Main Street Windsor| Eildon Hill figs| BCC VPO's Rescinded

Eric Frei

This case has been getting a lot of press and as usual a lot of protesters.

Historic Eildon Hill fig trees will be torn down after losing Brisbane City Council protection | Courier Mail

Unlike the channel the tress are not Moreton Bay Figs, they are common Ficus benjamina.

Of course labelling them "historic" gets the cockles of the heart warmed for the tree huggers, pretty broad time span to offer for a "historic" group of trees (60 and 150 years old), usually historic events etc are more specific.

The story is that 8 months ago the block was sold. There is 4 trees on the block. The trees as you can see by the picture have a canopy spread pretty much the width of the block and if the owner wants to build 2 story then there will be a lot of canopy interference. The existing fence-line with the neighbour cant be accurate as there's some house hanging over the fence (see yellow arrow). The white line shows the canopy spread and the red circles show where the tree trunks are.

The council has approved removal of 3 of the trees. The one closest to the driveway at the top of the hill is being retained, it is also the smallest tree. In my opinion this was the wisest choice for retention as it has least impact on the building envelope with both TPZ and canopy. It being a smaller younger tree also means more adaptable to change, and there will be less changes at the top of the hill than lower toward the rear fence-line.

There's no way an arborist report could have condemned any of the trees for removal, they're all fine. People buy blocks of land to build houses, the owner didn't sell the block as a conservation park, nor did the protesters buy it as such. Sure there can be argument that a different type of construction method (house on poles) may have meant more trees could have been retained but you would have to restrict the height of the house which I doubt you could. The block slopes moderately down hill, it would be very inaccessible after building to work on those trees in years to come, especially if there was a house beneath and no EWP access.

The crunch line by council that stood strong against the protesters and lobbiers was:-
So is a precedent set now?

Attached Thumbnails

 

Attached Files

Windsor figs.pdf (1.20 MB, 79 views)

__________________

Eric Frei

Well, what a debacle this has turned into, it was blasting on the radio this morning and covered by TV tonight, plus newspaper prints.

The protesters were going off as workers moved in. Both the , you have to see it.

Some key points:-

• Climber with saw in shorts (PPE breach)
• No wildlife spotter present at start of work
• Possum spotted but job put on hold until spotter/catcher arrives
• Condition of approval breached as no work to start until spotter/catcher present
• Arborist Brad Carswell says all was abided though
• Cutting Left Handed above shoulder height with what looks like a Stihl MS660 and RH thumb not wrapped
• Residents trespassing on site
• Private security supplied by customer to keep protesters out
• Cops arrive to talk protesters out, no arrests made
• At around 3mins in Lord Mayor Graham Quirk say 95% of applications to rescind VPO's are approved

Here's a link to the 1st newspaper print. I have also loaded PDF versions for continuity.

Residents gave a fig over trees | Courier Mail

I bring this to your attention (I bolded):-

Since when do neighbours need to be consulted? Never, it's not required by law or otherwise and none of their business frankly.

Second newsprint:-

Protesters try to save fig trees at Eildon Hill, Windsor after council axes protection order | Courier Mail

Attached Thumbnails

 

Attached Files

	Windsor figs2.pdf (869.4 KB, 33 views)
	Windsor figs3.pdf (2.99 MB, 87 views)

__________________

Apocalypsse

First time I've ever seen a news article say Arborists!!

Eric Frei

Today I visited the site, well as close as I could get to it, had a brief chat with the security guy and was advised that the public roadway access was out of bounds and I had to get off, but the protesters camp ushered me in to a great viewing platform across the road.

I had a decent chat with many there and made my position clear, I'm not on either side but I disapprove of interference on a job-site when it's legal approved work.

They ensured I understood that they just made sure the works on-site were in accordance with the permit conditions and once the spotter/catcher was there and doing his job properly and the staff had correct PPE etc they left and let them go about their work.

They told me it was confirmed by a councillor on-site yesterday (Monday) that when a VPO is lifted it is to be advised to the local community, so whilst not a consultation there is supposed to be a notice to residents. I have not seen that in the BCC NALL but what we see might be a condensed format booklet (Guide to NALL) not the full deal.

