ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT REPORT

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT REPORT

23-25 LACHLAN AVENUE

MACQUARIE PARK NSW

UPDATED REPORT

23RD AUGUST 2021

PREPARED FOR BARCAM MAC PARK PTY LTD

Prepared by:

Guy Paroissien

Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd.

ABN 53 110 564 102

T/F. 9943 6510, M. 0425 342 051

40 Timbarra Road St Ives NSW 2075

E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2 Arboricultural Impact Report – 23-25 Lachlan Avenue Macquarie Park

Prepared by Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd –Revised Report - Issue B – 23rd August 2021

CONTENTS

Page

1. BACKGROUND 3

2. TREES ON SITE 3

3. TREES IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY FOR RETENTION 5

4. TREES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION 7

5. TREES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REMOVAL 10

6. TREES NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL OR RETENTION 11

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TREES 12

8. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES 20

9. USE OF TREES BY WILDLIFE 21

10. CONCLUSION 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES 25

APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS 26

APPENDIX B: TREE DATA SUMMARY 36

APPENDIX C: TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH TREE NUMBERS 40



1. BACKGROUND

Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd has been engaged by Barcam Mac Park Pty Ltd to prepare an

Arboricultural Impact Report in respect to 37 trees at and adjoining 23-25 Lachlan

Avenue Macquarie Park. The trees are potentially impacted by a proposed residential

development at the site.

This report has been prepared by Guy Paroissien a Director of Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd.

The site was inspected on 23rd February 2021 to collect data for trees 1 to 20 and on 9th

August 2021 to collect data for tree numbers 7A and 21 to 35 inclusive.

The assessment of the trees was based upon a visual inspection of the trees from ground

level using the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) approach developed by Mattheck &

Breloer (1994). The visual inspection included examination of the trees’ dimensions,

foliage density and foliage health, form, structure, structural condition, overall health and

vigour and landscape significance.

The inspection was limited to visual inspection of the trees without dissection, probing or

coring. No aerial inspection of the trees was carried out and the assessment did not

include any woody tissue testing or root investigation.

The tree heights and canopy spreads were estimated and expressed in metres and the tree

diameters at breast height (DBH) were measured with a standard metal tape at

approximately 1.4 metres above ground level and expressed in millimetres.

2. TREES ON SITE

37 trees on the site have been assessed in preparing this report. A summary of these

trees, their dimensions, condition, Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) and landscape

significance is attached in Appendix B.

The tree numbers in Appendix B correspond with the tree numbers marked on the

attached Tree Management Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated 15/8/2021 and

identified as Drawing Number TP00.04, Revision P1. (Appendix C).

Tree numbers 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 were

added to the plan by Landscape Matrix and are approximate locations only (not to

survey).

The trees that have been assessed on the site and adjoining properties are summarised in

table 1 as follows:



Table 1: Summary of species present, number and height range.

SPECIES COMMON NAME NUMBER

PRESENT

HEIGHT

RANGE

(metres)

Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle 2 7 to 8

Brachychiton acerifolius Illawarra Flame Tree 1 13

Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak 6 8 to 22

Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel 1 22

Corymbia citriodora Lemon Scented Gum 2 21 to 24

Cupressus macrocarpa

CV

Monterey Cypress

cultivar

1 16

Cupressus sempevirens

'Stricta'

Pencil Pine 2 4.5 to 7

Eucalyptus elata Weeping River

Peppermint Gum

1 24

Eucalyptus nicholii

Narrow Leaved Black

Peppermint

1 11

Eucalyptus saligna Sydney Blue Gum 2 30 to 32

Eucalyptus scoparia

Wallangarra White Gum,

Willow Gum

1 4.5

Juniperus chinensis Chinese Juniper 1 5

Ligustrum lucidum Large Leaved Privet 2 9 to 10

Liquidambar styraciflua Liquidambar, Sweet Gum 1 17

Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad Leaved Paperbark 8 9 to 22

Pittosporum undulatum Native Daphne, Sweet

Pittosporum

2 9 to 14

Syncarpia glomulifera Turpentine) 1 13

Thuja orientalis Chinese Arborvitae 2 4.5 to 5

Total number of trees 37 9 to 32 metres

* Eucalyptus nicholii (Narrow Leaved Black Peppermint) Eucalyptus scoparia

(Wallangarra White Gum, Willow Gum) are listed on the Schedules of the NSW

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

However, the specimens of Narrow Leaved Black Peppermint and Wallangarra White

Gum are concluded to be planted specimens rather than remnant vegetation as these

species are not recorded as occurring naturally at this locality.

Taking this into account it is considered that there will not be a significant impact on a

threatened species arising from the proposal.



3. TREES IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY FOR RETENTION/PROTECTION.

The identification of trees as priorities for retention is based upon a number of factors including; species, dimensions, health, maturity,

Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) and landscape significance.

Following assessment of the trees it is considered the following 7 trees are considered to be of high landscape significance and

medium to long life expectancy and should be considered as priorities for retention/protection, if possible:

Table 2: Trees identified as priorities for retention/protection. TREE

NO.

SCIENTIFIC AND

COMMON NAME

TPZ SRZ COMMENTS

6 Corymbia citriodora

(Lemon Scented Gum)

8.4

metres

3.2

metres

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 24 metres in height with a

canopy spread of 16 metres and a diameter at breast height (DBH) of ca. 700mm. In

good health and of high landscape significance.

7 Melaleuca quinquenervia

(Broad Leaved

Paperbark)

7.9

metres

2.8

metres

A mature, twin trunked specimen approximately 22 metres in height with a canopy

spread of 14 metres and DBH of 400mm and 520mm. In good health and of high

landscape significance.

Adjacent pathway lifted consistent with displacement by roots from the tree. The

tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders from 1 metre and

multiple leaders from 2.5 metres with some evidence of poor attachment at the

junction - not considered at risk of failure in the short term. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low

levels of dieback.

9 Eucalyptus elata

(Weeping River

Peppermint Gum)

12.1

metres

3.4

metres

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 24 metres in height with a canopy

spread of 16 metres and a DBH of 1010mm. In good health and of high landscape

significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with a large diameter branch at 1 metre

with some evidence of poor attachment at the junction. Adjacent pathway lifted

consistent with displacement by roots from the tree.

18 Eucalyptus saligna

(Sydney Blue Gum)

8.3

metres

3

metres


spread of 12 x 17 metres and a DBH of 690mm. In good health and of high

landscape significance. Continued next page…



The tree's past canopy development has been suppressed by T19. The tree displays

fair branch attachment with evidence of past failures. Adjacent to retaining wall and

conflicting with adjacent driveway (wound wood growing over driveway surface. .


(Sydney Blue Gum)

9.1

metres

3.2

metres


spread of 14 x 19 metres and a DBH of 760mm. In good health and of high


The tree's past canopy development has been suppressed by T18. The tree displays

fair branch attachment with evidence of past failures. Adjacent to retaining wall and

conflicting with wall - wall is failing - if the wall fails there is a risk the tree ill also

fail as the wall is considered to form part a crucial of the tree's structural support.


(Broad Leaved

Paperbark)

8.2

metres

2.8

metres


spread of 12 metres and a DBH of 680mm. In good health and of high landscape

significance.

The tree's past canopy development has been suppressed. The tree displays fair

branch attachment with multiple leaders from 1.6 metres with some evidence of

poor attachment at the junction - not considered at risk of failure in the short term

but monitoring of branch junctions is recommended.


