not be supported due to the high percentage of root loss, which
ultimately would likely result in the tree ’s health declining to the point where its retention
would be untenable.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 8 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 9
Consult Arborist
5 S ITE ASSESSMENT
As part of the site assessment a Tree Survey was undertaken to provide the project with
details on the trees and palms within the site and adjacent on the council road reserve.
The Tree Table below is an overview of the Tree Schedule included in the Tree Survey, see
Error! Reference source not found..
5.1 T REE R ETENTION S CHEDULE
Height Spread DBH TPZ (m) SRZ (m) Retention
ID Common Name Age Health Structure
(m) (m) (mm) (R) (R) Status
Early
1 Oleander Good Fair <4 2-4 100 - 200 2 1.6 Remove
Mature
Early
2 Pepper tree Good Fair <4 2-4 < 100 2 1.5 Remove
Mature
Broadleaf
3 Mature Fair Fair 6-8 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
Paperbark
4 Pepper tree Mature Good Fair 4-6 4-6 100 - 200 2 1.6 Remove
5 Pongamia Mature Good Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
6 Indian Hawthorn Mature Good Good <4 <2 < 100 2 1.5 Remove
7 Spindle Palm Mature Good Good 4-6 <2 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Remove
8 Cook Island Pine Mature Fair Fair 16-20 4-6 400 - 500 5.4 2.6 Remove
Over
9 Pandanus Poor Poor <4 <2 200 - 300 3 2 Remove
mature
10 Coastal Sheoak Mature Fair Fair 4-6 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Retain
11 Coastal Sheoak Mature Fair Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
Fraser Island Early
12 Good Good <4 <2 < 100 2 1.5 Retain
Apple Mature
Early
13 Fig Fair Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
Mature
14 Cook Island Pine Mature Good Good 16-20 4-6 400 - 500 6 2.7 Retain
15 Coastal Sheoak Mature Good Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
16 Beach bird's eye Mature Fair Fair <4 <2 <100 2 1.5 Retain
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 9 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 10
Consult Arborist
Height Spread DBH TPZ (m) SRZ (m) Retention
ID Common Name Age Health Structure
(m) (m) (mm) (R) (R) Status
17 Tuckeroo Mature Fair Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
Early
18 Pandanus Good Good 4-6 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Retain
Mature
19 Cook Island Pine Mature Good Good 16-20 4-6 500 - 600 6.6 2.8 Retain
20 Cook Island Pine Mature Good Good 16-20 4-6 500 - 600 6.6 2.8 Retain
Early
21 Pandanus Good Good 4-6 2-4 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Retain
Mature
Early
22 Pandanus Good Good <4 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Retain
Mature
Over
23 Pandanus Poor Poor 6-8 2-4 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Remove
mature
Over
24 Pandanus Poor Poor 6-8 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Remove
mature
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 10 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 11
Consult Arborist
6 F INDINGS AND O BSERVATIONS
The owner has expressed their desire to retain, where practically possible, existing trees and
vegetation. The site has four Cook Island Pine trees, T8, T14, T19, and T20, that are key
feature of the site and the local treescape. The retention of trees 14, 19, and 20 is key, and a
priority for the project and property owner.
6.1 T REE 8
On assessing the health and condition of Tree 8 the following observations were noted. The
tree was likely planted approximately 30 years ago and is similar to the other three Cook Island
Pine trees on the site.
It appears that at an early age, T8 developed an angled growth habit that favours towards the
property. The proximity of the tree to the boundary results in the side branches encroaching
up to and over the fence line. The tree’s overall health and condition are only classed as Fair
due to its reduced vigour, slowed growth rate and its overall structural condition. As a result of
these factors, the tree’s retention status is classed as ‘Medium’. Respecting its mature age
and exposed coastal location, its long-term prospects as a safe viable tree for Noosa Council
are substandard. Enquires have been made to Council over the years regarding the tree’s
suitability with this growth habit so close to a dwelling.
The location conflicts with the re-alignment of the new driveway. An alternative design was
evaluated, shown in Figure 5, however, it still resulted in major root loss that would likely lead
to the tree’s demise resulting in the tree being removed within a few years, leaving the
driveway in a position that is not optimal. Subsequently, a more suitable driveway alignment
was designed but while it directly conflicts with the tree, it will provide landscaping opportunity
at the site of the current driveway.
Figure 6: Tree 8 directly adjacent property Figure 7: Google street view showing an
boundary overview of T8’s angled growth habit of
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 11 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 12
Consult Arborist
6.2 T REES 6, 7, & 9
The other plants and palms that will require removal to facilitate the driveway alignment include
Tree 6, a large Indian Hawthorn bush, and Tree 7, a Spindle Palm. Advise is being sought
from a transplanting company on the feasibility of relocating the Spindle Palm as part of the
landscaping within the property.
Tree 9 is a Pandanus which is in poor health and condition with only one live branch that
extends towards and over the wall. Due to the plant’s poor condition and its obstruction of the
works within the site, its removal is also sought.
Figure 8: Spindle Palm T7 and Indian Figure 9: The single branch of T9 over the
Hawthorn T6 fence.
6.3 A DDITIONAL R EMOVALS
To facilitate new landscaping, the removal of weeds and unwanted small trees and plants
towards the Arakoon Crescent frontage is to be considered. This includes the Pepper tree and
Oleander trees/bushes, Trees 1, 2 and 4.