I was also advised that no Development Application (DA) was lodged, so no-one knows what is being built where and how. Now that is odd to me.

I was also told that the VPO's (they have different types) were SLT's, they're a pretty serious one to have and even pruning needs paperwork.

So, how do you get SLT VPO's removed from a vacant block especially with no DA in the system? I would love to have that magic wand! .... You know, I have walked away and advised clients of mine to walk away from properties with large figs on them purely for the reason that council is staunch in keeping them and that I could not condemn the tree to chainsaws and chippers....

..... And in an even more controversial inconsistent backflip I have actually seen clients get VPO's put on their property for wanting to remove unprotected trees, a vice versa of what has happened here on trees that are more tolerant of construction.

Now Mayor Graham Quirk stated on TV that there's a 95% approval rate for rescinding VPO's when asked. I challenge that, and I am in a good position to know as I do this for a living. But rescinding VPO's in absence of a DA is a momentous ask.

I smell something fishy and would like to know how developer Andrew Forward pulled this one off. I doubt very much he just completed the standard BCC Application to Carry Out Works (including interfere with) on Protected Vegetation.

The plot thickens and we the public especially the consulting arborists of Brisbane need to know what is going on here. I also wonder how much the value of the land has gone up since the VPO's were rescinded? It could be that the block was purchased for a bargain price due to the VPO'd figs, I mean one large fig tree devalued a Hamilton block by $437,500.

, job was about 1/2 done around noon today.

__________________

Eric Frei

Some good luck came why my way today and I believe I have found the magic wand.

The magic wand is not magical of course, but factual, just a matter of knowing and engaging correct procedures when the right circumstances are in play.

On page 4 of the Guide to NALL it is written:-

But there's more to this, that is one part only. The right circumstance have to be in play.

How big your house can be on a lot is determined by Council, usually a maximum building envelope of 50% to 60% applies with the remainder of the lot being "open space". Of course this can vary but developers know and can check.

Us arborists call the area around the tree that has to be preserved a TPZ (Tree Protection Zone). We calculate that and can even calculate offsets and intrusions due to various things like roads (well us good ones do that) etc.... TPZ's do not always have to be perfect circles.


Now Andrew Forward the developer bought 4 lots, although it may have seemed like one etc but there's 4 lots in a row. The old house there with that fence-line anomaly is on 2 lots, some of the neighbouring houses are on two lots and some on one lot. I have drawn in some lines on a map so you understand, Andrew bought the 4 lots on the left hand side.


I guess the lots are around 18m deep and 13m wide = 234m2 or so.

Now to the left of the fig trees is some root restriction with driveway and hard landscaping so as an arborist I would argue there's more roots Andrew's side and an elongated TPZ is in play. The 3 of the bottom trees are around 1m DBH (guessing) so they'd have around 452m2 (each) of TPZ. Swing the numbers a little so more of that is in Andrew's yard and you can pretty much say that all of his block is TPZ for all of those trees.

The conditions are now ripe as it is inhibiting development, he hasn't even got his building envelope and is allowed say 50% of that land to build on. This is why the smallest tree was retained in the best location for opening up the most land for building, no good retaining a central large tree .... bigger TPZ where you want your house.

The tree that was second down the hill was still large and would have commanded a serious TPZ onto his block and so on. The outcome to free up 50% for building was delivered by keeping one tree.

But now you ask, why not modify building to accommodate tree? Apparently there's a "reasonable" expectation in law and it is is considered unreasonable to economically escalate the price of construction. Also as an arborist I would argue that although building on poles, covering the soil area with a roof and changing soil moisture for such a large surface area that trees have lived in for 60years+ would be detrimental, decline would follow. But I can still hear tree huggers saying that can be overcome with watering systems, drainage alterations etc etc etc but that is not reasonable.

In summary a lot of things were right, VPO's cannot inhibit development that is in accordance with BCC plans (50% building envelope). In this instance more than 50% of the land was inundated by trees roots and considered a TPZ. The configuration of the trees and their size meant retention of the smallest in the best location.

There's no funny business here, there's no trickery or otherwise. There is a smart operator who seized the day.