(Broad Leaved

Paperbark)

7.9

metres

2.7

metres

A mature, twin trunked specimen approximately 20 metres in height with a canopy

spread of 14 metres and DBH of 460 and 480mm. In good health and of high


The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple leaders from 1.2 metres and

multiple leaders from 1.6 metres with some evidence of poor attachment at the

junction - not considered at risk of failure in the short term but monitoring of branch

junctions is recommended. Upper crown extends 3 metres into site. TPZ = Tree Protection Zone under AS4970-2009, SRZ = Structural Root Zone under AS4970-2009

A number of methods to determine the likely extent of root zones and appropriate setbacks for tree root protection zones for trees on

development sites have been developed in the past. The key criteria used in determining setbacks is the tree’s trunk diameter at breast

height (DBH) in conjunction with other factors including the sensitivity of the species in question to environmental

disturbance/change, the age of the tree and the tree’s health and vigour at the time.

Harris et al (2004) provide formulae for calculating tree protection zones based on the above criteria and modified from the 1991

British Standard for protection of trees on construction sites (BS 5837:1991). The 2005 version of the British Standard (BS



5837:2005) recommends a radius of 12 times the tree’s DBH. For multi trunked trees BS 5837:2005 recommends a setback of 10

times the basal trunk diameter.

The Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Construction Sites also identifies a ‘Tree Protection Zone’ (TPZ) of 12

times the tree’s DBH. AS 4790-2009 also provides a formula for calculating the “Structural Root Zone’ of trees on development sites.

This is the area required for stability. In regard to palms, other monocots, cycads and tree ferns the Standard identifies the Tree

Protection Zone should not be less than 1 metre outside the crown projection. (Australian Standards Association 2009)

The tree protection zones identified above have been calculated using the Australian Standard ‘AS 4970 Protection of trees on

construction sites’ and are the optimum setback from the trees where disturbance (e.g. soil level changes, compaction, excavation etc.)

should be minimised to reduce potential impacts on the long-term health of the trees. Preferably, no more than 10% of the tree

protection zone should be disturbed with compensation made by extension of other areas of the TPZ to compensate for the area(s)

disturbed.

Where greater than 10% of the tree protection zone is potentially disturbed the tree’s viability needs to be investigated and

demonstrated by the project arborist.

The structural root zone is the area required for stability and where disturbance of any sort should be avoided.

4. TREES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION/PROTECTION

The identification of trees for consideration (but not as a priority) for retention is based upon the same factors as those for priority for

retention (species, dimensions, health, maturity, Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) and landscape significance).

Following assessment of the trees it is considered the following 17 trees are of moderate or moderate to high landscape significance

and medium to long life expectancy should be considered for retention/protection, if possible:



Table 3: Trees identified for consideration for retention/protection. TREE

NO.

SCIENTIFIC AND

COMMON NAME

TPZ SRZ COMMENTS

1 Brachychiton

acerifolius (Illawarra

Flame Tree)

5.4

metres

2.3

metres

A mature, twin trunked specimen approximately 13 metres in height with a canopy spread of

8 metres and DBH of 310 and 320mmmm. In good health and of moderate to high landscape

significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders from 1.2 metres with some

evidence of poor attachment at the junction - not considered at risk of failure.

4 Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak)

6.7

metres

3

metres

A mature, single trunked specimen approximately 22 metres in height with a canopy spread

of 10 metres and DBH of 560mm. In good health and of moderate to high landscape

significance.

There is also a smaller specimen of Swamp Oak immediately adjacent to this tree - the

smaller specimen is 16 metres in height with a canopy spread of 6 metres and a DBH of

340mm. This smaller specimen has been significantly suppressed with all its canopy to the

NE over the existing building.

5 Melaleuca

quinquenervia (Broad

Leaved Paperbark)

6.1

metres

2.6

metres


of 9 metres and a DBH of 510mm. In good health and of moderate landscape significance.

The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders from 1.8 metres with some

evidence of poor attachment at the junction - not considered at risk of failure. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of

dieback.

7A Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

3.1

metres

2

metres

Suppressed specimen located between tree numbers 7 and 8.

8 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

7.4

metres

2.9

metres


of 12 metres and a DBH of 620mm. In good health and of moderate to high landscape

significance.

Adjacent pathway lifted consistent with displacement by roots from the tree. The tree

displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders from 2 metres and multiple leaders

from 3 metres with some evidence of poor attachment at the junction - not considered at risk

of failure in the short term. At the time of inspection the tree was of moderate health and fair

vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of dieback.



14 Cupressus macrocarpa

CV (Monterey Cypress

cultivar)

6.8

metres

3

metres


7 metres and DBH of ca. 350 and 450mm. In good health and of moderate landscape

significance.

Monterey Cypress cultivar - gold form - possibly C. Brunniana - Brunning's Cypress. At the

time of inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited low levels of dieback - mostly

internal shaded branches.

15 Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak)

5

metres

2.4

metres


of 6 x 9 metres and a DBH of 420mm. In good health and of moderate landscape

significance.

The tree's past canopy development has been significantly suppressed. The tree displays fair

branch attachment with multiple leaders from 5.5 metres following past loss of the main

leader at this point- appears sound and not at risk of failure. Adjacent to retaining wall and

significant level change.

16 Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak)

4.3

metres

2.2

metres


of 6 metres and a DBH of 360mm. In good health and of moderate landscape significance.

The tree's past canopy development has been significantly suppressed. Adjacent to retaining

wall and significant level change.


(Lemon Scented Gum)

5

metres

3

metres


6 x 9 metres and a DBH of 290 and 310mm. In good health and of moderate landscape

significance. Continued next page…


wall and significant level change. The tree displays fair branch attachment with evidence of

past failures. Codominant leaders from near ground level - not considered at risk of failure.

21 Syncarpia glomulifera

(Turpentine)

3.4

metres

2.1

metres

The tree's past canopy development has been suppressed. There is a kink in the trunk at 4

metres - limited view but appears sound.

22 Agonis flexuosa

(Willow Myrtle)

4.8

metres

2.3

metres

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple leaders from ground level - not

considered at risk of failure. Planted in narrow landscape area between retaining wall and

concrete driveway.

23 Agonis flexuosa

(Willow Myrtle)

6

metres

2.5

metres

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple leaders from ground level and multiple

from 1.8 metres following past reduction pruning - not considered at risk of failure. Planted

in narrow landscape area between retaining wall and concrete driveway. Conflict with timber

fence.



25 Juniperus chinensis

(Chinese Juniper)

2.6

metres

2

metres

Creeping Fig growing on tree and English Ivy growing on upper canopy. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low levels of

dieback.

26 Cupressus sempevirens

'Stricta' (Pencil Pine)

2

metres

1.8

metres

Majority of canopy to the north in lower crown due to Bamboo growth to south.

27 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

6

metres

2.7

metres

Slight canopy bias to north. Th tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders

from ground level with some evidence of poor attachment at the junction and there is

evidence of poor attachment at 3 metres on south - not considered at risk of failure in the

short term but monitoring of branch junctions is recommended.

28 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

6.7

metres

2.7

metres

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple leaders from 1.2 metres with some

evidence of poor attachment at the junction and some evidence of poor attachment elsewhere

(e.g. 2.5 metres on south) - not considered at risk of failure in the short term but monitoring

of branch junctions is recommended.

