Original source · versioned page text
Info Request Response Traffic Management Plan 25-9-25 - JN1006_2-Bennett-3FergusonSt-AIA092025
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
Ref: JN0823
Mark Bennett
3 Ferguson Street Sunshine Beach 4567
25 September 2025
Tree Management Plan (TMP)
Rev. Status Date Author Checked
1 First issue 19/09/25 AD TB
2 Rev 2 25/09/25 AD TB
Demler Beck Pty Ltd
ABN: 97 682 226 320
E: [email protected]
Gold Coast: +61 423 352 356
Brisbane & Sunshine Coast:
+61 448 002 324
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 32 pages
Page 2
[email protected]
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Background...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Report Objectives & Scope ........................................................................................... 3
2.3 Referenced Standards .................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Guidance Notes .............................................................................................................. 3
2.5 Figure 1: Site location .................................................................................................... 5
3. Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 6
4. Potential Construction Impacts ................................................................................................. 8
4.1 General construction impacts not specific to site operational works .................... 8
4.2 Construction impacts specific to the subject trees ................................................... 9
4.3 Figure 9: Proposed Construction Impacts ................................................................ 15
5. Tree Removal .............................................................................................................................. 16
5.1 Specific Permit Conditions .......................................................................................... 16
5.2 Tree removal .................................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Figure 10: Tree Removal Plan ..................................................................................... 17
6. Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) ....................................................................................... 18
6.1 Specific Permit Conditions .......................................................................................... 18
6.2 Trees to be protected ................................................................................................... 18
19
6.3 Figure 11: Tree Protection Plan ................................................................................... 19
6.4 Pruning requirements................................................................................................... 20
6.5 General Tree Management Requirements from AS4970-2025 ............................ 22
7. References .................................................................................................................................. 25
8. Annexure A: Report Limitations .............................................................................................. 26
9. Annexure B: STARS (IACA, 2010) ............................................................................................ 27
10. Annexure C: Characteristics & Descriptors ........................................................................... 29
11. Annexure D: Methodology ...................................................................................................... 32
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 1 of 33
Page 3
[email protected]
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following Tree Management Plan (Report) regards 2 trees at 3 Ferguson Street Sunshine
Beach 4567. The subject site has been identified as containing trees that could be impacted
by the proposed development.
The project scope included an assessment of the trees and a Tree Management Plan (TMP) to
identify and discuss:
▪ likely impacts on all trees;
▪ justifications for trees requiring removal; and
▪ any methods that should be implemented to minimise or avoid the impacts on trees that
are to be retained.
Adam Demler assessed the site and collected data on the trees on 5 September 2025.
The proposed development relates to construction of a proposed Vehicle Crossover (VXO).
Table 1: Recommendations summary
Retention Value Total Retain qty. Remove qty.
*The protection of
these trees forms the to facilitate this due to general biosecurity
basis of this report. development obligations or safety
concerns
High 0 0 0 0
Medium 2 1 1 0
Low 0 0 0 0
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 2 of 33
Page 4
[email protected]
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
Mark Bennett (the Client) commissioned Demler Beck Pty Ltd (Demler Beck) to undertake an
Tree Management Plan (TMP) and prepare a report on 2 trees at 3 Ferguson Street Sunshine
Beach 4567 (Figure 1).
2.2 Report Objectives & Scope
The TMP has been prepared to guide protection measures required for 2 trees within close
proximity to the proposed operational works at 3 Ferguson Street Sunshine Beach 4567. This
TMP has been prepared in accordance with the arborist scope defined in an Information
Request (Application No. OPW25/0139) dated 26 August 2025.
Following review of the Information Request and an onsite discussion with the Client the
scope was determined:
▪ review plans provided by the Client;
▪ attend the site to assess the existing site conditions and collect data on trees two (2) trees;
▪ determine the likely impact on all trees;
▪ provide justification for trees requiring removal; and
▪ provide a Tree Protection Specification (TPS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) that should be
implemented to minimize or avoid the impacts on trees that are to be retained.
2.3 Referenced Standards
▪ AS4970-2025 Protection of Trees on Development Sites;
▪ AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees AS4687-2007;
▪ Temporary Fencing and Hoardings;
▪ AS1319-1994 Safety Signs for the Occupational Environment; and
▪ AS4454-2012 Composts, Soil conditioners and Mulches.
