City of Casey · City of Casey . Amendment C148 to the Casey Planning Scheme . Friday, 13 June 2014 . Prepared For ... biofiltration systems (WSUD). Her project focused on the effect

Tel: 03 9877 4114 ABN: 39 531 880 706

Expert Witness Report

for

City of Casey

Amendment C148 to the Casey Planning Scheme

Friday, 13 June 2014 Prepared For Asok Rao Magid Drive Narre Warren, Vic 3805 Prepared by Cameron Ryder BHort(Hons) AdvDipHort(Arb) 150 Junction Road Nunawading VIC 3131

Expert Witness Report City Casey Amendment C148 to the Casey Planning Scheme

Reference: 2128

Contents 1. Statement of expertise to prepare this report.............................................................. 3

1.1 Cameron Ryder ........................................................................................................ 3

2. Instructions that define the scope of the report .......................................................... 3

3. Contributors to the report ............................................................................................. 4 3.1.1 Arran Provis ..................................................................................................... 4 3.1.2 Ben Kenyon ..................................................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Emma Barrett .................................................................................................. 4 3.1.4 Liz Denman ..................................................................................................... 5

4. Matters to be addressed ............................................................................................... 5

4.1 Background to the Amendment and Development of the Register ............................ 5 4.1.1 History ............................................................................................................. 5 4.1.2 Undertaking Assessments ............................................................................... 6

4.2 Justification for the Amendment ................................................................................ 7

4.3 Planning control practicality ...................................................................................... 7

5. Response to issues raised in submissions relevant to my area of expertise ........... 8

5.1 Submitter 1, 14 Adamson Road, Beaconsfield, Tree 2286 ........................................ 8

5.2 Submitter 3, 805 Berwick-Cranbourne Road, Cranbourne North, Tree 2127............. 8

5.3 Submitter 10, 195 Evans Road, Cranbourne West, Tree 1781 ................................. 8

5.4 Submitter 12, 19 Floriana Ave, Doveton, Tree 3110 ............................................... 10

5.5 Submitter 13, 128, 130, 132a, 132b Fordholm Road, Hampton Park, Trees 849 & 850 ............................................................................................................................... 10

5.6 Submitter 18, 31 Gumtree Grove, Hampton Park, Tree 2022 ................................. 11

5.7 Submitter 19, 43-45 High Street, Berwick, Trees 1218, 1219 & 1220 ..................... 11

5.8 Submitter 21, 22 & 23, 182 Kidds Road, Doveton, Tree 3123 ................................. 12

5.9 Submitter 24, 38 Kilberry Crescent, Hallam, Tree 2930 .......................................... 13

5.10 Submitter 30, 95 Mansfield Street, Berwick, Tree 2373 .......................................... 14

5.11 Submitter 32, 3 McLennan Street, Eumemmerring, Tree 3224 ............................... 15

5.12 Submitter 34, 5 Melville Park Drive, Berwick, Tree 2269 ......................................... 15

5.13 Submitter 35, 18 Mickle Street, Tooradin, Tree 1445 .............................................. 16

5.14 Submitter 40, 102 Paterson Drive, Lynbrook, Tree 1815......................................... 16

5.15 Submitter 42, 46 Pound Road, Hampton Park, Trees 2016-7 ................................. 18

5.16 Submitter 45, 9 Rade Macut Court, Narre Warren North, Tree 3052 ....................... 19

5.17 Submitter 47, 15 Rimfire Crescent, Cranbourne, Tree 1586 ................................... 20

5.18 Submitter 49, 12 Roma Avenue, Cranbourne, Tree 1599 ....................................... 20

5.19 Submitter 52, 500 Soldiers Road, Clyde North, Tree 1471 ...................................... 22

5.20 Submitter 54, 17 The Promenade Narre Warren South, Tree 2111 ........................ 22

5.21 Submitter 56, 13 Wanda Court, Hallam, Tree 2935 ................................................. 22

5.22 Submitter 57, 4 Watergum Ave, Lyndhurst, Tree 1943 ........................................... 23

6. Declaration ................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 1. Data sheets relevant to submitters .......................................................... 24

Appendix 2. Expert Witness Curriculum Vitae ............................................................. 51

Page 2 of 57


Reference: 2128

List of Figures Figure 1: Original tree and assessed tree at 195 Evans Road, Cranbourne West .................. 9

Figure 2: Tree 2930 has little or no lean ............................................................................... 13

Figure 3: Previous failure ...................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4: Active split in union ................................................................................................ 14

Figure 5: Borers in stem union .............................................................................................. 14

Figure 6: Water main very close to trunk .............................................................................. 14

Figure 7: Tree 2269 is substantially decayed at the base (arrows) and ‘mushrooms’ have appeared near the roots (circle). .................................................................................... 15

Figure 8: Small park created around tree 1815 ..................................................................... 16

Figure 9: Crack in retaining wall ........................................................................................... 17

Figure 10: Cracking in retaining wall ..................................................................................... 17

Figure 11: Extent of ESO7 planning control on 9 Rade Macut Court .................................... 19

Figure 12: Extent of the proposed ESO on the subject property ........................................... 23

Page 3 of 57


Reference: 2128

1. Statement of expertise to prepare this report 1.1 Cameron Ryder 1. I am an arborist with over 17 years of experience in horticulture including 10 years in

arboriculture. I have a wide range of practical experience in arboriculture that is founded on a solid education in Horticulture and Arboriculture.

2. Arboriculture and tree assessment are at the core of the significant tree project that we have completed for the City of Casey. I have developed substantial experience and worked closely with town planners and within planning schemes for various projects.

3. I have been extensively involved with the design and development of other significant tree registers as well as planning overlay reviews and amendments. These include: Project Manager, major contributor and Expert Witness for Moonee Valley City Council

Significant Tree Register and subsequent C130 Amendment (2013) Project Manager for City of Yarra, Significant Tree Register (2012) Project Manager and primary contributor for City of Subiaco Significant Park and Street

Tree Assessments (2011-2013) Project Manager and major contributor for City of Casey Significant Tree Register on

Private and Public Land, approximately 1000 trees (2011-current) Project Manager for the City of Melbourne, Exceptional Tree Register, 2012. Past project manager and contributor to assessments of trees at many heritage listed

sites for the Department of Defence, tree inventory 2008-2011 Sydney. Project Manager and primary contributor to the development of the Culturally Significant

Tree Register for District Council of Mount Barker (SA), 2011-current Project Manager and sole contributor for the City of Darebin VPO Review, Mount

Cooper Estate 2008. Project Manager and sole contributor for the City of Darebin VPO Review, Kingsbury

Estate (Current) Project Manager and primary contributor for the Chirnside Park Country Club,

Amendment C67 [2009] of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme and subsequent redevelopment.

4. My qualifications, experience and expertise are in the field of horticulture and arboriculture. This ensures that I am qualified to provide an informed opinion on the subject and to try and direct an outcome that improves tree protection across a city.

2. Instructions that define the scope of the report 5. Homewood Consulting has been engaged as an independent expert witness to prepare a

report for a Planning Panel in relation to the Amendment C148 of the Casey Planning Scheme. Specific items to be addressed include: The background to the amendment, including a description of the development of the

Casey Signficant Tree Study 2011. A description of my experience with significant tree management within other Victorian

Councils. My opinion on the strategic justification for the amendment. A description of the operation of the proposed planning controls in practical terms.

Highlight what the options are for applicants who wish to develop within tree protection zones.

Responses to the issues raised in submissions as relevant.

Page 4 of 57


Reference: 2128

3. Contributors to the report 6. Cameron Ryder was the project manager and oversaw the development of the project,

maintained client relationships, undertook site assessments, contributed to the production of the report and has directed the deliverables.

7. The project has been completed with input from 5 consultants as detailed below: 7.1 Arran Provis, 60 trees 7.2 Ben Kenyon, 60 trees 7.3 Cameron Ryder, 291 trees 7.4 Emma Barrett, 491 trees 7.5 Liz Denman, 89 trees

3.1.1 Arran Provis 8. Arran (No longer with Homewood) undertook tree assessments and was a Senior

Consulting Arborist with over 7 years experience in the arboricultural industry, both in the field and consulting. He has been extensively involved in the development of street tree inventories for a number of local governments including Manningham City Council, Albury City Council, Benalla Rural City and Hobsons Bay City Council.

9. He has developed tree protection and management plans for trees on development sites, reviewed planning applications in relation to trees and undertaken risk assessment analysis for both private parties and local, state and federal government bodies.

