South Australian State Tree Laws Change

Eric Frei

Some big changes going through SA soon.

Basically the state is eliminating council tree protection orders and having a state wide new rule.

Walkerville, Prospect Councils fight new tree laws - Council - News - City North Messenger

Some of the comments on the site have been great too!

__________________

Garry Brockley

Under the new laws, passed but with their accompanying regulations yet to be enacted, the definition of a significant tree will be changed from one with a 2m trunk circumference (measured 1m above the ground) to 3m.

how many trees are there at that size? not bloody many!!!! sounds like the lunatics have finally taken over the assylum.

__________________

dov

Haha! Over here most of the lunatics would protect a foot high sapling. I think I prefer the Sth Australian sort of loony. Mind you, why should any definition of a significant tree be based on DBH (Or as it's at 1m above ground, DDH)?

Eric Frei

NZ is tossing it out too, unless it's on a Heritage list in NZ after 1 January 2012 it ain't protected.

I like the SA approach. Unlike the NZ approach it does protect very large DBH trees.

I am unsure of what is involved for developers, I assume same so they can clear but a lot of new estates still have to comply to council requests for many items including parks, landscapes etc. It is common for developers to have to "donate" parcels of land to get approval to go ahead. They may clear large portions but retain certain areas or even rejuvenate areas for parks. The OLD idea of "saving" the odd larger tree here and there with it ending up isolated in some-ones 500m2 block should be long gone IMHO anyway. I can show you extremely poor taper trees, eucs only 250mm DBH and 20m tall being left in urban blocks swaying about on a gentle breeze because all the neighbouring vegetation was removed, I call them toothpicks. Better to have a larger area left intact and corridors that connect together.

Tree protection using covenants is another poor practice, explained here.

As far as it becoming wholesale slaughter of trees, I doubt it, often a lot of scare mongering happening. Up here Chinese elm, cocos palms and even African tulip trees are on the weed list. Was there wholesale slaughter of them? Nope, and still there's many of those trees around, some flamin huge too!

Some people will want to cut them down, some wont. Have a look at councils where there's no tree protection, is everything cut down? I doubt it.

It will stuff up a consultants work though, a lot of work comes from trees being protected.

__________________

Eric Frei

http://hills-and-valley-messenger.wh...se-protection/

__________________

George Valentine

Isn't without time that something about this, councils and tree issues (significant or not), is happening and from my view point, the sooner the new rules are approved and put into practice, the better.

Does some of these "tree fanatic" people know that trees don't live forever...? some have in fact a real short life expectancy and most old trees are more a problem that they are worth...???

There are exception to this, as there are exceptions to anything in life but, taking the example of the exceptions and making it the rule, is a very big mistake. The problem started long ago, when trees were planted without any proper studies and or projections into the future. Were most of these trees the right species to use in the first place, or was the case of the local nursery have a special on them at the time...???

Everywhere I look, I see trees that were never supposed to be planted there, some were planted by private owners, most without any knowledge on what that tree(s) would become in a few years time but the vast majority are actually government/councils property and responsibility. I may accept that the common person wouldn't know or even consider many of the trees issues when planting, many only because they saw a friend or a place with some, they liked it so they went and bough some.

This is all good if you live/own in a property with plenty of space to play with but, in residential areas, as tight as they are getting in our days, where you hardly can push a wheel-barrow on the side boundary fences between homes, having the wrong tree planted, will not only become your problem but also other people problem.

There is this need to use only "native" stuff regardless if is appropriate or not, this is not only a public or home owner attitude but also from most government/councils part and while native or not, if is the wrong species to be used, it will be always a problem, regardless.

Look at the example of the Eucalyptus commonly know as Gums, why were they planted under powers lines...??? only to be become a problem to people and the Power Companies, people complain about the way they are trimmed by the Power people but, have they have a better method or should they be complaining about those that put it there in the first place...???

There are countless examples that I could give, which many here are perfectly aware of and if we are to amalgamate all the complains about trees, and point it to the direction of the tree species most responsible, I think we all know where it take us, huh...???

I agree totally with Eric about the way vegetation and wildlife consideration in urban/residential areas would be better used, in fact, the same "corridors" were introduced many years ago in most states in Australia to protect and preserve many animal species, they were called the "wildlife corridors...!"
They allow a much better "passage" and habitat conditions to the wildlife, "group" vegetation has a lot more chances to survive and strive than isolated trees and shrubs/grasses planted randomly.

Protecting and been over zealous with many old trees that either were not the best option when planted, that reached they life limit, are diseased and/or structurally compromised/condemned for the sake of having a couple of birds nesting on it once every year, or simply passing by, in exchange for all the risks, damage and aggravation they cause, is just no excuse, particularly when, it could all been voided in the first place.

If is anything to be learn from all of this, one only has to look at the mistakes people (government and public) have done in the pass with this trees issue, and stop following the same steps, time to change...!

PS: If I only had a dollar for each tree that is in fact "significant" in its true sense, against all of those that are simply "tagged" as such, by some "moron" working/being paid by the Councils, only because they are big or they just want to justify their own "ego", I would certainly be a rich man...!

