Port Fairy Tree Management Plan

Port Fairy Tree

Management Plan

Volume 1

November 2014

Port Fairy Tree Management Plan Moyne Shire Council

Homewood Consulting Pty Ltd

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank various people for their contribution to this project; Dr Peter May for his valuable technical support and insight on this project; Mr. Trevor Greenberger, Mr Richard Hodgens, Ms Michelle Granger, Ms Sally Hetzel and Ms Brett Anders, staff of Moyne Shire Council, for their help in defining project parameters and providing key documents and images.

Page 2 of 133



Executive Summary

Port Fairy’s street landscape is a significant asset to the local community and to the environment. It contains an urban tree population that provides numerous benefits including; shade and shelter for street users, cooling of the surrounds, a visual softening of the built landscape, contribution to stormwater management and provision of habitat corridors for wildlife, as well as contributing economically and environmentally to the township and benefiting the health and wellbeing of the community. Over the past decades there has been a significant decline in the street landscape character of Port Fairy. The urban tree population has been affected by extended periods of below average rainfall, tree decline from road/footpath upgrades, development of residential estates, resident requests for tree removal, large-scale removal of hazardous trees and lower numbers of replacement trees. The most dominant feature of the street landscape and the township skyline are the Heritage Victoria Registered (Number: PROV H2239) Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine), many of which are over 100 years old and amongst the oldest surviving plantings in Victoria. There is concern for the health and continued longevity of these impressive trees as there is growing pressure for the town to accommodate increased urban development. This includes: larger dwellings/residential buildings on smaller blocks sealed vehicle crossovers curb and channel drainage and; permanent car parks within the road reserve. An assessment of each tree has been undertaken to determine current health and condition and provide appropriate protective measures. 282 Araucaria heterophylla were individually assessed of which: the overall health and structure is good the most common structural problem is large included limbs in the canopy of 11 trees

(Trees 40, 42, 70, 119, 124, 191, 193, 212, 22, 260 & 273) these limbs have a higher likelihood of failure and a pruning program has been

recommended to reduce or remove these limbs over the course of 10-15 years. the majority are expected to have a useful life expectancy of greater than 40 years provided

management occurs overall they pose a very low risk of harm works have been recommended for 102 trees and allocated a priority. During the assessment it was observed that car parking, crossover refurbishment and other construction is impacting upon the trees’ root systems. If left unchecked, this will have a detrimental impact upon the health and longevity of the trees. Specific recommendations have been provided in this report for the protection and management of Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) to minimise the impact of infrastructure development and facilitate their longevity. In addition to addressing concerns with Heritage listed trees; a review of trees within the Port Fairy streetscape has been undertaken. An audit of each street found that 24 of the 79 streets within Port Fairy do not have any trees planted at all. The lack of street trees throughout much of the town has resulted in the opportunity to plant 1400 trees. This indicates that the street environment is relatively bare of trees and in the absence of the skyline dominating Araucaria heterophylla, the visual environment and streetscape would be barren and enclosed by buildings.

Page 3 of 133



Summary of Recommendations

Heritage Araucaria heterophylla Recommendations:

1. Any construction proposed within a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) triggers the requirement for a construction permit. a. As part of the permit conditions an arborist report must be provided for review by

Council and/or Heritage Victoria. The report must be completed by an arborist with an Australian qualification of AQF5, Diploma of Arboriculture as a minimum.

b. Non-destructive root investigation (Airspade®, Hydrovac or similar) must occur wherever previous and proposed construction/excavation encroaches >10% of the total TPZ area.

c. Alternative construction methodologies/materials should be considered for all construction within TPZs including: i. maintaining existing soil grades (i.e. minimise excavation and addition of fill) ii. non-destructive excavation methods (Airspade® Hydrovac or similar) iii. permeable materials for all hard surfaces including footpaths and crossovers iv. consideration of final landscaping (i.e. structures, seating or trees planted within the

TPZ area and competition for resources) 2. The Draft Standard Conditions for Crossover Development is reviewed, finalised and

endorsed by Council. 3. Best practice approach to parking under Heritage listed trees occurs through:

a. Determining compaction potential of the soil around the Araucarias b. Preventing cars parking within the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of any tree through the

installation of bollards, boulders or similar around the edge of the SRZ. c. Creating parking bays to provide direction to vehicles and maximise parking capability d. Control erosion due to car parking by installing soil stabilising structures

(e.g.Gravelpave2 or similar) or through the application of mulch. 4. Pruning works are carried out by qualified arborists with demonstrated experience in the

management of large and mature trees. Minimum qualifications for tree works are a National Certificate in Arboriculture AQF Level 4 arboriculture as a minimum.

5. All pruning undertaken conforms to the Australian Standard, Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS-4373 2007).

6. Recommended works are undertaken within the timeframe provided. 7. Notification of intended pruning or removal is provided to Heritage Victoria as per the

Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010 where works to Heritage listed trees occurs by energy suppliers or contractors.

8. Similar notification should be provided to Heritage Victoria where pruning works are to be undertaken by Council.

9. Emergency works where there is an imminent threat to human life or infrastructure damage (storm damage, failure clean-up etc.) should be conducted immediately in the absence of approval from Heritage Victoria. These works and reasons must be documented either prior to clean-up or within the week following and the documents retained at Council.

10. In a coordinated effort with the electrical distributor (Powercor), a cost benefit analysis for retrofitting current power lines with Aerial Bundle Cable (ABC) or undergrounding cables is undertaken for Heritage listed trees.

Page 4 of 133



11. Edging and mulch is applied around the tree base; covering the SRZ as a minimum to exclude works and car parking from this area. a. High use areas such as Gipps Street and the north end of Sackville Street as well as

trees in poor health should be targeted first. As budgets allow all Heritage listed trees should be mulched.

12. Branchlet collection occurs on a quarterly basis and residents are notified of this change in council policy.

13. Interpretive signage and/or a heritage walk describing the significance and history of these trees is developed in conjunction with the Port Fairy Historical Society.

14. An arborist walkover assessment of the trees occurs every 2 years to determine any significant change in condition and provide further management options.

15. A full reassessment of the trees should be conducted by an arborist every 6-8 years.

Street Tree Recommendations:

16. The priorities and procedures contained within the Street Tree Replacement Strategy and Street Tree Replacement Manual (Appendix 1) are endorsed and adhered to by council.

17. The 20 Cupressus macrocarpa located within James Street (south) are removed as a group within the next 12 months and new plantings are established in 2 years following public consultation.

18. Protection guidelines outlined in Australian Standard, Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970-2009) are enforced and included in planning and development documentation for all street trees.

19. The street tree removal policy and grievance procedure is implemented and made readily available to all residents in a user friendly manner on the Council website and in documents at Council offices.

20. All pruning work conforms to the Australian Standard, Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS4373-2007).

21. Uniformity in the height of canopy lifting occurs throughout Port Fairy, with guidelines endorsed and part of Council policy.

22. Following implementation of the Street Tree Replacement Strategy, a Street Tree Inventory is undertaken for Port Fairy to quantify the tree asset and determine management requirements.

Page 5 of 133



Short Term/ Specific Management Recommendations:

23. Araucaria heterophylla at corner of Bank Street and Sackville Street. a. Signs, lights or other objects that cause damage to the trunk/limb are not installed in the

tree and any existing lights or signage are removed. b. Within the SRZ.

i. the asphalt and concrete around the tree base is lifted carefully under arborist supervision

ii. raised box seating is installed around the trunk iii. mulch is laid underneath the seat and around the SRZ

c. Outside of the SRZ. i. the existing asphalt and concrete outside the mulched zone should be carefully

lifted under arborist supervision ii. porous rubber or other porous materials are considered for use in path

refurbishment 24. Cupressus macrocarpa at Martins Point

a. The specified trees are removed within 12 months. b. A wind break for the area is created around the perimeter of the park by creating

mounds with fill soil or through fencing/ panel installation. i. If mounds are used they should be planted with fast growing shrubby species to

provide screening and a more effective wind dampener ii. If soil levels and grade changes occur, drainage for the area must be considered

25. Bourne Avenue a. Improve the current conditions around the base of World War One Avenue of Honour

trees within Bourne Avenue. This should include: i. A mulched area around the base of the trees’ SRZs and bollards or boulders

installed to prevent parking ii. Crossover installation occurs to the council approved guidelines iii. Where there is significant encroachment within TPZs from existing crossovers, a

realignment should occur b. Reference to the significance of the avenue occurs and including:

i. memorial installation ii. interpretive signage iii. registration with the Avenues of Honour 1915-2015 project

26. Lagunaria patersonia throughout the Township a. Powercor is approached by Council to discuss complete removal of Lagunaria

patersonia rather than scheduled powerline clearance pruning b. cost benefit analysis should determine the viability of a collaborative approach to tree

removal c. if the trees are not removed by Powercor, systematic removal should occur as part of

the staged street tree renewal program by Council.

Page 6 of 133



Contents

1. Vision and Objectives ................................................................................................... 9

1.1 The Vision ................................................................................................................ 9

1.2 Goals ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 9

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 Key Documents ...................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Street Tree History .................................................................................................. 11

3. Current Management Issues ....................................................................................... 14

4. Heritage Araucaria heterophylla Management Plan .................................................. 16

4.1 Assessment Review and Discussion ...................................................................... 16 4.1.1 Health ............................................................................................................ 16 4.1.2 Structure ........................................................................................................ 19 4.1.3 ULE ............................................................................................................... 21 4.1.4 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 21 4.1.5 Recommended Works ................................................................................... 22

4.2 Relevant Overlays .................................................................................................. 26 4.2.1 Victorian Heritage Register (H2239) .............................................................. 26 4.2.2 Moyne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO48) ....................................... 27 4.2.3 Design and Development Overlay (DDO) ...................................................... 27 4.2.4 Works within Road Reserves ......................................................................... 28 4.2.5 Summary ....................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Specifications ............................................................. 28 4.3.1 TPZ Requirements ........................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Structural Root Zone (SRZ) .......................................................................... 30

4.4 Construction within TPZs ........................................................................................ 31 4.4.1 Encroachment ............................................................................................... 31 4.4.2 Crossover Development ................................................................................ 32 4.4.3 Car Parking ................................................................................................... 34

4.5 Tree Pruning Requirements-Araucaria heterophylla ............................................... 37 4.5.1 Canopy lift pruning ......................................................................................... 37 4.5.2 Power line Clearance ..................................................................................... 38

4.6 Mulch Application.................................................................................................... 38

4.7 Leaf/Branchlet Litter ................................................................................................ 39 4.7.1 Council Collection .......................................................................................... 39 4.7.2 Gutter Blockage ............................................................................................. 39

4.8 Araucaria heterophylla Interpretive Signage ........................................................... 40

4.9 Reassessment ........................................................................................................ 40

5. Street Tree Management Plan ..................................................................................... 41

5.1 Audit Review and Discussion .................................................................................. 41

5.2 Species composition ............................................................................................... 41

Page 7 of 133



5.3 Average Health, Condition and ULE ....................................................................... 42 5.3.1 Planting Opportunity ...................................................................................... 43

5.4 Street Tree Protection and Pruning ......................................................................... 44 5.4.1 Significant Tree Register ............................................................................... 44 5.4.2 Tree Removal Policy...................................................................................... 44 5.4.3 Street Tree Pruning Requirements ................................................................ 47

5.5 Competing Infrastructure and Services ................................................................... 47 5.5.1 Canopy Clearance Requirements .................................................................. 47 5.5.2 Management of Vegetation beneath Powerlines ............................................ 48 5.5.3 Specific Management Issues/Considerations ................................................ 51

5.6 Potential Corella/Parrot Damage ............................................................................ 56

5.7 Street Tree Replacement Strategy .......................................................................... 56 5.7.1 Notification (Minor Capital Works) .................................................................. 56 5.7.2 Consultation (Major Capital Works) ............................................................... 58 5.7.3 Implementation .............................................................................................. 58

6. References ................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix 1. Street Tree Replacement Manual ........................................................... 61

Appendix 2. Methodology and Data Collection Definitions....................................... 89

Appendix 3. Araucaria heterophylla Recommended Works Tables ......................... 94

Appendix 4. Araucaria heterophylla TPZ and SRZ Tables ...................................... 109

Appendix 5. TPZ and SRZ Maps ................................................................................ 124

Appendix 6. Replacement Species Descriptions ..................................................... 128

Page 8 of 133



1. Vision and Objectives

1.1 The Vision

The vision for the Port Fairy Street Tree Management Plan: “To have a street tree population that is attractive, sustainable, healthy, defines neighbourhood character and provides a pleasant environment for the community to live and work.”

1.2 Goals

This Management Plan will have four significant goals: Create a pleasant living, walking and cycling environment. Establish sustainable design principles and planting themes. Focus resources on the planning, implementation, protection and development of street

landscapes. Provide specific recommendations for the protection and management of Heritage listed

Araucaria heterophylla, particularly in relation to construction.

1.3 Objectives

Objectives in preparing the strategy have been to: Undertake an individual tree assessment of all Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla

outlining condition and works/management requirements Establish Tree Protection Zones that are in accordance with AS 4970-2009. Undertake an audit of all other non-Heritage listed streets detailing the dominant species,

number of trees, number of vacant sites general tree health and condition, general works and determine replacement management options and timeframes.

To create a single document that is a practical and realistic tool to manage, conserve, and enhance the existing street trees within the context of their historic importance, cultural and social values to the township.

Enhance the character and identity of the town through the identification of management regimes and timed replacement (only where necessary) of existing street tree stock.

Identifying appropriate street trees for newer areas of the town to compliment township character.

To provide a framework for a whole of Council approach to management of street trees having regard to heritage, traffic, access and arboricultural opportunities and constraints.

To incorporate collected and existing GPS data for GIS mapping layers and mobile data use.

Page 9 of 133



2. Introduction

Port Fairy’s street landscape is a significant asset to the local community and to the environment. Important benefits of urban vegetation include the provision of shade and shelter for street users, cooling, visual softening of the built landscape, contribution to stormwater management and provision of faunal habitat and generally creating a ‘green’ aspect to an otherwise built-up environment encouraging people to walk and cycle our streets. In recent years there has been a noticeable decline in the street landscape character of Port Fairy. The urban tree population has been affected by extended periods of below average rainfall, tree decline from road/footpath upgrades, development of residential estates, resident requests for tree removal, large-scale removal of hazardous trees and lower numbers of replacement trees. This has been exacerbated by the absence of a real-time street tree inventory to assist with the management of the street tree population. Protecting and expanding Port Fairy’s street tree population is critical in managing the impacts of urban growth, whilst ensuring that Port Fairy remains a healthy and enjoyable place for people to live and work, as well as support local fauna. To continue to improve Port Fairy’s liveability, Moyne Shire Council has committed to the vision of the Street Tree Replacement Strategy: “To have an Urban Forest* that is attractive, diverse, sustainable, healthy, defines neighbourhood character and provides a pleasant environment for the community to live and work.” An *Urban Forest is a dense, widespread growth of trees and plants covering an area of a city

The goals of the strategy are to: Create a pleasant living, walking and cycling environment Establish ecologically sustainable design principles and planting themes Focus resources on the planning, implementation, protection and development of street

landscapes Provide specific recommendations for the protection and management of Heritage listed

Araucaria heterophylla, particularly in relation to construction

2.1 Key Documents

There have been several documents used in the preparation of this report. These documents vary from reports detailing management issues associated with development near Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla along Gipps Street; a compendium on the history of Port Fairy street trees and the Moyne Shire Council tree management plan. These primary documents consist of: A brief history of the street and specimen trees of Belfast/Port Fairy 2006 The Port Fairy Heritage Review 2008 Victorian Heritage Register H2239- Norfolk Island Pines Moyne Shire Council Development and Design Manual 2009 – new urban development Draft guidelines for crossover construction near Norfolk Island Pines and other significant

trees 2008 Existing arboriculture reports for Norfolk Island Pines Documents from the National Trust Register. Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010

Page 10 of 133



AS 4970-2009 AS4373-2007 Council Arboriculture Victoria Reporting Guidelines for Developments (2008) Moyne Shire –Norfolk island pine concerns at Gipps Street, Port Fairy (Waters 2001) Moyne Shire – Norfolk Island Pine; Management Options (Waters 2004)

2.2 Acronyms

ABC, Aerial Bundled Cable AQF, Australian Qualification Framework AS 4970-2009, The Australian Standard for Protection of Tree on Development Sites AS4373-2007, The Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees CBD, Central Business District NDE, Non-Destructive Excavation QTRA, Quantified Tree Risk Assessment TPF, Tree Protection Fence TPZ, Tree Protection Zone calculated at 12x the trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level SRZ, Structural Root Zone according to Australian Standard Protection of Trees on Development Sites. ULE, Useful life expectancy WSUD, Water Sensitive Urban Design

2.3 Street Tree History

Port Fairy is a town steeped in a rich European history, commencing primarily with sealers, whalers and graziers during the early 1800’s. This was followed by the inception of the township originally named “Belfast” in 1843 by James Atkinson (Port Fairy Historical Society 2012). Details of species present at this time is limited; however, research by Syme (2006) suggests the dunes backing East Beach and Griffith Island were largely devoid of vegetation, Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood) was the dominant vegetation on the flats behind the Belfast Lough dunes and Allocasuarina verticillata (Drooping She-oak) and Banksia marginata (Silver Banksia) were predominant in the area west of the Moyne River. It is likely that the standard settlement practice of land clearing occurred to make way for farming and agriculture, with historical images up to 1870 revealing a landscape of few to no trees (Syme 2006). In an attempt to improve the visual landscape many of the early residents began planting trees, with one of the earliest noted being Michael Connolly, who planted some Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) in his garden circa 1852 (Heritage Victoria 2010). The species gained favour with other residents and council, with the first street tree plantings in 1876 on the west side of Sackville Street, between Campbell Street and Cox Street (Victorian Heritage Register 2010). Additional street plantings over ensuing decades combined with Arbor Day plantings in 1903 created the current rows or avenues of Gipps, Campbell, Albert, James, Regent, Sackville and William Streets (Victorian Heritage Register 2010). Other large-scale street plantings around this time and into the early to mid-1900’s included Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress) within Bank, Campbell, Cox and James Streets, the Princes Highway and Martins Point, as well as Allocasuarina verticillata (Drooping She-oak)

Page 11 of 133



along Wisharts Street and the southern section of James Street leading to the beach (Syme 2006) (refer Figure 1 and Figure 2 for examples.

Figure 1: Example of Cupressus macrocarpa located along James Street circa 1960

(Moyne Shire Photo Collection)

Figure 2: Early tile of southern James Street leading to the beach with Allocasuarina verticillata

(Moyne Shire Photo Collection)

Page 12 of 133



The Cupressus macrocarpa were used on opposing streets to Araucaria heterophylla within the original grid of the township. They were also used as an Avenue of Honour along the Princes Highway from Roberts Avenue to Bank Street. The use of these species was questioned around the 1950s due to the continued management requirements and shorter longevity compared to Araucaria heterophylla.

