54-60 MANUKA ROAD, BERWICK · University previously Victorian College of Agricultural &...

JOHN PATRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 17-0751

Planning Panels Victoria

Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C231

54-60 MANUKA ROAD, BERWICK

PREPARED FOR JINGUANG PAN

INSTRUCTED BY INTERISE LEGAL

SITE INSPECTIONS: 19 SEPTEMBER & 15 DECEMBER 2017

Expert Witness Report

PREPARED BY

Michael Rogers John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd February 2018

54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick Arboricultural Evidence - Amendment C231 January 2018

JOHN PATRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 17-0751 Page 1 of 14

1 NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE EXPERT

1.1 Michael Rogers 324 Victoria Street Richmond Victoria, 3121

2 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

2.1 Associate Diploma Applied Science - Arboriculture

2.2 Member Arboricultural Australia

2.3 Member International Society of Arboriculture

2.4 Previous President and Chairperson of Council Arboriculture Victoria - CAV (Council Arborist Association)

2.5 Michael Rogers has worked in the discipline of Arboriculture since 1991, when he graduated from Melbourne University previously Victorian College of Agricultural & Horticulture (VCAH). He is established and recognised in the industry.

2.6 He was the arborist at Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne 1992-1996 before moving into private enterprise as climber and consulting arborist for R & T Tree Services 1996-2002. In 2002, he became the first arborist at the City of Yarra council being promoted to Coordinator Arboriculture in 2009 -2016. In December 2016, he commenced work with John Patrick Landscape Architects as their senior arborist.

2.7 In his time as an Arborist, he has progressively increased his knowledge and practical experience in arboriculture and trees. Michael specialises in all aspects of arboriculture including:

▪ Tree Assessments – Health & Safety

▪ Tree related infrastructure & property damage Investigation

▪ Root investigation & associated pruning

▪ Arboricultural Reports

▪ Policy Development

▪ Project Management

▪ Contract Management

▪ Expert Witness in Arboriculture

2.8 He has presented to local community groups on council tree policy and the benefits of trees. He presented at TreeNet 2014 (National Tree Symposium, attended by Australia’s leading professionals) on tree root management.

2.9 He has been a guest lecturer at Melbourne University as part of the Assoc. Degree Urban Horticulture & Graduate Certificate Arboriculture.

2.10 Michael has attended various seminars, conferences and talks on arboriculture nationally and internationally.

3 AREA OF EXPERTISE

3.1 All aspects of Arboriculture.

4 EXPERTISE TO PREPARE THIS REPORT

4.1 Michael Rogers is regularly involved in tree surveys and subsequent arboricultural reports, which includes tree assessments, tree impact assessments and tree management plans (TMP) for residential and commercial developments. He has provided expert evidence to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Planning and Environment List on several occasions.

5 SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

5.1 This report has been prepared with the assistance of Michael Cook, Landscape Architect, who is employed in the office of John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd. Mr. Cook holds a Masters of Landscape Architecture and has consulted on a variety of matters relating to landscape heritage conservation.



6 INSTRUCTIONS THAT DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

6.1 This report has been prepared following verbal instruction from Interise Legal. I have no business or private relationship with the property owner, other than being instructed to prepare this statement.

6.2 The Arboricultural Report’s intent is to identify the individual tree species, their condition and estimated age. This information will assist in ascertaining the time of tree planting and their contribution, if any, to the heritage value of the property.

7 THE FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THE REPORT PROCEEDS

7.1 I have reviewed the documents listed in section 8.1 of my report and assume that the dates, timelines and information within them is correct, as these have informed my report.

7.2 I visited the site on two separate occasions being 19 September and 15 December 2017.

7.3 When I first inspected the site on 19 September 2017, the deciduous trees were not in leaf and accurate tree identification was difficult.

7.4 On 15 December 2017, I undertook a second site visit to collect detailed tree data. All deciduous trees were in leaf and therefore tree identification was possible.

