Council is proposing a new Local Law designed to protect not only SIGNIFICANT trees, but also canopy trees on private property which qualify under height and width criteria. This is certainly an improvement and should protect more existing trees. However, how many existing canopy trees will actually be covered by the proposal(s) depends to a large extent on how well the upcoming Local Law is written and what is its true intent. What also needs to be considered is to what extent all decisions will be fully transparent and who will make these decisions. Will it be left entirely in the hands of officers, or will councillors have the final say as in numerous other councils on which permit applications are granted or refused?
The officer’s report includes the following paragraphs on this last point:
The above is very ambiguous. We are told that officers will presumably undertake the initial assessment when there has been a permit application, and this is fair enough. The final paragraph however clearly states that there will be an ‘internal review process’ but only for those applicants who have requested a review. Thus, if a permit has been granted, then there is no need for a review! Officer’s will have made the decision and that’s the end of it with no councillor involvement, or no objection rights by anyone it would seem.
The paragraph continues that a report will be prepared but this is dependent on whether or not the applicant has chosen to seek a review as stated previously. What remains unclear is whether the officer report will also cover applications that have been granted a permit ‘internally’ and whether the tabled report is there simply for ‘noting’ or for councillors to make actual decisions? Even with the existing significant Tree register local law, councillors are sidelined and all decisions are made by officers. There is therefore no transparency and no accountability for decision making. We suspect that the proposed new law will be the same. Surely the onus on council is to clear up any ambiguity and to ensure residents that trees will be fully protected.
There are other issues with the proposals as well. Here is our take on these:
Clause 2(b)of the proposed Local Law states that a permit is required to prune or direct, authorise or allow to be pruned a Classified Tree or a Canopy. But we then get the ‘exemption’ that this clause does not apply if Council is notified within five (5) working days of the commencement of the pruning.
This may sound quite innocuous, but it has major repercussions. Why the 5 days grace? Most pruning would be concluded well within 5 days. If an applicant then calls council and says ‘I’ve pruned my tree’ what evidence exists that the pruning was in accordance with the 10% maximum reduction of canopy allowed? What evidence do we have that the branches were less than 10cm in width?
Bayside, by contrast, has processes that would ensure the pruning is done legally. They insist on:
- Photos taken BEFORE and AFTER
- That the work be done by a qualified arborist
- That the arborist has to sign off by certifying the work done.
NONE of the above applies in Glen Eira!!! This leaves a huge loop hole that can easily be taken advantage of.
Compounding the problem we then get this additional clause regarding pruning:
Subclause (2)(b) does not apply to pruning, which is carried out to the following specifications—
(a) up to a maximum of 10% of the Classified Tree’s or Canopy Tree’s total volume within 12 calendar Months
We assume that this means there can be numerous episodes of lopping throughout a 12 month period. But given that no permit is required we again lack evidence that only 10% has been lopped? Nor are we told whether or not each lopping requires council to be notified – even within the 5 day period.
One other change to the current Local Law is also worth commenting upon. Please read the following carefully:
Questions abound. Consider this scenario – No permit has been applied for. A neighbour complains to council that a large canopy tree is being removed next door. According to the current Local Law, the property could be entered by a council officer and inspected. With the proposed new law, this could only happen if the owner of the tree has ALREADY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. If he/she hasn’t, then they the new law does not provide them with the power to investigate and potentially call a halt to the tree removal!
CONCLUSION
Whilst these proposed changes are definitely an improvement and an attempt to protect our existing canopy trees, they simply do not go far enough. We fully accept that there may be situations where a tree presents a major health risk due to storms, etc and should be lopped/removed in the name of safety. But, there are far too many loopholes in the proposed new law that can be exploited. All that is required is that clauses such as Bayside and other councils have is included and that the essential role of monitoring evaluations occurs by councillors. What role councillors will play needs to be spelt out clearly. This has not been done.