Advice was sought at the time from J.A. Incoll (Senior Forester of the Forest Commission Victoria) on planting selections which resulted in plantings of Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) and Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas Bush) (Syme 2006). Over the last couple of decades the Cupressus macrocarpa have widely been removed (Hodgens pers. comm. 2012), with some of the last remaining Cupressus macrocarpa located on James Street (south of Campbell Street) being in poor structural condition. These trees are in decline and they are not expected to be retained in the short-term. Today the most commonly planted street species are Araucaria heterophylla and to a lesser extent Agonis flexuosa (Western Australian Willow-myrtle), Lagunaria patersonii, Metrosideros excelsa and Olea europaea (Olive).

Page 13 of 133



3. Current Management Issues

The township of Port Fairy is a popular tourist destination, particularly for holiday accommodation, caravan parks, in private dwellings and larger developments. The permanent population of Port Fairy is approximately 2,500 people, however at busier times of the year, this population can rise to 10,000-13,000 over Christmas and New Years and approximately 30,000 people over the Folk Festival long weekend in March. There is a growing expectation that the town can and will accommodate urban/suburban development, such as larger dwellings/residential buildings on smaller blocks, sealed vehicle crossovers, curb and channel drainage and private permanent car parks within the road reserve. This inherently poses a threat to the health and longevity of street trees, particularly Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla within the central Port Fairy Township. There are several factors of concern, including: Potential compaction of the root zones and mechanical damage through car parking over

time additional vehicle crossover installation or crossover refurbishments excavation for services or other infrastructure storage of building materials placed throughout road reserves. Council’s Assets and Works Departments currently have a Tree Management Plan (2005) to manage, care for and maintain trees across the municipality; however it is not widely used. It is a document that moreover refers to all Council roads without specific recommendations. Any maintenance or works undertaken to street trees is currently undertaken on a case by case basis and are normally in response to service requests from landowners, observation by Council Staff and annual inspection by contractors. The 2014 management plan aims to address the main concerns and allow for adequate protection of these trees in light of modernisation and the high tourist population. It is Council’s position that a specific management plan is developed for the management of heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla in terms of: General health maintenance Pruning requirements Leaf litter Construction within TPZs Parking within TPZs As part of this management plan an individual assessment of all heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla located within the nature strips of Albert, Campbell, Gipps, James, Regent, Sackville and William Streets has occurred. 282 trees have been assessed, with an overview provided in in section -and individual tree details provided in Volume 2.

Page 14 of 133



In addition to the specific issues associated with Heritage listed trees, the Street Tree Management Plan provides recommendations for specific programs of tree planting including: species suitable to the site that consider management and maintenance issues appropriate spacing public safety overhead power lines the existing township character. To determine these factors, the existing tree population has been surveyed and site conditions considered. Details of this assessment have been provided in section, with the individual report for each street in Volume 3. Specific advice has been requested on a deteriorating stand of Cupressus macrocarpa located at Martins Point and also issues associated with Lagunaria patersonia that have been planted as a street tree. These and other issues have been specifically addressed in section 5.5.3.

Page 15 of 133



4. Heritage Araucaria heterophylla Management Plan

4.1 Assessment Review and Discussion

As part of this management plant an individual assessment of all Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla located within nature strips of Albert, Campbell, Gipps, James, Regent, Sackville and William Streets has occurred. 282 trees have been assessed, with an overview provided in the following sections and individual tree details provided in Volume 2.

4.1.1 Health

The overall health of the assessed trees is good, with only 16% of the entire population having fair or poor health (refer Table 1). This result is very different to the findings of Waters (2001), where 88 of the Araucaria heterophylla within Gipps Street were assessed. To compare this difference adequately the results from the 2012 assessment have been provided in Table 1. There is a marked difference in the assessment of tree health in Gipps Street from 2001 to 2012.

Table 1. Summary of health

Gipps Street (Waters 2001)

Gipps Street (2012)

All Trees (2012)

Health Number of Individuals

% Number of Individuals

% Number of Individuals

%

Good 5 6% 70 74% 237 84.0% Fair 43 49% 23 24% 41 14.6% Poor 40 45% 2 2% 4 1.4% TOTAL 88 95 282

Whilst there can be a difference between each arboricultural assessors opinion of tree health, it is expected that this would be a marginal shift from one category to another rather than a reversal of the upper and lower scales. It is therefore assumed that there has been an overall improvement in the health of the trees in Gipps Street. There can be numerous reasons for an improvement in tree health; however, the most common cause is an improvement in environmental conditions, namely water availability. When investigating the mean rainfall of Port Fairy from 1994-2013 it was found that rainfall was generally below average for the years leading to the 2001 assessment, whereas in the 6 years leading to the 2012 assessment there was above average rainfall (Bureau Of Meteorology 2013) (refer Table 2). This clearly shows that there was a reduced yearly water volume when compared to the mean prior to the 2001 assessments and an increased yearly water volume prior to the 2012 assessment. This difference is likely to have promoted leaf development and aided in overall tree health for the 2012 assessment.

Page 16 of 133



Table 2. Yearly rainfall and difference to mean (adapted from data BOM 2013)

Year Yearly

Rainfall(mm)

Difference to Mean

(682mm)

1995 583 -99 1996 613 -69 1997 582 -100 1998 602 -80 1999 564 -118 2000 640 -42 2001 719 37 2002 606 -76 2003 627 -55

Year Yearly

Rainfall(mm)

Difference to Mean

(682mm)

2004 755 73 2005 665 -17 2006 493 -189 2007 923 241 2008 721 39 2009 868 186 2010 838 156 2011 832 150 2012 764 82

The conclusion of the 2001 report was that: ‘the decline of the Norfolk Island Pines in Gipps Street is directly linked to the disturbance of the root zone around the base of the individual trees’ with the main factors being ‘the increase in the amount of vehicle traffic and parking combined with the advent of the newer vehicle crossovers’.

This finding can generally be applied to the 282 Araucarias assessed in 2012. Whilst the overall health of the trees has improved since the last assessment, the majority of the 41 trees in fair condition still have deadwood present and the canopies are sparser than trees in good health. As found in the 2001 report, the trees in poorer condition are generally located in areas where frequent parking occurs and where there has been disturbance of the soil environment from excavation for infrastructure such as footpaths, roads, crossovers, fences, dwellings etc. These works may have damaged significant roots or root complexes, although the extent of damage without knowledge of past excavation practices or subsurface investigation is impossible to establish. Due to these multiple disturbances it is difficult to determine the sole effect of parking beneath the canopies of the trees. In general, parking beneath trees is not desirable as this can cause compaction of the soil profile as well as a decline in soil health. Soils are normally composed of minerals (clay, silt, sand) of various sized particles that result in variable sized spaces (pores) between them (refer Figure 3). These pores allow for water and gas to move through the soil profile, with faster movement occurring through larger sized pores. Tree roots need nutrients in the soil, water, oxygen and other gases in the atmosphere to survive.

Figure 3: Example of soil particles and pore spaces between

(Handreck and Black 2002)

Page 17 of 133



Compaction ‘squashes’ the pores in the soil whilst fill/impermeable surfaces create a layer that inhibits or completely prevents water infiltration and gas exchange with the soil. This can occur through hard surface creation, landscaping and continuous pedestrian traffic, cars or trucks. This in turn limits water, oxygen and nutrients to tree roots, causing death or a decline which is reflected in the canopy of the tree. As a coastal township, the soil composition of Port Fairy is expected to be predominantly sand with a homogeneous particle size. Having a soil composed of predominantly one mineral type alters pore size and compaction potential. Compaction of homogeneous sand particles is relatively minimal from pressure, although it can be much greater through vibration (McIntyre and Jakobson 1998). Testing either onsite with a penetrometer or by sending soil samples off-site for testing can determine the compaction ability of the soil around the Araucarias. It is recommended that testing occurs to establish a best practice approach to parking beneath Heritage listed trees. In the absence of soil compaction potential a precautionary approach has been taken, where it is assumed that some level of compaction occurs that should be mitigated. Details of parking materials and methods have been supplied in section 4.4.3. Car parking within the nature strip is leading to soil erosion. This should be prevented as erosion can lead to damage and death of fine feeder roots and expose the larger transport and structural roots. Compaction and erosion issues have been addressed in the management options in section 4.4.3. Another factor in tree health is tree longevity. These trees are some of the oldest recorded in Victoria and it is possible that they are in the early stages of senescence. Senescence is a natural process of decline that a tree experiences following maturity. In natural decline, death occurs through a series of linked events that forms a ‘mortality spiral’ (refer Figure 4). This spiral occurs progressively, with the length of transition between decline and death usually correlated to the species’ life expectancy. As these are long lived specimens this process is expected to take several decades and will produce symptoms including: The shedding of limbs a reduction of foliage density an increased volume of deadwood throughout the canopy the discolouration of foliage a reduced ability to cope with disease and insect infestation a reduced ability to cope with decay.

Page 18 of 133



Figure 4: The ‘mortality spiral’ describes the process of decline from ‘vigorous’ to ‘dead’ as a result of specific biological, cultural and environmental factors (image from Harris, Clark and Matheny 1999).

4.1.2 Structure

The structure of the assessed trees is predominantly good, with almost 80% having good structure and only 14 individuals having poor structure (Trees 24, 40, 41, 92, 124, 132, 149, 150, 151, 152, 212, 221, 253 and 273). Table 3 provides an overview.

Table 3. Summary of structure

Structure Number of Individuals %

Good 220 78% Fair 48 17% Poor 14 5% TOTAL 282

The reason for this overall good structure is due to the excurrent nature of the species, where a strong central leader stem is produced and smaller branches that are well attached. The most common reason for the trees with poor structure are included branch and stem unions within the upper canopy (refer Figure 5 and Figure 6) for examples. In normal development, branches attach to the trunk of the tree via a series of interlocking wood fibres. As the tree grows, fibres from the branch are ‘overlaid’ by fibres from the trunk and then branch fibres overlay the trunk fibres (Shigo 1991).

Page 19 of 133



Figure 5: Example of included union in

the stem of a eucalypt

Figure 6: Included unions in the canopy of Tree 40

Where the angle at which the stems join is acute there can be a reduced fibre interlocking, leading to a weaker attachment. In some situations the wood fibres actually become ingrown. This is known as ‘included bark’ and can be readily identified in a stem crotch. As the limb gains girth, stress is placed upon the union and over time the union is forced apart. Trees with included bark have a higher probability of failure (Shigo 1991). Where two stems originate from the trunk and have similar dimensions they are termed codominant. In this case the mature Araucarias with large codominant stems have a higher potential for failure and significant damage to surrounding infrastructure, pedestrians and the trees themselves as a result. To prevent failures from occurring in these trees, works have been recommended of either stem removal if it is not too large or codominant stem reduction. Codominant reduction is a pruning program where the length of the stem is reduced through several pruning events over 10 or 15 years depending upon the size of the stem and the level of inclusion/decay visible. In most cases this is not entirely visible due to the height of the tree and an inspection of the unions is recommended to gain better perspective of the stem to be reduced. Rather than immediate removal, this type of work will allow for a better response for the tree as the retained stem section will still photosynthesize and produce energy. This will aid remodelling of the canopy and new branch/leaf development and promote the health of the tree during works. A staged reduction plan should be prepared by the climbing arborist that outlines how the works are to be completed, with reference to AS 4373-2007, Pruning Amenity Trees. Other structural issues with trees included deadwood present within the canopy and mechanical damage of the roots through excavation or vehicles damaging surface roots.

Page 20 of 133



4.1.3 ULE

The overall good condition of the trees and the long lived nature of the species are reflected in the length of their ULEs. The majority of trees are expected to have a ULE of greater than 40 years provided management occurs and they are protected in the advent construction (refer Table 4). Tree 150 is the only tree with a ULE of less than 20 years. It is a young tree that has had mechanical damage of the trunk and canopy that has resulted in numerous stems arising from the damage point. In this case formative pruning is not deemed appropriate and removal and replacement should occur.

Table 4. Summary of ULE

Rating Number of Individuals %

1-5 years 1 0.4% 20-40 years 21 7.4% 40+ years 260 92.2% TOTAL 282 100%

4.1.4 Risk Assessment

Different risk score methods can be utilised but the Risk Score Method that has been adopted is from Ellison (2005). For details of methodology see Appendix 2. The method used has the following elements. Probability of failure (PF) Size of part likely to fail (FS) Target occupancy (TO) The Ellison Risk Score methodology is probabilistic and the lower the value the higher the risk. The risk score is presented as a numeric value however it is properly expressed as a fraction e.g. Risk Score that equals 344 indicates that the predicted event has a 1/344 chance of occurrence. 1/1 indicates that an event is certain to occur and 1/10 000 000 indicates that it is extraordinarily unlikely. The three factors are multiplied to arrive at a Risk of Harm (ROH) according to the equation:

ROH = 1/(PF × FS × TO) An accepted threshold of risk is generally in the order of 1/10 000 and any tree that scores less than 10 000 would be expected to be worked upon within the next twelve months. The risk assessment has been categorized by Homewood Consulting ranging from ‘Very High’ to ‘Very Low’ risk of harm. The incremental rise between categories increases by orders of magnitude as the risk assessment operates on an exponential scale (refer Table 5).

Page 21 of 133



Table 5. Summary of the QTRA risk assessment categories

Risk Category Ellison Rating

Very High <1/5 000 High 1/5 000 to 1/10 000 Moderate 1/10 001 to 1/200 000 Low 1/200 001 to 1/5 000 000 Very Low >1/5 000 000

This revealed that overall the trees posed a very low Risk Of Harm (ROH) (refer Table 6 for an overview. The highest risk category is moderate, with Trees 24, 40, 119, 124, 193 being in this category. These trees have included unions that have been present for many years and rather than a high likelihood of failure, it is the large size of part likely to fail that is driving risk.

Table 6. Summary of risk

Risk Category Number of Individuals

Moderate 5

Low 11

Very low 266

TOTAL 282

4.1.5 Recommended Works

Despite the overall low level of risk, works have been recommended to reduce the likelihood of branch failures, particularly given the size of the part and the level of damage that would result. Other pruning works have been recommended to improve tree structure, improve the health and condition of the tree and promote ULE. To provide a summary these works have been categorised and allocated a priority (refer Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 7. Summary of works categories

Works Category Number of Individuals

No works 180

Specialised pruning 62

Minor pruning 23

Minor works 12

Climbing inspection 4

Removal & replacement

1

TOTAL 282

Table 8. Summary of works priority

Works Priority

Number of Individuals

Completion Timeframe

Urgent 16 Immediate/next pruning cycle

High 49 Within 1year Moderate 29 Within 2years

Low 8 Within 4years

None 180 N/A

TOTAL 282

Page 22 of 133



All trees with an urgent priority are those that require power line clearance which should be completed within the next power line clearance pruning cycle. These works are likely to be undertaken by Powercor as part of their power line management plan. As these are Heritage listed trees, notification to Heritage Victoria as per the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010 is required outlining; intended pruning or removal requirements, details of the impact of pruning and actions taken to minimise the impact (refer section 5.5.2.2 for details). For all other trees where pruning works are to be undertaken by Council, similar notification should be provided to Heritage Victoria and the documents retained at Council. Many of the trees with high priority works require power line clearance. 20 other trees require pruning or risk mitigation works. These trees have been listed in Table 9. Works for these trees should be commenced/completed within a 12 months. Full details of all other individual tree works can be found within Appendix 3 and Volume 2. Where emergency works (storm damage, failure clean-up etc.) are required these should be conducted immediately in the absence of approval from Heritage Victoria; however, these works should be documented either prior to clean-up or within the week following and the documents retained at Council. For the purpose of this report, emergency works are described as tree works that are immediately necessary to reduce an imminent risk posed by a tree or part of a tree to surrounding infrastructure or human life.

Page 23 of 133



Table 9. Works required for trees on a high priority

ID Street Planted

Canopy Dimensions

DBH Health Structure Defects Works Comments

7 William street

25m x 12m 115cm Good Good None Domestic LV clearance, LV wire clearance, Property/Asset clearance

Provide clearance of nearby light

24 William street

26m x 13m 106cm Good Poor Canopy codominant, Canopy included bark, Canopy hollow

Domestic LV clearance, Climbing inspection

Bees present in upper canopy, inspect included upper unions and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

40 William street

24m x 17m 131cm Good Poor Canopy included bark, Canopy codominant

Structural pruning, Climbing inspection

Inspect included upper unions and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

41 William street

21m x 17m 115cm Good Poor None Climbing inspection Tree crown damaged in storm, possible decay in upper stems, inspect unions and undertake a reduction program as appropriate

68 Sackville street

26m x 15m 114cm Fair Fair Roots mechanical damage, Roots filled soil level

HV wire clearance, Property/Asset clearance

Damage to surrounding infrastructure, remove lights from tree, reduce asphalt fill around base, mulch and install box seat

70 Sackville street

19m x 15m 104cm Good Fair Roots mechanical damage, Trunk mechanical damage, Trunk decay, Canopy included bark, Canopy codominant

Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program on appropriate stem

81 James street

23m x 15m 115cm Good Good None Property/Asset clearance Remove pipe out of tree

86 Albert street 20m x 17m 106cm Poor Fair Canopy deadwood Irrigation, Mulch required None

Page 24 of 133



ID Street Planted

Canopy Dimensions

DBH Health Structure Defects Works Comments

92 Albert street 20m x 13m 133cm Good Poor Roots mechanical damage, Trunk included bark, Trunk mechanical damage

Climbing inspection Cannot observe upper union, inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

95 Albert street 19m x 14m 110cm Good Fair Roots filled soil level Property/Asset clearance, LV wire clearance

Remove chicken wire around trunk

96 Albert street 17m x 11m 91cm Good Fair None Property/Asset clearance, LV wire clearance

None

100 Albert street 17m x 14m 86cm Good Fair None LV wire clearance, Property/Asset clearance

None

119 Regent street

25m x 13m 130cm Good Fair Canopy included bark, Canopy codominant

Structural pruning Reduce eastern stem over 10 year reduction program

121 Regent street

25m x 15m 119cm Good Good Canopy deadwood LV wire clearance, Remove broken branch

None

124 Regent street

22m x 15m 122cm Good Poor Canopy codominant, Canopy included bark

Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

143 Regent street

12m x 12m 75cm Poor Fair Trunk mechanical damage, Canopy deadwood

Irrigation, Mulch required Grading damage likely to roots

170 Gipps street 26m x 17m 141cm Good Good Roots mechanical damage Property/Asset clearance, Domestic LV clearance

Provide clearance of power pole

181 Gipps street 24m x 15m 132cm Good Good None Property/Asset clearance, LV wire clearance

Provide clearance of power pole

221 Gipps street 26m x 15m 132cm Good Poor Canopy included bark Structural pruning Reduce included stem over road 228 Gipps street 27m x 14m 127cm Good Good Roots filled soil level Root ball Maintenance Remove soil fill from base

Page 25 of 133



4.2 Relevant Overlays

There are two main instruments relevant to protection of the Heritage Listed trees within Port Fairy. These are a Victorian Heritage Register listing (H2239) and a Heritage Overlay (HO48) within the Moyne Planning Scheme. A Design and Development Overlay and Schedules apply to the entire township, with controls on material types and construction on private property within Tree Protection Zones. The following subsections highlight where tree controls apply and where construction within Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) can be reviewed through planning. This is an overview and original documentation should be viewed to determine exact requirements.

4.2.1 Victorian Heritage Register (H2239)

This listing applies to Albert Street, Campbell Street, Gipps Street, James Street, Regent Street, Sackville Street and William Street (refer to Figure 7). The aim of the listing is to ensure the protection of the trees and the aesthetic value of the wider streetscape during any works.