8 DOCUMENTS VIEWED IN PREPARING THIS REPORT

8.1 In the preparation of this report I have reviewed the following documents:

▪ Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C231. ▪ Clover Cottage & Garden – Citation in Heritage of the City of Berwick, 1993 ▪ 54-60 and 62-70 Manuka Road, Berwick – The Minard Villa and Clover Cottage (and Garden):

Historical Cultural Heritage Assessment – Implications for Development – Andrew Long & Associates, July 2016

▪ Royal Botanic Gardens Oak Collection – www.rbg.vic.gov.au/visit-melbourne/attractions/plant-collections/oak-collection

▪ Review of HO49 & HO50 Manuka Road Berwick. Context Pty Ltd, 18 May 2017. ▪ Witness Statement of John Chipperfield ▪ Land.vic.gov.au, Photo Mosaics, Aerial Survey – Cranbourne B1, 1939

9 IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO PREPARED THIS REPORT

9.1 The author of this report is Michael Rogers.

9.2 As identified in section 5.1, Michael Cook assisted in the preparation of my evidence.

10 METHODOLOGY

10.1 A visual assessment of the trees was undertaken from the ground on both 19 September and 15 December 2017.

10.2 All measurements were estimated based on my past experience. Larger trees of merit were measured by stepping out canopy width and utilising a laser range finder for height.

10.3 Trunk diameters (DBH) on larger trees, except for the cypress were measured with a diameter tape in accordance with AS-4970 at 1.4m above ground level.

10.4 Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) were calculated in accordance with AS-4970 ‘Protection of Trees on Development Sites’.

10.5 The estimated decade of planting was evaluated against the tree’s size and structural habit based on my previous observations of the same species growing in Melbourne. It is difficult to determine the exact age because many variable factors contribute to a tree’s size and rate of growth over a long period of time including climatic conditions, irrigation and soil conditions. It appears that the grounds have been heavily

http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/visit-melbourne/attractions/plant-collections/oak-collection

http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/visit-melbourne/attractions/plant-collections/oak-collection



irrigated over lengthy periods. At the times of inspection, the ground was saturated and irrigation was on. This could contribute to trees growing faster and larger than normal. For these reasons, the ‘Estimated Decade of Planting’ should allow a flexibility of 10 years.

10.6 No aerial or diagnostic testing was undertaken on trees or the soil in which they were growing.

10.7 Appendix 1 – Tree Data includes the following fields:

• Tree Number

• Botanic / Common Names

• Size; Canopy Height & Width

• DBH (trunk diameter)

• Age

• Tree Health & Structural Condition

• ULE (Useful Life Expectancy)

• Arboricultural Value

• Estimated Decade of Planting

• Owners at time of planting

• TPZ (Tree Protection Zones)

• Comments

10.8 Appendix 2 – Tree Survey Plan (East and West)

11 OBSERVATIONS – 54 - 60 MANUKA ROAD, “CLOVER COTTAGE”

11.1 The subject site is a long rectangular lot of approximately 3 hectares located between Manuka Road to the west and Cardinia Creek to the east. Situated within the lot are the original cottage residence, which I understand to have been dated to the period 1890-1900, a large restaurant constructed in the 1980s, and a variety of outbuildings associated with several different periods of residency on the site.

11.2 The front half of the property from the original residence has been extensively landscaped with formal garden beds consisting predominantly of shrubs and trees of different eras. The older trees on the site exist in this area.

11.3 The rear half of the property consists of the old fernery planted with camellias and several other out buildings. The landscaping is informal with scattered trees and an orchard of citrus trees that extends down to grazing paddocks and the indigenous natural vegetation near the creek. The trees in this area appear to of been predominantly planted during the Chipperfield era from the late 70s – 90s.

Site Photos



Front Cypress row planting Front carpark

Looking through front fence to lawn Looking east across front lawn

Looking south Looking to front with restaurant to right



12 Discussion

12.1 I consider that the large trees planted around the front of the property are predominantly from the era after the Second World War, between the 1940s and 1960s. These trees are listed below in the table.

Tree No.

Botanic Name

Size (m)

DBH

(cm)

Age

Health

Structure

ULE

(Yrs.)