10. Acting on behalf of council he has assessed planning applications for tree removal and development for City of Whitehorse.

3.1.2 Ben Kenyon 11. Ben undertook tree assessments and has over 23 years experience in the arboricultural

industry in both the field and consultancy applications and has an excellent understanding of current arboricultural management and technical issues.

12. Ben is the Principal Consulting Arborist at Homewood Consulting and consults to both private and government organisations. He has extensive experience in the preparation of tree management plans and tree retention strategies for planning and development.

13. Prior to establishing Homewood Consulting, Ben worked for over 12 years as a field Arborist for a number of organisations. This experience was valuable as it provided Ben with the practical knowledge to provide advice on the most appropriate management strategies for trees.

3.1.3 Emma Barrett 14. Emma Barrett undertook the majority of the site assessments and contributed to the

production of the report. Her formal qualifications are Bachelor of Applied Science (Horticulture) and Advanced Diploma Horticulture (Arboriculture). Emma’s expertise is in tree assessment she has been a major contributor to the City of Melbourne Exceptional Tree Register, the City of Casey Significant Tree Register and the City of Yarra’s Significant Tree Register.

15. Emma has over 9 years experience as a Consulting Arborist and has been extensively involved in the development of street tree inventories for a number of local governments such as the City of Hobsons Bay, City of Hume, North Sydney Council and Latrobe University Bundoora Campus.

16. She has developed tree protection and management plans for trees on development sites, reviewed planning applications in relation to trees and supervised construction near

Page 5 of 57


Reference: 2128

protected trees. She has also undertaken risk assessment analysis, and health and condition assessments for private parties and local government bodies.

3.1.4 Liz Denman 17. Liz undertook tree assessments and has over 10 years experience in the horticultural

industry in both consultancy and research. 18. Liz completed a PhD thesis which investigated the potential role of street trees in urban

biofiltration systems (WSUD). Her project focused on the effect of species and soil selection on the nutrient removal performance of biofilters.

19. At Homewood Consulting Liz has completed a number of projects. These have included a number of review projects, construction impact assessments and she was the primary author for the City of Moreland Street Landscape Strategy and the City of Darebin Urban Forest Strategy.

20. While working at Australian Landscape Management, Liz assisted with site surveys and the preparation of management and maintenance plans for local government parks and gardens. Liz also supervised contractors during street tree planting projects.

21. Other projects included acting as a research assistant on the development of green roof projects, efficient irrigation of residential gardens and modelling of irrigation requirements based on historical climate data.

4. Matters to be addressed

4.1 Background to the Amendment and Development of the Register

4.1.1 History 22. The study was initiated by Council, with the support of the Conservation Advisory

Committee (CAC). Initial investigation of the project commenced in July 2006 and in February 2007, public advertising took place to nominate significant trees across the municipality. A total of 3,215 trees were identified through the public nomination process.

23. A study brief was prepared in August 2007, along with a tender to employ a consultant for the first stage of the project. The consultant work involved compilation of existing data from the nomination process, and drive-by inspections of each nominated tree to validate data and collect information including GIS location, property address, tree species, general condition, initial significance assessment and a photo of each tree.

24. Each tree was assigned a unique identification number for inclusion in the database. Trees were assessed against criteria established by the National Trust of Australia. At the completion of this stage of the project, 3,130 trees were included in the study register.

25. Generally, the approach taken was to provide a good representation of significant trees across the municipality. Trees have been assessed against the significance criteria prepared in the first stage of the project.

26. The first round of the selection process was a desktop analysis. At this time, it was decided that the study should have two parts; one for all River Red gums, which are indigenous to Casey, and the second listing for Exotics and other Natives.

27. Any nominated tree identified as a River Red Gum above a size of 40cm at DBH (diameter at breast height) has been included in the study. Eucalyptus camaldulensis, (River Red Gum) generally occur in Casey along the Dandenong Creek corridor, through Doveton, Eumemmerring, Hallam, Hampton Park, Lynbrook, Lyndhurst and Cranbourne West.

28. River Red gums have very important environmental, landscape and in some cases, cultural heritage values in Casey. Large River Red gums are considered to be of such significance

Page 6 of 57


Reference: 2128

in the municipality that all extant nominated specimens meeting the size criteria have been include in the study.

29. The second part of the study, for exotics and other natives, would apply for all remaining significant trees. Further rounds of the selection process applied to trees identified for significant tree protection or further investigation. At the close of the selection process, 693 River Red Gum trees and 349 other tree species were selected for tree protection, which have been further reduced due to removals which have occurred.

4.1.2 Undertaking Assessments 30. Homewood Consulting was appointed in May 2011 to undertake the tree assessment and

review project. The register assessed trees on public and private property throughout the municipality. All trees were assessed using differentially corrected GPS (Omnistar HP subscription) providing accuracy generally in the order of 10-20cm. Undertaking this assessment allowed the existing database of trees to be upgraded, expanding on the assessments previously completed.

31. The process was conducted using a mail out to all residents that had a previously identified significant tree. Agreements were reached between Homewood Consulting and the resident regarding suitable times for on-site inspections or authorisation to enter the property in their absence. Trees on public property were recorded in between the private appointments.

32. Additional trees were added to the assessment process as a result of observations. 25 new trees were assessed for inclusion into the significant tree register.

33. The trees were measured and assessed for: Address and spatial location (Easting/Northing) Physical dimensions, height, width, trunk diameter at breast height and trunk diameter

at base Condition, health, structure and useful life expectancy Risk assessment, recommended works and defects Significance category and statement Tree protection requirements 2 photographs.

34. Following the assessments, all data was collated, photos matched and overlaid with Council’s GIS data. A report was prepared outlining which trees were identified as significant or not. Tree significance was adapted from the National Trust Significant Tree Criteria. These included: Horticultural or Genetic Value Unique Location or Context Rare or Localised Distribution Particularly Old Outstanding Size (height, girth, spread) Aesthetic Value Curious Growth Habit Historical Significance Connection to Aboriginal Culture Remnant Outstanding Habitat.

Page 7 of 57


Reference: 2128

35. Tree protection requirements in accordance with AS4970-2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites) were provided and overlaid spatially. Tree Protection Zones are calculated by multiplying the trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level (DBH) by 12.

36. All data, tree reports, maps and covering report were provided to Council to aid in the direction of appropriate planning controls.

4.2 Justification for the Amendment 37. There are several ways to protect trees and vegetation. The most common of which being:

Planning controls Local laws Section 173 agreements

38. Employing a planning control such as an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) is a common way of applying planning controls. The benefit of the ESO is that as well as controlling the vegetation removal it can control buildings and works.

39. In addition, some trees will be covered by a Heritage Overlay. These include trees within the Avenues of Honour in High Street, Wilson and Scanlon Streets in Berwick.

4.3 Planning control practicality 40. The addition of ESO7 or ESO8 planning controls are not designed to hinder the resident,

rather a check that is put in place when the tree requires pruning or removal and when buildings and/or works are planned. For most trees in most situations it will have little effect on a day to day basis.

41. The ESO acts as a trigger to alert council when tree lopping/removal or buildings and works are desired. The main aim of the ESO is to control removal of the City’s significant trees. Requiring a planning permit allows for the appropriate review process to determine if tree removal should be granted.

42. In relation to buildings and works, in many cases these can be accommodated within the ESO or designated tree protection zones; however, the method may need to be altered. When it comes to buildings, walls and other structures requiring footings, alternative construction methods include: 42.1 pier and beam structures 42.2 stumps 42.3 screwpiles 42.4 cantilevered or lightweight walls.

43. In many situations these methods can be employed and the tree can be successfully retained. In the case of driveways and impervious surfaces, alternative techniques may include the use of: 43.1 porous paving 43.2 permeable paving 43.3 porous concrete or asphalt 43.4 boardwalks.

44. Where excavation depth is an issue, strengthened, reinforced concrete to reduce excavation depth, may achieve the desired outcome.

45. In most cases, the ESO will have little impact on properties and minor design or construction changes will allow the tree to be successfully retained and the desired outcomes achieved.

Page 8 of 57


Reference: 2128

5. Response to issues raised in submissions relevant to my area of expertise 46. The following details the specific responses from submitters as they relate to my area of

expertise.

5.1 Submitter 1, 14 Adamson Road, Beaconsfield, Tree 2286 47. Issue: Requests council assistance in maintaining the tree identified as significant 48. The subject Oak is a large specimen that provides significant amenity and visual landscape

aesthetics. The subject tree was assessed to be in good health with good structure. The only works recommended as part of the assessment was clearance from adjacent assets.

