Expert Witness Statement Planning Panels Victoria Government Land Standing Advisory Committee – Tranche 12

EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT

PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA

GOVERNMENT LAND STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE – TRANCHE 12

Site Address: Mount Eliza Centre 33‐ 33A Jacksons Road, Mount Eliza

Report Prepared for: Mornington Peninsula Shire

Prepared by: Mark Reynolds Director/ Arboricultural Consultant

Prepared 5 February 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 4 3. SITE LOCATION, HISTORY AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 5

3.1. SITE LOCATION ...... 5

3.2. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ...... 5

3.3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 7 4. SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT ...... 8

4.1. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 11

4.2. DECLARATION ...... 11 5. REFERENCES ...... 11 6. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 12 7. COMPANY PROFILE AND QUALIFICATIONS ...... 13 8. APPENDICES ...... 14

8.1. EXPLANATION OF TERMS ...... 14 8.1.1. Glossary of terms ...... 14 8.1.2. Origin ...... 15 8.1.3. Health ...... 16 8.1.4. Structure ...... 16 8.1.5. Age Class ...... 17 8.1.6. Arboricultural Value ...... 17

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This statement/ report has been prepared for Mornington Peninsula Shire Council under instruction from Rosa Zouzoulas of Mornington Peninsula Shire for submission as an Expert Evidence Statement at the Planning Panels Victoria planning scheme amendment hearing titled Government Land Standing Advisory Committee – Tranche 12 for the site known as 33 – 33A Jacksons Road, Mount Eliza .

My name is Mark William Reynolds and I am the Director and Senior Arborist of Arbor Survey Pty Ltd located at 55 Woodside Avenue, Frankston South. I am a qualified Arboricultural Consultant and hold a Bachelor of Applied Science (Horticulture) from Melbourne University (Burnley Campus). I have been involved in the Arboricultural industry for over 18 years and I am a member of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Arboriculture Australia, the Victorian Tree Industry Organisation (VTIO) and a number of other industry associations including past founding member of Council Arboriculture Victoria (CAV). I have undertaken a number of reviews of local government Significant Tree Registers and have been responsible for implementing and administering controls for identified significant trees within the City of Bayside, Kingston and Boroondara.

The objective of the expert evidence statement is to undertake an arboricultural assessment of a Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) located on the edge of the car parking area to the east of the administration building at the Mount Eliza Centre, 33 – 33A Jacksons Road, Mount Eliza. The arboricultural assessment focused on the overall condition of the tree (based on the arboricultural characteristics) and an assessment of the tree for significance in the local context.

The assessment of the tree was undertaken on Tuesday 25 July 2016. The assessment of the tree considered the overall arboricultural characteristics, the growing environment and overall site conditions surrounding the tree. An assessment of the possible historical significance of the tree based on historical records, photographs and heritage citations has been undertaken. The assessment has also been undertaken to determine the projected tree protection zone (as calculated using the Australian Standard AS4970–20009–Protection of Trees on Development Sites) to inform any future protection measures that may be used on the site.

The assessment focused on the ‘Significance’ of the tree based upon the National Heritage Trust criteria for assessing significant trees (Trust Trees). The possible significance of the tree is assessed based on four broad categories being ‘Scientific’, ‘Social’, ‘Historic’ and ‘Aesthetic’. The categories were used to assess the tree for significance in a local context within the Mornington Peninsula Shire. For the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that if the tree meets at least one of the criteria used, then consideration should be given to including the tree on any future significant tree register and requiring that ‘Tree Controls’ apply for the interim and future Heritage control over the site (HO 399). This methodology has been adopted by other Local Government Authorities such as Bayside and Kingston Councils.

The subject tree is a native species (non‐indigenous), being Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) which has a height of approximately 17 metres and a canopy spread at the widest point of 20 metres. The overall condition of the tree is considered to be good with no signs of any major defects and there is evidence that the tree has good vitality based upon the wound or reaction wood that is forming over all pruning cuts and in various parts of the tree.