Arb.

Value

Estimated

decade of

planting

Estimated

owners at time

of planting

18 Pinus radiata 18 x 14 80 Mature Good Good 20+ Medium 60's Tuckfield

26 Pinus radiata 20 x 18 120 Mature Good Good 10-20 Medium 60's Tuckfield

32 Quercus robur 16 x 15 90 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 60's Tuckfield

37 Quercus robur 12 x 12 30, 30 Maturing Good Poor 20+ Medium 60's Tuckfield

38 Ulmus Xhollandica 22 x 12 80, 50 Mature Good Good 20+ High 60's Tuckfield

39 Ulmus Xhollandica 15 x 14 60 Mature Good Fair 10-20 Medium 60's Tuckfield

40

Hesperocyparis macrocarpa

(x17)

26 x 8

80

(average

)

Maturing

Fair

Fair

5-10

Medium

60's

Tuckfield

41 Cupressus sempervirens (x4) 16 x 3 40 Mature Fair-Good Fair 20+ High 60's Tuckfield

44 Eucalyptus radiata 20 x 13 120 Mature Poor Poor 5-10 Low 60's Not planted

46 Populus ×canadensis 22 x 15 150 Over mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60's Tuckfield

47 Populus ×canadensis 22 x 10 85 Over mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60's Tuckfield

48 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 22 x 18 120 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 High 40's Various

49 Brachychiton ×roseous 16 x 12 60 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 60's Tuckfield

51 Hesperocyparis arizonica var.

glabra 13 x 8 55, 30 Over mature Good Poor 5-10 Low 40's Various

53 Quercus robur 18 x 17 70 Mature Good Good 20+ High 40's Various

54 Juniperus virginiana 10 x 7 50 Over mature Poor Poor 0-5 Low 40's Various

58 Grevillea robusta 22 x 10 70 Mature Fair Poor 5-10 Medium 60's Tuckfield

59 Betula pendula 6 x 7 50 Over mature Good Fair 5-10 Low 60's Tuckfield

60 Metasequoia glyptostroboides 20 x 8 60 Over mature Fair-Poor Fair 5-10 High 50's Tuckfield

61 Metasequoia glyptostroboides 20 x 12 70 Mature Good Fair 10-20 High 50's Tuckfield

63 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 22 x 10 45 Maturing Fair Fair 20+ Medium 60's Tuckfield

64 Acer palmatum (x3) 7 x 7 30 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 60's Tuckfield

66 Quercus macrocarpa 20 x 20 100 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 40's Various

70 Populus nigra 'Italica' 22 x 4 80 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 60's Tuckfield

72 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 18 x 10 50 Mature Poor Poor 15-10 Low 60's Tuckfield

75 Pyrus sp. 18 x 12 60 Over mature Fair Fair-Poor 0-5 Low 60s Tuckfield

76 Prunus laurocerasus 15 x 15 25, 25,

25, 25 Mature Good Fair 10-20 Medium 60's Tuckfield

77 Metasequoia glyptostroboides 20 x 5 40 Mature Fair Fair 20+ Medium 60's Tuckfield

80 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 25 x 18 170 Over mature Good Poor 5-10 Low 40's Various

81 Ulmus glabra 'Lutescens' 22 x 22 82 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 60's Tuckfield

82 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 18 x 16 75 Mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60's Tuckfield

85 Quercus macrocarpa 20 x 20 92 Mature Good Good 20+ High 40's Various

86 Ulmus minor ' Variegata' 20 x 20 80 Mature Good Good 20+ High 50's Tuckfield

87 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 20 x 16 85 Mature Good Poor 10-20 High 50's Tuckfield

88 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 18 x 8 60 Maturing Fair Good 20+ Medium 50's Tuckfield

89 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 20 x 16 105 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 50's Tuckfield

90 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 18 x 14 70 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 50's Tuckfield

96 Cupressus sempervirens (x5) 10 x 3 35 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 60's-80's Tuckfield or

Chipperfield

97 Picea pungens 12 x 6 50 Mature Fair-Poor Fair 5-10 Low 60's Tuckfield

100 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 20 x 8 80 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 50's Tuckfield

Rear area looking east Rear area looking north east



12.2 There are two trees thought to have been planted by the Greaves in the early 20th century. These two trees appear in the 1939 aerial photo of the site.