49. Asset clearance is regarded as general maintenance of a tree and the cost is expected to be borne by the tree owner.

50. With regard to the sooty mould issue, this is usually a result from a sap sucking insect such as scale, psyllids or aphids. The mould grows on the honeydew excreted by the insect. The presence of such insects is often a stress response and improvements to tree health can reduce the presence of such insects.

51. As detailed in the City of Casey, Significant Tree Study Document (2011): A small grant fund should be established to support private landowners in their efforts to protect and maintain significant trees. Suitable works may include tree maintenance, fencing off, water diversion, under storey planting, or individual property management plans.

The development of such a fund may help residents such as submitter 1 to manage the tree.

5.2 Submitter 3, 805 Berwick-Cranbourne Road, Cranbourne North, Tree 2127 52. Issue: Requires clarification of the tree/s that will be covered by the proposed

changes in light of submission of arborist report. 53. At the time of the assessment, access to the site was not possible and as such the

assessment was conducted from the property boundary. 54. In light of the arborist report prepared by Simon Howe of John Patrick Pty. Ltd. it is clear

that the main trees of concern are the two trees identified in the report (as Tree 43) and not the entire row. The smaller specimens to the north should be excluded.

5.3 Submitter 10, 195 Evans Road, Cranbourne West, Tree 1781 55. Issue: Tree is not a River Red Gum and fits within the wrong ESO, an additional tree

was assessed instead. 56. The original tree that Homewood was asked to assess was misidentified as a River Red

Gum (E. camaldulensis) and as such was not of a sufficient size to be significant. Whilst on-site another tree was identified due to its age, size and likely remnant status. The initial record was moved and reallocated to the new tree as detailed in Figure 1 below. Although the initial record was collected and identified by Emma Barrett in 2012 as a Swamp Gum (E. ovata), the tree is in fact a River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) as identified by the beaked operculum of the flower bud.

57. The tree is a large specimen with major trunk decay and is likely to be several hundred years old. It is currently and should remain fenced as it is likely to fall apart over the next 20-30 years.

Page 9 of 57


Reference: 2128

58. The revised record is significant and should be included in the relevant ESO.

Figure 1: Original tree and assessed tree at 195 Evans Road, Cranbourne West

Initial tree misidentified as River Red

Gum

Swamp Gum assessed by Homewood

as significant

Page 10 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.4 Submitter 12, 19 Floriana Ave, Doveton, Tree 3110 59. Issue: Resident has had a previous request for removal but not completed action.

Now there is concern for the tree’s safety. 60. The tree has been listed as significant, given its size, age and habitat value. With

appropriate maintenance and monitoring, it has a useful life expectancy of at least 10-20 years.

61. The extension completed close to the tree may have resulted in root damage; however, the extent is unknown.

62. Pruning has been recommended for the tree. Risk reduction pruning is the reduction of long or over-extended branches to reduce the ‘end’ or tip weight. This should start from the ends of branches and work back so as to prevent ‘Lion Tailing’. Cuts should be limited to a size of no greater than 30-100mm diameter where possible. The aim of this pruning is to reduce the potential for large limb failure by reducing the force exerted upon the union. These works will require qualified and experienced arborists to complete.

63. In addition to the pruning, trees with identified defects should be regularly monitored by a qualified arborist to ensure they do not become an unacceptable risk.



65. The tree satisfies the significance criteria for size, age and remnant status and should be included on the register.

5.5 Submitter 13, 128, 130, 132a, 132b Fordholm Road, Hampton Park, Trees 849 & 850 66. Issue: The trees are too large, there is a perceived safety risk and the general feeling

that they are unsuitable for a residential area. 67. Both trees are large specimens located in the road or public reserve, yet substantially

overhang the adjacent properties of the submitters. Given their size they are likely to pre-date the development of the area and are likely to be 100+ years of age.

68. The lean of both trees is significant; however they appear to be stable and likely to have been like that for many decades. They are unlikely to fail at the base in their current condition unless there has been significant root damage that could not be ascertained.

69. With development of the area, the risk inherently increased with assets and pedestrians frequently within the target area of the trees. Works have been recommended for the trees and in both cases, regular reduction works should be programmed to steadily reduce the canopy overhang from the adjacent properties.

70. In addition, these trees should be on a regular maintenance inspection roster by council officers.

71. Tree 849 has been reduced over the years from the adjacent houses. This should continue on a regular basis to reduce the degree of overhang over time.

72. Tree 850 is on a southerly lean adjacent to the house at 128 Fordholm Road. The canopy has been pruned back from the house and only small branches overhang the property. The majority of the large scaffold branches overhang the adjacent reserve.

Page 11 of 57


Reference: 2128

73. In general the trees have long useful life expectancies and are significant landscape specimens. They are suitable candidates for inclusion within ESO7.

5.6 Submitter 18, 31 Gumtree Grove, Hampton Park, Tree 2022 74. Issue: Large tree overhangs property and causes mess with bark dropping. Limbs

drop in high winds and the submitter is worried for children’s safety 75. The subject tree is a large mature specimen, which at 120cm trunk diameter substantially

exceeds the 40cm threshold for a significant River Red Gum as set by the City of Casey. It has high visual amenity and is a landmark for the local area.

76. Trees overhanging properties is acceptable provided the tree has been appropriately managed. It appears that there is scope for the canopy to be reduced slightly in relation to adjacent buildings.

77. The management of leaves, twigs, bark etc is considered ordinary maintenance of a home and is the responsibility of the resident. Cleaning gutters and sweeping paths on private property remains the responsibility of the landholder. Nuisance as a result of leaves and debris is not considered a valid reason for removal.

78. The potential for limb failure in high winds is present in all large trees, however the risk of significant damage remains low. There is scope to reduce the canopy over the adjacent properties however this will not eliminate the risk.

79. It would be preferable if pedestrian occupancy under the tree was reduced by mulching the tree and underplanting with native vegetation. This may require a survey of boundaries to accurately determine the extent of council land.

5.7 Submitter 19, 43-45 High Street, Berwick, Trees 1218, 1219 & 1220 80. Issue: Tree not considered significant, mapping is not consistent with the actual tree

protection zone and there is a feeling that council should help commit funds to the management of significant trees.

81. The mapping of an arbitrary 15m radius by council for the control measures is inconsistent with the wording of the control stating a permit is not required if the works are outside the TPZ. This may become a confusing issue for residents interpreting the control in the future.

82. The three species are all mature examples of rare or uncommon species throughout greater Melbourne. All specimens are ornamental in nature and not native to the local area. They have grown in difficult conditions to a mature size and all have long life expectancies. It is appropriate that these 3 specimens are included within the relevant planning controls.



Page 12 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.8 Submitter 21, 22 & 23, 182 Kidds Road, Doveton, Tree 3123 84. Issue: Adjacent sheoaks are affecting tree health and there is concern regarding

damage to adjacent house. There is substantial concern that the tree will cause physical damage in the event of failure

85. The subject tree is currently growing in a vegetable garden and is in fair health. It is exhibiting some evidence of decay; however, this is normal for the species as they reach substantial age.

86. The Sheoaks referred to are many metres away and whilst they may compete for resources, it is unlikely that there will be a significant impact on the River Red Gum as a result of competition for moisture.

87. With regard to damage to the house, the landholder of the tree is responsible for the tree, its leaves, fruits, roots and shoots. Before any reparations are considered, it must first be established that the building is appropriately constructed and clear evidence rather than supposition is provided that the tree is causing damage.

88. In relation to the safety of the tree being a substantial concern, whilst the assessment listed the tree as significant with a long useful life expectancy, works were also recommended. The tree should undergo some reduction pruning and deadwood removal. In addition it is recommended that the vegetable gardens under the canopy are reduced or removed and that the tree is inspected annually by council staff.

89. With regard to tree failure and damage to assets, all houses are at least 12-16m or more from the tree trunk, no large stems/branches would reach a dwelling in the event of failure. Whole tree failure is unlikely in this tree, the greatest potential for large failure are the scaffold branches. Given the location of the tree, these are unlikely to substantially intrude into neighbouring properties and if the recommended pruning is completed the potential for large limb failure will be reduced.

90. The subject tree is a very large, impressive specimen, clearly visible from Kidds Road and is a dominant feature as you drive into Kidds Road. Given the farming nature of the site it is a suitable species and an iconic specimen.