Leaving everything in the hands of officers does not engender full transparency and accountability in decision making. Bayside for example also publishes on a regular basis a list of permits granted for the removal of trees. There is nothing in this proposed law which will ensure that decisions on whether to refuse or grant a permit will ultimately be made in the full council chamber so that all residents can see and listen to the evidence.
ONE FINAL POINT. All of the above of course is dependent on whether a planning permit for the site has been granted. The permit could and often does include permission to remove existing trees. Given that planning permits are largely decided by officers and that at least 15 objections are required before the application can go to council, this again places enormous power in the hands of officers.
February 25, 2024 at 7:05 PM
The law looks like swiss cheese. Full of holes. For every canopy tree saved I reckon we will continue to lose five. That’s by design no doubt. Can’t have too many hurdles put in the way of developers.
February 26, 2024 at 9:13 AM
Being kind, I could say that the new law has simply been done in haste and not thought through carefully enough. In Glen Eira I doubt this is the case. Everything has been drafted with one purpose – to sound fantastic but to maintain the status quo. What’s not included is more important than what’s in there.
February 26, 2024 at 11:54 AM
It’s claimed that 3000 trees on private property are lost and that residential areas cover 66% of all land. They also claim that they plant about 2000 trees per annum, but without consistently stating how many are replacements. Once upon a time the replacement number was 800. Adding all this up new plantings equal around 1200 but we still lose 3000 from private property. it’s a continual negative and canopy coverage has to go down. I also don’t understand why applying for a permit should be free. If council can reimburse its costs somehow then they should charge something reasonable for getting a permit.
February 26, 2024 at 2:41 PM
I very much doubt that GE is ever going to meet the canopy coverage target as set out in the Urban Forest Strategy. And I further doubt they ever intended to do so. It’s do the strategies pat each other on the back, file it in the bottom draw with all the other B/S, go have lunch with their developer mates. I’m sure they’re they are achieving their free lunch targets here.
February 28, 2024 at 8:13 AM
It will be a lucky tree, in a lucky spot that get this proposed protection. Granted, any improvement and tree/s saved will be a welcome relief from our terminal tree decline on private land.
March 12, 2024 at 9:04 PM
After familiarising myself with what is being proposed here. It looks like only a very lucky tree growing in a very lucky spot will fit the criteria to be spared the chainsaw. There are so many criteria that allow any specific tree to be removed, it’s not hard to imagine only a few trees here and there will be protected under the proposed criteria.
You can weigh up whether some possible protection is better than no protection at all, which is what we have now. (outside of the classified tree register)
Most of the documentation is legal jargon dealing with Local Law, such as penalties, the right for officers to enter properties to inspect the tree or stump etc. The nuts & bolts are basically as follows:-
a) (A tree or palm) taller than 5 metres measured from ground level with a trunk circumference or combined trunk circumference of 140cm or more measured at a point 140cm along the trunk’s length from ground level; and b) a palm tree taller than 8 metres measured from ground level. A tree that will have a stump of circumference of 140 cm or more is a Canopy Tree and a permit is required for its removal.
Get out of jail free criteria are:-
the condition of the tree;
the appropriateness of the tree for its location on the property, having regard to the existing buildings; and
whether the proposed action is to be undertaken for reasons of health or safety;
whether the tree is causing any property damage;
whether the tree is causing any public nuisance or creating any nuisance to relevant landholders;
whether the tree is a weed;
any legislative requirements;
any other matter relevant to the circumstances associated with the application.
I think there is an argument to say if the community deems trees as being important for community health and wellbeing. Classified trees and trees that meet the citerea as specified in the latest tree protection proposal could be cared for by the council as community assets. Council (Park Services) has the staff with the skills to offer free advice on tree care. We have the trained staff and the equipment to carry through any remedial works that any tree may need to be safe and healthy.
Since council already cares for 18,000 trees via ratepayer rates, what would a few hundred plus more trees add to this burden. I think not much. This may blur the edge between private and public assets and responsibility and liability. Although precedents do already exist, not too dissimilar to what I have written above. Our nature strips are council property, residents effectively manage them, and council manages the tree/s on them.
