Victoria Australia New Vegetation Clearing Laws

Darrell Mcleod

As the heading says the new Victorian laws for vegetation clearing

Attached Files

DSE-Preparing-for-Bushfire-10-30-50-factsheet-FAQ.pdf (306.6 KB, 66 views)

Apocalypsse

Now that is quite interesting. It says the 10/30 rule doesn't include the City of Whittlesea of which its about half/half metro/rural.

Does this mean 'significant trees' are or are not covered by the section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987?

Darrell Mcleod

From the Pdf

A Section 173 is different to what you are thinking it is maybe

Apocalypsse

Yea I looked it up in the act itself, it kinda does say the council ("responsible authority") can enter into the agreement on its own behalf.

http://bit.ly/sL2sMb

Darrell Mcleod

An example of a Section 173 with regard to trees and vegetation - a residential land subdivision I was involved with

The developer gave some trees the chopo to put in roads etc - They were native vegetation - some others trees on site were left

The trees left were controlled - ie cannot be removed hurt whatever by future land owners by a Section 173 agreement

On top of that the developer had a choice in this case - either plant onto the blocks sufficient new vegetation to offset the trees given the choppo and have the Section 173 control them also or offset the losses elsewhere via a Bushbroker which is what we did

It is an horrendously complex system Native Vegetation Offsets etc

Apocalypsse

That sounds pretty similar to whats in the area now. Old planning schemes had the trees as part of someone's property but because its listed as a significant tree it can't be touched without arborist reports and council approval. Now the trees are on their little reserve in new estates as part of the current planning schemes. Any trees that are cut down need to be offset in special areas.

So it does seem like the significant trees are covered under Section 173 (subsection 2).

My gods politics is a headache.

Darrell Mcleod

Have a read of this

And best for the new year mate

On the second page

That is why I have said in other threads things about councils like ---

It is not the councils who are only in control as an example here the Minister for Planning is involved

Look up 'Victorian State Planning Schemes' on Google and then we can see how councils must abide by the state planning schemes that appply to them

Attached Files

sid1_3948 CGD S173 Agreement web.pdf (350.3 KB, 41 views)

derwoodii

True when 10/30 1st came out many thought chain saw sales would go though the roof and vast tracks of forest land would be cleared. Well not quite so most people are smart aware how to best manage the relationship of trees and fire potential. Only a few numb nuts used this 10/30/50 right to remove trees even if highly unlikely fire source eg Liquid ambar in suburban road home ain't ever gonna burst into flames in mid winter.
Still the new 10-50 has no sunset clause so its here to stay as no voter hungry pollie will remove it.


The 10/50 boundaries may have been set by polling booth returns as make nil sense to exclude Knox and Whittlesea. I read that LG can if wish ask state gov to be put into 10/50 or if want can ask to be put out of 10/50 but told that most highly politically prescriptive and so unlikely,

Darrell Mcleod

One would think the areas of Knox within the Dandenong foothills should have been covered