Page 13 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.9 Submitter 24, 38 Kilberry Crescent, Hallam, Tree 2930 91. Issue: There is concern relating to the lean of the tree and potential damage caused

by tree roots. 92. The subject tree forms part of a group of 5 trees that are likely to be remnant specimens or

at least remnant genetic stock. Working within the council threshold of 40cm trunk diameter it meets the significance criteria to be on the register.

93. The tree is growing with little or no lean as is evidenced by the photograph of the tree (Figure 2). The tree was assessed to have good health and structure with a long useful life expectancy. Removal of epicormic growth was recommended for the tree.

Figure 2: Tree 2930 has little or no lean

94. In relation to the alleged damage council as owner of the tree is responsible for its leaves, fruits, roots and shoots. Before any reparations are considered, it must first be established that the concrete is of appropriate specification for the use and clear evidence rather than supposition is provided that the tree is causing the damage. Additionally, evidence is required in relation to any alleged damage to stormwater infrastructure. There are other trees in the vicinity and it may not be the subject tree.

Page 14 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.10 Submitter 30, 95 Mansfield Street, Berwick, Tree 2373 95. Issue: Has concern regarding the controls to be placed on the tree 96. Whilst this is a large specimen for the species, the tree is approaching over maturity and

has declined since the original assessment. Evidence of this includes wounds from previous failures (Figure 3), splits in existing unions (Figure 4) and borers affecting branch attachments (Figure 5).

97. It has caused damage to the footpath in the past as evidenced by the replacement concrete. Additionally it is less than 30cm from the water main and likely to cause damage in the future (Figure 6).

98. This tree is unlikely to have a long life expectancy and consideration should be given to removal from the register

99. This is a commonly planted species and whilst it is a fair specimen it is not a landmark tree. 100. Following completion of assessments and review as part of this process, in comparison

to other trees on the register, this tree does not qualify for the planning controls.

Figure 3: Previous failure

Figure 4: Active split in union

Figure 5: Borers in stem union

Figure 6: Water main very close to trunk

Page 15 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.11 Submitter 32, 3 McLennan Street, Eumemmerring, Tree 3224 101. Issue: Concerns regarding safety of tree and blocking of gutters with leaves and

debris. 102. The subject tree was assessed as significant due to its outstanding size and is almost

certainly of an age that pre-dates European settlement. 103. It is located in a rear yard that at the time of assessment contained several old cars and

debris. Given the value of the targets below, the tree was assessed with no works. In context with the adjacent neighbour’s concerns there may be scope for some reduction pruning to reduce the potential for failure.

104. In relation to large branch failure, the tree has over past decades already lost most of its scaffold branches and the canopy is comprised of smaller epicormic growth. The potential for large limb failure (>300-400mm) is limited. Unless there has been significant root damage whole tree failure is very unlikely.


5.12 Submitter 34, 5 Melville Park Drive, Berwick, Tree 2269 106. Issue: Tree is alleged to be causing infrastructure damage. 107. The subject tree was reviewed with a site visit on Thursday 12 June 2014. Although the

tree is in reasonable health and has high visual amenity from the streetscape, its structure has declined since the original assessment.

108. The trunk is substantially decayed at the base, such that failure of the whole tree is possible (Figure 7). Given it is mostly internal decay, the extent may not have been visible in 2012. During the recent site visit, it was observed to be substantial.

109. It is recommended that this tree is not included on the register and consideration should be given to its removal from the landscape.

Figure 7: Tree 2269 is substantially decayed at the base (arrows) and ‘mushrooms’ have appeared near

the roots (circle).

Page 16 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.13 Submitter 35, 18 Mickle Street, Tooradin, Tree 1445 110. Issue: Fundamental view that controls on trees should not exist on private

property. 111. The subject tree is a large English Oak that fulfils the significant tree assessment criteria.

There are two trees that form a single canopy, they have significant amenity value across the wider landscape. With an individual trunk diameter, the tree is likely to be quite old and is of outstanding size for the region.

112. The implementation of a planning control on the tree should have little impact on the day to day life of the residents at the address.

5.14 Submitter 40, 102 Paterson Drive, Lynbrook, Tree 1815 113. Issue: Desires removal of tree, concerned about safety and building damage and

would like a new tree put in its place. 114. As part of the development of the estate in Lynbrook, this tree was specifically designed

around and a small pocket park was created around the tree (Figure 8). At the time of assessment the tree was in good health; however, remedial works were recommended to improve the tree’s structure for the long-term. The aim of the works were to reduce the number of stems that the tree had and work towards better tree structure, reducing the potential for failure.

Figure 8: Small park created around tree 1815

115. In relation to building damage, it was the responsibility of the structural engineer to specify a design that would withstand the effects that tree roots can have on soil and buildings. An assessment of the external front walls of the townhouses did not show any significant cracks in the brickwork or concrete. Internal damage was not assessed. There is minor damage to the Granite retaining wall that encircles the tree. This should be monitored and repaired as necessary. At this stage there is only minor cracking and it has not been determined whether it is as a result of the tree or poor original workmanship.

Page 17 of 57


Reference: 2128

Figure 9: Crack in retaining wall

Figure 10: Cracking in retaining wall

116. Pruning the tree appropriately will result in lower potential for failure and associated damage.

117. As stated in the objection, ‘Eucalypts are notorious for large limbs to die, fall and cause property damage’. Whilst this is a common feeling amongst the general public, there is no evidence to support the theory and there have been no published, peer reviewed journals suggesting the same. In northern hemisphere texts, Chestnuts and Elms are also often referred to as limb droppers. It is likely that people feel that eucalypts drop branches because they are by far the most common group of trees throughout the Australian continent.


119. In terms of removal and replacement of a more environmentally friendly species such as a Manchurian Pear (Pyrus ussuriensis): 119.1 The Manchurian Pear originates from China. It has little or no environmental

benefit to the surrounding fauna and will not achieve a size where it will provide habitat for fauna.

119.2 The River Red Gum is an indigenous species, characteristic of the greater Casey area and specifically local to the site. There are many specimens in the park across the road and they will provide habitat and a food source for all ecological levels of fauna. This tree clearly pre-dates development of the site and is likely to be approximately 100-150 years old. Its environmental value is one of the primary reasons that the species has been targeted as part of this register and implementation of a planning control.

Page 18 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.15 Submitter 42, 46 Pound Road, Hampton Park, Trees 2016-7 120. Issue: Concerns surrounding the safety of the 2 trees located in the front yard. 121. At the time of assessments, the two trees were in good health and satisfied the minimum

size requirement of 40cm trunk diameter as set by the City of Casey. The 2 trees are located in a front yard and are a landmark within the local streetscape. They are also consistent with the significant trees identified along the centre median of Pound Road adjacent.

122. At the time of assessment the 2 trees did not appear to be moving in the ground. If evidence in the form of an arborist report can demonstrate movement then further investigations may be required. In relation to whole tree failure it is a very unlikely occurrence and unless there has been substantial root damage in the past, it is likely that the tree is stable.

123. As stated in the objection, ‘Eucalypts are notorious for dropping limbs’. Whilst this is a common feeling amongst the general public, there is no evidence to support the theory and there have been no published, peer reviewed journals suggesting the same. In northern hemisphere texts, Chestnuts and Elms are also often referred to as limb droppers. It is likely that people feel that eucalypts drop branches because they are by far the most common group of trees throughout the Australian continent.

124. The potential for branch failure would be reduced if the recommended pruning was completed for both trees. Risk reduction pruning is the reduction of long or over-extended branches to reduce the ‘end’ or tip weight. This should start from the ends of branches and work back so as to prevent ‘Lion Tailing’. Cuts should be limited to a size of no greater than 30-100mm diameter where possible. The aim of this pruning is to reduce the potential for large limb failure by reducing the force exerted upon the union. These works will require qualified and experienced arborists to complete.

125. In relation to the front fence, there are a couple of issues. The first is that the fence construction appears to be a lightweight single-skin brick fence that is quite old. Whilst it is likely that tree roots are a contributing factor, it is common for these to distort over time. Additionally, some Cypress trees have been planted along the front boundary. These trees have a high potential for infrastructure damage and could well be a contributing factor to the front fence damage. Given the age and construction of the front fence it is no surprise that damage is evident.

126. The fence could be fixed with the addition of steel beams to bridge over the root systems ensuring that any root damage is kept to a minimum.

