Back garden · Plant comparison

Back planter options - 31 Oct 2026

A side-by-side comparison for the narrow back planter. Compare screening, upkeep and root risk, then explore the concept renders through planting and the first two years.

Plant comparison

Green look is display only, not weighted. Rank stays tied to the supplied ranking. Reference rows remain visible for comparison.

Plant details & concept renders

Cards follow the table order. Select a thumbnail to enlarge; use ← / → to browse and Esc or click to close.

Method, assumptions & evidence

Scores are 0–100 from multi-model AI-assisted research; rescored 31 Oct 2026 with web search. Weighted totals were computed by script. Higher Root scores mean lower relative risk, not a probability or certification of sewer safety.

Hard filter: mature height ≥2.5–3 m. Supplied mature ranges are reference inputs, not guarantees of a dense screen at that height within two years.

Renders are AI concept image edits of our photo; sizes are approximate. Size, pot and mess durations marked UNVERIFIED are estimates.
Clipped depth was not found in sources, so Depth scores are relative. Targets are not proven minimums; a continuous hedge strictly within 35–45 cm front-to-back is unverified.
“Not listed” by Sydney Water is not an approval. Sydney Water advises no trees within 6 m of wastewater pipes. The supplied flags were not independently rechecked.
Dense Fence 2-yr images and Banksia / Green Pillar / Paradise Blush 2-yr images are reused from the 2.5-yr set.
Assumed pot: 330 mm (~30 L), as the largest fitting a ~35–45 cm (unconfirmed) planter. Individual stock listings below may differ: a nominal 400 mm specimen may not fit. Confirm internal opening and root-ball dimensions before buying.
Growth assumes healthy bush-form stock, light, irrigation and drainage. Forecast heights are above planter soil, not lawn level. Timing, stock availability and site conditions remain uncertain.

Landscaper’s view on Green Pillar

You could give it a go. The only thing is they are susceptible to pittosporum beetle which destroys the leaves. I don't see them doing that well in Sydney but you could try. They do well in Canberra. They are native to NZ so I think that's why they do better in ACT than here

What the pittosporum evidence supports

The beetle occurs in the Sydney region, but host evidence is mainly Bursaria spinosa and occasional Pittosporum undulatum feeding per Hawkeswood (2011). Older reports may confuse beetle species. Attack severity on P. tenuifolium, local infestation rates and differences between cultivars are UNVERIFIED; absence of a found record does not prove immunity.

Waterlogging, drying and heat stress support a shared site caution (RHS growing guide). Scale and psyllids can affect appearance; New Zealand psyllid evidence does not establish Sydney prevalence. Native origin and Canberra planting use do not prove that Sydney plants perform worse. Drainage and root-zone temperature in this planter are unverified.

Precaution applied equally: Green Pillar, Screenmaster, James Stirling and Silver Sheen each receive Climate 65 → 55 (−10) and Pest 60 → 50 (−10). These are judgement-based penalties, not measured failure probabilities or beetle-specific susceptibility scores. Wet-root and heat vulnerability sit under Climate to avoid double counting. Other factors and Table B remain unchanged. Identify actual damage before assigning a pest; no verified species-specific chemical treatment programme is supplied.

Sources

Collected from the supplied evidence and plant notes. Links require an internet connection; the comparison and local renders work offline.