31 Pittosporum undulatum

(Native Daphne, Sweet

Pittosporum)

3.6

metres

2.3

metres

Mid crown extends 3 metres into site.

The tree protection zones identified above have been calculated using the Australian Standard ‘AS 4970 Protection of trees on

construction sites’ and are the optimum setback from the trees where disturbance (e.g. soil level changes, compaction, excavation etc.)

should be minimised to reduce potential impacts on the long-term health of the trees.

Preferably, no more than 10% of the tree protection zone should be disturbed with compensation made by extension of other areas of

the TPZ to compensate for the area(s) disturbed. Where greater than 10% of the tree protection zone is potentially disturbed the tree’s

viability needs to be investigated and demonstrated by the project arborist.

The structural root zone is the area required for stability and where disturbance of any sort should be avoided.

5. TREES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REMOVAL

Following assessment of the trees on the site it is considered that 5 of the trees assessed for this report should be considered for

removal from the property due to poor/declining health or condition and/or inappropriate species:



Table 4: Trees recommended for consideration for removal.

TREE NO. SCIENTIFIC AND

COMMON NAME

REASON

2 Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet) The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders from ground level with

some evidence of poor attachment at the junction - not considered at risk of failure.

Environmental pest species of moderate visual significance.

10 Eucalyptus nicholii

(Narrow Leaved Black

Peppermint)

The tree's past canopy development has been significantly suppressed. Exposed roots on

nature strip and conflict with adjacent infrastructure. At the time of inspection the tree was

of poor health and poor vigour and exhibited very high levels of dieback and epicormic

shoots on the trunk. Th tree has a very short ULE (< 5 years).

13 Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet)

The tree's past canopy development has been suppressed. Environmental weed species

20 Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak)


wall and significant level change. The tree displays evidence of past wounding and tissue

loss to 6 metres with sounding indicating significant decay and termite activity in the main

trunk. At the time of inspection the tree was of moderate health and fair vigour and

exhibited moderate to high laves of dieback. Very short ULE.

34 Eucalyptus scoparia

(Wallangarra White Gum,

Willow Gum)

The tree displays fair branch attachment with codominant leaders from ground level - not

considered at risk of failure. At the time of inspection the tree was of poor health and poor

vigour and exhibited reduced foliage size and density and high levels of dieback (smaller

leader is dead). Very short ULE.

6. TREES NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL OR RETENTION

The following 8 trees have not been identified as being of high or moderate landscape value and worthy of enforced

retention/protection, or as priorities for removal due to low landscape value, declining structural condition or suitability to the site (i.e.

weed species):

• Tree numbers 3, 11, 12, 24, 32, 33, 35 and 36.



These trees are currently in good condition and do perform some landscape function of low to moderate significance. However, these

trees individually are not considered significant enough to warrant specific design consideration.

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TREES

The potential impacts of the proposal have been assessed using the following plans:

• Ground Floor Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated 25/3/2021 and identified as Drawing Number TP02.02, Issue P14;

• Basement 1 Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated 25/3/2021 and identified as Drawing Number TP01.00, Issue P14.; and

• Basement 1 Plan Mezzanine Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated 25/3/2021 and identified as Drawing Number TP01.01,

Issue P13.

Trees requiring removal or proposed to be removed to facilitate the proposed residential development

To facilitate construction of the proposed residential development the following 18 trees are proposed to be removed.

Table 5: Trees requiring removal to facilitate construction of the proposed residential development

TREE

NO.

SCIENTIFIC AND

COMMON NAME

COMMENTS

2 Ligustrum lucidum (Large Leaved

Privet)

Within the footprint of works and will require removal.

3 Pittosporum undulatum (Native

Daphne, Sweet Pittosporum)


12 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor

Laurel)


13 Ligustrum lucidum (Large Leaved

Privet)


14 Cupressus macrocarpa CV

(Monterey Cypress cultivar)


15 Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak) Within the footprint of works and will require removal.





22 Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) Within the footprint of works and will require removal.

23 Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) Within the footprint of works and will require removal.

24 Thuja orientalis (Chinese

Arborvitae)


25 Juniperus chinensis (Chinese

Juniper)


26 Cupressus sempevirens 'Stricta'

(Pencil Pine)


32 Thuja orientalis (Chinese

Arborvitae)


33 Cupressus sempevirens 'Stricta'

(Pencil Pine)


34 Eucalyptus scoparia (Wallangarra

White Gum, Willow Gum)




Trees potentially impacted by the proposed residential development

A total of 19 trees assessed for the report are in the vicinity of the proposed works and have the potential to be impacted by the

proposal. Using the plans referred to in the preceding section of the report an analysis has been undertaken of the potential impacts to

these trees.

The extent of impacts to the trees in table 6 has been rated using the following guideline:

0% of root zone impacted – no impact of significance

0 to 10% of TPZ impacted – low level of impact

10 to 15% of TPZ impacted – low to moderate level of impact

15 to 20% of TPZ impacted – moderate level of impact

20 to 25% of TPZ impacted – moderate to high level of impact

25 to 35% of TPZ impacted – high level of impact

>35% of TPZ impacted – significant level of impact



The root zone calculations referred to in this report were made using scale drawings of the trees’ identified tree protection zones (TPZ)

in a CAD program (TurboCAD®) with potentially affected areas added to the drawing. The area of potential impact was converted to

a percentage of TPZ using a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel®). The potential impacts to these 19 trees are identified in table 6 as

follows:

Table 6: Trees potentially affected by the proposed residential development.

TREE

NO.

SCIENTIFIC AND

COMMON NAME

TPZ SRZ COMMENTS*

1 Brachychiton


Flame Tree)

5.4

metres

2.3

metres

The proposed works are located 4.15 metres from the tree at the closest point and are

calculated to encroach within 5.68m2 or 6.2% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is a low

level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

4 Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak)

6.7

metres

3

metres



to moderate level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

5 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

6.1

metres

2.6

metres





(Lemon Scented Gum)

8.4

metres

3.2

metres




In addition to the above the upper crown will require pruning to accommodate the new

building on the north side. It is estimated that the following branches will require pruning:

1 x 2nd order branch at 11 metres – ca. 280mm diameter at pruning cut;

1 x 3rd order branch at 14 metres – ca. 200mm diameter at pruning cut;

1 x 3rd order branch at 11 metres – ca. 200mm diameter at pruning cut.

The above pruning estimate is based on worst case scenario where all pruning cuts are back

to the main trunk/branch junction – based on that assumption it is estimated the pruning will

impact around 12% of the tree’s live crown area and will increase the cumulative impact to

the tree. As the pruning will be in the northern area of the crown the exposure to prevailing

winds from the west, southwest and south will be limited – not considered to have any

impact of substance on the tree’s form and long-term health.



7 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

7.9

metres

2.8

metres


calculated to encroach within 31.89m2 or 16.19% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is a

moderate level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

7A Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

3.1

metres

2

metres

The proposed works are located 4.5 metres from the tree at the closest point and are outside

the tree’s identified TPZ – no impact of substance.

8 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

7.4

metres

2.9

metres




9 Eucalyptus elata

(Weeping River

Peppermint Gum)

12.1

metres

3.4

metres

The proposed driveway ramp (cut) is located 4 metres from the tree at the closest point and

the proposed building (basement) is located 4.6 metres from the tree – these structures

combined will encroach within 143.13m2 or 31.03% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is a

high level of impact that is likely to affect the tree’s long-term health and reduce its ULE.

