Casey Tree Manual

_________________________________________________________________

Vision for the Future:

Casey – Creating the most Caring, Safe, Innovative and
Sustainable City

Casey Tree Manual (Version 1.1)

Document Control

Council policy documents change from time to time and it is recommended that you consult the
electronic reference copy at www.casey.vic.gov.au/policiesstrategies to ensure that you have the
current version. Alternatively you may contact Customer Service on 9705 5200.

Responsible Department – Parks and Reserves

Adopted 19 April 2005

Electronic reference library version 1.1

Preamble

In accordance with a resolution of Council on 21 June 2005 to include definitions of Council,

Councillors and Council officers in all Council policy documents, the following definitions are
provided:

Council – means Casey City Council, being a body corporate constituted as a municipal Council
under the Local Government Act 1989

Councillors – means the individuals holding the office of a member of Casey City Council

Council officers – means the Chief Executive Officer and staff of Council appointed by the Chief
Executive Officer.

Report Prepared By:

JAMES MARTENS-MULLALY & GLENN WATERS
CONSULTING ARBORISTS
TREE LOGIC PTY.LTD.

Casey Tree Manual (Version 1.1)

City of Casey
Casey Tree Manual

Table of Contents:

Contents: Page

1 INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________________________ 5
1.1 Scope ________________________________________________________________________ 5
1.2 Tree Management Structure ___________________________________________________ 5
2 PLANNING __________________________________________________________________________ 5
2.1 Asset Management ____________________________________________________________ 5
2.2 Design Principle Guidelines for Street and Parkland Planting ______________________ 5
2.3 Public Consultation & Participation _____________________________________________ 6
2.4 Site Selection for Tree Planting_________________________________________________ 6
2.4.1 Site Conditions __________________________________________________________7
2.4.2 Site Constraints __________________________________________________________7
2.4.3 Street Tree Stocking Density ________________________________________________8
2.4.4 Park or Reserve Tree Stocking Density _________________________________________8
2.5 Tree Species Selection _________________________________________________________ 8
2.5.1 Species Selection ______________________________________________________________ 9
2.5.1.1 Selection Criteria _________________________________________________________9
2.5.2 Tree Size ______________________________________________________________10
2.5.3 Available Root Space _____________________________________________________10
2.5.4 Growth Rate and Longevity ________________________________________________11
2.5.5 Crown Suitability for Pruning for the Provision of Clearance Distances _________________11
2.5.6 Tree Impact on Surrounding Infrastructure _____________________________________11
2.5.7 Pest and Disease Susceptibility ______________________________________________11
2.5.8 Introduction of New Tree Species____________________________________________11
3 TREE ESTABLISHMENT & MAINTENANCE ________________________________________________ 11
3.1 Tree Planting:________________________________________________________________ 12
3.1.1 Supply of Plant Materials ___________________________________________________12
3.1.2 Planting Practices ________________________________________________________12
3.1.3 Tree Planting in New Developments & Subdivisions Supply of Plant Materials_____________12
3.2 Tree Planting by Residents ____________________________________________________ 12
3.3 Fertilising Trees: _____________________________________________________________ 13
3.4 Tree Pest & Disease Management: _____________________________________________ 13
3.5 Tree Pruning: ________________________________________________________________ 14
3.5.1 Tree Clearance Requirements_______________________________________________14
3.6 Tree Root Management: ______________________________________________________ 15
3.6.1 Conflict Avoidance Strategies _______________________________________________16
3.6.2 Tree Root Barriers_______________________________________________________16
3.6.3 Tree Root Pruning_______________________________________________________17
3.6.4 Nuisance Roots _________________________________________________________17
3.6.5 Tree Root Damage to Private structures _______________________________________17
3.7 Tree Removals: ______________________________________________________________ 18
3.7.1 Guidelines for removal ____________________________________________________18
3.7.2 Removal Procedures______________________________________________________19
4 SIGNIFICANT TREES REGISTER & MANAGEMENT _________________________________________ 21
4.1 Preservation and Protection of Significant Trees:________________________________ 21
4.1.1 Significant Tree Qualification: _______________________________________________22
4.1.2 Potentially Significant Vegetation within the City of Casey___________________________23
4.1.3 Community Information ___________________________________________________23
4.1.4 Private Ownership of Significant Trees_________________________________________23
4.1.5 Community Awareness____________________________________________________24
4.1.6 Educational Process ______________________________________________________24
5 TREE PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT SITES _____________________________________________ 24
5.1 Tree Creation Envelopes ______________________________________________________ 24
5.1.1 Tree Creation Envelopes Background _________________________________________24
 5.1.2 Tree Soil Volume Requirements _____________________________________________25
5.1.3 Determining Tree Creation Envelopes Background _______________________________25
5.1.4 Setback from Buildings of Newly Planted Trees on Development Sites _________________25
5.1.5 Matching Tree Species to Envelope Size ________________________________________26
5.2 Energy rating Issues __________________________________________________________ 27
5.2.1 5 Star Energy Rating ______________________________________________________27
5.2.2 Street & Site Tree issues___________________________________________________27
5.3 Tree Protection on Development Sites _________________________________________ 28
5.3.1 Tree Protection - General _________________________________________________28
5.3.2 Tree Protection – Guideline Objectives________________________________________28
5.3.3 Tree Protection – Guideline Rationale_________________________________________28
5.3.4 General Tree Protection Issues ______________________________________________29
5.3.5 Tree Protection Zone Terminologies _________________________________________29
5.3.6 Determining Tree Protection Zones __________________________________________30
5.3.7 Tree Protection Zone Modification ___________________________________________32
5.3.8 Tree Protection Zone Asymmetry____________________________________________32
5.3.9 Construction within a Tree Protection Zone ____________________________________32
5.3.10 Tree Protection Guidelines _________________________________________________33
5.3.11 Remedial Root Zone Works ________________________________________________35
5.3.12 Hoarding and gantries_____________________________________________________35
5.3.13 Protection of the Root Zone During Temporary Access____________________________35
5.3.14 Backfilling______________________________________________________________36
5.3.15 Information for Planning Applicants ___________________________________________36
5.4 Development Site Tree Management Plan ______________________________________ 36
5.4.1 Tree Management Plan Timetable ____________________________________________37
5.4.2 Suggested Timetable for Arborist Attendance on Site ______________________________37
6 REFERENCES________________________________________________________________________ 39
APPENDIX 1 – VICROADS DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR TREE LOCATIONS: __________________________ 41
APPENDIX 2 – GUIDE TO STREET, PARK AND RESERVE PLANTING SITE RESTRICTIONS _____________ 42
APPENDIX 3 – CASEY STANDARD TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS: ____________________________ 44
APPENDIX 4 – CASEY STANDARD ROAD SPECIFICATIONS: _____________________________________ 43
APPENDIX 5 LANDSCAPE SOILS SPECIFICATIONS: _________________________________________ 46
Erosion Control______________________________________________________________________ 46
Weed Eradication____________________________________________________________________ 46
Cultivation And Excavation ___________________________________________________________ 46
Excavation: ____________________________________________________________________46
Cultivation:_____________________________________________________________________46
Deleterious Material: ______________________________________________________________46
Topsoil 46
Standard:______________________________________________________________________46
Requirements: __________________________________________________________________46
Soil Testing Criteria: _________________________________________________________________ 47
Properties and Nutrients as follows: - ___________________________________________________47
Topsoil Mix: _________________________________________________________________________ 48
Samples and Testing:_________________________________________________________________ 48
Placing: 48
Compaction: ________________________________________________________________________ 48
Compacted Fill ______________________________________________________________________ 48
APPENDIX 6 - TREE ROOT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: _____________________________________ 49
APPENDIX 7 – TREE ROOTS & UTILITY INSTALLATION: _______________________________________ 56
APPENDIX 8 – STREET TREE SELECTION PROCESS: ___________________________________________ 62
APPENDIX 9 – RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES PALETTE: _______________________________________ 70
APPENDIX 10 – RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES EVALUATION: __________________________________ 74
Tree Evaluation Criteria ______________________________________________________________ 78
Growth Rate ___________________________________________________________________78
Longevity ______________________________________________________________________78
Tolerance of Compaction ___________________________________________________________78
Tolerance of Waterlogging __________________________________________________________78
Tolerance of Drought______________________________________________________________78
Tolerance of frost ________________________________________________________________78
 Tolerance of Aerial Salt ____________________________________________________________78
Tolerance of Aerial Pollution _________________________________________________________78
Susceptibility to Pest and Disease______________________________________________________78
APPENDIX 11 – STREET & PARK TREE SPECIES DATA SHEETS:__________________________________ 79

Table of Figures:

Figure 1: Criteria for Determining Tree Significance......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2: Suggested Clearance Between Newly Planted Trees and Adjacent Buildings............................................. 26
Figure 3: Potential Rooting Volumes of Commonly Occurring Trees in Melbourne ................................................. 26
Figure 4: Matching Tree Envelope to Tree Species Size ................................................................................................... 26
Figure 5: Suggested Tree Management Plan Timetable ..................................................................................................... 37

Table of Diagrams:

Diagram 1: Location for Tree Protection Fencing ............................................................................................................. 31

Diagram 2: Modified Tree Protection Zone to Accommodate Crown Asymmetry. ................................................. 32
CITY OF CASEY

Casey Tree Manual

1 Introduction
One of the most effective ways of adding value to the image and landscape character of a city is to
provide and maintain high quality street tree and parkland plantings. The quick establishment and
growth of healthy trees is essential if they are to fulfil their role in public open space. Development
controls over private land to maintain and add trees also assists to achieve the treed character vision.

Community awareness of the value of trees and their importance to the environment is strong.
Trees provide a wide range of important benefits to the community and can create a lasting
impression, creating or strengthening the identity of the landscape. Individual species dictate specific
management practices and subsequent resource allocation.

1.1 Scope

This document is deigned to provide guidelines and technical information that cover the management
of street and park trees within the City as well as controls over private development sites.

1.2 Tree Management Structure

Tree management within the City of Casey is centralised under the Team Leader (Parks Services) and
supported by the Senior Arborist.

These nominated officers will address all tree related issues, but limit their involvement to one of fact
and professional technical opinion, recognising that making decisions requiring a balance of experience
and informed judgments are to be made by Council’s Team Leader (Parks).

2 PLANNING
This section addresses the adopted approach to the selection, care and maintenance City’s public
trees.

2.1 Asset Management

The City of Casey places public safety in respect to the planning, provision and maintenance of its
trees as a priority.

• Maintain all Council-owned trees in as safe and aesthetic condition as is possible by utilising
current best practice operations and solutions for tree management and maintenance.

• Protect trees from development and other activities that threaten their health and amenity.

2.2 Design Principle Guidelines for Street and Parkland Planting

The principles of unity, scale, variety and integration are to be incorporated into the design of
streetscape and parkland plantings in the following ways:

Page 5 of 80
 Creating a species diverse urban forest to produce long-term asset sustainability.

Utilising a selection of both exotic tree species and Australian native species suited to the
varied environments found throughout the city to reinforce or create landscapes themes.

Selecting appropriate species according to aesthetic biological and functional opportunities

and constraints presented within a site.

Using consistent plantings in streets to provide unity in the landscape. Reinforce and extend
existing plantings, and identify opportunities for the creation of significant plantings which
bring streetscapes into scale with their surroundings.

Using a range of species across a neighbourhood to provide diversity in the landscape.

Reinforce and extend existing plantings.

Integrating new plantings in parks and streets with significant cultural and indigenous local
vegetation associations. Positioning of consistent and where appropriate diverse plantings to
reinforce the existing landscape including creating alternate openness and enclosure, and
considering the importance of views and vistas.

2.3 Public Consultation & Participation

In order to foster community pride and ownership of trees throughout the municipality, Council will
place an emphasis toward informing, consulting and where appropriate involving the community in
tree management. This will be achieved through but not restricted to the following activities:

Informing affected residents through letter box drops of planned large scale tree removals.

Informing residents of proposed street and parkland developments through public displays.

Development and publication of information brochures available to residents providing

information on how they can assist the establishment and growth of their street trees. Such
brochure will be distributed at the time of street tree planting.

Organising public meetings when broad community objection on Council initiated tree
management decisions occur to provide a forum for public comment and understanding of the
issues involved.

Where appropriate, provide a public consultation phase when new parklands and park
redevelopments are proposed. Community planting will support this process where possible.

2.4 Site Selection for Tree Planting

Tree removal and replacement works will be undertaken in a planned process according to designed
tree rejuvenation programs. These programs will identify existing unsuitable public trees and
prioritise removals and replacement with appropriate trees, examples of which have been included in
Casey’s recommend tree species list (Appendix 11).

In all instances prior to selecting and installing street trees, the location of all underground services
should be verified from plans and diagrams from the relevant authority.

The following guidelines will be used to determine sites for tree planting throughout the municipality:

Suitable unrestricted opportunities in high profile locations for iconic landscape projects, e.g.
entrances to the City, commercial precincts, major roads.

Page 6 of 80
 Identify and maximise suitable tree planting opportunities within public open space throughout
the City. Priority will be given where appropriate to area lacking tree canopy cover.

Integrate park upgrades and developments with tree planting in adjacent streets.

Provide large ‘landmark’ trees where appropriate in parkland areas.

Identify opportunities for tree planting in new subdivisions. Unless otherwise required by a
condition of the development approval, street and parkland trees are to be planted by the
developer in accordance with relevant Council policy.

Integrate road and footpath reconstruction with tree replacement and planting programs
where possible and appropriate. Explore and incorporate opportunities to change existing
road alignment design to provide quality opportunities for tree planting and streetscape
improvement.

2.4.1 Site Conditions

In any municipality a range of planting sites exist, each type presenting different constraints or
opportunities that will influence selection of the most suitable tree for the site. In any tree selection
process the space available both above and below ground will be a pertinent factor to consider when
selecting the most appropriate tree for any given site.

These definitions are to assist with and be used when site evaluation for potential for tree planting is
undertaken and include the following:

Nature Strip and Tree Reserves

Traffic Treatments – Kerb Outstands and Roundabouts

Footpath Cut-outs

Raised Planters

Parkland and Reserves

2.4.2 Site Constraints

Physical site constraints should be given thorough and objective consideration prior to the installation
of any trees. They include the following:

2.4.2.1 Overhead Wires

Where tree planting sites occur under or adjacent to overhead electrical or telecommunication lines,
the most appropriate species, from a management and maintenance perspective are those that will
not interfere with the service by not exceeding the height of the overhead wires. Overhead wires
limit the aesthetic potential of streetscapes.

Whilst large trees can be established under overhead wires, ongoing maintenance is required to train
the trees around wires and to maintain the required clearance distances. Few commonly used large
street tree species tolerate the type of pruning required.

2.4.2.2 Ground Level Infrastructure – Kerb and Channel, Paving Surfaces

Conflict between tree roots and adjacent infrastructure is a common occurrence in urban settings
The most common form of damage occurs from direct displacement of structures by root or trunk
buttress growth; often as a result of inappropriate tree size for the site. Whilst selection guidelines

Page 7 of 80
attempt to prevent such conflict occurring, by matching tree size to the planting site, damage may still
occur in the best planned streetscape due to numerous other factors influencing tree growth.

2.4.2.3 Underground Services

Main roads, whilst catering for the movement of large numbers of vehicles, are also often used as a
route or easement by service authorities to run major underground services lines including gas and
telecommunication lines. The existence of this type of infrastructure severely limits the opportunities
for tree planting in streetscapes. In most instances minimum clearance distances are required to be
maintained either side of this type of infrastructure.

2.4.3 Street Tree Stocking Density

Where opportunities exist the use of high density planting is encouraged with an aim of planting at
least one tree in front of each property within the City.

Where possible the planting of trees at regular intervals and at a density that will provide a sense of
continuity and scale to the streetscape will be undertaken. Where the planting space is greater than
15.0 metres wide, two trees may be supported. The characteristics of individual trees and the
available space for planting will be the primary determinants for tree spacing.

Considerations influencing tree locations include:

Private or other vegetation existing adjacent the road reserve precluding the growth of a street
tree.

Established planting themes or available space (long nature strip or corner allotment) allowing
for more than one tree per property.

The regularity of tree spacing may be influenced by existing street feature restrictions.

2.4.4 Park or Reserve Tree Stocking Density

The broad objective is to plant trees that will either establish an overstorey canopy or reinforce the
presence of a tree canopy within or adjacent a Council managed park or reserve.

An underlying component of good park design is to maximise the planting of large or ‘landmark’ trees
in recognition of parkland presenting one of the few opportunities to establish large trees in suburban
areas.

The required characteristics of the tree species as determined by the relevant department will be
consistent with existing parkland masterplans.

Considerations influencing or determining tree locations include:

Pervading landscape theme, existing species, and spatial layout of existing trees.

Locations of tree planting to be determined by existing features restrictions (Appendix 2).

2.5 Tree Species Selection

The City of Casey will select species of tree for planting that are suitable for and perform well
within the site, and that have the ability to contribute to the landscape of the City, consistent
with Council’s vision for the area.

Page 8 of 80
The quick establishment and growth of healthy trees is essential if they are to fulfil their role in the
landscape. Consideration of numerous factors is required when selecting trees. Primarily relating to
tree attributes and site constraints and opportunities there must be adequate space to ensure that
the tree can survive in the long term. The tree must provide a benefit to the community with a
minimum of conflict or damage to adjacent services and infrastructure.

Appropriate tree selection is the product of careful evaluation of all factors influencing tree
development and performance, with the aim of selecting the tree most suited to a given planting site.

Casey is characterised by a varied geography, landscape and climate. Together with good rainfall and
variety of soil types, these conditions provide scope to include a broad range of trees in Council’s
recommended palette of tree species list.

Council is developing landscape masterplans in new developments areas to provide strong guidance to
developers regarding planting patterns and themes.

2.5.1 Species Selection

The leafy image will be created through plantings in streets and parks, as well as the landscape
on private property. The use of indigenous species is encouraged for the hardiness and beauty as
well as their contribution to local ecologies. However, the treed image embraces a broad range of
species, reflecting the cultural history of the area.

In selecting suitable tree species that were well suited to the various environments within Casey,
there is a desire by Council to use indigenous species to reinforce the local ecology. However, this is
balanced with an appreciation that a broader range of native and exotic trees will be used to reflect
the cultural history of Casey underpinned the palette of species contained in the recommended
species planting list. The recommended palette of species while extensive is not exhaustive and new
selections may be added and information updated and information added from time to time.