Page 19 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.16 Submitter 45, 9 Rade Macut Court, Narre Warren North, Tree 3052 127. Issue: Tree drops limbs and is a health and safety risk, council should be liable for

risk and it is a restriction on building within the subject property. 128. The subject tree is located in the north western corner of the site and currently the area

has a low target value. Deadwood removal was recommended for the tree to reduce the potential for failures. The tree was assessed to have a useful life expectancy of at least 40 years. In that time it is expected that the landowner would take steps to ensure the tree does not become a safety hazard in the form of inspections and minor pruning as required.

129. The tree poses very little fire risk, the greater area is largely developed land and it is difficult to see how this tree creates a high fire risk environment. In the grassy plains landscape, long grass is a far greater fire hazard than the scattered trees that exist within the landscape.

130. In relation to a restriction of the buildable area of the property, the imposition of the ESO is 580m2 of the 4120m2 property. This equates to approximately 14% of the property area. Additionally it is located in a corner of the property, lessening its impact on the subject property (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Extent of ESO7 planning control on 9 Rade Macut Court

131. Maintenance of the tree will remain the responsibility of the landholder. As detailed in the City of Casey, Significant Tree Study Document (2011):

A small grant fund should be established to support private landowners in their efforts to protect and maintain significant trees. Suitable works may include tree maintenance, fencing off, water diversion, under storey planting, or individual property management plans.


132. There is a claim that the tree is affecting view lines for the resident. The tree is located on a hillside that runs approximately north-south. From the subject property, the only views that the tree is obstructing are of neighbouring houses and transmission power lines. The views for the subject property are to the south east.

Page 20 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.17 Submitter 47, 15 Rimfire Crescent, Cranbourne, Tree 1586 133. Issue: Misidentification of the tree changes its indigenous status, objects to the

imposition of permits for general/minor maintenance pruning 134. Whilst the tree was originally identified as E. radiata and is now identified as E. nicholii,

the tree is still considered significant. The species is not widely planted anymore as a result of poor tree structure. This appears to be a genetic fault with the trees and those that have poor form to start with always have poor form. It is not recommended for urban street tree plantings because of its unpredictable and variable form. Some trees require too much management to create a well structured tree. This is not the case for all specimens of the species. There are fine examples of the tree in existence and they can get to a large size with relatively few failures. This is a good example of the species with a long life expectancy.

135. The service lines that pass beneath the canopy are a mixture of power and communications. There is no statutory requirement to prune around the communications wires, the power service wire require a clearance of 600mm according to the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010.

136. Clearly the tree requires some minor pruning to provide clearance to the footpath, dwellings and electrical service wires. This is general maintenance and should be undertaken.

137. Damage to the water main is unsubstantiated and has not been determined that it was from the subject tree.

138. Exemptions relating to minor pruning for maintenance without a permit seem reasonable. The proposed exemptions for the ESO are:

“A permit is not required:

To prune limbs less than 80mm in circumference (measured at the trunk) of any significant tree listed in the Casey Significant Tree Study for: maintaining access to existing roads, driveways and footpaths;

clearing within two metres of an existing permanent structure; or

reducing overhang to neighbouring properties.

Pruning works must be undertaken in accordance with the Australian Standard- Pruning of Amenity Trees, AS4373 (2009)”.

139. It is recommended that the size limits are increased to allow for pruning up to a size of 75mm in diameter and no more than 10% of the canopy. The words ‘Measured at the trunk’ should also be removed. It is highly unlikely that any ‘limb’ of 80mm circumference (25mm diameter) would be attached to the trunk on such large, significant trees.

5.18 Submitter 49, 12 Roma Avenue, Cranbourne, Tree 1599 140. Issue: Concerned with leaf litter and debris as well as the general safety of the

tenants and wider public 141. The tree is a large specimen in good condition in a prominent location in the landscape. 142. The management of leaves, twigs, bark etc is considered ordinary maintenance of a

home and is the responsibility of the resident and/or landlord. Cleaning gutters and sweeping paths on private property remains the responsibility of the landholder. Nuisance as a result of leaves and debris is not considered a valid reason for removal.

143. It is also the responsibility of the landholder to ensure the tree is maintained appropriately and does not become a significant hazard in the landscape. At the time of

Page 21 of 57


Reference: 2128

assessment the tree did not require any works; however, this should be reviewed every 2-4 years.

144. With regard to infestation by Termites, the tree is just another source of food as are any other surrounding trees, houses or any other wooden structures. The presence of this tree does not make the house more prone to attack

145. According to the CSIRO ‘Termite or ‘white ant’ treatment and prevention’ website (http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/Termites.aspx, accessed 8/6/2014):

146. The home owner can discourage termites by remembering these facts: termites are attracted to wood, so remove potential termite food away from buildings -

their food can include timber stacks, old stumps, building refuse, garden decoration such as sleepers and logs

waste timber from construction activities is often left in place or stored under the house – remove all timber formwork

timber can be treated to prevent termite attack, and some timbers are naturally resistant - use treated or naturally resistant timber when it is in contact with, or close to, soil

termites are attracted to water, so fix leaking water pipes, drains, showers, sinks etc, plus capture water from air conditioning units

termites prefer humid conditions, so keep air under the house dry by improving sub-floor ventilation, drainage and access

termites cannot chew through properly laid concrete, so ensure concrete slab is properly designed, compacted, and cured

termite colonies can sometimes be located - it is possible to eliminate colonies by killing the reproductives (the queen and the king).

147. Regular inspections are the most important part of controlling termites before they do any damage. Therefore: arrange regular inspections – at least once a year in cooler areas and twice a year in

warmer areas inspect during periods of high termite activity - early spring to late summer is generally

the best keep the edges of the house (slabs, foundation, piers and stumps) clear of clutter,

including garden beds and vegetation professional pest controllers are trained in inspecting houses for termite activity - use

their services home owners can inspect houses themselves more frequently than a professional, if

they can identify termite activity. 148. It does not refer to removing live trees as a means of prevention.

Page 22 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.19 Submitter 52, 500 Soldiers Road, Clyde North, Tree 1471 149. Issue: Concerned with the safety of the tree and the ability to maintain it into the

future. 150. With a trunk diameter of 175cm, the tree is likely to pre-date European arrival in

Australia. At the time of the inspection the tree was in typical condition for a large, old River Red Gum.

151. To reduce the hazard potential of the tree, it should be mulched and underplanted with indigenous grasses and shrubs. This will create a passive vegetative boundary and reduce the pedestrian occupancy. In this way if the tree drops a large limb it will then land in the native garden bed. Retaining the failed branch log on the ground will also provide habitat for small ground fauna.

5.20 Submitter 54, 17 The Promenade Narre Warren South, Tree 2111 152. Issue: Concern regarding current property damage, loss of limbs from the canopy

and that they may fall in high winds. 153. Tree 2111 forms part of a row of trees assessed to be significant. E. caleyi (Caleys

Ironbark) is an uncommon species and there are 16 planted in a row in The Promenade. The subject tree is a large specimen in good condition with a long useful life expectancy.

154. In relation to the alleged damage council as owner of the tree is responsible for its leaves, fruits, roots and shoots. Before any reparations are considered, it must first be established that the building is constructed appropriately for the use, the damage actually exists and clear evidence rather than supposition is provided that the tree is causing the damage. This may take the form of an arborist report regarding the tree showing the tree roots causing damage and/or an engineers report on the dwelling, soil type and its reactivity. There are other trees in the vicinity and it may not be the subject tree.

155. The potential for limb failure in high winds is present in all large trees, however the risk of significant damage remains low. The tree is approximately 9-10m from the house and with no observed significant defects at the time of assessment, large limb failure is unlikely. Whole tree failure is an unlikely event in any situation, particularly with this tree unless there has been substantial root damage in recent years for utility installation or similar. Maintenance of the row of trees along The Promenade is completed by councils Parks and Gardens team.

5.21 Submitter 56, 13 Wanda Court, Hallam, Tree 2935 156. Issue: Adjacent neighbour at 48 Kilberry Crescent has a problem with leaf litter

from the tree at 13 Wanda Court. 157. The subject tree is a large specimen in good condition with a long life expectancy. It

pre-dates urban development of the area and possibly European settlement. It is a significant tree suitable for inclusion within the ESO. Works are proposed for the tree to maintain it and reduce the potential for limb failure.

158. The management of leaves, twigs, bark etc is considered ordinary maintenance of a home and is the responsibility of the resident and/or landlord. Cleaning gutters and sweeping paths on private property remains the responsibility of the landholder. Nuisance as a result of leaves and debris is not considered a valid reason for removal.

