Expert Witness Report

Transcription

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
Tel: 03 9877 4114
ABN: 39 531 880 706
City Casey
Amendment C148 to the Casey Planning Scheme
1.
Contents
Statement of expertise to prepare this report.............................................................. 3
1.1 Cameron Ryder ........................................................................................................ 3
Instructions that define the scope of the report .......................................................... 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
2.
3.
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
5.2
Submitter 1, 14 Adamson Road, Beaconsfield, Tree 2286 ........................................ 8
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
Reference: 2128
Page 2 of 57
City Casey
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
Reference: 2128
Page 3 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 4 of 57
City Casey
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
Reference: 2128
Page 5 of 57
City Casey
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
Reference: 2128
Page 6 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 7 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 8 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 9 of 57
City Casey
58. The revised record is significant and should be included in the relevant ESO.
Initial tree
misidentified
as River Red
Gum
Swamp Gum
assessed by
Homewood
as significant
Figure 1: Original tree and assessed tree at 195 Evans Road, Cranbourne West
Reference: 2128
Page 10 of 57
City Casey
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.
tree.
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 predate 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.
Reference: 2128
Page 11 of 57
City Casey
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.
tree.
Reference: 2128
Page 12 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 13 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 14 of 57
City Casey
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
Reference: 2128
Page 15 of 57
City Casey
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.
105. 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.
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).
Reference: 2128
Page 16 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 17 of 57
City Casey
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.
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.
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 100150 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.
Reference: 2128
Page 18 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 19 of 57
City Casey
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):
tree.
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 20 of 57
City Casey
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 StandardPruning 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.
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
Reference: 2128
Page 21 of 57
City Casey
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 subfloor 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.
Reference: 2128
Page 22 of 57
City Casey
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.
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 23 of 57
City Casey
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.
Reference: 2128
Page 24 of 57
City Casey
Appendix 1.
Reference: 2128
Data sheets relevant to submitters
Page 25 of 57
River Red Gum Assessments for
City of Casey's Significant Tree Study
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
849
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
20
Width (m):
19
DBH (cm):
119
Number of Trunks:
1
Combined DBH (cm): 119
Significance:
Significant Habitat
Value,Remnant,Location of
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
40+ years
Failure Probability: Low
Failure Size:
251-450mm
Target:
1. Buildings of very high
value >$100K
Risk Score:
1 in 200
Risk Category:
Very high
Defects:
Trunk Decay,Canopy
Decay,Canopy Extended
branches,Trunk Lean,Roots
Works Category:
Specialised pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Risk reduction pruning
Comments:
Reduce large branches over house.
TPZ radius (m):
14.3
SRZ Measurement (cm):
140
SRZ radius:
3.81
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Assymetry Distance (m):
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
96 C8
Easting:
346807.6796
Northing:
5788963.9097
Property Addess:
130 FORDHOLM ROAD
HAMPTON PARK 3976
Inspector:
Homewood-ECD
Inspection Date:
14/07/2011
Page 26 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
850
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
19
Width (m):
18
DBH (cm):
123
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Significant Habitat
Value,Remnant,Location of
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
40+ years
Failure Size:
101-250mm
Target:
3. Vehicles, 65 - 649 @
50kph per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 65000
Risk Category:
Moderate