Figure 7: Streets to which the register applies

According to Heritage Victoria (Register H2239) a permit is required where: ‘Buildings and works associated with water, gas, power, sewer, drainage or similar services that occur within the road reserve will require an arborist report and the approval of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.’

‘Repairs to the asphalt road surface are exempt from a permit, however any excavation works, new vehicle crossovers and driveways within the road reserve will require an arborist report and the approval of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.’

Page 26 of 133



In relation to tree management this listing has provision for permit exemptions on the basis of: Management and maintenance of trees including formative and remedial pruning, removal

of deadwood, pest and disease control, cabling, mowing, weed control and mulching. In the event of loss or removal of trees, replanting with Araucaria heterophylla to maintain

the landscape character identified in the statement of significance. Removal of tree seedlings and suckers but excluding herbicide use. Management of trees in accordance with AS 4373-2007 Pruning amenity trees. Management of trees in accordance with AS 4970-2009, Protection of trees on

development sites. Removal of plants listed as Prohibited and Controlled Weeds in the Catchment and Land

Protection Act 1994. Repairs, conservation and maintenance to structures and hard landscape elements, asphalt

and gravel roads and paths, stone and concrete edging, fences and gates.

4.2.2 Moyne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO48)

Whilst section 43.01 of the Heritage Overlay has numerous elements relating to building demolition, refurbishment or other construction, it also contains tree specific information. According to the overlay, a permit is required to: Remove, destroy or lop a tree if the schedule to this overlay identifies the heritage place as

one where tree controls apply. This does not apply to: any action which is necessary to keep the whole or any part of a tree clear of an electric line

provided the action is carried out in accordance with a code of practice prepared under Section 86 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998.

If the tree presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property. Additional permit conditions are likely to be required under the Victorian Heritage Register listing.

4.2.3 Design and Development Overlay (DDO)

This overlay primarily details building and design specifications; however, there are several statements within section 43.02 that loosely allow for impact minimisation of construction within TPZs. According to this clause a permit is required to: Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply:

If a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required. To the construction of an outdoor swimming pool associated with a dwelling unless a

specific requirement for this matter is specified in a schedule to this overlay. Construct a fence if specified in a schedule to this overlay. Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with any requirements in a

schedule to this overlay. A schedule may include requirements relating to: Building setbacks. Building height. Plot ratio. Landscaping. Any other requirements relating to the design or built form of new development.

Page 27 of 133



A permit may be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works which are not in accordance with any requirement in a schedule to this overlay, unless the schedule specifies otherwise.

Various schedules exist to this overlay; however, there are common requirements: Setbacks

Building should be setback from front, rear and side boundaries to reflect the pattern of buildings within the landscape lots that is characteristic of the area.

The setback of new buildings should retain the established development pattern. Carparking, garages and outbuildings

Garages, outbuildings and areas allocated for the parking of vehicles should be sited to minimise visibility from the street and be designed to be consistent with the character of the area.

Driveways should be developed with a permeable surface wherever possible. The combined site coverage of buildings and impermeable surfaces should respect the

pattern of building and open space of the area. Landscaping and fencing

Front fencing and landscaping should reflect the ‘buildings in landscape character’ of the area and enable passive surveillance to the street.

4.2.4 Works within Road Reserves

At present a permit for works is required from Moyne Shire Engineering for works within road reserves such as the construction of crossovers, landscaping, planting of vegetation and the construction of fencing.

4.2.5 Summary

The controls over building setbacks inherent in Rescode and the Design and Development Overlay have the potential to provide sufficient protection to sections of the Heritage Listed Norfolk Island Pines’ TPZs that fall inside private property. This can be achieved through ensuring appropriate setbacks and designs as specified within the planning tools as well as ensuring construction is sympathetic to the trees. For works within the road reserve which trigger a ‘Works within Road Reserve’ permit, construction of crossovers are to include best practice methods to ensure Araucaria heterophylla roots are protected according to the relevant Australian Standard. The accepted protocol for construction of crossovers within TPZs is detailed in section 4.4.2 Crossover Development.

4.3 Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Specifications

In accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, all retained trees should be afforded protection of their above ground (trunk, canopy etc.) and below ground (roots) components during construction. To facilitate protection the TPZ and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of each heritage listed tree has been determined. These dimensions are supplied in Appendix 4.

4.3.1 TPZ Requirements

Damage to trees during development can be direct and indirect. Direct damage includes mechanical injury to the trunk, the severing of roots, or alterations to the soil environment in the immediate vicinity of tree roots (i.e. compaction or loss of organic matter).

Page 28 of 133



Indirect effects of site development are usually related to soil hydrology. This includes alterations to soil moisture content, changes in the level of the water table and drainage patterns (Coder 1995). The most common method of protecting trees during construction is by establishing a TPZ. These dimensions have been calculated according to AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites multiplying the trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level (DBH) by 12 to a maximum of 15m radius. The TPZ should be a physical barrier of protective fencing that is a minimum of 1.8m high. It is erected around retained specimens (at the edge of the TPZ) before site works commence (refer Figure 8). Hi visibility bunting or parawebbing is not sufficient to protect trees.

Figure 8: TPZ fencing is erected around retained trees prior to site works.

Careful adherence to the following exclusions and inclusions will maintain the health and longevity of retained tree specimens. Exclude the following from taking place within any TPZ (adapted from AS 4970-2009): built structures or hard landscape features (i.e. paving, retaining walls) materials storage (i.e. equipment, fuel, building waste or rubble) soil disturbance (i.e. stripping or grade changes) excavation works including soil cultivation(specifically surface-dug trenches for underground

utilities) placement of fill lighting of fires preparation of chemicals, including preparation of cement products pedestrian or vehicular access (i.e. pathways). Include the following procedures in setting up and maintaining any TPZ (adapted from AS 4970-2009):

Page 29 of 133



erect warning signs at regular intervals along the entire length of any protective TPZ fencing (Figure 9)

construct TPZ fencing to prevent pedestrian access into the protected area. mulch the TPZ area to a depth of 150mm with woodchips (if available, use woodchips

generated from on-site tree clearing). irrigate TPZs periodically, as determined by the consulting arborist. TPZ guidelines need to adhere to all stages of the design and construction process and are relevant to all on-site utilities.

Figure 9: Examples of TPZ warning signs

4.3.2 Structural Root Zone (SRZ)

The SRZ is the minimum volume of roots required by the tree to remain stable in the ground. If the SRZ is breached the chances of windthrow are significantly increased, especially if roots are cut on the same side as prevailing winds. Windthrow is an event where the entire tree fails/falls over. Often, the tree is completely uprooted with devastating results. It is important to note that the SRZ is not related to tree health. It refers to the physical volume of roots required for the tree to remain stable in the ground. It is in no way related to the physiological requirements of the tree, but is the minimum volume of roots required for the tree to remain standing. (Mattheck and Breloer 1994). The SRZ dimension for each tree has been provided in Appendix 4. An overview of TPZ and SRZ dimensions have been represented to scale in Appendix 5. Greater detail of individual dimensions is supplied for each tree in maps within the individual tree report in Volume 2.

Page 30 of 133



4.4 Construction within TPZs

Whenever construction is proposed within a TPZ, an arborist report must be provided for review by Heritage Victoria and/or Moyne Shire Council. The report should follow the Council Arboriculture Victoria Reporting Guidelines for Developments (2008) and the specifications within the Australian Standard Protection of trees on development sites (AS 4970-2009). It should provide a comprehensive assessment of the current health and structure of the tree and consider heritage, cultural, ecological and landscape values. This report must assess the likely impact of construction/works upon the tree and its future longevity. The arborist report should refer to and adopt methodologies outlined in AS 4970-2009. When considering applications within the TPZ, additional construction/excavation within TPZs in the last 5 years must be considered, particularly in regards to encroachment thresholds. There must be no construction or excavation proposed within the SRZ of any tree. Non-destructive root investigation (Airspade®, Hydrovac or similar) should occur wherever proposed construction/excavation encroaches >10% of the total TPZ area; with the findings included in the arborist report. Alternative construction methodologies/materials should be considered for all construction within the TPZ. This should include: Maintaining existing soil grades Minimising excavation Non-destructive excavation (Pneumatic or Hydraulic excavation or similar) Permeable materials for all hard surfaces Consideration of final landscaping (i.e. trees planted within the TPZ area) Further information will be requested by council wherever the level of impact upon the tree/s is likely to result in the reduced aesthetic value and/or longevity of the tree/s. This request for further information must detail how the impact can be minimised to a satisfactory level.

4.4.1 Encroachment

Some construction encroachment into the TPZ is allowed as per AS 4970-2009. This is broadly classified minor and major encroachment and is determined by the degree of encroachment into the TPZ.

4.4.1.1 Minor encroachment Encroachment of less than 10% of the TPZ and outside the SRZ is deemed to be minor encroachment according to AS4970-2009. Detailed root investigations should not be required but must be compensated with an extension to the TPZ elsewhere (refer Figure 10). Variations must be made by the project arborist considering other relevant factors including tree health, vigour, stability, species sensitivity and soil characteristics.

Page 31 of 133



Figure 10: Example of TPZ encroachment and

compensatory offset (image from AS 4970-2009)

4.4.1.2 Major encroachment AS 4970-2009 Encroachment of more than 10% of the TPZ or into the SRZ is deemed to be major encroachment according to AS 4970-2009. The project arborist must demonstrate that the tree(s) would remain viable. The area lost to this encroachment should be compensated for elsewhere and contiguous with the TPZ. This may require root investigation by non-destructive methods and consideration of relevant factors tree health, vigour, stability, species sensitivity and soil characteristics.

4.4.2 Crossover Development

There has been a draft set of standard conditions written to try and assist the process of gaining a Heritage Victoria permit for the construction of a vehicle crossover within a road reserve that contains Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla. Whilst these documents are used as an interim guide, they are not a whole of Council Policy and they have been developed as an engineering solution for the most part. This draft document provides some good initial guidelines; however, some modification can occur to reduce the impact of crossover installation upon Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla. A major problem with applying a generic design template is that tree roots are opportunistic and will grow where conditions are the most suitable. They will always grow through soil in the path of least resistance and they will only continue to grow if soil conditions are favourable (Raven and Johnson 1992). This means that tree root growth does not fit a standard, with their size, depth and location variable between trees. With this variability in mind the original draft document is referenced below, with alteration and additional comments supplied to ensure that minimal damage occurs to the root zone within the TPZ.

Page 32 of 133



Draft Standard Conditions Vehicle Crossover Works under Norfolk Island Pines – Port Fairy Crossover Approval

Crossovers to the lot(s) would be approved subject to the following: Crossover is constructed to levels set by Council Grades of fall as per attached sketches No crossover is to be constructed until boxing / stringline levels are approved by Council. Council recommends that internal drives are not constructed until the design levels are

confirmed by Council. The Tree Protection Zone and Root Zone should be shown in relation to the tree, and new

crossover The new crossover should mostly be at the existing gradient; up to 10% encroachment into

the Tree Protection Zone can be accepted. The materials used for construction should be permeable to the sub-grade.

If greater than 10% encroachment is required or excavation below the existing grade is required, a non-destructive pneumatic or hydraulic excavation (NDE) or similar must occur by an arborist with AQF arboriculture level 4 minimum for a preliminary root investigation. The excavation should follow along the proposed excavation lines on both sides of the crossover. The report should provide photographs of and detail: the number and diameter of roots encountered their location in relation to the design plan the likely impact upon the roots and tree health.

Where large and significant roots (>60mm) or large root complexes (i.e. more than 5 roots 20-60mm diameter within 1m2 area) are encountered mitigation & compensation measures to retain these roots must be provided. This may range from alternative design options, permeable material use, and improvement of the TPZ area where construction is not proposed with mulch.

Several options that may be appropriate are provided in the report Moyne Shire – Norfolk Island Pine; Management Options (Waters 2004) which should be considered. General Crossover Construction Points

All works should be compliant with Australian Standard AS 4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites;

A Tree Protection Fence (TPF) must be erected on the perimeter of the construction area (as per section 4.3.1) for the period of construction;

Crossovers to be constructed with approved concrete pavers or other council endorsed product in the planning permit, as per sample previously submitted to Council

No debris is to be placed within the road reserve or TPZ area as per AS 4970-2009; Depending upon the council approved design plan, excavate a trench by hand or non-

destructive excavation (NDE) the full length of each crossover (on each side of the crossover) to the depth required to install the subgrade material.

Should any roots be located during this excavation, the entire root within the proposed crossover area must be exposed either by hand or NDE.

Once the roots have been exposed, the remainder of the crossover area can be carefully excavated to the required depth by machine.

Page 33 of 133



A 20mm sand bed should be provided, with approved hollow concrete pavers overlaid to level where finished surface is flush with new surrounding topsoil levels.

Voids in pavers should be filled with topsoil and grass seed The finished level at each building line shall be as marked by Council on survey stake The maximum crossover width is 4m A fall in the crossover from the building line toward the road of 40mm, for a distance of 2m

shall be provided to allow for any future footpath construction Nature strip areas must be appropriately top soiled (recommended combined depth of

existing and new top soil is 250mm), grassed, watered and temporarily fenced from pedestrian and vehicle access for a sufficient period of time to ensure adequate re-establishment.

4.4.3 Car Parking

Car parking is a premium commodity in Port Fairy, particularly over the peak tourist periods where there is a spike in vehicle numbers. This often results in cars being parked wherever there is apparently vacant space. As there is a lack of formal parking bays this often results in cars parking beneath the Araucaria heterophylla canopies and up to the trunk. As discussed in section 4.1.1, parking has the potential to compact the pores in the soil and cause erosion of the soil surface. Whilst the coastal township is expected to have a soil composition that is predominantly sand where compaction is relatively minimal, the issues associated with soil erosion and potential root damage still remain a concern.

Soils are composed of different particles that make horizons naturally through the soil profile . Figure 11 provides a general example and whilst not all these horizons are likely to be present at Port Fairy, the O and A horizons do exist and these are crucial to the nutrient levels of the soil. Car parking can cause compaction or erosion of the O and A horizons. This in turn can impact upon tree health as reduced mineral availability in the soil can reduce tree vigour, which decreases the tree’s ability to tolerate impact such as root damage, pest/disease, drought etc. Mechanical damage of exposed roots at the soil surface is also more likely following erosion of the soil surface. Grass loss at the top of the soil surface can increase the rate of drying in the soil particularly over summer, resulting in less water availability to tree roots.

Figure 11: General soil profile and horizons (Ashman and Puri 2002)

Page 34 of 133



Erosion can be controlled by installing soil stabilising structures or through the application of mulch. An example of a soil stabilising structure is Gravelpave2, a structure that provides a heavy load bearing support and true containment of gravel to create a porous surface with unlimited traffic volume and/or duration time for parking (Invisible structures Inc. 2011) (refer Figure 12).

Figure 12: Example of Gravelpave2 grid structure with geotextile fabric and aggregate fill.

This or a similar system is ideal to be installed where car parking is proposed as it will contain the aggregate, allow for water and oxygen infiltration and distributes the load of a parked car. Geotechnical engineer's recommendations and manufacturer specifications are required for a proposed design and implementation to provide adequate support. Mechanical damage of surface roots and the tree trunk should be avoided in either system by ensuring there is no parking allowed within the SRZ (refer Appendix 4 for SRZ specifications). This can be achieved with the installation of bollards or boulders at the periphery of the SRZ. If bollards are to be installed they will require careful hand or non-destructive excavation to ensure that large roots are not damaged. If roots >40mm are encountered, the position of the bollard should be shifted to ensure that the root is retained. To maximise parking bays can be created. This can involve simple line marking where hard surfaces are created or alternatively, the installation of pine posts at the surface. These will require anchoring into the ground with a spike or some other fixing solution. Careful excavation and investigation for any roots beneath the proposed post location should occur to the required depth. Post relocation or alternative methods should occur where roots >40mm are encountered that will be damaged. These tops of the posts can be painted to provide further visual cues for parking location (refer Figure 13). Bollard installation should be installed in high demand areas for parking first (e.g. Gipps St, North end of Sackville St), with other areas to have installation as budget allows.

Page 35 of 133



Figure 13: Example of pine posts used to create parking bays

Page 36 of 133



4.5 Tree Pruning Requirements-Araucaria heterophylla

Pruning works must be carried out by fully qualified arborists with demonstrated experience in the management of large and mature trees. The minimum qualification should be: A National Certificate in Horticulture (Arboriculture) AQF Level 4. All pruning undertaken must conform to the AS-4373 2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Guidelines for general tree pruning have been provided in section 5.4. Tree pruning specifications for power line clearance has been provided in section 4.5.2.

4.5.1 Canopy lift pruning

There has previously been uplifting of Araucaria heterophylla at varying heights, with some trees within Sackville Street raised approximately 8m (refer Figure 14). Varying lifting heights creates inconsistency across the uniform plantings and can be deleterious to tree health and longevity. This level of clearance is extreme and is not warranted for traffic or pedestrian access. To resolve these issues canopy lifting for all street trees will be undertaken in accordance with canopy lifting guidelines in section 5.5.1. This should be a minimum 2.5m over footpaths and 4-5.5m over roads, depending upon the requirements of the road classification.

Figure 14: Trees along Sackville Street that have been canopy lifted to approximately 8m

Page 37 of 133



4.5.2 Power line Clearance

Given the Heritage listing of the trees it is recommended that power line clearance is monitored closely. All pruning events and associated documentation should be recorded. The level of clearance required for heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla should be strictly in accordance with Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010. According to these regulations:

‘the responsible person must create and maintain the required clearance space around these trees. In relation to trees of cultural or environmental significance, the cutting or removal thereof should be restricted to the minimum extent required to ensure compliance with the code’.

Pursuant to this, ‘notification of intended cutting or removal is to be provided when the responsible person intends to cut or remove a tree of cultural or environmental significance for power line clearance’.

Details must be provided of: the impact of the cutting or removal of the tree; and the actions to be taken to minimise that impact.

Notice must be given: at least 14 days and not more than 60 days before the intended cutting or removal is to

occur; and in writing or by publication in a newspaper circulating generally in the locality of the land in

which the tree is to be cut or removed. Additional power line options have been discussed in section 5.5.2, with details of minimum clearance spaces for Aerial Bundled Cable (ABC) and insulated lines have been provided in Table 13 and Table 14 of this section.

4.6 Mulch Application

Mulching heritage trees is important as, whilst many of these trees are in fair condition, they are vintage trees that will become more susceptible to injury or trauma as time progresses. As they continue to age they will also have a reduced ability to recover from injury or trauma, which may lead to a rapid decline. This has the potential to significantly alter the landscape of the township. Mulch has many benefits to plants including: Soil moisture conservation Soil compaction reduction Grass and weed suppression Reduction in soil erosion Soil structure improvements An increase in soil fertility Moderation of soil temperature on a diurnal and seasonal basis (Harris, Clark & Matheny

1999)

Page 38 of 133



Where car parking is not proposed it is recommended that mulch is applied, particularly within the SRZs. Shallow edging can be installed to retain the mulch in place. Investigation of the roots beneath the proposed post location should occur to the required depth to ensure that damage to tree roots is minimal. Where roots >40mm are likely to be damaged the edging will require repositioning or alternative methods sought for installation. Whilst this type of installation will benefit all trees, the priority of installation should be for trees in poor health, followed by trees with fair health and finally trees in good health.