12.3 The first of these is Tree 91 which is a Red Oak and has been incorrectly identified in previous documentation as a Burr Oak - Quercus macrocarpa. It has a large cavity and advanced decay at its base, where one of the main leaders has failed. It is thought that it is predominantly being held upright by the branch supports. It has a high probability of failure and it should be isolated from pedestrians accessing beneath the canopy for safety reasons. This could be achieved by increasing the garden bed beneath it. It is worth retaining the tree as it contributes significantly to the landscape and it is still of good health.

12.4 The other tree being Tree 99, Pinus radiata - Monterey Pine which has been cut down to a 10m high trunk, leaving only the lower branches. This is expected to have occurred due to it senescing from old age and safety concerns from falling branches. It regularly gets lopped by the power company to clear electrical conductors in the street and its canopy is ever decreasing. It should be removed as it provides no contribution to the landscape or environment and is a liability given the potential for failure.

Typical Burr Oak Leaf Oak Leaf from Tree 91 – Red Oak

Tree 99

Tree 91 Tree 91, decay & cavity at base



12.5 It is not clear who owned the property in the 1940s. Accordingly, it has not been possible to identify an owner of the property during this decade in relation to trees which I believe were planted in this decade. Instead, I have described the owner as “various”. To the extent that there is reference to the Moores and the Baileys, it is unclear whether these families were tenants or owners.

12.6 The size and structure of the trees that exist in the rear of the property to the east suggests no evidence of trees from the extensive native tree planting by John Stevens during the Tuckfield era, as is suggested in the Clover Cottage & Garden – Citation in Heritage of the City of Berwick, 1993. However, I consider that some of the larger exotic trees in the front part of the property may have been planted in the late 1950s and 1960s by John Stevens considering their size.

12.7 For example, the conifer hedge rows (Trees 40 and 100) appear to be of a size that would suggest that they were planted in the early 1950s, possibly by the Bailey Family which I understood may have owned or tenanted the property during the period 1949 to 1955.

12.8 However, in the 1939 aerial photo there appears to be a row of trees in the location of both Trees 40 and 100. In the photo, the trees growing along the front boundary are smaller than Tree 99, which is a pine tree which remains today in a lopped condition. This would imply that the row of trees in the front are younger than the pine. It seems strange that a row of younger trees would have been removed and replaced while the lopped pine tree remains. This would mean that the trees have been removed between 1939 when the aerial photo was taken and replaced by the mid-50s when it is estimated they were planted because of their size. Unless the trees are older than estimated or the pine is not the original pine.

12.9 Trees 40 are of the same species as Trees 100 but several specimens have larger trunks of over 1m diameter. These may have been planted at the same time as the Trees 100 but have a better growing environment including greater water run-off.

12.10 Tree 44, Eucalyptus radiata is the only naturally occurring, not planted, indigenous tree on the site. I consider that it may not have been planted as it is the only indigenous tree in the formal garden area. Its size suggests that it is around 60 years old, but a tree is also located in its position on the 1939 aerial photo. If this is the same tree I suspect it is a remnant plant. I would be very surprised if this is the same tree because this species of eucalypt grows quickly and significant signs of branch failure and dead wood etc would be expected if it was a tree of more than 85 years of age. It has a major split and is covered in ivy which may be holding it together. Further investigation would be required if this tree is to be retained.

Conclusion

12.11 102 trees were surveyed within the site. Of these it is estimated only Trees 91 and 99 remain from the original Cottage owners, the Greaves.

12.12 7 trees are estimated to have been planted in the 1940s, possibly by the Moore family that were residing at the cottage at that time. These include several of the largest trees in the front part of the property being Trees 66, 80 and 85.