Defects:
Trunk Decay,Canopy
Deadwood,Canopy Extended
branches,Trunk Lean,Roots
TPZ radius (m):
14.8
136
SRZ radius:
3.77
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
96 C8
Easting:
346840.77
Works Category:
Specialised Pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Exclude/Move target,Deadwood
removal,Risk reduction pruning
Northing:
5788957.64
Property Addess:
126I FORDHOLM ROAD
HAMPTON PARK 3976
Comments:
Reduce branches over road, Exclude
targets by underplanting.
Inspector:
Homewood-ECD
Inspection Date:
14/07/2011
Page 27 of 57
Tree Assessments for City of
Casey's Significant Tree Study
Moreton Bay Chestnut
8
8
21 35 34
3
53
Rare or Localised
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Trunk Codominant,Compacted Root
Zone
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Low
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Epicormic removal
SRZ radius:
2.85
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
111 D7
Easting:
354883.69
Northing:
5789497.73
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
3. Stationary cars
Risk Score:
1 in 59000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
25/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1218
Castanospermum australe
70
Property Addess:
47B HIGH STREET
BERWICK 3806
R
Botanical Name:
6.36
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 28 of 57
Maiden Hair Tree
12
5
7
1
7
Rare or Localised
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Poor
ULE:
11-20 years
Defects:
Failure Probability: Moderate
Trunk Included bark,Trunk
Codominant,Compacted Root Zone
Works Category:
Specialised pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Structural pruning
SRZ radius:
2.57
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
111 D7
Easting:
354875.3
Northing:
5789500.4
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
3. Pedestrians, 1 - 9 per
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 650000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Low
Inspection Date:
25/06/2012
Tree may require cabling in the future.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1219
Ginkgo biloba
55
Property Addess:
43A HIGH STREET
BERWICK 3806
R
Botanical Name:
0.84
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 29 of 57
Macadamia Tree
10
8
47
1
47
Rare or Localised
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Compacted Root Zone
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Property/Asset clearance
SRZ radius:
2.55
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
111 D7
Easting:
354873.8501
Northing:
5789505.1826
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 59000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
25/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1220
Macadamia integrifolia
54
Property Addess:
43A HIGH STREET
BERWICK 3806
R
Botanical Name:
5.64
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 30 of 57
English Oak
17
14
132
1
132
Particularly Old, Outstanding
Size
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
40+ years
Defects:
Failure Probability: High
None
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Low
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Deadwood removal
SRZ radius:
3.81
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
144 A7
Easting:
358118.81
Northing:
5769090.36
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
4. Pedestrians, less than 1
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 5900000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
28/06/2012
Two trees forming one large canopy.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1445
Quercus robur
140
Property Addess:
18 MICKLE STREET
TOORADIN 3980
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 31 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
1471
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
19
Width (m):
25
DBH (cm):
175
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Significant Habitat
Value,Remnant,Particularly
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Very poor
ULE:
11-20 years
Failure Size:
251-450mm
Target:
per day
Risk Score:
1 in 340000
Risk Category:
Low
Defects:
Canopy Decay,Pest and
disease,Canopy
Deadwood,Canopy Hollow,Trunk
Works Category:
Specialised Pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Risk reduction pruning,Mulch
required,Annual inspection
Comments:
Large hollow in main trunk, Continue
to fence off and exclude targets. Bee
hive and birds nesting. Maintain as
TPZ radius (m):
15
189
SRZ radius:
4.32
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
School
Melway Map Ref:
131 H10
Easting:
356412.58
Northing:
5783440.55
Property Addess:
1/500 SOLDIERS ROAD
CLYDE NORTH 3978
Inspector:
Homewood-ECD
Inspection Date:
30/06/2011
Page 32 of 57
Narrow-leaved Peppermint
16
14
110
1
110
Outstanding Size
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Good
ULE:
40+ years
Defects:
None
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
SRZ radius:
3.72
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
133 H6
Easting:
348986.25
Northing:
5780141.47
