Tree root zone vs excavator luke 23 : 34

[outofmytree]

Curse those SES volunteers!

I was out in that stuff today. Forecast was for wind gusts to 120kph so we got into it fast. 7 Cocos palms and a modest Lawson cypress on the ground in 58 minutes. Between downpours it took another 4 hours to clean em up.

I dunno why but we get very little post storm damage to clean up... ah well. More palms tomorrow. Don't like em as trees but they pay the bills!

 

[derwoodii]

Some more pics that capture communication failure.
282 & 283 are behind a tree protection site fence specifically signed & labeled on plans as, no go zone. "Will this be a problem for the trees" asked the site Foreman??
309 was a great effort to protect some bitumen whilst killing a tree. The directional boring blokes were truly disappointed when I suggested that they kinda missed any objective of tree root protection.

 

[Ekka]

From August 2009 AS4970 has been out in Australia.

I suggest all Australians get a copy and LGA's conform to it unless deviation with evidence and supportive analysis from a suitably qualified and experienced arborist supports it.

There is a chart for SRZ's as well as CRZ's, in both cases shown here the SRZ's have been breached.

In the first case the tree appears to be council owned, i have worked on sites where this has happened and the council has been of the opinion that if the tree survives all good, if it dies and they remove so what, would have got removed anyway. Council then place the tree on the regular inspection schedule and check on it, perhaps prune it to mitigate hazard. I see in the first case what appears to be collar cuts for removing lower branches, likely to interfere with the fence. Seemed it was a considered event.

Sometimes the tree simply doesn't warrant the additional expenses of design and building, it's an economical stance that's taken, the wall presides, the tree stays or goes.

What may be overlooked is the long term uprooting. When in 10 years+ time the tree blows over and there's been a 100% staff turnover including the councillors so records and knowledge is lost.... but the evidence will remain.

 

[treeseer]

Some more pics that capture communication failure.
282 & 283 are behind a tree protection site fence specifically signed & labeled on plans as, no go zone. "Will this be a problem for the trees" asked the site Foreman??

In one case a contractor took down a fence to trench, tree died, contractor was out $20,000+.

 

[outofmytree]

Some more pics that capture communication failure.
282 & 283 are behind a tree protection site fence specifically signed & labeled on plans as, no go zone. "Will this be a problem for the trees" asked the site Foreman??
309 was a great effort to protect some bitumen whilst killing a tree. The directional boring blokes were truly disappointed when I suggested that they kinda missed any objective of tree root protection.

Sigh. It doesn't look good for those Eucs does it.

I was going to start a thread for these pics but I will piggy back yours instead Derwoodii.

I called the building company to ask if they had a copy of AS4970 or if indeed they even knew what it was and got a "don't call us we'll call you" push off.

This Corymbia citriodora is over 25m high and easily 35m in canopy width. There was paint, plaster, mortar and (at a guess) lime poured at the base of this tree. Short of drilling holes in the trunk and pouring in Round up I am not sure how much worse these people could have made the situation.

It is true that they came close to preserving the RPZ (9x1.5m=13.5m) but that is small consideration when you see all that garbage piled around it leeching directly into the soil.

I don't know who is responsible for this mess......

Oops. How did that photo get in there....

This may seem like small potatoes but we are losing major trees to development hand over fist in WA. This suburb (Peppermint Grove) is amongst the most expensive real estate here and it looks as though the owner of the building wanted this tree preserved. This block, (just the land) would be worth 1.5 to 2.5 million. The tree has many good cuts showing evidence of professional care for years even decades but all that may be undone because builders still see trees as a place to park the truck under while the unload bricks.

 

[treeseer]

if they are building it on spec the buyer better beware...

If they are building it on order then maybe the buyer can be found and oops get a mailing of info on tree care...

:monkey:

 

[derwoodii]

In my last post behind a tree pictured is bill board exulting the development looks featuring the trees that they had just mutilated as a sale piece.
That grand looking but mistreated Cor cit from Outofmy I would suggest will feature in plans and sales brochure eh..
AS4970 is a great doc, bit big n wordy so sadly seldom is seen in site sheds as it has no bikini girls on the cover.. Hey, that's an idea Tree Roots AS4970 pictures of girls then segue to show tradie build blokes the facts of tree roots zone, could only try could do nay harm.

 

[outofmytree]

Actually thats not a bad idea Guy. I could drop a letter in to the mail box in a few months time with photo's attached. At very least the new owners will be forewarned if not forearmed.

Derwoodii I share you cynicism of AS4970. Not of the document itself, but rather the likelyhood of anyone other than guys like us reading and following it. Maybe on large construction sites but on individual homes ... pffft.

Reminds me of a pruning job I did on an E.globulus about 6 months ago. I am in the canopy removing deadwood and a couple of poorly formed branches and next door are 3 or 4 carpenters with nail guns framing a house. No ear,eye,head or foot PPE. No nailgun signage, no clear fire zone behind the work area, no fall arrest harnesses and no railings around the roof. That, I am afraid, is the all too common standard on small building sites in WA at least.