2.4 Guidance Notes
This TMP is to be read in conjunction with the Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in Section 6.3 which
show the tree protection zones and tree protection measures required during the
development stages. The tree identification numbers referenced on the plans can be cross
referenced with the Tree Data in Section 0
2.4.1 Role of the Project Arborist
A suitably qualified Project Arborist must be engaged to supervise and advise on the actions
that are required to be undertaken during all stages of development / construction. The
Project Arborist must hold a minimum AQF Level 5 (Diploma) in Arboriculture, or an
equivalent qualification, and have demonstrable experience in tree protection on
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 3 of 33
Page 5
[email protected] development sites, in accordance with AS 4970–2025 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The Project Arborist is responsible for monitoring and certification of the TMP. Only the Project Arborist may vary the requirements of the TMP under written consent of the Council. Only the Project Arborist may submit any staged reports as required by the TMP and or Council. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 4 of 33
Page 6
[email protected] 2.5 Figure 1: Site location Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 5 of 33
Page 7
[email protected] 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development relates to construction of a Vehicle Crossover (VXO) Steps to build the VXO that were considered as part of this VMP: ▪ necessary vegetation removal including any stump grinding ▪ preparation of ground area – minor (<100mm) site scraping (excavation) ▪ import gravel or sand bed for the base ▪ box out area and install reinforcing materials (e.g., steel mesh or rebar) ▪ pour and level concrete into the prepared formwork. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 6 of 33
Page 8
[email protected] Figure 2: Excerpt from the Driveway Layout Plan (dwg.C001), Rev B, 06.08.25 Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 7 of 33
Page 9
[email protected] 4. POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 4.1 General construction impacts not specific to site operational works Trees situated within the design footprint will need to be removed. Another development impact that may affect trees is earthworks. Earthworks can be separated into three categories. 4.1.1 Cutting (excavation) Cutting within the Notational Root Zone (NRZ) can result in root damage, with the severity of impact influenced by factors such as the size and number of roots affected, overall tree health, structural attributes (e.g. weight distribution), and soil characteristics. Minor or low-level incursions into the NRZ—defined as less than 10%—may lead to short-term health effects, such as isolated twig dieback within the crown, but typically do not result in long-term decline. In contrast, moderate (10–20%) or high (>20%) NRZ encroachments carry a greater risk of significant health deterioration, compromised structural integrity, or even tree mortality. The extent of impact depends on the cumulative root mass affected, species-specific tolerance to root disturbance, and the excavation techniques. These effects often present immediately and may worsen post-development, particularly under harsh environmental conditions. 4.1.2 Fill Soil (fill) affects trees in various ways. All-purpose landscape soil is often reused from other areas of the site or imported from other sites and is often not favourable for tree health. It may contain contaminants, soil pathogens, or low-quality nutrients and therefore not consistent with the requirements of the existing vegetation. Furthermore, increasing depths of fill decreases soil moisture of existing tree roots. Even during wet conditions, where surficial landscape plantings and turf are performing well, established trees can decline. Structural soils such as those found in road base, below concrete pads ect. are made up of fine particles (pores), which do not provide enough interconnected gaps (pore space) for water and gases to be exchanged from air and precipitation that the tree is reliant on to survive. The processes to achieve the desired level of compaction can also cause physical damage to tree roots and limit their extension. Fill often causes a health decline, but over a longer period in comparison with cutting. Impacts depend on various factors such as fill type, compaction requirements, species tolerance, environmental conditions, individual tree attributes such as health and age class ect. Additionally, cutting and filling within a site can indirectly impact tree health regardless of whether it is within their respective NRZ, by altering groundwater levels or disrupting natural hydrological flows. Symptoms of decline may not be immediately apparent and often emerge only after construction is complete. 4.1.3 Surfacing Surfacing can influence tree health in several ways, particularly through soil compaction and changes to water availability. Load-bearing surfaces are more likely to compact the soil, which restricts air and water movement and limits root development. Impervious surfaces such as concrete or asphalt can also redirect stormwater away from the tree’s root zone, reducing Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 8 of 33
Page 10
[email protected]
natural infiltration and increasing drought stress. The degree of impact depends on the type
of surface and its intended function. Where feasible, using permeable materials and
designing drainage systems that support tree health can help reduce these adverse effects.