12.13 40 trees are suspected to have been planted in the late 1950s and 1960s. If this estimation is correct, John Stevens may have planted them. However, there appears to be little evidence to link any trees to the native plantings of John Stevens at the rear of the property.

12.14 Most of the trees, 60 in total, are estimated to have been planted during the Chipperfield era, 1974 to 2016. Unfortunately, these have only been managed on a reactive basis or have been incorrectly lopped and therefore have fair to poor structure. Their structure and size make most of them unworthy of retention.

12.15 Only Tree 44 Eucalyptus radiata is a natural occurring indigenous tree that requires further investigation as it has a major fracture and may require removal. It is unclear if this is a remnant specimen prior to the aerial photo of 1939.

12.16 Trees 40 and 100, the cypress rows at the front and north boundary respectively are suspected of being planted in the 1950s based on their size. However, the 1939 aerial photograph suggests that they may be older and planted in the early 20th century.



12.17 The retention and removal of trees is based on their arboricultural value which is based on their overall condition, size and contribution to the broader landscape. It does not relate to their Cultural Heritage Significance.

12.18 Trees with High Arboricultural Value should be retained.

12.19 Trees of Medium Arboricultural Value should be retained where possible.

12.20 Trees of Low Arboricultural Value can be removed at owner’s discretion.

12.21 I note that under the Casey Planning Scheme, permits are required to remove and prune all trees on the site under the existing Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO4).

13 RECOMMENDATION

13.1 Many of the trees on the site need arboricultural attention to remove dead and dangerous branches and to encourage good health and structure. All pruning should be in accordance with the Australian Standard - Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS-4373)

13.2 All trees to be retained need to be protected from any development or soil disturbance in accordance with Australian Standard – Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS-4970)

14 PROVISIONAL OPINIONS.

14.1 None.

15 INACCURACIES AND ADDITIONAL MATTERS.

15.1 To my knowledge, there are no inaccuracies in this report or matters related to trees and their assessment which fall outside my expertise.

15.2 I have made all the enquiries 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.

Michael Rogers

Consulting arborist

John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd

JOHN PATRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 17-0751

Appendix 1 - TREE DATA

Tree No.

Botanic Name Common Name Size (m)

DBH (cm) Age Health Structure ULE (Yrs.)

Arb. Value Estimated decade of planting

Estimated owners at time of planting

TPZ (m)

Comments

1 Angophora costata Sydney Red Gum 15 x 15 60 Mature Good Fair 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 7.2 Decay in branches and wounds on trunk

2 Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum 20 x 15 60, 55, 70 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 12.9 Multiple bifurcations with included bark at base. Prone to failure as ages

3 Grevillea robusta Silky Oak 22 x 8 55 Mature Good Fair 20+ Low 80s Chipperfield 6.6 50% supressed by 2

4 Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine 14 x 7 60 Maturing Good Good 20+ High 80s Chipperfield 7.2

5 Lophostemon confertus Qld Box 10 x 8 35 Maturing Good Fair 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 4.2

6 Grevillea robusta Silky Oak 18 x 12 40, 55 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Medium 90s Chipperfield 8.2 Co-dominant

7 Banksia integrifolia Coastal Banksia 9 x 6 40 Mature Good Fair 20+ Medium 80s Chipperfield 4.8

8 Platanus Xacerifolia London Plane 12 x6 22 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Low 2000s Chipperfield 2.6

9 Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle 8 x 6 30, 30, 30 Over mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 6.2

10 Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar 14 x 12 52 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 80s Chipperfield 6.2

11 Cupressus sempervirens Pencil Pine 14 x 4 40 Mature Good Fair 10-20 Low 60s Tuckfield 4.8 Lower canopy supressed

12 Acer negundo Box Elder 7 x 7 28 Maturing Good Fair 10-20 Remove 80s Chipperfield 3.4 Possibly self-germinated weed

13 Ulmus Xhollandica Dutch Elm 16 x 12 28, 35, 25 Maturing Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 6.2 Multiple leaders from base

14 Eucalyptus cinerea Canberra Blue Gum 16 x 10 80 Mature Good Poor 5-10 Remove 80s Chipperfield 9.6 Major leader just failed creating large tear wound in trunk