However, the impacts will be reduced somewhat due to the existing driveway and building

which are both located within a significant majority of the area impacted and are likely to

have restricted root growth in this area. This will assist in reducing the actual impacts to the

tree

The excavation will need to be carefully monitored as it is adjacent to the tree’s identified

structural root zone with some potential for larger woody roots to be within the impacted

area. It is recommended the excavations be monitored by an AQF Level 5 arborist with

experience in excavation in the vicinity of large trees.

10 Eucalyptus nicholii


Peppermint)

5.5

metres

2.6

metres

The proposed works (driveway crossing) is located 6.78 metres from the tree at the closest

point and are outside the tree’s identified TPZ – no impact of substance.

11 Liquidambar

styraciflua

(Liquidambar, Tupelo)

6.5

metres

2.7

metres

The proposed works (driveway crossing) are located 11.04 metres from the tree at the closest

point and are outside the tree’s identified TPZ – no impact of substance.


(Lemon Scented Gum)

5

metres

3

metres

The proposed building is located 4.17 metres from the tree at the closest point and is



The existing driveway within the tree’s identified TPZ is to be removed and converted to

soft landscape area – measures to protect the tree’s roots are recommended below this table.




(Sydney Blue Gum)

8.3

metres

3

metres

The proposed building is located 5.88 metres from the tree at the closest point and the

pedestrian entrances 5.5 and 6.36 metres from the tree – these structures combined are

calculated to encroach within 51.1m2 or 23.74% of the tree’s identified TPZ – while this is a

moderate to high level of encroachment the actual impacts will be significantly reduced as

the encroachments are within the footprint of the existing structures and buildings.


soft landscape and other areas – measures to protect the tree’s roots are recommended below

this table.


(Sydney Blue Gum)

9.1

metres

3.2

metres

The proposed building is located 6.98 metres from the tree at the closest point (POS area)

and the pedestrian entrances 5.1 and 6.7 metres from the tree – including the access

driveway these structures combined are calculated to encroach within 80.99m2 or 31.01% of

the tree’s identified TPZ – while this is a high level of encroachment the actual impacts will

be significantly reduced as the encroachments are within the footprint of the existing

structures and buildings.


soft landscape and other areas – measures to protect the tree’s roots are recommended below

this table.

In addition to the above the upper crown will require pruning to accommodate the new

building on the north side. It is estimated that the following branches will require pruning:

1 x 1st order branch at 8 metres – ca. 230mm diameter at pruning cut;

1 x 1st order branch at 8.5 metres – ca. 280mm diameter at pruning cut;

1 x 1st order branch at 9.5 metres – ca. 340mm diameter at pruning cut;

1 x 1st order branch at 13 metres – ca. 180mm diameter at pruning cut;

1 x 1st order branch at 16 metres – ca. 230mm diameter at pruning cut.

The above pruning estimate is based on worst case scenario where all pruning cuts are back

to the main trunk/branch junction – based on that assumption it is estimated the pruning will

impact around 25% of the tree’s live crown area and will increase the cumulative impact to

the tree. As the pruning will be in the NE area of the crown the exposure to prevailing winds

from the west, southwest and south will be limited.

21 Syncarpia glomulifera

(Turpentine)

3.4

metres

2.1

metres

The proposed building (basement) is located ca. 2.4 metres from the tree at the closest point

and is calculated to encroach within 3.84m2 or 10.83% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is a

low to moderate level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.



27 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

6

metres

2.7

metres

The proposed building (basement) is located 6.9 metres from the tree at the closest point and

is outside the tree’s identified TPZ – no impact of substance.

28 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

6.7

metres

2.7

metres



low level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

29 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

8.2

metres

2.8

metres



low to moderate level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

30 Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark)

7.9

metres

2.7

metres


and is calculated to encroach within 23.59m2 or 11.98% of the tree’s identified TPZ – this is

a low to moderate level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

31 Pittosporum

undulatum (Native

Daphne, Sweet

Pittosporum)

3.6

metres

2.3

metres



low level of encroachment and within an acceptable threshold.

The potential TPZ encroachments can be summarised as follows:

0% of root zone impacted – no impact of significance = 4 trees (tree #s 7A, 10, 11 and 27)

0 to 10% of TPZ impacted – low level of impact = 5 trees (tree #s 1, 6, 17, 28 and 31)

10 to 15% of TPZ impacted – low to moderate level of impact = 6 trees (trees 4, 5, 8, 21, 29 and 30)

15 to 20% of root zone impacted – moderate level of impact = 1 tree (tree # 7)

20 to 25% of TPZ impacted – moderate to high level of impact = 1 tree (tree # 18)

25 to 35% of TPZ impacted – high level of impact = 12 trees (tree #s 9 and 19)

> 35% of TPZ impacted – significant level of impact = 0 trees

In Summary:

• The proposed works are outside the identified tree protection zone (TPZ) for tree numbers 7A, 10, 11 and 27 and no impact of

substance is anticipated for these trees.

• The proposed works will encroach on less than 10% of the TPZ of tree numbers 1, 6, 17, 28 and 31 and is considered to be a

low level of impact and within an acceptable threshold for these trees.



• The proposed works will encroach on 10 to 15% of the TPZ of tree numbers 4, 5, 8, 21, 29 and 30 and is considered to be a

low to moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold for these trees.

• The proposed works will encroach on 16.19% of the TPZ of tree number 7 and is considered to be a moderate level of impact

and within an acceptable threshold for this tree.

• The proposed works will encroach on 23.74% of the TPZ of tree number 18 and 31.01% of the TPZ of tree number 19. – these

are moderate to high and high levels of encroachment with potential to affect the trees’ long-term health and reduce their ULE.

However, the existing masonry retaining walls are likely to have restricted root growth somewhat and this will assist to reduce

impacts. It is noted these walls are be retained (and reinforced) in situ to minimize disturbance to roots that are growing up to

and along the footing (and form part of the trees’ structural support). It is also noted the existing driveway within the trees’

identified TPZs is to be removed and converted to soft landscape and other areas – measures to protect the tree’s roots are

recommended below.

• The proposed works will encroach on 31.03% of the TPZ of tree number 9 – this is a high level of impact that is likely to affect

the tree’s long-term health and reduce its ULE. However, the impacts will be reduced somewhat due to the existing driveway

and building which are both located within a significant majority of the area impacted and are likely to have restricted root

growth in this area. This will assist in reducing the actual impacts to the tree. The excavation will need to be carefully

monitored as it is adjacent to the tree’s identified structural root zone with some potential for larger woody roots to be within

the impacted area. It is recommended the excavations be monitored by an AQF Level 5 arborist with experience in excavation

in the vicinity of large trees.

Demolition of the existing driveway and garage turning area

The demolition of the existing driveway and garage turning area is to be undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist and

in accordance with the following method:

1.The existing concrete driveway is to be retained in situ during completion of construction works and until the final stages of

landscape works.

2.While being removed the concrete driveway itself is to be used as the only access for removal of waste generated by removal of the

driveway – i.e. the removal is to commence at the upper, western extremity and is to be progressively removed in aa easterly direction

and then progressively down the driveway using the remaining sections for access and removal of materials.



3.The driveway is to be removed in limited sawn sections using a small machine (e.g. bobcat) to lift and remove the sections under the

direction of the project arborist.