4.2 Construction impacts specific to the subject trees
Section 0 is to be read in conjunction with Figure 9: Proposed Construction Impacts below.
Tree ID 1
Botanical name (Common name) Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Araucaria)
Origin Australian Native
Height 25m
Trunk diameter (DBH) 77cm
Diameter above root butress (DAB) 95cm
Crown spread (N-S x E-W) 10 x 10m
Notational Root Zone (NRZ) radius 9.24m
NRZ area 268.22m²
SRZ radius 3.24m
NRZ incursion 21%
Encroachment type (AS4970-2025) Major
Health Fair
Structure Fair
Age Mature
Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) 15 - 40
Significance Council tree, Growing adjacent to/below
powerlines (inappropriate location), Prominent in
the landscape
Defects Epicormics
Retention Value (IACA, 2010) Medium
Recommendation Retain and protect *The protection of this tree forms the
basis of this report.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 9 of 33
Page 11
[email protected]
Arborist comment Adam Demler 05/09/2025: The design proposed
a major encroachment due to works being inside
the SRZ. Inside the property, fill is being used to
match FSLs to the garage. Minor (up to 100mm) of
excavation is required within the Council
easement to allow for FSLs to match current levels.
The above-ground root buttress of Tree 2 has a
diameter of approximately 160 cm.
A hand-dug trench measuring 3 m × 0.1 m × 0.1
m was excavated 1 metre from the outer edge of
the trunk, oriented perpendicular to the kerb.
Within this trench, only fine roots were
encountered, along with two structural roots that
were successfully traced back to the root collar of
Tree 2.
A second trench of (of similar dimensions) was
excavated adjacent to the existing brick wall. No
significant roots were identified in this location;
however, displacement of the wall suggests the
presence of roots exerting pressure from below.
Both investigations indicate that the tree’s root
system is likely to be growing in a downward
trajectory, consistent with typical behaviour in
sandy soils. This deep-rooting tendency will
reduce the likelihood of surface-level root conflict
with the proposed VXO and therefore is unlikely to
cause any longer-term adverse impacts to the
health or structure of the tree.
In conclusion, if the TPS is adhered to while
undertaking the proposed works the trees health
and structure will not be significantly impacted.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 10 of 33
Page 12
[email protected]
Figure 3: Image of Tree 1 facing north from Fergurson Street. Image taken by Adam Demler.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 11 of 33
Page 13
[email protected] Figure 4: Facing north – red arrows denote the Figure 5: Facing north – red arrows denote the larger roots traced back to Tree 2. The dashed larger roots traced back to Tree 2. The dashed line is the alignment of the hand-dug root line is the alignment of the hand-dug root excavation trench. Image taken by Adam Demler. excavation trench. Image taken by Adam Demler. Figure 6: Facing east – the dashed line denotes the locations of the hand-dug root excavation trenches. Finer roots are visible. Image taken by Adam Demler. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 12 of 33
Page 14
[email protected]
Tree ID 2
Botanical name (Common name) Banksia integrifolia (Coast Banksia)
Origin Indigenous
Height 7m
Trunk diameter (DBH) 35cm
Diameter above root butress (DAB) 36cm
Crown spread (N-S x E-W) 5 x 5m
Notational Root Zone (NRZ) radius 4.2m
NRZ area 55.42m²
SRZ radius 2.15
NRZ incursion 60%
Encroachment type (AS4970-2025) Major
Health Fair
Structure Fair to poor
Age Semi-mature
Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) 1-15
Significance Council tree
Defects Codominant stems, Growing adjacent to/below
powerlines (inappropriate location), included bark
Retention Value (IACA, 2010) Medium
Recommendation Remove to facilitate development. *The removal of
this tree forms the basis of this report.
Arborist comment Adam Demler 05/09/2025: The above-ground
root buttress of Tree 2 has a radial diameter of
approximately 160 cm. A hand-dug trench
measuring 3 m × 0.1 m × 0.1 m was excavated 1
metre from the outer edge of the trunk, oriented
perpendicular to the kerb. Within this trench, only
fine roots were encountered, along with two
structural roots that were successfully traced back
to the root collar of Tree 2.
A second trench of (of similar dimensions) was
excavated adjacent to the existing brick wall. No
significant roots were identified in this location;
however, displacement of the wall suggests the
presence of roots exerting pressure from below.