Cheers
George

__________________
"Never do to others, what you don't like for yourself...!"

Eric Frei

Here's a typical example of a council's decision .... wouldn't know if their ass was on fire!

This whole tree issue is being managed by polarised people, and at either extreme is disaster, as seen in the video below.

Landmark Tree Felled| Brisbane Council Blunder

__________________

Rob Chace

AYFS

$50 is re-donk-u-lous that should alwys have been $800/$1000 or more.

I do NOT understand this place...... (throws hands in air)

KevinE

Actually, there are lots of >3M trees here. 2 out of every 3 trees I have been called about over the last few years has been >2M. Then "I" have to explain the rules to the customer, who always goes absolutely nuts at "me" about it. Why am I left to cop the crap?

Kenny Koala

The pendulum swings both ways.

We have council greenies that try to save every tree regardless of where it is , it's health and regardless of peoples safety.
These seat polisher bureaucrats go way to far.
It gets totally ridiculous when peoples building applications are either refused or heavily modified because of a tree. A tree that can be become a problem after the revised building permit has been issued and the house/extension/garage/carport or swimming pool built.
A lot of the time common sense is the last thing thought about.


Then at the other end of the pendulum we have the scorched earth people that want to clear anything and everything.


It's time councils found the midddle of that pendulum.


I'd like to see a tree replacement program introduced by councils.
Want to remove a tree, well thats ok but you have to replace it with 2 suitable species for every metre of height.

Not enough room on your block, then council can put it towards a revegetation program in a wildlife corridor or something similar.
Developers excluded

KevinE

That was supposed to be the backbone of this new legislation Kenny, but I can't find any reference to it anywhere now it's law

They've stuffed up the regulations to the new act though! While the tree now has to be >3M to be "significant" (some exotic species exempted) any tree >2M is now "regulated" & we still need council approval, but no arborist's report Go figure that one out!!! Shiny arses give me the shits!

There's another point; arb reports! A whole cottage industry has built up around the old legislation. Any >2M tree needed an arb report ticking all the relevant boxes before any approval was given to prune/remove it. These reports averaged $400-$500 a pop. Some guys where making a very healthy living off of writing them. Not any more lol!

Eric Frei

Guys,

I know as I do treework and write reports.

So now a tree is in between, say 2.5m.

It is regulated but it is at some-one elses discretion if it stays or goes. Now that means if the tree is simply in the way of your extension or pool, stiff cheddar as it stays.

Or if you think it is dangerous and want to get rid of it but the council shiny ass is a tree hugger (most are) and says no then stiff cheddar.

Now Mr Stiff Cheddar cracks it, he gets a consulting arborist out to look at it to who agrees it is bad and should come out (tree has to be bad genuinely though or he walks away too). So now Mr Stiff Cheddar pays for a report and argues with council's Mr Shiny Ass, but Mr Shiny Ass wont budge his position.

Even a meeting is called and council debates with the consulting arborist, but still doesn't budge. Tree still stays.

Now what? Where do you go? What court if one will listen at all?

Guess what, stiff cheddar there's little you can do and there's tons of cases exactly like this.

In one case a bloke in Brisbane argued that his land was reduced in value now due to a tree and the judge agreed giving him a devaluation of his land by $437,500 but that only reduced his rates a little, perhaps $2k a year.

Yes the system is busted.

Yes the system is biased in favour of the tree and doesn't consider the larger picture. Critiques of mine would say I do not consider the larger picture because the environmental and ecological benefits of the tree outweigh the expanding families needs, there's a whole new debate though.

If the replacement of canopy cover can occur, even elsewhere making the project canopy loss neutral to the planet (adjusted for the 10 year growth of new trees) and habitat is not present (no hollows etc) then why not? If habitat is present and relocation within 100m is possible with artificial habitat then why not?

The last thing we see is balanced, holistic and integrated tree management. I was amazed at the number of birds roosting on my TV aerial, does that mean I cannot change it or take it down?

Redland City Council here has offsite planting, and they ask residents to accept plantings, so some on larger blocks etc get free trees planted. They also have a system that charges $100 per m of height for each koala food tree that is cut down, problem is they count some trees like Euc torelliana as a koala food tree. Doing the numbers means if you cut down a 25m euc it will cost you $2500 and they use that money to replant elsewhere. Not the best system but it is an option, however sometimes you still get refusal.

Now truly large and valuable trees may need protection so they are here for decades, but the owners of such trees receive nothing for having them. The owners, like in the case mentioned above, lose land value, lose space, have greater maintenance issues and insurance risks. The tree provides amenity for the community at their personal cost.

__________________

Kenny Koala

Balance is all that most resonable people want.