2.5.1.1 Selection Criteria

The purpose of tree installation is to provide an asset that makes a positive contribution to the
amenity of an area, creating a pleasant streetscape or parkscape where character is lacking, or
enhancing the existing character. Trees must be able to not only tolerate site conditions but perform
well in a given site to provide a long term landscape contribution without unreasonable affects on
adjacent infrastructure or properties.

Three broad perspectives provide a sound basis for tree selection criteria:

2.5.1.1.1 Aesthetic

The ability of a tree to enhance a streetscape will be determined by its visual attributes. The use of
aesthetic evaluation of trees has the potential to introduce subjective criteria which could undermine
the consistency required for the street tree selection process.

Whilst evaluating subjective criteria is unavoidable, focusing on objective characteristics such as,
overall habit and crown form, being deciduous or evergreen, tree size in relation to the built
environment can be readily and consistently applied. Foliage attributes, bark colour and texture and
flowering and fruiting characteristics can be used to refine the selection once the broader criteria
have been set.

2.5.1.1.2 Biological

The ability of a tree to tolerate site environmental conditions is an essential prerequisite to ensure
that the selected tree can not only be readily established but continue to grow to maturity with a
minimum level of maintenance.

Page 9 of 80
Trees grown in streets are subjected to environmental extremes because of the highly modified
surrounding environment. Initial inputs may be required during tree establishment, which may include
fertilizer application and supplementary irrigation, however once established, sustainable streetscapes
need to be independent of the need for ongoing irrigation input. Therefore trees with broad
tolerance ranges are generally the best candidates for street tree selection.

The criteria included in the recommended species information sheets provide detail on individual tree
tolerances to conditions expected to be experienced in the range of potential planting sites within the
City of Casey and include:

Soil pH Frost
Soil compaction Aerial salt
Waterlogging (Low soil oxygen) Aerial pollution
Drought

2.5.1.1.3 Functional

Street tree functionality is determined by the ability of a tree to fit within the set of planting site
constraints. They are based on a range of management requirements and consider the fulfilment of
their role in the landscape over time, their impact on surrounding infrastructure and the risk
associated with the trees to people and property.

The ability of trees to produce toxic compounds, cause skin and respiratory irritations, produce
thorns, spines, create excessive or dangerous fruit drop will affect their functionality. Plants that
develop such nuisance or potentially injurious characteristics should be assessed for the level of
nuisance or the potential for injury to determine their suitability in areas frequently used by the
general public.

Sudden limb failure and summer branch drop is associated with a number of trees including some
Eucalyptus species. Limb shedding can be potentially fatal and such trees are best utilised in areas
infrequently used by the general public.

2.5.2 Tree Size

The ultimate dimensions of a tree provide a useful indicator of site suitability. Three basic tree size
categories are used to select a mix of trees to satisfy planting site variations that will be encountered
throughout the municipality. The three size categories are:

Small: trees up to 10m in height by 10m in width.

Medium: trees between 8-15m in height by up to 15m in width.

Large: Greater than 15m in height by 15m in width.

Tree growth will vary both between and within species and the tree sizes presented in the species
palette represent the expected average ultimate dimensions based on available literature.

2.5.3 Available Root Space

Tree size was used as a guide to determine the minimum nature strip width for each selected tree.

The soil space utilized by street trees is not bound by the open space surrounding the tree, as roots
will utilize soil beneath surrounding infrastructure. The ‘minimum nature strip widths
recommendation’ attempts to provide the largest tree for the given site that is not likely to directly

Page 10 of 80
damage adjacent infrastructure, in the short to medium term at least, by conflict between surface
oriented heavy lateral structural roots or trunk buttress.

2.5.4 Growth Rate and Longevity

Trees that establish quickly and have a long lifespan tend to be cost efficient and are therefore
desirable. Discounting the cost of clearance pruning, establishment costs and managing trees in the
senescent or ‘over mature’ life phase account for much of the cost associated with the management
of street trees.

2.5.5 Crown Suitability for Pruning for the Provision of Clearance Distances

The selection of trees that develops in a manner that causes minimal conflict with vehicules and
pedestrians, signage and night time lighting is desirable though not always possible. This can be
overcome by selecting trees with erect and or narrow crowns. Alternatively, the management of tree
development through formative pruning to remove the interfering branches and lift the crown to the
desired height can be used to address the issue.

2.5.6 Tree Impact on Surrounding Infrastructure

Damage to surrounding pavement surfaces, and kerb and channel, is a common phenomenon in
streetscapes. This direct damage is commonly associated with trees that have vigorous root systems
and develop large surface oriented major scaffold roots. However, it can also be the result of planting
too large a tree in too small a planting site. Fluctuating climatic conditions and varying soil conditions
also influence the occurrence of this damage making it difficult to categorically state whether a certain
species will cause damage or not to surrounding infrastructure.

Minimising this damage can be achieved by providing the largest planting space possible when planning
streetscapes and using appropriately sized species for the existing planting sites.

The Cranbourne North Development Plan for example has increased the width of local streets to
provide additional planting space to increase the size of street trees.

2.5.7 Pest and Disease Susceptibility

Tree tolerance to pest and disease susceptibility is an important criterion for selecting street trees.
Trees susceptible to debilitating pests and diseases should be avoided, at least in homogeneous
plantings or as the dominant species in a neighbourhood/precinct. It is important from this
perspective to include diversity of genera and species in a street tree selection palette.

2.5.8 Introduction of New Tree Species

The ongoing introduction of new tree forms, varieties and cultivars has increased the functionally of
some species by providing ‘designer’ trees specifically selected for traits desirable for the suburban
landscape. In particular fastigiate, erect and vase shaped crowns or dwarf tree varieties have
appeared on the market in recent years.

3 TREE ESTABLISHMENT & MAINTENANCE

This section addresses the appropriate approaches to the care and maintenance of City of Casey’s
public trees. These recommendations apply to all persons who are engaged in the business of
maintaining or preserving the City’s trees.

Page 11 of 80
Tree management that starts with quality plants, cultivated in an environmentally sound manner that
accepts the eventual demise of the plant and replaces it with a species factored to the site will provide
the greatest benefit to the community.

3.1 Tree Planting:

All tree planting undertaken on public managed land throughout the municipality will comply with the
City of Casey – Planting Specification (Refer to Appendix 3).

After-care maintenance programs are integral to successful tree establishment and will be
implemented with the objective of achieving a successful tree establishment rate of greater than 80%.

3.1.1 Supply of Plant Materials

A range of stock sizes and production methods can be utilised for tree planting. Generally, small trees
in 20-25cm pots or spring-rings are to be planted. Large advanced and semi-advanced stock is to be
reserved for increased impact on high profile sites and developments.

3.1.2 Planting Practices

Planting practices are to comply with the City of Casey – Planting Specification (Refer to Appendix 3).

3.1.3 Tree Planting in New Developments & Subdivisions Supply of Plant Materials

All tree planting proposed for developments and new subdivisions must comply with the City of
Casey recommended species list (which will evolve over time) and the City of Casey tree planting and
establishment specifications.

Where street trees are to be provided in association with a subdivision development proposal a plan
at a minimum scale of 1:1000 that includes the following information is to be submitted with the
landscape construction plans:

Species, number, size and location of proposed street trees.

Details of proposed planting site widths and service locations.
Details on planting method and tree establishment program.
Details of pre application discussions of works with Parks Services Landscape Officers.

In respect of subdivision supervision, the developer may either:

Provide the street trees

Pay a contribution to Council, at a rate specified by Council to provide the street trees.
Council will only agree to this approach in limited circumstances where there is sound
reasons for doing so as this is not preferred.

Other points to be considered:

Notification of planting works.

Community requests for particular species.
Community objections to tree planting.

3.2 Tree Planting by Residents

Casey encourages parkland masterplans and community based works flowing from them to be carried
out in partnership as this creates a greater sense of ‘community ownership’ and pride in public spaces.

Page 12 of 80
 Residents can request Council to undertake tree planting within their street or reserve.
Council officers will advise the appropriateness and priority for tree planting and designate
suitable tree species based on any relevant site masterplan or existing street tree theme.

Council may be obliged to remove unauthorised plantings in naturestrips or other sites

within the road reserve or within a Council managed park or any other public open space.

No compensation will be available to persons for the removal of shrubs or trees planted
without Council permission.

Where unauthorised planted material is required to be removed, Council will generally

provide notification to allow residents to remove planted material. If a removal request
provided by Council is not actioned within four weeks, Council staff or contractors will
remove the planted material.

3.3 Fertilising Trees:

Fertilising, whether newly planted or established is of little long term benefit to the health and
development of a tree. Unnecessary fertilising may have an adverse effect on tree health and
exacerbate pest and disease problems.

Fertilisation of trees shall only occur where a soil nutrient deficiency affecting the performance of a
tree is identified and the tree is to be retained.

Where a soil nutrient related tree performance issues is identified, the appropriate use of the species
will be reviewed.

3.4 Tree Pest & Disease Management:

Good tree management recognises that pests and disease are natural components of a healthy
ecosystem and it will be the identification of pest and disease damage thresholds that will initiate the
implementation of a pest and disease program.

Applying this management philosophy will allow trees that perform better in a given site, are not
predisposed to environmental stresses and infestations and better able to cope with non infectious
disorders. This will equate to less resources and controls being required to manage trees.

Specifically Council will approach pest and disease management in the following ways:

Council officers will have a thorough understanding of the biology of the plants and key pests in
relation the ecosystems they are managing. On-going training and education will occur for the
officers to maintain current best practice approach to pest management.

Council will support research into biological controls for pests and diseases that pose a threat.

If a pest outbreak is identified and damage thresholds exceed accepted levels and other trees are
at risk all reasonable action will be taken to effectively decrease the risk to other trees from the
pest outbreak.

An integrated pest management (IPM) approach to will be adopted which employs methods and
materials that preserve and augment ecosystems while facilitating permanent control of the pest.

Advice and management programs will be sought from other agencies or pest control regulator,
e.g. Department of Agriculture, to ensure the best approach is being adopted for any pest
outbreak.

Page 13 of 80
 Trees will be removed when they are infected with an epidemic insect or disease where the
recommended control is not applicable and removal is the recommended by Council’s Arborist
practice to prevent transmission.

Develop monitoring systems to check pests and tree health regularly.

3.5 Tree Pruning:

The proper care and maintenance of trees will ensure their longevity and continued usefulness in the
landscape.

All pruning undertaken on trees within the City of Casey will as a minimum comply with AS
4373-1996: Pruning of Amenity Trees.

o This Standard describes methods for pruning of trees and encourages correct and
uniform practices. This standard is intended for use on amenity trees and includes
formative pruning, hazard reduction, selective pruning and thinning. It does not
include practices related to timber, foliage, fruit and flower production, root
pruning, and chemical pruning nor to sculptural forms of pruning such as topiary
hedging and pleaching.

In addition to complying with AS 4373-1996: Pruning of Amenity Trees, the following

practices are to be carried out whenever tree pruning is undertaken:

• Pruning must comply with the principles of compartmentalisation of decay in trees

(CODIT).
• No more than 25% of the canopy is to be removed at any one time during
maintenance pruning.
• Pruning cuts larger than 100mm in diameter, except for deadwood, should be
avoided where possible.
• All dead, diseased and damaged branches over 20cm diameter are to be removed.
• All structurally weak, poorly formed forks (co-dominant trunks) and crossed limbs
are to be removed.
• Trees growing in close proximity to overhead powerlines are to be pruned so
future growth is directed away from these services.
• All stump regrowth, epicormic and unsuitable watershoot growth is to be removed.
• All mistletoes and other parasitic plants are to be removed (except in areas
dominated by indigenous vegetation).
• The use of climbing spurs or gaffs is not permitted, except for tree removal or in
emergencies.
Pruning shall only be carried out by qualified arboricultural maintenance staff who through
related training, on-the-job experience and qualifications are familiar with the principles,
techniques and hazards of this particular type of tree work.

Tree maintenance standards will be regularly reviewed to ensure they reflect Best Practice.

3.5.1 Tree Clearance Requirements

Pruning to maintain clearance distances is important for public safety by providing unobstructed lines
of sight, allowing the unhindered vehicular and pedestrian movement, provision of adequate night time

Page 14 of 80
lighting and to assist in maintaining the supply of electricity through overhead electrical lines. All
clearances are to be in accordance with the relevant current State Government legislation.

3.5.1.1 Overhead electrical lines clearance requirements

Powerlines clearance requirements will comply with the Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance
[Vegetation] 1999 for the purposes of Part 8 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998.

Telecommunication cables located on power poles although sometimes bonded to the neutral of
street mains are not considered by the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector to be electrical
conductors and subsequently are not included in the require clearance distances. These cables will
be cleared during vegetation management cycles for overhead electrical lines clearance.

Minimising pruning requirement to clear vegetation adjacent to overhead electrical lines will be
achieved through:

Pruning and clearing of vegetation on a 12 to 24 month cycle.

Optimum location of overhead electrical lines when being relocated.

Compulsory underground electrical lines installation in new subdivisions.

Relocation of overhead electrical lines to underground electrical lines in agreement with

relevant service authorities where possible.

Use of aerial bundle cables to reduce clearance space requirements in areas where significant
trees are compromised by the positioning of overhead electrical lines.

Development of innovative tree management and pruning methods to improve line clearance
methods.

Removal and replacement of inappropriate trees beneath overhead electrical lines.

Use of appropriate species in new and replacement plantings. Specifically the use of small
tree species beneath overhead electrical lines.

3.5.1.2 Other clearance requirements

Refer to the following Vic Roads guidelines for appropriate tree clearances:

Vic Roads Road Design Guidelines, 1994 Sections 2&3,

Vic Roads Roadworks Signing Code of Practice and AS 1758.1 Clearance for Street Lighting.

3.6 Tree Root Management:

City of Casey will set priorities and strategies for solving conflicts between trees, structures and street
infrastructure.

Tree related damage to street infrastructure, particularly concrete footpaths and roadside kerb and
channel is a common occurrence in urban settings where space for uninhibited for root growth is
limited.

Although tree roots are often blamed for the cracking and lifting of adjacent infrastructure, affected
structures can also fail because they have not been engineered to function in a landscape that contain
stresses from developing tree root systems.

Avoiding conflict is the most practical solution to avoiding tree root damage to infrastructure and can
be achieved through applying the following principles.

Page 15 of 80
 Appropriate tree selection. Tree selection should be used to place the most appropriate
sized tree considering the site constraints while meeting aesthetic/design requirements.

Providing adequate growing space for root systems keeping trees and structures at sufficient
distances to avoid conflict.

Constructing ‘root-resistant’ pavements, foundations and pipes. This would require review
of Council’s standard engineering details.

Containing tree roots within a defined area whilst providing for its growth requirements.

3.6.1 Conflict Avoidance Strategies

Specific guidelines to avoid conflict include:

Select species that are best suited to the particular site. Species with a history of
problematic root systems (e.g. some Platanus spp., Melaleuca spp., Populus spp., Salix spp., etc)
are not to be planted where there is potential for such problems to arise.

Investigate construction techniques and alternative pavement surfaces that will produce
more robust and/or flexible footpaths on soils with a high shrink/swell potential and where
large trees are present.

Investigate alternative footpath designs.

Investigate the use of structural soils or like material for incorporation as a sub-base material
for use in commercial areas and car park pavement systems.

Protection of the root systems of existing trees during construction and development.
Where trees are located in open space the British Standard (5837-1991) Guide for Trees in
relation to construction will be used. Where trees are growing in road reserve situations a
general approach of 12 times trunk diameter will be used. Details on tree protection zones
and underground utility installation can be seen in appendix 3.

Seeking opinion from a qualified arborist where development and/or construction works
need to be undertaken near Council trees are to occur to determine

• the likely long term health and stability status of the tree, and

• the appropriate future management of the tree(s) that should be undertaken.

3.6.2 Tree Root Barriers

Root barriers provide a temporary solution for some conflicts between tree roots and adjacent
infrastructure. Research indicates that they are ineffective in compacted and poorly aerated soils that
are typical of many urban environments. Success in well drained, aerated soils appears to be limited,
with the device merely delaying the progress of roots back to the surface. Arboricultural, tree root
barriers appear to be at odds with all attempts to preserve and promote the health and stability of a
tree.

To reduce the occurrence of tree and footpath conflicts, consideration will be given to
alternative engineering methods that not only seek to provide a safe surface for users, but
also to maintain an environment conducive to tree health and stability in the long term.

Root barriers or root deflecting material will not be installed during new tree installations.

Restricting the use of root barriers to highly existing valued trees where other options are
not considered viable.

Page 16 of 80
3.6.3 Tree Root Pruning

Root pruning is used widely for the control of surface roots around footpaths and kerb and channel.
The long term effect on tree health and structural stability varies and is species dependant, though the
practice is widely regarded as detrimental on the long-term health and stability of trees by arborists.

The severity of the stress resulting from root pruning is dependent on favourable climatic conditions,
a soil environment conducive to root growth, and appropriate and timely after-care maintenance,
primarily supplemental irrigation. In most cases the resources are not available for this latter
maintenance step for street trees.

Root pruning can provide temporary abatement of root conflict with kerb and channel and footpaths
however pruning roots for the purpose of footpath repair can result in the rapid regrowth of roots
under the pavement and necessitate further repairs in the short term.

This treatment type will be considered on a case by case basis.

Where root pruning is absolutely necessary, trees should only be pruned that are not weak
or stressed. Pruning should not extend deeper than 300mm, as cutting roots deeper may
make the tree susceptible to failure by windthrow.

To reduce the threat of failure, only one side of the tree should be pruned at a time, with
subsequent sides pruned after 3-4 years. The top of the tree should be thinned before the
roots are cut, a year before the root pruning is best. Crown reduction pruning may be
necessary.

3.6.4 Nuisance Roots

Exposed tree roots and vegetative growth emerging from tree roots are generally considered a public
nuisance, can pose a risk to public safety and will be managed in through:

Covering exposed roots. Where possible exposed roots of Council owned trees that are
occurring in public open space that are considered a risk to public safety public open space ,
will be covered with no more than 150mm of topsoil and surface undulations smoothed.

Removing root sucker growth from trees. Root suckers are unwanted growth. Small
amount of sucker growth can be rubbed or broken off or pruned close to the attachment to
avoid regrowth. Persistent or extensive suckers are to be treated with a ‘cut-stump’
application of a non-systemic herbicide or a hormone. Where suckering problems
persistently re-occur, other management options like tree removal or root barrier
installation is to be investigated.