Both investigations indicate that the tree’s root
system is likely to be growing in a downward
trajectory, consistent with typical behaviour in
sandy soils. This deep-rooting tendency may
reduce the likelihood of surface-level root conflict
with the proposed VXO.
In conclusion, if the TPS is adhered to while
undertaking the proposed works the trees health
and structure will not be significantly impacted.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 13 of 33
Page 15
[email protected] Figure 7: Image of Tree 2 facing north. Image Figure 8: Image of Tree 2 facing west. Image taken by Adam Demler. taken by Adam Demler. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 14 of 33
Page 16
[email protected] 4.3 Figure 9: Proposed Construction Impacts Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 15 of 33
Page 17
[email protected]
5. TREE REMOVAL
5.1 Specific Permit Conditions
In accordance with the Information Request, this TMP is subject to Council approval. An
Operational Works Permit (OPW) will be required to remove either of the Subject Trees.
5.2 Tree removal
The following trees have been identified for removal due to:
▪ their inappropriate location (under powerlines), defects, poor structure, necessity for
development of VXO
Tree 2 is to be removed by a suitably qualified (min. AQF 3) and experienced arborist. The
tree should be cut to a 0.5m high stump.
Remove the stump by carefully severing the two large surface roots located on the eastern
side (refer to images and arborist comments above), under the supervision of the project
arborist to prevent damage to the roots of Tree 1. A small excavator (<5 tonne) operated as
far away from Tree 2 as practical, equipped with a finger-grab attachment should be used to
gently lever the stump from the ground. The arborist may hand dig soils away from remaining
roots and continue to trim roots during the process to minimise ground disturbance. Any
additional surface roots located south of the main stump may be ground to the required
depth using a stump grinder, also under the arborist’s supervision.
Table 2: Trees to be removed to facilitate this development
Recommendation Retention Total Tree ID
Value
Remove for High 0
development
Medium 1 2
Low 0
Remove for Low 0
general
biosecurity
obligations or
safety concerns
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 16 of 33
Page 18
[email protected] 5.3 Figure 10: Tree Removal Plan Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 17 of 33
Page 19
[email protected]
6. TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS (TPS)
6.1 Specific Permit Conditions
In accordance with the Information Request, this TMP is subject to Council approval. An OPW
is required to construct the VXO.
6.2 Trees to be protected
Refer to the TPS and the TPP for dimensions of TPZs. The following trees have been identified
for retention and protection. The protection of these trees forms the basis of this TPS.
Table 3: Trees to be protected
Recommendation Retention Total Tree ID
Value
Trees to be High 0
protected
Medium 1 1
Low 0
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 18 of 33
Page 20
[email protected] 6.3 Figure 11: Tree Protection Plan Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 19 of 33
Page 21
[email protected] 6.4 Pruning requirements 1 trees (numbered 1) require pruning as part of this development. Refer to the pruning specification below. All pruning works must be carried out by an AQF Level 3 qualified Arborist in accordance with AS 4373–2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and the pruning specification tables provided below. In the event of any discrepancy or uncertainty, the requirements of AS 4373–2007 shall take precedence over this TMP. All pruning activities must be approved by the Project Arborist and discussed during the site induction meeting at the commencement of works to ensure appropriate methods and tree protection protocols are followed. Following completion of the approved pruning works, no additional material is to be removed from either subject tree without prior written consent from both the Project Arborist and the Council. Under no circumstances are project personnel to remove, damage, or otherwise interfere with any branches, foliage, bark, or roots of either subject tree at any stage of the works. 6.4.1 Tree 1 (medium retention value) The aim of pruning is to remove epicormics and branches to: ▪ facilitate access of construction personnel and equipment; and ▪ facilitate use of the proposed VXO. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 20 of 33
Page 22
[email protected]
6.4.2 Table 4: Tree 97 (low retention value) pruning specification
No. Pruning Pruning Photo
class¹ specification
1. S Selectively prune
the epicormics on
the western
aspect back to
the trunk to a
maximum height
of 3m, that may
be impacted by
construction and
to facilitate future
vehicle use of the
proposed
driveway. a
¹ Pruning class in accordance with AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees
LEGEND
C = Crown lifting D = Deadwooding F = Formative pruning
H = Remedial (restorative) pruning L = Line clearance P = Pollarding
R = Reduction pruning S = Selective T = Crown thinning
pruning
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 21 of 33
Page 23
[email protected]
6.5 General Tree Management Requirements from AS4970-2025
6.5.1 Site Induction
A site induction meeting is to be organised with the tree clearing and civil works contractors
and the project arborist to identify trees to be protected as part of this TPS. During this time
the TPS must be provided to all parties, and this documentation should form part of the
contract documents for the project.