4.7 Leaf/Branchlet Litter

4.7.1 Council Collection

Leaves, nuts, fruits or smaller sized branches and deadwood will drop from trees from time to time. This is a natural occurrence and does not warrant the removal of a tree; however, to aid in aesthetics and ‘cleanliness’ of the streetscape council provides support to residents with branchlet clean-up. At present the system for the collection of the leaves and branchlets of nature strip trees involves the resident collecting and piling the leaves on the nature strip and contacts council to notify that removal is required. A small skid steer loader (i.e. Bobcat) is then used by Council staff to pick up and remove the branchlets. This system is inefficient and costly in its application on a case by case basis and as such, a branchlet collection is to be implemented. Council will conduct branchlet collection on a quarterly basis, with residents required to pile all branchlets from their property on the nature strip in the week leading up to collection. Any branchlets located on residential property will not be collected by council staff. If desired, residents can clear branchlets from their nature strip and dispose of these at their own expense at any other time of the year. In the event of high winds or storms an increase in branchlet drop may occur. A council representative will assess the volume of these branchlets and may implement an interim clean-up. This will be entirely at Council’s discretion and depend upon budget allowances at the time.

4.7.2 Gutter Blockage

Leaf drop onto the roof of any proposed residential construction in close proximity of the existing trees is inevitable. These leaves and branchlets have the potential to block gutters, resulting in localised flooding and premature rusting of stormwater components. Removal of leaves, debris and branchlets from gutters is considered ordinary home maintenance and is the responsibility of the private property owner. Gutter guarding may be beneficial (refer Figure 15), although where buildings are subject to Heritage Overlays, the design may require approval from Heritage Victoria prior to installation.

Figure 15: Gutter guarding on a tiled roof.

Page 39 of 133



4.8 Araucaria heterophylla Interpretive Signage

As a township steeped in history, many of the buildings, roads and trees are heritage listed. The significance of buildings and roads has been communicated to visitors of Port Fairy through interpretive signage throughout the township (refer Figure 16). The significance and history of the trees, particularly the Araucaria heterophylla within Port Fairy can also be described using interpretive signage. This could be incorporated with the building and street information to create a heritage tree walk within the township. It is envisioned that the Port Fairy Historical Society could take a lead role in a joint venture.

Figure 16: Informative plaque at the corner of Bank and Sackville Streets

4.9 Reassessment

It is recommended that a walkover assessment of the trees occurs every 2 years to determine any significant change in condition or damage and provide management options. This will ensure that the trees remain at an acceptable level of risk and remain a long-term feature within the wider landscape. A full reassessment should be conducted every 6-8 years.

Page 40 of 133



5. Street Tree Management Plan

5.1 Audit Review and Discussion

A total of 79 streets have been assessed as part of the audit, 5 of which have been split into separate assessment sections due to either distinct a change in existing vegetation type or future planting requirements. Bank Street, Griffiths Street, James Street and the Princes Highway have 2 sections each and Sackville Street has 3 sections due to a lack of planting opportunity within the central business section. This has resulted in 85 audit areas. Of these areas, there are 25 that do not contain any trees at all.

5.2 Species composition

There are a total of 1150 trees within the streets of Port Fairy, with the predominant species being Australian natives, with a smaller proportion of exotic species, such as Olea europaea (Olive) and Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress). Figure 17 provides an overview of the number of each species, where it can be seen that Araucaria heterophylla represent the largest number of street trees assessed.

Figure 17: Predominant species composition

Page 41 of 133



5.3 Average Health, Condition and ULE

The average condition and longevity of each assessment area has been completed for the audit. Table 10 provides these values and it can be seen that the average health of the majority of the trees within the streets is good and the average structure is fair. The average ULE of most is relatively long at 10-20 years or greater.

Table 10. Average ratings and number of assessed areas

Average Health Average Structure Average ULE

Good 48 Good 16 20+ years 24

Fair 9 Fair 38 10-20 years 28

Poor 3 Poor 6 5-10 years 5 N/A* 25 N/A* 25 1-5 years 2 0 years 1 N/A* 25 TOTAL 85 85 85

*This category represents audits where there are no trees present.

The 3 streets with poor average health are Brophy Street, Powling Street and Uebergang Street, which is also reflected in their short ULEs of 1-5 years and 0 years. These streets have been recommended for complete renewal as a very high priority (refer Appendix 1 section 1.3). The 6 streets that have poor average structure are Barclay Street, Brophy Street, Cooinda Court, James Street (south section), Powling Street and Uebergang Street. In relation to these streets, James Street (south section) is of the most concern as it contains 20 Cupressus macrocarpa that create a closed avenue and are the remnants of what was originally a widely planted species in Port Fairy streets. These trees are in a state of decline, with many showing signs of decay, splitting or evidence of previous failures and multiple pruning events as part of ongoing management (refer Figure 18). These trees are amongst the most likely to have short-term failures. Vehicles frequently pass beneath them due to a caravan park entrance being located on James Street. As such, it is recommended that all these trees are removed as a group within the next 12 months and new plantings established.

Figure 18: Example of Cupressus macrocarpa in James Street tree in poor condition

Page 42 of 133



Whilst the majority of trees on Barclay Street also have poor structure, the reason for this is that the Lagunaria patersonia at the northern section are lopped on a frequent basis for power line clearance. This creates an unnatural structure; however, these trees will continue to be lopped for power line clearance and as such, failures are unlikely. These trees can be retained for 10-20 years with ongoing pruning.

5.3.1 Planting Opportunity

With the large scale removal of most Cupressus macrocarpa, the aging tree population and recent land and housing development, there is the potential for widespread renewal of the streetscape within Port Fairy. There are a total of 1417 vacant sites at the time of assessment, with 24 streets not having any trees planted at all. This indicates that the street environment is relatively bare and if not for Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla, trees on private property and public reserves, the visual environment would be dominated by buildings. A priority category has been allocated to each street on the basis of: Street prominence (i.e. streets located around central business area and those containing

Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla) Streets that do not contain any trees or require complete renewal Streets with a high percentage of vacant sites compared to the total number of sites Streets with a high number of vacant sites (i.e. >30) Longevity of trees and future removal likelihood.

Full details of each category criteria can be found in Appendix 1 section 1.3. Table 11 provides an overview of the number of streets in each category.

Table 11. Overview of replacement priority

Priority Number of Streets

Very High 25 High 32 Moderate 13 Low 4 Very Low/None 11 Total 85

As there are a large number of streets with high and very high replacement priorities, further delineation is required to provide a replacement order. This has been achieved by splitting the township into five areas. This is based upon the central township having precedence followed by areas where development is occurring and large scale plantings are required. This has been described in Appendix 1 section 1.3.

Page 43 of 133



5.4 Street Tree Protection and Pruning

The protection of existing street trees during development and construction works is important to avoid a decline in Port Fairy’s existing tree population. The tree protection guidelines outlined in AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites should be enforced and included in planning and development documentation. In this regard, all street trees should be detailed on design plans where construction is proposed, with an arborist report supplied that provides tree information and protection requirements.

5.4.1 Significant Tree Register

A number of streets in Port Fairy have individual or avenue trees that have very special qualities and make a contribution to the amenity of those streets. Generally they are mature, large in size, of good health and form and provide streetscape continuity and high aesthetic, cultural and physical amenity values. These exist within Port Fairy on both Public and Private land and are not covered by a Heritage Listing or other protective overlay, with an example being the large Araucaria heterophylla along Griffith Street. Consideration should be given to creating a significant tree register where trees within Port Fairy can be protected and managed under a relevant council control. Significant trees could be defined as being special by: Having a trunk diameter of at least 500mm measured 1.4 metres from the ground or are

taller than 16m A species or variety of tree that is rare in cultivation, or unusual in Port Fairy A tree of outstanding aesthetic significance A tree that forms part of an avenue of consistent size, form and variety A tree that contributes to a closed canopy over a street or pedestrian path A tree that was once contemporary with remaining Heritage listed buildings A tree that is an outstanding example of the species or variety. This program should be developed in consultation with key stakeholders to ensure that views or concerns can be addressed.

5.4.2 Tree Removal Policy

Moyne Shire Council recognises the environmental and aesthetic contribution that street trees make to the continuing development and presentation of streetscapes, by: selecting, planting and maintaining street trees, which enhance both existing and future

streetscapes, and creating a setting in harmony with the function and appearance of the adjacent land uses, a

safe and comfortable pedestrian environment, and catering for vehicular traffic. It is for these reasons that Council will retain all trees where it can and where it is appropriate. It is recognized that each street tree exists in its own right and has a different and individual place in the street. Of equal importance is its role in relation to the rest of the streetscape and the general township. The preservation of existing street trees is of prime importance and practical techniques are to be used to maintain the health of trees. It is important to recognize that trees have a natural life span and to plan for their eventual removal. It is also necessary to recognize that the continuing development of the township may render some trees inappropriate.

Page 44 of 133



In such circumstances, tree removal may be necessary. By recognising circumstances where removal is appropriate, tree replacement can be planned ensuring the enhancement of the overall streetscape. Reasons for removing a street tree may include: The tree is damaged, diseased, dead or in decline and no further remedial techniques are

appropriate. The tree is causing damage to property, public utilities and the cost of ongoing remedial

works becomes uneconomic, i.e. the cost of the perceived ongoing repairs outweighs the value of the tree and there is no reasonable alternative to solve the problem.

The tree is causing immediate safety hazard to the public or poses a serious health risk. The trees have been indicated to be removed on a streetscape plan or works program

approved by Council. Where the constraints of power lines have been removed and a tree is of a species or has

been pruned in such a manner that the development of an adequate canopy is unlikely. Where the constraints of power lines have been removed and the tree(s) on the power line

side of the street are such that there is a significantly unbalanced streetscape. Where trees to be removed have been indicated in a property development plan approved

by Council, provided that the developer meets the cost of the existing trees valuation and replacement trees. The replacement trees being of an appropriate size and species within the development area.

As removal of live trees often provokes strong emotions all removals are carefully considered. The following reasons do not justify tree removal: Tree litter / Leaf fall Resident requests an alternative species A perceived danger that a tree might fall in a storm A desire to re-landscape Television reception and internet service Access for solar panels House alterations requiring the relocation of the crossover Swimming pool installation and problems with roots and/or falling leaves Shading of lawns, pools etc. by nature strip trees. Where street trees are proposed to be removed, residents affected will be notified, giving the reasons for the proposed removal. Residents to be notified will include those immediately abutting the tree and those opposite the property i.e. “across the road”. Residents may not be notified if the tree is removed due to urgent or emergency works. A record of street tree removals, identifying the location, species, date of removal and replacement street species, will be maintained. For commercial streetscape upgrades a concept plan will be prepared in accordance with this policy and submitted to Council for approval in principle. The proposal will then be made available to the public for comment, which may include a public meeting. Notice of the proposal, comment period and any public meeting will be publicised so that all interested residents have a chance to comment. Residents in the vicinity will be notified in writing. Following the public consultation phase, the proposal will be re-submitted to Council, detailing comments and/or modifications submitted through the process. Following adoption by Council, affected residents will be notified in writing of the plan. Where the upgrade involves the large-scale removal of mature trees, a staged removal and replacement program will be implemented. Trees identified as post mature, diseased, causing

Page 45 of 133



damage to property or public utilities or considered an immediate safety hazard will be removed first. The remainder of the trees would be removed over subsequent years based on an agreed timetable being no more than 4 years. Council would determine the time taken for replacement based on the scale of the upgrade.

5.4.2.1 Compensation for Tree Damage Street trees within Port Fairy are highly valued by Council and the local community. If a street tree is damaged during property development or vandalised compensation for the value of the tree plus replacement costs will be sought. Tree valuation can be determined using the City of Melbourne Valuation Method (Yau 1990), Revised Burnley Method (Moore 1992) or other appropriate method. Costs are to be met by the entity or person/s responsible for the damage.

Page 46 of 133



5.4.3 Street Tree Pruning Requirements

Pruning works must be carried out by fully qualified arborists. The minimum qualification should be: A National Certificate in Arboriculture, AQF Level 4. All pruning undertaken must conform to the Australian Standard Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS-4373 2007) Pruning of Amenity Trees. These works can only be undertaken by Council approved arborists or by Powercor representatives. Resident pruning on any tree within the nature strip is not permitted. It is considered an act of vandalism and may incur prosecution and/or compensation (refer section 5.4.2.1).

5.5 Competing Infrastructure and Services

To achieve the vision of maximising the tree canopy in Port Fairy, adequate space needs to be allocated for trees, both above and below ground. Trees, hard infrastructure and services compete for the limited space available in streets. Various regulations, utilities and other pressures provide a constraint to the number and size of the street tree population: Line Clearance Regulations Roads and associated infrastructure Bicycle lanes and on street parking Council needs to be proactive in the protection of Port Fairy’s street tree population. In considering retrofits and installation of new infrastructure, a cost benefit analysis and potential community consultation should be undertaken.

5.5.1 Canopy Clearance Requirements

To maintain uniformity in canopy lifting throughout Port Fairy the following dimensions in Table 12 have been supplied for clearance requirements. These dimensions will allow for passage of the majority of vehicles and also for pedestrians using footpaths. An example is supplied in Figure 19

Table 12. Canopy clearance requirements and branch sizes (Adapted from City of Sydney)

Location Clearance permitted

Major arterial roads (Princes Highway)

5.5m clearance in height measured from the road surface and in line with the kerb alignment

Local roads 2.5m clearance over parking lanes and 4.5m clearance over roads, measured in height from the road surface and in line with the kerb alignment

Pedestrian paths 2.5m clearance over footpath measured in height from ground level

Buildings Maximum clearance of 1m from any building, measured from the surface of the structural component (wall or roof) of the building's edge

Page 47 of 133



Figure 19: Clearance required over roads and footpaths

5.5.2 Management of Vegetation beneath Powerlines

5.5.2.1 Power line Conflict The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010 have been used for all power line pruning requirements in this document. It should be noted that whilst they are presently current, they can be superseded when new regulations are developed. When this occurs the most recent regulations should take precedence. Power line clearance for street trees within Port Fairy is undertaken and managed by Powercor. Pruning for power line clearance has the potential to destroy the form of a tree and can open the tree up to pest and disease complications, particularly if pruning does not conform to AS 4373-2007 Pruning Amenity Trees. This in turn can reduce the ULE of a tree in the streetscape and/or create ongoing management requirements. Evidence of severe tree pruning for power line clearance can be seen along Hamilton-Port Fairy Road (a continuation of Regent Street). The form of numerous Araucaria heterophylla have been substantially altered by power line clearance, to the point where almost half of the trees’ canopy has been removed (refer Figure 20). This level of pruning will result in an increased rate of shoot production and elongation, requiring regular pruning to maintain the power line clearance. Whilst these trees are not Heritage listed, they are still large, impressive specimens which form an avenue that continues on to Regent Street. There are gaps in this avenue where new trees can be planted to provide continuity.

Page 48 of 133



To promote the health and longevity of these and other significant trees within Port Fairy, it is recommended that the bare high voltage and/or low voltage conductors are replaced with high voltage or low voltage Aerial Bundle Cable (ABC), or the cables are undergrounded. This should occur where it is practical and a distinct benefit is provided (i.e. where significant trees are impacted upon). ABC has a much lower clearance requirement with the minimum clearance spaces provided in Table 13 and Table 14.

Table 13. Minimum clearance spaces surrounding aerial bundled cable or insulated cable

Minimum Clearance Spaces in All Directions

1 2 3 4 5 Type of powerline All spans near

pole Spans up to and including 40m

Spans exceeding 40m up to and including 70m

Spans exceeding 70m

Aerial Bundle Cable 300mm 300mm 600mm 900mm Insulated Cable 600mm 600mm 1000mm 1000mm

Table 14. Minimum clearance spaces surrounding a powerline other than aerial bundled cable or insulated cable (low bushfire risk areas)

Minimum Clearance Spaces in All Directions

1 2 3 4 5 6 Nominal Voltage

All spans near pole

Spans up to and including 45m



Spans exceeding 100m

Up to 1kV 1000mm 1000mm 2000mm 2500mm 2500mm Over 1kV, less than 66kV

1500mm 1500mm 2000mm 2500mm 2500mm

66kV 2250mm 2500mm 3000mm 3500mm 3500mm

ABC installation or cable undergrounding will allow for greater preservation of the tree form as can be seen in Figure 21 when compared to Figure 20. These two trees are located within close proximity and more of the canopy has been retained, particularly at the top.

Page 49 of 133



Figure 20: Example of an Araucaria heterophylla

along Hamilton-Port Fairy Road with severe power line clearance

Figure 21: Example of an Araucaria heterophylla

along Hamilton-Port Fairy Road with HV ABC

Installation with ABC would result in less frequent pruning where vigour between trees is comparable. This provides a more aesthetically pleasing form in the tree, with improved health and longevity and where future failures are less likely. In some cases additional power line space may be required than can be provided with the current infrastructure. An example of this is the Heritage listed Tree 230 located at 52 Gipps Street where low voltage ABC is in close proximity to the tree trunk (refer Figure 22). Rather than lopping the tree, a less intrusive option would be to redirect the ABC with an extension and offset of the power pole cross arm. ABC conversion and cross arm offsetting is an option that would benefit many of the trees near the boat ramp at the southern end of Griffith Street. A cost benefit analysis should be conducted in a coordinated venture by Moyne Shire Council and Powercor as there is presently a high impact on many significant trees in Port Fairy as a result of power line clearance.

Figure 22: ABC in proximity of Tree 230

Page 50 of 133



5.5.2.2 Heritage Listed Trees Details of additional pruning requirements for all Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla has been provided in section 4.5.2.

5.5.3 Specific Management Issues/Considerations

5.5.3.1 Heritage Listed Araucaria heterophylla at Sackville Street The Araucaria heterophylla located at the corner of Bank Street and Sackville Street is a tree that requires specific management. Non-permeable paving and asphalt have occurred up to the trunk of this tree, which is likely to be reducing the tree’s ability to access water, nutrients and oxygen around the root zone. This is likely to be stressing the tree and may impact upon the long-term viability of this tree. Further adding to stress of this tree is the installation of fairy lights. The installation of lights or signage on any tree should not occur as nails, screws or staples used for fixing items create a wound in the trunk/limbs. It recommended that signs, lights or any other object that causes damage to the trunk/limb are not installed in trees and any existing lights or signage are removed. In addition to the impact upon the tree there has been significant lifting of the hard surfaces around the tree as the roots grow. This has resulted in a tripping hazard to pedestrians. To remove this hazard it is recommended that pedestrian access beneath the tree is limited. This can be achieved by lifting the asphalt around the tree base, installing raised box seating around the trunk with mulch laid underneath the seat. This will not only reduce the tripping hazard, it will provide amenity for pedestrians and improve the conditions around the base of the tree for localised root growth. The asphalt and concrete around the tree base will need to be lifted carefully under arborist supervision. This will ensure that the roots of the tree do not become unnecessarily damaged and the arborist can provide direction if large roots or root complexes are encountered. Once the asphalt is lifted the holes for seat posts can be manually excavated with supervision to the required depth. Some flexibility in post location should occur so that they can be shifted slightly if roots >40mm are found. Following post installation the seat frame can be constructed. This will not need to be supervised; however, the seat should be constructed of wooden slats that allow water to drain through and into the mulched area. A 150mm gap should be allowed between the baseboard and the ground so that mulch can be reapplied underneath the seat from time to time as it decomposes. A simple example of where the seats should be located is provided in Figure 23. 100-150mm layer of mulch should be applied and edging may be required to keep the mulch in place. If edging is required it will need to be installed following lifting of the asphalt to assess root location and ensure they (if any) are not damaged. Flexibility in the design will be required for the location, construction method and materials following knowledge of root location. An example of a construction method and edging material that may be appropriate is installation of a 100mm x 5mm metal strip that is welded at the corners. This should be placed at the existing grade and when the asphalt is re-laid a slope can be created leading up to the lip to ensuring there is no tripping hazard. This will essentially create a recessed mulched bed. Drainage for the area will need to be assessed due to alteration of slope and grade.