15 Callitris columellaris Murray River Cypress 14 x 6 30, 20 Mature Good Poor 20+ Medium 60s Tuckfield 4.3 Wound at base where one leader previously failed

16 Corymbia citriodora Lemon Scented Gum 15 x 14 70 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 80s Chipperfield 8.4

17 Lophostemon confertus Qld Box 10 x 10 30, 30, 30 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 6.2

18 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 18 x 14 80 Mature Good Good 20+ Medium 60s Tuckfield 9.6

19 Gleditsia triacanthos 'Sunburst'

Honey Locust 7 x 10 30 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Low 2000s Chipperfield 3.6

20 Ulmus Xhollandica Dutch Elm 18 x 12 45, 45 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Medium 80s Chipperfield 7.6 V crotched union

21 Melaleuca styphelioides Prickly Leafed Paperbark

12 x 8 60 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Medium 80s Chipperfield 7.2

22 Allocasuarina torulosa Forest She-Oak 7 x 7 30, 28, 20 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 5.5


24 Melaleuca styphelioides Prickly Leafed Paperbark

14 x 10 35, 35, 20, 20

Mature Good Poor 20+ Low 80s Chipperfield 6.8

25 Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar 12 x 10 35 Maturing Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 4.2 Lopped at 4m and regenerated canopy

26 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 20 x 18 120 Mature Good Good 10-20 Medium 60s Tuckfield 14.4

27 Ulmus glabra 'Lutescens'

Golden Elm 12 x 16 50, 50 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 70s Chipperfield 8.5

28 Prunus sp. Black Alder 12 x 7 30 Mature Fair Fair 20+ Low 80s Chipperfield 3.6

29 Grevillea robusta Silky Oak 16 x 14 45 Mature Good Hazardous 0-5 Remove 80s Chipperfield 5.4 Failed at base & upper canopy root plate exposed. High potential for failure

30 Prunus serrulata Japanese Cherry 7 x 8 35 Mature Good Good 20+ Low 80s Chipperfield 4.2

31 Picea pungens Blue Spruce 18 x 8 55 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 50s Tuckfield 6.6

32 Quercus robur English Oak 16 x 15 90 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 10.8

33 Ulmus minor 'Variegata' Variegated Elm 18 x 14 55 Mature Good Good 20+ High 80s Chipperfield 6.6

34 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 9 x 8 45 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 90s Chipperfield 5.4 Ivy suffocating tree. Remove ivy


Honey Locust 9 x 10 30 Maturing Good Fair 10-20 Low 90s Chipperfield 3.6



Tree No.





TPZ (m)

Comments


37 Quercus robur English Oak 12 x 12 30, 30 Maturing Good Poor 20+ Medium 60s Tuckfield 5.1

38 Ulmus Xhollandica Dutch Elm 22 x 12 80, 50 Mature Good Good 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 11.3

39 Ulmus Xhollandica Dutch Elm 15 x 14 60 Mature Good Fair 10-20 Medium 60s Tuckfield 7.2 Supressed by 38. Possibly self-germinated. 45 degree lean

40 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa (x17)

Monterey Cypress 26 x 8 80 (average)

Maturing Fair Fair 5-10 Medium 60s Tuckfield 9.6 History of branch failure. Needs arboricultural attention.

41 Cupressus sempervirens (x4)

Pencil Pine 16 x 3 40 Mature Fair-Good

Fair 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 4.8 One specimen has upper canopy die off

42 Angophora costata Sydney Red Gum 17 x 12 60 Mature Good Fair 20+ Medium 80s Chipperfield 7.2

43 Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar 10 x 8 40 Maturing Good Poor 5-10 Low 80s Chipperfield 4.8 Co-dominate at 4m

44 Eucalyptus radiata Narrow Leaf Peppermint

20 x 13 120 Mature Poor Poor 5-10 Low 60s Not planted 14.4 Indigenous. Major split in lower trunk. Covered in ivy. 1939 aerial suggests it is remnant

45 Fraxinus excelsior 'Aurea' (x3)

Golden Ash 16 x 10 30 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 80s Chipperfield 3.6

46 Populus Xcanadensis Canadian Poplar 22 x 15 150 Over mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 18.0 Major deadwood

47 Populus Xcanadensis Canadian Poplar 22 x 10 85 Over mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 10.2 Major deadwood

48 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 22 x 18 120 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 High 40s Various 14.4 Needs arboricultural attention.