The assessment of the tree for significance found that the tree may only meet the National Heritage Trust criteria being the ‘Social’ criteria for its contribution to the landscape and the ‘Historic’ criteria as the tree is associated with an important institution (Mount Eliza Centre and possibly the former ‘Beachleigh’ residence (now removed) which was located over the current asphalt car parking area to the east of the administration building).

It must be noted that this assessment is based on a local context within Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. The ‘place’ may have some significance at a state level, however the tree is not considered to have a state or regional level of significance. There is limited historical evidence of the individual importance of the tree and there is only limited photographic evidence that this tree may have been part of the original ‘Beachleigh’ residence garden. It is highly likely that this tree may be regrowth, or the tree has been significantly pruned or reduced and has regrown possibly over the last 100 years.

Although there the limited physical historic evidence directly related to the tree, it is still considered likely that this tree was associated with the original ‘Beachleigh’ residence and should be considered for protection in the local context. As the tree meets at least one of the National Trust Significant Tree Criteria it is recommended that the tree be included in any future register of Significant Trees and tree controls should apply for any Heritage Overlay that may be applied on the site.

2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

Arbor Survey Pty Ltd was engaged by Mornington Peninsula Shire to prepare a Expert Evidence Statement/ Significant Tree Assessment (in line with the Guidelines of the National Heritage Trust for the assessment of Significant Trees – Trust Trees) for one (1) tree located on the edge of the car parking area to the east of the administration building at the Mount Eliza Centre, 33 – 33A Jacksons Road, Mount Eliza. The objectives of the assessment are:

. Provide an assessment of the site conditions surrounding the subject tree . Undertake an assessment of the health, structure and overall condition of the subject tree . Determine the tree protection zone of the tree based upon the Australian Standard AS4970–2009–Protection of Trees on Development Sites . Investigate any historic significance of the subject tree (where possible) . Undertake an assessment of the Significance of the tree based upon the National Heritage Trust agreed categories of significance.

3. SITE LOCATION, HISTORY AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY

3.1. SITE LOCATION

The subject tree is located on the edge of the car parking area to the east of the administration building at the Mount Eliza Centre, 33 Jacksons Road, Mount Eliza. The tree is growing within close proximity to the retaining wall of the car park which is possibly an old existing retaining wall that was built prior to 1930 (possibly as part of the construction of the house between 1878 and 1900). The recent aerial photograph below (Figure 1) shows the location of the tree in reference to the Mount Eliza Centre buildings.

Figure 1: Aerial view – photo taken on 16 January 2016 ‐ Nearmaps TM

3.2. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

There is limited historical evidence regarding the tree and the only evidence is older photographic records that indicate that the tree was possibly present in historical photographs both taken in the early 1930’s (Figure 2) and again around 1950’s – 1960’s (Figure 3). There is some suggestion in the Heritage Citation from GJM Heritage (2017) that the Moreton Bay Fig is associated with the former ‘Beachleigh’ residence that was removed sometime after 1970, however, there is no direct evidence of this being the case. The following photographs show the area where the Moreton Bay Fig is located and the evidence that the tree potentially existed prior to 1930, however, there is no direct evidence that this tree shown in both photographs is a Moreton Bay Fig.

Figure 2: Photograph circa 1930 showing the outline of a large Figure 3: Photograph circa 1950 ‐ 1960 showing the possible tree in the same location. Note the exposed canopy possibly due outline of a large tree in the same location. Note: the form is to salt wind. This tree may be possibly a Moreton Bay Fig given similar to the tree as seen in the evidence in c1930’s. This tree its overall form (Source: GJM Heritage, 2017) may have been severely lopped or reduced in the years since 1960’s and the present tree may be composed of predominately regrowth (Source: GJM Heritage, 2017).

There is limited evidence surrounding the construction of the ‘Beachleigh’ residence in 1878 by the architect Thomas Watts (Mt Eliza Progress Association (MEPA), 1926), however, the MEPA (1926) note that Mr. James Davey once owned the larger surrounding area in the 1800’s and brought numerous seeds and different plants into the area (notably, He is said to have brought in the African species, purple flowered Polygala – now a major weed on the Peninsula to the present day (MEPA, 1926)). It is therefore possible that the Moreton Bay Fig tree was brought in and planted in the mid to late 1800’s however there is no direct evidence of this.