3.6.5 Tree Root Damage to Private structures

Many factors can be involved in property damage claims relating to streetscape conditions, including
inadequate sewer lines, poor quality construction, seasonal soil shrinkage, changed moisture levels
relating to stormwater discharge and soil moisture loss through transpiration, and variation in
maintenance of soil conditions;

Where tree roots from a Council owned tree are alleged to be causing damage to a structure a site
assessment will be undertaken investigate the claim.

Where there is no indication in existing information or site inspections to indicate structural damage
to private property was caused by tree root displacement or tree root influence on soil moisture
levels, a request for further information may be requested of the resident to enable Council to better
assess the claim. The types of information generally required to substantiate claims include:

Page 17 of 80
 The age and construction type of affected structures.
Geotechnical report indicating variation soil moisture levels soil moisture levels in the vicinity
of the affected structures.
Engineers report substantiating reasons for structural damage.
A layout plan of all existing and past (5 years) vegetation on site.
A plumbing report indicating active Council tree roots in the sewer line.
Condition report of existing sewer line and depth.
all previous sewer repairs over the past 5 years.
Conditions and discharge points for stormwater.
Layout plan of all utility services on site.

3.7 Tree Removals:

City of Casey will maintain healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing landscapes by removing dead, poor
performing, hazardous and inappropriate trees. The removal of trees and shrub installations that are
ad hoc and devalue a landscape or that contribute to a perception of an unsafe place will be
considered for removal.

3.7.1 Guidelines for removal

Public safety is a fundamental priority when managing public trees. Aesthetic and ecological tree
values, including wildlife habitat will be considered during tree removal decisions.

Tree removal, will only occur if one or more of the following criteria set out below is met.

The trees or tree group that is dead or close to death. Exceptions may occur where the tree or
tree group is located in indigenous vegetation conservation sites and a risk assessment
determines tree retention qualifies as an acceptable level of risk.

A tree hazard assessment determines a tree or tree group poses an unacceptable risk to public
safety that cannot be abated by pruning, the tree or removing the target and transplanting or
other treatments are considered not feasible.

The tree or tree group is infected with an epidemic insect or disease where the recommended
control is not applicable and removal is the recommended practice to prevent transmission.

The tree or tree group poses an unreasonable public nuisance because of its species, size,
location or condition. The nuisance could be caused by excessive fruit or seed drop, harbouring
of insects or excessive twig or limb breakage.

The tree or tree group severely interferes with a neighbouring tree or tree group to the extent
that neither tree can develop to its full potential. The more desirable tree will be preserved.

The aesthetic values of the tree or tree group are so low or negative that the site is visually
enhanced by the trees removal.

Work improvements or infrastructure repair or maintenance required to be made around the

tree or tree group will kill or render the tree a hazard or significantly impact on the trees
condition and useful life expectancy.

The tree may be found to be substantially contributing to damages or nuisance to public or

private property and no other viable means are available to rectify the situation.

Page 18 of 80
 The tree or group of trees is included in the street tree rejuvenation program.

The tree or group of trees is identified for removal in an adopted Masterplan.

3.7.2 Removal Procedures

3.7.2.1 Removal requests

Tree removals may be generated through either Council Officers and approved Parks and Gardens
contractors as part of on-going maintenance works and inspections or via residents.

Residents may request a tree removal by contacting Parks and Gardens. All requests for tree
removal shall be inspected and assessed by a suitably qualified person.

3.7.2.1 Approvals

All approvals for removal of a tree on Council Managed Land shall be authorised by the Senior
Arborist or nominated officer.

Where removal is not justifiable because a tree does not meet one of the criteria under ‘general
guidelines for removal’ in this policy and a member of the community insists on such action, a
standard format letter of refusal is to be sent by the Team Leader (Parks Services).

3.7.2.2 Appeals
Residents may appeal a Council Officer decision to have a tree removed or retained on Council
Managed Land.

If a resident insists on the removal or retention of a tree despite advice and assurances from the
Senior Arborist or delegated officer(s) that the contrary or an alternative is more appropriate, this
request must be in writing and addressed to the Team Leader (Parks Services). Following receipt of
the written request, the Team Leader (Parks Services) shall initiate the following appeal process:

The Senior Arborist will provide a brief over-view report to the Team Leader (Parks
Services)that describes the arboricultural issues concerning the tree removal or retention.

The Team Leader (Parks Services) will either base his/her decision upon the information
contained within the tree report or,

Determine to obtain an independent report from a qualified arborist to confirm the

arboricultural issues or,

Refer the matter to the Manager Works and Operations for review in accordance with this
policy.

If appropriate, the Manager Works and Operations will inform the Ward Councillor(s) of the
issues regarding the tree removal or retention.

When significant community concern is expressed following notification of the removal of a tree or
group of trees, the Senior Arborist will refer the matter to the Team Leader (Parks Services).

The Senior Arborist will provide a report to the Team Leader (Parks Services) that describes
the arboricultural issues concerning the removal of the tree or group of trees.

Page 19 of 80
 The Team Leader (Parks Services) will either base his/her decision upon the information
contained within the report from the Senior Arborist or,

determine to obtain an independent report from a qualified arborist to confirm the

arboricultural issues or,

refer the matter to the Manager Works and Operations for review in accordance with this
policy.

If appropriate, the Manager Works and Operations will inform the Ward Councillor(s) of the
issues regarding the removal of the tree or group of trees.

Removal of a tree or group of trees for any reason in a road reserve, park or reserve (subject to
statutory constraints) may be authorised by the Manager Works and Operations where on the
INDIVIDUAL MERITS OF THE SITUATION it is considered appropriate. These situations would
involve judgment based on a combination of the related arboricultural issues combined with such
factors as social, technical, economic or environmental considerations.

When the matter is referred to the Manager Works and Operations for review, the Senior Arborist
must provide a brief over-view report and recommendation for action that is signed off by the Team
Leader (Parks Services). Once the matter has been referred, the Team Leader (Parks Services) will
advise the resident in writing.

The Team Leader (Parks Services) may liaise with the Manager Works and Operations, and consult
with the resident or other interested parties in order to determine an outcome.

In situations where the Manager Works and Operations does not support the removal or retention
of a tree the Team Leader (Parks Services) will write to the resident to advise the outcome.

3.7.2.3 Costs of Tree Removals Appeals

Costs for the removal of a tree that complies with the ‘general guidelines for removal’ shall be
borne by Council.

If through an appeal process, removal of a healthy tree is approved and this tree does not comply
with any of the ‘general guidelines for removal’, the party requesting the tree removal will incur the
full cost imposed upon Council for the tree's removal, replacement tree and two-year maintenance
period of the replacement tree.

3.7.2.4 Request Response Times

Requests shall be actioned within the following time frames;

Imminent danger - immediate action.

Identified as hazardous - 2 working days.

Require removal, but not hazardous - as soon as possible.

Stump removal - within 4 weeks of tree removal.

Tree replacements - to occur within 12 months (the following planting season).

3.7.2.5 Inspection of a Hazardous Trees

Page 20 of 80
All Council trees reported as being unsafe or hazardous by the public or identified as being of
concern by staff are to be inspected by an appropriately qualified and experienced Arborist.

3.7.2.6 Records

If a tree registered on Council’s Significant Tree Register is removed, the tree is to be photographed
and the details of the removal entered into Council’s Tree Management System. The photograph is
to be maintained for a period of no less than (12) twelve months.
3.7.2.7 Street Trees and New Vehicle Crossovers

Application for the construction of a vehicular crossover must be in accordance with Council’s
Vehicular Crossover Policy for Individual Residential Property Titles.

Street trees shall not be removed to accommodate a new or altered vehicular crossover unless they
meet one of the criteria under General guidelines for removal in this document.

3.7.2.8 Removals Associated with Infrastructure Improvements by Council or other Public Authority

There will be instances where utilities, Council and other public authorities require the removal of
trees to facilitate the construction of new infrastructure or the maintenance of existing infrastructure.

As part of a consultation process with the relevant authorities or Council Department, design and
construction alternatives should be sought.

If alternatives cannot be established and the project cannot be reasonably re-routed away from the
tree(s) and the infrastructure works require the removal of the trees or the works will have
detrimental impact on the health and structure of the trees the effected residents will be notified of
the proposed tree removal as outlined in Notification of Removals / Works.

4 Significant Trees Register & Management

4.1 Preservation and Protection of Significant Trees:

Significant trees within the City of Casey will be identified and appropriately managed. Once
identified protection for individual trees or groups of trees within the municipality should be
provided. Significance should include those trees that may be of environmental, historical or
horticultural value to the City.

A process for nomination, assessment and registration should be adopted to develop a significant tree
list. The process should be in line with that used by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria). This
can be initiated with the provision of appropriate supporting information such as a nomination form.
A form for the use within the City of Casey has been adapted from the National Trust. This could
then be forwarded to a committee for assessment.

Page 21 of 80
4.1.1 Significant Tree Qualification:

Individual or group tree merits that qualify them for significant status will be established using
guidelines adapted from the National Trust Australia (Victoria). Trees may be considered significant
when they fulfil one or more criterion.

Figure 1: Criteria for Determining Tree Significance

Category Title Description Types
1 Horticultural Value Any tree that is of outstanding horticultural - Tolerance selection (Pest &
or genetic value and could be an important disease)
source of propagating stock, including - Propagating potential
specimens that are particularly resistant to - Scientific value
disease or exposure.
2 Location or Context Any tree that occurs in a unique location - Historic garden or park
or context and so provides a major - Historic cemetery
contribution to the landscape, including - Important landmark
remnant native vegetation, important - Remnant native vegetation
landmarks and trees that form part of an - End of natural range
historic garden, park or precinct. - Contribution to landscape
- Historic planting style
3 Rare or Localised Any tree of a species or variety that is rare - Only known species
or of very localised distribution. - Rare species (2 to 50 known
specimens)
- End of natural range
- Disjunct community
4 Particularly Old Any tree that is particularly old or - Old specimen
venerable
5 Outstanding Size Any tree outstanding for its large height, - Height
trunk circumference or canopy spread. - Circumference
- Canopy spread
- Combinations of above
6 Aesthetic Value Any tree of outstanding aesthetic
significance.

7 Historical Value Any tree commemorating a particular - Cultural group

occasion, including plantings by notable - Public welfare
people, or having associations with a - WW1
important event in local history. - WW2
- British Royalty
- Other Royalty
- Visiting dignitary
- Australian public figure
- Victorian public figure
- Local public figure
8 Aboriginal Content Any tree that has a recognise association - Scarred tree
with historic aboriginal activities, including - Corroboree tree
scar trees.
9 Outstanding Any tree that is an outstanding example of
Example of Species its species.
10 Outstanding Habitat Any tree that has outstanding value as - Breeding habitat
Value habitat for indigenous wildlife, including - Foraging habitat
providing breeding, foraging or roosting - Wildlife corridor
habitat, or forming a key part of a wildlife
corridor.
11 Casey Cultural or Any tree that has outstanding value as a - Specimen Tree
Heritage Value remnant of a particular period important in - Windrow/Hedge
Casey’s history or a remnant of a site or - Farm Remnant
activity no longer in action in Casey - Local Past Industry
(Adapted from National trust Australia (Victoria): Significant tree register Criteria

Page 22 of 80
4.1.2 Potentially Significant Vegetation within the City of Casey

Remnant River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) communities or other indigenous

vegetation communities.

Tree species performing well in site conditions that contributes substantially to the general
landscape and the community would feel their loss.

Historic avenues of trees. The Casey Avenues of Honour publications should be considered
as part of this study.

4.1.2.1 Significant Street Criteria for Avenues:

Generally considered a homogenous avenue of same age trees in good to very good condition adding
substantially to the landscape of the street, but can also be considered a community resource.

Species are well suited to the site.

There is approximately 85-100% stocking in the street.
The trees can create an ‘Avenue Effect’.
There is a distinct link to the building period or surrounding landscape.
There may be an attached significance to the trees (historical).

4.1.3 Community Information

The introduction of a Significant Tree Register places an onus on the community most notably those
who own significant trees. It is most important that the community understand the implications of
the Significant Tree Register. Information needs to be available at different levels and a range of
strategies are recommended.

4.1.4 Private Ownership of Significant Trees

Owners of significant trees have a responsibility to care for the tree and are limited in what they can
do around the tree e.g. the implementation of an irrigation system or the potential to build on the
site.

The local authority can provide letters. It is important that the letter:

Congratulates the owner on ownership of a Significant Tree and provides a sense of pride in
its ownership;

Outlines the procedures involved in the Significant Tree Register including the registration
format etc.

Describes the benefits, including the availability of advice relating to tree care and
management;

Informs about the way Significant Trees will be interpreted to the wider community; and

Describes the legal implications to the owner of a Significant Tree.

It is most important that owners should have the opportunity to contact an officer within the
Council to express views relating to Significant Trees and their role in the process.

Page 23 of 80
4.1.5 Community Awareness

Gaining broad community support for the Significant Tree Register is an essential step since the
community can provide on-going monitoring of these trees and can inform of trees worthy of
inclusion.

Community support can occur at different stages. Initial awareness is important and should include
press coverage to include a description of the register, its aims and objectives and some of the trees
involved. It may be worthwhile to run a competition for residents at this time, perhaps in the form of
a photographic competition.

Press releases can be provided, enhanced by the provision of photographs of two or three significant
trees selected to illustrate the process.

It is likely that the launching of the register will achieve an immediate community response and
awareness. On-going promotion will be vital if the register is to remain in the community
consciousness. This may include:

• Promotion of Arbor Day with special walking tours of significant trees;

• Coverage of significant trees within the Council's community newsletter, allowing a brief
description of each tree including its history and significance etc.

• Reports about the demise of trees and the addition of new trees to the register.

4.1.6 Educational Process

Significant trees are a useful community educational resource providing a living link to local history,
reinforcing cultural values, and providing examples of and botanically and/or ecologically significant
vegetation is vitally important and should include their value as an example as a basis for future tree.
Promoting community awareness of significant trees can and should be achieved in a variety of ways
that include:

Bike Trails and Walking Trails can be developed that link a number (say 12 - 15) of significant
trees to provide a self-guided trail from tree to tree.

Information sheets prepared for public displays and promotion at community events, in local
libraries etc.

Significant trees on public land should be identified by a name label with information pertaining to
the specific tree to identify promote their status.

5 TREE PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT SITES

5.1 Tree Creation Envelopes

5.1.1 Tree Creation Envelopes Background

The City of Casey is concerned about the loss of vegetation and lack of space and design to facilitate
new tree planting in new development areas both greenfield development and established area re-
development. The City of Casey will require residents to provide space and undertake tree planting
on private development sites. A framework for establishing space for trees on private property (Tree
Creation Envelopes) is set out below.

Page 24 of 80
5.1.2 Tree Soil Volume Requirements

Calculating the amount of soil required by a mature tree can assist in determining proper container
sizes that provide a suitable growing environment for urban trees. Understanding root development
allows container shapes to be designed that best reduce unutilized soil.

The soil available to the roots needs a wide profile rather than deep. This is because roots proliferate
in the first 500- 100mm of soil. Soil at depths greater than this may often be wasted as it remains
unutilized by the root system.

Several methods for calculating required soil volumes are available. The City of Casey uses a modified
version of the Crown Projection Method (CPM). This method uses the expected mature width of
the canopy or half the expected mature height of the tree, whichever is greater, to provide a radial
distance from the base of the tree used calculate the soil volume required. This method provides
0.6m3 for each 1m2 of ground space within this radial distance (crown projection). The calculation is
straightforward and is based on the expectation that tree roots will utilise the top 0.6m of soil.

The calculation is represented as: Soil Volume (m3) = 3.14 x r2(m) x 0.6(m). Therefore a tree with a
height of 10 m and a crown spread of 16m would require the following soil volume:

Soil Volume (m3) = 3.14 x 8m2 x 0.6m

Soil Volume (m3) = 121m3
However a tree with a height of 20 m and a crown spread of 5m would require the following soil
volume:

Soil Volume (m3) = 3.14 x 10m2 x 0.6m

Soil Volume (m3) = 188m3
Adapted form Watson & Himelick (1997)

5.1.3 Determining Tree Creation Envelopes Background

A practical method for establishing tree creation envelopes is to provide a range of envelope sizes
small medium large etc, designed to accommodate mature tree soil volume requirements. These size
ranges can used be used as a guide to determine the appropriateness of individual trees to the space
provided.

Tree creation envelope sizes have been based on the size categories The City of Casey employs to
select trees for streets and other public open Space. The space provided will not always be uniform
in shape.

Small (5.0m X 5.0m X 0.6m) [<15.0 m3]

Small – Medium (between 5.5 – 7.5m X 5.5 – 7.5m X 0.6m) [≤33.75m3]
Medium (8.0m x 8.0m X 0.6m) [≤38.4m3]
Medium – Large (9.0m x 9.0m X 0.6m) [≤48.6m3]
Large (>10.5m X 10.5m X 0.6m) [≤66.15m3]

5.1.4 Setback from Buildings of Newly Planted Trees on Development Sites

Root related structural damage is dependant on the interaction of soil conditions, tree size and root
type, and the footing construction of structures. Tree creation envelopes are generally considered to
be adequate to avoid tree root related damage when the tree creation envelope is uniform in shape
and the tree is planted in the middle (centre) of the creation envelope.

Page 25 of 80
The provision of sufficient space in tree creation envelopes areas not uniform in shape should provide
sufficient space between the siting of the tree and adjacent structures to avoid root related structural
damage. As a guide the following offsets are provided.

Figure 2: Suggested Clearance Between Newly Planted Trees and Adjacent Buildings
Distance of tree from all buildings

Mature Trunk diameter (centimeters) Minimum Distance (metres)

10 0.5
20 1.0
30 1.5
40 2.0
50 2.5
60 3.0
70 3.5
80 4.0
90 4.5
100 5.0
100+ >5.0
Adapted from Clarke (2000)

These tree creation envelopes are intended as a guide only for planning purposes and relate primarily
to determining adequate soil volumes. Independent information on tree species suitable for a
particular site should be sought from a competent arborist prior to implementing a design.

5.1.5 Matching Tree Species to Envelope Size

The following table highlights the potential ranges of rooting volumes for some of Melbourne’s most
popular tree species.