One thing for sure is climate change is going to bring its own rules, most of them are fairly harsh, we are seeing this already. A little over a month ago hundreds of trees were either lost or damaged in a severe storm, just in my area. Melbourne wide possibly 1000’s. Boundaries between public and private didn’t matter. This age of climate emergency is going to need new thinking and new solutions. The sad thing this tree protection should have happened at least 20 years ago.
March 23, 2024 at 6:50 PM
Glen Eira should learn from other State and Local Government experiences.
1. Glen Eira has not identified the number of canopy trees on Private Land (excluding Parks and Roads and State Government land) with a 1.4 metre circumference and of 5 metres and above. Without the number of trees – with this circumference – there is an unknown factor as to how many trees intend to be protected. Not even the protected canopy percentage of the total 12.5% canopy can be estimated.
2. Glen Eira has listed the 1.4 metre circumference – which is greater than the majority of local government and state governments across Australia who have already re-examined their “continuing tree loss” and changed their planning laws /codes to include trees by smaller measurements. The measurement of the trunk needs to decrease to 1 metre to have a greater relevance – and that is measured at breast height; and then captures different species – that support canopy. It is also a mid range point – where other local governments have proposed smaller trunk circumferences than 1 metre.
– For example and for comparison: the 2023 South Australia Parliamentary Inquiry into its Adelaide Urban Forest (where they are losing over 75,000 trees a year on their old measurements of 1.5 metre circumference trunk under its planning code established in 2017) identified now that its existing protection for Regulated Trees had to decrease to a maximum of 1 metre – to match overwhelming evidence of local governments as most canopy trees identified and “counted” as contributing / performing did not reach the previous truck size protected.
This decrease in truck size to 1 metre (which is largish for Private urban trees) is recommended after comparing tens of local and also state government protection sizes.
Glen Eira ALSO has the canopy uniqueness compared to its neighboring councils, that its tree assets (combined where there are larger trees on public and private percentages and numbers) is dominated by much smaller trees with smaller trunks, or smaller trunk trees but in the 5 to 10 metre range in height; of different species – where smaller trees are predominately on private land.
State Government land will not be covered by the local law – such as departmental land -hospitals, schools, water authorities etc that record larger trees need to be extracted from the net numbers.
As such by not having grandeur of larger trees (combined height and trunk size) on private land, such trees – even with the height of 5 meters dont have the 1.4 metres truck – that are in number are of lower height and with smaller trunks. 1.4 metres is a large trunk! I have canopy trees that are 7 metres high – the trunks at breast height (BH) are 80 cm … well short of any canopy tree expected to be, in part, protected by a local law. The Melia azedarach, commonly known as the chinaberry tree, are also in nature strips – suitable for climate ready trees, fully grown and do not have a trunk measurement (at breast height) of 1.4 meters in circumference.
So what species is the local law targeting? Not many.
The maths do not add up, nor has it been evidenced as to what percentage of the total canopy of Glen Eira – will then come under the proposed local law by height plus trunk combination measurement.
The rounded tree numbers in summary being 10.4% (ave 403 per ha) between 3 – 10 metres in height and 1.5% 10 metres to 15 metres (ave 60 per ha) and 0.5% over 15 metres (ave 20 per ha). State Government LIDAR measures all trees in those increments (Refer source: Living Melbourne: Our Metropolitan Urban Forest (The Nature Conservancy and Resilient Melbourne, 2019) – a supporting document to Plan Melbourne and a background document within the Glen Eira Planning Scheme Clause 15.01-1L 20/04/2023 C220glen Landscaping ). The significance being: a high percentage of taller trees by number are on public land (Parks and Street Trees and State Government) and not on Private Land AND many trees of the height 5 metres which are performing canopy trees, do not have a trunk of 1.4 metres at measurement height (breast height).
No one has sighted the size difference and make up in the Glen Eira Canopy by land ownership compared to its neighbouring councils – the difference requires much thought.
April 17, 2024 at 4:51 PM
Council show only have a say on private property trees that are on the Victorian Heritage Register.