LIS DESIGN 力方建筑设计事务所

Phone 0410 755 338 or (02) 9874 9888 PO Box 1020 Eastwood NSW 2122 ABN: ABN 22 071 810 350

Concerning proposed tree removal, existing dwelling demolition and construction of a new dual occupancy residence at

30 Sluman Street Denistone East,, NSW

Prepared for

LIS DESIGN / 力方建筑设计事务所

.

Issue A – 24th October, 2021 by Victor John Molyneaux B.E.;M.Eng.Sc.;M.B.A.; Diploma Level 5 Arboriculture and Garden Design

Please note: a PDF file of this report is available to by contacting [email protected]

Arboricultural Implication Assessment

and Tree Protection

Specification

Arboricultural Implication Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement for No. 20 Sluman Street, Denistone East, NSW

Issue A - Horticultural Resources Consulting Group Page

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 FORMAL ASSESSMENT OF SITE TREES ................................................... 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

Client details ................................................................................................................... 3 The purpose of the report ............................................................................................. 3 Report format and content ............................................................................................ 3 Disclosure of any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests .......................................... 4 The purpose of the report ............................................................................................. 4 Tree Data collection ....................................................................................................... 5

Status ........................................................................................................................... 5 The Site ........................................................................................................................... 5 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 5

The Original Vegetation ............................................................................................. 6 TABLE 1 TREES MEASUREMENTS and OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY ........................ 7 Diospyros kaki Persimmon Mid rear yard........................................................................... 7

Initial Category Ratings ................................................................................................. 8 Sustainable Retention Index Value (SRIV) ......................................................................... 9 TREE RETENTION VALUE - PRIORITY MATRIX. .............................................................. 9 TABLE 2 TREES CATEGORY RATINGS and recommended outcomes ....................... 9 Diospyros kaki Persimmon Mid rear yard........................................................................... 9

Preliminary assessment of retention value of site trees. ........................................ 10 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 10

Recommendation 1 ................................................................................................... 10 Recommendation 2 ................................................................................................... 10

SECTION 2 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ......................................... 11

Samples of Tree Protection Signage required .......................................................... 11 ACCEPTABLE INCURSIONS TO THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) ............. 12

TABLE 3 - AS4970 TREE PROTECTION ZONES AND ROOT AREAS AVAILABLE ... 13 SECTION 3 TREE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION ........................................... 15 Preparation for development ......................................................................................... 15

Protective fencing ........................................................................................................ 15 Direct Project Arborist Supervision ........................................................................... 16

TABLE 4 PROJECT ARBORIST SUPERVISION REQUIRED ....................................... 16 Soil Stockpile................................................................................................................ 17

Development Phase ........................................................................................................ 17 Post Construction Landscaping ................................................................................. 17

Completion meeting ........................................................................................................ 17 General guidance ......................................................................................................... 17

Appendix 1 Tree Protection Plan which shows all tree and shrub locations Appendix 2 Photographs of each tree and shrub



2

Executive Summary An arborist assessment of the existing trees and the proposed development activities has been undertaken and found that:-

• There is only one actual site tree that needs to be removed. This is a Persimmon fruit tree which is not worthy of retention, being an exempt species and impractical to retain in favour of a more planned landscape plan.

• The street tree and all neighbour’s trees will obviously be retained and can be

easily protected.

• The development can proceed with tree protection measures that have been detailed in Sections 2 and 3 of this report.

This report has three main subject areas;- Section 1 details the formal assessment made of each tree, categorizes them using internationally accepted approaches and makes recommendations about the trees that are valued and suitable for retention and those that should be removed. Section 2 formally assesses the impact of the proposed excavation, building, pipe work hydraulics and landscaping activities on the trees that are to be retained. The findings are that there are likely to be no significant negative effects on the trees to be retained. Section 3 details the Root Protection Area requirements and all procedures required to safeguard the trees.



3

SECTION 1 FORMAL ASSESSMENT OF SITE TREES

Introduction Client details

This report is undertaken on behalf of Wang Li of LIS DESIGN / 力方建筑设计事务所 10 Union Street, Eastwood, NSW 2122 Mobile No. 0433 188 804.