Page 51 of 133



Figure 23: Mulched area (yellow shaded) on southern side of tree that allows for pedestrian access and

box seating

Figure 24: North area of where mulch should extend to as a minimum

The mulch should ideally extend to cover the SRZ of this tree, which is 3.8m; however, this would inhibit and limit pedestrian access underneath the awning. Therefore the mulched area should extend:

Page 52 of 133



North - as far as possible towards the toilets East – to the edge of the awning of the adjacent building South – along a parallel line from the pedestrian walkway across Sackville Street and to the

last post of the building awning West –up to the kerb (refer Figure 23 and Figure 24). Refurbishment of the remaining asphalt path is required outside of the proposed mulched zone to reduce the current tripping hazard. The existing asphalt and concrete outside of the mulched zone should be carefully lifted under supervision.

There are several options available for replacement ranging from re-asphalting the area in a continuous section so as to remove gaps where lifting can occur. Another option is replacement with monolithic sections of porous rubber. Rubber has the benefit of bending slightly as the roots grow; however, it will not create raised edges as happens with concrete that lead to tripping hazard. It should be installed around the box seating and extend to areas where there is current damage of the asphalt or concrete. A Council approved design will be required prior to construction.

5.5.3.2 Martins Point Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Pine) The Cupressus macrocarpa located at Martins Point are declining and pose a risk to park users. The trees overhang a playground and as a consequence there is likely to be a higher than average pedestrian target beneath these trees. There is evidence of previous branch failures and active splits in the majority of trees (refer Figure 25). This is not uncommon for over-mature Cupressus macrocarpa, which have a tendency for large limb failure more frequently following previous failure. Given these factors it is recommended that these trees are removed within 12months. Coprosma repens (Mirror Bush) is an environmental weed growing beneath the Cypress. It is a good opportunity to remove this weed at the same time. An example of replacement species suitable for coastal areas has been provided below.

Figure 25: Example of previous failures

Page 53 of 133



The Cupressus macrocarpa and Coprosma repens are currently providing a wind break into the park. This will be substantially reduced by vegetation removal and whilst trees are re-establishing, potentially for decades. A long-term windbreak for the playground can be supplied by fencing and/or panels around the perimeter of the park; however this is likely to be a costly exercise. A cost effective alternative could be to retain the stumps from the tree around the perimeter of the park and cover these over with fill soil to create mounds. These mounds could then be planted with fast growing bushy species to provide screening and a more effective wind dampener. Whilst this would create a windbreak in the short to long-term it must be realised that the stumps will decompose over time and eventually depressions in the ground will occur. Provided the area remains a mulched garden bed with bushy species planted this should not be a major problem in the future. Drainage for the area may be altered by changing the soil levels and grade and this should be considered when installing fill. Other nearby trees should be protected during these works in accordance with AS 4970-2009. Taller tree species that may be appropriate for replanting: Allocasuarina verticillata – Drooping She-oak Allocasuarina littoralis – Black She-oak Banksia marginata – Silver Banksia Banksia integrifolia – Coastal Banksia Melaleuca lanceolata – Moonah Melaleuca squarrosa – Scented Paperbark Small tree/shrub/grass species that may be appropriate for replanting that will allow for short-term wind dampening at the top of the mound: Dodonea viscosa – Wedge-leaf Hop Bush Lomandra longifolia subsp. longifolia – Spiny-headed Matt-rush Leptospermum continentale – Prickly Tea-tree Poa labillardierei – Common Tussock Grass

5.5.3.3 Bourne Avenue Araucaria heterophylla WWI Avenue Bourne Avenue contains several large and impressive Araucaria heterophylla that are beginning to show signs of stress that is likely to have occurred from nearby development. This avenue has been described as a World War One Avenue of Honour. Effort should be made to improve the current conditions around these trees. A mulched area should be created around the base of the trees’ SRZs, with parking prevented though bollard or boulder installation as has been described in section 4.4.3. Crossovers should be installed to the council approved guidelines and where there is significant encroachment, crossover realignment should occur. Figure 27 provides an example of where a crossover has been installed inappropriately. Reference to the significance of the avenue could include: memorial installation interpretive signage registration with the Avenues of Honour 1915-2015 project

Page 54 of 133



Figure 26: Example of Araucaria heterophylla

on Bourne Avenue that is in decline

Figure 27: Araucaria heterophylla on Bourne Avenue where

a crossover has been installed inappropriately

5.5.3.4 Staged Removal of Lagunaria patersonia The Lagunaria patersonia (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) planted as street trees in Port Fairy are a contentious issue for some residents due to the hairs within the seed capsules potentially being irritating; however, the trees are generally in good condition and well suited to Port Fairy. It is recommended that a systematic removal occurs as part of staged street tree renewal or where other external factors necessitate their earlier removal (i.e. site/crossover development, tree death/hazard etc.). It was noted that a large number of these trees are located beneath power lines which appear to require regular clearance pruning. In the interest of reducing pruning requirements, a collaborative approach may be taken between Powercor and Council whereby trees that require power line clearance are removed rather than pruned. This approach will alter the replacement priority for streets where this occurs, with planting required at an earlier stage. This should be considered in budget allocation and the overall replacement process.

Page 55 of 133



5.6 Potential Corella/Parrot Damage

In recent years there has been some minor damage to trees within the town from Corellas and other birds. Long-billed Corellas, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos and Galahs (commonly referred to as cockatoos) can cause damage to trees by eating and chewing trunk or branch sections. These behaviours are carried out to maintain their beaks at the correct length and condition (Tembly 2003). The severity of damage is largely due to the social nature of cockatoos, targeting a tree or area en masse and often returning to the same trees for roosting either for several hours or for short-term rest stops. The damage caused by feeding and chewing behaviour occurs most commonly by day but any tree that the birds descend on is susceptible to damage. Damage can be observed along branch sections and in stem crotches. Over time the area becomes necrotic and ultimately forms a hollow. While this is good for bird habitat, it also destabilises the branch and makes it prone to failure. Whilst the problem is only minor at this stage, there is real concern given the nature of the damage experienced at nearby Warrnambool. The Norfolk Island population has been severely damaged as a result of flocks of thousands of birds at a time. The causes surrounding the magnitude of damage in Warrnambool remain unclear, other than it is thought that the birds have originated from further north in the state. Given the parallels in location and plant species, there is the possibility that the birds could cause a similar level of damage in Port Fairy. Moving forward, the position of council will be to remain alert to the situation; however, given the lack of current damage will remain in a monitoring phase. If the problems manifests itself in Port Fairy’s Norfolk Island Pines, then further action will be required.

5.7 Street Tree Replacement Strategy

Large scale planting is required within the streets of Port Fairy to improve the visual landscape and provide amenity associated with street trees. To facilitate the planting program a priority framework has been developed. This aims to make the greatest visual impact on areas that are frequently used, are relatively void of trees or are likely to have large sections of trees requiring removal in the immediate future. The extent of the landscape works proposed and the impact on the street landscape will determine whether community notification or consultation is required and to what degree. Being open and accessible to members of the community and offering timely opportunities for input that can influence the outcome are integral to consultation in implementation of the Port Fairy Street Tree Replacement Strategy.

5.7.1 Notification (Minor Capital Works)

Notification of street tree planting through the local papers is the most straightforward communication with the community .This is likely to be the most common communication method in the implementation of tree removal and/or infill replanting (i.e. when less than 50% of trees in a section of street are to be planted). Notification of proposed works should occur at least 2 months prior to proposed works and the article in the local paper is to include: benefits of street tree planting and overview of Council policy/strategy for street landscapes an indication of tree species to be planted notification process that will occur prior to planting contact details for feedback at this stage Prior to or following on from this, the development of a medium term street planting plan is recommended that is in line with Council budgets. The plan should outline the proposed

Page 56 of 133



planting activities for a 5 year period as this would reinforce to the community that Council is undertaking tree planting in a prioritised and systematic way. The plan could be displayed on the Council website such that it is easily accessible for the local community. Following general community notification of street tree planting works, a formal letter should be addressed to residents in households where works will be undertaken. This should occur 2 weeks before the scheduled works, with information within this letter including: benefits of street tree planting tree species to be planted the size of the tree stock being planted the proposed date of planting contact details for feedback regarding the planting the timeframe for feedback the process for dealing with feedback Moyne Shire Council can notify the community in neighbourhoods to be planted and then provide a letter to households that will have a tree planted outside in the weeks preceding planting.

Page 57 of 133



5.7.2 Consultation (Major Capital Works)

Consultation is a process for notifying community members affected by major street landscaping works and offering the opportunity for input into planning. Consultation with the community will occur where major street tree replacements are proposed (i.e. when more than 50% of trees in a section of street are to be planted). This will be most common for tree planting programs other than the infill replacement planting carried out by Moyne Shire Council. Consultation regarding major street tree planting works should include the following elements: distribution of a letter to households at least 3-4 months before the proposed

commencement of street planting to allow for the order and selection of good nursery stock. This should be during the planning stage prior to development of designs or proposed species selection.

the letter extending an invitation to have input either verbally via the telephone, in writing via email, fax or letter, or at a community meeting should contain: outline of benefits of street tree planting a description of the street tree planting proposed the proposed dates for finalisation of plans and commencement of implementation the time, date and place for a community meeting to discuss design and implementation

issues contact details for feedback regarding the planting the timeframe for feedback the process for dealing with feedback including presentation of the final design and the

implementation timetable to those who have provided input and other households affected by the street landscaping.

Incorporation of the community feedback into final plans/species selections and advise those who have provided input and households affected by the works of the final design/ species selections and implementation timetable. It must be noted that where agreement on species cannot occur between residents within 1 month of the consultation and design stage, species selections will be made by Council for planting.

5.7.3 Implementation

The Street Tree Replacement Manual has been developed to aid in implementation (refer Appendix 1). This manual provides detailed information pertaining to design principles and guidelines, planting priorities, planting guidelines, recommended species, and a maintenance plan.

Page 58 of 133



6. References

AS 4373, 2007, Australian Standard, Pruning Amenity Trees, 2nd Edition Standards Australia AS 4970, 2009, Australian Standard, Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Standards Australia Ashman, M. R., and Puri, G.,2002, Essential Soil Science: A clear and concise introduction to soil science, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, U.K. Bureau Of Meteorology, 2013., Monthly rainfall Port Fairy, viewed June 2013, http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=090175 Bone, S., 2002 The urban horticulture of Corymbia maculata, Masters Thesis, School of Resource Management, University of Melbourne. City of Sydney., 2013, Pruning and removing trees, viewed June 2013, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/live/trees/pruning-and-removing-trees Clark, R., 2003, Specifying trees: a guide to assessment of tree quality, NATSPEC, Milsons Point, NSW. Ellison, M.J., 2005, ‘Quantified tree risk assessment used in the management of amenity trees’, Journal of Arboriculture 31(2) 2005, International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, USA. Handreck, K.A., and Black, N.D., 2002, Growing media for ornamental plants and turf, third Edition, University of New South Wales Press, Randwick, Australia. Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. & Matheny, N.P., 1999, Arboriculture; Integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs, and vines, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Heritage Victoria., 2010, Victorian Heritage Register H2239, Norfolk Island Pine Avenues Hodgens, R., 2012 (December 2012) Personal communication: Management issues of Port Fairy street trees and historical recollections, Environmental Officer, Moyne Shire Council. Invisible structures Inc., 2011, Gravelpave2, viewed June 2013, http://www.invisiblestructures.com/gravelpave2.html Looker, M., 2001, Patterns of morphological, chemical and physiological variation within Tristaniopsis laurina (Myrtaceae) and the selection of superior forms for horticulture PhD Thesis, School of Life Sciences, Department of Botany, La Trobe University, Melbourne. McIntyre, K., Jakobsen, B., 1998, Drainage for Sportsturf and Horticulture, Horticultural Engineering Consultancy. Moore, G. M., 1992, Amenity Tree Evaluation: A Revised Method, in The Scientific Management of Plants in the Urban Environment, p166-171. Proceedings of the Burnley Centenary Conference, Centre for Urban Horticulture, Melbourne. Moyne Shire Council., 2009, Moyne Shire Council Development and Design Manual New urban development Moyne Shire Council., 2008, Draft guidelines for crossover construction near Norfolk Island Pines and other significant trees Port Fairy Historical Society, 2012, The Early Days, viewed June 2013 http://www.historicalsociety.port-fairy.com/ Raven, P.H., and Johnson, G.B., 1992, Biology, Third Edition, Mosby-Year Book, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri.

Page 59 of 133



Shigo, A.L., 1991 Modern Arboriculture, Shigo and Trees, Associates, Durham, New Hampshire. Syme, M., 2006, A brief history of the street and specimen trees of Belfast/Port Fairy

Waters, G., 2001, Norfolk island pine concerns at Gipps Street, Port Fairy Waters, G., 2004, Norfolk Island Pine; Management Options, Treelogic, VIC Williams, G., 1996 Selection of Australian rainforest tree species and provenances with superior tolerance of urban conditions, Masters Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture, University of Melbourne. Yau, P., 1990, City of Melbourne-Amenity value formula, City of Melbourne, Australia

Page 60 of 133



Appendix 1. Street Tree Replacement Manual

The Manual is the primary implementation ‘tool’ in this strategy and includes the recommended species list and planting guidelines. Each section of the Manual has been carefully drafted to provide clear and accurate information for staff involved in planning for planting trees in streets.

1.1 Introduction

Planting guidelines seek to place as many of the largest trees possible in streets whilst keeping in mind the relationship between trees and infrastructure in streets and community concerns about street trees. All available tree planting opportunities within Port Fairy are utilised with the exception of: the central section of Sackville Street where the non-treed and open theme is to be

retained; Beach Street and Ocean Drive where ocean facing nature strips are to remain free of

vegetation. Details of street infrastructure modification have been provided to enable tree planting in streets where planting would otherwise not be possible, such as pavements, roads etc. At present this is largely not applicable for streets in Port Fairy; however, it provides options for individual cases and where potential conflicts may arise in the future.

1.2 Design Principles and Guidelines

The design approach is based on allowing Port Fairy to simply implement a sustainable planting strategy without requiring design professionals to specify and locate each tree. The planting guidelines provide a framework for decision making by Council planning and operational staff when establishing street landscapes. Fundamental design issues are addressed to ensure that the right size tree of the most suitable species is located in the most appropriate position. Integral to the achievement of the vision is planting the maximum number of the largest trees possible within the constraints of available space and existing infrastructure. The character and details of natural systems in Port Fairy will be incorporated in the street planting strategy. There are 2 distinct neighbourhoods present; with Neighbourhood 1 being an older part of town characterised by European plantings whereas Neighbourhood 2 is a more modern development that has native plantings (refer Figure 28). With the exception of Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla lined streets where only the same species shall be replanted, these themes will be preserved in the species selections. The strategy focuses on a number of key principles that are integral to developing street landscapes that are sustainable in terms of environmental and social impact and resource requirements. These principles are outlined below.

Page 61 of 133



Figure 28: Location of Neighbourhood 1 (shaded), with Neighbourhood 2 located outside this area

1.2.1 Function

Tree sizes have been matched to existing street conditions to ensure there is sufficient space for the above and below ground parts of each tree to grow undisturbed. Large trees provide proportionally more environmental and health benefits than small trees and engineering solutions should be considered to provide adequate space for larger trees to be planted. Small trees are recommended for use under power lines to minimise branch pruning and tree disfigurement. Reducing tree pruning requirements will improve tree health and longevity. Selecting the right tree for the right location will also reduce resource inputs for maintenance over the life of the tree. Due to the wide nature strips and location of power lines, there is the potential for offset planting of larger trees species. Where this is appropriate this has been specified. In general long-lived trees have been selected, with the street landscapes established using the strategy providing many years of service and pleasure.

1.2.2 Appearance

Planting guidelines emphasise unity by restricting the number of species used in each street. Where planting is possible, trees will be planted with the aim of one tree per house frontage. The planting guidelines have been designed to allow trees to develop their natural character and form. Appropriate scale in street landscapes will be achieve through the use of the largest possible tree in each planting location whilst ensuring that the tree height and width are appropriate for the urban form of the streetscape.

Page 62 of 133



1.2.3 Horticulture

Street trees need to establish and grow quickly to fulfil their role in the street landscape. Healthy, vigorous street trees reinforce community confidence in Council’s competence and are more likely to be well received and cared for by the community. The strategy seeks to provide optimum conditions for tree growth to maturity. The primary limiting factors to street tree establishment have been specifically addressed in the tree planting and establishment specification. In particular, soil preparation to alleviate compaction and increase soil oxygen and reduce resistance to root penetration has been addressed.

1.2.4 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

Opportunities to incorporate stormwater treatment into streetscapes should be investigated for all projects. In residential settings, particularly streets with wide nature strips, low cost, passive stormwater irrigation systems may be appropriate. These are less engineered and less costly systems. Stormwater is diverted from the road surface into slotted drainage pipe or excavated holes filled with aggregate within the nature strip and allowing it to infiltrate into the surrounding soil. Reshaping wide nature strips to form a gentle grassed swale is another potential option for including WSUD into residential streetscapes

1.2.5 Community education and communication

Community support for street landscapes is important during initial establishment and as street trees grow to maturity. An important component of implementing this strategy will include educating the community on the value of urban vegetation and encouraging a sense of ownership of streetscapes. In this endeavour, Council will distribute a brief letter in the resident letterbox at the time of planting detailing appropriate actions residents can undertake to improve the health and condition of their nature strip tree. Additional information can be supplied on the Council website.

1.2.6 Planting Design

A number of street planting design issues have been identified and form the basis of guidelines for planting. Regularly spaced and single species planting on each side of a street is recommended to

provide strong and consistent themes. Very small trees have only been recommended for planting where there is limited space

under overhead wires. Therefore, in some streets there will be a small tree on one side of the street and a medium or large tree on the other side.

Offset tree planting to facilitate better power line clearance as the tree grows is appropriate if a larger sized tree has been recommended. This will require planting either closer to the road or to the residential property rather than in the centre of the nature strip.

Where existing species have been successful within a street and within the parameters of the strategy it is recommended to plant gaps with the same species. Some streets have a mix of species and it is recommended to establish a new character in these cases.