3.3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The collection of data was undertaken by Mark Reynolds on Tuesday 25 July 2017. The data was captured on site of the characteristics of the subject tree and is recorded in this report in a detailed table, located in Section 4.

The tree was assessed and the Genus/species, origin, estimated height and canopy width, calculated diameter at breast height (DBH) and the characters of health and structure were recorded. Additionally, age class and arboricultural value of the tree was assessed using the explanation of terms as set out in the explanation of terms in Appendix 8. Physical tree dimensions were used to assess the tree protection and structural root zones based upon the Australian Standard AS4970:2009 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Site photographs are found in Section 6.

Data collected has been used to calculate the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) and the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and the total area of tree protection. These calculations are based upon the Australian Standard AS 4970: 2009 ‐ Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

The survey and assessment undertaken of the subject tree was made from a visual inspection from ground level only. The tree was not climbed and no samples of soil, plant material or pest and disease infestation (if present) were taken for analysis. Species identification was carried out in the field and is considered as common; no samples have been taken to the National Herbarium of Victoria for accurate analysis and identification.

Defects not apparent from this ground‐based visual inspection are excluded from the discussion within this report. Additionally, this report is based upon the condition of the tree at the date of assessment only.

The assessment also focused on the ‘Significance’ of the tree based upon the National Heritage Trust agreed criteria for assessing significant trees. The significance of the tree is assessed based on the National Heritage Trust criteria. Recently, the National Heritage Trust has redefined or rearranged the ten individual categories into four broad categories being ‘Scientific’, ‘Social’, ‘Historic’ and ‘Aesthetic’. The categories were used to assess the tree for significance in a local context within Mornington Peninsula Shire. For the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that if the tree meets at least one of the criteria, then consideration should be given to including the tree on any future register of ‘Significant Trees’ and tree controls should apply for any Heritage Overlay that may be applied on the site. This methodology has been adopted by other Local Government Authorities such as Bayside and Kingston Councils.

4. SIGNIFICANT TREE ASSESSMENT

Owners Name: Vic Hospitals Date Inspected: 25/7/2017 Time Inspected: 10:30am Street Address: 33 Jacksons Road Suburb: Mount Eliza Post Code: 3930 Site Conditions Topography: Flat ☐ Slope ☒ Change in level (m): Planted/ growing in sloped Over 5 metres garden bed with retaining wall to the east and south Soil Conditions: Sandy Clay Loam Prevailing wind South Westerly. High level of salt spray. Exposed on south and west side. and Environmental conditions: Private or Public Private land – Mount Eliza Centre, located on edge of car park area (against retaining wall) to the Land? east of the old administration building Other Comments: Planted/ growing in sloped garden bed area between existing retaining wall to the east and retaining wall to the south and west.

Species Profile Tree Number or 1 Genus/ Species Ficus Common Name Moreton Bay ID: macrophylla Fig Height (m): 17 Spread (N – S): 20 Spread (E – W): 20 DBH (cm): Approx. 150 and Basal Dia (DAB) Approx. 200 Trunk Circumference 400 and 470 130 (cm): and 200 (cm) at breast height: Origin: Native (NSW and Age Class: Mature Estimate of Age 100 + Years QLD) (years): Type of Planting: Garden Deciduous/ Evergreen In Active Growth or Active Growth Evergreen? Dormant on Inspection? Health Rating: Good Structure Rating: Fair Form Rating: Good Overall health Live crown ratio approximately 90% (Good), crown density of approximately 90%. Tree is in good and canopy health with signs throughout the crown of extension growth. Very minimal deadwood in the crown Condition Trunk and Tree may have been severely pruned/ reduced in the past. There are two main stems Structural approximately 1 metre apart. The tree may have under gone significant changes in the last 50 years condition: and may lost the central leader or has been severely reduced. Exceptional wound wood formation around old pruning wounds and tree has compartmentalised around old wounds. Rooting No signs of any damage or decay to root buttress – sounding hammer used. Buttress roots Environment and significant and intertwined and fused. root condition: Pests and Disease No signs or symptoms present during inspection Presence: Past Unknown. No sign of management (pruning) in the last 10 + years Management: History within No major changes. Since 1970, the area to the east has been turned into a car park. Changes root zone: unknown. Tree possibly reduced significantly during this time. Are there any Possible development threat to tree from works within tree protection zone to the east known threats to this tree?

