February 18, 2015
What Others Do!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[14] Comments
[14] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- February 18, 2015 at 10:32 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates
%d bloggers like this:
February 18, 2015 at 10:43 AM
I saw Piling heading down that way with a chain saw the other day
February 18, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Anyone know if anyone has ever been prosecuted in Glen Eira? I’d say never.
February 18, 2015 at 10:29 PM
A man with a sense of humour.
February 18, 2015 at 3:21 PM
Readers may find it revealing that with the gazetting of Amendment C25 (creation of minimal change/housing diversity) in 2004, the following extracts under Section 21.05 were totally removed from the planning scheme.
“… protection and enhancement of existing urban character and heritage assets including trees and green spaces, which add significantly to neighbourhood character. Controls are needed to limit the loss of mature trees and gardens through development and to ensure appropriate replacement planting so as to maintain Glen Eira ‘s “garden” image. Trees and the creation of green spaces add significantly to neighbourhood character.”
“Residents have regularly expressed strong feelings regarding the loss of trees that often accompanies medium density development. Few, if any, trees are retained on medium density development sites, despite Council’s efforts to encourage the retention of mature trees and other significant vegetation. Trees are generally required to be planted but usually these are limited to small and narrow trees owing to the small open space areas generally provided. Silver birches and gums are commonly used as they are readily and cheaply available at advanced sizes. Planting is typically dictated by cost and availability of plant stock rather than any consideration to existing character of gardens within the street or neighbourhood. The cumulative effect of adjacent medium density development has been a loss of the tree -filled semi-private spaces that contribute towards Glen Eira ‘s image of a garden suburb.”
February 18, 2015 at 4:09 PM
Some [certainly not all!] of this was moved to MSS 21.01.
February 18, 2015 at 4:03 PM
City of Kingston is at the fascist end of the spectrum when it comes to trees though. Its “protected tree” criteria [110cm circumference at base] captures many more than Bayside’s, and it doesn’t have exemptions for emergency/safety reasons, and has ambiguous rules concerning pruning based on out-of-date AS4373-1996.
The goal itself is worthy: “no further net loss in canopy cover throughout the city”, but Kingston’s Local Law doesn’t really align with that. You could cut down ten trees each of 109cm circumference with impunity but be prosecuted for removing a single tree of 111cm, regardless of what was put in its place.
Of course what they’re really wanting is people to pay money and apply for a Permit, so a bureaucrat can decide whether they’ll grant a permit or not, using the sort of vague criteria that we’re so critical of in planning schemes.
Certainly in Glen Eira we’ve seen a lot of moonscaping, and the very areas that need trees most are those areas where developers are seeking 100% site coverage and ZERO permeability. Trees would help soften the stark lines of the plethora of pilling pillboxes granted permits in recent years.
February 18, 2015 at 5:34 PM
Fascist or not, 110 diameter indicates a pretty large tree and should be subject to approval for removal. I only wish that Glen Eira could be so fascist when there is so much moonscaping and the loss of greenery everywhere.
February 18, 2015 at 5:41 PM
oops meant circumferance
February 18, 2015 at 9:38 PM
Anonymous above supports Kingston’s local law without, I suspect, reading it, and without considering all the ramifications or even what the strategic goal should be. The 110cm circumference is measured at the *base* of a tree [not defined but probably natural ground level] and has to include the roots of anything root-bound. It’s not necessarily that large a tree. Bayside uses 1.5m measured 1m above ground: far more sensible.
Kingston has no provision for safety emergencies, whereas Bayside does. Both permit pruning, but Kingston specifies a Standard that you have to pay to read. and an obsolete version of it at that. A tree-owner is presumed guilty unless able to prove their innocence if somebody else interferes with their tree without authorisation. A neighbour whose house was being damaged by a tree could find themselves prosecuted for trimming it back if somebody deems it not to have been done in accordance with AS4373-1996—pay for a qualified arborist, or risk 20-penalty unit [~$3000] fine?
And what is the strategic goal? Is anybody actually encouraged to let a tree grow beyond 110cm circumference if it means being subjected to bureaucracy, hassle and the risk of substantial financial penalties? I like trees, but I’ve had to deal with trees that grew too big, trees that became unsafe, trees that were causing damage. If as a community we really want to maintain the canopy, then we need policies to encourage growing it, not punish the subset of people contributing.
We could have a canopy tax, waived for any dwelling that meets a canopy threshold, used to fund trees to compensate for treeless multi-unit moonscapes, and which cover the costs of running a permit scheme. Or if canopy is too ill-defined, then at least have a tax on non-permeable area—something that provides a financial disincentive to developers when demanding a permit for 100% site coverage.
February 19, 2015 at 3:33 PM
I still maintain that 110 at base would equal a pretty decent tree. There’s nothing wrong in trying to stop developers from wrecking trees on their property or their neighbours. And I have looked at the local law and safety is in there. Trees can be removed if they present a danger. I’d rather this approach any day to what we’ve got in Glen Eira. There are a couple of empty blocks within a stone’s throw of our place. Not a tree or shrub left intact and I think that several of the neighbours trees are endangered once they start digging for underground car parks. If council makes some money out of this then fair enough. Good on Kingston for prosecuting people and trying to preserve trees. As far as I can see this council does not give a stuff about the environment. If there’s any obstacle for developers you can bet they will remove it.
February 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM
There is no mention of safety in s.40 of Kingston’s Local Law. The *only* mention of safety with respect to trees is in s.41 which provides “considerations” whether Council might grant a Permit. It doesn’t even provide decision guidelines. I don’t support 110cm measured at ground level as selection criteria. The point where the circumference is evaluated should at least be above ground for practical reasons. Finding agreement over what a suitable arbitrary threshold for punitive action should be won’t be easy. I don’t agree that tree-owners should have to fund the fetishes of others. If the community values trees then the community should be prepared to fund a permit scheme protecting them. It is silly to focus so narrowly on trees above a certain size and pay no attention to all the other ways a leafy and green environment can be provided.
February 19, 2015 at 10:27 AM
I noticed more planning permits in Neerim Road. So from 247-257 neerim road and around the corner in Truganini Road (overlooking the kindergarten and primary school) will be all 3 (in one case) and 4 story buildings. So we will go from a max of 18 cars (2 per house) to 100 + cars in a street frontage of about 50 meters. Well done this is planning! Was it enough supply for 50 years or 5 years they were planning for again?
February 19, 2015 at 3:41 PM
I bet none of the Town Planning Staff live in the district. More likely Hoppers Crossing or Lyndhurst. Why should they worry.
February 20, 2015 at 3:02 PM
so according to the agenda – council has approved the cinema. However any mention of the middle being used for liquor has not been mentioned.