The aim of the species selections are to create localised uniformity, whilst allowing for diversity across the township. Planting within one street is to be of the same/similar species so that management, such as irrigation or pruning, can be staged for all trees on the street at the same time. This will allow for rotational tree management tailored to specific streets that is effective and cost efficient.

Page 63 of 133



This allows for population resistance to pest and disease. A varied species palette may result in damage or death of one or two streets necessitating their removal compared to a township monoculture where removal of the entire population may be required.

1.2.7 Resident Nature Strip Planting

To aid in achieving the vision of the Street Tree Replacement Program, it is Council’s position that there is no residential planting or development of garden beds on the nature strip. Not only will this create an inconsistent theme of the street, it can impact on the health and condition of previously planted trees through: Altered soil drainage leading to root death Compaction preventing oxygen availability to roots and leading to death Damage to roots from maintenance of garden beds through cultivation Damage tree trunks and roots through hard landscaping, materials and impermeable

surfaces for garden beds Damage to roots from increased application of fertiliser Increased competition from resident planted species to council planted specimens Inappropriate species for the location may also damage infrastructure, can potentially be dangerous by blocking traffic sight lines, reduce road/footpath functionality and spiny species may injure pedestrians or damage vehicles. To this extent council will not permit resident planted species or the creation of garden beds in the nature strips. Where this has occurred a warning will be issued from Council and the resident must remove all extraneous materials from the nature strip at their own expense. Non-compliance may result in penalties.

Page 64 of 133



1.3 Planting Priority

Planting order has been determined through the use of two factors; replacement priority for each street and the township area within which it is located. Details of these factors are provided in the following subsections. In general, streets with the higher priority areas should be planted first, with emphasis placed on completing the more urgent streets in each area. Table 15 provides a framework with details for individual streets provided in Volume 3.

Table 15. Planting order framework

Replacement Priority

Area No (Descending Order of Importance)

Very High Area 1: CBD Area 2: South Beach

Area 3: Inner North West Area 4: East Beach

Area 5: Outer North East

High Area 1: CBD Area 2: South Beach


Area 5: Outer North East Moderate Area 1: CBD

Area 2: South Beach Area 3: Inner North West

Area 4: East Beach Area 5: Outer North East

Low Area 1: CBD Area 2: South Beach



Very Low Area 1: CBD Area 2: South Beach



Page 65 of 133



1.3.1 Replacement Planting Priority

Very high Streets within this category generally contain a combination of: Streets with a prominent location Heritage listed streets that need large scale Araucaria plantings No or very few trees and complete renewal is required More than 75% vacant sites More than 25 vacant sites Large scale tree removals in the immediate future The ability to plant with large (>15m) tree species

High Streets within this category generally contain a combination of: Streets that need Araucaria infill planting No or very few trees and complete renewal is required More than 50% vacant sites More than 15 vacant sites The ability to plant with medium to large (>10m) tree species

Moderate Streets within this category generally contain a combination of: No or very few trees and complete renewal is required More than 30% vacant sites More than 5 vacant sites The ability to plant with medium to large (>10m) tree species

Low Streets within this category are generally: Located on the town outskirts Have existing trees with long ULEs

Very Low/None Streets within this category generally contain: Existing trees with long ULEs Less than 15% vacant sites Less than 5 vacant sites Minimal to no planting opportunity

Page 66 of 133



1.3.2 Township Area Maps

Page 67 of 133

REGENT STREET

GIPPS STREET

COX STREET

GRIFFITHS STREET (north)

BANK STREET

CAMPBELL STREET

PRINCES HIGHWAY (west)

OCEAN DRIVE

THISTLE PLACE

PRINCES HIGHWAY (north)

GRIFFITHS STREET (south)

Port Fairy Township Areas OverviewArea 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5

±0 150 300 450 600 75075

m

150 Junction RoadNunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJanuary 2014GDA 94 Zone 54

Page 68 of 133

ALBERT ROAD

REGENT STREET

GIPPS STREET

COX STREET

BANK STREET

CAMPBELL STREET


JAMES STREETWILLIAM STREET

RAILWAY PLACE

VICTORIA STREET

ALBERT STREET

ATKINSON STREET

BANK STREET (west)

BARCLAY STREET

SACKVILLE STREET (south)

SACKVILLE STREET (north)

SACKVILLE STREET (central)

JAMES STREET (south)

WISHART STREET

CHURCH STREET

UNION STREET

GRANT STREETEARLE STREET

CORBETT STREET

PRINCES STREET

RITCHIE COURT

MANDEVILLE COURTCOUTA CLOSE

Port Fairy Township AreasArea 1 CBD

±0 100 200 300 400 50050

m


Page 69 of 133

VILLIERS STREET

POWLING STREET

OCEAN DRIVE

THISTLE PLACE

PHILIP STREET

JEHU STREET

MILLS CRESCENT

REARDON STREET

POLDING STREET

ELIZABETH STREET

CROWE STREET

AVERY STREET

SINGLETON STREET

ANNA CATHERINE DRIVE

WILLOUGHBY STREET

BROPHY STREET

SEAVIEW WAY

MCCASKER COURT

MARTIN LAURENCE PLACE

ODOWD COURT

BAULCH CRESCENTCOOINDA COURT

STEVEN STREET

MELFORD DRIVE

Port Fairy Township AreasArea 2 South Beach

±0 60 120 180 240 30030

m


Page 70 of 133

COLLEGE STREET

DYSON STREET

BADEN POWELL DRIVE

OSMONDS LANE

AWABI COURT

TIEMAN STREET

MCGILL COURT

MARINER COURT

NORFOLK PLACE

ROBERTS AVENUE

PATON STREET

UEBERGANG STREET

BAXTER STREET

GRATTON STREET

ARMSTRONG COURT

ALLAN STREET

Port Fairy Township AreasArea 3 Inner North West

±0 60 120 180 240 30030

m


Page 71 of 133

ROGERS PLACE

BEACH STREET


RITCHIE STREET

BOURNE AVENUE

BATTERY LANE

HUGHES AVENUE

LYDIA PLACE

MOYNE COURT

HANLEY COURT

Port Fairy Township AreasArea 4 East Beach

±0 50 100 150 200 25025

m


Page 72 of 133



GOLDIES LANE

MANIFOLD STREET

CONNOLLY STREET

ATKINS CRESCENT

Port Fairy Township AreasArea 5 Outer North East

±0 80 160 240 320 40040

m


Page 73 of 133



1.3.3 Township Areas

The township has been split into five areas to refine planting priority (refer section 1.3.5). This has generally been based upon the central township having precedence followed by areas where recent development is occurring and large scale plantings are required.

1.3.4 Resident Contribution

In some cases residents may request that their street is planted sooner than what is proposed on the planting priority. This shall generally be approved by Council where residents make a financial contribution to Council that covers the cost (100%) of tree planting and establishment for the street. Alternatively residents may propose to make a financial contribution to Council for half (50%) of tree planting and establishment. Where this is proposed Council will review current planting requirements, budget allowances and availability of suitable nursery stock to determine viability. In either of the above cases, the streets will be planted on a first come first serve basis (depending upon nursery stock availability) and on the provision that a substantial majority of residents within the street agree on a species for planting. The species must be selected from council endorsed street tree species list for that particular street (refer Appendix 6). Where agreement on species cannot be achieved, the timeframe for planting will occur in accordance with the planting order schedule and species for will be selected by Council.

Page 74 of 133



1.3.5 Replacement Planting Priority Maps

Page 75 of 133

REGENT STREET

GIPPS STREET

COX STREET


BANK STREET

CAMPBELL STREET


OCEAN DRIVE

THISTLE PLACE



Port Fairy Tree Replacement Strategy: Priority Map OverviewReplanting Priority

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low/None


±0 150 300 450 600 75075

m

Page 76 of 133

GIPPSSTREET

MANDEVILLECOURT

SACKVILLESTREET(north)

SACKVILLESTREET(central)

BARCLAYSTREET

PRINCESSTREET

RAILWAYPLACE

ALBERTSTREET

RITCHIECOURT

CORBETTSTREET

ATKINSONSTREET VICTORIA

STREET

COUTACLOSE

CAMPBELLSTREET

WISHARTSTREET

SACKVILLESTREET(south)

REGENTSTREET

JAMES STREET(south)

JAMESSTREET

CHURCHSTREET

BANKSTREET

GRANTSTREET

EARLESTREET

WILLIAMSTREET

PRINCESHIGHWAY

(west)

BANKSTREET

(west)

COXSTREET

UNIONSTREET

ALBERTROAD

Replanting PriorityVery High High Moderate Low Very Low/None

±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Replacement Planting Priority Map: Area 1 CBD150 Junction RoadNunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJune 2013GDA 94 Zone 54

Page 77 of 133

POWLINGSTREET

REARDONSTREET

MILLSCRESCENT

SINGLETONSTREET

AVERYSTREET

ODOWDCOURT

POLDINGSTREET

JEHUSTREET

BROPHYSTREET

CROWESTREET

MCCASKERCOURT

WILLOUGHBYSTREET

MELFORDDRIVE

PHILIPSTREET

COOINDACOURT

ELIZABETHSTREET

BAULCHCRESCENT

SEAVIEWWAY

MARTINLAURENCE

PLACE

STEVENSTREET

ANNACATHERINE

DRIVE

OCEANDRIVE

THISTLEPLACE

VILLIERSSTREET


±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Replacement Planting Priority Map: Area 2 South Beach150 Junction RoadNunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJune 2013GDA 94 Zone 54

Page 78 of 133

MARINERCOURT

ARMSTRONGCOURT

DYSONSTREET

ALLANSTREET

GRATTONSTREET

MCGILLCOURT

NORFOLKPLACE

ROBERTSAVENUE

OSMONDSLANE

TIEMANSTREET

COLLEGESTREET

PATONSTREET

BAXTERSTREET

BADENPOWELL

DRIVE

AWABICOURT


±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Replacement Planting Priority Map: Area 3 Inner North West150 Junction RoadNunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJune 2013GDA 94 Zone 54

Page 79 of 133

GRIFFITHSSTREET(south)

BATTERYLANE

ROGERSPLACE

LYDIAPLACE

MOYNECOURT

HUGHESAVENUE

BEACHSTREET

BOURNEAVENUE

HANLEYCOURTRITCHIE

STREET


±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Replacement Planting Priority Map: Area 4 East Beach150 Junction RoadNunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJune 2013GDA 94 Zone 54

Page 80 of 133

GRIFFITHSSTREET(north)

MANIFOLDSTREET

CONNOLLYSTREET

ATKINSCRESCENT

GOLDIESLANE

PRINCESHIGHWAY

(north)


±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Replacement Planting Priority Map: Area 5 Outer North East150 Junction RoadNunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJune 2013GDA 94 Zone 54

Page 81 of 133



1.4 Nature strip Planting Guidelines

General planting guidelines are provided in the following subsections that will generally allow for a single tree species planted at regular intervals along a nature strip of each road. Recommended species lists for each street are provided in Appendix 6.

1.4.1 Technical Details

Spacing is to be as equal as possible Locate trees along centreline of nature strip except where specified as offsets under power

lines Unless specified, very small trees are to be planted under power lines Typical tree spacing distances and minimum setback from centre of tree to back of kerb and

footpath edge shown in the figures below. No more than two species to be used per street

Refer Figure 29 for details.

Page 82 of 133



Figure 29: Naturestrip Planting Guidelines

Page 83 of 133



1.4.2 Heritage Listed Streets

All Heritage listed streets contain Araucaria heterophylla plantings or avenues that are to be retained and improved upon. In this matter only Araucaria heterophylla shall be replaced into these streets. Where existing infrastructure allows, the location of these planting should complement existing tree locations to create an avenue of approximately opposite trees, with the aim of one tree per household frontage (refer Figure 30). The exact location will need to consider surrounding infrastructure and crossover location.

Figure 30: Example of replacement Araucaria heterophylla (purple crosses) that may be appropriate

1.5 Recommended Tree Species

1.5.1 Species selection

The recommended list of species includes a combination of exotic, Australian native and indigenous tree species that should perform well in Port Fairy streets. In general salt spray tolerant species have been selected, particularly in areas closer to the foreshore. The impact of future climate change on tree performance is unknown. It is anticipated that species from cooler climates are likely to struggle whereas trees from warmer climates may perform better. Tree species performance should be monitored to ensure they continue to grow well under changed climatic conditions. The species list includes trees that will be used in large numbers throughout the municipality and trees that will be restricted to specialised planting locations. For example, Araucaria heterophylla has been included for use as the only species for replacement within heritage listed streets. The weed potential of species is an important consideration in planting trees in streets. A number of selections or cultivars that are sterile or intended to be low fruiting should be considered such as Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ and Olea europaea ‘Tolley’s Upright’. The level of fruiting of these species should be monitored as they can be weedy species. The list of recommended species provides a basis for street tree selection and is not intended to be exhaustive. Ongoing trialling and assessment of the performance of new tree species and selections is encouraged.

Page 84 of 133



1.5.2 Provenance and Selections

Street tree selection will become more precise as more specific information becomes available about the performance of trees under urban conditions. In particular, information defining adaptation to specific geographic regions (provenance) and types of urban sites will help refine tree selection decision making. Street tree performance will be enhanced by selecting ecotypes that perform well under environmental conditions similar to planting sites in Port Fairy. For species that have a wide distribution, the difference between provenance selections can be as significant as the difference between species. Local provenance of indigenous trees species should be planted within the vicinity of local waterways. Research to identify superior provenances for urban conditions of the following species has been undertaken: Corymbia maculata (Bone 2002) Lophostemon confertus (Williams 1996) Tristaniopsis laurina (Looker 2001)

1.5.3 Tree Size

Four basic tree size categories were developed based on the actual dimensions of available or commonly used trees and the space typically available in different types of streets within Port Fairy. The four size categories are: 1. Very small: 6 or less metres tall by 6 or less metres wide (e.g. under powerlines) 2. Small: 6-8 metres tall by 5-10 metres wide 3. Medium: 8-15 metres tall by 8-18 metres wide 4. Large: 15 or more metres tall by 15 or more metres wide Tree sizes at maturity have been estimated. Obviously tree growth varies from one individual to another and between populations and different provenances, so wherever possible sources of trees have been identified to reduce the likelihood of trees growing much larger than anticipated.

Page 85 of 133



1.6 Tree Planting and Establishment Methods

The majority of nature strips within Port Fairy are generally unaffected by the encroachment of hard infrastructure. The major limitations to root spread in such planting zones will be soil compaction from development works. The planting hole for this detail can be dug with a number of different pieces of equipment. Recently the use of chain trencher attachments (i.e. ditch witch) has become common. These devices will dig a hole of this type readily, in most soils, and will leave the excavated soil in good condition for backfilling after planting. Given the sandy and loam soils in Port Fairy holes can be dug at all times of the year. Unamended site soil is recommended as backfill in all planting situations. Organic and other amendments are generally of no value and may make the planting environment worse. If organic amelioration of site soil was desired, shallow incorporation of composted organic matter (surface 100 mm only) is recommended. Surface application of organic mulches is a preferred option. If site soil cannot be used for backfilling the planting hole, a low organic matter sandy soil is recommended. The drainage rate of this soil should be no less than 5 mm/h. Given the free draining nature of sandy soils, drainage should not be required in planting holes unless excavation reveals modified and compacted soil environment or underlying clay subsoil.

1.7 Tree Supply

Sourcing high quality stock is an important aspect of establishing a healthy, street tree population that will provide long term benefits to Port Fairy. Using the outcomes of the street tree inventory to develop a short to medium-term planting plan is recommended. A planting plan will enable trees to be pre-ordered and regularly inspected at the nursery to ensure they meet the specification of a good quality tree (Clarke 2003). Trees at planting should be at least 1m in height and the root ball must provide enough ballast to support the tree (Clarke 2003).

Page 86 of 133



1.8 Tree Planting Detail

Page 87 of 133



1.8.1 Tree Guards

In some cases where vandalism is a concern it is recommended that protection occurs with tree guarding. This guarding should remain in place for 2 growing seasons so as to prevent damage to the tree from the guard as it grows. Numerous types of guards are available on the market ranging from solid steel construction, timber or wire fencing. Guard type should be selected by Council based upon site specific requirements and in line with local themes. In other areas of the town, tree guards have been used and have been lift in situ for too long. Unless designed to be permanent and incorporated into the street furniture, all tree guards should be removed on semi-mature and mature trees.

1.9 Tree Establishment Maintenance Plan

An example of a two year tree establishment maintenance plan is shown in Table 16.

Table 16. A two year establishment maintenance plan for street tree plantings

Activity Number of visits (Year 1)

Number of visits (Year 2)

Watering 30 20 Weed control 2 1 Mulch top up 2 1 Formative pruning - 1 Stake removal - 1 Water well removal - 1 Tree tie removal - 1 Tree guard removal - 1

Page 88 of 133



Appendix 2. Methodology and Data Collection Definitions

2.1 Assessment Methodology

2.1.1 Site Inspection

Arran Provis and Cameron Ryder conducted individual assessments of Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla and audit of Port Fairy nature strips/road verges from Monday 10 December 2012 to Wednesday 12 December 2012.

2.1.2 Individual Assessments

For the individual assessment of Araucaria heterophylla the following information was collected: Image of each tree Botanical and Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (cm) measured with diameter tape Diameter at Base (cm): measured with diameter tape Height (m): measured with laser range finder Crown spread: average of N-S and E-W Health

Structure Age class Estimated Useful Life Expectancy Management Recommendations QTRA Risk Assessment Tree Defects: associated with the roots, trunk, branches or canopy of the tree General Comments

All inspections have been conducted from the ground and all assessment of decay is observational. Every effort has been made to observe the canopy for structural issues; however, given the height and dense canopy of some trees obstructing vision, adequately determining decay and structure has not been possible in all cases. Where the extent of a fault within the tree has not been possible, an aerial inspection has generally been recommended to better assess the fault and determine works required.

2.1.3 Street Tree Audit

The audit of the town’s street trees has been undertaken by driving each street and conducting a windshield survey. This audit has provided the following information: overall health and condition vacant sites power line information management/replacement recommendations Total number of trees per street Number of vacant planting sites The two most dominant species in the street The number of each dominant species per street The average height of the most dominant species: ranges from <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20+ ULE: <10, 10-20, 20+

Page 89 of 133



Verge Width Overall Health Overall structure Powerlines side

8 compass points N S E W NE SE SW NW Recommended Works Replanting theme,

infill, complete replacement block Replacement Tree Type –Same as Standard Comments

String text field Replacement max mature height Comments The number of vacant planting sites is based upon one tree per residential property frontage or one tree every 15m for large and rural properties. The number of recommended vacant planting sites is based upon the replacement tree type recommended. Council may plant more or less than the recommended Dominant species generally refers to the species with most number of trees present in each street. In some cases the dominant species has been determined by a species with fewer specimens; however, these are large and have a high influence on the streetscape. Verge width can vary from one side of the road to the other and also at various sections along the length. It has generally been attributed based upon the smallest most common size and has been factored when considering Replacement heights are based upon the height a tree will be able to grow to before it comes into conflict with power lines or other infrastructure. This is to prevent the requirement for lopping or regular clearance pruning of trees underneath power lines. Trees of larger dimensions are capable of being planted within nature strips opposite the power lines and this should be considered.