There are two over mature Pandanus, #23 and #24, at the side of the current property that
are in poor health and condition and suffering from Jamella. These trees are recommended
for removal and replacements can be included within the landscaping scheme.
The removal of these trees is not anticipated to detract from the long term treescape of the
local area. The protection of retention of the majority of the trees and plants will ensure the
green street “Look and Feel” frontage is preserved.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 12 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 13
Consult Arborist
6.4 T REE 14
T14 is a Cook Island Pine that is positioned on the council verge side of the southern boundary
wall towards the southeast corner of the dwelling. As part of the project design the southern
boundary is planned to be replaced. The tree’s proximity to the wall raised concerns. It’s
expected that roots have grown beneath the current fence which needs consideration during
the new wall design. This concern has been raised with the designer who is deliberating it and
will include a solution in the final detailed design to limit root damage during all stages of the
project including demolition and construction. Ideally, a section 6–8m in length adjacent the
tree would be constructed using a lightweight build method with minimal ground disturbance.
Figure 10: Concept design showing the area of wall section to be redesigned
with a lightweight minimum dig configuration
Figure 11: Tree 14 less than 1m from the existing fence that is planned to be
replaced with a stone clad wall.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 13 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 14
Consult Arborist
7 T REE P ROTECTION E XCLUSION F ENCING (TPF)
Figure 12, shows the Lower Level Plan with the exclusion fencing locations illustrated with
broken purple lines.
Figure 12: Lower Level Plan with purple illustrated TPF locations
These areas are to be access restricted by fencing and all works excluded during the
development stage unless agreed with by the Project Arborist and documented for Council
submission in line with approval conditions.
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 are on the periphery and away from
main site activities.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 14 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 15
Consult Arborist
Figure 13: Tree Protection Fencing with signage.
Figure 14: Tree Protection Fencing with signage.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 15 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 16
Consult Arborist
8 T REE P ROTECTION G UIDELINES
For the proposed retention of the trees onsite, the following guidelines are recommended to
be implemented to minimise the impact of the project works. The protection recommendations
offered are guided by, AS4790 – 2009 Protection of trees on development sites, industry best
practice and the supervising presence of a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist with a
high level of experience as an onsite Project Arborist.
The information within these Guidelines is generic for practical use with common sense and
discretion.
The successful retention of the trees will be bettered by the education and cooperation of all
parties of the construction team during the build and the presence of the Project Arborist on
site to assist and advise during the construction phase for all works carried out adjacent the
Veg Exclusion Flagging of protected trees.
ALL workers on the site are to be made aware of the Tree Protection Guidelines and any site-
specific measures by the main contractor prior to commencing works.
8.1 T HE R OLE OF THE P ROJECT A RBORIST AND T REE P ROTECTION
An Arboricultural Assessment undertaken by the Project Arborist will outline the trees that
require consideration. The information within these Tree Protection Guidelines should be read
in conjunction with guidelines laid out in the Australian Standard, AS4970–2009 Protection of
Trees on Development Sites and ongoing advice from the Project Arborist.
A designated onsite foreman/supervisor from the construction company is to liaise with the
Project Arborist to ensure that Tree Protection is adhered to in their absence from the site.
A Post Construction Arborist Report can be prepared by the Project Arborist on request for
the retained tree comprising a Visual Tree Assessment detailing each of the trees’ condition
and vigour, damage or disturbance which may have occurred, and remedial works are
undertaken.
After the final inspection, a Certification of Compliance can be supplied along with any
monitoring documentation as required.
The Project Arborist may at any time implement new or additional procedures as may be
required for the site in the best interest of the trees and the development as a whole.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 16 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 17
Consult Arborist
8.2 C ALCULATING T REE P ROTECTION
The descriptions of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) are from
the Australian Standards, AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. These
descriptions provide the basic prerequisites to calculate the TPZ and SRZ, and the
compensates for when encroachment or a reduction in the size/area of the TPZ is required to
facilitate a development: see Appendix D of the Australian Standard AS 4970-2009.
Many factors need to be taken into consideration when estimating tree root growth and spread.
8.2.1 T R EE P R O T E C T IO N Z O N E (TPZ)
As specified in the Australian Standard, AS 4970-2009, the TPZ is the principal means of
protecting trees on a development site. The TPZ calculates the radius of a circular area
combining the root and crown spread of a tree for protection and isolation from construction
disturbance so the tree can remain in a viable condition for the future. The TPZ incorporates
the SRZ.
DBH = Diameter at Breast Height - trunk diameter measured at 1.4m above ground
TPZ RADIUS = Twelve times the DBH
Example: .5m DBH x 12 = 6m TPZ RADIUS.
A TPZ should not be less than 2m or greater than 15m unless additional crown protection is
required.
8.2.2 S T R UC T UR AL R O O T Z O N E (SRZ)
The SRZ, as specified in AS 4970-2009, is the minimum surface area of protection required
around a tree to maintain that tree’s stability – a larger area than this is required to maintain a
tree in a viable condition for the future. It is only necessary to calculate the SRZ when major
encroachment into a TPZ is proposed.
