Species Tree ID No.

Address Date

Assessor Tree Value =

Tree Value = Basic Monetary Value x Tree Size x Aesthetics x Locality x Species x Special Species x Form x Condition x Habitat x Significance

Basic Monetary Value = 65.00$ Table 6 - Condition

Factor Variation of Factor

Tree size percentage compared to typical mature tree of this species Trunk Condition solid and sound 5

= Actual height / Full potential height x 100 sections of bark missing 3

Actual height extensive decay, hollow trunk 1

Full Potential height Growth Condition >15cm twig elongation this season 3

Percentage size = 5-15cm twig elongation 2

<5cm twig elongation 1

Table 1 - Aesthetic Value Structure healthy, stable and sound 5

Contributes little to the landscape 0.6 some deadwood and dead limbs 3

One of a group of plantings 0.8 extensive dieback and deadwood 1

Wide plantings 1 Pest and Disease no pest/disease infestation 3

Streetscape multispecies 1.2 minor symptoms of infestation 2

Irregular spacing between trees 1.4 advanced symptoms of infestation 1

Streetscape monospecies 1.6 Canopy Development Full balanced canopy 5

Avenue plantings, regular spacing 1.8 full but unbalanced canopy 3

Solitary feature tree 2 unbalanced and lacking full canopy 1

Life Expectancy > 50 years 5

Table 2 - Locality Factor 10 - 50 years 3

In undeveloped bush land or open forest 1.00 < 10 years 1

In country areas and country roads 1.20 Negative Modifying factors

In outer suburb areas and residential streets 1.40 Structural flaw (e.g. included bark) -5

In inner City suburbs 1.60 Underwire pruning -5

In City Park or Reserve 1.80 Roots causing problems (e.g.. drains, lifting paving) -4

In City Garden, City Square, City Mall 2.00 Dangerous habit (e.g. limb drop) -3

City Centre, Main Street 2.20 Ubiquitous species (e.g. grows like a weed) -2

Undesirable characteristics (e.g.. allergies) -1

Table 3 - Species Factor Limbs causing problems (e.g.. Blocking services) -1

Group 1 Short Life Span Fast Growth Rate 0.4 -15 to 26 0

e.g. Prunus, Acacia, Virgilia Total Points Scored conversion to decimal

Group 2 Short Life Span Slow Growth Rate 0.7 Worthless -15 - 0 0

e.g. Malus, Pyrus Very Poor 1 - 6 0.3

Group 3 Medium Life Span Fast Growth Rate 1 Poor 7 - 10 0.6

e.g. Liquidambar, Eucalyptus, Melaleuca, Lophostemon Fair 11 - 14 0.9

Group 4 Medium Life Span Slow Growth Rate 1.3 Good 15 - 18 1.2

e.g. Jacaranda, Fraxinus Very Good 19 - 22 1.5

Group 5 Long Life Span Fast Growth Rate 1.6 Excellent 23 - 26 1.8

e.g. Platanus, Ficus, Pinus

Group 6 Long Life Span Slow Growth Rate 1.9 Table 7 - Habitat

e.g. Ulmus, Quercus, Gingko, Araucaria No special habitat factor 1

Habitat supports native fauna or flora 1.2

Table 4 - Special Species Factor Habitat supports native fauna and flora 1.4

No special species factor 1 Habitat supports rare fauna or flora 1.6

Remnant indigenous species 1.6 Habitat supports rare fauna and flora 1.8

Rare species in locality 1.8

Rare indigenous species 2 Table 8 - Significance

No special significance 1

Table 5 - Form Has minor significance 1.4

No special form 1 Has some significance 1.6

Special form 1.5 Has major historical significance 1.8

Outstanding form 2 Has major social significance 2

Comments

City of Bunbury Street Tree Valuation Method 2016

-$

COB AMENITY VALUATION METHODCoSP Amenity Valuation 1 of 1 8/02/2016

Appendix 4.3Appendix RAC-7

Digital Mapping Solutions does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that DMS shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.

Lot65 #Sandridge Rd DA/2015/329/1

Thursday, 7 January 2016

1:800

Appendix DPDRS-1

Appendix DPDRS-2

Appendix DPDRS-3

SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO BETTING AGENCY & ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE – LOT: 65 #SANDRIDGE ROAD EAST BUNBURY Sandridge Road EAST BUNBURY 6230

No Name Summary of Submission Officer Comments on Submission Government Agencies

1 Department of Planning

South West Planning

6th Floor, 61 Victoria Street

BUNBURY WA 6230

Comments:

- Lot65 is zoned Urban under the GBRS and abuts land reserved for Other Regional Roads.