The purpose of the report

This Implication Study and Arboricultural Method Statement has been compiled to manage the existing trees during the concerning proposed tree removal, existing dwelling demolition and construction of a new dual occupancy residence at 30 Sluman Street Denistone East, NSW. This analysis has been undertaken to assess the established trees of the site destined for redevelopment, then assist with sound arboricultural advice to manage the existing trees during the planning, design and construction of the proposed residential re-development, including the definition of required tree protection measures, obtaining local government approval for the removal and pruning of relevant trees. The short-term objectives are to assess the condition of each tree and assess their longer-term worth, and then determine their ability and the impact of the proposed development activities. When the actual site trees that will be retained are better defined, the report then develops practical and implementable measures for the long-term protection and tree stewardship. Report format and content This Arborist report contains detailed information about site and nearby trees that could be impacted by the proposed site disruptions and to brief all parties, including owners and neighbours as well as professional officers about all relevant tree matters. The report format and layout has been developed over many years to include all the mandatory Arborist report requirements specified by Councils and yet be easy to read by a lay-person not familiar with tree terminology. It is a comprehensive and factual report that includes substantively based recommendations of trees to retain and those to remove. Sections 2 and 3 of the report provides a practical tree protection specification during the demolition and construction phases of the project, so an additional Arborist Report is not necessarily required after project approval by Council. Some minor amendments based of the Council Conditions of Consent may be required and an Issue B published once all project details have been finalized.



4

The entire Arborist report is completely summarised in Appendix A - the Tree Management Plan which can be printed out in colour on a large sheet. A copy of the PDF wide format printing file of this Tree Management Plan can be obtained by contacting the HRC Group. Arborist Details

The site arboricultural survey and report compilation has been carried out by Victor John Molyneaux, Consulting Arborist with the Horticultural Resources Consulting Group. The HRC Group postal address is PO Box 1020 Eastwood NSW 2122. Telephone number (02) 9874 9888 Fax: (02) 9874 989. Email contact (preferred) [email protected] mobile number 0410 755 338

Victor John Molyneaux has a Civil Engineering degree and Master’s degrees in Science and Business Administration. Victor is a seasoned Arborist physically working with removal of large trees and progressing with his Arboriculture studies through all level of TAFE certification to Diploma Level 5 and migrating to a consulting Arborist role in his senior years. Victor has also obtained Level 5 Diploma status in Landscape Design and prepares residential Landscape Concept Plans with appropriate “fit for use” native tree species for the location. His extensive engineering background coupled with tree morphology knowledge is valued by project developers and building contractors.

Disclosure of any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests

Victor John Molyneaux and the HRC Group have no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests whatsoever in relation to the development other than compiling this report.

The purpose of the report

This Implication Study and Arboricultural Method Statement has been compiled to manage the existing trees during the concerning proposed tree removal, existing dwelling demolition and construction of a new dual occupancy residence at 7 Murray Street West Ryde, NSW. This analysis has been undertaken to assess the established trees of the site destined for redevelopment, then assist with sound arboricultural advice to manage the existing trees during the planning, design and construction of the proposed residential re-development, including the definition of required tree protection measures, obtaining local government approval for the removal and pruning of relevant trees. The short-term objectives are to assess the condition of each tree and assess their longer-term worth, and then determine their ability and the impact of the proposed development activities. When the actual site trees that will be retained are better defined, the report then develops practical and implementable measures for the long-term protection and tree stewardship.

mailto:[email protected]



5

Tree Data collection

The site trees were inspected on 21st October, 2021 to accurately verify tree locations, dimensions, tree health and soil conditions.

There were six (6) significant trees, observed on site and within 5 metres of the boundary. These trees were numbered as shown in Appendix 1. A visual tree assessment was undertaken by Arborist, Victor John Molyneaux. All significant trees on site and neighbouring properties were identified and defined with a summary of key measurements and observations summarised in Table 1. More detailed field notes are available if required and pictures of each tree are included in Appendix 2 so a detailed description is not included in this report.