4.Upon removal of each section the underlying soil is to be covered with 100mm depth of coarse sandy soil mix with 50mm cover of

woodchip or hessian and kept moist until final landscape materials are in place.

5.The placement of the soil mix is to occur within 2 hours of removal of each section of concrete to prevent drying out and desiccation

of roots.

6.Following removal of the concrete and placement of the soil/mulch those areas are not to be used for access by any vehicles.

Crown pruning of tree numbers 6 and 19

Tree numbers 6 and 19 will require pruning to accommodate the proposed built form. The extent of pruning is described in table 6 on

pages 14 (T6) and 16 (T19). The branches to be pruned on tree number 19 are also illustrated in photographs 14, 15 and 16 in

Appendix A.

Photographs illustrating the branches to be pruned from tree 6 are not provided as it was difficult to get clear photos illustrating the

branches due to the intervening mid to upper crown foliage of the adjacent paperbark trees (tree numbers 5 and 7).

In respect of the pruning it is recommended:

1. All pruning to be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and under the direction

of the project arborist.

2. Minor pruning of outer branch areas to be undertaken during installation of scaffolding in conjunction with Project Arborist.



8. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

The following generic tree protection measures are recommended to assist in minimising

potential impacts that may arise during the works (including the implementation of

landscape works on the site).

A. Measures to be implemented prior to the commencement of any works on the

site.

1. Trees to be retained are to be clearly identified by signage as protected trees.

2. The tree protection zones (TPZ) of trees to be retained are to be protected by fencing

during the entire construction period except for specific areas directly required to achieve

construction works.

3. The tree protection fence shall be constructed of galvanised pipe at 2.4 metre spacing

and connected by securely attached chain mesh fencing to a minimum height of 1.8

metres and shall be installed prior to work commencing.

4. The tree protection fencing shall be installed as closely as possible to the alignment of

the identified TPZ and shall be approved and certified by the site arborist prior to

commencement of any construction or demolition works on the site.

B. Measures to be implemented and maintained during the life of construction

works on the site.

5. Any excavation within the identified TPZ of trees to be retained shall be carried out by

hand to minimize disturbance to tree roots. Roots greater than 25mm are not to be

damaged or severed without prior assessment by an arborist to determine likely level of

impact and the restorative actions required to minimise the impacts of root damage.

6. Tree roots between 10mm and 25mm diameter, severed during excavation, shall be

cleanly severed using sterilised hand tools (i.e. secateurs or a pruning saw)

7. The following activities/actions are prohibited from the tree protection zones:

• Soil cut or fill including excavation and trenching

• Soil cultivation, disturbance or compaction

• Stockpiling storage or mixing of materials

• The parking, storing, washing and repairing of tools, equipment and

machinery

• The disposal of liquids and refueling

• The disposal of building materials

• The sitting of offices or sheds

• Any action leading to the impact on tree health or structure

8. Canopy pruning of trees identified for protection which is necessary to accommodate

approved building works shall be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard

4373-2007 ‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’.



9. USE OF TREES BY WILDLIFE

During the inspection on 23rd February 2021 the trees on the site were checked for signs

of use by wildlife during the inspection. None of the trees showed signs of usage by

wildlife such as scratch marks or the presence of scats consistent with usage by Common

Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) or Common Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus

peregrinus).

It is probable that a number of the trees would be used by native fauna at various times

for food, shelter and roosting purposes and the retention and replacement of trees on and

adjoining the site will retain this opportunity.

The following bird species were noted on site (or heard in the immediate vicinity of the

site) during the inspection on 4th March 2020: Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala)

and Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus).

10. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Of the 37 trees at 23-25 Lachlan Avenue Macquarie Park that have been assessed there

are 7 trees that have been identified as having high landscape significance and as

priorities for retention. A further 17 trees have been identified as worthy of specific

consideration for retention/protection if possible.

Five of the trees assessed for this report was identified as recommended for removal

regardless of any development proposal. The remaining 8 trees are identified in section 6

of the report as not requiring specific design consideration.

To facilitate construction of the proposed residential development the following 17 trees

will require removal or are proposed to be removed as part of the works:

Tree # 2 Ligustrum lucidum (Large Leaved Privet)

Tree # 3 Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne, Sweet Pittosporum)

Tree # 12 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel)

Tree # 13 Ligustrum lucidum (Large Leaved Privet)

Tree # 14 Cupressus macrocarpa CV (Monterey Cypress cultivar)

Tree # 15 Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak)



Tree # 22 Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle)

Tree # 23 Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle)

Tree # 24 Thuja orientalis (Chinese Arborvitae)

Tree # 25 Juniperus chinensis (Chinese Juniper)

Tree # 26 Cupressus sempevirens 'Stricta' (Pencil Pine)

Tree # 32 Thuja orientalis (Chinese Arborvitae)

Tree # 33 Cupressus sempevirens 'Stricta' (Pencil Pine)

Tree # 34 Eucalyptus scoparia (Wallangarra White Gum, Willow Gum)





To facilitate construction of the proposed residential development the following 19 trees

are proposed for retention and may be potentially affected:

Tree # 1 Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Tree)


Tree # 5 Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad Leaved Paperbark)

Tree # 6 Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum)


Tree # 7A Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad Leaved Paperbark)


Tree # 9 Eucalyptus elata (Weeping River Peppermint Gum)

Tree # 10 Eucalyptus nicholii (Narrow Leaved Black Peppermint)

Tree # 11 Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar, Tupelo)

Tree # 17 Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum)

Tree # 18 Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum)

Tree # 19 Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum)

Tree # 21 Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine)





Tree # 31 Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne, Sweet Pittosporum)

The potential TPZ encroachments can be summarised as follows:

0% of root zone impacted – no impact of significance = 4 trees (tree #s 7A, 10, 11 and

27)

0 to 10% of TPZ impacted – low level of impact = 5 trees (tree #s 1, 6, 17, 28 and 31)

10 to 15% of TPZ impacted – low to moderate level of impact = 6 trees (trees 4, 5, 8, 21,

29 and 30)

15 to 20% of root zone impacted – moderate level of impact = 1 tree (tree # 7)

20 to 25% of TPZ impacted – moderate to high level of impact = 1 tree (tree # 18)

25 to 35% of TPZ impacted – high level of impact = 2 trees (tree #s 9 and 19)

> 35% of TPZ impacted – significant level of impact = 0 trees

In Summary:

• The proposed works are outside the identified tree protection zone (TPZ) for tree

numbers 7A, 10, 11 and 27 and no impact of substance is anticipated for these

trees.

• The proposed works will encroach on less than 10% of the TPZ of tree numbers 1,

6, 17, 28 and 31 and is considered to be a low level of impact and within an

acceptable threshold for these trees.



• The proposed works will encroach on 10 to 15% of the TPZ of tree numbers 4, 5,

8, 21, 29 and 30 and is considered to be a low to moderate level of impact and

within an acceptable threshold for these trees.

• The proposed works will encroach on 16.19% of the TPZ of tree number 7 and is

considered to be a moderate level of impact and within an acceptable threshold

for this tree.

• The proposed works will encroach on 23.74% of the TPZ of tree number 18 and

31.01% of the TPZ of tree number 19. – these are moderate to high and high

levels of encroachment with potential to affect the trees’ long-term health and

reduce their ULE. However, the existing masonry retaining walls are likely to

have restricted root growth somewhat and this will assist to reduce impacts. It is

noted these walls are be retained (and reinforced) in situ to minimize disturbance

to roots that are growing up to and along the footing (and form part of the trees’

structural support). It is also noted the existing driveway within the trees’

identified TPZs is to be removed and converted to soft landscape and other areas

– measures to protect the tree’s roots are recommended below.