Page 90 of 133



2.2 Risk Assessment Methodology

Many organisations now require an assessment of the risk or hazard that each tree may present. As part of the data collection methodology used the risk score is often linked to digital photography. Trees with high or very high risk scores are often photographed to highlight the issues related to the tree. Different risk score methods can be utilised but the Risk Score Method that has been adopted is from Ellison (2005) and has the following elements. The Ellison Risk Score methodology is probabilistic and the lower the value the higher the risk. The risk score is presented as a numeric value however it is properly expressed as a fraction e.g. Risk Score = 344 indicates that the predicted event has a 1 / 344 chance of occurrence. I/I indicates that an event is certain to occur and 1/10,000,000,000 indicates that it is extraordinarily unlikely. An accepted threshold of risk is generally in the order of 1/10,000 and any tree that scores less than 10,000 would be expected to be worked upon within the next twelve months.

2.2.1 Target Presence (Occupancy)

The target presence is attributed to the object that is most likely to be hit / injured / damaged in the event of failure. For example: If a tree is overhanging a road it is unlikely that the road will become damaged in the event of tree failure, passing vehicles are more likely to be affected. Therefore the Target Rating would be attributed according to the volume and frequency of vehicles on that road. Road type is categorised in the following table.

Table 17. Target Range Values

Target range

Property (repair/replacement cost)

Pedestrian frequency Vehicular frequency Probability

ratio

1 Very high value >$104,000 - $2,000,000

> 36 per hour – constant

26,102 vehicles @ 110kph 32,359 vehicles @ 80kph 46,702 vehicles @ 50kph

1/1

2

High value >$29,000 - $104,000

> 10 per hour – 36 per hour

1,305 vehicles @ 110kph 1,617 vehicles @ 80kph 2,335 vehicles @ 50kph

1/20

3 Moderate / high value >$2,900 - $29,000

> 1 per hour – 10 per hour

363 vehicles @ 110kph 449 vehicles @ 80kph 649 vehicles @ 50kph

1/72

4 Moderate value >$120 - $2,900

> 1 per day – 1 per hour

36 vehicles @ 110kph 45 vehicles @ 80kph 65 vehicles @ 50kph

1/720

5 Low value >$18 - $120

> 1 per week – 1 per day

1.5 vehicles @ 110kph 1.87 vehicles @ 80kph 2.7 vehicles @ 50kph

1/17 280

6 Very low value ≤$18 ≤ 1 per week None 1/120 960

Page 91 of 133



Where trees exist in several layers of occupancy it is important to consider the probable failure that is likely to occur from the tree in question in determining the appropriate level of occupancy. For example a tree may exist within a park for which the occupancy may be 4 (> 1 per day to 1 per hour – 1/720) but next to a well-used path the occupancy for which might be 2 (10 – 36 per hour – 1/20). If the likely failure from the tree is away from the path then an occupancy of 4 (> 1 per day to 1 per hour – 1/720) would be appropriate. However if the likely failure is toward the path then the appropriate occupancy would be 2 (10 – 36 per hour – 1/20). If the likely failure is of dead wood which is evenly distributed throughout the canopy then the higher value would be used. If there are several possible types of failure with different failure sizes over different occupancy zones around a tree then each should be assessed and the values that will produce the highest risk score should be used. If there is no obvious potential for failure then the higher occupancy value should be used.

2.2.2 Probability of failure

The probability of failure rating is attributed to the tree part that is most likely to fail under normal conditions within the next three – five years. Strictly speaking this methodology is only concerned with the next twelve months but a greater time frame must be considered because very few trees are actually inspected every twelve months. Probability of failure is very closely related to the structure of the tree. If a tree has Good structure it should generally not be attributed a Moderate, High or Severe probability of failure for significant tree parts. However if the part most likely to fail is dead wood then it may be appropriate for the probability of failure to be Moderate, High or Severe. Probability of failure is attributed to the tree prior to works being completed. Following the completion of works, the probability of failure of the tree would need to be reassessed to ensure that the probability of failure was updated.

Page 92 of 133



Table 18. Probability of Failure

Probability of failure

Probability of failure (%)

Probability ratio Description

1 (Very High) > 10% – 100% 1 / 1 The structure of the specimen has large and very significant faults and defects. Active failure is often present and branch or trunk failure is imminent. Failure within the next twelve months would appear certain. The probability of failure over the next twelve months is 10 to 100%.

2 (High) > 1% - 10% 1 / 10 The structure of the specimen has large and significant faults and defects. Branch or trunk failure within the next twelve months would appear likely. The probability of failure over the next twelve months is 1 – 10%.

3 (Moderate) > 0.1 – 1% 1 / 100 The structure of the specimen has significant faults and defects. Branch or trunk failure within the next twelve months would appear possible. The probability of failure over the next twelve months is 0.1 – 1%.

4 (Low) > 0.01% – 0.1% 1 / 1,000 The structure of the specimen has some faults that may result in failure but failure is unlikely. The probability of failure over the next twelve months is 0.01 to 0.1%.

5 (Very low) ≤ 0.01% 1 / 10,000 The structure of the specimen has some minor faults that may result in failure but failure is very unlikely. The probability of failure over the next twelve months is less than 0.01%.

6 (Negligible) ≤ 0.001% 1 / 100,000 7 (None) ≤ 0.001% 1 / 1,000,000

2.2.3 Failure size

The failure size rating is attributed to the branch or trunk that is most likely to cause the most damage under normal conditions over the next three to five years.

Table 19. Size of failure

Size of failure range Size of part (mm diameter likely to impact target)

Impact potential

1 > 450 mm 1 / 1 2 > 250 mm – 450 mm 1 / 2 3 > 100 mm – 250 mm 1 / 8.6 4 > 25 mm – 100 mm 1 / 82 5 ≤ 25 mm 1 / 2 500

Page 93 of 133



Appendix 3. Araucaria heterophylla Recommended Works Tables

Page 94 of 133

Port Fairy Araucaria heterophylla Works Table Friday, 28 June 2013

Tree ID Property Address Street Planted DBH (cm) Recommended Works Comments Works Priority

1 66 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET 145 No works None None

2 38 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 130 LV wire clearance None High

3 40 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 132 LV wire clearance None Moderate

4 44 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 136 No works None None



7 48 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 115 Domestic LV clearance,Property/Asset clearance,LV wire clearance

Provide clearance of nearby light High


9 54 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 118 No works New footpath installed nearby - possible root damage

None

10 57 REGENT STREET WILLIAM STREET 156 No works None None







17 37 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 138 No works dsc2356 None

18 62B BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET 122 No works None None

19 65 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET 123 No works None None

20 33 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 43 Formative pruning None Moderate

21 31 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 145 No works None NonePage 95 of 133




24 25 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 106 Domestic LV clearance,Climbing inspection

Bees present in upper canopy, inspect included upper unions and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

High


26 66 COX STREET WILLIAM STREET 137 Domestic LV clearance None High

27 66 COX STREET WILLIAM STREET 112 No works None None

28 65 COX STREET WILLIAM STREET 105 No works None None






34 2A WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 107 No works None None

35 4 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 130 Domestic LV clearance Broken branch row on north side High


37 8 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 130 No works Recent excavation within root zone, possible root damage

None

38 10 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 116 LV wire clearance None Moderate

39 12 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 100 LV wire clearance None Urgent

40 14 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 131 Structural pruning,Climbing inspection

Inspect included upper unions and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

High

Page 96 of 133


41 16 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 115 Climbing inspection Tree crown damaged in storm, possible decay in upper stems, inspect unions and undertake a reduction program as appropriate

High

42 18 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 156 Structural pruning Reduce western stem Moderate




46 28 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET 134 LV wire clearance None Urgent




50 67 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET 143 LV wire clearance Stunted foliage, possible herbicide toxicity

High

51 67 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET 132 LV wire clearance None High

52 OPPOSITE 22 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 130 No works None None

53 13 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 135 No works None None


55 9 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 121 Domestic LV clearance None Urgent

56 3 CHASTEL CLOSE SACKVILLE STREET 137 No works None None




60 6 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 108 LV wire clearance None High

61 8 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 141 LV wire clearance None Moderate

Page 97 of 133


62 10 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 140 Property/Asset clearance,LV wire clearance

Provide clearance of nearby light Moderate



65 12A SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 134 No works None None



68 1/12 BANK STREET SACKVILLE STREET 114 Property/Asset clearance,HV wire clearance

Damage to surounding infrastructure, remove lights from tree, reduce asphalt fill around base, mulch and install box seat

High


70 93 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 104 Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program on appropriate stem

High

71 17 REGENT STREET SACKVILLE STREET 166 No works None None


73 1/94 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET 132 No works Multiple previous failures None


75 21 BARCLAY STREET SACKVILLE STREET 115 LV wire clearance None High


77 41 JAMES STREET JAMES STREET 88 No works None None




81 9 JAMES STREET JAMES STREET 115 Property/Asset clearance Remove pipe out of tree High

82 2 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 108 No works None NonePage 98 of 133


83 2 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 106 No works None None



86 14 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 106 Irrigation,Mulch required None High





91 17 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 112 HV wire clearance None Urgent

92 21 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 133 Climbing inspection Cannot observe upper union, inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

High

93 23 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 108 Domestic LV clearance None Moderate

94 25 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 106 HV wire clearance None Moderate

95 27 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 110 Property/Asset clearance,LV wire clearance

Remove chicken wire around trunk High

96 27 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET 91 Property/Asset clearance,LV wire clearance

Provide clearance of power pole High



99 85 BANK STREET ALBERT STREET 95 No works None None

100 85 BANK STREET ALBERT STREET 86 LV wire clearance,Property/Asset clearance


101 85 BANK STREET ALBERT STREET 94 Property/Asset clearance Provide clearance of power pole Moderate

102 82 GIPPS STREET REGENT STREET 10 Mulch required None LowPage 99 of 133


103 82 GIPPS STREET REGENT STREET 10 Mulch required None Low

104 98 SACKVILLE STREET REGENT STREET 84 LV wire clearance None High

105 98 SACKVILLE STREET REGENT STREET 73 HV wire clearance None High

106 23 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 15 Formative pruning,Mulch required

None Moderate


None Moderate

108 23 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 16 Mulch required None Moderate


None Moderate

110 23 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 16 Mulch required None Moderate

111 27 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 77 No works None None


113 41 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 121 LV wire clearance None Urgent





118 54 WILLIAM STREET REGENT STREET 107 LV wire clearance None High

119 71 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 130 Structural pruning Reduce eastern stem over 10 year reduction program

High

120 75 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 143 LV wire clearance None High

121 77 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 119 Broken branch,LV wire clearance

None High

122 85 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 119 No works Possible root trauma from crossover and car park

None

123 84 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 98 No works None NonePage 100 of 133


124 84 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 122 Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

High








132 1/48 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 94 Structural pruning Possible storm damage, reestablish leader

Moderate




136 24 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 90 Domestic LV clearance None High




140 1 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET 82 Domestic LV clearance None High

141 1 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET 68 No works None None

142 11 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET 85 No works None None

143 11 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET 75 Irrigation,Mulch required Grading damage likely to roots High

144 OPPOSITE 17 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 68 No works None None

145 OPPOSITE 17 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 7 Mulch required,Formative pruning

None Moderate

Page 101 of 133


146 OPPOSITE 17 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 7 Mulch required None Low

147 OPPOSITE 15 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 6 Mulch required None Low

148 OPPOSITE 15 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 14 Formative pruning,Mulch required

None Moderate

149 OPPOSITE RAILWAY PARADE REGENT STREET 10 Mulch required Canopy lifting too vigorous Low

150 OPPOSITE RAILWAY PARADE REGENT STREET 11 Removal Remove and replace tree Low

151 2 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET 11 Mulch required None Low


None Moderate

153 100 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 88 No works None None

154 4/102 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 69 No works None None

155 2 REGENT STREET GIPPS STREET 120 No works None None


157 99 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 163 Domestic LV clearance None High



160 87 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 139 No works Monitor decay None





165 71 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 117 No works Remove garden bed at base None



168 63 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 115 No works None NonePage 102 of 133



170 57 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 141 Property/Asset clearance,Domestic LV clearance



172 53 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 115 Domestic LV clearance None Moderate



175 47 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 12 Mulch required None Low



178 41 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 124 LV wire clearance None Urgent

179 37-39 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 178 No works None None

180 37-39 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 146 LV wire clearance None High

181 35 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 132 Property/Asset clearance,LV wire clearance



183 27 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 137 No works Root trauma likely from light and drain installation

None

184 27 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 115 No works Root trauma likely from light installation

None

185 27 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 121 LV wire clearance Root trauma likely from light installation

High


None


None

Page 103 of 133



High


Moderate

190 27 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 129 LV wire clearance None High

191 6/25 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 105 Structural pruning,LV wire clearance

Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

Urgent


193 19 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 95 Structural pruning,LV wire clearance

Undertake a 15 year reduction program to reduce south eastern stem

Urgent



196 11 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 101 LV wire clearance None Moderate



199 1/7 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 89 LV wire clearance None High


201 1A GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 98 No works None None


203 1B GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 96 No works None None

204 1B GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 87 No works None None

205 1B GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 65 Structural pruning Prune back nearby Cypress Moderate

206 1B GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 84 Structural pruning Prune back nearby Cypress Moderate


Page 104 of 133


208 4 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 21 Mulch required,Formative pruning

None Moderate




212 18 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 85 Structural pruning Reduce included stems over 10 year reduction program, retain central stem

Moderate


214 9 TERJESEN COURT GIPPS STREET 114 No works None None

215 9 TERJESEN COURT GIPPS STREET 120 No works Root trauma likely from drain installation

None

216 9 TERJESEN COURT GIPPS STREET 84 No works None None

217 1 CAMPBELL STREET GIPPS STREET 97 No works None None

218 1 CAMPBELL STREET GIPPS STREET 110 No works None None

219 1 CAMPBELL STREET GIPPS STREET 82 No works Root trauma likely from drain installation

None


221 30 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 132 Structural pruning Reduce included stem over road with 15 year reduction program

High







228 46 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 127 Rootball maintenance Remove soil fill from base HighPage 105 of 133



230 52 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 101 No works Powerline in close proximity of trunk None









239 1 BANK STREET GIPPS STREET 126 LV wire clearance None Urgent


241 82 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 142 LV wire clearance None Moderate


243 86 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET 119 Domestic LV clearance,Property/Asset clearance

Provide clearance of power pole Urgent





248 24 CAMPBELL STREET CAMPBELL STREET 118 No works None None

249 OPPOSITE 30 CAMPBELL STREET CAMPBELL STREET 102 No works None None

Page 106 of 133



251 OPPOSITE 1 SACKVILLE STREET CAMPBELL STREET 128 No works None None


253 OPPOSITE 1 SACKVILLE STREET CAMPBELL STREET 96 Structural pruning Tree has been lightning-struck, prune to re-establish central leader

Moderate







260 37 CAMPBELL STREET CAMPBELL STREET 76 Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 10 year reduction program on appropriate stem

Moderate







Page 107 of 133








273 OPPOSITE 46 CAMPBELL STREET CAMPBELL STREET 127 Structural pruning Reduce included stem closest to pool Moderate






279 OPPOSITE 2 UNION STREET CAMPBELL STREET 110 No works None None

280 OPPOSITE 2 UNION STREET CAMPBELL STREET 10 No works None None



Page 108 of 133



Appendix 4. Araucaria heterophylla TPZ and SRZ Tables

Page 109 of 133

Heritage Araucaria heterophylla TPZ and SRZ Table

Friday, 28 June 2013

ID Property Address Street Planted Botanical Name Canopy Dimensions (HxW) DBH SRZ radius TPZ radius

1 66 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 17m 145cm 4.1m 15m

2 38 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 14m 130cm 4.1m 15m

3 40 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 24m x 14m 132cm 4m 15m




7 48 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 12m 115cm 4m 13.8m


9 54 WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 13m 118cm 3.7m 14.16m

10 57 REGENT STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 11m 156cm 4.2m 15m








18 62B BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 16m 122cm 3.8m 14.64m

19 65 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 15m 123cm 4m 14.76m



Page 110 of 133






26 66 COX STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 29m x 16m 137cm 4m 15m

27 66 COX STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 15m 112cm 3.8m 13.44m

28 65 COX STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 15m 105cm 3.7m 12.6m






34 2A WILLIAM STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 20m x 15m 107cm 3.7m 12.84m











Page 111 of 133







50 67 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 16m 143cm 4.1m 15m

51 67 BANK STREET WILLIAM STREET Araucaria heterophylla 24m x 15m 132cm 4m 15m

52 OPPOSITE 22 SACKVILLE STREET

SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 17m 130cm 4m 15m

53 13 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 28m x 18m 135cm 3.9m 15m

54 11 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 17m 121cm 3.8m 14.52m


56 3 CHASTEL CLOSE SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 17m 137cm 4m 15m

57 1 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 30m x 19m 131cm 4m 15m







64 12 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 28m x 15m 126cm 4m 15m

65 12A SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 15m 134cm 4.1m 15m


67 22 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 21m x 16m 121cm 4m 14.52m

Page 112 of 133


68 1/12 BANK STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 15m 114cm 3.8m 13.68m



71 17 REGENT STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 19m 166cm 4.4m 15m


73 1/94 SACKVILLE STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 28m x 16m 132cm 4.1m 15m


75 21 BARCLAY STREET SACKVILLE STREET Araucaria heterophylla 24m x 16m 115cm 3.8m 13.8m


77 41 JAMES STREET JAMES STREET Araucaria heterophylla 24m x 13m 88cm 3.3m 10.56m





82 2 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 18m x 15m 108cm 3.5m 12.96m









Page 113 of 133



92 21 ALBERT STREET ALBERT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 20m x 13m 133cm 3.8m 15m







99 85 BANK STREET ALBERT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 16m x 12m 95cm 3.4m 11.4m



102 82 GIPPS STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 3m x 1m 10cm 1.4m 2m

103 82 GIPPS STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 3m x 1m 10cm 1.4m 2m

104 98 SACKVILLE STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 18m x 12m 84cm 3.3m 10.08m

105 98 SACKVILLE STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 17m x 12m 73cm 3.3m 8.76m

106 23 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 5m x 4m 15cm 1.8m 2m





111 27 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 16m x 13m 77cm 3.3m 9.24m



Page 114 of 133






118 54 WILLIAM STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 12m 107cm 3.6m 12.84m

119 71 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 13m 130cm 4m 15m













132 1/48 REGENT STREET REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 9m x 14m 94cm 3.4m 11.28m





Page 115 of 133





140 1 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 16m x 14m 82cm 3.3m 9.84m

141 1 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 15m x 8m 68cm 3m 8.16m

142 11 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 18m x 15m 85cm 3.1m 10.2m

143 11 ARMSTRONG COURT REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 12m x 12m 75cm 3m 9m

144 OPPOSITE 17 REGENT STREET

REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 15m x 11m 68cm 2.9m 8.16m


REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 3m x 1m 7cm 1.2m 2m







149 OPPOSITE RAILWAY PARADE REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 4m x 1m 10cm 1.4m 2m

150 OPPOSITE RAILWAY PARADE REGENT STREET Araucaria heterophylla 2m x 1m 11cm 1.5m 2m



153 100 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 19m x 12m 88cm 3.4m 10.56m