6.5.2 Tree protection fencing requirements
Tree protection fencing is to be installed in the locations shown on the Tree Protection Plans.
The fencing should be rigid (chain link or similar) and 1.8 metres high. Chain-link fencing
must be securely fixed to a removable concrete base or equivalent stable footing. All fencing
must comply with AS 4687 – Temporary Fencing and Hoardings.
Existing boundary fencing may be retained as tree protection fencing where it meets these
requirements. If boundary fencing is removed, compliant temporary fencing panels must be
installed immediately and remain in place until the boundary fencing is reinstated.
Tree protection fencing must remain in place for the duration specified in the Tree Protection
Plans. Any modification to the fencing requires prior approval from the Project Arborist and
must be documented in the TMP. The revised TMP is to be submitted to Council as part of the
certification documentation.
Figure 12: Tree protection fencing examples
1.8m high steel mesh fence
panels secured with steel clasps.
6.5.3 Tree Protection Signs
Tree protection signs must be fixed to tree protection fencing and must always remain
legible. Signs should be spaced so that they are visible from anywhere in the work area. Tree
protection signs must contain the Project Arborist or Managers contact details and "TREE
PROTECTION ZONE - NO ACCESS". NB: Tree protection signs are available from Demler
Beck Pty Ltd. See example below:
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 22 of 33
Page 24
[email protected] 6.5.4 Access & Storage Site access must be from outside the tree protection fenced area and must not traverse through the fenced area. In cases where the site access is not practical, only the Project Arborist can modify the tree protection area and fencing requirements. Any modification to the tree protection area (including ground protection requirements) and the revised fencing location, must be shown on an updated TMP and endorsed by the Project Arborist. Temporary structures should initially be evaluated for placement outside the TPZ positioned on an above-ground footing, minimising direct contact with the soil. Gantry-type dwellings must be installed with one-metre physical clearance to trees. An area must be designated on site ideally 10 metres distance from any tree protection area of the trees to be retained, where all building materials/refuse, chemicals, fuel/oils etc. can be stored throughout the project. Only the Project Arborist can approve the storage location of all materials and or equipment within the TPZ of any tree that is protected. All washing up of equipment including concrete products must be located at a suitable distance from any TPZ. Temporary connecting services must be installed above-ground and should not be attached to any trees being retained. 6.5.5 Site levelling/preparation within the TPZ Prior to any site scraping, a trench along the eastern side of the driveway is to be excavated using vacuum excavation and needle point water jet (hydro-vac) under supervision of the Project Arborist. Any root conflicts are to be pruned manually with sharp sterile tools under the guidance of the Project Arborist. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 23 of 33
Page 25
[email protected]
Any site preparation or levelling works (scrape or fill) within the TPZ of Tree 1 is to be
supervised by the project arborist. Any unforeseen root conflicts must be excavated around
using non-destruction methods (i.e. manual or hydro).
Small excavators weighing less than 5 tons and equipped with rubber tracks are
recommended for demolition within TPZ's. In cases where larger equipment is necessary, it
should be placed on ground protection (i.e steel plates over 100mm of mulch) or a suitable
dampening system. All equipment should be operated from outside the TPZ whenever
practical or positioned as far from the trunk as possible. In situations where there is a potential
for collision with the crown or trunk, the use of a dedicated site safety observer or trunk and
crown protection is mandatory.
After the area has been prepped and before boxing out, a suitable dampening material such
as GeoWeb should be incorporated below the bed of gravel, to reduce the requirement to
compact the sublayer material.
6.5.6 Inspection Intervals
Inspections at regular intervals are required to ensure that tree protection measures are in
place and are adequate. Pertinent to this design the Project Arborist is required to attend site:
▪ To certify that tree protection fencing and/or ground protection is satisfactory.
▪ Whenever tree protection fencing needs to be altered closer to the trees.
▪ Whenever there is excavation within the TPZ.