Figure 3: Potential Rooting Volumes of Commonly Occurring Trees in Melbourne

Species Common Name Approximate Rooting Tree Size
Volumes
Acacia spp. Wattle 35-45m3 Small – Medium
Acer spp. Maple 30-40m3 Medium - Large
Betula spp. Birch 25-35m3 Small - Medium
Eucalyptus spp. Gums 30-100m3 Medium – Large
Fraxinus spp. Ash 40-50m3 Medium – Large
Hakea spp. Hakea 15-30m3 Small
Jacaranda spp. Jacaranda 40-60m3 Medium
Lagerstroemia spp. Crepe Myrtle 20-30m3 Small
Liquidambar spp. Liquidambar 40-100m3 Medium – Large
Pyrus spp. Ornamental Pear 40-60m3 Medium
Quercus spp. Oak 50-120m3 Large
Ulmus spp. Elm 50-120m3 Large

Generally the following matches can be made with the corresponding trees that form part of Casey’s
recommended tree species list (refer to Appendix 11).

Figure 4: Matching Tree Envelope to Tree Species Size

Tree Envelope Size Tree Species Size
Small (5m X 5m) Small (5-10m)
Medium (8m X 8m) Small – Medium (5-15m)
Large (10.5 X 10.5m) Small – Large (5->15m)

Page 26 of 80
5.2 Energy rating Issues

5.2.1 5 Star Energy Rating

The Victorian government has introduced a new 5 Star energy rating system for residential housing.
All new homes in Victoria must achieve a 5 Star rating. The 5 Star rating does not apply to
renovations or alterations to existing homes, however, existing homes can benefit from incorporating
energy efficient design features, which will lead to energy and cost savings.

The 5 Star rating is flexible and can be achieved in a range of ways using energy efficient design
features. 5 Star homes are more affordable and can save their owners approximately $200 per year
on energy bills. 5 Star homes are up to 5oc warmer in winter and up to 10oc cooler in summer than
the average (2 Star) new home.

Casey will support this requirement through the following key features that involve trees should be
addressed in any new planning application.

Landscape design that optimises shading to create cool and comfortable conditions.

Shade and protect windows, particularly those facing west, east and north.

Landscape to protect the home from summer sun and hot winds.

Some of the ways vegetation can be successfully used include:

Using plants to shade the building, particularly windows, to reduce unwanted glare and heat
gain.

Evergreen plants are recommended for hot humid and some hot dry climates.

For all other climates use deciduous vines or trees to the north, and deciduous or evergreen
trees to the east and west.”

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs19.htm

5.2.2 Street & Site Tree issues

When planning for energy efficiency planning application for a new residential development should
take into consideration the existing trees on and adjacent to the site, particularly street trees and
include such trees in the overall energy design for the development.

Physical change to the land that results from building a home (site issues) that affects a tree (existing
and proposed) can make a significant difference to the success of any development. The sustainability
and energy rating of any dwelling can be improved by reducing the severity of those changes. Site
issues manifest themselves as modifications to the local habitat (biodiversity), soil and site relief
(topography).

Aim to tread lightly and lessen the impact of your building's footprint.
Replanting cleared sites is definitely no substitute for leaving native vegetation intact.
Avoid unnecessary disturbance to vegetation and soil and limit clearing outside the building
footprint and retain significant habitat trees with Arborist advice.

Page 27 of 80
 Use indigenous (local native) species, where possible and where it fits into the existing
neighbourhood character.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs50.htm

5.3 Tree Protection on Development Sites

5.3.1 Tree Protection - General

Trees play a significant role in maintaining the quality of the built environment. The successful
retention of trees on development sites requires minimizing changes to the growing environment of
retained trees. Successful retention generates a high probability of retained trees not only surviving
the development, but also ensuring that the trees will be viable in the long term.

Casey has developed the following set of guidelines to be implemented during the planning process to
allow more trees to be successfully retained.

5.3.2 Tree Protection – Guideline Objectives

The broad objectives of tree protection on development sites are:

PRESERVE AND PROTECT trees for buffers where land use planning design requirements dictate
such buffers.

PRESERVE AND ENHANCE the City of Casey’s environmental, economic, and social character
with mature treed landscapes.

IMPLEMENT the goals and objectives of the City’s Conservation and Image Strategies.

MAXIMIZE the positive benefits of siting buildings and carparking on land in relation to mature
trees.

PROTECT the investments of property owners and buyers, and provide indigenous and native
trees for the environmental benefits and enjoyment of future generations.

PROMOTE site planning, building, and development practices to prevent indiscriminate

removal or destruction of trees and vegetation and avoid unnecessary disturbance to the
City’s tree population.

5.3.3 Tree Protection – Guideline Rationale

The City finds trees and vegetation important elements of the physical environment which protect
public health, safety and general welfare through:

INCREASING the air quality with the absorption of air pollutants, assimilation of carbon
dioxide and generation of oxygen, and with the reduction of excessive noise and mental and
physical damage related to noise pollution

MINIMIZING the adverse impacts of land disturbing activities and impervious surfaces on
runoff, soil erosion, land instability, sedimentation and pollution of waterways, thus,
minimizing the public and private costs for stormwater control/treatment and utility
maintenance

ECONOMIC SUPPORT of local property values and contribution to the municipality’s natural
beauty and enhancing the aesthetic character of the community.

Page 28 of 80
 COST-EFFECTIVE protection against severe weather conditions with cooling effects in the
summer months and insulating effects in winter

PROVIDING habitat, cover, food supply and corridors for a diversity of wildlife.

5.3.4 General Tree Protection Issues

Retaining and preserving existing trees on development sites is a challenging exercise. Certain basic
requirements must be met if a tree is to survive the development/construction process. The tree will
require a sustainable root system with access to water, nutrients and oxygen and space to continue
to grow and an allowance for the spread of the canopy, trunk and roots. Failure to provide for these
requirements can often result in premature tree decline or tree failure.

The major challenges affecting tree survival on a development site include

TREE ROOT SEVERANCE. Root severance typically results form grade changes, trenching for
service installation, preparing sub-grades, excavation for footings, etc.

SOIL COMPACTION. Compaction of the soil is caused as a result of the mechanical

compression of the soil profile (particularly at the surface) by vehicles and heavy equipment
and pedestrians.

o If compaction occurs it can result in reduced or arrested water infiltration, poor

gaseous exchange between the root environment and the atmosphere, increases in
the penetrative resistance to root growth through the soil and the deoxygenation of
the soil profile.

o Any or all of these compaction factors can lead to tree decline and depending upon
individual tree tolerances or site conditions, the eventual death of the trees
effected. This condition needs to be avoided at all costs.

TREE TRUNK AND CANOPY DAMAGE. Most often caused through mechanical impact by injury
machinery; canopy damage may be the result of inappropriate or excessive pruning.

INADEQUATE OR EXCESSIVE SOIL MOISTURE. Numerous influencing factors including Changing

site drainage patterns, site relief, soil properties (compaction), or underground water
backup)

The extent to which individual trees is affected will be determined by a range of factors including the
tree species, its age, its health status and the amount of functioning root system which is affected
during the development period.

5.3.5 Tree Protection Zone Terminologies

In any discussion regarding the retention of existing trees on or adjacent to a development site, there
are several areas of concern. These are basically the conservation of root zone and canopy space
with the former being of prime importance.

Arborists refer to the area of the tree's root system that is most important to the structural stability
of the tree as the Critical Root Zone (CRZ); the area required to preserve tree health is referred to
as the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). However uncertainty as to an accepted generic name or method
for determining the extent of each has led to confusion between the naming and subsequently the
application of either of the two zones.

Page 29 of 80
5.3.5.1 Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Definition
The Critical Root Zone is the essential part of a tree’s root system required to be preserved to
maintain tree stability in the ground. This area has also been referred to as the Zone of Rapid Taper
(Coder, 1996) and the Root Plate Radius (Mattheck and Breloer (1994). Preservation of this area
does not address the preservation of tree health. The CRZ is intended as general recommendation
for maintaining distances in order to preserve tree stability. It should not be confused with the
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) used to preserve tree health (and stability).

This zone includes those roots that occur directly around the base of the tree and the emerging root
crown and extends from the root crown to where the heavy lateral root (sometimes referred to as
structural root) taper ends and lateral growth of feeder roots begin.

The Critical Root Zone, Zone of Rapid Taper (Coder, 1996), or Root Plate Radius (Mattheck and
Breloer 1994) has no place in the planning for retention of trees on a development or construction
site.

The City of Casey requires trees to be retained in their existing or improved health and is based upon
the tree protection zones.

5.3.5.2 Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Definition

Successful retention of trees on development sites generates a high probability of the trees not only
surviving the initial development process but being viable longer term landscape components. The
objective of assigning a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), sometimes referred to as the Optimum
Preservation Zone (OPZ) is to ensure that the trees level of health is not (permanently) affected by
development related impacts. The successful preservation of a tree can be attributed to the amount
of root plate protected within the TPZ and how this area is managed during and after the
development period.

The TPZ is characteristically larger then the CRZ as it is designed to incorporate not only those
larger roots close to the tree that provide support, but a substantial proportion of finer absorbing
roots generally found in greater concentration at further distances from the tree; the primary
function of which is to absorb water and nutrients from the soil.

5.3.6 Determining Tree Protection Zones

The successful retention of trees on any particular site will require the commitment and
understanding of all parties involved in the development process with continuity throughout the
duration of the project. The most important activity, after determining the trees that will be retained
is the implementation and protection of a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).

Much research has been published in recent times regarding the amount of roots required to
preserve tree health and stability on development and construction sites. These recommendations
are used and accepted by professional arborists throughout many countries. These are typically
referred to as the Optimum or Tree Preservation Zone. These distances are determined by the size
of the tree, its age and state of health. The British Standards Institute – Standard for management of
trees on construction sites (1991) suggest a minimum Tree Preservation distance as does Matheny &
Clark in Trees & Development (1998).

As trees are such a critical element in the preferred future character of Casey’s residential area (refer
to the Casey Neighbourhood Character Policy), the site design response must retain where feasible
existing trees and provide tree creation space for new trees.

This is the strong view of Casey and this approach will restrict the development potential of some
sites. However, such theoretical development potential never existed as the Casey Planning Scheme
restricts removal of vegetation that contributes to landscape character.

The intention of the TPZ is to:

Page 30 of 80
 Provide a safe tree resource.

Provide adequate root space to sustain the health, aesthetics and stability of the tree/s into
the future.

Minimise changes to the tree’s growing environment. This is particularly important for
mature specimens.

Minimise physical damage and loss to the tree root system, canopy and trunk.

TPZs are difficult to establish on individual trees due to the nature and unpredictability of root
growth, the tolerances of different species to root disturbance and their and the perceived and
unperceived changes to the trees growing environment. A general system of assigning tree
protection zones provides a practical resolution that assists planning for construction and
development.

Several recognised methods exist that use the trunk diameter of an individual tree as the basis to
establish the clearance distance. The health, age and species’ tolerance may also be factored into the
establishment of the zone using these systems.

Standards Australia have yet to develop a system for assigning tree preservation zones. The British
Standard (5837-1991) Guide for Trees in relation to construction contains an alternative method,
which is simpler and more easily interpreted when plans are viewed and site visits are conducted.
The diagram presented below illustrates the method.

Diagram 1: Location for Tree Protection Fencing

The method determines the tree protection zone by using either the width of the canopy (Diametric
measurement) or half the height of the tree (Radial measurement) as a guide and uses whichever is
greater. The trunk of the tree is used as the centre point (Diametric) or starting point (Radial) for
the measurement. This method generally provides clearance distances that are easily understood and
realistic for many reasons.

The alternative British Standard method for calculating tree protection zones suggests that the zone
may be encroached by one third on one side of the tree only. If this occurs, the provision of a one
third increase in clearance distance in all other directions is required.

Modified construction or building techniques have been used with success to preserve the area in the
tree protection zone and include but are not limited to pier & beam footings, pier type footings,
cantilevered slabs, waffle slabs and above natural grade construction with porous paving.

Page 31 of 80
5.3.7 Tree Protection Zone Modification

The method employed in this document for assigning tree protection zones is a guide for planning
purposes. The method assumes a generally symmetric root system radiating from the trunk
outwards. This method does not account for asymmetrical root systems that may have developed
due to physical obstructions to growth.

In instances where it is known that the root system is not symmetrical, the tree protection zone
should be established independently but with guidance from the method. Furthermore, significant
trees and over-mature trees may require additional clearance space to minimise the impacts of
construction works and to maximise the preservation of the root system.

5.3.8 Tree Protection Zone Asymmetry

Where significant tree canopy asymmetry occurs, modification of the TPZ to protect both the roots
and the canopy is required.

The following example is provided to illustrate the point. A tree has a height of 15m but the radial
widths of the crown as measured from the trunk are 5m, 11m, 3m, and 8m, from the north south
east and west respectively. The tree protection zone would there fore look as presented in figure 1
below.

Diagram 2: Modified Tree Protection Zone to Accommodate Crown Asymmetry.

Tree Protection Zone based

on half tree height method
7.5m radius from trunk
Tree
trunk

Outline of canopy

Additional 1 metre outside canopy as

specified by council guidelines

N.B.: Diagram not to Scale

The outer limit of the areas marked in red (Above) indicates the outer extent of the tree protection
distance required during construction. There is scope to reduce the circular tree protection zone, on
one side of the tree, by 30% with a corresponding increase of the protection distance in all other
directions.

5.3.9 Construction within a Tree Protection Zone

The tree protection zones methodology described above should be considered an optimum position
in terms of root zone conservation; however these tree protection zone guidelines and calculations
are approximations only. These zones have never been stated to be the ‘absolute rule’ and were
originally intended to provide assistance to the initial design proposal.

Page 32 of 80
It is impossible to determine the actual extent of an individual tree’s root system without significant
and invasive excavation. TPZ distances are designed to preserve sufficient root mass so as to avoid
any (permanent) reduction of tree health resulting from development and construction works,
therefore to allowing the tree to be retained in similar condition to that as it currently exists.

In almost all cases, where intrusion into a tree protection zone is intended it is usual practice to
require the extension of the tree protection zone by a similar amount in other directions. Intrusion
into a tree protection zone that does not impact on tree health however can be achieved through the
use of root sensitive footing design and construction.

Contemporary slab and trench footing construction techniques is root destructive and typically
results in the severance of roots existing in the area of the excavation required to construct these
footings. Such root disturbance causes significant damage to a root plates, and can impacting upon
tree health to the extent of undermining the aims of TPZ.

Some footing systems are minimal in their need for excavation by comparison and allow for root
preservation within TPZ. Such footing techniques are referred to as root sensitive as they can be
successfully used to preserve large roots within a TPZ. These footing types either avoid excavation
or allow excavation to occur in those areas within a TPZ between the locations of larger roots that
would otherwise be severed during the footing construction process. Root sensitive footings include
Pier and Beam, Screw Pile or Cantilevered or Waffle Slab footing construction techniques (provided
the beam or slab is laid on the ground with no excavation).

Although such methods require only limited excavation within the in the TPZ or and can span over
large areas of the TPZ otherwise affected, allowing such works would usually require additional
remedial root zone works be undertaken to minimize the possible impacts on the tree health,
providing an optimal environment for continued root growth and development within the TPZ.

It is recognised that the soil covered by any proposed building, regardless of foundation system, will
generally become inappropriate for continual root growth over time. The point of root sympathetic
footings is to reduce the immediate impact of root loss and subsequent moisture stress by allowing
the trees time to develop new root system in space that will remain for them post-construction.

However, such construction should only be permitted where the following issues are addressed:

An Arboricultural Report including a Tree Management Plan has been submitted as part of
the development proposal.

The plan and methods of construction are assessed and approved by a competent and
qualified arborist.

The plan is supplied with engineering drawings that show how the construction is to be
achieved.

5.3.10 Tree Protection Guidelines

Once establishment of the Tree Protection Zone is finalised, the erection of tree protection fencing
to highlight the Tree Protection Zone, and maintenance of the tree protection zone is required to
facilitate successful tree preservation.

Tree protection fences are designed to deter the entry of heavy equipment and vehicles and also the
entry of workers and/or the public into the Tree Protection Zone. Specific guidelines include:

The Protection Zones should be delineated by the site arborist in conjunction with the Site
Manager and approved by the City of Casey.

The Tree Protection fences must be installed prior to the commencement of any site works
at the Tree Protection Zone alignment.

Page 33 of 80
 Fences shall be constructed of suitably robust construction (approved by The City of Casey)
and maintained in good condition until the completion of the construction works on the site.
Note: There are many different variations on the construction type and material used for TPZ fences,
suffice to say that the fence should satisfy the City of Casey.

These fences should only be removed or shifted by the consent of the consultant arborist or
supervising architect and the City of Casey.

The Tree Protection Zones are fenced and clearly marked at all times.

Temporary access through the Tree Protection Zone can only be done with the consent of
the Consultant Arborist or Supervising Architect and the City of Casey.

The area inside the Tree Protection Zone should be mulched with a covering of at least
75mm -100mm of uncomposted hardwood woodchip or like material.

The following are guidelines that should be implemented to minimise the impact of the proposed
construction works on the existing trees.

Contractors and site workers must receive written and verbal instruction as to the
importance of tree protection and preservation within the site. Successful tree preservation
occurs when there is a commitment from all relevant parties involved in designing,
constructing and managing a development project. Members of the project team need to
interact with each other to minimise the impacts to the trees, either through design
decisions or construction practices. The importance of tree preservation must be
communicated to all relevant parties involved with the site.

The consultant arborist must be onsite to supervise all excavation works around the existing
trees that fall within the Tree Protection Zone.

No persons, vehicles or machinery shall enter the Tree Protection Zone without the
consent of the consulting arborist or site manager.

Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone must be bored at
least 900mm below ground level.

Utility authorities should common trench where possible well clear of any protected trees.

No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals shall be allowed in or stored on the Tree Protection Zone
and the servicing and refuelling of equipment and vehicles should be carried out away from
the root zones.

Storage of material, equipment or temporary building must not take place within the Tree
Protection Zone of any tree.

Nothing whatsoever must be attached to any tree including temporary services wires, nails,
screws or any other fixing device.

Supplementary watering must be provided to all trees through any dry periods during and
after the construction process that occur between the months of August through May. The
supply of adequate volumes of water is the most important maintenance task in terms of
successfully retaining the designated trees. Testing with a soil probe in a number of locations
with the Tree Protection Zone will help ascertain soil moisture levels.