An indicative SRZ RADIUS can be determined from the lower trunk diameter (above the root
buttress), D, measured in metres and applying the following formula:
0.42
RSRZ = (D x 50) x 0.64
The SRZ RADIUS for trees with a trunk diameter less than 0.15m will automatically be 1.5m.
Please note that these are theoretical calculations and are to be used as a guide. Large tree
species, particularly Fig trees, will have woody structural and feeder roots that extend to a
greater distance than the calculations. Trees within urban environments where solid
structures restrict root growth can also alter a tree’s root spread and direction. An additional
water/food source would also encourage roots to grow further than expected.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 17 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 18
Consult Arborist
8.3 E STABLISHING T REE P ROTECTION / V EG E XCLUSION F LAGGING
Figure 15 shows a typical representation of a tree protection system. Tree root systems are
generally shallow in nature with most of the roots found within the top 1m of soil and a higher
density of roots found closest to the surface where moisture and nutrients are more readily
available. The function of the TPZ is to ensure that the tree has a viable root system, so the
tree has a functional future as an amenity asset within the development.
The structural standing of a tree is linked to critical aspects of roots (found in the TPZ) to bind
the soil and create a mass that the tree can anchor to. These roots consist of ‘Secondary roots’
(medium size) and ‘Tertiary roots’ (small size).
Primary roots (large size) found in the SRZ connect the tree to the anchor system. Primary
roots by themselves do not bind enough soil to create a stable anchor system.
The shallow nature of tree roots should be taken into consideration when working close to
trees and when installing the tree protection fencing for the Tree Protection Zone.
Figure 15: Example of an ideal generic Tree Protection System
8.4 TPZ S IGNS
The signs identifying the TPZ / ‘No-Go Zone’ are to be placed around the edge of the TPZ in
locations visible to the site as per Tree Protection Fencing Standards Australia marketing
media AS4970 – 2009.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 18 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 19
Consult Arborist
8.5 R ESTRICTED A CTIVITIES W ITHIN THE TPZ
Restricted activities within the TPZ that would cause harm to the retained trees to include, but
are not limited to:
• Any non-approved construction works.
• Any non-approved excavation or cultivation of the ground.
• Any non-approved storage.
• Preparation of chemicals, including cement products.
• Parking of vehicles and plant.
• Refuelling.
• Dumping of waste.
• Wash down and cleaning of equipment.
• Placement of Fill.
• Lighting fires.
• Any non-approved soil level changes.
• Temporary or permanent installation of utilities and signs.
• Physical damage to the tree.
8.6 TPZ S TANDARD M I TIGATION M EASURES
Where groundworks are carried out adjacent to or encroaching into the TPZ areas the
following mitigation measures and procedures should be implemented where deemed
appropriate and should be supervised by Consult Arborist.
• Where possible the excavated ground, including the cut roots, will be covered/backfilled
with quality topsoil locally sourced or a sandy loam/river sand with low organic matter, as
guided by AS 4419—2003. Australian Standard™ Soils for landscaping and garden use.
• An application of a seaweed-based soil conditioner/plant food can be applied to the topsoil
as per the manufacturer’s guidelines. Monthly applications are recommended for the
duration of the project.
• Ground protection measures are to be installed/used when access to the TPZ is required
to undertake construction works. All ground protection measures are to be discussed and
agreed upon with the Project Arborist prior to installation. These are to include but are not
limited to: ply sheets, geo fabric, thick mulch layer.
• When required supplemental watering with a water cart or sprinkler system can be used
to retain adequate moisture levels in the soil.
• The Project Arborist is to advise and oversee all mitigation measures works being
undertaken to retained trees.
All tree works, and tree protection measures, are to be guided by industry best practices and
the relative Australian Standards which include but are not limited to:
• Australian Standards AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites
• Australian Standards AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 19 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 20
Consult Arborist
9 G ENERAL E XCAVATION M ETHODOLOGIES
Details below give examples of works methodology to excavate a trench or general excavation
when working in proximity to trees.
When using a mechanical excavator ground protection is advisable to minimise compaction
and damage to the surrounding soil and roots. With a combination of a small bucket and ripper,
the spoil from the trench can be carefully extracted. General excavation is to be undertaken,
when possible, with the bucket positioned perpendicular to the tree, and the spoil dug away
from the tree, this helps to minimise roots being accidentally torn or fractured.
When excavations are being undertaken within a tree's root zone, all necessary precautions
are to be adhered to. The Project Arborist will advise on the progression of the works and
undertake root pruning as required.
Roots deemed to be pruned and removed are to be carefully cut using a sharp saw and/or
secateurs. Root removal is carried out by the Project Arborist on a root-by-root basis taking
into consideration the type of tree, distance from the cut to the tree, and the size and number
of roots found.
Where possible trenches and excavations are to be carefully backfilled using topsoil from the
site or imported topsoil with a low organic matter content and lightly compacted by hand within
the tree zone. Ideally, the ground is then irrigated to increase moisture in the soil (not
waterlogged) and where possible 100mm of mulch is spread to cover the surface area.
Where possible create a preliminary trench/excavation at the outer edges of the required cut
line using a Hydro-vacuum excavator. Roots found can be cleanly cut by the Project Arborist.
Once the preliminary cut line is completed excavation of the remaining area outside the cut
line can be dug using the appropriate excavator with all due care and attention to the adjacent
protected trees.
