Aborist Report · OPW24/0017

Page 2

Inspecting Arborist: Kurt Brown DIP Arb, ISA TRAQ Certified, Level 3 Arb

Time Period: 12 Months

Client: B Mclennahan

Site: 38 Plover St Peregian Beach

Date of Inspection: 9/12/23




Table of Contents

   1. Professional Disclaimer
   2. Qualifications
   3. Client Information
   4. Scope Of Works
   5. Method of Inspection
   6. Site Map
   7. Site Observation
   8. Tree Details
   9. Photos of Trees Requiring a Mitigation Response with Contractor Note
   10. Arborist

Page 3

Professional Disclaimer:

All trees are inspected on a basic level and ground based and should a higher level of inspection be required this will be identified and required to complete
a mitigation response on individual trees.

All trees are assessed on “normal weather conditions “and weather event outside this will be deemed an abnormal weather event and as this assessment
results a higher level of risk than the initial assessment due to forces applied.

After any weather event where there have been severe forces applied to the assessed trees, we strongly recommend a reinspection to keep your report
current as this report prior to any event will be deemed defuncted until reinspected.



 Although Australian Tree Contractors & Arboricultural Consultants PTY Ltd (I 614 266 125) (ATCAC) use all due care and skill in providing you with the
information made available in this Report, to the extent permitted by law ATCAC otherwise excludes all warranties of any kind, either expressed or
implied. To the extent permitted by law, you agree that ATCAC is not liable to you or any other person or entity for any loss or damage caused or alleged
to have been caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence), either directly or indirectly, by your use of the information (including by way of
example, Arboricultural advice) made available to you in this report. Without limiting this disclaimer, in no event will ATCAC 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 Tree Logic has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damage. This disclaimer is governed by the law
in force in the State of Queensland, Australia. This Report is addressed to you and may not be distributed to, or used or relied on by, another person
without the prior written consent of ATCAC. ATCAC accepts no liability to any other person, entity, or organisation with respect to the content of this
Report unless that person, entity or organisation has first agreed in writing to the terms upon which this Report may be relied on by that other person,
entity, or organisation. Report Assumptions The following qualifications and assumptions apply to the Report: • Any legal description provided to ATCAC
is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership of any property are assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters outside of ATCAC’s
control. • ATCAC assumes that any property or project is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other local, state, or federal
government regulations. • ATCAC shall take care to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data shall be verified as far as possible; however,

Page 4

ATCAC can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others not directly under ATCAC’s control. • No ATCAC
employee or contractor shall be required to give testimony or to attend court because of the Report unless subpoenaed or subsequent contractual
arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. • Loss of the report or alteration of any part of the report not undertaken
by ATCAC invalidates the entire Report and shall not be relied upon by any party. • The Report and any values expressed therein represent the opinion of
ATCAC’s consultant and ATCAC’s fee is in no way conditional upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent
event, nor upon any finding to be reported. • Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs used in the Report, is intended as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural drawings, reports, or surveys. • Unless expressed otherwise: I) The
information contained in the Report will cover those items that were outlined in the project brief or that were examined during the assessment and reflect
the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and ii) The inspection is limited to a visual examination of accessible components without
dissection, excavation or probing unless otherwise stipulated. • There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied by ATCAC, that the problems or
deficiencies of the plants or site in question may not arise in the future. • All instructions (verbal or written) that define the scope of the Report have been
included in the Report and all documents and other materials that the ATCAC Consultant has been instructed to consider or to consider in preparing the
Report have been included or listed within the Report. • The Report is limited to the matters stated in it and does not apply by implication to any other
matters. • To the writer’s knowledge all facts, matter, and all assumptions upon which the Report proceeds have been stated within the body of the report
and all opinion contained within the report will be fully researched and referenced and any such opinion not duly researched is based upon the writer’s
experience and observations.

General References

•       Australian Standards AS 4373 – 2007 Pruning of amenity trees.

•       AS 4970-2009 – Protection of trees on development sites

•       Wild Plants of Greater Brisbane – Queensland Museum

•       Fraser Coast website and Maps/overlays

•       Evaluating Tree Defects – A Field Guide by Ed Hayes, Second Edition

•       Body Language of Trees – Research for Amenity Trees, Claus Mattheck

•       Smiley E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly April 2012. Tree Risk Assessment: Levels of Assessment

•       Matheny Nelda and Jim Clark Feb 2009. Tree Risk Assessment: What we know (and What We Do Not Know)

Page 5

•        The use of the TRAQ as trained by the International Society of Arboriculture



Qualifications:

Our Consulting Arborist is Kurt Brown, and he has over 30 years in field experience ranging the breadth of Australia and New Zealand, both as a consultant
and as a AQF Level 3 Climbing Arborist and as such brings a more rounded and unique perspective to his inspections. This is evident in the inspections and
data collection and how this is translated into the report format and recommendations.

Kurt also has attained the highest of the relevant qualifications for inspecting trees from all aspects relating to asset and people protection and tree health
and structure and much more.

Qualifications are as follows

    1. AQF Level 3 Arboriculture SCIT
    2. AQF Level 5 Arboriculture TAFE East Coast
    3. ISA TRAQ Certified Arborist

Other Relevant Information,

    1.   Queensland Arboricultural Association Qualified Member 2018 – Current
    2.   Arboriculture Australia Member
    3.   Queensland Arboricultural Association Executive Member 2012 to 2017
    4.   President Queensland Arboricultural Association 2014 to 2016
    5.   Past President Queensland Arboricultural Association 2017
    6.   Arboricultural Australia Member 2014 to current
    7.   International Society of Arboriculture Member 2014 to current



Scope Of Works
To inspect and assess all trees on site with current infrastructure and future infrastructure and staff and contractors as the basis for suitability for retention. All trees will be
view from species type , and long term suitability and if there are protocols relevant to retention during construction should the trees be retained.

Page 6

Method of Inspection

Kurt Brown employs a relevant section of multiple quantified modalities in his inspections, these are Matthecks VTA (Visual Tree Assessment) (Image 1)
and ISA TRAQ Assessment. Kurt will also age profile the tree using the following classification in Appendix 2 and from this will give an approximate ULE
(useful life expectancy)

The following data was updated for the trees:

•       ID Number consistent with previous assessment or on a new site the initial numbering system

•       Image of tree

•       Botanic and common name

•       Tree dimensions (Height x Width)

•       Diameter at breast height (DBH)

•       Health

•       Structure

•       Useful life expectancy (ULE)

•       Age Class

•       Recommended works

•       Comments

Appendix 1

Page 7

The Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) methods as described in ‘The Body Language of Trees. A Handbook
for Failure Analysis. Research for Amenity Trees’ by Mattheck and Breloer (Mattheck, et al., 1994) is
used in association with the International Society of Arboriculture’s guidelines in this report.

196 THE BODY LANGUAGE G

 

 

 

 

 

  

[ce

 

 

 

 

 

 

© ROOT BUTTRESS
© SAILAREA

@ BOTTLE-BUIT

@ SOIL CRACKS

 

 

© VITALITY BREAKAGE WIND THROW
- eaves
- bark
~ tw DEFECT
“ SYMTOMS
FUNGI - bulges
@ FUNG! 7bus
© OLD BRANCHES WOUNDS
@ LEANING
‘© BRANCHES: @BARK CRACKS
‘SUBSIDING @ OTHER ABNOR-
MALTHINGS
WOUND T
OCCLUSION

 

 

 

© KNOCKING WITH
HAMMER

© SOUND VELOCITY
MEASUREMENT

}@ RESISTOGRAPH

 

 

 

NOCKING

® SOUND VELOCITY
MEASUREMENT

‘@ REMOVE SOIL

ESISTOGRAPH

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 120. The Visual Tree A. nent (VTA) procedure for assessing trees.
As the suspicion increases that defects are present, the examination becomes

more thorough and searching.

Page 8

Appendix 2 Age Profile




Glossary of Terms

DBH: Diameter at breast height

ULE: Useful life expectancy

Health Classification:

   •   P = Poor
   •   F = Fair
   •   G = Good

Page 9

    •   D = Dead

Structure Classification:

    •   P Poor
    •   PF Poor Fair
    •   F Fair
    •   FG Fair Good
    •   G Good

Age Classification:

•       J = Juvenile

•       SM = Semi Mature

•       M = Mature

    •   S = Sequencing
    •   D = Dead

Site Map

Page 10

   

— — ze ~ — { +
o¥ CO .
© syne ero

PROPOSED CARPORT TO EXISTING RESIDENCE GROUND FLCOR- PROPOSED

  

 

38 PLOVER STREET, PEREGIAN BEACH =e “

Tree Risk Management Specialist

 

 

 

 

 

Page 11

           T1             T7




 T2




      T4

T3

                     T6
                T5


[OCR of page images]
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now

‘

/@

 

 

 

 

 

‘atnsons Lanse
srinaananit vow ioe
Sees

GROUND FOOR PLAN- EXISTING
1.100

1

PROPOSED CARPORT TO EXISTING RESIDENCE GROUND FLOOR PLAN- EXISTING
38 PLOVER STREET, PEREGIAN BEACH =n] =

or 1) 180
Owe 22 Feb por

Page 12

         Tree Details


Tree     Botanical Name       Height   Width   DBH    Age   Health   Structure   ULE    Risk     Arborist Assessment
Number                                         (CM)                                     rating
T1       Pandanus tectorius   7        7       29     M     G        F           5 to   L        This tree presents typically for the species in the coastal location. The habit is spreading because of the salt
                                                                                 15              spray from the ocean and as such the growth habit has been distorted laterally .
                                                                                                 There is signs of insect predation and some structural concern’s and because of where they are in their age
                                                                                                 cycle it is fair to look at removing as a better long term option and replanting in guidance with the vegetation
                                                                                                 mapping for the area by Noosa Council .
T2       Canpanuopsis         8        9       41     M     FG       F           5 to   L        This tree presents typically for the species in the coastal location. The habit is spreading because of the salt
         anacardniodes                                                           15              spray from the ocean and as such the growth habit has been distorted laterally .
                                                                                                 There is signs of insect predation and some structural concern’s and because of where they are in their age
                                                                                                 cycle it is fair to look at removing as a better long term option and replanting in guidance with the vegetation
                                                                                                 mapping for the area by Noosa Coun
T3       Pandanus tectorius   6        7       31     M     G        F           5 to   L        This tree presents typically for the species in the coastal location. The habit is spreading because of the salt
                                                                                 15              spray from the ocean and as such the growth habit has been distorted laterally .
                                                                                                 There is signs of insect predation and some structural concern’s and because of where they are in their age
                                                                                                 cycle it is fair to look at removing as a better long term option and replanting in guidance with the vegetation
                                                                                                 mapping for the area by Noosa Coun
T4       Canpanuopsis         6        6       42     M     FG       F           5 to   L        This tree presents typically for the species in the coastal location. The habit is spreading because of the salt
         anacardniodes                                                           15              spray from the ocean and as such the growth habit has been distorted laterally .
                                                                                                 There is signs of insect predation and some structural concern’s and because of where they are in their age
                                                                                                 cycle it is fair to look at removing as a better long term option and replanting in guidance with the vegetation
                                                                                                 mapping for the area by Noosa Coun
T5       Canpanuopsis         5        6       32     M     FG       F           5 to   L        This tree presents typically for the species in the coastal location. The habit is spreading because of the salt
         anacardniodes                                                           15              spray from the ocean and as such the growth habit has been distorted laterally .
                                                                                                 There is signs of insect predation and some structural concern’s and because of where they are in their age
                                                                                                 cycle it is fair to look at removing as a better long term option and replanting in guidance with the vegetation
                                                                                                 mapping for the area by Noosa Coun
T6       Syzigium ssp         4        2       15     SM    FG       F           5 to   L        This tree presents typically for the species in the coastal location. The habit is spreading because of the salt
                                                                                 15              spray from the ocean and as such the growth habit has been distorted laterally .
                                                                                                 There is signs of insect predation and some structural concern’s and because of where they are in their age
                                                                                                 cycle it is fair to look at removing as a better long term option and replanting in guidance with the vegetation
                                                                                                 mapping for the area by Noosa Coun
T7       Canpanuopsis         8        5       39     M     FG       F           5 to   L        This tree presents well but has no conflict with the proposed development
         anacardniodes                                                           15



         Arborist Conclusion Statement

Page 13

Trees 1 to 6 we agree long tern would be more suitable for removal with the factors of ,

   1.   Where they are in their age cycle
   2.   Structural integrity due to extreme lateral growth
   3.   Insect predation and the signs of tree health is not as vigorous as the initial inspection showed
   4.   Continual salt spray issues

We strongly recommend

Kind regards

Kurt Brown DIP Arb SCIT, ISA TRAQ Certified




Australian Tree Contractors & Arboricultural Consultants Pty Ltd