• The proposed works will encroach on 31.03% of the TPZ of tree number 9 – this

is a high level of impact that is likely to affect the tree’s long-term health and

reduce its ULE. However, the impacts will be reduced somewhat due to the

existing driveway and building which are both located within a significant

majority of the area impacted and are likely to have restricted root growth in this

area. This will assist in reducing the actual impacts to the tree. The excavation

will need to be carefully monitored as it is adjacent to the tree’s identified

structural root zone with some potential for larger woody roots to be within the

impacted area. It is recommended the excavations be monitored by an AQF Level

5 arborist with experience in excavation in the vicinity of large trees.

Demolition of the existing driveway and garage turning area

The demolition of the existing driveway and garage turning area is to be undertaken

under the supervision of the project arborist and in accordance with the following

method:

1. The existing concrete driveway is to be retained in situ during completion of

construction works and until the final stages of landscape works.

2. While being removed the concrete driveway itself is to be used as the only access for

removal of waste generated by removal of the driveway – i.e. the removal is to

commence at the upper, western extremity and is to be progressively removed in aa

easterly direction and then progressively down the driveway using the remaining sections

for access and removal of materials.

3. The driveway is to be removed in limited sawn sections using a small machine (e.g.

bobcat) to lift and remove the sections under the direction of the project arborist.



4. Upon removal of each section the underlying soil is to be covered with 100mm depth

of coarse sandy soil mix with 50mm cover of woodchip or hessian and kept moist until

final landscape materials are in place.

5. The placement of the soil mix is to occur within 2 hours of removal of each section of

concrete to prevent drying out and desiccation of roots.

6. Following removal of the concrete and placement of the soil/mulch those areas are not

to be used for access by any vehicles.

Crown pruning of tree numbers 6 and 19

Tree numbers 6 and 19 will require pruning to accommodate the proposed built form.

The extent of pruning is described in table 6 on pages 14 (T6) and 16 (T19). The

branches to be pruned on tree number 19 are also illustrated in photographs 14, 15 and 16

in Appendix A.

Photographs illustrating the branches to be pruned from tree 6 are not provided as it was

difficult to get clear photos illustrating the branches due to the intervening mid to upper

crown foliage of the adjacent paperbark trees (tree numbers 5 and 7).

In respect of the pruning it is recommended:

1. All pruning to be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-2007

Pruning of Amenity Trees and under the direction of the project arborist.

2. Minor pruning of outer branch areas to be undertaken during installation of scaffolding

in conjunction with Project Arborist.

Generic tree protection measures are identified in section 8 of this report to minimise

potential impacts to the trees to be retained.

Guy Paroissien, MAIH, MIACA, MISA, MAA

M Env. Mgt & Restor., Dip. Arboriculture, Hort Cert., Tree Care Cert.

Director, Landscape Matrix Pty Ltd

23rd August 2021



BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES

Australian Standards Association (2007) AS 4373- 2007 - Australian Standard 4373-2007

‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’.

Australian Standards Association (2009) AS 4970- 2009 - Australian Standard 4970-

2009 ‘Protection of trees on development sites’.

Barrell J (1996) - Pre-planning Tree Surveys: SULE is the Natural Progression.

Arboricultural Journal 17, 33-46.

Harris et al (2004). Harris RW, Clark JR, Matheny NP: Arboriculture – Integrated

Management of Landscape Trees Shrubs and Vines 4TH Edition. Prentice Hall, New

Jersey 07458.

Pizzey G and Knight F 1997. Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Updated and

reprinted 2001 edition. Published by Angus and Robertson, Harper Collins Publishing,

Pymble NSW Australia.

Rothelowman (2021) - Tree Management Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated

15/8/2021 and identified as Drawing Number TP00.04, Revision P1.

Rothelowman (2021) - Ground Floor Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated 25/3/2021

and identified as Drawing Number TP02.02, Issue P14;

Rothelowman (2021) - Basement 1 Plan prepared by Rothelowman dated 25/3/2021 and

identified as Drawing Number TP01.00, Issue P14; and

Rothelowman (2021) - Basement 1 Plan Mezzanine Plan prepared by Rothelowman

dated 25/3/2021 and identified as Drawing Number TP01.01, Issue P13.



APPENDIX A

Photograph 1: Illustrating the location and context of Tree #s 1 to 8

Photograph 2: Illustrating the location and context of Tree # 9.

Tree # 8

Tree # 9



Photograph 3: Tree # 10 - Illustrating exposed roots and adjacent infrastructure.

Photograph 4: Tree # 11 - Illustrating high levels of dieback.



Photograph 5: Tree # 12 - Illustrating location and exposed roots.

Photograph 6: Illustrating the location and context of tree #s 15 to 19.

Tree # 18 Tree # 19







Photograph 9: Illustrating conflict between tree #s 18 and adjacent driveway surface.



Photograph 10: Illustrating the retaining wall and level change in the SRZs of tree #s 18

and 19.

Photograph 11: Illustrating the retaining wall and level change in the SRZs of tree #s 18

and 19.



Photograph 12: Illustrating failure of the retaining wall in the SRZs of tree #s 18 and 19

indicative of displacement by roots.

Photograph 13: Tree # 19 – Illustrating canopy over existing building.



Photograph 14: Tree # 19 – Illustrating the 5 branches that will require pruning to

accommodate the new building.



Photograph 15: Tree # 19 – Illustrating the pruning cut locations for the lower 3 branches

to be pruned.

Photograph 16: Tree # 19 – Illustrating the pruning cut locations for the upper 2 branches

to be pruned.



Photograph 17: Tree # 9 – Illustrating the existing driveway and building in the area

potentially impacted.

Tree # 9

APPENDIX B - TREE DATA SUMMARY - 23-25 LACHLAN AVENUE MACQUARIE PARK

Tree

No.

Genus, Species

(Common Name)

Height

(m)

Canopy

(m)

DBH

(mm)

DBH for

TPZ

DGL for

SRZ

Foliage

Condition Age Class Trunk

Trunk

Lean

Crown

balance Past Pruning Stability

Branch

Attachment Health Vigour

Dead

Wood Pest or disease ULE

Landscape

Significance

Retention

Value* Comments

1

Brachychiton


Flame Tree) 13 8

310,

320 450 440

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3.5 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate to

high

landscape

significance 2

The tree displays fair branch attachment with

codominant leaders from 1.2 metres with some

evidence of poor attachment at the junction - not

considered at risk of failure.

2

Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet) 10 8 x 11

270,

370 460 430

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Environmental

pest species

of moderate

visual

significance. 4


codominant leaders from ground level with some


considered at risk of failure. Environmental pest

species of moderate visual significance.

3

Pittosporum

undulatum (Native

Daphne, Sweet

Pittosporum) 14 11 290 290 340

Fair foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Moderate

health

Fair

vigour 10%

Leaf Miner

present

3 Short (5 to

15 years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 3

At the time of inspection the tree was of moderate

health and fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage

size and density and low to moderate levels of dieback.

4

Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak) 22 10 560 560 800

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Moderate to

high

landscape

significance 2

There is also a smaller specimen of Swamp Oak

immediately adjacent to this tree - the smaller

specimen is 16 metres in height with a canopy spread

of 6 metres and a DBH of 340mm. This smaller

specimen has been significantly suppressed with all its

canopy to the NE over the building.