On my sites I have never had 50% of the site as a TPZ. If it were then you'd start looking at options for which ones to get rid of. Many smaller trees mean more options but with this case the trees were big meaning less options as to which to save or remove.

If these trees were to be retained due to public significance, historical reasons or whatever then in all seriousness the trees would have to be publicly owned and the block purchased by council etc. You cannot expect people to buy a block to be unable to develop it. If tree protection laws ever become so tough then there would have to be some sort of trigger built in to ensure no-one gets caught out owning a conservation park.

Whilst the protesters gave a fig, Andrew had it figured and I just figured it out (with a little help).

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________

TrevMcRev

Well fig me! Thats an interesting one hey!

Garry Brockley

look s like smart thinking and a good understanding of the rules, well played Mr Forward i applaud your clever thinking.
so what is going to happen when the green party takes over the council and demands a blanket VPO on the whole city do we have to fill out paperwork to trim a shrub will home owners have to ask permission to prune a branch on thier 3m tree?
look i see protests as a good thing but i find the people who attend these gatherings unreasonable and closed to open discussion, with generally thier own adgenda to fill, they feel thier way is the only way without seeing or caring about all of the facts and situations of the other parties. yes freedom of speech is great but use it wisely as too much can bite you on the ass.

__________________

jackranald

Thanks for getting to the bottom of that Eric.

In the media there has been claims that the previous owners had tried to develop on the land in question but had failed to succesfully remove the VPO's. If that's the case, do you think their application to remove the VPOs was denied simply becuase they hadn't based their argument on those factors that Andrew has been able to rely on?

Eric Frei

No. I do not believe that.

The previous owner was upset at the trees being cut down, crying on TV, indicates he didn't want them cut down.

__________________

Drouin Tree Service

Ive removed large old trees on demolition house lots where there was no need for permits as the council approved plans for the new dwelling over lappped the trees.More than one way to skin a cat..

__________________

Drouin Tree Services | Excavator Hire - Drouin and SE Gippsland | Landclearing Melbourne

Eric Frei

One thing that still doesn't make sense and is an ambiguity is the removal of the trees in absence of a DA.

What if Andrew doesn't build for say 5 years or not at all and just on sells that block? The trees could have remained until the last minute just prior to building offering environmental benefits.

What if Andrew doesn't build near those trees at all, he might build lower down the hill across the other lots? Time will tell I suppose and we'll have to wait and see. Imagine how sour it would be if it ends up that nothing was built there.

So perhaps council has been caught out with their own wording and need to tighten it up so that removal of VPO trees in absence of a DA is stopped, that way trees will stay until the last minute.

__________________

DavidHinchliffe

What hasn't been mentioned is that the owner of this property did NOT buy ONE property which was totally covered with fig canopy. There are two blocks (total: 1,600 sqm) with a total of four allotments (each 400sqm) of which ONE allotment had all 4 trees. So, of the four 400sqm allotments, ONE had a VPO on it -- 1/4 of the total site this owner bought. According to local Windsor Real Estate agents the value of the two blocks the owner bought just 8 months ago was LOWER because of the Vegetation Protection Order on 1/4 of the total site. As well, that VPO had been on the site for 15 years and previous inquiries to remove it were REJECTED. PLEASE PUBLISH ALL INFORMATION.

Eric Frei

David,

So how did he get the VPO's removed, especially in the absence of a D/A? I can only work out that he played the card above that the lot was undevelopable.

Can we do a RTI at BCC and what do we look for? Need direction from you because there is a lot of developers now asking questions.

What dept approved this, planning or environment?

Did it go through the wrong dept?

Did he exploit the fact that NALL does not stipulate a DA is required and just had to demonstrate that the lot was undevelopable?

__________________

jackranald

David,

Further to the questions Eric has raised. I think there needs to be clarity on the part of the council (or perhaps the previous owner can help) as to whether or not the previous owner had applied to have the VPOs removed and if so, why their application was unsuccessful. I have asked these questions of Lord Mayors office and am awaiting a response. If these questions have already been addressed (no doubt they probably have somewhere) could you please direct me to where I might be able to find such information?

Cheers

Eric Frei

House of Windsor set to tumble | Courier Mail

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________