Tree Protection Zones Trunk Diameter Basal Diameter Tree Protection Structural Root Crown Protection Tree (DBH) (cm): (DAB) (cm): Zone (TPZ) (m): Zone (SRZ) (m): Radius (CPR) (m): Protection Area (m2) >200cm >200cm 15 (maximum) 4.5m 15m Approx. (combined) (combined) (Radius) 800m2

History Planting Date: Unknown. Planted for Unknown. Possibly Covered by No Heritage Control at Possibly late an occasion planted as part of any other present – suggest Tree 1800’s or event? the former Heritage Controls applied to residence garden Control or heritage control over as a feature tree Trust Tree? site. Protected under VPO1 Describe history of No significant event associated with this tree that could be determined. Tree possibly part of the tree where former ‘Beachleigh’ residence on the site (removed after 1970). Tree appears in historical known: photographs dating back to 1930 Any other historic There is limited evidence surrounding the construction of the ‘Beachleigh’ residence in 1878 by information known? the architect Thomas Watts (Mt Eliza Progress Association (MEPA), 1926), however, the MEPA (1926) note that Mr. James Davey once owned the larger surrounding area in the 1800’s and brought numerous seeds and different plants into the area (notably, He is said to have brought in the African species, purple flowered Polygala – now a major weed on the Peninsula to the present day (MEPA, 1926)). It is therefore possible that the Moreton Bay Fig tree was brought in and planted in the mid to late 1800’s however there is no direct evidence of this.

Mr. James Davey sold 20 acres of the land to Mr. Thomas Watts – a renowned architect who built the house ‘Beachleigh’ in which he lived for several years before selling the property to the Children’s hospital in 1926 (MEPA, 1926, GJM Heritage, 2017). It is possible that the tree was planted or at least associated with the gardens of the house when constructed around 1870’s. How does this tree There are other examples of Moreton Bay Figs on the Peninsula and this specific tree is of the compare to other same or slightly less significance in terms of its arboricultural characteristics. trees in the area (where known)

Significance Categories (National Trust Criteria) Scientific Yes/ No Reasoning Horticultural or genetic value No The tree does not have any particular features or characteristic Important source of seed or No that would classify this tree as being of any Scientific propagating stock significance. Particularly resistant to disease or No exposure Species or variety that is rare or of a No very localised distribution Remnant native vegetation No Outstanding for its size No An outstanding example of the species No Social Yes/ No Reasoning Unique location or context No The tree does play a role in the contribution to the local Contribution to landscape Yes landscape and tree canopy of the area. Associated with Aboriginal activities No Important landmark No Spiritual and religious associations No Contemporary association with the No community

Historic Yes/ No Reasoning Forms part of an historic park, garden or No The tree does have some historic significance as it is believed town to be part of the former ‘Beachleigh’ residence that was Commemorative plantings No removed after 1970. The tree is considered to have historic Associated with an important event No significance as it is associated with an important institution Associated with an important person, Yes (former ‘Beachleigh’ residence and Mount Eliza Centre) group or institution Aesthetic Yes/ No Reasoning Outstanding size (height or spread) or No The tree does not have any aesthetic characteristics such as an form for species within local area outstanding size and is not a better that average example of Exhibits curious growth form or unusual No the species in the local context. physical features Is a better than an average example of: No its species, it location in the urban environment and in the local context Statement of Significance Explanation The tree meets the National Heritage Trust ‐ Criteria ‘Social’ – for its ‘Contribution to the Landscape’ for chosen and the ‘Historical’ criteria as the tree is ‘Associated with an important person, group or institution’. category Brief This tree is considered to be significant and worthy of heritage protection due to its possible Historical Statement of significance, being associated with the former ‘Beachleigh’ Residence and Mount Eliza Centre. Significance: Photographic records indicate that the tree may have been planted sometime in the late 1800’s. Photos Taken: Yes Checked History? Yes – Check Tree Currently protected Heritage Controls: under the VPO1. Citations Recommended Heritage and Mount ‘Tree Controls’ apply to Eliza Local the site. History Recommended Yes – tree is Recommended Possibly Significance Local Significance (L) for Inclusion worthy of for inclusion/ Grading: Neighbourhood on Significant inclusion on the Reporting to Significance (Nb) Tree Register? Register. Trust Trees? Comments: Tree structure and form is likely to have suffered significant changes in the past and the current form may have been significantly altered during the 1970’s when the former Beachleigh residence was demolished.