Status

The recommendations of this report are based on discussions with the Project Design Director – Li Wang, a comprehensive set of design sheets. A Stormwater Concept Plan by MBC Engineering dated 20/8/2021 Issue 3 and a site survey by Complete Surveying Solutions dated 1/04/2021. Ryde City Council has requested AIA by a level 5 AQF Arborist to complement the DA submission. This Issue A of this arboricultural based report to brief all parties and may be superseded with typos corrected and any last minute amendments to the design or when the DA Conditions of project Consent are published. The Site The subject property consists of large sized residential block of 1090 square metres, with an existing residential building, in a quiet suburban area. The site has an AHD elevation of about 67 to 57 metres, sloping south with no observed areas of water pooling. Average annual rainfall for the localized area is adequate for medium sized trees estimated as being about 950 mm per annum. Soils Soils of this immediate area are typical of the West pennant Hills Soil Landscape Group (as classified in the Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100,000 Sheet), consisting of shallow to moderately deep Red and Brown Podzoic Soils with soil materials that are derived from Wianamatta Group Shales.



6

These local soils are known for their mass movement hazard on steep slopes, high soil erosion hazard, localised seasonal waterlogging, impermeable plastic shrink-swell subsoil. The site soil has been not been significantly disturbed or compacted by vehicles and left in a natural condition with a delightful garden soil rich with organic matter. This site can therefore sustain large native trees provided supplemental irrigation is available during periods of extended drought. The Original Vegetation The original vegetation of this area consisted of a Sydney Turpentine–Ironbark Marginal Forest and some isolated significant gums are featured in the area. The front yard features two Eucalyptus eugenioides, (thin leaved Stringybark) in very poor condition that will definitely need to be removed due to safety reasons and should be replaced with the same species to preserve the native urban forest. There are no actual endangered ecological communities (EEC) on the site as defined by endangered ecological communities of the Cumberland Plain 1:25000 Map (Map 10 of 16) by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2002. The area is not considered to be “Urban Bushland” however; the native Eucalypts in the front yard are indicative species and should be replaced if removed.

Endangered Ecological Communities of the Cumberland Plain 1:25000 Map (Map 10 of 16) NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2002

E-spade www.environment.nsw.gov.au/eSpade2WebApp

With an appreciation of the above Soils and Original Vegetation circumstance, we are pleased to note that the proposed Landscape Plant Schedule specifies enduring natives. These are considered sustainable provided they are established with supplemental irrigation and garden bed mulching.

Appendix 2 displays a photograph of each significant tree at the time of the tree survey.



7

TABLE 1 TREES MEASUREMENTS and OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY # Botanical Name/

Common Name DBH mm

Height spread N- S- E W in M

Biological health

Mechanical health Age Class

Sustain-ability (Years)

Comment and existing site implications

1 Photinia serratifolia, Chinese Photinia Street Tree

370

5 N4 S3 E3 W4

Good dense foliage, spherical shape, virile

Good structure and form with 3 M high skirt

mature 20 RETAIN and PROTECT Care with stormwater outflow pipe

required

2

Lagerstroemia indica, Crepe Myrtle Eastern neighbour’s front yard by 1.2 M

Eq 380

6 3X3

Good dense foliage, spherical shape, virile

Tall, erect, well maintained excellent form

mature 20 RETAIN and PROTECT Care with stormwater outflow pipe

required

3 Diospyros kaki Persimmon Mid rear yard

210 4 N2 s4 E2 W4

Good dense foliage, in garden bed, virile

Good structure and form

mature 20 Exempt as working fruit tree REMOVE not sustainable with proposed

development

4

Cupressus torulosa, Bhutan Cypress rear neighbour’s 4 M to the north

310

12 N4 S4 E5 W2

Healthy conifer tall erect slender trunk

Good dominate form once emerged past T5 and excellent amenity – suppressed in lower section by T5

mature 40 RETAIN Neighbour’s tree no issues expected

5

Cedrus deodara, Himalayan Cedar rear neighbour’s 6 M to north

720

12 6X6

Large tree with main stem lopped off at about 9 M High skirt top 8 M

Good structure for main stem - east stem decayed and died back - should be removed

mature 20 RETAIN Neighbour’s tree no issues expected

6

Jacaranda mimosifolia, Jacaranda eastern neighbour’s rear yard

Eq 380

8 N4 S4 E5 W3

Struggling thin stems lacks vitality

Two main trunks at Poor form and stature

mature 20 RETAIN and PROTECT Neighbour’s tree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diospyros_kaki