▪ Upon completion of the development after all tree protection measures have been
dismantled.
6.5.7 Supplementary Protection Measures
Trees affected by TPZ incursion should be afforded supplementary protection measures.
Mulching may be required within the tree protection zone to reduce water runoff and to
reduce competition from weed growth. Mulching may only be required within the fenced
area and not within the total tree protection area. It is recommended that a mixed particle
size, composted wood chip is used where indicated in the Tree Protection Plans.
During periods of dry weather, irrigation should be supplied to the Protected Trees as
directed by the Project Arborist. Application should be at a rate of 10 litres per centimetre of
trunk diameter (DBH). This should be applied on a twice weekly basis during peak dry
periods. Watering requirements may be varied at the discretion of the Project Arborist.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 24 of 33
Page 26
[email protected]
7. REFERENCES
IACA. (2010). IACA Significance of a Tree, Assessment Rating System (STARS). Retrieved from
https://www.iaca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IACA-Significance-of-a-Tree-
Assessment-Rating-System-STARS-IACA-2010.pdf
Mattheck, C. (2002). Tree Mechanics. Forschungszentrum Karlsrtuhe: GMBH.
Mattheck, C., & Breleoer, H. (1994). The Body Language of Trees. HMSO.
Standards Australia. (2025). AS4970–2025: Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Sydney:
Standards Australia.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823 Page 25 of 33
Page 27
[email protected] 8. ANNEXURE A: REPORT LIMITATIONS Accuracy: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information provided in this report. Boundary location is based off cadastral information and plans provided. Tree location is mapped using GPS equipment which inherently varies in accuracy, depending on environmental and atmospheric conditions at the time of assessment. Locations of features are sometimes adjusted to align with the survey plan provided. Demler Beck Pty Ltd, its employees or contractors do not accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or typographical mistakes. Purpose and Scope: This arborist report is intended solely for the purpose and scope stated in the report. It does not constitute legal advice, engineering analysis, or any other professional service beyond the field of arboriculture. Support or services including court appearances and preparation of ancillary reports listed outside of the scope of this report may incur additional charges. Professional Judgement: The assumptions expressed are those of the author and person who conducted the assessment. They are based on information known to them at the time, their professional expertise, industry standards, and best practices. Recommendations are made in good faith, but individual circumstances may require additional considerations. The recommendations based on statute law passed by national, state, or local municipalities may not have considered superseding legislature and therefore may be incorrect. The author takes no responsibility for fines or penalties resulting from carrying out the work in this report. Risk Assessment: Tree risk assessments are inherently subjective and involve an element of uncertainty. Alteration: Alteration of this report invalidates the entire report. This report is valid only as a complete document, if part of this report is separated, this report becomes invalid. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823
Page 28
[email protected]
9. ANNEXURE B: STARS (IACA, 2010)
The system for objectively rating trees is based on the IACA Significance of a Tree, Assessment
Rating System (STARS) (IACA, 2010). The system determines landscape significance using the
flow chart and then a matrix to determine the retention value.
Landscape Significance Flow Chart
1. Mature specimen and remnant, planted locally indigenous
specimen or is considered rare/uncommon in the local area or;
High
2. Listed as a Heritage item, Threatened Species, part of an
Yes Landscape
endangered ecological community, on a Significant Tree
Significance
Register or;
3. Visually prominent and visible from a considerable distance and
makes a positive contribution to the local amenity or;
4. Substantial age or;
5. Supports social and cultural sentiments or spiritual associations
reflected by the broader population group or has No
commemorative value.
9. Good health and good structure or;
Moderate 10. Future growth is largely unrestricted by above and
Landscape Yes below ground infrastructure, supporting its ability to
Significance reach its mature dimensions or;
11. Valued by a smaller community or individual or;
12. Provides fair contribution to the local amenity.
No
Weed sp. or Hazardous or 6. Not visible outside of the site or;
environmental irreversible decline and 7. Requires an unreasonable amount
or or
nuisance considered potentially of maintenance or;
dangerous 8. Unsuitable to site conditions.