Page 23 of 57


Reference: 2128

5.22 Submitter 57, 4 Watergum Ave, Lyndhurst, Tree 1943 159. Issue: Main concern with the imposition of a planning control on the submitters

property 160. The subject tree is a large, mature specimen that appears to have been pruned from

over the property at 4 Watergum Avenue. It has good health and structure with a long life expectancy. In line with the threshold set by the City of Casey, the tree is classed as significant as it is likely to be a remnant specimen and is over 40cm in diameter.

161. The overlay covers the majority of the rear yard of the property. The overlay does not mean the area can’t be touched, it simply sets a trigger for further investigation to ensure that any development does not harm the tree. This may mean changes to designs or building techniques to achieve a desired outcome.

Figure 12: Extent of the proposed ESO on the subject property

6. Declaration ‘I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.’

Cameron Ryder Senior Consulting Arborist Homewood Consulting Pty. Ltd.

Page 24 of 57


Reference: 2128

Appendix 1. Data sheets relevant to submitters

Page 25 of 57

Unique ID 849Botanical Name: Eucalyptus camaldulensis

Common Name: River Red Gum

Height (m): 20

Width (m): 19

DBH (cm): 119

Number of Trunks: 1

Combined DBH (cm): 119

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

Risk reduction pruning

Works Category: Specialised pruning

Works Priority: HighFailure Probability: Low

Failure Size: 251-450mm

Target: 1. Buildings of very high value >$100K

Risk Score: 200

Risk Category: Very high

Defects: Trunk Decay,Canopy Decay,Canopy Extended branches,Trunk Lean,Roots

Comments: Reduce large branches over house.Inspector: Homewood-ECD

Inspection Date: 14/07/2011

TPZ radius (m): 14.3

Canopy Assymetry: None

Assymetry Distance (m): 0

Significance: Significant Habitat Value,Remnant,Location of

SRZ Measurement (cm): 140

SRZ radius: 3.81

Melway Map Ref: 96 C8

Easting: 346807.6796

Northing: 5788963.9097

1 in

Property Addess: 130 FORDHOLM ROAD HAMPTON PARK 3976

River Red Gum Assessments for City of Casey's Significant Tree Study

Owner: Council

Page 26 of 57



Height (m): 19

Width (m): 18

DBH (cm): 123

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

Exclude/Move target,Deadwood removal,Risk reduction pruning

Works Category: Specialised Pruning

Works Priority: ModerateFailure Probability: Low


Target: 3. Vehicles, 65 - 649 @ 50kph per hour

Risk Score: 65000

Risk Category: Moderate

Defects: Trunk Decay,Canopy Deadwood,Canopy Extended branches,Trunk Lean,Roots

Comments: Reduce branches over road, Exclude targets by underplanting. Inspector: Homewood-ECD





Significance: Significant Habitat Value,Remnant,Location of


SRZ radius: 3.77


Easting: 346840.77

Northing: 5788957.64

1 in

Property Addess: 126I FORDHOLM ROAD HAMPTON PARK 3976


Owner: Council

Page 27 of 57

Unique ID 1218Botanical Name: Castanospermum australe

Common Name: Moreton Bay ChestnutHeight (m): 8Width (m): 8DBH (cm): 21 35 34Number of Trunks: 3Combined DBH (cm): 53

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Epicormic removal

Works Category: Minor pruning

Works Priority: LowFailure Probability: Low

Failure Size 26-100mm

Target: 3. Stationary cars

Risk Score: 59000000

Risk Category: Very low

Defects: Trunk Codominant,Compacted Root Zone

Comments:

Inspector: Homewood-ELB





Significance: Rare or Localised


SRZ radius: 2.85

Melway Map Ref: 111 D7

Easting: 354883.69


1 in

Property Addess: 47B HIGH STREET BERWICK 3806

Tree Assessments for City of Casey's Significant Tree Study

Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 28 of 57

Unique ID 1219Botanical Name: Ginkgo biloba

Common Name: Maiden Hair TreeHeight (m): 12Width (m): 5DBH (cm): 7Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 7

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Poor

ULE: 11-20 years

Recommended Works:

Structural pruning


Works Priority: ModerateFailure Probability: Moderate


Target: 3. Pedestrians, 1 - 9 per hour

Risk Score: 650000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Trunk Included bark,Trunk Codominant,Compacted Root Zone

Comments: Tree may require cabling in the future.








SRZ radius: 2.57


Easting: 354875.3

Northing: 5789500.4

1 in

Property Addess: 43A HIGH STREET BERWICK 3806


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 29 of 57

Unique ID 1220Botanical Name: Macadamia integrifolia

Common Name: Macadamia TreeHeight (m): 10Width (m): 8DBH (cm): 47Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 47

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Property/Asset clearance







Defects: Compacted Root Zone

Comments:








SRZ radius: 2.55


Easting: 354873.8501

Northing: 5789505.1826

1 in

Property Addess: 43A HIGH STREET BERWICK 3806


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 30 of 57

Unique ID 1445Botanical Name: Quercus robur

Common Name: English OakHeight (m): 17Width (m): 14DBH (cm): 132Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 132

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

Deadwood removal


Works Priority: LowFailure Probability: High


Target: 4. Pedestrians, less than 1 per hour

Risk Score: 5900000


Defects: None

Comments: Two trees forming one large canopy.



TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Particularly Old, Outstanding Size


SRZ radius: 3.81

Melway Map Ref: 144 A7

Easting: 358118.81


1 in

Property Addess: 18 MICKLE STREET TOORADIN 3980


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 31 of 57



Height (m): 19

Width (m): 25

DBH (cm): 175

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Very poor

ULE: 11-20 years

Recommended Works:

Risk reduction pruning,Mulch required,Annual inspection


Works Priority: HighFailure Probability: Moderate


Target: 5. Pedestrians, less than 1 per day

Risk Score: 340000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Canopy Decay,Pest and disease,Canopy Deadwood,Canopy Hollow,Trunk

Comments: Large hollow in main trunk, Continue to fence off and exclude targets. Bee hive and birds nesting. Maintain as

Inspector: Homewood-ECD


TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Significant Habitat Value,Remnant,Particularly


SRZ radius: 4.32

Melway Map Ref: 131 H10

Easting: 356412.58


1 in

Property Addess: 1/500 SOLDIERS ROAD CLYDE NORTH 3978


Owner: School

Page 32 of 57

Unique ID 1586Botanical Name: Eucalyptus nicholii

Common Name: Narrow-leaved PeppermintHeight (m): 16Width (m): 14DBH (cm): 110Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 110

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Good

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:






Risk Score: >90000000


Defects: None

Comments:






Significance: Outstanding Size


SRZ radius: 3.72


Easting: 348986.25


1 in

Property Addess: 15 RIMFIRE CRESCENT CRANBOURNE 3977


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 33 of 57

Unique ID 1599Botanical Name: Eucalyptus cladocalyx

Common Name: Sugar GumHeight (m): 19Width (m): 14DBH (cm): 98Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 98

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

No works

Works Category: No works

Works Priority: NoneFailure Probability: Low





Defects: None

Comments:






Significance: Outstanding Size, Location of Landscape Context


SRZ radius: 3.47

Melway Map Ref: 129 G12

Easting: 348512.88


1 in

Property Addess: 12 ROMA AVENUE CRANBOURNE 3977


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 34 of 57

Unique ID 1781Botanical Name: Eucalyptus ovata

Common Name: Swamp GumHeight (m): 12Width (m): 17DBH (cm): 159Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 159

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Good

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

No works


Works Priority: NoneFailure Probability: High



Risk Score: 650000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Canopy deadwood, Trunk Heavy Decay

Comments:



TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Particularly Old, Outstanding Size, Remnant


SRZ radius: 4.26


Easting: 346259.5451

Northing: 5782576.2227

1 in

Property Addess: 195 EVANS ROAD CRANBOURNE WEST 3977


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 35 of 57



Height (m): 16

Width (m): 12

DBH (cm): 85

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Poor

ULE: 11-20 years

Recommended Works:

Structural pruning


Works Priority: HighFailure Probability: Low

Failure Size: Greater 450mm

Target: 1. Buildings of very high value >$100K

Risk Score: 100

Risk Category: Very high

Defects: Canopy Codominant,Trunk Lean,Trunk Codominant,Roots mechanical damage

Comments: Inspector: Homewood-CMR





Significance: Remnant


SRZ radius: 3.22


Easting: 346619.35

Northing: 5786482.2

1 in

Property Addess: 102 PATERSON DRIVE LYNBROOK 3975


Owner: Council

Page 36 of 57



Height (m): 19

Width (m): 14

DBH (cm): 122

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Good

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

No works


Works Priority: NoneFailure Probability: High



Risk Score: 120000


Defects: Canopy Decay,Canopy Extended branches,Canopy Deadwood,Canopy Codominant

Comments: Fill within TPZ,Property and asset clearance has occurred. Inspector: Homewood-AWP







SRZ radius: 3.6

Melway Map Ref: 129 B2

Easting: 346347.41


1 in

Property Addess: 217B SOUTH GIPPSLAND HIGHWAY CRANBOURNE 3977


Owner: Transport Corporation

Page 37 of 57


Common Name: River Red GumHeight (m): 18Width (m): 13DBH (cm): 82Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 82

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Risk reduction pruning




Target: 2. Buildings of high value $29-100K

Risk Score: 180000


Defects: Canopy Lopped,Canopy Extended Branches,Compacted Root Zone

Comments: The tree is lopped down one side for powerline clearance.