8

Height is measured in metres from ground level to the highest point of the tree using a Borsch Laser pointer. Diameter at breast height (DBH) is measured and rounded down to the nearest ten millimetres at 1.4m above ground level using specialist tapes. Where a tree divides into multiple stems below 1.4m it will be measured at a representative point above the root flare to give a clear indication of equivalent trunk mass or the relative dimensions of several trunks are given. Canopy spread is measured in metres listing North, South East then West extent in metres. Symmetrical canopies have only two entries. Maturity is divided into young, semi-mature, mature, over mature, and veteran or senescent. This is an indication of which stage a tree is at in its natural life cycle, allowing for an assessment of how energy and growth will be prioritised within a tree. In general, younger trees are more able to cope with disturbance or stress. Biological health and physiological condition are assessment of the health and vigour of the trees and include an evaluation of the size, colour and density of the foliage. Trees in good physiological condition are better able to cope with disturbance or stress. Structural health and mechanical condition is an indication of the structural integrity of the tree. This is given as good, average, fair or poor. Amenity value is a qualitative value sometimes mentioned which is assessed using a combination of factors such as species, size and location, also a tree in a similar group of trees has a higher amenity value. Initial Category Ratings Category ratings are now allocated based on the current condition of a tree in its current surroundings assuming the recommendations of this report are carried out. No consideration is given to any specific development proposal when allocating category ratings. Category A – a HIGH tree retention rating is given for trees which have high visual amenity value, are in good structural and physiological condition and are expected to contribute for at least another 40 years. Category B - MODERATE tree retention rating for trees which would be considered as category A trees but which are of lower value, poorer structural condition, or which are expected to contribute for less than 40 years. Category C - a LOW tree retention rating are those which have low amenity value, are in poor condition, or are expected to contribute for less than 20 years. Category R trees are those which are expected to contribute for less than 10 years due to serious defects. As is common in risk management, where there is doubt, the precautionary principal may be applied. In certain circumstances trees may be considered



9

of higher value due to cultural or ecological reasons.

Sustainable Retention Index Value (SRIV) TREE RETENTION VALUE - PRIORITY MATRIX.

TABLE 2 TREES CATEGORY RATINGS and recommended outcomes # Botanical Name/

Common Name CATEGORY SRIV

RECOMMENDATION and brief comment


CATEGORY B MEDIUM retention

value

RETENTION MEDIUM RETAIN and PROTECT Care with stormwater outflow pipe required

2 Lagerstroemia indica, Crepe Myrtle Eastern neighbour’s front yard by 1.2 M

CATEGORY C LOW

RETENTION MEDIUM RETAIN and PROTECT Care with stormwater outflow pipe required

3 Diospyros kaki Persimmon Mid rear yard

CATEGORY B MEDIUM retention

value

RETENTION LOW

Exempt as working fruit tree

REMOVE not sustainable with

proposed development

4 Cupressus torulosa, Bhutan Cypress rear

CATEGORY A HIGH

RETENTION HIGH RETAIN




10

neighbour’s 4 M to the north Neighbour’s tree no issues expected

5 Cedrus deodara, Himalayan Cedar rear neighbour’s 6 M to north

CATEGORY A HIGH

RETENTION HIGH RETAIN Neighbour’s tree no

issues expected

6 Jacaranda mimosifolia, Jacaranda eastern neighbour’s rear yard

CATEGORY B MEDIUM

RETENTION MEDIUM RETAIN and PROTECT Neighbour’s tree

Preliminary assessment of retention value of site trees. There is only one actual site tree which is not worthy of retention, being an exempt species and impractical to retain in favour of a more planned landscape plan. The street tree and all neighbour’s trees will obviously be retained and can be easily protected. The required tree protection measures and Project Arborist involvement are specified in Section 2 ad 3 of this report. Recommendations Recommendation 1 Remove tree number; T1 (a Persimmon fruit tree) for the stated reasons. Recommendation 2 To appoint a Project Arborist and proceed with the proposed development footprint layout and apply appropriate tree protection measures specified in Section 2 and 3 of this report.



11

SECTION 2 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

After Council officers requested, 5he Architect sought an Arborist report for DA submission specifying the trees recommended for removal and to stipulate tree protection measures for any retained specimens. Council officers also require professional justification for removing site trees when the DA documentation is lodged. Distances for Tree Protection Zones The Australian Standard for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970-2009 suggests a setback of 12 times the trunk diameter as a guide to a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The intent is to avoid damage to major roots by severing or by soil compaction. In ideal situations there should be no excavation or construction within the Tree Protection Area in order to ensure that there is no damage to the root network. There will definitely not be any excavation allowed in the Structural Root Zone as specified in AS4970. On this site, it is not practical or appropriate to have a structured Tree Protection Area for the protected neighbour’s shrubs. In reality the site parameter fence will be the main tree protection measure with appropriate Tree Protection signs.