Low Landscape Significance
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823
Page 29
[email protected]
Matrix 2
Landscape Significance
1. High 2. Moderate 3. Low
Weed sp./
Landscape significance Hazardous
nuisance
1. Long – >
40 yrs
2. Medium
Replacement
Expectancy/
– 15-40
Useful Life
timeframe
yrs
3. Short - <
15 yrs
Legend for matrix assessment
High Retention Value – These trees should be retained and protected
throughout the development. Ideally, the development should not impact
these trees at all. Where impacts are identified, extensive protection
measures should be put in place to ensure the trees remain viable post-
construction.
Medium Retention Value – These trees should be retained and protected
throughout development where feasible. Options to mitigate impacts
should be explored and undertaken where the cost of replacing the tree is
greater than the cost of protecting the tree.
Low Retention Value – These trees can be retained at the tree owner’s
discretion. They would not normally warrant additional protection outside
of site exclusion, although they may require protection under a DA or third-
party property law.
Notes:
1. Landscape Significance must first be decided using the Landscape Significance Flow
Chart.
2. The ULE/Replacement timeframe is whichever is greater of the two values.
Replacement timeframe is the time it will take to replace the tree in the same
environment like-for-like.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823
Page 30
[email protected]
10. ANNEXURE C: CHARACTERISTICS & DESCRIPTORS
Tree ID: Refers to the individual identification number assigned to each assessed tree on the
site and the number which appears of the tree’s tag (where applicable).
Tree location: Collected in GDA 94 MGA 55. Refer to accuracy limitations in Annexure A.
Tree species: Species identification was made using species characteristics observed on site
or sampled and researched off site. Specific cultivar or subspecies details are omitted unless
where known. No samples have been taken to the National Herbarium for accurate analysis
and identification unless specifically noted within the report. The common name provided
should only be seen as a secondary identification tool.
Height: The estimated range in metres attributed to the tree from its base to the highest point
of the canopy. Where required height will be estimated to the nearest metre.
Crown spread: The estimated range in metres recorded as North-South x East West. The
distance may be estimated by pacing below the crown.
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): measured using a diameter tape at approximately 1.4
metres from natural ground level. Where the trunk diameter at this point may be affected by
natural growth such as a major union point, the DBH will be measured just below this union
point. For multiple stemmed trees, the measurements are provided for up to 4 stems (at 1.4
metres from natural ground level). These will be recorded and the combined or total diameter
in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4970-2025-Protection of Trees on
Development Sites using the formula below:
Total DBH √ DBH + DBH + DBH + DBH
For neighbouring property trees and where access is limited, an approximate DBH (cm) will
be provided.
Origin: Refers to the origin of the species and recorded as follows:
Category Description
Indigenous Occurs naturally in the local area and is native to a given region or
ecosystem.
Qld Native Occurs naturally within State but is not indigenous.
Australian Native Occurs naturally within Australia and its territories but is not a State native
or indigenous.
Exotic Evergreen Occurs naturally outside of Australia and its territories and typically retains
its leaves throughout the year.
Exotic Deciduous Occurs naturally outside of Australia and its territories and typically loses
its leaves at least once a year.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823
Page 31
[email protected]
Health: relates to the tree vigour and canopy density. Health is rated according to the
following categories:
Health Vigour/shoot Decline Foliage density, Pest/disease
extension symptoms/deadwood size, colour
Good Above typical None or minimal Better than typical None or minimal
Fair Typical Typical or expected Typical Typical, within
damage thresholds
Fair to Below typical More than typical Showing Exceeds damage
poor deficiencies thresholds
Poor Minimal Excessive and large Showing severe Extreme and
amount/size deficiencies contributing to
decline
Dead NA NA NA NA
Structure: relates to the physical form of the tree, including the trunks, main scaffold branches
and roots. Structure is rated according to the following categories:
Structure Root plate & Trunk Scaffold branch(es) Outer crown &
buttress roots
Good No damage, No damage, Well formed, No damage,
disease, or decay; disease, or decay; attached, spaced, disease, decay, or
obvious basal well tapered and tapered structural defect
flare/stable in
ground
Fair Minor damage or Minor damage or Typically formed, Minor damage,
decay. Basal flare decay attached, spaced, disease, or decay;
present. and tapered. minor branch
end-weight or
over-extension.
Fair to Moderate Moderate damage Weak, decayed or Moderate
poor damage or or decay; with acute branch damage, disease,
decay; minimal approaching attachments; or decay;
basal flare recognised previous branch moderate branch
thresholds failure evidence. end-weight or
over-extension.
