Booroondara, Victoria Australia.

TrevMcRev · 15th May 2007, 02:39 PM

Heres a link to their new Local Law.

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/env...aw1f/treelaw1f

This area is one of the leafier municipalities in Melbourne but one of the last to introduce a Tree Permit Local Law. Generally the people here value and look after their trees so mass removal/topping has not been such a big problem.

Some weaknesses in this LL are that unless the tree is on their List Of Significant Trees http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/env...gnificanttrees it can still be pruned (lopped) however anyone wants. It should have at least included pruning to Aust Standards if over the size criteria.

scooter1962 · 10th October 2008, 07:09 PM

Trev - new to the forum but totally agree with your assesment of the local laws for this council.

Had an issue this week with a Pittosporum on a boundary - the neighbour cracked it when we went to remove. It was over the 110cm circumference - (I quoted the job and really didn't look twice). We stopped work and will now get a permit (for a %$#@&ing pittosporum)

I find this councils laws wishy washy and hard to define.

I would love to see uniformity in the council regulations in each city, life would be just that little bit easier.

Eric Frei · 3rd November 2008, 09:05 PM

Big fines for tree loppers - Council - News | Progress Leader

Quote:

Big fines for tree loppers
26 Aug 08 @ 09:00am by Cassie Maher

BOROONDARA Council is cracking down on rogue tree loppers by proposing tough new penalties of more than $11,000.

But not everyone supports the controversial policy, claiming it strips residents’ rights to improve their properties.

Councillors last week voted 6-3 in favour of the policy, following an 18-month trial which saw 116 of 1775 tree removal applications refused, and 16 infringements issued.

A proposed rise in fines from $2202 to $5505 was increased to $11,320, in an alternate and successful motion put up by Cr Phil Meggs and Cr Phillip Healey.

But Cr Luke Tobin slammed part of the policy which refused applications for the removal of healthy canopy trees for carports, garages and pools.

Planning director Phillip Storer said applicants would now need to demonstrate canopy trees met local law criteria, including tree health, for removal.

Cr Nicholas Tragas and Mayor Coral Ross said the council should seek more community feedback before making the decision.

Cr Healey said the community had every opportunity to respond to the policy and it was time to adopt a law that “had some teeth”.

Canterbury resident Robyn Kelly said many significant trees had been chopped down in her neighbourhood over the past 40 years, including a 100-year-old peppercorn tree for which the owner was fined $3000.

“I think if it had been $10,000, she (the neighbour) wouldn’t have done it,” Ms Kelly said.

Victorian Tree Industry Organisation president Robert Knott said millions of dollars worth of trees had been lost across Boroondara in the five years before the policy’s introduction in November 2006.

“Boroondara probably has the best tree canopy of any Melbourne municipality and that really needs to be protected,” he said.

Mr Storer said the council would write to the State Government this week requesting approval for the increased penalty.

treekiwi · 4th November 2008, 05:54 AM

Hey Guys,
Sounds like they seem to be taking a hard line on protecting trees in this district. Does this mean more potential tree reports for construction and landscape modification? Are council arborists responsible for accessment and applications? Is the council realistic about removal of trees in building footprints or works in the rootzone?

Sean Freeman · 4th November 2008, 08:05 AM

I have limited experience in NSW, but have done some work there and found like the LGA's here in Qld the level of reporting required does depend on how well written the planning policies are. This particular decision relates primarily to the fines or bonds applied, it would (I would expect) have implications for the assessment side of veg management but not clear precisely how Boroondara see that working.

The major driver for the appropriate protection of vegetation is federal and state legislation not local council legislation.

It is the case that how individual councils fulfill their obligations varies a lot, and therefore how effective they are varies as well.

The intention of all of these different bits of legislation is not to prevent all urban development, but it is the intention to place proper controls over what is permitted, attempting to put in place a framework to protect established vegetation, to prevent brown scaping of development sites without acknowledgement and mitigation of the damage to the environment such practices create.

I know of no LGA in Australia that has enough qualified personel to undertake the volume of tree assessments required by the legislation, (many up north have avoided facing this matter by not fully developing the local planning instruments in the ways it has happened to the south but it is slowly changing) so there will always be the need for independant qualified consultants to provide written reporting in this area.