Figure 16: Example of preliminary trench/excavation cuts
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 20 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 21
Consult Arborist
9.1 H ARD S URFACE / A SPHALT R EMOVAL
The Project will require the removal of the existing driveway/hard surface adjacent to the
subject retained trees. They will require careful removal overseen by the onsite Project
Arborist working alongside the contractors.
Sections of the old surface can be removed with the use of an excavator while sat and working
away from the tree. 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 and is to be overseen by the Project Arborist.
If roots are uncovered and determined to be cut, sharp handsaw or secateurs is to be used to
ensure a clean cut at a right angle to minimise the cut surface area. On completion of the
demolition works any exposed roots are to be covered with either damp hessian or a sandy
loam to protect the roots from drying out before construction of the new surface.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 21 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 22
Consult Arborist
R EFERENCES :
• Australian Standards AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites (2009).
• 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.
A SSUMPTIONS AND D ISCLAIMER
This information contained in this report has been prepared on an independent basis, free of any bias and represents the honest
opinion of the consulting arborist.
All data is based on a visual inspection of the tree/s and its/their location at the time of writing, unless otherwise stated, and
contains opinions, advice and recommendations based on information and data gathered from site inspections carried out by the
author and information supplied by the Client (Adapt Planning Pty Ltd)
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 caused or alleged to have been caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence) either directly or indirectly,
by your use of the information made available in this report. In no event will the author 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 the author has been advised of the possibility of such a loss or
damage.
Consult Arborist cannot be held responsible for the effects of non-conformance works performed, by unsuitably qualified staff or
without the supervision of Consult Arborist.
Unless otherwise stated this report cannot be used within a court of law or any legal situation without the prior consent of Consult
Arborist Pty Ltd. The author shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent
contractual arrangements have been made.
The information contained in this report refers only to the tree/s that were inspected on 16/01/2023 and reflects the condition of
the tree/s at the time of the inspection.
There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question
may not arise in the future. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed.
Arboriculturalists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living
organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and 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 of time.
This report does not take into consideration the possibility of extreme weather or other events over which Consult Arborist Pty
Ltd has no control.
Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the Arboriculturalists services, such as
property boundaries and ownership, disputes between neighbours, sightlines, landlord-tenant matters and related. Consult
Arborist Pty Ltd cannot take such issues into account unless the complete and accurate information is given to them. Likewise,
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for the authorization or non-authorization of any recommended treatment
or remedial measure.
Arboriculturalists are tree 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. Trees can be managed,
but they cannot be controlled. To live or work near a tree involves some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks
associated with a tree is to eliminate the tree.
Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd or to seek additional advice.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 22 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 23
Consult Arborist
A PPENDIX 1 - D EFINITION OF T ERMS
The following criteria have been used in the VTA and arboricultural appraisal to gather information and determine the required
management options on the grounds of public health and safety. Measurements are approximate, made visually by eye unless
otherwise stated.
Age Class:
Young: Early stage of growth, immature size
Early Mature: Fast-growing well-established tree which has not yet reached mature size
Mature: The tree reached its mature size, exhibits slowing growth rates with early stages of naturally forming dead
or dysfunctional wood.
Over Mature: The tree has reached mature size and is unlike to increase significantly in height or mass. Retrenchment of
the upper crown with increased vegetative vitality in lower crown, increased fungal activity and wood decay,
increase colonisation by flora and fauna.
Veteran: Tree with advanced retrenchment, reduced crown size and annual increment growth, extensive hollowing,
crown collapse, low vigour, advance heartwood decay, advanced colonisation by fauna and flora.
Health:
Good: Tree with no defects or disorders which are notable. Full canopy with good colour foliage. Minimal pathogen
damage.
Fair: Tree with minor defects or disorders which are notable. Some deadwood within what can be an unbalanced
canopy, foliage generally with good colour although some discolouration may be present typical of species
in location. Minor pathogen damage.
Poor: Tree with major defects or disorders which are notable. The tree has considerable deadwood present,
discoloured or distorted leaves indicating a further decline of the tree. Detrimental pathogen damage.
Dead: Dead or dysfunctional moribund tree.
Structure:
Good: Tree with good unions and no branch defects. Sound trunk with no / minor defects. Good buttress and root
structure.
Fair: Tree with minor defects or disorders which are notable. Small areas of bark missing. Small cavities or minor
unfavourable branch unions may be present. Minor damage to roots.
Poor: Tree with major defects, large hollows, weak unions and/or problematic damaged roots.
Hazardous: This implies a tree with a major defect that may fail at any time
Protection of Trees:
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height - The approximate diameter of the trunk is measured visually in millimetres at a
height of 1.4m.
TPZ: As specified in the AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
is the principal means of protecting trees on the development site. The TPZ is a combination of the root and
crown area requiring protection. This area should be isolated from construction disturbance so that the tree
can remain in a viable condition. The TPZ incorporates the Structural Root Zone (SRZ).
The radius of the TPZ is calculated for each tree by multiplying its trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground by
12, e.g. 300mm [email protected] x 12 = 3.6m Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
A TPZ should not be less than 2m or greater than 15m (unless crown protection is required).
SRZ: Structural Root Zone (SRZ), as specified in AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, is 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 major encroachment into a TPZ is proposed.
The SRZ for trees with a trunk diameter less than 150mm will be 1.5m.
Tree Retention Value:
The retention value status is based on industry recognised methods of ascertaining the retention value of a tree. The suitability
of the tree for preservation or retention is based on the individual qualities of each tree. By taking into consideration the health,
structural condition, aesthetics, age, size, longevity (Safe Useful Life Expectancy) and ability to adapt to new environments the
viability of the tree can be reasonably determined.
For trees in non-use areas (e.g., Open spaces) where a range in tree quality is appropriate, all trees may be considered
suitable, except for invasive species.
Suitability for Retention/Preservation Categories are:
High: Tree retention is the priority.
The tree has high amenity, heritage and/or environmental value. It is in reasonably good condition (any minor
structural or health problems can be mitigated), has a long life expectancy and can recover from injury or
respond to environmental changes.
Medium: Tree retention is desirable.
The tree is in fair-good condition, is a locally common species, the tree contributes to the aesthetics of its
locality and should survive for many years. The tree may have health or structural problems that can be
mitigated with treatment.
Low: The tree is not considered worthy of special measures to ensure its retention.
The tree is in poor condition with significant defects that cannot be mitigated, has a short Useful Life
Expectancy, or the tree is expected to decline regardless of treatment. The tree has low value in the
landscape or is an undesirable species.
Remove: Tree removal is recommended.
Trees are considered potentially hazardous, very poor specimens, and/or may be environmental or noxious
weeds.
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 23 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 24
Consult Arborist
A PPENDIX 2 – S AMPLE TPZ F ENCING S IGN
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 24 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 25
Consult Arborist
Appendix 3 – Arborist Survey Report
Original Report to Follow…
23_02_22_AIA_Adapt_2 Arakoon_2 Page 25 of 25
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 26
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd
ARBORICULTURAL
SURVEY
Site Address: 2 Arakoon Cres
Sunshine Beach, QLD, 4567
Commissioned by: Adapt Planning
Responsible Council: Noosa Coast Council
Date: 23 January 2023
Prepared by:
Matthew Duncan
Director / Principal Arborist
AQF Level V, TRAQ, QMQAA
e: [email protected]
m: 0450 355 770
ABN: 68 153 548 531
T O D A Y ’ S T R E ES F O R T O M O R R O W
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 27
Consult Arborist
This document was prepared for the sole use of the Client, Adapt Planning, 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
This report/document is subject to copyright laws and remains the property of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd.
Penalties @280c per word per incident of unauthorised usage. No part of this report may be reproduced
or used without the written permission of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd. No responsibility will be accepted by
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd for unauthorised or partial use of this report.
General Permission of use as subject to Consult Arborist Pty Ltd copyrights:
• Hard copy permission: Entire copies may be printed for use by the Client for internal or Project
liaison.
• Electronic permissions: Must be original PDF format for filing and/or limited to the agreed parties
with a direct and vested interest in the case.
D OCUMENT C ONTROL
The latest approved version of this 23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon 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
One 23/01/2023 MJD SCD MJD
D OCUMENTS R EVIEWED
The following documents have been reviewed, analysed, and referenced during the production of this
report.
Reference / Date Title / Details
Note: Extracts from the above document have been used to illustrate the text within this report but should be read with full documents.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 2 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 28
Consult Arborist
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Copyright .............................................................................................................................. 2
Document Control ................................................................................................................. 2
Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. 3
1 Brief ............................................................................................................................... 4
2 Site Inspection ............................................................................................................... 4
3 Scope and Limitations .................................................................................................... 5
4 Introduction and Site Details .......................................................................................... 6
5 Tree Schedule Summary ............................................................................................... 7
6 Tree Plot Map .............................................................................................................. 10
7 TPZ Plot Map ............................................................................................................... 11
8 Site Photographs ......................................................................................................... 12
References: ........................................................................................................................ 16
Assumptions and Disclaimer ............................................................................................... 16
Appendix 1 - Definition of Terms ......................................................................................... 17
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 3 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 29
Consult Arborist
1 B RIEF
This report was commissioned by Tiani Boulton, Director, Adapt Planning on behalf of the
property owners Catherine Fung and Christopher Kelly. Consult Arborist Pty Ltd has been
requested to conduct an independent Arboricultural Survey on the subject trees within the
front of the property address and adjacent Noosa Council road reserve at 2 Arakoon Crescent,
Sunshine Beach.
The findings will be used to guide the design with consideration to tree retention status, tree
protection and work requirements around and adjacent trees nominated for retention.
Figure 1: Google Maps location of 2 Arakoon Crescent
The successful protection of the trees will be bettered by the education and cooperation of all
parties during the design and construction phases, with the input and presence of the Project
Arborist on site to assist and advise during the construction phase for all works carried out
adjacent to the TPZ of retained and protected trees.
2 S ITE I NSPECTION
Matthew Duncan, the Director and Principal Arborist of Consult Arborist, undertook the Visual
Tree Assessment on the site from a ground level on Thursday, 12 January 2023. Matthew
holds an AQF Level 5 Diploma of Arboriculture (AHC50510), an International Society of
Arboriculture’s Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, valid from 2015 to 2025, and has worked
in the arboricultural industry since 1994. Since its establishment in 2011, Consult Arborist has
been engaged to provide arboricultural advice and guidance on private, civil, and capital works
projects from cross-sector clients throughout Queensland where he is a Queensland
Arboricultural Association (QAA) Qualified Member and Approved Consultant.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 4 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 30
Consult Arborist
3 S COPE AND L IMITATIONS
The purpose of this report is to provide advice and guidance on subject tree retention during
the design and construction stage of the project so that suitable trees can be retained. This
report aims to provide guidance and direction with the practical consideration to the suitable
retention of individual trees.
The subject trees detailed within the report have received an International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Level 2 assessment with consideration to the design and future use
of the Project.
The tree data has been allocated to the subject trees by Consult Arborist within the report to
assist with calculations and identification.
See attached photographs, plan extracts and maps for identification purposes.
The www.easymapmaker.com maps provided are for reference only, are not to scale and are
to be used in conjunction with the information within the VTA results.
This report does not take into consideration changes to the site design or activities of which
Consult Arborist has not been requested to comment on or been advised of.
This report does not take into consideration extreme weather events or future pest and disease
outbreaks which may affect the tree’s health, condition and retainability.
All assessments of the retained tree/s have been made visually from the ground and include
the use of basic tools and techniques, i.e., cavity probing, minor root collar excavation,
measuring tapes and devices and photography to gather information. No additional specialist
equipment was used and no conclusive comments on what may have or might be happening
within the internal structure of the tree will be made. No tissue or soil samples have been
collected or submitted for testing.
The information contained in this report is based on a visual inspection of the tree/s and their
location/s, species, health, and condition at the time of the inspection from a ground level. The
additional information provided is the author's opinion and is a 'snapshot in time' of the specific
tree's health and condition at the time of the quoted inspection and no guarantee can be given
that faults or issues may not arise in the future.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 5 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 31
Consult Arborist
4 I NTRODUCTION AND S ITE D ETAILS
The site at 2 Arakoon Crescent, is in the Noosa Council coastal suburb of Sunshine Beach.
Most of the surveyed vegetation is located within a semi-natural verge area on the southern
side of the property.
The project proposes a renovation of the property including the realignment of the driveway
entrance to assist with safe access to and from the property.
The tree survey was undertaken to provide information on the existing Retention Value of the
trees to unsure the right trees are retained and or removed.
Each tree has been tagged with a unique sequential identification (ID) number. These
numbers are to be used on site and in plans to locate and identify each tree as and when
confirmation is required. It is suggested that where tree retention is in question, these
individual trees are accurately plotted by a surveyor and the ID number referenced.
A ‘Retention Value’ of either Low, Medium, or High has been awarded to each tree with
consideration to the Species, Age & Life Expectancy, Health & Condition, and Significance to
the surrounding area. This value status is aimed at guiding the design process where possible
so that the right trees are retained, and unsuitable or lower value trees removed.
A tree plot of the site has been produced using the plot function on an iPad, this is to provide
a guide to the location of the individual tree and is colour coded to correspond with the
Retention Value awarded with yellow for Low, orange for Medium, and green for High value
status. The circle around each plot is a representation of the tree’s calculated TPZ
measurement. The live links to the interactive maps are at:
https://www.easymapmaker.com/map/Adapt_2Arakoon_Ret_Val
https://www.easymapmaker.com/map/Adapt_2Arakoon_TPZ
As part of the design, when service locations, additional infrastructure, and site and demolition
access have been established, tree retention and removal status should be confirmed with a
site/tree-specific Tree Protection Plan as per AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on
development sites.
Where conflict with the TPZ of retained trees unavoidably occurs, mitigation measures and
compromised solutions to minimise the conflict can be investigated, developed, and
incorporated into the project design. The construction methodology and materials used will
play their part in reducing conflict.
The tree schedule provides data aimed at assisting with developing the design to retain
suitable trees and remove those of lower value or that will become unsuitable within the new
development.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 6 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 32
Consult Arborist
5 T REE S CHEDULE S UMMARY
Height Spread DBH TPZ (m) SRZ (m) Retention
ID Location Common Name Botanical Name Age Health Structure Comments
(m) (m) (mm) (R) (R) Value
Early
1 NC verge Oleander Nerium oleander Good Fair <4 2-4 100 - 200 2 1.6 Low Planted ornamental.
Mature
Schinus Early
2 NC verge Pepper tree Good Fair <4 2-4 < 100 2 1.5 Low Weed species.
terebinthifolius Mature
Broadleaf Melaleuca
3 NC verge Mature Fair Fair 6-8 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Medium Windswept canopy.
Paperbark quinquenervia
Schinus
4 NC verge Pepper tree Mature Good Fair 4-6 4-6 100 - 200 2 1.6 Low Weed species
terebinthifolius
5 NC verge Pongamia Pongamia pinnata Mature Good Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Medium Planted ornamental multi-stem.
6 NC verge Indian Hawthorn Raphiolepis indica Mature Good Good <4 <2 < 100 2 1.5 Low Planted ornamental.
Hyophorbe Planted ornamental.
7 NC verge Spindle Palm Mature Good Good 4-6 <2 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Low
verschaffeltii Transplanting is an option
Planted tree.
Canopy/trunk has developed an
Araucaria
8 NC verge Cook Island Pine Mature Fair Fair 16-20 4-6 400 - 500 5.4 2.6 Medium angled growth habitat towards and
columnaris
over the property boundary and edge
of the dwelling roof.
Pandanus Over Only one live side branch that extends
9 NC verge Pandanus Poor Poor <4 <2 200 - 300 3 2 Low
tectorius mature over the property boundary fence.
Angled trunk growth with limited
Casuarina
10 NC verge Coastal Sheoak Mature Fair Fair 4-6 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Low branches that extend over the
equisetifolia
boundary fence.
Casuarina
11 NC verge Coastal Sheoak Mature Fair Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Medium Angled trunk habitat towards the road.
equisetifolia
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 7 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 33
Consult Arborist
Height Spread DBH TPZ (m) SRZ (m) Retention
ID Location Common Name Botanical Name Age Health Structure Comments
(m) (m) (mm) (R) (R) Value
Fraser Island Acronychia Early
12 NC verge Good Good <4 <2 < 100 2 1.5 Medium Planted native large shrub.
Apple imperforata Mature
Early
13 NC verge Fig Ficus species Fair Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Medium Suppressed form with verge plantings.
Mature
Growing next to the property fence
Araucaria
14 NC verge Cook Island Pine Mature Good Good 16-20 4-6 400 - 500 6 2.7 High with side branches extending towards
columnaris
the dwelling.
Casuarina Tree with angled growth to trunk
15 NC verge Coastal Sheoak Mature Good Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Medium
equisetifolia towards the road.
Alectryon
16 NC verge Beach bird's eye Mature Fair Fair <4 <2 <100 2 1.5 Medium Wind swept growth habit.
coriaceus
Cupaniopsis
17 NC verge Tuckeroo Mature Fair Fair 4-6 4-6 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 High Wind sculptured canopy form.
anacardioides
Pandanus Early Adjacent to the property boundary
18 NC verge Pandanus Good Good 4-6 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Medium
tectorius Mature fence.
Inside Araucaria
19 Cook Island Pine Mature Good Good 16-20 4-6 500 - 600 6.6 2.8 High Specimen tree.
property columnaris
Inside Araucaria
20 Cook Island Pine Mature Good Good 16-20 4-6 500 - 600 6.6 2.8 High Specimen tree.
property columnaris
Inside Pandanus Early
21 Pandanus Good Good 4-6 2-4 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Medium Planted in the north east corner.
property tectorius Mature
Inside Pandanus Early
22 Pandanus Good Good <4 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Medium Planted in the north east corner.
property tectorius Mature
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 8 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 34
Consult Arborist
Height Spread DBH TPZ (m) SRZ (m) Retention
ID Location Common Name Botanical Name Age Health Structure Comments
(m) (m) (mm) (R) (R) Value
Reduced vigour and previously lopped
side branches.
Inside Pandanus Over
23 Pandanus Poor Poor 6-8 2-4 300 - 400 4.2 2.3 Low Previously treated for Jamella which
property tectorius mature
has returned.
Limited useful life expectancy.
Reduced vigour and previously lopped
side branches.
Inside Pandanus Over
24 Pandanus Poor Poor 6-8 2-4 200 - 300 3 2 Low Previously treated for Jamella which
property tectorius mature
has returned.
Limited useful life expectancy.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 9 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 35
Consult Arborist
6 T REE P LOT M AP
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 10 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 36
Consult Arborist
7 TPZ P LOT M AP
Tree plot plan
showing
individual trees
with coloured
retention values
and
approximate
TPZ radius
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 11 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 37
Consult Arborist
8 S ITE P HOTOGRAPHS
Picture 1: Tree 1 Picture 2: Tree 2 Picture 3: Tree 3
Picture 4: Tree 4 Picture 5: Tree 5 Picture 6: Tree 6
Picture 7: Tree 7 Picture 8: Tree 8 Picture 9: Tree 9
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 12 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 38
Consult Arborist
Picture 10: Tree 9 Picture 11: Tree 10 Picture 12: Tree 10
Picture 13: Tree 11 Picture 14: Tree 12 Picture 15: Tree 13
Picture 16: Tree 14 Picture 17: Tree 15 Picture 18: Tree 16
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 13 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 39
Consult Arborist
Picture 19: Tree 17 Picture 20: Tree 18 Picture 21: Tree 19
Picture 22: Tree 20 Picture 23: Tree 21 Picture 24: Tree 22
Picture 25: Tree 23 Picture 26: Tree 23 Picture 27: Tree 24
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 14 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 40
Consult Arborist
Picture 28: Tree 24
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 15 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 41
Consult Arborist
R EFERENCES :
• Australian Standards AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites (2009).
• 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.
• IACA, 2010, IACA Significance of a Tree, Assessment Rating System (STARS), Institute of Australian Consulting
Arboriculturists, Australia, www.iaca.org.au
A SSUMPTIONS AND D ISCLAIMER
This information contained in this report has been prepared on an independent basis, 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 its/their location at the time of writing, unless otherwise stated, and contains
opinions, advice and recommendations based on information and data gathered from site inspections carried out by the author
and information supplied by the Client (Adapt Planning)
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 caused or alleged to have been caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence) either directly or indirectly,
by your use of the information made available in this report. In no event will the author 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 the author has been advised of the possibility of such a loss or
damage.
Consult Arborist cannot be held responsible for the effects of non-conformance works performed, by unsuitably qualified staff or
without the supervision of Consult Arborist.
Unless otherwise stated this report cannot be used within a court of law or any legal situation without the prior consent of Consult
Arborist Pty Ltd. The author shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent
contractual arrangements have been made.
The information contained in this report refers only to the tree/s that were inspected on 12/01/2023 and reflects the condition of
the tree/s at the time of the inspection.
There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question
may not arise in the future. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed.
Arboriculturalists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living
organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and 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 of time.
This report does not take into consideration the possibility of extreme weather or other events over which Consult Arborist Pty
Ltd has no control.
Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the Arboriculturalists services, such as
property boundaries and ownership, disputes between neighbours, sightlines, landlord-tenant matters and related. Consult
Arborist Pty Ltd cannot take such issues into account unless the complete and accurate information is given to them. Likewise,
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for the authorization or non-authorization of any recommended treatment
or remedial measure.
Arboriculturalists are tree 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. Trees can be managed,
but they cannot be controlled. To live or work near a tree involves some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks
associated with a tree is to eliminate the tree.
Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of Consult Arborist Pty Ltd or to seek additional advice.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 16 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023
Page 42
Consult Arborist
A PPENDIX 1 - D EFINITION OF T ERMS
The following criteria have been used in the VTA and arboricultural appraisal to gather information and determine the required
management options on the grounds of public health and safety. Measurements are approximate, made visually by eye unless
otherwise stated.
Age Class:
Young: Early stage of growth, immature size
Early Mature: Fast-growing well-established tree which has not yet reached mature size
Mature: The tree reached its mature size, exhibits slowing growth rates with early stages of naturally forming dead
or dysfunctional wood.
Over Mature: The tree has reached mature size and is unlike to increase significantly in height or mass. Retrenchment of
the upper crown with increased vegetative vitality in lower crown, increased fungal activity and wood decay,
increase colonisation by flora and fauna.
Veteran: Tree with advanced retrenchment, reduced crown size and annual increment growth, extensive hollowing,
crown collapse, low vigour, advance heartwood decay, advanced colonisation by fauna and flora.
Health:
Good: Tree with no defects or disorders which are notable. Full canopy with good colour foliage. Minimal pathogen
damage.
Fair: Tree with minor defects or disorders which are notable. Some deadwood within what can be an unbalanced
canopy, foliage generally with good colour although some discolouration may be present typical of species
in location. Minor pathogen damage.
Poor: Tree with major defects or disorders which are notable. The tree has considerable deadwood present,
discoloured or distorted leaves indicating a further decline of the tree. Detrimental pathogen damage.
Dead: Dead or dysfunctional moribund tree.
Structure:
Good: Tree with good unions and no branch defects. Sound trunk with no / minor defects. Good buttress and root
structure.
Fair: Tree with minor defects or disorders which are notable. Small areas of bark missing. Small cavities or minor
unfavourable branch unions may be present. Minor damage to roots.
Poor: Tree with major defects, large hollows, weak unions and/or problematic damaged roots.
Hazardous: This implies a tree with a major defect that may fail at any time
Protection of Trees:
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height - The approximate diameter of the trunk is measured visually in millimetres at a
height of 1.4m.
TPZ: As specified in the AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
is the principal means of protecting trees on the development site. The TPZ is a combination of the root and
crown area requiring protection. This area should be isolated from construction disturbance so that the tree
can remain in a viable condition. The TPZ incorporates the Structural Root Zone (SRZ).
The radius of the TPZ is calculated for each tree by multiplying its trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground by
12, e.g. 300mm [email protected] x 12 = 3.6m Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
A TPZ should not be less than 2m or greater than 15m (unless crown protection is required).
SRZ: Structural Root Zone (SRZ), as specified in AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, is 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 major encroachment into a TPZ is proposed.
The SRZ for trees with a trunk diameter less than 150mm will be 1.5m.
Tree Retention Value:
The retention value status is based on industry recognised methods of ascertaining the retention value of a tree. The suitability
of the tree for preservation or retention is based on the individual qualities of each tree. By taking into consideration the health,
structural condition, aesthetics, age, size, longevity (Safe Useful Life Expectancy) and ability to adapt to new environments the
viability of the tree can be reasonably determined.
For trees in non-use areas (e.g., Open spaces) where a range in tree quality is appropriate, all trees may be considered
suitable, except for invasive species.
Suitability for Retention/Preservation Categories are:
High: Tree retention is the priority.
The tree has high amenity, heritage and/or environmental value. It is in reasonably good condition (any minor
structural or health problems can be mitigated), has a long life expectancy and can recover from injury or
respond to environmental changes.
Medium: Tree retention is desirable.
The tree is in fair-good condition, is a locally common species, the tree contributes to the aesthetics of its
locality and should survive for many years. The tree may have health or structural problems that can be
mitigated with treatment.
Low: The tree is not considered worthy of special measures to ensure its retention.
The tree is in poor condition with significant defects that cannot be mitigated, has a short Useful Life
Expectancy, or the tree is expected to decline regardless of treatment. The tree has low value in the
landscape or is an undesirable species.
Remove: Tree removal is recommended.
Trees are considered potentially hazardous, very poor specimens, and/or may be environmental or noxious
weeds.
23_01_23_AS_Adapt_2 Arakoon Page 17 of 17
Document Set ID: 22343519
Version: 1, Version Date: 16/03/2023