Poor Major damage, Major damage, Decayed, cavities or Major damage,
disease, or decay; disease, or decay; has acute branch disease, or decay;
fungal fruiting exceeds recognised attachments with fungal fruiting
bodies present. thresholds; fungal included bark; bodies present;
Excessive lean fruiting bodies excessive major branch end-
placing pressure present. Acute lean. compression weight or over-
on root plate Stump re-sprout. flaring; failure likely. extension.
Hazardous Excessive damage, Excessive damage, Decayed, cavities Excessive
disease, or decay; disease, or decay; or branch damage, disease,
unstable/loose in cavities. Excessive attachments with or decay;
ground; altered lean. Stump re- active split; failure excessive branch
exposure; failure sprout. imminent. end-weight or
probable over-extension.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823
Page 32
[email protected]
Age class: is recorded as follows:
Age Class Description
Young Trees which were propagated from seed or cutting within 5 years.
Juvenile Trees which could not be propagated within 5 years. Trees which have established
outside of the soil container volume, although does not currently represent a form
consistent of a mature specimen.
Semi-mature Trees 50% < 90% of the expected height/spread and form modified by the
growing environment.
Mature Trees which represent typical form and < 90% of the expected height/spread
modified by the growing environment.
Over-mature Trees which represent typical mature size which are no longer upwards or
outwards. Health is declining, and the crown is retrenching.
Useful Life Expectancy (ULE): Refers to the remaining life span until the benefits of the tree
are outweighed by the costs to safely keep it. ULE is recorded as follows:
ULE Description
Long • Trees of fair or good health which present typical of the species.
(40+ yrs.) • Trees of high significance which could be retained with a maintenance regime.
• Trees unrestricted by above- and below-ground constraints.
• Trees growing within a favourable environment that will support a mature size.
Medium • Trees which may live for longer than 40 years but could be replaced with a
(15-40 yrs.) more suitable species or superior specimen.
• Trees which exhibit fair-to poor structure with defects that are generally
tolerated by the species.
• Trees which require ongoing maintenance which could otherwise be replaced
with a specimen with the same environmental qualities and less maintenance.
• Trees which are moderately restricted by their growing environment or will be
before reaching maturity.
Short • Trees which may live for more than 15 years but should be removed due to
(1-15 yrs.) safety concerns due to poor structure and/or undesirable species.
• Trees with weedy tendencies within site context.
• Trees which present tolerable risk only with excessive or unsustainable
maintenance regimes.
• Trees which exhibit defects generally known to cause pre-mature failure within
the species within 15 years.
• Over-mature/senescent trees which are in irreversible decline.
• Trees which are heavily restricted by their growing environment and will
disrupt services to a community or major service
Remove • Hazardous due to very poor structure and/or unacceptable risk.
(<1 yrs.) • The tree has the potential to cause significant environmental damage within
its local surrounds.
• Trees which are widely allergenic or irritative and likely to cause serious injury
to the wider community.
• Trees causing property damage which exceeds its environmental benefits to
the community.
Defects: Notable tree attributes that are considered unfavourable to tree health/structure and
may become hazardous.
Tree Significance: Tangible and intangible benefits that the tree provides to the landscape
and community.
Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823
Page 33
[email protected] 11. ANNEXURE D: METHODOLOGY The subject trees underwent 360-degree ground-based visual inspection using basic tools. No laboratory tests, aerial inspections or internal investigations were undertaken. Tree attribute descriptors can be referred to in Annexure C: Characteristics & Descriptors. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and Diameter Above root Buttress (DAB) were measured using a diameter tape. Tree height and crown spread was estimated. Tree Retention Values (RV) were determined using a modified version of the institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturists (IACA) Significance of a Tree Rating System (STARS). Refer to Annexure B for more detailed information and matrixes. Recommended protection zones were determined in accordance with AS4970-2025 Protection of trees on development sites. The trees were tagged using aluminium tags. Tree tags are typically located on the southern aspect of the trunk at 2.0 metres. Tree locations were collected using the GDA94/MGA zone 56 CRS. Tree locations are typically accurate to 0.01–0.6m however may be affected by signal blockages, atmospheric conditions etc. Where tree location is critical a qualified surveyor should be used. Note that within our report Tree locations may have been adjusted to align with an existing survey plan. Tree Management Plan (TMP) Ref: JN0823