5

Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark) 12 9

480 x

540 510 540

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


codominant leaders from 1.8 metres with some


considered at risk of failure. At the time of inspection

the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced

foliage density and low levels of dieback.

6

Corymbia citriodora

(Lemon Scented

Gum) 24 16 ca. 700 700 900

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Appears a

central leader

has been

removed in the

past at 7

metres on the

SW side of

trunk

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1

7

Melaleuca



400,

520 660 670

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Upper

branches

pruned for

building on

south

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour

5 to

10%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1

Adjacent pathway lifted consistent with displacement

by roots from the tree. The tree displays fair branch

attachment with codominant leaders from 1 metre and

multiple leaders from 2.5 metres with some evidence

of poor attachment at the junction - not considered at

risk of failure in the short term. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited

reduced foliage density and low levels of dieback.

7A

Melaleuca


Leaved Paperbark) 14 5 260 260 310

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

crown on a

north x

south axis

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 2 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2

Suppressed specimen located between tree numbers

7 and 8.

8

Melaleuca



620 at 1

metre 620 710

Fair foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Moderate

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate to

high

landscape

significance 2

Adjacent pathway lifted consistent with displacement

by roots from the tree. The tree displays fair branch

attachment with codominant leaders from 2 metres

and multiple leaders from 3 metres with some


considered at risk of failure in the short term. At the

time of inspection the tree was of moderate health and

fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and

low levels of dieback.

Tree

No.

Genus, Species

(Common Name)

Height

(m)

Canopy

(m)

DBH

(mm)

DBH for

TPZ

DGL for

SRZ

Foliage


Trunk

Lean

Crown


Branch


Dead


Landscape

Significance

Retention

Value* Comments

9

Eucalyptus elata

(Weeping River

Peppermint Gum) 24 16

980 x

1040 1010 1100

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 6 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1

The tree displays fair branch attachment with a large

diameter branch at 1 metre with some evidence of

poor attachment at the junction. Adjacent pathway

lifted consistent with displacement by roots from the

tree.

10

Eucalyptus nicholii


Peppermint) 11 7 x 9 460 460 540

Poor

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Distinct

trunk

lean to

the east

All canopy

to the east

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment Poor health

Poor

vigour 30%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease 4 (< 5 years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 4

The tree's past canopy development has been

significantly suppressed. Exposed roots on nature strip

and conflict with adjacent infrastructure. At the time of

inspection the tree was of poor health and poor vigour

and exhibited very high levels of dieback and epicormic

shoots on the trunk. Th tree has a very short ULE (< 5

years).

11

Liquidambar

styraciflua

(Liquidambar, Tupelo) 17 12 540 540 640

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the east

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 3 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Moderate

health

Fair

vigour

5 to

10%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

3 Short (5 to

15 years)

Moderate to

high

landscape

significance 3

Moderate canopy bias to the east. The tree has an

atypical open form crown. The tree displays fair

branch attachment with some evidence of past failures.

At the time of inspection the tree was of moderate

health and fair vigour and exhibited moderate levels of

dieback. Exposed roots on nature strip and conflict

with adjacent infrastructure.

12

Cinnamomum

camphora (Camphor

Laurel) 22 18

720 x

800

below

junction

of

leaders 760 890

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the NE

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 4 metres

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 10%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Environmental

pest species

of high visual

significance. 3

Brush Turkey mound adjacent to trunk on SE side.

Very large diameter exposed roots. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited

moderate levels of dieback in the upper crown.

13

Ligustrum lucidum

(Large Leaved Privet) 9 7

Up to

190

(370

above

the root

flare) 370 370

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Slight

trunk

lean to

the

north

Majority of

canopy to

the north

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 1.6 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Environmental

pest species

of moderate

visual

significance. 4


suppressed.

14

Cupressus

macrocarpa CV

(Monterey Cypress

cultivar) 16 7

ca. 350,

450 570 800

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 1.6 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour

5 to

10%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2

Monterey Cypress cultivar - gold form - possibly C.

Brunniana - Brunning's Cypress. At the time of

inspection the tree was of fair vigour and exhibited low

levels of dieback - mostly internal shaded branches.

15

Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak) 16 6 x 9 420 420 460

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

All canopy

to the west

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


significantly suppressed. The tree displays fair branch

attachment with multiple leaders from 5.5 metres

following past loss of the main leader at this point-

appears sound and not at risk of failure. Adjacent to

retaining wall and significant level change.

16

Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak) 22 6 360 360 390

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

All canopy

to the west

Appears a

central leader

has been

removed in the

past at 7

metres on the

SW side of

trunk

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


significantly suppressed. Adjacent to retaining wall and

significant level change.

17

Corymbia citriodora

(Lemon Scented

Gum) 21 6 x 9

290,

310 420 820

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy on a

N x S axis

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2



significant level change. The tree displays fair branch

attachment with evidence of past failures. Codominant

leaders from near ground level - not considered at risk

of failure.

18

Eucalyptus saligna

(Sydney Blue Gum) 32 12 x 17

660 x

720 690 820

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the SW

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 6 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1


suppressed by T19. The tree displays fair branch

attachment with evidence of past failures. Adjacent to

retaining wall and conflicting with adjacent driveway

(wound wood growing over driveway surface. .

Tree

No.

Genus, Species

(Common Name)

Height

(m)

Canopy

(m)

DBH

(mm)

DBH for

TPZ

DGL for

SRZ

Foliage


Trunk

Lean

Crown


Branch


Dead


Landscape

Significance

Retention

Value* Comments

19

Eucalyptus saligna

(Sydney Blue Gum) 30 14 x 19 760 760 910

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the NE

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 5 metres

Displays

signs of

instability

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1


suppressed by T18. The tree displays fair branch

attachment with evidence of past failures. Adjacent to

retaining wall and conflicting with wall - wall is failing - if

the wall fails there is a risk the tree ill also fail as the

wall is considered to form part a crucial of the tree's

structural support.

20

Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak) 14 4 290 290 310

Fair foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Slight

trunk

lean to

the

west

All canopy

to the west

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Moderate

health

Fair

vigour 15%

Evidence of

decay and

termite activity in

trunk to6 metres 4 (< 5 years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 4



significant level change. The tree displays evidence of

past wounding and tissue loss to 6 metres with

sounding indicating significant decay and termite

activity in the main trunk. At the time of inspection the

tree was of moderate health and fair vigour and

exhibited moderate to high laves of dieback. Very

short ULE.

21

Syncarpia glomulifera

(Turpentine) 13 5 ca. 280 280 340

Good

foliage

condition s

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the west

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


suppressed. There is a kink in the trunk at 4 metres -

limited view but appears sound.

22

Agonis flexuosa

(Willow Myrtle) 7 8

Up to

ca. 90

(say 400

above

the root

flare) 400 400

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2

The tree displays fair branch attachment with multiple

leaders from ground level - not considered at risk of

failure. Planted in narrow landscape area between

retaining wall and concrete driveway.

23

Agonis flexuosa

(Willow Myrtle) 8 11

Up to

ca. 140

(say 500

above

the root

flare) 500 500

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


leaders from ground level and multiple from 1.8 metres

following past reduction pruning - not considered at risk

of failure. Planted in narrow landscape area between

retaining wall and concrete driveway. Conflict with

timber fence.