Realism is required from those who would make a profit out of urban development first and foremost. It is not realistic (never has been) to expect the wider community to subsidise the costs of environmental vandalism so that a property developer can make more $$$'s.

Where existing vegetation fits the criteria for protection developers should have to take that into account at the concept stage of their own planning, and not treat their sites as if they were devoid of all vegetation.

This is by the way an area where the envolvement of qualified consulting Arborists is critical.....the provision of building constraints based on the existing significant vegetation....it can make the process of construction easier and quicker.

Eric Frei · 4th November 2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Freeman

Where existing vegetation fits the criteria for protection developers should have to take that into account at the concept stage of their own planning, and not treat their sites as if they were devoid of all vegetation.

Aye aye!

Survey first, assess trees second, make recommendations to save tree/groups of trees, implement protection zones then design development.

Oh, and if aplicable you can also transplant some trees to more suitable locations.

15th May 2007, 02:39 PM	#1
TrevMcRev Mature Tree Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Posts: 1,605	Booroondara, Victoria Australia. Heres a link to their new Local Law. http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/env...aw1f/treelaw1f This area is one of the leafier municipalities in Melbourne but one of the last to introduce a Tree Permit Local Law. Generally the people here value and look after their trees so mass removal/topping has not been such a big problem. Some weaknesses in this LL are that unless the tree is on their List Of Significant Trees http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/env...gnificanttrees it can still be pruned (lopped) however anyone wants. It should have at least included pruning to Aust Standards if over the size criteria.

10th October 2008, 07:09 PM	#2
scooter1962 Sappling Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 14	Re: Booroondara, Victoria Australia. Trev - new to the forum but totally agree with your assesment of the local laws for this council. Had an issue this week with a Pittosporum on a boundary - the neighbour cracked it when we went to remove. It was over the 110cm circumference - (I quoted the job and really didn't look twice). We stopped work and will now get a permit (for a %$#@&ing pittosporum) I find this councils laws wishy washy and hard to define. I would love to see uniformity in the council regulations in each city, life would be just that little bit easier.

4th November 2008, 05:54 AM	#4
treekiwi Certificate in Horticulture (Level 4) + Diploma in Arboriculture (Level 6) Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Zealand Posts: 258	Re: Booroondara, Victoria Australia. Hey Guys, Sounds like they seem to be taking a hard line on protecting trees in this district. Does this mean more potential tree reports for construction and landscape modification? Are council arborists responsible for accessment and applications? Is the council realistic about removal of trees in building footprints or works in the rootzone?

4th November 2008, 08:05 AM	#5
Sean Freeman Monument Status Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Townsville Nth Queensland & Gold Coast Sth Queensland Posts: 1,985	Re: Booroondara, Victoria Australia. I have limited experience in NSW, but have done some work there and found like the LGA's here in Qld the level of reporting required does depend on how well written the planning policies are. This particular decision relates primarily to the fines or bonds applied, it would (I would expect) have implications for the assessment side of veg management but not clear precisely how Boroondara see that working. The major driver for the appropriate protection of vegetation is federal and state legislation not local council legislation. It is the case that how individual councils fulfill their obligations varies a lot, and therefore how effective they are varies as well. The intention of all of these different bits of legislation is not to prevent all urban development, but it is the intention to place proper controls over what is permitted, attempting to put in place a framework to protect established vegetation, to prevent brown scaping of development sites without acknowledgement and mitigation of the damage to the environment such practices create. I know of no LGA in Australia that has enough qualified personel to undertake the volume of tree assessments required by the legislation, (many up north have avoided facing this matter by not fully developing the local planning instruments in the ways it has happened to the south but it is slowly changing) so there will always be the need for independant qualified consultants to provide written reporting in this area. Realism is required from those who would make a profit out of urban development first and foremost. It is not realistic (never has been) to expect the wider community to subsidise the costs of environmental vandalism so that a property developer can make more $$$'s. Where existing vegetation fits the criteria for protection developers should have to take that into account at the concept stage of their own planning, and not treat their sites as if they were devoid of all vegetation. This is by the way an area where the envolvement of qualified consulting Arborists is critical.....the provision of building constraints based on the existing significant vegetation....it can make the process of construction easier and quicker.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode