Attachment 2 - Existing Approval.pdf

                                               ANNUAL ARBORIST INSPECTION TREETOP ADVENTURES CENTRAL COAST NSW 2287

        37           Archontopheonix       8         3       .22    -26.40517    SM/M   FG       G          15 to   Low     Arborist Assessment
                     Alexandrea x 3                                 153.05023                               40              These present typically for the species in their age range and location and are a low value.
                                                                                                                            Tree due to there continual sheading of fronds and seed drop which in an urban forest
                     Alexandra Palm                                                                                         developed environment is a hazard that must be continually managed from a trip/ slip.
                                                                                                                            point of view
                                                                                                                            Arborist Recommendation
                                                                                                                            Complete removal and development of a tree replacement plan as part of an offset with
                                                                                                                            better use of the green space within the proposed development




                 Arborist Site Observations

                 This site makes up multiple blocks and some have been previously developed and as such have normal shrub type vegetation that doesn’t raise a red flag
                 from a development perception and as such, we have assessed the trees that are either native or exotic and have some tree value in the DA process. The
                 other site has older style homes and the trees especially 26 Headland Drv have had human pressures on them for several years and are generally forest
                 form and to force these species to adapt further will more than likely exert more pressure than these trees can with stand even in their age profile.



                 They are on the one of the Eumundi Noosa Rd blocks 3 coastal species in the Araucaria s and as the report points out they conflict with Energex High
                 Voltage lines and were previously lopped and are all 3 or 4 stemmed instead of the traditional 1and the epicormic growth is a weakened structure and as
                 such an elevated risk that will only increase as the trees age.

                 So, our overall view there no significant or endangered species here and our suggestions is to clear all trees and devise a native landscape offset plan with
                 succession planting included and native connectivity for the local animal life.

                 Also, we have noted that outside the development site there are Noosa Councils trees on the verge that will require protections as per AS4970-2009 and
                 we propose to create a tree protection plan after consultation with Noosa Council depending on their master plan for the streetscape.

                Special observation is the pink bubble on the site map that indicates the neighbouring trees on the eastern boundary are not within the site and as such
                don’t fall under any tree management for the site but still have a minor consideration. The distance to any hard structure construction proposed appears
                outside the SRZ and is greater than the distance currently in place for the neighbouring existing dwellings and the trees observed. This shows that Jura
                Development is currently allowing more tree protection than the tree owners.




Document Set ID: 23014611
                  22619723
Version: 2,
         1, Version Date: 13/05/2024
                          13/10/2023