Samples of Tree Protection Signage required Please note: Waterproof A3 Sized copies these signs are available by contacting HRC group Table 3 defines the tree protection zone, areas available and incursions into the tree drip-lines. According to the generous allowance defined by Australian Standard 4970 there needs to be an assessment by the Arborist if there is adequate tree protection areas for the retained trees. By way of explanation, there are acceptable levels of intrusion into the designated TPZ without further investigation. If the intrusion exceeds the allowance the Arborist must



12

determine if the proposed design and proposed construction operations will inflict detrimental impacts on the tree. Tough construction stress tolerant species may tolerate greater intrusions, alternative Project Arborist supervised construction procedures my reduce tree stress and the proposed design be acceptable. In some cases root mapping maybe required to better define the tree stress that may be induced.

ACCEPTABLE INCURSIONS TO THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ)

REF:- AS 4970 – 2009 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Standards Australia, Sydney Council of Standards Australia (August 2009)



13

TABLE 3 - AS4970 TREE PROTECTION ZONES AND ROOT AREAS AVAILABLE # Name DBH

mm SRZ

M TPZ M

10% slice M

10% corner m

TPZ sq area

Proposed distance to development and relationship to required TPZ Comments


370 2.18 4.44 3.05 SRZ 62

Conceptual stormwater plan show outflow too close to this tree Keep stormwater pipe at least 3.0 M from tree T1 and T2 trunks

Tree protection fence or Trunk protection required Crossover OK far away

2 Lagerstroemia indica, Eastern neighbour’s front yard by 1.2 M

380 2.20 4.56 3.13 2.23 65 Conceptual Stormwater outflow pipe 2.2 M distant in a slice configuration Keep stormwater pipe at least 3.0 M from tree T1 and T2 trunks

4


310 2.02 3.72 2.56 SRZ 43

This tree behind the fence and out of required TPZ OK No tree roots will be disturbed OK ARBORICULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE DESIGN

5


720 2.88 8.64 5.94 4.22 235

This tree behind the fence and out of required TPZ OK No tree roots will be disturbed OK ARBORICULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE DESIGN

6

Jacaranda mimosifolia, Jacaranda 2M eastern

380 2.20 4.56 3.13 2.23 65

Proposed Gazebo 5.0 M distant in a slice configuration OK out of required TPZ Removing shed will improve environment for this tree ARBORICULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE DESIGN



14

Development Impact Assessment The design layout as shown on the plan has been assessed in accordance with British BS5837:2012 Section 6 plus the generous Root Protection Zone areas of AS4970 and the findings are that there are likely to be no significant negative effects on the trees to be retained:- The building structures are located outside an acceptable distance for the species. Absolutely no significant development activity is required within the Structural Root

Zone (SRZ) of the retained trees - no stress expected Any Retaining Wall and Stormwater excavation near retained trees will be supervised

by the project arborist (none proposed as yet Tree drip-lines are not encroached significantly The retained trees are a significant distance away from any proposed living space and

are unlikely to cause undesired or excessive shade to either the house or the usable garden space.

The Project Arborist will be onsite if necessary; during any excavation for stormwater pipework or within any TPZ for boundary fence retaining wall foundations to ensure that no significant tree roots are damaged or severed correctly.



15

SECTION 3 TREE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION

Preparation for development The remedial tree fertilization program should be undertaken after the approved tree is removed. This reduces the stress suffered to trees as micronutrients are made available to the tree even when some roots are temporally compromised. Protective fencing Trunk protection around Tree 1 is preferred and a temporary fencing panel cage shall be installed before demolition.

Tree Protection signage will be attached to the boundary fence to remind workers that tree care will be required. The required Tree Protection Fences are actually the existing boundary fences – with Tree Protection signage placed adjacent to Tree No. 4, 5 and 6 and the area irrigated as required throughout the project.

Tree Protection fencing and signage required The main purpose of this enclosure it to protect the tree trunk and lower branches for materials handling incidents that are extremely common on all construction sites. The tree areas will be fertilized and watered by the Project Arborist before, during and after the construction works.



16

Care should also be taken to prevent fenced area being knocked or contaminated with chemical spillages, including petrol, diesel and oils. In addition, water run-off from areas of construction activity should be diverted away from the fenced area. An additional cage around Street Tree No. 1 will be required as demolition and later materials delivery and storage logistics will definitely prove to be an issue and to reduce the risk of tree striking. The Project Arborist will instruct the builder to install if extra protection is proved to be necessity. It is more likely that the eastern driveway will be used for material delivery. Tree Protection signage will be attached to the fence to remind workers that tree care will be required. The soil moisture surrounding the retained trees’ root ball area of the retained tree shall be monitored on a regular basis. All retained trees need to be irrigated regularly to prevent drying out and help recover from the stress of the localised disturbance. Direct Project Arborist Supervision Project Arborist supervision will be required for any excavation works for the following trees shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 PROJECT ARBORIST SUPERVISION REQUIRED # Name TPZ in M

from Tree Centre

Proposed development in TPZ and comments


4.44

Any significant works within 4.5 metres of tree centre Project Arborist to supervise:- Tree Protection Fence and signage placement Stormwater pipe route location and excavation Fertilize tree on two occasions before demolition and during

construction Certification as per schedule

2 Lagerstroemia indica, Eastern neighbour’s front yard by 1.2 M

4.56

Any significant works within 4.5 metres of tree centre Project Arborist to supervise:- Stormwater pipe route location and excavation Fertilize tree on two occasions before demolition and during

construction Certification as per schedule

4


3.72

Any significant works within 4 M of tree centre (none expected as tree 4.0 M from boundary Project Arborist to supervise:- Monitor tree health and soil moisture Certification as per schedule

5


8.64

Any significant works within 8.6 M of tree centre (none expected as 6 M from boundary) Project Arborist to supervise:- Monitor tree health and soil moisture Certification as per schedule



17

6

Jacaranda mimosifolia, Jacaranda 2M eastern

4.56

Any significant works within 4.5 metres of tree centre Project Arborist to supervise:- Removing shed which will improve environment for this tree

Fertilize tree on two occasions before demolition and during construction

Certification as per schedule Soil Stockpile The Soil stockpile will be well outside the TPZs of retained to protect tree roots and prevent compaction of the nearby soil profile. Development Phase The Project Arborist will inspect the site and monitor retained tree health throughout the Development Phase. Post Construction Landscaping The trees on the site will be subject to landscaping or seeding beneath the canopy after the main development phase has been completed. At this stage, it is inevitable that the protective fencing will have to be removed. In view of this fact, the landscaped works should be carried out in such a way as to avoid ground level changes or deep digging. Tractor mounted tillers or other mechanised cultivation methods should be avoided near the tree.

No heavy machinery should be brought into the vicinity of trees to be retained. Herbicides should be appropriate for the purpose and should not be used in such a way as will damage any vegetation to be retained. Where possible, it is preferable for the trees to be located within a mulched, shrub planted, garden bed. This minimises long term disturbance or compaction to the tree rooting environment and encourages occasional irrigation by the residents. During the summer months all three trees should be irrigated by hand. Some organic matter and granular material is to be added to the soil to aid water penetration around the protected trees. Completion meeting Upon completion, it is proposed that the Project Arborist and the Certifier and or Local Authority’s Tree Management officer are invited to meet on site to check that all works are completed satisfactorily and to discuss any remedial works required. A Compliance Certificate will be issued to the Compliance Authority at this time. I trust this “Issue A” edition of this report dated, 24th October, 2021 provides all he required information to progress the project. However, if further advice is needed then please contact me.

Victor John Molyneaux B.E.;M.Eng.Sc.;M.B.A.; Level 5 Arboriculture General guidance All tree works should be carried out by suitably qualified, experienced and insured contractors in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-1996 - Pruning of Amenity Trees and the WorkCover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry.

APPENDIX 2 TREE PICTURES # Botanical Name/

Common Name PICTURE


2

Lagerstroemia indica, Crepe Myrtle

Eastern neighbour’s front yard

3

Diospyros kaki Persimmon

Mid rear yard

4

Cupressus torulosa, Bhutan Cypress rear neighbour’s to the north


5 Cedrus deodara, Himalayan Cedar rear neighbour’s to north

6

Jacaranda mimosifolia, Jacaranda eastern neighbour’s rear yard

Documents

LIS DESIGN 力方建筑设计事务所