Surely it can't be that hard

KevinE

The new regulations under the act:

6A—Regulated and significant trees
(1) Subject to this regulation, the following are declared to constitute classes of regulated trees for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of regulated tree in section 4(1) of the Act, namely trees within the designated area under subregulation (3) that have a trunk with a circumference of 2 metres or more or, in the case of trees with multiple trunks, that have trunks with a total circumference of 2 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level.
(2) Subject to this regulation—
(a) a prescribed criterion for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of significant tree in section 4(1) of the Act is that a regulated tree under subregulation (1) has a trunk with a circumference of 3 metres or more or, in the case of a tree with multiple trunks, has trunks with a total circumference of 3 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level; and
(b) regulated trees under subregulation (1) that are within the prescribed criterion under paragraph (a) are to be taken to be significant trees for the purposes of the Act.
(3) For the purposes of subregulation (1), the designated area will be constituted by—
(a) the whole of Metropolitan Adelaide, other than—
(i) those parts of the area of the Adelaide Hills Council within the Extractive Industry Zone, the Public Purpose Zone or the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone in the Development Plan that relates to that area; and
(ii) those parts of the area of the City of Playford within the Watershed Zone or the Mount Lofty Ranges Rural Zone on the eastern side of the Hills Face Zone in the Development Plan that relates to that area; and
(b) any part of the area of the Adelaide Hills Council outside Metropolitan Adelaide that is within a Country Township Zone in the Development Plan that relates to that area; and
(c) the whole of The District Council of Mount Barker other than those parts of the area of The District Council of Mount Barker within the Industry (Kanmantoo) Zone, the Rural Watershed Protection Zone, the Rural (Mount Barker) Zone, the Rural (Kanmantoo) Zone or the Rural (Kondoparinga) Zone in the Development Plan that relates to that area.
(4) For the purposes of subregulations (1) and (2), the measurement of the circumference of the trunks of a tree with multiple trunks is to be undertaken on the basis of the actual circumference of each trunk and without taking into account any space between the trunks.
(5) Subregulations (1) and (2) do not apply—
(a) to a tree located within 10 metres of an existing dwelling or an existing in ground swimming pool, other than a tree within 1 of the following species of trees:
Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle)
Eucalyptus (any tree of the species); or
(b) to a tree within 1 of the following species of trees:
Acer negundo (Box Elder)
Acer saccharinum (Silver Maple)
Ailanthus altissima (Tree of heaven)
Alnus acuminate subsp. Glabrata (Evergreen Alder)
Celtis australis (European Nettle Tree)
Celtis sinensis (Chinese Nettle Tree)
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel)
Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress)
Ficus spp. (Figs), other than Ficus macrophylla (Morton bay fig) located more than 15 metres from a dwelling
Fraxinus angustifolia (Narrow leaved Ash)
Fraxinus angustifolia ssp. Oxycarpa (desert ash)
Pinus Radiata (Radiata Pine / Monterey Pine)
Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane)
Populus alba (White poplar)
Populus nigra var. italica (Lombardy Poplar)
Robinia pseudoacacia (Black Locust)
Salix babylonica (Weeping Willow)
Salix chilensis 'Fastigiata' (Chilean Willow, Evergreen Willow, Pencil Willow)
Salix fragilis (Crack Willow)
Salix X rubens (White Crack Willow, Basket Willow)
Salix X sepulcralis var. chrysocoma (Golden Weeping Willow)
Schinus areira (Peppercorn Tree); or
(c) to a tree belonging to a class of plants to which a declaration by the Minister under Chapter 8 Part 1 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 applies; or
(d) to a tree that may not be cleared without the consent of the Native Vegetation Council under the Native Vegetation Act 1991; or
(e) to a tree planted as part of a woodlot, orchard or other form of plantation created for the purpose of growing and then harvesting trees or any produce; or
(f) to a tree if the tree is located at a site where it is proposed to undertake development that has been approved by the State Coordinator General for the purposes of the Commonwealth Nation Building Program or the Local Government Infrastructure Program, other than where the site is a site where a State heritage place is situated.
(6) Subregulation (5)(f) expires on 31 December 2012.
(7) For the purposes of subregulation (5), the distance between a dwelling or swimming pool and a tree will be measured from the base of the trunk of the tree (or the nearest trunk of the tree to the dwelling or swimming pool) to the nearest part of the dwelling or swimming pool at natural ground level.
Note—
The scheme set out in subregulations (1) to (7) relates to the declaration of trees to be regulated trees or significant trees by regulations under the Act. A tree may also be declared to be a significant tree by the relevant Development Plan, and such a declaration has effect independently from those subregulations.
(8) For the purposes of the definition of tree damaging activity in section 4(1) of the Act, pruning—
(a) that does not remove more than 30% of the crown of the tree; and
(b) that is required to remove—
(i) dead or diseased wood; or
(ii) branches that pose a material risk to a building; or
(iii) branches to a tree that is located in an area frequently used by people and the branches pose a material risk to such people,
is excluded from the ambit of that definition.

Please note sub para 5A above; there are huge corymbias located within 10M of houses being removed all around town at the moment, because they're not Eucalyptus species, thus not protected anymore!

King koala

thats right I just proved that little fact council checked this tree over three times and it was within 10mtrs of a pool a house and a spotted gum so byebye mr tree with a girth at 1m of 2.9mts around for a tree 63 yrs old.
it ticked all of the new boxes so has now paid the price for a nuftie in a government dept not doing the job that apparently they are getting paid quite well for based on knowledge and expertise.

My Big day and my big rant

Done it

Just saw this tonight.

Changes to lopping laws 'too harsh' - Yahoo!7