4.1. RECOMMENDATIONS

The assessment of the tree for significance found that the tree meets the National Heritage Trust ‐ Criteria ‘Social’ – for its ‘Contribution to the Landscape’ and the ‘Historical’ criteria as the tree is ‘Associated with an important person, group or institution’. It must be noted that this assessment is based on a local context within Mornington Peninsula Shire.

As the tree meets at least one of the Significant Tree Criteria it is recommended that the tree be included in any future Register of Significant Trees and it is recommended that any future heritage control includes specific tree controls to require that any removal and pruning is prohibited without a permit and that a permit is required for any buildings or works within a 15 metre radius of the tree.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Reynolds B. App. Sci (Hort) (Melb)

4.2. DECLARATION

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

5. REFERENCES

GJM Heritage 2017, Heritage Citation: The Mount Eliza Centre, May 2017, Melbourne Victoria

Mt. Eliza Progress Association(MEPA), 1926, The Early History of Mount Eliza on the Mornington Peninsula, Mt. Eliza Progress Association, Mount Eliza, Vic

Trust Trees, National Heritage Trust, http://www.trusttrees.org.au/, accessed on 28 July 2016 and 5 February 2018

6. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

View of tree looking south from car park area View of tree looking south from car park area

Overall canopy of the tree View of old retaining wall at base of the trees

View of old retaining wall at base of the trees Two stems, structure possibly altered significantly over lifespan

7. COMPANY PROFILE AND QUALIFICATIONS

Company Profile Arbor Survey Pty Ltd is an Arboricultural Consulting company based in Victoria, Australia. The principal consultants, Mark Reynolds and Blake Clancy have been involved within the Arboricultural Industry for a combined period of over 25 years, working for both private sector clients and within the public sector at numerous Victorian Local Government Authorities.

Our consultants have vast experience in providing Arboricultural referral within local councils in relation to planning applications and Strategic Planning advice relating to planning scheme amendments. We have extensive experience in quantified tree risk assessment (QTRA and TRAQ), health and structural condition assessments, tree valuations, development impact assessments and tree management and protection plans. We also have provided Expert Evidence statements and represented numerous private and public sector clients at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and Magistrates Court.

Arbor Survey Pty Ltd is dedicated to best practice within the industry and are committed to ongoing professional development.

Professional Memberships  Member of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)  Member of Arboriculture Australia  Member of the Victorian Tree Industry Association (VTIO)  Member of the Victorian Environment and Planning Law Association (VEPLA)

Mark Reynolds Qualifications  Bachelor of Applied Science (Horticulture) ‐ University of Melbourne (Burnley Campus)  Registered Advanced Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA – No. 1499)  ISA TRAQ Register User Experience  Senior Arborist – Boroondara Council  Open Space Coordinator – Cardinia Shire Council  Senior Arborist – City of Kingston  Private arboricultural and vegetation consulting under Tri_dimensional Consulting  Treescape Consulting Pty Ltd – Arboricultural Consultant  Bayside City Council – Vegetation Planner/ Senior Investigations Arborist

Blake Clancy Qualifications  Bachelor of Applied Science (Horticulture) ‐ University of Melbourne (Burnley Campus)  Advanced Diploma of Horticulture (Arboriculture) – University of Melbourne (Burnley Campus)  Registered Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA)  ISA TRAQ Register User Experience  Senior Consulting Arborist – Homewood Consulting Pty Ltd  Consulting Arborist – Greenwood Consulting Pty Ltd

8. APPENDICES

8.1. EXPLANATION OF TERMS

8.1.1. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Amenity Although difficult to quantify, the term as used in this report relates to the contribution given to the landscape or streetscape in terms of visual aesthetics. It may also relate to the contribution in terms of shade or protection from the elements.