154 4/102 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 18m x 12m 69cm 3m 8.28m

155 2 REGENT STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 19m x 15m 120cm 3.9m 14.4m

Page 116 of 133


156 101 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 15m 131cm 4m 15m

157 99 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 29m x 20m 163cm 4.6m 15m







164 75 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 17m 111cm 4m 13.32m


166 1/67 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 25m x 16m 114cm 3.8m 13.68m











177 3/43 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 17m 141cm 4.3m 15m


Page 117 of 133


179 37-39 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 16m 178cm 4.5m 15m

180 37-39 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 16m 146cm 4.2m 15m





















201 1A GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 20m x 12m 98cm 3.6m 11.76m

Page 118 of 133



203 1B GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 19m x 12m 96cm 3.5m 11.52m







210 1/14 GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 16m x 12m 75cm 3.3m 9m




214 9 TERJESEN COURT GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 22m x 13m 114cm 3.6m 13.68m

215 9 TERJESEN COURT GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 21m x 14m 120cm 4m 14.4m

216 9 TERJESEN COURT GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 21m x 12m 84cm 4m 10.08m

217 1 CAMPBELL STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 22m x 13m 97cm 3.5m 11.64m








Page 119 of 133
















239 1 BANK STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 15m 126cm 4.1m 15m



242 84A GIPPS STREET GIPPS STREET Araucaria heterophylla 27m x 16m 133cm 4m 15m






Page 120 of 133


248 24 CAMPBELL STREET CAMPBELL STREET Araucaria heterophylla 26m x 15m 118cm 3.9m 14.16m

249 OPPOSITE 30 CAMPBELL STREET

CAMPBELL STREET Araucaria heterophylla 22m x 13m 102cm 3.5m 12.24m


CAMPBELL STREET Araucaria heterophylla 22m x 13m 125cm 3.8m 15m








CAMPBELL STREET Araucaria heterophylla 23m x 17m 102cm 4m 12.24m















Page 121 of 133






























Page 122 of 133




279 OPPOSITE 2 UNION STREET CAMPBELL STREET Araucaria heterophylla 24m x 13m 110cm 3.7m 13.2m

280 OPPOSITE 2 UNION STREET CAMPBELL STREET Araucaria heterophylla 3m x 1m 10cm 1.4m 2m



Page 123 of 133



Appendix 5. TPZ and SRZ Maps

Page 124 of 133

12345678

91112

13141516

1718

1920212223242526

2728293031

32

33343536373839404142434445464748495051

52535455

565758

59

6263 6465 66

68

69

707172

7374

7576

77 787980

81

8283 84

85

8687 88

89

9192

93 9495969798

99 100101

102103108111112114116117

118119120121122

123 124 125 126 127 128129 131 133

150 151152

153 154155

156157

158159160161162163164

165166167168169171

172

176177178179180181182183184

187

190191

193194

196198

201202 203207

208209210

211212

213214215

218219

220221

223224

225226227

228

229230231232233234

235236237238

239

241242243244245246247

248252253257

268276279280282

HughesAv

Chastel Cl

Lydia Pl

Polding St

Bowls Ct

Mandeville Ct

Moyne Ct

Rogers Pl

DunleeWay

Couta

Cl

Ritch

ie Ct

Terjesen Ct

Winnen Pl

Barcl

ay S

t

Osmo

nds L

ane

Bank StArmstrong Ct

Wish

art S

tPr

inces

St

Atkins

on S

t

Dyson St

Victoria St

Regent St

Belfa

st Cl

Cox St

Churc

h St

Whale

rs Dr

Princ

es H

wyMariner Ct

Caravan Park Dr

Union

St

Willia

m St

Sack

ville

St

Gran

t StEarle

St

Campbell St

Corbe

tt St

Railway Pl

Gipps St

Jame

s St

Albert

St

Tiema

n St

Griffi

ths S

t

Ocean Dr

6.4 Port Fairy Heritage Araucaria heterophyllaTPZ and SRZ Map Overview 150 Junction Road

Nunawading VIC 3131PH: (03) 9877 4114Plotted by Arran ProvisJune 2013GDA 94 Zone 54

LegendTPZSRZ

CadastreRoads

±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Page 125 of 133

12

3

4567

89 10

11

12

131415

161718

19

2021

2223

24

252627

2829

3031

32

33343536

373839

4041

42

43

44

45

4647

48495051

777879

80

81

8283

8485

86878889

90

91

9293

949596

979899100101

109110111112113

114115116117118119120121122

123 124 125 126127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

136 137 138

255256

257258259

260261262264

265266268

271272273274

276277278279

280281282

Marin

erCt

Dyso

n St

Polding St

Dunlee Way

Princ

es H

wy

Bowls Ct

Osmo

nds L

ane

Ritch

ie Ct

Barcl

ay S

tBank St

Regent St Whale

rs Dr

Belfa

st Cl

Cox St

Churc

h St

Campbell St

Union

St

Willia

m St

Gran

t St

Earle

St

Jame

s St

Corbe

tt St

Albert S

t

Port Fairy Heritage Araucaria heterophyllaTPZ and SRZ Map 1 150 Junction Road


LegendTPZSRZ

CadastreRoads

±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Page 126 of 133

52

535455

5758

596061626364 6566

67

68

69

70

7172

73

74

7576

77787980

102103104105106

107108110111136

137 138 140145 150 151

152153

154155

156157

158159160161

162163

164

165

166167168169170171172173174175176

177

178

179180181182183184185

186187188189

190191192

193194

195196197

199 200201 202

203204205

206207

208209

210211

212213

214215

216217

218219

220221222223

224

225226

227228

229230231232233234235236237238239

240241242243244245

246

247

248249

250251252

253254255

256257260265

266

Ocean DrAr

mstro

ng C

t

Chastel Cl

Mandeville Ct

Battery Lane

Dunlee Way

Lydia Pl

Couta

Cl

Terjesen Ct

Barcl

ay S

t

Caravan Park Dr

Cox St

Bank St

Wish

art S

t

Rogers Pl

Princ

es S

tAtk

inson

St

Jame

s St

Victoria St

Regent St

Campbell St

Belfa

st Cl

Churc

h St

Sack

ville

St

Railway Pl

Gipps St

Griffi

ths S

t

Port Fairy Heritage Araucaria heterophyllaTPZ and SRZ Map 2 150 Junction Road


LegendTPZSRZ

CadastreRoads

±0 100 200 300 400 50050m

Page 127 of 133



Appendix 6. Replacement Species Descriptions

Page 128 of 133

Small trees maturing to <8m

SPECIES DETAIL CHARACTERISTIC FORMAcacia pendula

Silver Myall

Native Rounded, small, evergreen tree to 6m, with pendulous branches and attractive silver foliage. The tree is drought tolerant and probably one of the longer lived acacias.

Evergreen

Acer buergerianum

Trident Maple

Exotic Oval to upright, moderately dense medium sized tree to 8m. The form would suit restricted sites however will require pruning under power lines. Autumn colour is an attractive orange-red.

Deciduous

Acer campestre

Hedge Maple

Exotic Oval to round, dense small to medium sized tree to 7m with yellow autumn foliage. Probably suitable under power linesDeciduous

Agonis flexuosa

West Australian Willow Myrtle

Native Broad spreading, multistemmed, semi pendulous small tree to 8m. Attractive small, white flowers cluster along stems from spring to summer.Evergreen

Agonis flexuosa 'Burgundy'

Burgundy Willow Myrtle

Native Broad spreading semi pendulous small tree with strong burgundy new growth. Attractive small, white flowers cluster along stems from spring to summer.Evergreen

Allocasuarina verticillata

Drooping She-Oak

Indigenous Small rounded spreading tree to 6-8m with an open canopy and needle-like, dark green foliage.Evergreen

Angophora hispida

Dwarf Apple Myrtle

Native Small rounded tree with twisting branches to 7m. The flowering period is in January when clusters of creamy white flowers provide a striking contrast against a background of olive-green leaves.

Evergreen

Banksia marginata

Silver Banksia

Indigenous Normally a dense, stiffly-branched shrub or small tree to 6m. Foliage is green on the top and white underneath. Flowers are yellow spikes mostly borne in Feb-June

Evergreen

Banksia praemorsa

Cut-leaf Banksia

Native Small tree to 5m. The leaves are broad, about 50 mm long by 15 mm wide with toothed margins and with truncated ends. Flowers are wine red although yellows sometimes occur, with the spikes borne predominantly over winter and spring.

Evergreen

Callistemon Cultivars

Bottlebrush

Native Large shrubs to small rounded trees to 4-8m. There are many cultivars with varying flower colours, foliage and habits. Cultivars include: 'Dawson River Weeper', 'Endeavour', 'Hannah Ray', 'Harkness', 'Kings Park Special', 'Mauve Mist' and 'Rose Opal'.

Evergreen

Callistemon viminalis

Weeping Bottlebrush

Native Rounded small tree to 5m, with crimson bottlebrush flowers and pendulous foliage.Evergreen

Corymbia ficifolia (dwarf form)

Dwarf Red Flowering Gum

Native Dense rounded tree to 5-8m. Masses of pink, red or orange flowers are borne on the outside of the canopy over summer.

Evergreen

Eucalyptus forrestiana

Fuchsia Mallee

Native Small mallet or mallee eucalypt less than 8m tall. The canopy is open and rounded with showy, pendulous orange-red flowers. The fruits are persistent on the tree and remain an orange-red colour.

Evergreen

Eucalyptus platypus

Moort

Native Small, dense and rounded tree to 6-10m. The leaves are small, round and glossy green and the trunk is glossy green to copper in colour.Evergreen

Eucalyptus torquata

Coral Gum

Native Small open tree to 6-8m tall. The foliage is olive green and the flowers are a pinkish orange in colour throughout spring and summer.Evergreen

Page 129 of 133

Small trees maturing to <8m

SPECIES DETAIL CHARACTERISTIC FORMFraxinus ornus

Manna Ash

Exotic Small, rounded tree to 7-9m tall. Foliage is a lush green without showy autumn colour. The white flowers are showy and borne in dense clusters.Deciduous

Hakea bucculenta

Hot Pokers

Native Large shrub or small tree to 3-4m with an upright habit. The leaves are linear and stand vertical on the tree. The flowers are striking pink 'pokers' borne in winter.

Evergreen

Hakea francisiana

Grass-leaf hakea

Native Large shrub or small tree to 4m with an upright habit. The leaves are linear and stand vertical on the tree. The flowers are striking red or reddish purple 'pokers' borne in winter.

Evergreen

Hakea laurina

Pin-cushion Hakea

Native A shrub or small tree reaching 5m. Foliage is blue-green, up to 15 cm long, thick and smooth. Flowering from April, the rounded pin-cushion flower heads are distinctive soft cardinal or cherry red, with projecting long styles, white to pale pink on aging.

Evergreen

Lagerstroemia Hybrids

Crepe Myrtle

Exotic Multistemmed widespreading tree to 6-8m tall. The flowers are very showy in summer and the autumn colour is quite striking. Cultivars include, 'Lipan', 'Natchez', 'Sioux', 'Tuscarora', 'Yuma' and 'Zuni'.

Deciduous

Laurus nobilis

Bay Laurel

Exotic Slow growing to 8m, this is the tree that the aromatic ‘Bay Leaf’ comes from in cooking. Dark glossy green leaves, it can have a tendency to sucker but can also be trained to a single stem.

Evergreen

Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem'

Dwarf magnolia

Exotic Dwarf variety of Magnolia grandiflora to 4-8m. It has a dense growth habit, glossy leaves with a rusty reverse, and creamy white, perfumed flowers in spring and summer.

Evergreen

Malus ioensis 'Plena'

Ornamental Apple

Exotic Small oval to rounded tree to 4-5m tall. The double flowers are showy in spring and the foliage displays striking autumn colour.Deciduous

Metrosideros excelsa

New Zealand Christmas Bush

Exotic Having a dome-like, spreading form to 8m. Leaves are oblong, leathery and covered in dense white hairs underneath with masses of vibrant red coloured flowers in November to January

Evergreen

Olea europaea

Olive

Exotic Small upright tree to 6-7m tall. The foliage is a silvery green and the trunk forms a twisted gnarled look with age. Two selections are almost fruitless, 'Swan Hill' or 'Tolley's Upright'.

Evergreen

Prunus xblireana

Double Flowering Plum

Exotic Small tree to 4-6m tall, the double pink flowers in spring give way to bronzy-purple foliage.Deciduous

Page 130 of 133

Medium-sized trees maturing to 8-15m

SPECIES DETAIL CHARACTERISTIC FORMAcacia implexa

Lightwood

Native Small to medium erect evergreen tree to 8m tall, with dense bright green foliage and creamy acacia flowers from summer to autumn.Evergreen

Acacia maidenii

Maidens Wattle

Native A long lived and elegant tree with an upright to spreading dense medium to large canopy, with dark green foliage. Performs best with supplementary water during establishment although no long term special maintenance required.

Evergreen

Acer negundo 'Sensation'

Box Elder

Exotic A small to medium sized tree to 9m. Tolerant of harsh conditions. Medium green, pinnate leaves show a reddish-brown tinge as emerging with Autumn colours bright red, orange and yellow.

Deciduous

Banksia integrifolia

Coastal Banksia

Native Erect small to medium tree to 6-10m. Foliage is green on the top and white underneath. Flowers are yellow spikes borne throughout the year all over the tree.

Evergreen

Celtis australis

Nettle Tree

Exotic Broad-crowned tree to 10-12m tall. The bark is smooth and grey, foliage is green and rough with serrated margins.Deciduous

Corymbia eximia

Yellow Bloodwood

Native Rounded tree to 10-12m tall with pendulous, blue-green, sickle-shaped foliage. Masses of creamy flowers are borne on the outside of the canopy in spring.Evergreen

Corymbia ficifolia

Red Flowering Gum

Native Dense rounded tree to 8-10m. Masses of pink, red or orange flowers are borne on the outside of the canopy over summer.Evergreen

Eucalyptus erythrocorys

Illyarrie

Native Tree or mallee to 8 m tall. Bark smooth, grey or grey-brown to cream or white. Long green leaves contrast with large yellow flowers and distinctive red bud caps.

Evergreen

Eucalyptus leucoxylon

Yellow Gum

Indigenous Medium upright to oval tree to 12m with an open canopy and creamy yellow flowers from winter to spring. The bark is more or less smooth with some rough basal peeling bark, white to grey in colour.

Evergreen

Eucalyptus porosa

Malle Box

Native Mallee habit to 12m tall. Bark is rough on the lower stems and up to the smaller branches, with long glossy green leaves in a dense canopy. Predominantly white flowers are produced over cooler months to produce small cup shaped fruit.

Evergreen

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Urbdell' Urbanite™

Urbanite Green Ash

Exotic Medium sized tree 10-12m with large, pinnate , bright green leaves. Autumn colour is variable from yellow to deep burgundy.

Deciduous

Geijera parviflora

Wilga

Native Extremely ornamental and tolerant of a wide range of soil and climate types, it can reaches 9m in height. Pyramidal when young, it has attractive leathery, pendulous foliage and white strongly-scented flowers.

Evergreen

Lophostemon confertus

Queensland Brush Box

Native Rounded, sometimes multistemmed, dense tree to 12-16m. The foliage is a glossy, dark green and the bark peels to reveal an orange-pink trunk.Evergreen

Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat'

Aristocrat Callery Pear

Exotic Oval to pyramidal small to medium tree to 10-12m tall. White flowers amass the stems in spring followed by bright green foliage. The autumn colour varies from yellow to red.

Deciduous

Pyrus calleryana 'Capital'

Capital Callery Pear

Exotic Narrow, upright small tree to 10m. White flowers amass the stems in spring followed by bright green foliage. The autumn colour varies from yellow to purplish-red.

Deciduous

Page 131 of 133

Medium-sized trees maturing to 8-15m

SPECIES DETAIL CHARACTERISTIC FORMPyrus calleryana 'Glen's Form' Chanticleer®

Chanticleer Callery Pear

Exotic Upright oval small to medium tree to 12m. White flowers amass the stems in spring followed by bright green foliage. The autumn colour varies from yellow to purplish-red.

Deciduous

Ulmus parvifolia

Chinese Elm

Exotic Pyramidal to oval small to medium tree to 12m. The foliage is fine and is usually held on the tree over winter. If not managed the form can become very wide and spreading.

Semi-deciduous

Zelkova serrata

Zelkova

Exotic Semi-upright oval to vase shaped tree to 10-14m tall with small serrated leaves that turn yellow and red in autumn. Ornamental trunk is grey peeling to reveal reddish underneath.

Deciduous

Page 132 of 133

Large trees maturing to >15m

SPECIES DETAIL CHARACTERISTIC FORMAngophora costata

Smooth-barked Apple Myrtle

Native Medium to large rounded tree with twisting branches to 12-25m. Showy cream flowers are borne on the outside of the canopy and the bark peels to reveal an orange pink trunk.

Evergreen

Araucaria heterophylla

Norfolk Island Pine

Native The premier species of Port Fairy, it is a distinctive conifer with straight vertical trunks and symmetrical branches to a height 35m. The cones are squat, 10–12 cm long and take about 18 months to mature, disintegrating at maturity.

Evergreen

Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca'

Blue Atlas Cedar

Exotic Pyramidal when young, branches become spreading when mature. Striking blue-green leaves 15-20mm long are clustered on branches and blue-grey cones break up over time. A very long lived tree that is reasonable drought tolerant.

Evergreen

Corymbia citriodora

Lemon-scented Gum

Native Narrow open medium to large, graceful tree to 20-25m. The trunk is smooth grey to white and the foliage smells strongly of lemon when crushed.Evergreen

Corymbia maculata

Spotted Gum

Native Medium sized to very tall upright tree to 25m with smooth mottled grey and dark grey trunk. The canopy is dense with large dark green eucalypt type leaves.Evergreen

Eucalyptus melliodora

Yellow Box

Indigenous Medium to tall open tree to 20-25m. The bark is rough and tightly held to the trunk and the foliage is semi-pendulous.Evergreen

Ficus macrophylla

Moreton Bay Fig

Native A very large and widespreading tree at maturity of 30x30m, this species is suited to open parkland. Flowers are inconspicuous and fruit is red-purple, round and ripening in spring by the thousands.

Evergreen

Metasequoia glyptostroboides

Dawn Redwood

Exotic Columnar conifer to 20m. Bark is orange brown in strips and leaves are fine, feathery and green in colour changing to pink-bronze during AutumnDeciduous

Pinus canariensis

Canary Islands Pine

Exotic Upright conifer to 30m with thick, irregularly cut plates or red to orange-brown bark and classical pine needles.Evergreen

Platanus xacerifolia

London Plane

Exotic Rounded medium to large tree to 15-25m with maple like foliage. The bark forms a patchy mosaic of creams, greens and greys and is attractive.Deciduous

Quercus cerris

Turkey Oak

Exotic A widespreading tree at maturity of 20m tall. A resilient tree that has good autumn colour and acorns ‘sit’ in a ‘furry’ cup that adds interestDeciduous

Quercus ilex

Holm Oak

Exotic Slow growing medium to large tree developing a rounded canopy to 14-16m tall. Small leaves are a dark, glossy green with a lighter underside.Evergreen

Page 133 of 133