Water needs to be applied slowly to avoid runoff. Irrigation should occur over the entire
root zone. A daily watering with 5 litres of water for every 30 mm of trunk calliper may
provide the most even soil moisture level for roots (Watson & Himelick, 1997). Light
frequent irrigations should be avoided, and the soil must not be allowed to reach wilting
point.

Page 34 of 80
 Any pruning that is required must be carried out by trained and competent arborist who has
a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods.

All root excavation must be carried out by hand digging or other non-destructive techniques
that preserve roots.

Roots must be severed by cutting with appropriate pruning tools. The use of a sharp chainsaw,
pruning saw is acceptable. The use of machinery such as chain trencher or excavator bucket is
not acceptable.

Landscape plantings shall only be carried out in areas where additional root damage can be
avoided and all planting should be done with due consideration to conservation of the Tree
Protection Zone.

5.3.11 Remedial Root Zone Works

Remedial root zone works can aid trees in tolerating root disturbance and can enable additional root
colonisation within the retained root zone. This can help offset minor impacts on the tree protection
zone and will provide benefits long-term for the retained tree.

These works usually include mulching with organic (woodchip, etc.) or inorganic (granitic sand, etc.)
mulch and the provision of additional irrigation. However, to allow trees to cope with serious
disturbance of the root zone additional works such as radial soil replacement and the application of
root hormones and bio-stimulants may be considered.

The value of fertilising trees preserved on construction sites is debatable. A consistent benefit to such
treatment has not been demonstrated by scientific research. Fertilisation of trees retained on
development sites will generally not be required nor approved.

These works should be implemented where impacts to the individual tree preservation zones are
anticipated as per the advice of the site arborist.

5.3.12 Hoarding and gantries

The developer/property owner must ensure that any existing tree will not be damaged either by the
erection of the structure or during works. The Consultant Arborist may require the erection works
to be supervised and can halt these works at any time if deemed that damage is occurring or likely to
occur to the tree.

5.3.13 Protection of the Root Zone During Temporary Access

If temporary access to the areas within the Tree Protection Zones is required during the
construction phase the individual root systems should be protected from compaction by the use of
heavy timber boards or metal plates spanning over the mulched root zone areas.

These boards or plates should not be left for the duration of the construction phase but should only
be used as temporary access is required.

Large buttress or surface roots that may be in the way of a wall or building foundation must be
protected by bridging. The wall or foundation must be interrupted or modified to allow room for the
roots and their future expansion. Similar techniques should be used for footpaths and paved areas
near existing trees with large buttress or surface roots.

Open root zones or trenches should not be allowed to dry out and should have mulch, woodchips or
coarse sand placed over the root zone and watered once it day until the trench is backfilled.

Page 35 of 80
5.3.14 Backfilling

Any excavated area within the TPZ must be reinstated-backfilled and mulched immediately after
excavation and associated works to prevent further drying or damage to the root zone. The
backfilled soil must be of a similar texture and have a bulk density as close as possible to the original
soil type.

5.3.15 Information for Planning Applicants

The following information is provided for planning applicants when providing an Arborist’s report.
This information will aid Casey in providing timely and accurate information back to the applicant.

The following information should be provided as part of an Arborist Report for planning purposes:

• Name and Contact Details of the Arboricultural Consultant including their professional
qualification.
• Name and contact details of the client.
• Objective of the Report (a clear statement of the purpose of the report).
• Methodology ( the date and methods employed by the arborist in making their determination)
• A clear plan of the site showing the trees included in the report with individual identifying
numbers which relate to the report. The plan should also include actual canopy outlines of the
individual tree existing on the site and identified on the plan. The plan should also show the
location and type of any existing and proposed services including all irrigation line on landscape
plans.
• A list of trees surveyed as part of the report.
• The following data should be collected for each tree:

 Species
 Common Name
 Tree Type (indigenous, native, exotic, etc.)
 Tree Dimensions (height X canopy spread)
 Tree Trunk Diameter (DBH: measured @ 1.4 metres)
 Age (young, semi-mature, mature, senescent, etc.)
 Health
 Structure
 Retention Value
 Contribution to Landscape
 Tree Protection Zone Distances
 Recommendations
 Comments (any relevant information)

5.4 Development Site Tree Management Plan

Tree Management Plans (TMP) provide Council with clear detail of the commitment by those involved
in the development process and demonstrates an understanding of the requirement necessary to
protect trees during the development process. Tree Management Plans (TMP) will be required for all
development sites where trees are listed for retention as part of the overall development.

TMPs will be a prerequisite to accompany the Consulting Arborist’s report submitted as part planning
application for a proposed site development. The TMP must address all aspect of tree protection
works on the site prior to and during demolition, construction and landscape works.

There may also be a requirement to include trees on neighbouring properties and any street trees
impacted by the proposed development.

Page 36 of 80
5.4.1 Tree Management Plan Timetable

The presentation of tree management plans should be in a format that is easily interpreted by all
parties involved. The following table provides an example of a generic TMP timetable displaying the
types of information that should be included.
Figure 5: Suggested Tree Management Plan Timetable
Development Phase Tree / Site Task Tree requirements Performed by
Pre demolition and All retained Site induction To educate contractors of the Project team
development trees project requirements for tree
retention and protection
Pre demolition All retained Erection of Irrigation on Tree Protection Builder/ Site
trees Tree Protection Zone during warmer months Manager /
Zone fence Arborist
Demolition All retained Removal of Protection from construction Builder/ Site
trees existing impacts. Manager
dwelling Landscape
contractor
Specific Identify specific Detail works required. Builder/ Site
Trees requirements Manager
to preserve Landscape
individual trees contractor
Development All retained Supply Supplying water is the most Builder/ Site
trees irrigation to important maintenance task. Manager
trees in warmer Irrigation to be supplied on Landscape
months regular basis throughout spring contractor
and summer.
All retained Maintenance of Refer to arborists set of tree Builder/ Site
trees individual TPZs protection guidelines Manager
Landscape
contractor
Specific Identify specific Detail works required. Builder/ Site
Trees requirements Manager
to preserve Landscape
individual trees contractor
Post Development All retained Removal of Builder/ Site
trees protection Manager /
fencing Arborist
All retained Monitor tree At 6 month intervals. Arborist
trees condition Recommend remedial works if
applicable.
All retained Landscape Root disturbance within the Landscape
trees Planting TPZ is to be kept to a contractor
minimum. All planting holes
within the TPZ are to be hand
dug and relocated if roots over
30mm ∅ are encountered.

Standard Planning Permit conditions to implement the requirements will be developed.

5.4.2 Suggested Timetable for Arborist Attendance on Site

In order to monitor and assess the implementation of the tree preservation measures, the site Arborist
should be available to visit the site at the following times during the development process:

• During or immediately after the setup of the Tree Protection Zone fencing. The Arborist must
check and confirm the alignments and access points.

Page 37 of 80
• During or immediately after the demolition of the existing dwelling and surrounding infrastructure.
The Arborist must check for damage to any actual tree canopy or root system.

• The Arborist must conduct monthly inspections during the construction period to check on
irrigation requirements and the integrity of the Tree Protection Zone.

• During or immediately after any visit by Tree Workers to prune any of the existing trees including
those of the neighbouring properties. The Arborist must check for damage to any actual tree
canopy or root system.

• During or immediately after the removal of the Tree Protection Zone fencing. The Arborist must
check and confirm the condition of all trees including those on the neighbouring properties. A
final overview report on the construction process and the tree protection issues must be
prepared at this time.

• Planning Permit conditions will be developed to implement these requirements. These will place
the onus on the developer’s arborists to submit a report of compliance based on regular reviews
to Council.

Page 38 of 80
6 REFERENCES
Australian Standard AS 4373 (1996), Pruning of Amenity Trees. Standards Australia

Arnold, H. F. (1980). Trees in Urban Design Van Nostrand Reinhold Company

Barker, P. A. 2003, Root barriers for controlling damage to sidewalks, paper presented to an International
workshop on tree root development in urban soils, Morton Arboretum, September 30 & October 1.

Bernatzky, A. 1978, Tree Ecology and Preservation. New York: Elsevier Publishing.
Biggs, B. (1998) Trees top a street’s value. Real Estate Section, Sunday Herald Sun, February 15, 1998.

British Standard 5837. 1991, Guide for Trees in relation to construction. British Standards Institute.

Bureau of Meteorology Website. 2001 www.bom.gov.au

Coder K.D. 1996, Construction Damage Assessments: Trees and Sites University of Georgia
Extension Service http://www.forestry.uga.edu/docs/for96-039.html.
Coder, K. D. 1998(3), Tree root growth control series: Soil constraints on root growth, University of
Georgia.

Dwyer, J.F., McPherson, E.G., Schroeder, H.W., & Rowntree, R.A. (1992) Assessing the benefits and
costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5) International Society of Arboriculture.

Gamstetter D. (2000) Trees are not the root of sidewalk problems, Strategies to reduce infrastructure
damage by trees roots: A symposium for researchers and practitioners. Davis, California March 31-April 1,
2000.

Gilman, E. F. 1997, Trees for Urban and Suburban Landscapes Delmar.

Gilman, E. F. & Lilly, S. J. (2002) Pruning trees: A professional approach Part 2. How, where and how
much. Arborist News Volume 11 Number 5. International Society of Arboriculture.

Harris, R. W., Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P. (1999) Arboriculture – Integrated management of landscape
trees, shrubs and vines. Third Edition. Prentice Hall.

Helliwell, D.R. 1985, Trees on Development Sites. Arboricultural Association UK.

Hitchmough, J. D. (1994), Urban landscape management, Inkata Press

Huberts, M., (1985), Investigation of street tree maintenance and management by Victorian Councils, VCAH
- Burnley

Kopinga, J. 1993, Aspects of the damage to asphalt road pavings caused by tree roots, paper presented to
an International workshop on tree root development in urban soils, Morton Arboretum, September
30 and October 1.

Matheny, N. P. & Clark, J. R. (1994) Evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. 2nd Edition. International
Society of Arboriculture Books.

Matheny, N. & Clark, J.R. 1998 Trees and development – A technical guide to preservation of trees during
land development. International Society of Arboriculture, Publishers.

McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P. & Xiao, Q. 1999. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Modesto's Municipal
Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 25(5): 235-248. International Society of Arboriculture.

Miller, R.W. (1988) Urban Forestry - Planning and managing urban greenspaces. Prentice Hall.

Natural Resources and Environment - Landcare Note, Melbourne Soils Notes Series No SC0024 ISSN
1329-833X Robert van de Graaff and Chris Wootton, Melbourne. Current @ Revised June 1996.
http://www.land.vic.gov.au/web/root/domino/infseries/infsheet.nsf/daa

Page 39 of 80
Patrick, J. (2002) Today’s Trees Tomorrow’s Heritage Trees & Development Seminar Karalyka Centre,
Ringwood East. 2002

Phillips, L. E. (1993) Urban trees: A guide for selection maintenance and master planning McGraw Hill.

Richards, N. A. (1992) Optimum stocking of urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture 18(2). March 1992.

Shigo, A. L. (1989) Tree pruning – A worldwide guide Shigo & Trees, Associates

Tattar, T.A. 1989, Diseases of Shade Trees, 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.
Watson G. (1991) Attaining Root:Crown Balance in Landscape Trees Journal of Arboriculture
17(8) 221-216

Watson, G. W. & Himelick, E. B. 1997, Principals and Practices of Planting Trees and Shrubs.
International Society of Arboriculture.

Page 40 of 80
Appendix 1 – Vicroads Design Guidelines for Tree Locations:

Clear Zones on straight sections of major roads:

Speed (km/h) No. of Cars Clear Zone Width No. of Cars Clear Zone Width
70 >5000 5.0m 4000 4.75m
80 >5000 6.75m 4000 6.0m

Safe Intersection Sight Distance (Major Roads):

SAFE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE

(SISD)
Eye & Object Heights = 1.15m
Approach
Speed DISTANCE CREST CURVES
(km/h) Desirable Minimum Absolute Desirable (m) Minimum (m) Absolute
(m) (m) minimum (m) minimum (m)
40 67 62 62 4.8 4.2 4.2
50 90 83 82 8.8 7.5 7.3
60 117 108 105 15 13 12
70 147 137 131 24 21 19
80 179 167 159 35 31 28
90 216 203 190 51 45 40
100 254 241 - 70 64 -
110 297 282 - 96 87 -
120 345 329 - 130 118 -

From VicRoads – Road Design Guidelines. Sept. 1997

Desired Distances for Planting in Naturestrips (Local Roads):

Infrastructure Distance
Intersections 5 meters from intersection (Minimum).
Water Hydrants 9 meters in total. 4.5 meters either side to be clear.
Storm Water Pits. 6 meters in total. 3.0 meters either side to be clear.
Appendix 2 – Guide to Street, Park and Reserve Planting Site Restrictions

Street tree planting site restrictions

Trees should be located at distances from existing infrastructure as per the following criteria:

Exiting Feature Minimum Setback

Beneath Low voltage service wires (240/415volts) 2.0 metres
Driveways, laneways, bus stops/shelters 2.5 metres
Electricity poles 3.0 metres
Hydrants or drainage pits 3.0 metre
Stop or Give Way sign 10.0 metres
Residential street intersection (except in quieter residential 15.0 metres
streets where sightlines may not be an issue offset may be 5m
minimum),
Streets intersecting with a main road 18.0 metres

No new tree planting shall be undertaken:

• in streets with a naturestrip area less than 2.1m wide (exclusive of footpath),
• within the carriageway unless Council adopts a designed solution,
• over the location incoming gas and water services to a property,
• in locations where private overhanging trees will significantly reduce the health, vigour or shape
of a newly planted street tree.
Species of tree will be commensurate with the width of the nature strip.

Species of trees planted in streets and high use/profile public spaces should be able to be pruned to a
single trunk or have a clear trunk to minimum height of 1.5m for visibility.

Trees are to be located and maintained (ie. through pruning) so as not to unreasonably obscure
street signage or commercial advertising.

Vic Roads is to be consulted where street tree planting programs are proposed for main road
reserves (refer appendix 1 Vic Roads – Road Design Guidelines).

Existing park or reserve feature restrictions

Tree location should consider the mature dimensions of the canopy height and width, trunk diameter
and root development requirements to ensure that they do not have an eventual impact upon Council or
privately owned infrastructure.

Trees should be located as per the following criteria:

Exiting Feature Minimum Setback

Beneath Low voltage service wires (240/415volts) 2.0 metres
Beneath service wires 2.0 metres
Electricity poles 3.0 metres
Hydrants or drainage pits 3.0 metre
Park furniture, paths, driveways and laneways 2.5 metres
Adjoining properties and Council buildings 5 metres

Other planting restrictions include:

• Trees are not to be located over incoming gas and water services.
• Trees are not to be located where private overhanging trees will significantly reduce their
health, vigour or shape.

Access Type &Clearance Location. Clearance.

Pedestrian
Over footpaths, driveways, walkways, naturestrips and in parkland. Height of 3 metres.
Vehicular
Over roadways. Height of 4.5 metres.
Motorist/pedestrian visibility
Along road user sightlines. Height of 2 metres.
Street lighting
Around lighting tube. Distance of 1 metre.

Streetlight cables/from cable. Distance of 600mm.

Road signage
From signs. Maintain visibility.
Traffic control devices
From control devices. Maintain visibility.
Telephone service lines & cables
From line. Distance of 600mm.

Appendix 4 Casey Standard Road Specifications:

Refer Casey Standard Drawings, January 2003 available from

City of Casey website at www.casey.vic.gov.au

Page 43 of 80
Appendix 3 – Casey Standard Tree Planting Specifications:

Page 44 of 80
Appendix 3 Continued– Casey Standard Tree Planting Specifications:

Page 45 of 80
Appendix 5 Landscape Soils Specifications:

The following information is for the use of Contractors (and other parties) for use when dealing with
naturestrip reinstatements and street tree plantings.

Erosion Control

Plan and carry out the work to avoid erosion, contamination and sedimentation of the site,
surrounding areas and drainage systems. The Contractor shall make up any losses caused to the
works through erosion within the Scope of Works of this contract.

Weed Eradication

Eradicate weeds by environmentally acceptable methods, as approved by the Manager. Continue

eradication throughout the course of the works and during the Maintenance and Defects Liability
period.

Cultivation And Excavation

Excavation:

Excavate and remove subsoil, road base, Contractor debris and other deleterious material from the
planter area to a minimum depth to accommodate topsoil, mulches and setdowns as detailed and
specified. Shape subgrade to fall to subsoil drainage if applicable. Ensure positive drainage to
permeable layers. Remove excavated material off site or to a location on site as agreed by the
Manager.

The Contractor shall locate the exact alignment and depth of all services and take all measures to
protect them during the excavation and constructing works.

Cultivation:

Loosen any compacted ground in garden areas. Do not disturb areas close to services - cultivate
these by hand. Profile and level such that the required depths of topsoil can be placed to the
specified levels.

Deleterious Material:

Remove stones exceeding 50mm and other deleterious material brought to the surface during
excavation and cultivation, including roots, sticks, weeds and the like.

Topsoil

Standard:

Topsoil shall comply with AS 2223, AS 1289 and AS 3743.

Requirements:

Soil shall be friable, fertile soil mix and shall not set hard or become difficult to work as a
consequence of drying out and will be capable of handling when moist. Soil reaction shall be slightly
acidic to neutral with a ph between 5.5 and 7.0. Salinity shall not exceed 600ppm.
The soil shall be free from materials toxic to human health or plants and be free of roots greater than
12mm diameter, clay lumps greater than 10mm measured in any one direction, stone greater than
20mm and other elements foreign to the normal composition of soil.

Soil Testing Criteria:

Properties and Nutrients as follows: -

Physical Properties: After Placing -

Air-filled Porosity (%V) 5-25
Bulk Density (KG/m3) <1200
Organic Content (% mass) 10-20
Solid Materials Max Size (mm) 20
Water Holding Capacity (%) >40
Saturated Weight (KG/m3) 1000
Wetability min min <10
Temperature (Celsius) >40

Chemical Properties:

Ph 5-6
EC (ds/m) <1.8
Cg/Mg Ratio 2-5
Cation Exchange (meq%) 5-20

Major Nutrients:

Nitrogen as Ammonium ppm 5-100

Nitrogen as Nitrate ppm <100
Phosphorus ppm <20
Potassium ppm 90-180

Secondary Nutrients:

Sulphur ppm <200

Calcium ppm 50-1500
Magnesium ppm 23-250

Trace Elements:

Copper ppm 0.4-10

Zinc ppm 0.3-10
Manganese ppm 1-200
Iron ppm 80-300
Boron ppm 0.6-2

Heavy Metals and Toxins:

Not to exceed acceptable levels in all cases for PCB, Phenol's, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, 2n, etc..

