City of Melbourne homepage - City of Melbourne ... › about-council › ...2 Attachment 3: Exceptional Tree Criteria Information Exceptional trees are considered out of the ordinary

Attachments 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Article Northcote Leader Newspaper 3. Exceptional Tree Criteria 4. Report by Tree Logic.

F U T U R E M E L B O U R N E ( E C O C I T Y ) C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T

Agenda Item 5.2

RETENTION OF TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY 14 June 2011 Presenter: Ian Shears, Manager Urban Landscapes

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of an investigation into potential regulations to retain trees on private property. This matter was initially raised at Council in November 2009 where the Planning Committee requested that a draft local law be prepared for consideration to require a permit to remove, destroy or lop a significant tree on private land and that it include the specifications of a significant/exceptional tree.

2. Approximately 60,000 trees in the municipality are located on public land. In 2003, there were 5,000 trees on private land within the municipality and it is likely that over the intervening years, development pressure has reduced that number.

3. Few trees within the municipality have regulatory protection from removal at present. The Melbourne Planning Scheme regulates removal, destruction and lopping of certain trees through the Kensington Banks Comprehensive Development Zone and Heritage Overlays only.

4. Tree Logic Pty Ltd were engaged to research various options to protect trees on private property.

Key issues

5. Several municipalities in metropolitan Melbourne have tree controls that generally provide a blanket approach to tree protection.

6. Research indicates that those tree controls are largely ineffective because over 90 per cent of applications

for lopping or removal of trees were approved in those municipalities. In addition the associated cost of protecting 10 percent of trees is questionable when the time and cost of administering the application process is considered (Refer Attachment 1 (Finance), 2 and 3).

7. A focused method of tree protection is recommended, primarily for trees that are considered exceptional because of their amenity, ecological, or cultural value. It is estimated that approximately 50-100 trees would fit the Exceptional Tree criteria (refer Attachment 3).

8. Work to compile the exceptional tree register can occur in the 2011-12 financial year within the existing proposed budget, however it is anticipated that the associated Planning Scheme Amendment would be likely to occur during the 2012-13 financial year.

Recommendation from management

9. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolves to:

9.1. undertake an exceptional tree survey (in line with the criteria in Attachment 3) and produce a register of exceptional trees by June 2012;

9.2. undertake a planning scheme amendment to protect exceptional trees by June 2013; and

9.3. produce educative material, guidelines and investigate potential incentives for owners of exceptional trees, and other properties with gardens in the municipality.

Page 1 of 24

Page 2 of 24

2

SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT

Legal

1. Legal advice will be provided as required in respect to the subject matter of the report.

Finance

2. The proposed recommendations will have both financial and labour implications.

3. It is anticipated that the financial and labour implications to compile the exceptional tree register can be absorbed within the existing 2011-12 budget.

4. Budget and labour requirements associated with the Planning Scheme Amendment will be requested in the 2012-13 budget.

Planning Scheme (permit required based on Exceptional Tree Register)

Action Time frame

One –off costs (approx)

Development of Exceptional Tree Register, including consultation

During 2011-2012 financial year

$80,000

Preparation and approval process for the Planning Scheme Amendment

During 2012-2013 financial year

$70,000

Conflict of interest

5. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

6. Significant external stakeholder consultation would be required as part of this process, including through the nomination of trees for the exceptional tree register and consultation over any proposed regulation/s. Key stakeholders include residents, businesses and relevant residents groups/environmental agencies and the general public.

7. The Parks and Gardens Advisory Committee will be consulted on the appropriate method for community consultation.

Attachment 1Agenda Item 5.2

Future Melbourne Committee14 June 2011

Page 3 of 24

3

Relation to Council policy

8. The proposed study and subsequent planning controls are closely aligned with Council’s Future Melbourne Eco-City goal; Adapted to climate change and People City goal; Quality public space. It is anticipated that Council’s Urban Forest Strategy which is currently being developed would be highly supportive of the retention of exceptional trees especially where they provide significant shading.

Environmental sustainability

9. Environmental Sustainability principles require holistic thinking over a range of factors. Regulating tree removal on private property should not be seen in isolation to other important considerations including increasing density within cities and providing space for people and biodiversity. This is consistent with Future Melbourne’s Eco-city goals. Only exceptional trees are considered appropriate for protection rather than a blanket control which could lead to conflict with the development potential of sites. Exceptional trees will only be considered for the register where they have suitable space to grow.

Page 4 of 24

Attachment 2: Article in Northcote Leader Newspaper April 2011

1.



Page 5 of 24

Page 6 of 24

2

Attachment 3: Exceptional Tree Criteria Information

Exceptional trees are considered out of the ordinary (extraordinary). The term has been used so as to distinguish these trees as been of local relevance to the City of Melbourne. The National Trust Australia (Victoria) considers trees that are of particular significance on broader scales.

"Exceptional Trees" by reason of age, rarity, location, size, aesthetic quality, conservation status or historical and cultural significance may be designated by the City’s arborist as worthy of preservation.

Exceptional trees are species that are performing well in site conditions and contribute substantially to the general landscape of Melbourne and the community would feel their loss.

An exceptional tree would be growing in a site with adequate space for future growth and is therefore functionally appropriate to sustain its mature size. Exceptional trees are also functionally appropriate for their setting i.e. not causing issues with adjacent infrastructure.