 

[Ekka]

It is true that they came close to preserving the RPZ (9x1.5m=13.5m) but that is small consideration when you see all that garbage piled around it leeching directly into the soil.

If you actually bought a copy rather than be a scab using the draft you'd know the standard mandates 12 X DBH not 9.

This may seem like small potatoes but we are losing major trees to development hand over fist in WA. This suburb (Peppermint Grove) is amongst the most expensive real estate here and it looks as though the owner of the building wanted this tree preserved. This block, (just the land) would be worth 1.5 to 2.5 million. The tree has many good cuts showing evidence of professional care for years even decades but all that may be undone because builders still see trees as a place to park the truck under while the unload bricks.

Highly assumptive, the owner might or might not want the tree.

The tree may be protected or it may not be.

Fact is you don't know but you have tarred these people as if you do.

In many instances builders have to build a home but dont pay for or do the block clearing. Sometimes when a tree can be cleared the owner doesn't do it and if it's not in the builders way they wont clear it either.

I have been involved in disputes where a driveway to the street had a gum tree sitting smack bang in the middle, the builder cant put the driveway in and the owner refuses to pay the $1500 removal cost for the tree. The builder states again that they dont own the land and it has to be cleared at the clients cost for the driveway to go in, the scabby client in debt to his ears refuses to pay and says he bought the "package" and the builder should pay for the removal of the tree.

You have failed to establish context but draw conclusion easily.

There's 4 potential scenarios ....


1/ If the tree were protected and the council failed to provide the TMP in the DA approval then the builder would get off easily.

2/ The tree is protected and TMP's were provided and the builder ignored ... a fine coming.

3/ If the tree is not protected but the client does want to retain then it's a civil case for damages between the client and the builder, however without clear TMP's in place prior it would again be hard for the client.

4/ Tree will be removed later when client arranges, "just get the house built for now".

 

[outofmytree]

If you actually bought a copy rather than be a scab using the draft you'd know the standard mandates 12 X DBH not 9.

That will teach me to proofread!

Highly assumptive.

Correct, It is highly assumptive of you to draw conclusions from 3 photographs. But it's what I like about you Ekka. Always willing to open your mouth and put both feet in at the same time.

The tree may be protected or it may not be.

Fact is you don't know but you have tarred these people as if you do.

So either it is protected and they are breaching the standard, or it isnt protected and they are creating a hazard. Either way the photographs show poor conduct on what should a show piece site.

So do YOU think what was done here is right??

Or is it just that posting photo's of bad work is immoral? Better not use this link then.http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Your_right_to_take_photographs

Oh wait. You already did.

 

[outofmytree]

I have been involved in disputes where a driveway to the street had a gum tree sitting smack bang in the middle, the builder cant put the driveway in and the owner refuses to pay the $1500 removal cost for the tree. The builder states again that they dont own the land and it has to be cleared at the clients cost for the driveway to go in, the scabby client in debt to his ears refuses to pay and says he bought the "package" and the builder should pay for the removal of the tree.

Open your mouth, take out one foot and apply it liberally to your own posterior. The tree is on private land. The driveway crossover is on the left and the brand new garage is on the right. The cost of any tree work is the owners responsibility no matter what option they choose. The fact that the driveway has been contoured around the tree so carefully at great cost suggests preservation is their desire but as the builder didnt want to talk that cannot be confirmed.

You have failed to establish context but draw conclusion easily.

I agree. You do.

 

[Ekka]

My comments are in red

That will teach me to proofread!

But you cant even read a post without adding your own versions to it.

Correct, It is highly assumptive of you to draw conclusions from 3 photographs. But it's what I like about you Ekka. Always willing to open your mouth and put both feet in at the same time.

I wouldn't say it's assumptive to draw 4 potential scenarios as follows.

There's 4 potential scenarios ....


1/ If the tree were protected and the council failed to provide the TMP in the DA approval then the builder would get off easily.

2/ The tree is protected and TMP's were provided and the builder ignored ... a fine coming.

3/ If the tree is not protected but the client does want to retain then it's a civil case for damages between the client and the builder, however without clear TMP's in place prior it would again be hard for the client.

4/ Tree will be removed later when client arranges, "just get the house built for now".

So either it is protected and they are breaching the standard, or it isnt protected and they are creating a hazard. Either way the photographs show poor conduct on what should a show piece site.

Here you go again, in your little brain it says it's either protected or breaching a standard. But if it's awaiting removal anyway it's doing neither is it. Regarding the poor conduct what would it matter if it were a removal.

So do YOU think what was done here is right??

I don't know if the tree is being retained do I so unlike you I haven't painted them with tar.

Or is it just that posting photo's of bad work is immoral? Better not use this link then.http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Your_right_to_take_photographs

Oh wait. You already did.

<yawn> you are so pathetic.

Open your mouth, take out one foot and apply it liberally to your own posterior.

Have no idea what is going in your head but it appears your brain doesn't control your logic.

The tree is on private land. The driveway crossover is on the left and the brand new garage is on the right. The cost of any tree work is the owners responsibility no matter what option they choose. The fact that the driveway has been contoured around the tree so carefully at great cost suggests preservation is their desire but as the builder didnt want to talk that cannot be confirmed.