Odour: No strong odour in all cases

Biological Properties:

Micro organisms: Present in all cases

Microrrhizal Fungi: Present in all cases
Pythium & Phytophthora: Absent in all cases
Weeds & Vegetative/Reproductive parts: Absent in all cases

Page 47 of 80
Topsoil Mix:

Apply Environgreen ‘Premium Garden Blend’ or approved equal to garden areas on podium, raised
planters and natural ground planted and turf areas.

Soil Mix:

38% sandy loam

30% aged cellulose
17% organic matter
15% course ash
350g "crop king" 88 or approved equal

Samples and Testing:

The Contractor shall nominate his source of supply and provide a sample of soil and a growing media
analysis representative of that sample to be prepared by an independent laboratory.
Cost to be incurred by the Contractor. Approval by the Manager shall be required before soil is
delivered onto the site.

All imported soil shall be free from vegetative reproductive parts of the following weeds:
Cyperus rotundus (nut grass), Nothoscardum inoderum (onion weed), Oxalis spp, Convolvulus
arvenis (birdweed), Cynodon dactylon (couch), Paspalum dilatum (paspalum), Rumex acetosella
(sorrel), Sorghum halepense (Johnson's grass).

Placing:

Place topsoil of the types specified to planting areas as specified below. Spread and grade evenly.

Planter areas on podium: variable between 400 - 1200mm depths

Planter areas on natural ground: 450mm depth

Compaction:

Lightly compact topsoil so that the finished surface is smooth, at the required levels ready for
cultivation and planting. Allow for the thickness of mulch where specified. Prevent excess
compaction from construction plant.

Settlement:

Contractor to install topsoil in such a manner as to allow for settlement and rectification of topsoil
to specified levels.

Finishing:

In planting areas finish soil level which allows for 75mm thickness of mulch set 25mm lower than
finished surface levels, or as detailed.

Compacted Fill

Requirement: Compacted fill shall be placed to both areas of natural ground within the podium area
in accordance with the civil engineering specification.

Page 48 of 80
Appendix 6 - Tree Root Management Information:

Causes of Hard Surface Damage

Prior to implementing strategies to rectify the conflict between hard surfaces within streetscapes and
tree roots it is worthwhile investigating the possible causes of the phenomenon. Understanding of the
various causes will also allow the most appropriate actions to be developed.

Planting spaces

The further a tree is away from hard surfaces the less likely damage will occur. Roots rapidly taper
away from the stem of the tree, and keeping hard surfaces away from this area close to the stem
where heavy structural roots and butt flare occurs, can minimise or eliminate damage. The area of
upheaval is also known as the Zone of Upheaval, Clark, 2000 and is approximately 4-5 x trunk
calliper of the mature tree.

Footpath construction

Poorly-designed and constructed footpaths are rarely built to withstand natural processes over time
Opportunistic tree roots exploit any flaws in the construction as they colonise new resource space,
leading to damage. The cause of the damage is frequently attributed to the trees, with little attention
paid to engineering practices. Footpaths need to be constructed more robustly where there are soils
with a high shrink/swell potential or where larger trees are present.

Soil Conditions

Compacted urban soils can play a role in conflicts between footpaths and trees. Tree roots only
grow in areas where oxygen and water is available and in compacted soils this can only be found near
the surface. This situation encourages shallow and surface rooting leading to footpath damage.

Other restrictive soil conditions such as hardpans, poor structure, fine texture or perched water
tables are also frequently cited as limiting root development to a shallow zone near the soil. The
depth of rooting is influenced by the depth of the soil. Deeper soils usually have greater nutrient and
water supplies for plant use, regulating the soil’s ‘effective root depth’.

The reactive clay soils of large areas of City of Casey will make them prone to compaction and/or
surface rooting.

Soil Movement

Water powered soil swell and heave is often blamed on trees the presence of trees and their
transpiration of large amounts of water can contribute to and indeed exacerbate the subsidence of
the soil surface by several centimetres within their root area.

Expansive clays shrink and swell with changing water contents, leading to infrastructure damage. Many
footpaths are constructed with little regard to soil types and the propensity of some soils to
shrinking and swelling resulting in damage to infrastructure that is not associated with trees. The
absence of trees can also lead to infrastructure damage as the soil water levels are subject to greater
fluctuation. This latter point would be applicable to areas within Casey.

Gamstetter (2000) in a study of heavy clay soils in Ohio found that trees played a minor role in the
service life of footpaths. Soils can be prone to seasonal movements regardless of whether trees are
present or not. This natural soil movement in conjunction with the age of concrete footpaths lead to
uneven and cracking footpaths in the Ohio study. Footpaths less than 20 years old were not affected
by trees at any of the sites in the research.
Moisture retention under pavements

Barker (1993) stated that moisture condensates on the underside of footpaths through the rapid
process of heating and cooling of the concrete. This moisture promotes the development of shallow
tree roots under the concrete, causing damage to the pavement. Condensation under footpaths
occurs in climates with high temperatures and low rainfall, making the soils there particularly
favourable to opportunistic root growth.

Roots entering the area under the pavement quickly absorb the small quantity of water present. This
causes a gradient of soil humidity stimulating a rapid apical growth of the roots. The rapid apical
growth combined with low soil fertility levels is probably the cause of the roots under the pavement
forming few branches and fine lateral roots. The roots revert to a natural rooting pattern once they
have reached soil on the other side of the pavement. The normal rooting development induces an
increase in the diameter of the roots under the pavement, causing disturbance to the paving (Kopinga
1993, Coder, 1998(3).

Species selection

Certain species have been identified as more problematic than others in causing pavement damage.
The following tree genus and species should not be used in narrow planting spaces (less than 2.0
metres) and tree wells in pavement:

Paperbark (Melaleuca spp.), Plane (Platanus spp.), Eucalypt (Eucalyptus spp.), Pyramid Tree (Lagunaria
patersonia), Sweet Gum (Liquidamber styraciflua), Ash (Fraxinus spp.), Poplar (Populus spp.), ,Willow
(Salix spp.), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Elm (Ulmus spp.),

Preventing Tree Root Damage to Hard Surfaces

A multi-disciplinary approach to solving the problem of root damage to hard surfaces within the City
is required. This would involve a co-ordinated approach from the various departments and
professionals involved with the management of the City’s assets.

Engineering Solutions

Poorly-designed and constructed footpaths are rarely built to withstand natural processes over time
(Coder, 1998) and can hasten the damage caused by tree roots. The cause of the damage to
footpaths is frequently attributed to the trees, with little attention paid to engineering practices.
Footpaths need to be constructed more robustly where there are soils with a high shrink/swell
potential or where larger trees are present. Trees rarely cause damage to hard structures if proper
planting in properly designed and constructed landscapes takes place.
Footpath construction options:

• Alternative street designs in some areas. Moving away from single species avenue planting in
straight lines and new designs which allows larger areas in the street for clump/grove planting.

• Removing the footpath altogether, particularly on one side of the street. This could be
considered in streets and areas where soil conditions are more conducive to seasonal
movements resulting in footpath and road damage.

• Alternative pavement and base material. Investigate more flexible pavement, e.g. segmented
pavement, rubberised asphalt. Investigate structural soils as a sub-base, or large sized (no fines)
aggregate (See figure 1).

• Replace footpaths with thicker concrete or reinforced concrete adjacent to large trees. This
would act as a concrete root barrier similar to the thicker concrete of the kerb.
• Expansion material, sand or foam backers used between tree roots and concrete to absorb
upward pressure.

Page 50 of 80
Figure 1. Coarse Gravel Sub-base beneath a footpath (Gilman, 1997). Using coarse gravel instead of
sand or crushed rock products will encourage deeper rooting under pavements.

Footpath repair options:

Use of mechanical grinder to wear down raised edges. No more than 50% of the slab thickness
should be removed as it will affect the structural integrity of the concrete. The bitumen wedge to
ramp to raised edges is another alternative.

These would be considered a low cost, short term approaches that could be used to prolong safe life
of pavement to coordinate with street tree removal and replacement program in the future.
Concrete pavement is then replaced at that time.

Appropriate Usage of Structural Soils

Structural soils in the context of this discussion have specific uses. The material supports pavement
designed to withstand pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The materials can be designed for use under
footpaths, parking lots, and possibly some low-use access roads. The material is intended as a tool to
be used when there are no other design solutions to provide adequate soil volumes for trees in close
proximity to pavement.

Structural soils can be used as base material under pavement. The base material can be designed to
act as a root exclusion layer to buffer the pavement from the pressures generated from expanding
roots in secondary radial growth. While there is no definitive data related to radial root expansion to
logically assign a base thickness, research has shown that tree roots in structural soil profiles grow
deep into the material below the pavement (Grobosky, Trowbridge & Bassuk, 2002).

The same research showed a lack of root development in the surface 30cm (12 inches) below the
pavement surface. It is anticipated that moving the roots down to the sub-grade will distribute those
root pressures over a wider section of pavement, reducing or eliminating footpath cracking and
heaving.

By design, structural soils are fully compacted with conventional equipment to standard relative
compactness (90-95% relative compaction). Also by design, it can serve as the sub-base for the entire
pavement section. Where there is a tree to be installed, the material can be allowed to rise to
surface grade where the trunk pavement opening will occur. This provides an opportunity for
watering, drainage, and passive aeration systems to the surface as well.

Below the pavement there can also be a base material of well-graded large aggregate that should
possess no fine sands, silts or clays. This standard base layer could be to a depth normal for regional
installation protocol or 150mm. To discourage rooting in this layer, a geo-textile may be used
between this base and the structural soil sub-base. The geo-textile should not restrict water
movement. The sub-base is the structural soil material, in a layer thickness of 45 to 90 centimetres.

A structural soil specification should be used within the City’s commercial precincts and car parks.

Page 51 of 80
Root Barriers

Root barriers appear to be popular with many municipal authorities for the treatment of tree root
related footpath damage. Root barriers are typically installed at the time of planting to guide the
roots of a newly planted tree away from conflict with the pavement or adjacent to an established tree
in conjunction with repair works on damaged areas of footpath in an attempt to prevent the damage
reoccurring. Where root barriers are installed on existing trees, roots must be severed or pruned,
with varying impacts on the trees health and stability.

From a hazard management point of view there is little benefit in offsetting one hazard, i.e. trip
hazard in the concrete footpath, by the creation of another, i.e. destabilising a tree by severing
structural roots.

The effectiveness of root barriers is dependant on a number of factors, with research indicating that
soil type and root removal as critical elements. Success may also depend on the type of barrier, tree
species, tree age, planting situation, and the distance of the tree to infrastructure.

Root barrier success in well drained soils

In well-drained soils, fewer roots reach the surface of the soil where a barrier is installed which may
prolong the life of the adjacent kerb or pavement (Gilman 1997). Where loose and well-aerated soil
is encountered by roots at the base of a barrier, the roots will tend to continue to grow deep, away
from pavements on the surface (Nicoll 2002).

Smiley, Key & Greco (2000) examined the stability of trees grown within continuous, circling root
control barriers. In the sandy clay loam, they found in wet and dry conditions that the trees growing
in the barriers withstood greater lateral stress. They suggested that the reason for the greater
strength was that the root barrier trees appeared to have a deeper root system.

Gilman (1995) found that barriers were most effective in areas of well-drained soil where the roots
grew back to the surface more slowly than in soils that were not as free draining.

The majority of soil types within the City would have seasonal drainage problems which would see
the roots growing back up the other side of root barriers at a steep angle and back under the
footpath (see Figure 2.).

Root barrier failure

Harris, Clark and Matheny (1999) reported that root control devices appeared to be least effective
where they are most needed, in soils where poor aeration or compaction encourages shallow
rooting.

Root barriers appear to be ineffective in compacted and poorly drained soils that are typical in many
urban areas. The roots quickly return to the soil surface after they grow under the barrier (Figure 2),
often in the loosened soil filled in around the barrier during installation.

Although the barrier stops some roots, the roots that reach the surface are large in diameter and can
cause damage to the footpath (Gilman, 1997; Gilman, 1995). For a root barrier to be effective, it
must be deeper than all root activity at the time of construction.

Figure 2: Root growth under barriers (Gilman, 1997)

Studies in the UK have indicated that roots tend to branch when they reach the bottom of a rigid
barrier and some of the branch roots are directed back up to the surface. The upward growing roots
generally find better growing conditions and become the dominant part of the root (Nicoll 2002).

Page 52 of 80
Unless the top edge of the root barrier was kept clearly above mulch and ground level, roots over-
grew the barrier and the benefits were lost. Root barriers exposed at the surface can also be
unattractive or cause obstruction. Root barriers fail by roots growing over, through or under them.
Mechanical damage, weathering root penetration and deep rooting species will cause the barriers to
fail.

Circular root barriers are undesirable as they restrict the escape of roots from the barrier and in
some soils there would be insufficient oxygen at the base of the barrier to allow root growth. This
situation would result in a stressed, containerised tree with a girdling root system prone to
windthrow. The majority of soils in the City are not suitable for this type of barrier installation.

Root pruning

Root pruning is used widely for the control of surface roots around pavements, although the practice
is widely regarded as detrimental on the long-term health and stability of trees by arborists. Root
pruning is also undertaken for the installation of root barriers.

The USDA Forest Service (1998) stated that a triple fatality in 1990 was caused by a falling tree
whose roots were cut during footpath reconstruction. Although there are a number of factors that
will determine a trees potential for failure, soil excavations that sever large roots near trunks of
mature trees often create hazards. Root-cutting devices also create large wounds at or near the base
of trees. These wounds will be subject to decay over time and will ultimately affect the overall health
and stability of the tree (Harris, Clark & Matheny 1999; Nicoll 2002). The spread of moderately
deep, large roots provide greater stability than deep roots with little spread.

Pruning roots for the purpose of footpath repair can result in the rapid regrowth of roots under the
pavement and necessitate further repairs in 2-3 years (Harris, Clark and Matheny 1999). Nicoll
(2002) found that large roots that had been chiselled down under repaired pavement callused around
the damaged area and subsequently lifted the footpath over a larger area. Biddle (1998) recognised
that where roots are severed, roots below the pruning depth can grow upwards to exploit the soil
previously utilised by the severed roots, necessitating deeper pruning over subsequent treatments.
Roots that are severed can regenerate from the cut end, with extension growth that can be in excess
of 1.5 meters per year.

The removal of large portions of a trees root system may severely impact on the health of the tree,
with the potential for death. Helliwell (1985) recommended that mature trees are unable to sustain
the loss of large portions of roots. He suggests that a root loss of even 5-10% from a mature tree is
likely to cause some die-back in the crown and make the tree more prone to attack by pest and
disease.

A healthy tree may be able to sustain a loss of between 30% and 50% of absorbing roots (Harris,
Clark, Matheny, 1999). It should be reiterated that this figure refers to the fine roots responsible for
the absorption of water and nutrients and not the major roots closer to the trunk that are
responsible for the structural integrity of the tree. However the loss of absorbing root system will
immediately affect the water status of the tree and may, depending on season and water availability,
create a water stress for the tree.

The severity of this stress is dependent on favourable climatic conditions, a soil environment
conducive to root growth, and appropriate and timely after-care maintenance, primarily supplemental
irrigation. In most cases the resources are not available for this latter maintenance step for street
trees.

Where root pruning is absolutely necessary, trees should only be pruned that are not weak or
stressed. Pruning should not extend deeper than 300mm, as cutting roots deeper may make the tree
susceptible to failure by windthrow.

To reduce the threat of failure, only one side of the tree should be pruned at a time, with subsequent
sides pruned after 3-4 years. The top of the tree should be thinned before the roots are cut, a year

Page 53 of 80
before the root pruning is best. Crown reduction pruning may be advisable (Harris, Clark and
Matheny 1999).

Biological & Design Solutions

In conjunction with engineering and design solutions a thorough site analysis followed by a tree
selection process must be implemented. Recognising the mature size and root architecture of
selected species will lead to apportioning the required space to minimise potential conflicts.

Tree Selection

Tree Selection is often one of the most effective tools in managing tree roots. The aim is to select
those tree species that will cause the least damage to adjacent infrastructure with their root systems.

The issue is the right tree for the right place with due consideration given to aesthetic/design
requirements, biological criteria (i.e. tolerances) and functional criteria (Management issues). There is
no one perfect tree. The most successful course is to match the planting site limitations with the
right tree for that spot.

If there is no one perfect urban tree, it is also important to understand that there is no one urban
environment. The urban environment is a varied conglomeration of microclimates. Above ground or
below ground site conditions can change dramatically within the space of a few feet. Consequently a
site analysis of each major planting site will allow more appropriate tree selections.

Tree selection is not just a case of recommending a particular plant but must also consider its root
physiology and a thorough assessment of the site conditions. Also the soil conditions of the site
frequently limit planting success. Trees may never be vigorous or long lived when planted in highly
disturbed sites with unfavourable conditions (Watson & Himelick, 1997).

Providing Adequate Space for Trees

As previously indicated the further a tree is away from hard surfaces the less likely damage will occur.
Combined with this is the understanding that the smaller the size of the mature tree the narrower
the planting site can be, within reason.

One way to estimate this is to consider the ‘Zone of Upheaval’ (Clark, 2000) that would use the
mature size of the tree to estimate the root plate of the tree (Combination of buttress flare and
heavy lateral roots). By keeping hard surfaces away from the stem within the zone of upheaval
damage to hard surfaces could be substantially mitigated or eliminated.

To use this method one has to estimate the trunk diameter (DBH) of the mature tree. Clark (2000)
estimates the DBH to be typically 4% of mature tree height and up to 5% of heavy stemmed trees
like Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) or Schinus areira (Peppercorn Tree).

This area to offset potential damage (zone of upheaval) is estimated as 4 to 5 x DBH (of the mature
tree) in diameter (See Table 1).

According to Table 1 only Type 1 small trees reaching 5 to 6m could be used in these streets.

Larger trees could be considered for the commercial areas only if engineering solutions were
incorporated into the planting site.