Bifurcation Forked or divided into two or more parts or branches. Used to describe a union point.

Branch Bark Ridge Swelling of bark tissue on the upper side of the branch junction or union. Considered the normal pattern of development in contrast to included bark (from Matheny & Clark, 1994).

Branch collar Trunk tissue that forms around the base of a branch between the main stem and the branch. As the branch decreases in vigour or begins to die, the branch collar becomes more pronounced. (AS4373).

Structural Root Zone (SRZ) The Structural Root Zone (SRZ) is the calculated distance based on DBH only. The SRZ identifies the minimum radius at which the root plate cannot be disturbed. This measure only relates to the trees’ stability and does not take into account the implications of a decline in health. The measurement is given in metres in a radius from the tree trunk. (Coder, 1996). This area may also be referred to as the Root Plate Radius (RPR).

Chlorotic Discolouration of the leaves, yellow in colour resulting from a lack of chlorophyll

Codominant Generally relates to trunks/ stems (although it may relate to scaffold branches within the crown) of two or more and of equal or similar size and relative importance (from Matheny & Clark, 1994).

Compartmentalisation Physiological process which creates the chemical and mechanical boundaries that act to limit the spread of disease and decay organisms (from Matheny & Clark, 1994).

Decay Degeneration and de‐lignification of plant tissue, including wood, by pathogens or micro‐organisms (AS4373).

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) DBH is measured at 1.4m above ground level. In cases where the tree has up to four stems the diameter is calculated by taking the area of each stem at 1.4 metres and calculating the combined diameter. In trees with more than four stems the measurement is provided as ‘Multi‐stemmed’, however in some cases the diameter will be taken at the point below

the multi‐stemmed union. Note: the DBH measurement may not show individual stem measurements however the calculated measurement is shown. Where the tree has multiple stems this is noted within the notes within the tree data. Where the DBH is estimated this is also noted in the notes within the tree data table.

Epicormic Shoots Shoots which arise from adventitious or latent buds (usually dormant). They are generally produced in response to environmental stress.

Included Bark The pattern of development at a branch union where bark is turned inward rather than outward or pushed out. Relates to the branch bark ridge. (from Matheny & Clark, 1994)

Live Crown Ratio Relative proportion of healthy crown in proportion to overall tree height. Often not used in isolation due to the different natural forms of many species.

Lateral A branch arising from another branch or stem (AS4373)

Lopping Cutting back a limb or stem at any point with no regard to natural target pruning. Random cutting of branches or stems between branch unions or at internodes on young trees. Not considered an acceptable practice as part of the Australian Standard AS4373: Pruning of Amenity Trees.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) (referenced from Australian Standard AS 4970 ‐ 2009 ‐ Protection of Trees on Development Sites; is the calculated distance based on the DBH of the tree. The TPZ addresses the physiological implications by retaining enough area around the tree not only to minimise the potential for complete tree failure but for the tree to survive in the landscape on a long‐term basis. The measurement is given in metres in a radius from the centre of the trunk.

Senescence The organic process of age and the deterioration of tissue within the tree.

Stem bark ridge The ridge of bark that forms in the union between two codominant stems (AS4373).

Wound wood Lignified, partially differentiated tissue which develops from the callus associated with wound or pruning cuts.

8.1.2. ORIGIN Origin is given as Indigenous (the trees’ natural range is within the study area), Native (the trees natural range is within Australia) or Exotic (the tree originates from outside of Australia).