- The Department is of the view that the proposed land use is not likely to significantly increase traffic, and that the land use change in this instance, and for the purposes of the assessment under the GBRS, should be considered as ancillary and incidental to the predominant use of the land, and therefore does not require planning approval under the provisions of the GBRS.

It should be noted that the Department’s role in the assessment of this development application is an advisory role only, as no GBRS application is required.

Noted.

2 Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor

Sandy.delprete@rgl.wa.gov.au

No comments in respect of development application. It is noted that the proposal relates to a relocation of the existing TAB. The applicant is required to advise the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor.

Private Submitters (Name’s withheld for Privacy Reasons)

3 #1 Support

- The increase in traffic plus poor access to the proposed site would be my worry from Strickland Street.

- Strickland Street floods in heavy weather.

Noted.

Proposal relates to a change of use only and there are no changes proposed to the access.

4 #2 Support/no objection

- We have no objection to this proposal, and hereby record our full support.

Noted.

5 #3 Objection:

- I live in Woodstock West Village, opposite the site of the proposed betting agency.

1. Noted.

2. The traffic generation is not expected to be higher for a bettingagency than a shop land use.

Appendix DPDRS-4

No Name Summary of Submission Officer Comments on Submission 1. Increase traffic congestion at an already busy area

2. More traffic = more risk to the elderly in the Village.

3. There is already a TAB about 400m away

3. The proposal is for the relocation of the TAB.

6 #4 Support/ no objection Noted.

7 #5 Comments/Concerns:

Southern Shutters is a business that leases a unit in the complex that is being discussed. We are mostly wanting clarification on security and what clientele normally the TAB attracts.

Concerned about the clientele that may be attracted to the village, what demographics does this tenant normally attract? We would like clarification on “security” if any that will be installed or upgraded. What “security” measures will be put in place, we are particularly concerned about the Strickland Street side, toilets and arcade, that people may loiter etc – we would just like clarification on security.

1. See applicant’s response. In land use terms a Betting Agency is within the broad range of uses compatible in the Shopping Centre Zone.

2. See applicant’s response on security measures and referred to within the officer report.

8 #6 Objection:

As a resident/owner of nearby property I object to the increase in traffic noise and congestion this proposed business would bring.

Noted.

The traffic generation is not expected to be higher for a betting agency than a shop land use.

9 #7 Support/No objection Noted.

10 #8 Objection:

On behalf of many of the shop owners of the Sandridge Village.

We are against the relocation of the TAB to our centre.

The Sandridge Village over the years has become a food centre for families and the elderly to come enjoy a relaxed safe environment.

Our shop trade from the Retirement village alone would be up to 30% and have been told it will dramatically drop if this gambling establishment is approved (will the government financially cover this loss of earnings?)

We struggle with parking as it is, which has caused many physical and verbal altercations in the past.

We do not have the parking to handle the influx of long term parking this will bring let alone the security risks. Let’s face it

In land use terms a Betting Agency is within the broad range of uses compatible in the Shopping Centre Zone.

Property value is not a planning matter.

The proposed land use will have no greater requirement for parking than the previous use of shop.

The traffic generation is not expected to be higher for a betting agency than a shop land use.

Premises restricted to over 18.

No Name Summary of Submission Officer Comments on Submission punters do not stop for 2 minutes and then leave.

If our parking is full of long term cars our customers get the impression we are busy and drive off as they have limited time to wait. More earnings lost.

Families, the elderly and majority of rent paying shop owners do not want a gambling establishment where their kids come to eat and play. This would highly irresponsible to find this acceptable at the least. To put a gambling establishment next to kids donut shop would have the public and media in a frenzy.

We have one shop owner that will move to another complex when their lease is up at the end of the year if it goes ahead. One shop owner will be selling up and another is worried she will have to close her doors too as she relies on the trade from the Elderly Village.

For the sake of one unwanted gambling establishment, it will effect so many people in so many ways.

To sum up. We will lose more traffic than we will gain and we hope the voice of many will be heard over the sake of one.

Appendix DPDRS-5

Appendix DPDRS-6

Appendix DPDRS-7

Appendix DPDRS-8