Page 54 of 80
Table 1. Zone of Upheaval.

Zone of Upheaval (Diameter m.)

Est. DBH (cm) Type 1 Type 2
Est.
Mature Type 1 Type 2 4xDBH 5xDBH 4xDBH 5xDBH
Height (DBH 4% (DBH 5% of
(m) of height) height)
5 0.20 0.25 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.25
6 0.24 0.30 0.96 1.20 1.20 1.50
7 0.28 0.35 1.12 1.40 1.40 1.75
8 0.32 0.40 1.28 1.60 1.60 2.00
9 0.36 0.45 1.44 1.80 1.80 2.25
10 0.40 0.50 1.60 2.00 2.00 2.50
11 0.44 0.55 1.76 2.20 2.20 2.75
12 0.48 0.60 1.92 2.40 2.40 3.00
13 0.52 0.65 2.08 2.60 2.60 3.25
14 0.56 0.70 2.24 2.80 2.80 3.50
15 0.60 0.75 2.40 3.00 3.00 3.75
16 0.64 0.80 2.56 3.20 3.20 4.00
17 0.68 0.85 2.72 3.40 3.40 4.25
18 0.72 0.90 2.88 3.60 3.60 4.50
19 0.76 0.95 3.04 3.80 3.80 4.75
20 0.80 1.00 3.20 4.00 4.00 5.00
21 0.84 1.05 3.36 4.20 4.20 5.25
22 0.88 1.10 3.52 4.40 4.40 5.50
23 0.92 1.15 3.68 4.60 4.60 5.75
24 0.96 1.20 3.84 4.80 4.80 6.00
25 1.00 1.25 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.25

Minimum nature strip for planting tree with a potential to get 20cm or more in trunk diameter
should be 2.4m.

Minimum nature strip width for planting trees with a mature trunk diameter less than 20cm is 1.0 to
1.5m.

Page 55 of 80
Appendix 7 – Tree Roots & Utility Installation:

How trees may be damaged during the installation of utility services

Direct mechanical contact

Direct impact with the roots can cause severance or damage to the bark of the root. Severance of a
root will kill all parts of the root extending beyond that point, potentially affecting the health and
stability of the tree.

The trunk and branches of the tree may be damaged by construction machinery, equipment or
materials working or stored within close proximity to the tree.

Damage to the bark of the trunk, roots or branches can increase the susceptibility of the area to
decay pathogens and where the damage is extensive, eventual death of the entire limb, root or
overall decline of the tree may occur.

Compaction of the soil

General construction traffic, the storage of material, or the traffic of heavy equipment may cause the
compaction of the soil around trees. Compaction of the soil changes soil structure and increases
bulk density. Compaction decreases total pore space within the soil and may also restrict or even
prevent gaseous diffusion through the soil, effectively asphyxiating the roots. Compaction may also
inhibit root penetration and water infiltration.

Bulk density is commonly used to determine the relative compaction of a soil. Bulk density is a
measure of the weight of a given volume of soil and is expressed as grams/centimetre3 (g/cm3). The
bulk density of a soil and the extent that it can be compacted depends on the soil’s structure and
particle size distribution, as well as the compactive force that is applied. For a given soil, the greater
the bulk density, the more root growth and function will be restricted (Harris et al., 2004).

Soil texture Root-limiting bulk density (g/cm3)

Sand 1.8 g/cm3
Fine sand 1.75
Sandy loam 1.7
Fine sandy loam 1.65
Loam 1.55
Silt loam 1.45
Clay loam 1.5
Clay 1.4
Root growth limiting bulk density values by soil texture (From: Coder, 2000).

On a given soil, at given moisture levels, most possible damage occurs in the first 3 passes of a
machine over the soil. The level of damage is based on the load, the moisture level at the time and
the soil characteristics. The loss of pore space sustained in the first 3 passes would be expected to
increase the compaction density of the soil to 95% of the possible compaction rate, and within the
root-limiting bulk density range (Refer table above). Tree protection zones which are breached once
for a back and forth trip with heavy construction machinery (Grader, Excavator, etc.) equipment can
be rendered useless in some cases (Grabosky, 2003).

Alterations to the soil level

Levelling, filling and cutting of soil grades will result in the same types of damage associated with
excavating, trenching and soil compaction. 90% of the fine roots that absorb water and minerals are
in the upper 15-30cm of soil (International Society of Arboriculture, 2001). This area is the most
conducive to root growth as it usually has available space, air, nutrients and water. Altering the soil
level during trenching may either strip away the fine absorbing roots from the soil surface or remove
the nutrient-rich topsoil that supplies basic elements, which trees require for growth.

Page 56 of 80
Raising or filling grades around trees reduces air diffusion and exchange in the root zone. As little as
100mm of soil placed over the established root systems of some species is enough to cause their
death. Grade changes to the soil outside the root zone of the tree may also affect water drainage
causing root dieback due to changes in soil moisture content (City of Auckland, 1999).

Chemical damage

Leaking or spilling of fuels, lubricants, hydraulic oils or other toxic substances may kill roots or
impede their functions. When such toxins are deposited within tree root zones they may adversely
affect tree health or directly cause tree mortality.

Oil spilled into the soil is broken down by soil bacteria which deplete the soil of oxygen and may
asphyxiate the roots. All toxic substances should be stored well away from the tree protection zone
to prevent inadvertent damage (City of Auckland, 1999).

Recommended Utility Installation Techniques

For the installation or maintenance of services in the vicinity of trees, the service should be diverted
or re-aligned to run beyond the tree protection zone (TPZ) (Refer Section 6). Where this is not
practical, trenchless excavation or root sympathetic hand excavation is recommended. A
combination of these methods may be used where necessary.

Acceptable techniques in order of preference:

1. Diversion of service around the TPZ

2. Trenchless thrusting and directional boring at an appropriate depth beneath the TPZ.
3. Root sympathetic trench excavation within the TPZ.

Trench excavation by machinery should not be permitted within the TPZ.

Diversion or re-alignment of the service

This is the most appropriate method to minimise the damage to both services and the root system of
the tree. By excluding the services from areas of heavy lateral rooting within the TPZ, damage to
services would be minimised.

Prior to installation or maintenance activities, the TPZ should be determined according to the
method outlined in Section 6 (Guidelines for tree protection). The service should be installed or re-
aligned around the TPZ in accordance with the tree protection guidelines.

Trenchless thrusting and directional boring

The action of ‘thrusting’ or ‘directional boring’ is the preferred method for service establishment
within the TPZ. When these methods are used, the overall impact to the tree is minimised.

All machinery associated with the action of thrusting or directional boring must remain outside the
TPZ. Entry and exit points should be located at a safe distance outside the TPZ to ensure that
machinery, slurry and work activities are kept clear of the TPZ. This will minimise any root loss or
ground compaction that may arise from the works.

If the thrusting rod or directional drill-head becomes stuck within the TPZ, the arborist responsible
for the trees on the site should be contacted prior to the retrieval process. Any retrieval of a
thrusting rod or directional drill-head from within the TPZ should be undertaken with hand tools
unless otherwise stated by the responsible arborist (CA, 1999).

Techniques involving external lubrication of the mole with materials other than water (e.g. Oil,
bentonite, etc.) should be avoided. unless precautions are taken to ensure that there is no
contamination of the soil within 600mm of the surface within the TPZ (NJUG, 1995).

Page 57 of 80
Depth of boring

Depth specifications for boring in contemporary literature are variable, but consistently state that a
tunnel under the root plate of a tree should be at least 600mm deep (Harris et. al., 2004). Boring
according to the Multinet directional boring standard EP-DD-4136 (2003) at a depth of 800-1100mm
to the top of the pipe (TOP) will ensure that the excavation is below the major zone of absorbing
roots. A minimum boring depth of 600mm from natural grade to the TOP should apply under all
TPZ’s.

Boring depth should also consider soil topography. Boring within the A soil horizon (topsoil) will
impact on the root system of the tree as this area is the most conducive soil environment for root
growth. Boring below this area in the B Horizon or sub-soil layer will reduce the impact on the root
system of the tree by avoiding most of the absorbing roots as well as avoiding root damage to
services. (Harris, Matheny & Clark 1999).

To avoid damage to pipes by tree roots, Mattheck and Breloer (1997) recommended that pipes
should not pass within the root plate of the tree. Where the pipe must be within the root plate, it
should be laid at a minimum depth of 600mm and be placed within a duct which can resist root
penetration.

Alignment of boring

Ideally, the line of boring or excavation should lie directly under the trunk of the tree. The diagram
below (right) illustrates the comparative root loss of boring directly under the trunk as opposed to
boring at an offset distance. Mattheck and Breloer (1997) suggested that placing pipes directly
beneath trees would effectively minimise the wind loading damage by the fact that the root lies in the
neutral pivot of the swaying motion. Where it is not possible to bore directly under the trunk of a
tree, the bore should be as deep as possible to minimise the loss of absorbing roots.

Boring within the protection zone.

(From: CFSF, 1999)

The comparative impact of boring within the

protection zone. Left, about 15% of the absorbing
roots would be jeopardised when boring directly
under the trunk. Whereas, right, 20% would be lost
from the offset boring (From: Harris, 1992).

Page 58 of 80
Hand Excavation and other root sympathetic excavation techniques

Where trenchless techniques cannot be used, hand, pneumatic and other root sympathetic excavation
methods may be used within the TPZ. The objective of root sympathetic excavation should be to
retain as many roots as possible while creating sufficient space for the installation of the service.
Hand or other root sympathetic excavation will require greater supervision to ensure that the tree
protection measures are maintained.

All work should proceed with hand tools with care taken not to damage roots as they are exposed.
All roots greater than 50mm in diameter should be retained and worked around. Clumps or masses
of small fibrous roots collectively greater than 50mm in diameter should also be retained.

Where there is no option but to sever roots that are greater than 50mm in diameter, the roots must
be inspected by the responsible municipal arborist or tree protection officer. Where their removal is
approved, the roots should be cut using a sharp axe, pruning saw or chainsaw and creating the
smallest possible wound (Adapted from: NJUG, 1995).

Hand excavated trenches within the TPZ should be aligned to pass directly under the trunk of the
tree. This will minimise the root loss (Harris, 1992). Gilman (1997) recognised the frequency of root
deflection and concentration along hard barriers such as concrete curbing and pavements. By keeping
trenches away from these areas, root loss can also be reduced.

Backfilling of trenches

Compaction of soil to a bulk density of greater than 1.8 g/cm3 will inhibit root growth in all soil types
(Coder, 2000). By compacting the backfill soil immediately surrounding the service, root growth in
this area should be excluded. In the trench above the service, the soil should not be compacted, but
tamped lightly and left proud of the surrounding soil to allow for natural settlement and root growth.
Other materials should not be incorporated into the backfill.

¼ Pipe protection diagram.

The 150mm above the pipe, 100mm below and to each side
should be compacted to a root inhibiting bulk density. Above
this, the soil should be uncompacted. (From: Multinet Gas,
1998).

Where the trenching will need to be compacted for

resurfacing of hard pavement or other construction, the
backfill should include the placement of a skeletal soil mix
around the roots to be retained. The skeletal soil mix
should consist of an inert granular material mixed with
top soil or sharp sand. This will allow the soil to be
compacted while still providing a local aerated zone
allowing the root to survive in the longer term (NJUG,
1995).

Guidelines for tree protection during Utility Installation

A tree protection zone (TPZ) should be established around the base of each tree within the working
area. Refer to Section 18 of this policy for guidelines.

Tree protection guidelines

1. Establish a TPZ around the tree

2. All excavation and machine work must be kept outside the protected area.
3. Vehicles and heavy machinery should not enter the protected area.
4. Spoil or building materials should not be stored in the protected area.
5. Toxic material such as fuels and oils should be kept well away from the tree.

Page 59 of 80
Service installation guidelines

General

1. Pipes must be installed at a depth of greater than 600m below natural soil level to the top
of the pipe throughout the TPZ.
2. Service risers within a TPZ must be installed using hand or other root sympathetic
excavation methods.
3. Jointing of two sections of pipeline should be conducted outside the TPZ.
4. Excavation to anchor or inspect pipes should be undertaken outside the TPZ, or hand
excavation methods must be used.

Boring

1. Entrance and exit pits must be outside TPZ’s.

2. Verification of the bore depth and offset readings must be undertaken outside the TPZ.
3. Where excavation within the TPZ cannot be avoided, then this should be done by hand or
using other root sympathetic excavation techniques. Machinery should not be permitted
within the TPZ.
4. Where possible, align the bore or trench to pass directly under the trunk of the tree.

Hand and root sympathetic excavation

1. When using hand or other root sympathetic excavation methods, carefully work around
roots, retaining as many as possible.
2. Any root greater in diameter than 50mm should not be severed without the express
permission of the responsible arboricultural officer.
3. Prune roots which have to be removed using a sharp tool (e.g. secateurs or handsaw).
Make a clean cut and leave as small a wound as possible.
4. Pipes should be carefully threaded between the undamaged roots.
5. Frost and heat can damage exposed roots. If trenches are to be left open for a long period,
cover the roots with damp hessian. Remember to remove the hessian before backfilling.
6. When backfilling a trench within a TPZ, consolidating the earth below and around the
service pipe to 95% compaction will inhibit the growth of roots around the service. Clean,
uncompacted backfill should be used above the consolidated region to allow roots to
recolonise the soil above the service

References on root management

Bernatzky, A. 1978, Tree Ecology and Preservation. New York: Elsevier Publishing.

Biddle, P.G. (1998), Tree root damage to buildings, Willowmead Publishing, Wantage.

British Standard 5837. 1991, Guide for Trees in relation to construction. British Standards Institute.

City of Auckland (1999), Annexure 5 – Guidelines for works within the vicinity of trees, City of
Auckland – District plan isthmus section – operative 1999.

Coder, K. D. (1996). Relative tolerance of tree species to construction damage, University of

Georgia

Coder, K. D. (2000). Soil Compaction & Trees: Causes, Symptoms & Effects, University of Georgia.

Gasson, P.E. & D.F. Cutler (1990). Tree root plate morphology. Arbor. J. 14, (3), 193-264.

Gilman, E. F. (1997) Trees for urban and suburban landscapes, Dilman publishers, New York.

Grabosky, J. (2003) Compaction in tree establishment and root zone protection. Tree care industry,
July 2003.

Page 60 of 80
Harris, R.W, (1992), Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape trees, shrubs and vines,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Harris, R.W, Clark, J.R. & Matheny, N.P. (2004), Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape
trees, shrubs and vines, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Helliwell, D.R. 1985, Trees on Development Sites. Arboricultural Association UK.

International Society of Arboriculture (2000) Guide for plant appraisal – Council of tree and
landscape appraisers (9th Edition), ISA, Champaign Illinois.

International Society of Arboriculture - UK (2001) Avoiding construction damage to trees, ISA UK&I,
West Midlands.

Kramer, P. J. & Kozlowski, T. T. (1979) Physiology of woody plants. Academic press Inc. San Diego,
California.

Matheny, N. & Clark, J. R. (1998) Trees and Development – A technical guide to the preservation of
trees during land development. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign Illinois.

Mattheck, C. & Breloer, H. (1997). The body language of trees – A handbook for failure analysis.
London: The stationery office.

Multinet Gas (2003), Multinet Gas engineering standard – Policy, directional boring, Multinet Gas.

Multinet Gas (1998), Multinet Gas standard procedure manual LP to Hp mainlaying – Large diameter
PE 110mm, 125mm, 160mm & 180mm, Multinet Gas.

National Joint Utilities Group (1995). Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of
utility services in proximity to trees. National Joint Utilities Group, London.

Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne & Philip Cox Sanderson (1995). Telstra CATV rollout –
Guidelines for installation in the vicinity of trees. Telstra Corporation.

Savio, R. (2001) Melbourne’s indigenous plant communities, in: Flora of Melbourne, Australian plants
society Maroondah– A guide to the indigenous plants of the greater Melbourne area, Hyland house,
Melbourne.

Sydnor, T. D. (N.D.) The response of Ohio’s native and naturalised trees to construction activity,
Ohio State University, Ohio.

Tattar, T.A. 1989, Diseases of Shade Trees, 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.

Watson, G. W. & Himelick, E. B. 1997, Principals and Practices of Planting Trees and Shrubs.
International Society of Arboriculture.

Page 61 of 80
Appendix 8 – Street Tree Selection Process:

Street Tree Selection Process.

Yes
Trees present? Go to Species
Assessment

No

Precinct
·Neighbourhood Character
·Urban Design Framework Refer to relevant
·Landscape Masterplan documents
·Image Outcomes

1. Hard
Landscape

1a. Road
hierarchy

(a) Arterial/Main
Yes
2 Commercial uses
Yes Go Planting Site
Yes present?
(b) Collector

Yes
3

(c) Local

1b.
Building
setback

No planting
(a) 0m-2m Yes recommended

No
Go to Planting Site
(b) >2m Yes

Page 62 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

2. Planting Site

Consider design
2a. Naturestrip/ Less than 1.5m Yes
solution, or
Yes
Median wide recommend no
planting.
No

>1.5m wide Yes Go to site

No assessment

Recommend no
2b. Cut-out Yes Less than 1m wide Yes
planting.
No

Design/
Greater than 1m
No Yes Infrastructure
wide
Solutions

2c. Roundabout,
Go to site
Kerb outstand, Yes
assessment
Raised planter

No

Consider - Site
2d. Combination/ Assessment,
Yes
Varies Planting Style &
Species selection

Page 63 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

3. Planting
Site Space

3a. Above
Ground
Space

Overhead Services Yes One side

Yes
No Note Type
None Yes
Both sides

Loaction of other infrastrutre; Refer to relevant feature

Existing street
Note shop front awnings, hydrants, Note restriction setback
features
light poles etc distance required
None

Overhead planting Available aerial space/volume

Note
space. for crown development

3b. Below
Ground
Root Space

Underground
Note Location Note Type
Services

Ground
surface space.

3c. Available
Ground
Space

Less than Recommend no

Yes
1.5m wide planting.

No

Go to Site
>1.5mm wide) Yes
Assessment

Page 64 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

Site Assessment

Soil
Suggested Tools and Materials Characteristic
- pH test kit s
- soil texture by feel instructions
- wash bottle filled with water
- at least 15 litres of water Texture
- paper towels
In the field, test for the soil texture using
- measuring tape
- shovel and/or trowel the soil texture-by-feel technique. If you
- plastic bags must know the exact soil texture, record
- wristwatch or timer the general soil type on the checklist and
- hand pruners collect several samples to be analysed by
- pencil / pen and extra paper a soils lab. Soil Texture
Optional tools
Diameter tape, penetrometer, soil probe.

Range of pH Levels.
Check the pH for several areas on
the site. Pay particular attention to
the pH near sidewalks and parking
areas, concrete or masonry pH level
buildings or foundations Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4

Drainage
The strongest indication of poor drainage
is mottled soil, so dig a soil pit at least 30- Percolation test Poorly
40cm deep and remove several clods for To test for percolation, dig a pit drained.
examination. If the clods have grey approximately 30cm deep. Fill the pit with < 2.5cm/hr
mottling and / or have a foul odour, the water to drain completely. Once water is
drainage is poor. completely drained, refill the pit with water
Moderately
Low-lying topography - study the and measure the depth of water and note the
drained. 2.5 to 15
topography for low-lying areas that collect time. After 15 minutes, note the depth of
cm/hr
surface runoff and may be poorly drained. water in the pit and calculate the rate of
Indicator plants - plants that indicate drainage in centimetres per hour.
poorly drained (wet) sites. Excessively
drained.
> 15cm/hr

Compaction Levels
Severely compacted
There are several ways to test for soil
compaction. Some of the simple ones are to use
a penetrometer and record the average depth of Moderate
penetration by the probe to the 200-psi level. compaction
Alternatively, you may take several soil cores
with a soil probe and analyse the cores for soil
density. Perhaps the simplest test is to dig a small Low compaction
pit and gauge the difficulty of hand digging.
Repeat the "shovel test" in several spots to test
for compaction levels. Not
compacted

Site
Assessment
continues

Page 65 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

Site Assessment
(Cont.)

Full sun (>6hrs.)

Sunlight Levels
Consider full sun as having more than 6 hours of direct
sunlight. Partial sun has direct sun (often morning sun) Partial sun
for less than 6 hours, or filtered light for most of the or filtered Sunlight Hours
day. An area is considered shady if it receives little or no light
direct sunlight, or if it receives less than 6 hours of
filtered light. Shade

Reflected
heat load

Other
Climatic
Frost
Factors Yes/No
pocket/dip

Wind

No
supplemental
irrigation
Irrigation

Automatic
irrigation
system

Go to Species
Selection

Page 66 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

Visual Assessment
of Existing Plants

Specie
s

Size
Height and spread of the Avg. Height:
trees. Trunk Diameter Avg. Width:
at Breast Height (DBH Avg. DBH:
at 1.4m) of existing
trees.

Growth Rate
Measure the length between the growing tip (terminal bud)
and the bud scale scar. Growth Rate:
Measure several branches on each tree you sample and record
the average growth rate. Less than 5cm growth is considered
poor, 5-15cm is moderate growth, and greater than 15cm per
year is vigorous growth. (Dependent on species)

General
Note aesthetic quality and general health of trees. Indicate Suitability:
mechanical injury to plant parts. Also note presence of
insects or disease.
Are trees suitable for existing site and add to the aesthetics
of the street?

Trunk assessment
Look for evidence of trunk wounds at the base. Also look for Trunk Damage:
excessive suckering or bark splitting. Note any trees that do
not exhibit a trunk flare (indicating either too deep planting or
recent regrading activity).

Roots
Note excessive surface rooting and girdling roots. These may
signify poor drainage, too-deep planting, and / or compacted Infrastructure/ Root Damage:
soils.
Test the stability and excessive movement of newly planted
trees by gently rocking them.
Check for excessive damage to adjacent hard surfaces,
footpath, road pavement, paving, private property.

Page 67 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

Visual Assessment of
Existing Plants
(Cont.)

Leaves and branches

Note trees whose leaves show marginal leaf scorch or small, off-
colour leaves that drop early in the late summer to autumn. Leaves & Branches:
Check branches for tip dieback. If there is significant dieback, is
it all on one side of the canopy or on both sides? Do all of one
species on the site exhibit the same symptoms of stress? Note
the presence of excessive epicormics, or other abnormality.

Are tree suitable to Change species if

No
site? site allows.

Yes

Go to Species
Selection

Page 68 of 80
 Street Tree Selection Process.

Species Selection

Precincts.
Characters based on landscape concept and urban design framework, hard surfaces,
kerb & channel construction, etc. Allows ability to correlate and compare areas of
similar characteristics (patterns). The visual quality of the precincts relates to the
elements that characterise them, e.g. street infrastructure.
Other considerations: Opportunities to link to Parkland. Presence of significant
avenues, Treatments for commercial and industrial areas.

Large

Deciduous Medium

Small
Species meet
Tree Species
requirements:
Design
· Aesthetic Make Selection
Preferences
· Biological
Large · Functional

Evergreen Medium

Small

Page 69 of 80
Appendix 9 – Recommended Tree Species Palette:

Minimum
Nature Cut- Kerb
Species Common Name Dimensions Nature strip Roundabouts
strip out Out-stand
width (m)

Small trees (5-10m)

Acacia implexa Lightwood 10x5-8 2
Acer buergerianum Trident Maple 6-10x3-6 2.5
Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping She-oak 5-10x4-8 2.5
Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle 10x6 2.5
Angophora hispida Dwarf Apple 3-7x3-7 2.5
Callistemon salignus Willow Bottlebrush 6-7x4 2
Callistemon viminalis Weeping Bottlebrush 6-8x4-8 1.5
Catalpa bignonioides ‘Nana’ Dwarf Indian Bean 3-5x2-5 2
Corymbia ficifolia Red-flowering Gum 6-10x6-10 3
Eucalyptus leucoxylon 'Eukie Dwarf' Yellow Gum 7x3-6 2.5
*Ficus microcarpa var. hillii Hill's Weeping Fig 8-20x5-15 1.5
Gleditsia triacanthos 'Elegantissima' Thornless Honey Locust 4x3 1.5
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 6-7x4-7 1
*Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel 10-15x10-15 1
Malus ioensis 'Plena' Bechtel Crabapple 6-8x5-7 1.5
Chinese Flowering
Malus spectabilis 'Plena' Crabapple 6-8x3-4 1.5
Melaleuca linariifolia Snow in Summer 6-10x4-8 2.5

Page 70 of 80
 Minimum
Nature Cut- Kerb
Species Common Name Dimensions Nature strip Roundabouts
strip out Out-stand
width (m)

Small Trees (5-10m)

Photinia serratifolia Chinese Hawthorn 4-8x4-8 2
Prunus cerasifera 'Nigra' Purple-leafed Cherry Plum 5-6x4-5 1.5
Tristaniopsis laurina Kanooka 5-10x3-6 2
Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' Swan Hill Olive 7-10x7-10 2.5
Ulmus parvifolia 'Todd' Chinese Elm 10x10 3
• Appropriate for minimum naturestrip widths, cut-outs and kerb outstands width only when only when grown as standard or topiary specimen

Note Remaining trees from Casey Arterial Roads Trees Strategy are presently being added to the list.

Page 71 of 80
 Minimum
Dimensions Nature Kerb
Species Common Name Nature strip Cut-out Roundabouts
(m) strip Out-stand
width (m)
Medium Trees (10-15m)
Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 6-15x6-10 2.5
Acer campestre Hedge maple 10-15x10-15 2.5

Acer truncatum × Acer platanoides

‘Norwegian Sunset’ Norwegian Sunset Maple 11x8 2.5
Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly 12x6 2.5
Allocasuarina littoralis Black She-oak 5-12x5-8 2
Allocasuarina torulosa Rose She-oak 5-12x3-6 2.5
Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia 10-15x4-8 3
Brachychiton acerifolius Illawarra Flame tree 10-15x6-10 3
Corymbia eximia Yellow Bloodwood 8-12x4-10 3
Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 10-15x5-10 3
Eucalyptus pauciflora Snow Gum 8-12x5-7 2.5

Eucalyptus pryoriana Gippsland Manna Gum 8-15x5-12 3

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Urbanite' Urbanite Green Ash 10-16x8-12 3
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 12-15x10-13 2.5
Lophostemon confertus Brush Box 10-15x6-10 3
Melia azedarach White Cedar 6-12x5-8 2.5
Pyrus calleryana Callery's Pear 15x10 2.5
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Callery’s Pear 12-15x8-10 2.5
* Bold Type indicates locally indigenous species

Page 72 of 80
 Minimum
Nature Kerb
Species Common Name Dimensions Nature strip Cut-out Roundabouts
strip Out-stand
width (m)

Large Trees (Over 15m)

Angophora costata Smooth-barked Apple 20x10-15 3.5

Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine 30-40x15 3.5
Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-oak 15-25x6-10 3.5
Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 25-30x15-20 3.5
Celtis australis European Nettle Tree 15-20x10-15 3.5
Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum 18-20x12-15 3.5
Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 12-30x10-20 3.5
Eucalyptus cephalocarpa Mealy Stringybark 8-22x6-12 3.5
Eucalyptus melliodora Yellow Box 12-30x10-15 3.5
Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box 8-25x6-15 3.5
Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red Ironbark 15-20x7-15 3.5
Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis Thornless Honey Locust 15-23x11-15 3.5
Maclura pomifera 'Wichita' Wichita Osage Orange 12-20x10-15 3.5
Platanus x acerifolia London Plane 15-30x15-25 3.5
Platanus orientalis Cyprian Plane 15-25x12-20 3.5
Quercus canariensis Algerian Oak 20-30x25 3.5
Quercus palustris Pin Oak 15-25x11-12 3.5
Quercus robur English Oak 12-20x10-20 3.5
Waterhousea floribunda Weeping Lilly Pilly 10-20x7-10 3.5

Green Vase' Japanese

Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase' Zelkova 18-24x15-18 3.5
* Bold Type indicates locally indigenous species

Page 73 of 80
Appendix 10 – Recommended Tree Species Evaluation:

This species list was developed after evaluation of the presented species using selected tree selection criteria. Tree data not included for individual criterion was not
available in current literature and no empirical data was available. Tree origin and type were included to facilitate the evaluation process. Explanation of rating vales
provided below.

Tolerance of frost

Pest and disease

Susceptibility to
Aerial Pollution
Waterlogging
Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of
Growth rate

Compaction

Aerial Salt
Longevity

Drought
1

9
Small Trees (5-10m) Common Name Type Origin
Acacia implexa Lightwood Evergreen Victorian Native 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2
Acer buergerianum Trident Maple Deciduous Exotic 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3
Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping She-oak Evergreen Victorian Native 2 2 N/A 1 3 3 3 N/A 3
Agonis flexuosa Willow Myrtle Evergreen Australian Native 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 3
Angophora hispida Dwarf Apple Evergreen Australian Native 2 2 N/A 1 3 1 2 N/A 3
Callistemon salignus Willow Bottlebrush Evergreen Australian Native 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 3

Callistemon viminalis Weeping Bottlebrush Evergreen Australian Native 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 3

Catalpa bignonioides ‘Nana’ Dwarf Indian Bean Deciduous Exotic 1 2 N/A 2 2 3 1 N/A 3
Corymbia ficifolia Red-flowering Gum Evergreen Australian Native 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 2
Eucalyptus leucoxylon 'Eukie
Dwarf' Yellow Gum Evergreen Victorian Native 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 3
Ficus microcarpa var. hillii Hill's Weeping Fig Evergreen Australian Native 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 2
Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honey
'Elegantissima' Locust Deciduous Exotic 1 3 N/A 2 1 2 N/A 3 3
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Deciduous Exotic 2 3 N/A 3 2 3 2 N/A 3
Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel Evergreen Exotic 2 2 N/A 2 3 3 3 2 3

Page 74 of 80
 Tolerance of frost

Pest and disease

Susceptibility to
Aerial Pollution
Water logging
Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of
Growth rate

Compaction

Aerial Salt
Longevity

Drought
1

9
Small Trees (5-10m) Common Name Type Origin
Malus ioensis 'Plena' Bechtel Crabapple Deciduous Exotic 1 2 1 N/A 1 2 2 2 2
Chinese Flowering
Malus spectabilis 'Plena' Crabapple Deciduous Exotic 2 2 1 N/A 3 2 1 2 2
Melaleuca linariifolia Snow in Summer Evergreen Exotic 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
Photinia serratifolia Chinese Hawthorn Evergreen Exotic 2 2 N/A 2 3 3 N/A 2 3
Purple-leafed Cherry
Prunus cerasifera 'Nigra' Plum Deciduous Exotic 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 N/A 2
Tristaniopsis laurina Kanooka Evergreen Australian Native 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 3
Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' Swan Hill Olive Evergreen Exotic 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 N/A 2
Ulmus parvifolia 'Todd' Chinese Elm Semi-Deciduous Exotic 2 2 2 2 2 3 N/A N/A 3

Page 75 of 80
 Tolerance of frost

Pest and disease

Susceptibility to
Aerial Pollution
Waterlogging
Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of

Tolerance of
Growth rate

Compaction

Aerial Salt
Longevity

Drought
1

9
Medium Trees (10-15m) Common Name Type Origin

Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood Evergreen Locally Indigenous 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 N/A 2

Acer campestre Hedge maple Deciduous Exotic 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3
Acer truncatum × Acer
platanoides ‘Norwegian Norwegian Sunset
Sunset’ Maple Deciduous Exotic 2 2 2 2 2 3 N/A 3 3
Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly Evergreen Victorian Native 1 2 N 2 2 2 2 2 3
Allocasuarina littoralis Black She-oak Evergreen Locally Indigenous 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 3
Allocasuarina torulosa Rose She-oak Evergreen Australian Native 2 2 N/A 2 3 3 2 2 3
Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia Evergreen Victorian Native 2 3 N/A 2 3 1 3 2 3

Brachychiton acerifolius Illawarra Flame tree Semi-Deciduous Australian Native 2 2 N/A 2 2 2 2 N/A 3
Corymbia eximia Yellow Bloodwood Evergreen Australian Native 3 2 2 3 3 2 N/A N/A 3

Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum Evergreen Victorian Native 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3

Eucalyptus pauciflora Snow Gum Evergreen Locally Indigenous 2 3 N/A 3 2 3 2 2 3
Eucalyptus pryoriana Gippsland Manna Gum Evergreen Locally Indigenous 2 2 N/A 1 2 2 3 N/A N/A
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
'Urbanite' Urbanite Green Ash Deciduous Exotic 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Deciduous Exotic 2 2 N/A 2 2 1 1 N/A 3
Lophostemon confertus Brush Box Evergreen Australian Native 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3

Melia azedarach White Cedar Deciduous Exotic 3 2 N/A 2 3 2 2 2 3

Pyrus calleryana Callery's Pear Deciduous Exotic 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Callery Pear Deciduous Exotic 2 2 N/A 2 2 3 N/A 2 3

Page 76 of 80
 Tolerance of Aerial Salt
Tolerance of Drought

Susceptibility to Pest
Tolerance of Aerial
Tolerance of frost
Waterlogging
Tolerance of

Tolerance of
Growth rate

Compaction

and disease
Longevity

Pollution
1

9
Large Trees (over 15m) Common Name Type Origin
Angophora costata Smooth-barked Apple Evergreen Australian Native 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 2 3
Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine Evergreen Australian Native 3 3 N/A 2 3 2 3 N/A 3
Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-oak Evergreen Australian Native 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Evergreen Exotic 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 3
Celtis australis European Nettle Tree Deciduous Exotic 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3
Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum Evergreen Australian Native 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2
Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum Evergreen Locally Indigenous 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 N/A 2
Eucalyptus cephalocarpa Mealy Stringybark Evergreen Locally Indigenous 2 2 2 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A
Eucalyptus melliodora Yellow Box Evergreen Victorian Native 2 3 N/A 2 3 3 3 N/A 3
Eucalyptus polyanthemos Red Box Evergreen Victorian Native 3 3 N/A 2 3 3 2 N/A 3
Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red Ironbark Evergreen Victorian Native 2 2 N/A 2 3 3 2 N/A 3
Gleditsia triacanthos var. Thornless Honey
inermis Locust Deciduous Exotic 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3
Maclura pomifera 'Wichita' Wichita Osage Orange Deciduous Exotic 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 N/A 3

Platanus x acerifolia London Plane Deciduous Exotic 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2

Platanus orientalis Cyprian Plane Deciduous Exotic 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3
Quercus canariensis Algerian Oak Semi-Deciduous Exotic 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Deciduous Exotic 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3
Quercus robur English Oak Deciduous Exotic 2 3 N/A 2 2 3 3 2 2
Waterhousea floribunda Weeping Lilly Pilly Evergreen Australian Native 2 3 N/A 3 2 2 2 N/A 3
‘Green Vase'
Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase' Japanese Zelkova Deciduous Exotic 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 3

Page 77 of 80
 Tree Evaluation Criteria

The rating for each criterion is explained below.

Growth Rate
3= Fast growth rate, typically 800mm plus per annum
2= Moderate growth rate, typically between 500-800mm per annum
1= Slow growth rate, typically less than 500mm per annum

Longevity
3= Long Lifespan
2= Moderate lifespan
1= Short Lifespan

Tolerance of Compaction
3= High tolerance to compacted soils
2= Intermediate tolerance to compacted soils
1= Low tolerance to compacted soils

Tolerance of Waterlogging
3= High tolerance to low soil oxygen levels (caused by waterlogging)
2= intermediate tolerance to low soil oxygen levels (caused by waterlogging)
1= Low tolerance to low soil oxygen levels (caused by waterlogging)

Tolerance of Drought
3= Maintains vigour and does not show symptoms of stress during typical summer
2= No obvious symptoms of stress during typical summer
1= May show symptoms of stress during typical summer

Tolerance of frost
3= High tolerance to frost
2= intermediate tolerance to frost
1= Low tolerance to frost

Tolerance of Aerial Salt

3= High tolerance to aerial salt
2= Intermediate
1= Low tolerance to aerial salt

Tolerance of Aerial Pollution

3= Successful growth in polluted urban settings
2= Intermediate growth in polluted urban settings
1= Unsuccessful growth in polluted urban settings

Susceptibility to Pest and Disease

3= Generally not prone to insect attack or disease that cause obvious damage
2= Intermediate susceptibility to insect attack or disease that cause obvious damage
1= Frequently subject to conspicuous damage by insect or disease

G:\Organisational Strategy Projects\Policy Documents\Council adopted\Tree Manual - Main Document and Appendix 1 to 10 (Version 1.1).doc