49 Brachychiton Xroseous Kurrajong Hybrid 16 x 12 60 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 7.2

50 Sophora microphylla Kowhai 10 x 8 25 Mature Poor Fair 5-10 Low 80s Chipperfield 3.0 Covered in ivy

51 Hesperocyparis arizonica var. glabra

Arizona Cypress 13 x 8 55, 30 Over mature Good Poor 5-10 Low 40s Various 7.5

52 Pittosporum eugenioides 'Variegatum' (x4)

Variegated Pittosporum

10 x 8 25, 25, 25 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 5.2

53 Quercus robur English Oak 18 x 17 70 Mature Good Good 20+ High 40s Various 8.4

54 Juniperus virginiana Virginian Juniper 10 x 7 50 Over mature Poor Poor 0-5 Low 40s Various 6.0 In advanced decline. 50% dead.

55 Malus sp. Crab Apple 7 x 6 15, 15 Mature Fair Fair 5-10 Low 80s Chipperfield 2.5

56 Parrotica persica Witch-Hazel 6 x 4 7 Semi-mature Good Fair 20+ Low 2000s Chipperfield 2.0

57 Betula pendula 'Youngii' Weeping Silver Birch 6 x 5 22 Maturing Good Good 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 2.6

58 Grevillea robusta Silky Oak 22 x 10 70 Mature Fair Poor 5-10 Medium 60s Tuckfield 8.4 Bifurcated at 9m

59 Betula pendula Silver Birch 6 x 7 50 Over mature Good Fair 5-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 6.0 Lopped

60 Metasequoia glyptostroboides

Dawn Redwood 20 x 8 60 Over mature Fair-Poor Fair 5-10 High 50s Tuckfield 7.2


Dawn Redwood 20 x 12 70 Mature Good Fair 10-20 High 50s Tuckfield 8.4

62 Acer negundo Box Elder 12 x 8 50 Maturing Good Fair 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 6.0

63 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 22 x 10 45 Maturing Fair Fair 20+ Medium 60s Tuckfield 5.4

64 Acer palmatum (x3) Japanese Maple 7 x 7 30 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 60s Tuckfield 3.6

65 Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 7 x 7 20 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 2.4 Often regarded as a weed

66 Quercus macrocarpa Burr Oak 20 x 20 100 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 40s Various 12.0

67 Magnolia grandifolia 'Exmouth'

Bull Bay Magnolia 8 x 6 25 Maturing Poor Poor 5-10 Low 80s Chipperfield 3.0 Supressed by 66


Honey Locust 10 x 8 30 Maturing Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 3.6

69 Ulmus glabra 'Camperdownii'

Weeping Elm 6 x 6 20 Maturing Good Good 20+ Low 80s Chipperfield 2.4

70 Populus nigra 'Italica' Lombardy Polar 22 x 4 80 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 60s Tuckfield 9.6 Deadwood present

71 Syzygium floribunda Weeping Lilly Pily 12 x 12 45 Maturing Fair Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 5.4 Bifurcated union



Tree No.





TPZ (m)

Comments

72 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 18 x 10 50 Mature Poor Poor 15-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 6.0 Supressed by 71

73 Liquidambar styraciflua Liquidambar 18 x 10 50 Maturing Good Good 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 6.0

74 Liquidambar styraciflua Liquidambar 18 x 10 50 Maturing Good Good 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 6.0

75 Pyrus sp. Ornamental Pear 18 x 12 60 Over mature Fair Fair-Poor 0-5 Low 60s Tuckfield 7.2 Cavities and decay. Falling apart.