I agree. You do.

I'll just point my clients here to let them see what happens when they allow fools to give advice. :stupid:

 

[derwoodii]

Its been a frustrating week, please let me share the pain.
Q. Where do you intend to put the driveway for this new town house car park.
A. Here, points to tree.
Q. What about the tree.
A. What tree, its not on the plans.

Sigh.....

 

[outofmytree]

Its been a frustrating week, please let me share the pain.
Q. Where do you intend to put the driveway for this new town house car park.
A. Here, points to tree.
Q. What about the tree.
A. What tree, its not on the plans.

Sigh.....

Now there is problem. The tree is outside the fence so it would appear that it is owned by the local council. Over here the only way that removal would be permitted in most suburbs is to plant 2 trees in the verge to replace the one removed. Of course the obvious question would be why not reverse the building plan and have the crossover on the opposite side......

 

[Ekka]

Its been a frustrating week, please let me share the pain.
Q. Where do you intend to put the driveway for this new town house car park.
A. Here, points to tree.
Q. What about the tree.
A. What tree, its not on the plans.

Sigh.....

Often I have to write the spec for driveways proximities to council trees.

Often it is overlooked on the drawings, however any decent developer should be employing a consulting arborist prior to design, to assess not only trees on the property but trees within 10m of boundaries and footpath trees. This is often mandated in the preliminary DA

Now there is problem. The tree is outside the fence so it would appear that it is owned by the local council. Over here the only way that removal would be permitted in most suburbs is to plant 2 trees in the verge to replace the one removed. Of course the obvious question would be why not reverse the building plan and have the crossover on the opposite side......

Linear thinking again eh.

Not a new situation and a driveway can co-exist with this tree. Mr Developer if you need help with this one I'll help, no big deal here mate just some lawn guy who isn't qualified has no idea. :monkey:

 

[derwoodii]

Gents, there are design process, guideline's, management systems & solutions here to prevent & heal this kinda cock up. What this thread is about is why weekly us arborist need to do this! The boffins who design failures from behind desks under framed qualifications n pay cheques 4 times ours seem to ignore all above & get you & me to "go figure it out at the wrong end of the dog".
All accept unforeseen planning issues but 40 foot high trees can not be over looked on small sites to multi million $ jobs.
Monday I sort this one, the drive may be diverted but the cost will be high as below offset line (hard to see) in pic is a storm drain gattic cover and the stepped grade makes re-profile tricky so drop $2000 on top of a $2000 driveway here.
Will the architects/designers then offer client a refund???

 

[outofmytree]

Linear thinking again eh.

Not a new situation and a driveway can co-exist with this tree. Mr Developer if you need help with this one I'll help, no big deal here mate just some lawn guy who isn't qualified has no idea. :monkey:

Hey there's a good idea. Imagine making a curving driveway around a tree. Kinda like this one!

I guess I should have drawn lines on the photograph to make it more obvious from the start. I forgot to allow for dysl-EKKA-sia.

 

[outofmytree]

Often I have to write the spec for driveways proximities to council trees.

Linear thinking again eh.

Not a new situation and a driveway can co-exist with this tree. Mr Developer if you need help with this one I'll help, no big deal here mate just some lawn guy who isn't qualified has no idea. :monkey:

Ewww. Is that yellow line where you recommend the driveway goes? You mean to tell a developer that he/she can scrape to 200mm below grade, add 100mm of builders sand, compact to spec then add paving or bitumen? All within 4xDBH as per your drawing? How does this line up with preserving the "feeder" roots present in the top 300mm of soil? If this an example of your sterling work you need to go back to working as a fitter. Someone hand this man a spanner.

 

[outofmytree]

Gents, there are design process, guideline's, management systems & solutions here to prevent & heal this kinda cock up. What this thread is about is why weekly us arborist need to do this! The boffins who design failures from behind desks under framed qualifications n pay cheques 4 times ours seem to ignore all above & get you & me to "go figure it out at the wrong end of the dog".
All accept unforeseen planning issues but 40 foot high trees can not be over looked on small sites to multi million $ jobs.
Monday I sort this one, the drive may be diverted but the cost will be high as below offset line (hard to see) in pic is a storm drain gattic cover and the stepped grade makes re-profile tricky so drop $2000 on top of a $2000 driveway here.
Will the architects/designers then offer client a refund???

I understand exactly what you mean DW. Although working from a couple of photographs is limiting it is simple enough to figure out that if the plans had been reversed, so the garage was on the right instead of left, then there would be no conflict with this tree. Of course there may well be another tree on the right hand side...

At least you got a job out of it. Hope it all works out. Keep us in the loop.

 

[derwoodii]

Yup correct OMT just outside of shot is a nice large Olive tree. The diversion "if it gets up" will pass between them Ok-ishly root zone wise. But I know the home owner will push to have the Ash removed as reversing a car out with a turn n twist will never be the preferred option. To add more salt around the corner same development is a repeat design tree vs crossover failure. All this will chew hours out of my week (non billable for me). Whilst the architect rises late in his tree lined street drops of his kids at leafy private school then of to the office rain forest timber desk, to kill more trees.