24

Thuja orientalis

(Chinese Arborvitae) 4.5 4

up to 80

(ca. 310

above

the root

flare) 310 310

Fair foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 1.7 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Low to

moderate

landscape

significance 3



failure. At the time of inspection the tree was of fair

vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density and low

levels of dieback.

25

Juniperus chinensis

(Chinese Juniper) 5 6 220 220 310

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

Creeping Fig

growing on tree

and English Ivy

growing on

upper canopy

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2

Creeping Fig growing on tree and English Ivy growing

on upper canopy. At the time of inspection the tree

was of fair vigour and exhibited reduced foliage density

and low levels of dieback.

26

Cupressus

sempevirens 'Stricta'

(Pencil Pine) 7 1.3 170 170 220

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the north in

lower crown

due to

Bamboo

growth to

south

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2

Majority of canopy to the north in lower crown due to

Bamboo growth to south.

27

Melaleuca



260,

280,

320 500 600

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the north

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate to

high

landscape

significance 2

Slight canopy bias to north. Th tree displays fair

branch attachment with codominant leaders from

ground level with some evidence of poor attachment at

the junction and there is evidence of poor attachment

at 3 metres on south - not considered at risk of failure

in the short term but monitoring of branch junctions is

recommended.

28

Melaleuca



280,

360,

330 560 630

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 2 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2


leaders from 1.2 metres with some evidence of poor

attachment at the junction and some evidence of poor

attachment elsewhere (e.g. 2.5 metres on south) - not

considered at risk of failure in the short term but

monitoring of branch junctions is recommended.

Tree

No.

Genus, Species

(Common Name)

Height

(m)

Canopy

(m)

DBH

(mm)

DBH for

TPZ

DGL for

SRZ

Foliage


Trunk

Lean

Crown


Branch


Dead


Landscape

Significance

Retention

Value* Comments

29

Melaleuca



660 x

700 680 690

Fair foliage

condition Mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the east

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Fair

vigour 5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1


suppressed. The tree displays fair branch attachment

with multiple leaders from 1.6 metres with some


considered at risk of failure in the short term but

monitoring of branch junctions is recommended.

30

Melaleuca



460,

480 660 600

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

High

landscape

significance 1


leaders from 1.2 metres and multiple leaders from 1.6

metres with some evidence of poor attachment at the

junction - not considered at risk of failure in the short

term but monitoring of branch junctions is

recommended. Upper crown extends 3 metres into

site.

31

Pittosporum

undulatum (Native

Daphne, Sweet

Pittosporum) 9 9

90, 130,

250 300 420

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 1.6 metres

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour 5%

Leaf Miner

present

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Moderate

landscape

significance 2 Mid crown extends 3 metres into site.

32

Thuja orientalis

(Chinese Arborvitae) 5 2 110 110 140

Good

foliage

condition

Semi

mature

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the north

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Low to

moderate

landscape

significance 3

Canopy bias to north due to proximity to building on

south.

33

Cupressus

sempevirens 'Stricta'

(Pencil Pine) 4.5 1.8

Up to 50

(ca. 210

above

the root

flare) 210 210

Good

foliage

condition Mature

Multi

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

1 Long (> 40

years)

Low to

moderate

landscape

significance 3



failure.

34

Eucalyptus scoparia

(Wallangarra White

Gum, Willow Gum) 4.5 4 60, 80 100 170

Poor

foliage

condition

Semi

mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Majority of

canopy to

the east

No evidence of

significant past

pruning

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment Poor health

Poor

vigour 45%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease 4 (< 5 years)

Low

landscape

significance 4


codominant leaders from ground level - not considered

at risk of failure. At the time of inspection the tree was

of poor health and poor vigour and exhibited reduced

foliage size and density and high levels of dieback

(smaller leader is dead). Very short ULE.

35

Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak) 8 2 60, 120 130 210

Good

foliage

condition

Semi

mature

Twin

trunked

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 2 metres

Appears

stable

Fair branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

3 Short (5 to

15 years)

Low

landscape

significance 3

Growing immediately adjacent to driveway with conflict

already occurring between basal trunk and driveway

edge.

36

Casuarina glauca

(Swamp Oak) 10 3 140 140 220

Good

foliage

condition s

Single

trunk

Upright

trunk

Balanced

canopy

area

Lower limbs

pruned in past

to 1.5 metres

Appears

stable

Sound

branch

attachment

Good

health

Good

vigour <5%

No visual

evidence of

significant pest

or disease

2 Medium

(15 to 40

years)

Low to

moderate

landscape

significance 3

ca = approximate diameter at breast height (DBH) estimated from nearest property boundary or fence where trees were located on adjoining properties

* Retention Values: 1 - High (Priority for retention); 2 - Moderate (Consider for retention); 3 - Low or short ULE (Not warranting specific design consideration) and 4 - Remove (very short ULE, structurally unsound, weed species etc.)

LEGEND

TREE TO BE RETAINED

TREE TO BE REMOVED

TREE PROTECTION ZONE ENCROACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ARBORIST.

REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT FOR DETAILED INFORMATION.

EXISTING RETAINING

WALL RETAINED TO

SUPPORT TREES

LACHLAN

AVENUE

T1T4

T5

T6

T7 T8

T18

T19T17

T11

T10

T2

T3

T12

T13

T9

T16

T15

T14

T20

ELOUERA RESERVE

16

5 H

ER

RIN

G R

OA

D

21 LACHLAN AVENUE

169 HERRING ROAD

16

7 H

ER

RIN

G R

OA

D

PROPOSED

DRIVEWAY

PROPOSED SUBSTATION

PROPOSED

PILING WALL

TREES TO BE REMOVED.

REFER TO LEGEND.

TPZ OF TREES TO

BE RETAINED.

REFER TO

LEGEND.

TPZ ENCROACHMENTS

INDICATED. REFER TO

ARBORIST REPORT FOR

DETAILED INFORMATION.

TPZ ENCROACHMENTS

INDICATED. REFER TO

ARBORIST REPORT FOR

DETAILED INFORMATION.

TPZ OF TREES TO BE

RETAINED. REFER TO

LEGEND.

PROPOSED

PILING WALL

PROPOSED

PILING WALL

PROPOSED

PILING WALL

PROPOSED

PILING WALL

T9

T36 T35

T22T23

T24

T25

T33

T32

T26

T7A

T31

T30

T29T28

T27

T21

T34

PRELIMINARY

Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydneywww.rothelowman.com.au

Revisions

Disclaimer: Rothe Lowman Property Pty. Ltd. retains all common law, statutory law and other rights including copyright and intellectual property rights in respect of this document.The recipient indemnifies Rothe Lowman Property Pty. Ltd. against all claims resulting from use of this document for any purpose other than its intended use, unauthorized changes or reuse of the document on other projects without the permission of Rothe Lowman Property Pty. Ltd. Under no circumstance shall transfer of this document be deemed a sale or constitute a transfer of the license to use this document. ABN 76 005 783 997

Drawing No.Author Scale: @ A1Project NoProject Drawing Date Revision

21/08/2021 5:26:18 PM

KW 1 : 100P1

15.08.2021TP00.04

219099LACHLAN AVENUE TREE MANAGEMENT

PLAN23-25 LACHLAN AVENUE, MACQUARIE PARK

A 09.04.2021 DA SUBMISSION KW

P1 15.08.2021 FOR REVIEW KW

Documents

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT REPORT