76 Prunus laurocerasus Cherry Laurel 15 x 15 25, 25, 25, 25

Mature Good Fair 10-20 Medium 60s Tuckfield 6.0


Dawn Redwood 20 x 5 40 Mature Fair Fair 20+ Medium 60s Tuckfield 4.8

78 Callitris columellaris Murray River Cypress 12 x 6 55 Over mature Fair Poor 0 Low 80s Chipperfield 6.6 Head snapped out recently still hanging

79 Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Lilly Pily 15 x 12 30, 30 Mature Fair Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 5.1


Monterey Cypress 25 x 18 170 Over mature Good Poor 5-10 Low 40s Various 20.4 Multiple leaders. One failed leaving large wound. Hi potential to fail again.

81 Ulmus glabra 'Lutescens'

Golden Elm 22 x 22 82 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 60s Tuckfield 9.8

82 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 18 x 16 75 Mature Fair Poor 5-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 9.0 Lost leader at top

83 Gingko biloba Gingko 16 x 6 40 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 80s Chipperfield 4.8

84 Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 18 x 10 50 Maturing Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 80s Chipperfield 6.0 Bifurcated union

85 Quercus macrocarpa Burr Oak 20 x 20 92 Mature Good Good 20+ High 40s Various 11.0

86 Ulmus minor 'Variegata' Variegated Elm 20 x 20 80 Mature Good Good 20+ High 50s Tuckfield 9.6

87 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 20 x 16 85 Mature Good Poor 10-20 High 50s Tuckfield 10.2 Multiple leaders at 10m

88 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 18 x 8 60 Maturing Fair Good 20+ Medium 50s Tuckfield 7.2

89 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 20 x 16 105 Mature Good Fair 20+ High 50s Tuckfield 12.6 Multiple leaders at 14m

90 Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Blue Atlas Cedar 18 x 14 70 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 50s Tuckfield 8.4

91 Quercus rubra Red Oak 17 x 26 50, 50, 81, 90, 100

Over mature Good Poor / Hazardous

5-10 High 20s Greaves 15.0

Has been identified as Burr Oak of heritage significance Incorrectly identified. Major cavity and wound at base. Suspected that the branch supports are predominantly holding it up. Isolate from pedestrians

92 Prunus serrulata Japanese Cherry 7 x 8 25, 25, 25 Mature Good Fair 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 5.2

93 Acer palmatum (x2) Japanese Maple 8 x 6 30 Mature Good Fair 20+ Medium 60s Tuckfield 3.6

94 Prunus cerasifera Cherry Plum 6 x 8 25, 25, 25, 25

Over mature Fair Poor 0 Low 60s Tuckfield 6.0 Falling apart and suckering profusely

95 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 18 x 12 70 Mature Fair Hazardous 0-5 Remove 80s Chipperfield 8.4

96 Cupressus sempervirens (x5)

Pencil Pine 10 x 3 35 Maturing Good Fair 20+ Medium 60s-80s Tuckfield or Chipperfield

4.2

97 Picea pungens Blue Spruce 12 x 6 50 Mature Fair-Poor Fair 5-10 Low 60s Tuckfield 6.0

98 Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar 14 x 7 40 Maturing Fair Fair 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 4.8

99 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 10 x 12 150 Over mature Poor Poor 0 Low/Remove 20s Greaves 18.0 Decaying stump regenerated new foliage


Monterey Cypress 20 x 8 80 Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Medium 50s Tuckfield 9.6 Row of trees exist in 1939 aerial photo.

101 Syzygium floribunda Weeping Lilly Pily 15 x 14 40 , 40 Mature Good Poor 10-20 Low 80s Chipperfield 6.8 Co-dominant

102 Populus nigra 'Italica' (x2)

Lombardy Poplar 18 x 14 50 Maturing Fair Poor 5-10 Low 80s Chipperfield 6.0



Appendix 2 – Tree Survey (EAST)



Appendix 2 – Tree Survey (WEST)

Date post:	26-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

54-60 MANUKA ROAD, BERWICK · University previously Victorian College of Agricultural &...

Documents