The Tree Nurturing System (TNS™) is a subsurface retention and passive-irrigation asset that removes runoff from the surface network – displacing detention basins and outfall drainage.
Surface ponding and flood-immunity constraints on access and egress resolved without importing fill.
Distributed storage in the road reserve in place of a centralised basin and a long outfall – no pumps.
Land recovered from detention returns to lot yield, in an area that depends on the site and that we model before you commit.
Sized to deliver the runoff volume reduction the code asks for, with the sensors providing the record.
Where works are dedicated as a council asset, we lead with the trunk stormwater function argument. Canopy, cooling and flood mitigation follow as supporting evidence of multiple function, never in place of it. Positions are confirmed in writing, with the clause named, before anything is relied on.
Cooler, greener streets, and a better flood status on search reports.
Where a development also carries stormwater quality obligations, those are met by separate, appropriately certified measures.
Retention at the source takes conventional infrastructure out of the civil scope rather than adding a new asset alongside it. Because the savings move differently on every layout, we cost them against your site and never quote a standard rate.
The detention basin, the outfall main that serves it, and the pump station where levels demand one. Where a basin is no longer required, the land it occupied returns to the developable area.
Modular storage in the road reserve, installed with the kerb and pavement works – inside the civil program and the same trades, not a separate package with its own mobilisation.
Servicing is surface work on plant the asset owner already operates: sweeping, a removable tray, a consumable filter, no confined-space entry. The maintenance case →
The runoff each node keeps from its own micro-catchment is volume that never reaches the low point of the site. On a precinct the drainage design changes in three places: pipes are sized on the flows that actually reach them; the existing downstream system can often take the discharge without an upgrade; and on most layouts the detention basin is no longer needed.
Of the three, the basin usually carries the largest cost, because it takes developable land as well as construction budget.
Conventional drainage stays on the site at a reduced scale, with the same job shared across many small units.
The figures for any site come from the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR) model of that catchment. Send us a layout and a catchment plan to have the model run before you commit.
We cost it for your site, not from a rate card. The per-lot comparison against centralised detention and outfall drainage is prepared on your actual layout – your catchments, your civil scope, your plant rates – and it comes with the feasibility assessment. A published figure would not survive the variation between sites.
We’ll model your site before you commit, and show what the retention approach recovers in developable land.
Request a site feasibility assessment