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in >90000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
14/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1586
Eucalyptus nicholii
132
Property Addess:
15 RIMFIRE CRESCENT
CRANBOURNE 3977
R
Botanical Name:
13.2
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 33 of 57
Sugar Gum
19
14
98
1
98
Outstanding Size, Location of
Landscape Context
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
None
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
No works
SRZ radius:
3.47
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
129 G12
Easting:
348512.88
Northing:
5782240.26
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in >90000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
21/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1599
Eucalyptus cladocalyx
112
Property Addess:
12 ROMA AVENUE
CRANBOURNE 3977
R
Botanical Name:
11.8
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 34 of 57
Swamp Gum
12
17
159
1
159
Particularly Old, Outstanding
Size, Remnant
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Good
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Canopy deadwood, Trunk Heavy Decay
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
No works
SRZ radius:
4.26
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
129 A12
Easting:
346259.5451
Northing:
5782576.2227
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 650000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Low
Inspection Date:
14/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
1781
Eucalyptus ovata
182
Property Addess:
195 EVANS ROAD
CRANBOURNE WEST
3977
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 35 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
1815
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
16
Width (m):
12
DBH (cm):
85
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Remnant
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Poor
ULE:
11-20 years
Failure Size:
Greater 450mm
Target:
1. Buildings of very high
value >$100K
Risk Score:
1 in 100
Risk Category:
Very high
Defects:
Canopy Codominant,Trunk
Lean,Trunk Codominant,Roots
mechanical damage
Works Category:
Specialised pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Structural pruning
Comments:
TPZ radius (m):
10.2
94
SRZ radius:
3.22
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
129 C2
Easting:
346619.35
Northing:
5786482.2
Property Addess:
102 PATERSON DRIVE
LYNBROOK 3975
Inspector:
Homewood-CMR
Inspection Date:
6/07/2011
Page 36 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
1943
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
19
Width (m):
14
DBH (cm):
122
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Remnant
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Good
ULE:
21-40 years
Failure Size:
26-100mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 120000
Risk Category:
Moderate
Defects:
Canopy Decay,Canopy Extended
branches,Canopy
Deadwood,Canopy Codominant
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
No works
Comments:
Fill within TPZ,Property and asset
clearance has occurred.
TPZ radius (m):
14.6
122
SRZ radius:
3.6
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Transport Corporation
Melway Map Ref:
129 B2
Easting:
346347.41
Northing:
5786463.78
Property Addess:
217B SOUTH GIPPSLAND
HIGHWAY CRANBOURNE
3977
Inspector:
Homewood-AWP
Inspection Date:
11/07/2011
Page 37 of 57
River Red Gum
18
13
82
1
82
Landscape Context
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Canopy Lopped,Canopy Extended
Branches,Compacted Root Zone
Works Category:
Specialised pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Risk reduction pruning
SRZ radius:
3.28
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
96 D6
Easting:
346990.9026
Northing:
5789754.4816
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
2. Buildings of high value
$29-100K
Risk Score:
1 in 180000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Moderate
Inspection Date:
16/07/2012
The tree is lopped down one side for
powerline clearance.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2016
98
Property Addess:
46 POUND ROAD
HAMPTON PARK 3976
R
Botanical Name:
9.84
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 38 of 57
River Red Gum
21
16
94 86
2
127
Remnant, Particularly Old,
Landscape Context
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Poor
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 590000
Risk Category:
Low
Trunk Decay,Canopy Deadwood,Trunk
Codominant,Compacted Root Zone
Works Category:
Specialised pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Risk reduction pruning,Deadwood removal
Two large stems, maybe separate trees.
One stem poor condition through the
trunk. Canopy lopped for powerline
clearance.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2017
170
SRZ radius:
4.14
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
96 D6
Easting:
347002.3662
Northing:
5789752.6436
Property Addess:
46 POUND ROAD
HAMPTON PARK 3976
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Inspection Date:
16/07/2012