Significance: Outstanding Size, Location of Landscape Context


SRZ radius: 3.28


Easting: 346990.9026

Northing: 5789754.4816

1 in

Property Addess: 46 POUND ROAD HAMPTON PARK 3976


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 38 of 57


Common Name: River Red GumHeight (m): 21Width (m): 16DBH (cm): 94 86Number of Trunks: 2Combined DBH (cm): 127

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Poor

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Risk reduction pruning,Deadwood removal


Works Priority: HighFailure Probability: High



Risk Score: 590000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Trunk Decay,Canopy Deadwood,Trunk Codominant,Compacted Root Zone

Comments: Two large stems, maybe separate trees. One stem poor condition through the trunk. Canopy lopped for powerline clearance. Inspector: Homewood-ELB


TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Remnant, Particularly Old, Outstanding Size, Location of Landscape Context


SRZ radius: 4.14


Easting: 347002.3662

Northing: 5789752.6436

1 in

Property Addess: 46 POUND ROAD HAMPTON PARK 3976


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 39 of 57



Height (m): 24

Width (m): 24

DBH (cm): 120

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Fair

Structure: Fair

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

Mulch required

Works Category: Risk Management

Works Priority: ModerateFailure Probability: Very low



Risk Score: 650000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Canopy extended branches, Roots mechanical damage

Comments: Inspector: Homewood-AWP







SRZ radius: 3.81


Easting: 346970.37


1 in

Property Addess: 3I GUMTREE GROVE HAMPTON PARK 3976


Owner: Council

Page 40 of 57

Unique ID 2111Botanical Name: Eucalyptus caleyi

Common Name: Caleys IronbarkHeight (m): 17Width (m): 9DBH (cm): 63Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 63

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

No works







Defects: Canopy codominant

Comments:






Significance: Outstanding Size, Significant Habitat Value, Location of Landscape Context


SRZ radius: 3

Melway Map Ref: 130 F3

Easting: 351845.84


1 in

Property Addess: 17 THE PROMENADE NARRE WARREN SOUTH 3805


Owner: Council

DRAFT

Page 41 of 57

Unique ID 2127Botanical Name: Ulmus Xhollandica 'Vegeta'

Common Name: Huntingdon ElmHeight (m): 17Width (m): 16DBH (cm): 80Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 80

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

No works







Defects: None

Comments: The tree is located in a paddock with barbed wire fence. All details estimated from 200m away. Inspector: Homewood-ELB


TPZ radius (m): 9.6



Significance: Location of Landscape Context


SRZ radius: 3.31

Melway Map Ref: 130 K8

Easting: 353449.54


1 in

Property Addess: 805 BERWICK-CRANBOURNE ROAD CRANBOURNE NORTH


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 42 of 57

Unique ID 2269Botanical Name: Robinia pseudoacacia

Common Name: Black LocustHeight (m): 12Width (m): 12DBH (cm): 60Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 60

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Poor

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Structural pruning,Deadwood removal


Works Priority: UrgentFailure Probability: High


Target: 3. Stationary cars

Risk Score: 65000


Defects: Canopy Active split,Compacted Root Zone

Comments:



TPZ radius (m): 7.2



Significance: Particularly Old, Location of Landscape Context


SRZ radius: 3.28


Easting: 355500.4


1 in

Property Addess: 5 MELVILLE PARK DRIVE BERWICK 3806


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 43 of 57

Unique ID 2286Botanical Name: Quercus robur

Common Name: English OakHeight (m): 18Width (m): 14DBH (cm): 71Number of Trunks: 1Combined DBH (cm): 71

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Good

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:



Works Priority: LowFailure Probability: Low





Defects: None

Comments: Three oaks making one canopy. Subject tree largest.






Significance: Outstanding Size


SRZ radius: 3.17


Easting: 356359.5894

Northing: 5787209.2082

1 in

Property Addess: 14 ADAMSON ROAD BEACONSFIELD 3807


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 44 of 57

Unique ID 2373Botanical Name: Callistemon viminalis

Common Name: Weeping Bottle BrushHeight (m): 8Width (m): 10DBH (cm): 37 32 30 25 25Number of Trunks: 5Combined DBH (cm): 67

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

No works





Risk Score: 6500000


Defects: Trunk codominant

Comments:






Significance: Aesthetic Value, Outstanding Size


SRZ radius: 3.17


Easting: 353554.98


1 in

Property Addess: 95 MANSFIELD STREET BERWICK 3806


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 45 of 57



Height (m): 24

Width (m): 8

DBH (cm): 61

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Good

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Epicormic removal





Risk Score: 590000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: None








SRZ radius: 2.92


Easting: 347785.2965

Northing: 5792954.2609

1 in

Property Addess: 38-40 KILBERRY CRESCENT HALLAM 3803


Owner: Council

Page 46 of 57



Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

Deadwood removal,Risk reduction pruning


Works Priority: ModerateFailure Probability: High



Risk Score: 650000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Canopy deadwood, Canopy extended branches, Trunk decay

Comments: Two large recent failures in canopy.



TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Remnant, Outstanding Size, Particularly Old


SRZ radius: 4.41


Easting: 347677.42


1 in

Property Addess: 13 WANDA COURT HALLAM 3803


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 47 of 57


Common Name: River Red GumHeight (m): 18Width (m): 24DBH (cm): 89 130Number of Trunks: 2Combined DBH (cm): 158

Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

Deadwood removal


Works Priority: ModerateFailure Probability: High



Risk Score: 650000

Risk Category: Low

Defects: Canopy extended branches, Canopy deadwood

Comments:



TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Remnant, Outstanding Size, Particularly Old


SRZ radius: 4.21

Melway Map Ref: 91 J3

Easting: 349029.88


1 in

Property Addess: 9 RADE MACUT COURT NARRE WARREN NORTH 3804


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 48 of 57



Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Poor

ULE: 11-20 years

Recommended Works:

Risk reduction pruning,Annual inspection





Risk Score: 6500000


Defects: Trunk Decay,Canopy Decay,Roots Ground heave,Compacted Root Zone

Comments: The tree is on a lean raising the ground. Regular inspections are required to monitor lean. Inspector: Homewood-ELB


TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Significant Habitat Value, Remnant, Outstanding Size, Particularly Old


SRZ radius: 4.7

Melway Map Ref: 90 K5

Easting: 345311.38


1 in

Property Addess: 19 FLORIANA AVENUE DOVETON 3177


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 49 of 57



Height (m): 20

Width (m): 26

DBH (cm): 176

Number of Trunks: 1


Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Fair

ULE: 21-40 years

Recommended Works:

Risk reduction pruning,Exclude/Move target,Deadwood removal,Annual inspection


Works Priority: HighFailure Probability: High



Risk Score: 12000


Defects: Canopy Deadwood,Canopy Extended branches,Trunk Bracket fungi,Trunk Decay



TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Significant Habitat Value,Remnant


SRZ radius: 4.38


Easting: 344833.03


1 in

Property Addess: 182 KIDDS ROAD DOVETON 3177


Owner: Council

Page 50 of 57



Maturity: Mature

Health: Good

Structure: Poor

ULE: 40+ years

Recommended Works:

No works


Works Priority: NoneFailure Probability: Moderate





Defects: Canopy Decay,Canopy Lopped,Trunk Decay

Comments:



TPZ radius (m): 15



Significance: Location of Landscape Context, Significant Habitat Value, Remnant, Outstanding Size, Particularly Old


SRZ radius: 4.90


Easting: 345888.7667

Northing: 5792618.1109

1 in

Property Addess: 3 MCLENNAN STREET EUMEMMERRING 3177


Owner: Private

DRAFT

Page 51 of 57


Reference: 2128

Appendix 2. Expert Witness Curriculum Vitae

Page 52 of 57

RESUMÉ

Cameron Matthew Ryder Mobile: 0400 160 889

Email: [email protected]

Education 2006 The University of Melbourne – Burnley College

Bachelor of Horticulture – Honours first class 2004-2005 The University of Melbourne – Burnley College

Bachelor of Horticulture 2002-2003 The University of Melbourne- Burnley College.

