Mod 2 - Design Changes

From: Andrew Simpson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 4:18 PM
To: George Fotis <[email protected]>; Genevieve Hastwell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Council comments for Scottish Hospital MOD 2

Hi George / Genevieve,

Please refer below for tree / landscape comments. Let me know if you have any questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a response to the proposed Section 75W Modifications as part of the Presbyterian Aged Care ("The Terraces") Project at 74 brown Street, Paddington.

The modification proposal includes the removal of two (2) trees being Tree 5 (Cinnamomum camphora -Camphor Laurel) and Tree 130 (Angophora costata -Sydney Pink Gum) and the re-positioning of five (5) palms approved for transplantation being Trees 47, 86, 110, 128 and 129). The implications of the works on these trees is outlined below.

Documents referenced are those which have been provided by Kamal Asadkamal (Site Engineer - Multiplex) in e-mail dated at 10:22am 30.01.17 and include:

* Traffic management document prepared by Traffix (reference: 14.289r03v03), dated 3 November 2016
* Planting plan Drawing number LA-P-1017 Rev 11, dated 14.11.16
* Arboricultural Assessment prepared by Tree Wise Men (246MonTree130[AR-RE-P-1008]), dated 28 February 2016
* Arboricultural Assessment prepared by Tree Wise Men (246MonTree5[AR-RE-P-1018]), dated November 2016
* Landscape Design Statement prepared by Site Image, dated 14 November 2016
* Shoring Plan (S-PS-1701, Rev p13)

Tree 5 (Cinnamomum camphora -Camphor Laurel)
Tree 5 (Camphor Laurel) is proposed to be removed and replaced to facilitate truck movements within the site by way of the construction of a vehicle hardstand. The hardstand is associated with Stage 2 of the development. The Traffic management document prepared by Traffix (reference: 14.289r03v03), dated 3 November 2016 provides a number of options for truck movements. Option A involves the removal of Tree 5 and Option B involves the retention of Tree 5 however Tree 127 Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) would be required to be removed.

Option A is promoted as being preferred in the documents supplied by Multiplex as removing Tree 5 will provide additional turning area and relieve some impact on Tree 127. Although not as prominent, Tree 127 has a high retention value. Based on the supplied information there appears to be no other option other that removing and replacing Tree 5.

The statement made within the Arboricultural Assessment prepared by Tree Wise Men (246MonTree5[AR-RE-P-1018]), dated November 2016 that Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) is a suitable replacement species is supported. The replacement tree should be 1000 litres at the time of installation and should be installed within 10m of Tree 5.

Tree 130 (Angophora costata -Sydney Pink Gum)
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment made by Tree Wise Men, dated September 2010 misinterpreted the location of the base of this tree on the plans and it is this error which forms the basis for the removal of this tree. Although the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) calculations were accurate, the subsequent Impact Assessment was made using the incorrect location of the tree.

The TPZ is defined by the Australian Standard The Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970 -2009) as `a specified area above and below ground and at a given distance from the trunk set aside for the protection of a tree's roots and crown to provide for the viability and stability of a tree to be retained where it is potentially subject to damage by development'.

The SRZ is the `area around the base of the tree required for the tree's stability in the ground. The woody root growth and soil cohesion in this area are necessary to hold the tree up right' as defined by AS 4970 - 2009.

The works which were approved adjacent to this tree include excavations for a basement driveway to the west and piling and excavations for the basement level to the south. Both of these elements of the proposal were within the incorrectly calculated TPZ and SRZ of this tree.

The bulk of the approved elements (i.e basement and driveway) and also the limited flexibility for space to the west limit the options for the retention of Tree 130 and as such this tree will be required to be removed.

The approved Landscape Plan prepared by Aspect Studios shows a tapering garden bed adjacent to the approved building in the same location to Tree 130. There is sufficient space in this area to accommodate an advanced (minimum pot size of 400 litres) replacement tree of the same species (Angophora costata -Sydney Pink Gum).

Palm transplantation
The original approval included transplanting five (5) palms (Trees 47, 86, 110, 128 and 129) which are currently positioned throughout the site. The approval included relocating these palms to an area along the Stephen Street frontage. The transplanting of these palms formed a significant part of the original application and their scale and prominence was intended to present along the Stephen Street frontage.

The Landscape Design Statement prepared by Site Image, dated 14 November 2016 outlines that the current proposal includes the deletion of the condition requiring the relocation of the palms. The reason for the amendment is due to insufficient soil area between the piling capping beam and pedestrian path on Stephen Street to accommodate the rootballs that have been specified within the Transplant Method Statement. The supplied Shoring Plan (S-PS-1701, Rev p13) supports this.

It is understood from onsite discussions with Kamal Asadkamal (Site Engineer - Multiplex) on 30.01.17 that the palms are to be substituted with advanced Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lillypilly). This species has been installed in a similar area along the Stephen Street frontage and is considered a suitable replacement.

However, conflicting information between the Site Image letter and verbal discussions with Mr Asadkamal has been provided as to the landscape treatment. Site Image proposes to install six (6) advanced palms in this area.

Both these options are considered suitable in the long-term for this area.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the above, that is the replacement with palms or Weeping Lillypilly, it should be noted that Mr Asadkamal indicated that there is sufficient space for the existing palms (Trees 47, 86, 110, 128 and 129) to be installed along the Stephen Street frontage and slightly north of the original transplanted location and clear of the capping beam. However, no documentation detailing this part of the proposal has been supplied for review.

Although the Site Image Statement refers to palms Tree 79 (Kentia Palm) and Tree 120 (Cocos Palm) being installed in this area it is silent on the outcome of the originally approved transplanted palms. Cocos Palms are an exempt species which are not covered under the provisions of Council's tree controls and its relocation is not supported.

If achievable, the element of the project involving the relocation of palms (Trees numbers) 47, 86, 110, 128 and 129 should be conditioned to be modified so that the palms are retained / transplanted within the site and clear of the capping beam.

Andrew Simpson
Tree Management - Team Leader
Woollahra Municipal Council
536 New South Head Road, Double Bay NSW 2028
p 02 9391 7130
w www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au e [email protected]
Our Values: Respect for People | Integrity and Excellent Performance | Professional Quality Service | Open Accountable Communication

Please see attached file with submission on behalf of The Paddington Society.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached, including petition.

See attached.