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 39 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
2022
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
24
Width (m):
24
DBH (cm):
120
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Remnant
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Fair
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
40+ years
Failure Probability: Very low
Failure Size:
101-250mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 650000
Risk Category:
Low
Defects:
Canopy extended branches, Roots
mechanical damage
Works Category:
Risk Management
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Mulch required
Comments:
TPZ radius (m):
14.4
140
SRZ radius:
3.81
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
96 D10
Easting:
346970.37
Northing:
5788220.36
Property Addess:
3I GUMTREE GROVE
HAMPTON PARK 3976
Inspector:
Homewood-AWP
Inspection Date:
12/07/2011
Page 40 of 57
Caleys Ironbark
17
9
63
1
63
Outstanding Size, Significant
Habitat Value, Location of
Landscape Context
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Canopy codominant
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
No works
SRZ radius:
3
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
130 F3
Easting:
351845.84
Northing:
5786279.19
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 59000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
30/05/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2111
Eucalyptus caleyi
79
Property Addess:
17 THE PROMENADE
NARRE WARREN SOUTH
3805
R
Botanical Name:
7.56
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 41 of 57
Huntingdon Elm
17
16
80
1
80
Location of Landscape
Context
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in >90000000
Risk Category:
Very low
None
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
No works
The tree is located in a paddock with
barbed wire fence. All details estimated
from 200m away.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2127
Ulmus Xhollandica 'Vegeta'
100
SRZ radius:
3.31
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
130 K8
Easting:
353449.54
Northing:
5784333.45
Property Addess:
805 BERWICKCRANBOURNE ROAD
CRANBOURNE NORTH
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Inspection Date:
19/07/2012
R
Botanical Name:
9.6
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 42 of 57
Black Locust
12
12
60
1
60
Particularly Old, Location of
Landscape Context
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Poor
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Canopy Active split,Compacted Root
Zone
Works Category:
Specialised Pruning
Works Priority:
Urgent
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Structural pruning,Deadwood removal
SRZ radius:
3.28
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
111 F9
Easting:
355500.4
Northing:
5788826.18
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
3. Stationary cars
Risk Score:
1 in 65000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Moderate
Inspection Date:
18/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2269
Robinia pseudoacacia
98
Property Addess:
5 MELVILLE PARK DRIVE
BERWICK 3806
R
Botanical Name:
7.2
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 43 of 57
English Oak
18
14
71
1
71
Outstanding Size
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Good
ULE:
40+ years
Defects:
None
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Low
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
SRZ radius:
3.17
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
131 H1
Easting:
356359.5894
Northing:
5787209.2082
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in >90000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
5/06/2012
Three oaks making one canopy. Subject
tree largest.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2286
Quercus robur
90
Property Addess:
14 ADAMSON ROAD
BEACONSFIELD 3807
R
Botanical Name:
8.52
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 44 of 57
Weeping Bottle Brush
8
10
37 32 30 25 25
5
67
Aesthetic Value, Outstanding
Size
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Defects:
Trunk codominant
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
No works
SRZ radius:
3.17
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
111 A8
Easting:
353554.98
Northing:
5789209.19
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 6500000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
27/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2373
Callistemon viminalis
90
Property Addess:
95 MANSFIELD STREET
BERWICK 3806
R
Botanical Name:
8.04
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 45 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
2930
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
24
Width (m):
8
DBH (cm):
61
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Remnant
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Good
ULE:
21-40 years
Failure Size:
26-100mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 590000
Risk Category:
Low
Defects:
None
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Epicormic removal
Comments:
TPZ radius (m):
7.32
74
SRZ radius:
2.92
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
91 F10
Easting:
347785.2965
Northing:
5792954.2609
Property Addess:
38-40 KILBERRY
CRESCENT HALLAM 3803
Inspector:
Homewood-CMR
Inspection Date:
18/07/2011
Page 46 of 57
River Red Gum
25
24
156
1
156
Remnant, Outstanding Size,
Particularly Old
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
40+ years
Defects:
Canopy deadwood, Canopy extended
branches, Trunk decay
Works Category:
Specialised Pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Deadwood removal,Risk reduction pruning
SRZ radius:
4.41
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
91 F10
Easting:
347677.42
Northing:
5792977.76
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 650000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Low
Inspection Date:
18/06/2012
Two large recent failures in canopy.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
2935
198
Property Addess:
13 WANDA COURT
HALLAM 3803
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 47 of 57
River Red Gum
18
24
89 130
2
158
Particularly Old
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
40+ years
Defects:
Canopy extended branches, Canopy
deadwood
Works Category:
Minor pruning
Works Priority:
Moderate
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Deadwood removal
SRZ radius:
4.21
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
91 J3
Easting:
349029.88
Northing:
5796014.26
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 650000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Low
Inspection Date:
18/07/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
3052
177
Property Addess:
9 RADE MACUT COURT
NARRE WARREN NORTH
3804
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 48 of 57
River Red Gum
18
16
169
1
169
Significant Habitat Value,
Particularly Old
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Poor
ULE:
11-20 years
Defects:
Failure Size
101-250mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 6500000
Risk Category:
Very low
Trunk Decay,Canopy Decay,Roots
Ground heave,Compacted Root Zone
Works Category:
Specialised pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
Risk reduction pruning,Annual inspection
The tree is on a lean raising the ground.
Regular inspections are required to
monitor lean.
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
3110
230
SRZ radius:
4.7
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
90 K5
Easting:
345311.38
Northing:
5795102.73
Property Addess:
19 FLORIANA AVENUE
DOVETON 3177
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Inspection Date:
13/06/2012
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 49 of 57
Unique ID
Botanical Name:
3123
Common Name:
River Red Gum
Height (m):
20
Width (m):
26
DBH (cm):
176
Number of Trunks:
1
Significance:
Significant Habitat
Value,Remnant
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Fair
ULE:
21-40 years
Failure Size:
26-100mm
Target:
hour
Risk Score:
1 in 12000
Risk Category:
Moderate
Defects:
Canopy Deadwood,Canopy
Extended branches,Trunk Bracket
fungi,Trunk Decay
Works Category:
Specialised Pruning
Works Priority:
High
Recommended
Works:
Risk reduction pruning,Exclude/Move
target,Deadwood removal,Annual
inspection
Comments:
TPZ radius (m):
15
195
SRZ radius:
4.38
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Council
Melway Map Ref:
90 H7
Easting:
344833.03
Northing:
5794215.74
Property Addess:
182 KIDDS ROAD
DOVETON 3177
Inspector:
Homewood-CMR
Inspection Date:
21/07/2011
Page 50 of 57
River Red Gum
17
17
220
1
220
Location of Landscape
Context, Significant Habitat
Value, Remnant, Outstanding
Size, Particularly Old
Maturity:
Mature
Health:
Good
Structure:
Poor
ULE:
40+ years
Defects:
Canopy Decay,Canopy Lopped,Trunk
Decay
Works Category:
No works
Works Priority:
None
Recommended
Works:
Comments:
No works
SRZ radius:
4.90
Canopy Assymetry:
None
0
Owner:
Private
Melway Map Ref:
91 A11
Easting:
345888.7667
Northing:
5792618.1109
Failure Size
26-100mm
Target:
per hour
Risk Score:
1 in 59000000
Inspector:
Homewood-ELB
Risk Category:
Very low
Inspection Date:
13/06/2012
AF
T
Common Name:
Height (m):
Width (m):
DBH (cm):
Number of Trunks:
Combined DBH (cm):
Significance:
3224
255
Property Addess:
3 MCLENNAN STREET
EUMEMMERRING 3177
R
Botanical Name:
15
D
Unique ID
TPZ radius (m):
Page 51 of 57
City Casey
Appendix 2.
Reference: 2128
Expert Witness Curriculum Vitae
Page 52 of 57
RESUMÉ
Cameron Matthew Ryder
Mobile: 0400 160 889
Email: cameronryder@homewood.com.au
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)

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

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
15/11/2013
1/04/2009
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

Expert Witness Report

Transcription

Similar documents

join us for lots of fun learning how to play African drumS

Cambistat® Product Guide

Tristaniopsis laurina syn. Tristania laurina

A Dendrologist`s Handbook

Cornish Hardwood Management Area (CHMA)

Roger ID`s Homemade Canopy

Ready, Set, Cut! Rethinking Tree Management Within

Fact sheet - i-Tree