Advanced Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture) 1996 VCE - Monbulk College

Expert Witness Planning Panels Victoria, Moonee Valley City Council [C130] (28 June, 2013) A significant tree study was completed assessing trees throughout the City potentially identified as significant. Moonee Valley City Council Amendement C130 involves the introduction of an ESO schedule to provide planning controls to trees identified as significant. The panel hearing was to resolve issues associated with submitters in relation to the proposed planning controls.

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council v VL Investments Ltd. [2012] VCAT (8 August 2012) Acting on behalf of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, a property owned by VL Investments was visited and stumps of removed trees were assessed, photographed and located with accurate GPS equipment. A report and expert witness appearance was based around the number and identification of stumps as well as an assessment of which trees may have required permits to remove.

Germano v Brenner Homes [2011] VCAT (3 November, 2011) Acting on Behalf of Mr and Mrs Germano, a series of stumps were assessed as it was alleged that the trees that had existed on the site were causing building damage. Assessment of stump age and proximity to buildings were made and a literature review was provided demonstrating that the trees were a significant issue that should have been managed differently.

Ikonomidis Reid v Whittlesea CC [2010] VCAT, P2186/2009 and P154/2010 (8 July 2010) Acting on behalf of Whittlesea CC, trees were assessed and an expert witness report prepared for VCAT. The dispute was over the retention of two large River Red Gums in a medium density housing development.

Page 53 of 57

Homewood Consulting

Rees v Van Beek [2009] Ringwood Magistrates Court (21 September 2009) Civil action was against Mr Van Beek as it was alleged that his tree roots were damaging Mr Rees’ driveway. Expert evidence was provided on the extent of tree roots under the concrete driveway for Mr Rees.

Ministerial Advisory Committee, Shire of Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C67 [2009] Expert evidence was provided to the Minister for Planning Advisory Committee regarding amendment C67 of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme, abandoned by the Council. Details of the proposal, tree assessments and removal/retention of tree statistics were provided.

Nicholas Day Architects v Stonnington CC & Ors [2009] VCAT 945 (15 May 2009) An assessment was conducted of the street tree at 2 Henderson Ave and advice provided as to the impact of a proposed new driveway crossover and associated footpaths.

Graf v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council [2008] Frankston Magistrates Court (20 October 2008) Mr Graf was charged with illegal vegetation removal. Expert evidence was provided for the defence to the court on the number and location of stumps on-site. The original collection of charges totalling removal of 29 trees was reduced to 4 trees and no conviction was recorded.

Urban Alliance Corporation v Hume CC [2008] VCAT 1328 (4 July 2008) Assessments were undertaken on 508 trees providing retention value and tree protection zones for any trees to be retained at 180 Riddell Road and surrounding properties.

Yeoman v Darebin CC [2008] VCAT 1174 (20 June 2008) Tree assessments, root excavations and expert witness reports were prepared for the redevelopment of 12-16 Bank St and 2a Rowe St, Alphington.

Professional Memberships International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Registered Consulting Arborist - Arboriculture Australia (AA) Victorian Tree Industry Organisation (VTIO) Parks and Leisure Australia (PLA)

Training Melbourne University, Burnley Campus, Burnley, Victoria Arboriculture Tutor/Demonstrator 2004 – 2006

Tutor and demonstrator for Advanced Diploma of Horticulture and Bachelor of Horticulture. Classes include: Horticultural Plants (2007) Horticultural Practice II (Arboriculture) (2005-2006) Amenity Tree Assessment and Management (Arboriculture) (2005)

Sessional Presenter for Graduate Certificate of Arboriculture Tree Surveys in the 21st Century (2012)

Page 54 of 57

Homewood Consulting

Research Ryder, C. M. 2006, Application of Ground Penetrating Radar to Assess Tree Root Systems, Honours Thesis, University of Melbourne, Burnley Campus, Richmond Victoria Australia.

Ryder, C. M. 2005, Formative Pruning, The Costs and Benefits for Trees Now and in Maturity, Undergraduate Industry Project, University of Melbourne, Burnley Campus, Richmond Victoria Australia.

Publications Ryder, C. M. and Moore, G. M. 2013, The Arboricultural and Economic Benefits of Formative Pruning Street Trees, in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry.

Presentations 2013, Native Vegetation, hazard identification, expert evidence and tree protection. Workshop delivered for Mornington Peninsula Shire Compliance Staff.

2013, AS4970-2009 Tree Protection Workshop, delivered to Hume City Council Staff

2011, Trees Down Under, International Society of Arboriculture World Conference, The arboricultural and economic benefits of formative pruning young street trees.

2009, Results of Canberra Tree Inventory Data Collection, Presentation delivered to ACT Government Staff and Managers

2009, Tree Inventories: The Good and the Bad, Presented to Council Arboriculture Victoria

Other Training/Accreditations Rail Industry Worker Card 2/12/2013 Safely Access the Rail Corridor (TLIF2080B) 15/11/2013 Northern Territory Working with Children Check 20/04/2013 Victorian Working with Children Check 20/04/2013 Safe Approach Distances UETTDREL14A 15/11/2012 Level II First Aid and associated updates 2008-2013 Limits of Approach (NUE 260) 21/06/2010 Basic Worksite Traffic Management Course:

VBQU506, VBQU507 10/12/2009 Fire Awareness training 30/11/2009 All Terrain Vehicle – Training 1/04/2009 QTRA- Registered User Training 27/08/2008 OH&S Industry Induction (Red Card) 01/12/2006 Operate and maintain chainsaws Level 2 01/10/2003 Fell small trees Level 2 01/10/2003

Page 55 of 57

Homewood Consulting

Employment History July 2004 – Present - Homewood Consulting Position: Senior Consulting Arborist/ Manager Roles: Expert witness appearance in Magistrates Court, VCAT, Planning Panels

Project management

GIS/database development

Development of policy and management plans for Councils and private land holders

Onsite identification and assessment of trees in public and private open space

Construction impact assessment of developments on trees

Preparation and presentation of reports on trees

Provide expert advice on alternative options for design and construction

Data collection of street trees

Use of GPS hardware and software

Identification and assessment of street and park trees

Risk assessment of park trees

Use of ArcPad, Arcmap, Mapinfo GIS software

Development of Geodatabases

Airspade operation for root investigation

Excavation supervision for residential developments

July 2004 – July 2007 - Greenwood Consulting Position: Consulting Arborist Roles: Data collection of street trees

Use of GPS hardware and software

Identification and assessment of street and park trees

Risk assessment of park trees

Use of ArcPad GIS software

March 2004 – July 2004 - The Tree Company Position: Arborist Roles: Tree Climbing

Deadwood removal

Hanging branch removal

Tree removal

Crown reduction

Operate and maintain chipper and chainsaws

Page 56 of 57

Homewood Consulting

Site management

Site setup and clean up

November 2003 – February 2004 - Royal Melbourne Golf Club Position: Arborist Roles: Tree Climbing

Deadwood removal

Hanger removal

Canopy pruning

Mistletoe removals

Operate and maintain chainsaws and chipper

Canopy Lifting

Operate as ground crew/ guide pedestrian traffic

Site set up and clean up

Operate stump grinder

AWARDS 2006 Melbourne Honours Scholarship for Bachelor of Horticulture Honours.

2005 Dux of Course, Bachelor of Horticulture

Deans Honour for excellence in the Bachelor of Horticulture

Ray Marginson Scholarship 2004 Deans Honour for excellence in the Bachelor of Horticulture

2003 Deans Honour for excellence in the Advanced Diploma in Horticulture

Tree Logic Prize in Arboriculture

ArborCo Tree Services Pty Ltd Prize for Arboricultural Practice

Thomas and Effie Lothian Memorial Prize for Ornamental Plants

2002 Deans Honour for excellence in the Advanced Diploma in Horticulture

Page 57 of 57

Documents

City of Casey · City of Casey . Amendment C148 to the Casey Planning Scheme . Friday, 13 June 2014 . Prepared For ... biofiltration systems (WSUD). Her project focused on the effect