8.1.3. HEALTH Health relates to the tree vigour, live crown ratio and canopy density.

Health is rated according to the following categories: Category Description Good Crown is excurrent or decurrent with greater than 50% live crown ratio. Foliage density is greater than 70% at optimal growth. There is less than 10% canopy dieback present and foliage has no or very minor tip dieback. Tree may also have acceptable extension growth if it is in active growth and is showing no symptoms of nutrient deficiency. The tree also has good wound wood development. Fair Crown is excurrent or decurrent with 30‐50% live crown ratio. Foliage density is between 50‐ 70% at optimal growth for the species. There may be 10‐30% canopy dieback present and foliage may have minor tip dieback. Tree maybe showing signs of normal growth but it is not consistent throughout the crown. Some foliage discolouration maybe present from possible nutrient deficiency or other cause. Poor The tree may have less than 30% live crown ratio and the canopy may be codominant or suppressed. There may be greater than 30% canopy dieback present and foliage density is below 50%. Stunted growth through leaf size or petiole extension and discolouration of the leaf may be present. Tree may be producing epicormic shoots as a stress response. Nutrient deficiency, lack of resources (water, light etc) or pathogens may be the causal agent in the tree’s decline

8.1.4. STRUCTURE Structure relates to the physical form of the tree, including the trunk(s), main scaffold branches and roots. Structure includes the attributes that may influence the probability of major trunk, limb or root failure.

Structure is rated according to the following categories: Category Description Good The form of the tree is typical for the species and exhibits good symmetrical form. Major limbs are well formed with acceptable branch taper and unions appear to be strong with no signs of defects. The tree has minimal defects throughout the trunk and limbs. There is no sign of root plate heave or damage to the root system. The tree is unlikely to suffer branch or trunk failure under normal environmental conditions. Fair Tree has a fairly consistent form for the species. Tree may exhibit minor structural defects that may be managed through formative pruning. Only minor wounds are present that do not affect the overall stability or structural integrity of the tree. Minor root damage may have occurred in the past. Defects present are likely to cause only minor branch failure under normal environmental conditions. Poor Tree has a poorly formed crown that is not symmetrical. Branch and or trunk taper may be unacceptable and scaffold limbs may be overextended. Branch unions may exhibit significant defects that cannot be managed through formative pruning. Major root damage may have occurred and there may be evidence of root plate heave. Defects that are present may result in catastrophic failure of branches or trunk under normal environmental conditions.

8.1.5. AGE CLASS The age class is given as a guide to the current live stage of the tree. Ultimately, the level of maturity that a tree may reach is dependent on the growing environment.

Age Class is rated according to the following categories Category Description New Planting Planted within approximately 2 years Juvenile Generally less than 5 years old Young Estimated as less than 15 years old Semi‐mature Estimated at between 15 – 25 years old, however, this may be species dependant Mature Estimated at over 25 years old or in a life stage that is considered at the peak of growth for the species. Senescent In the declining phase of the trees lifespan

8.1.6. ARBORICULTURAL V ALUE Arboricultural Value is rated according to the overall health, structure and life expectancy of the tree (ULE). Often the Useful Life Expectancy (ULE) of a tree may be difficult to quantify as there are too many variables. The arboricultural value takes into account the life expectancy of the tree whereas the protection value considers the ‘usefulness’ of the tree in the landscape. The arboricultural value only relates to the physical condition of the tree and does not take into account the status or suitability of the tree in the landscape.

The arboricultural value is rated based on the following categories: Category Description Low A tree of low arboricultural value may be considered to be in poor condition overall with a low life expectancy (less than 10 years). The tree may be showing signs of poor health and or structure. The tree may either have a poor health rating and it is unlikely to recover or a poor structure that cannot be remedied though normal arboricultural pruning practices. This tree may have a low landscape significance in terms of its height and mass within the landscape (I.e. generally less than 8 metres in height and spread) Medium A tree of medium arboricultural value may be considered to be in fair condition overall. This tree may be considered as an average tree that provides average benefits to the site and local area with an estimated longevity of between 10 – 20 years. The tree may have evidence of fair to poor health that may be improved through cultural practices. The tree may have some structural defects that can be remedied through normal arboricultural pruning practices. This tree may have a medium landscape significance in terms of its height and mass within the landscape (I.e. generally 8 ‐ 12 metres in height and spread) High A tree of high arboricultural value may be considered to be of good overall health and structure. The tree is considered to have a life expectancy of greater than 20 years. Under normal maintenance practices this tree is expected to perform well in the landscape in the long term. This tree may have a high landscape significance in terms of its height and mass within the landscape (I.e. generally greater than 12 metres in height and spread)