An exceptional tree would have a greater than 20 year life expectancy.

The listing process includes submission of a nomination form and presentation to the Arborist Advisory Committee (TBD).

Criteria Table

List of categories (Adapted from National Trust Australia (Victoria): Table 2 lists criteria that could assist when determining suitability of single and groups of trees for listing as exceptional trees.

According to National Trust Australia (Victoria), trees are to be considered significant when they fulfil one or more criterion.

Table 2 Criteria for tree significance; adapted from National Trust Australia (Victoria)

Category Title Description Types 1 Horticultural

Value Any tree that is of outstanding horticultural or genetic value and could be an important source of propagating stock, including specimens that are particularly resistant to disease or exposure.

- Tolerance selection (Pest & disease) - Propagating potential - Scientific value

2 Location or Context

Any tree that occurs in a unique location or context and so provides a major contribution to the landscape, including remnant native vegetation, important landmarks and trees that form part of an historic garden, park or precinct.

- Historic garden or park - Historic cemetery - Important landmark - Remnant native vegetation - End of natural range - Contribution to landscape - Historic planting style

3 Rare or Localised

Any tree of a species or variety that is rare or of very localised distribution.

- Only known species - Rare species (2 to 50 known specimens) - End of natural range - Disjunct community

4 Particularly Old

Any tree that is particularly old or venerable

- Old specimen

5 Outstanding Size

Any tree outstanding for its large height, trunk circumference or canopy spread.

- Height - Circumference - Canopy spread - Combinations of above

6 Aesthetic Value

Any tree of outstanding aesthetic significance.



Page 7 of 24

3

7 Curious Growth Form

Any tree that exhibits a curious growth form or physical feature such as abnormal outgrowths, natural fusion of branches, or unusually pruned forms.

- Curious Growth Form - Abnormal outgrowths - Fusion of branches - Unusually pruned - Unusually damaged

8 Historical Value

Any tree commemorating a particular occasion, including planting’s by notable people, or having associations with an important event in local history.

- Cultural group - Public welfare - WW1 - WW2 - British Royalty - Other Royalty - Visiting dignitary - Australian public figure - Victorian public figure - Local public figure

9 Aboriginal Content

Any tree that has a recognise association with historic aboriginal activities, including scar trees.

- Scarred tree - Corroboree tree

10 Outstanding Example of Species

Any tree that is an outstanding example of its species.

11 Outstanding Habitat Value

Any tree that has outstanding value as habitat for indigenous wildlife, including providing breeding, foraging or roosting habitat, or forming a key part of a wildlife corridor.

- Breeding habitat - Foraging habitat - Wildlife corridor

Page 8 of 24

Tree Logic Pty. Ltd. 24/3/11

1

Attachment 4: Report by Tree Logic Pty Ltd on regulatory options for vegetation retention and provision 1.0 Introduction

The development of regulations to protect trees on private property recognises the environmental, economic and social benefits of trees to the City of Melbourne while trying to balance the requirements of property owners.

Tree regulations would form a component of the City of Melbourne’s Urban Forest Strategy. (An urban forest is the collection of all trees and vegetation in and around a town or city).

Trees are considered critical infrastructure elements within a city due to their social, environmental and economic benefits, and the community has a broad understanding and acceptance of these traits. Most people think trees are good and want and care for them. There is growing community concern over retention of urban vegetation, particularly in relation to development pressures.

Experience in tree management strongly suggests that there is not wholesale removal of trees on private land, even after storm events. In our experience, pressure on tree retention invariably comes via development. Research has found that public sector policies regulating land development can have a major influence on the environmental impacts and protecting the extent of tree canopy (Landry & Pu, 2009).

Tree regulations do allow greater control of tree removal (slow down removals by disincentive). Conversely they can also provide a disincentive to new tree planting.

What tree regulations do allow is an opportunity for education about the benefits of trees, alternatives to tree removal and the promotion of tree replanting.

However, when considering applying tree controls within a municipality a one-size approach does not fit all. And to be successful there needs to be broad community support and a patient thorough approach.

Trees are dynamic organisms and it is difficult to regulate living plant life and the environment they are growing in, while balancing community expectations and the right of landowners to use their land.

Life-long protection of individual trees after they reach a certain size or life stage may incur on-going maintenance costs, and also reduces the flexibility for property owners, which in turn develops a disincentive for planting large tree species or allowing them to reach their mature size.

Consequently the retention of trees on private property can be tenuous, whereas there is far greater security of tenure for public trees.

The question is invariably asked by sectors of the community; why restrict people’s right to



Page 9 of 24


2

use their land for the benefit of the broader community? The regulations can also be seen as onerous and another tier of bureaucracy and an increase in costs such as permit applications and arborist reports.

2.0 Why tree regulations for Melbourne?

There has to be a clear outline of the goals that want to be achieved by tree controls. Also, the fostering of community support is absolutely critical to ensure that tree regulations are effective; the success of the controls relies on the community’s support. This is difficult as there are divergent community views on this matter.

Some basic questions need to be answered - What are the tree regulations trying to achieve? What are the goals for the urban forest - private & public? (The basic tenets of resource management; what have you got? What do you want? How do you get what you want? Review process.) What is the City of Melbourne trying to promote?

There is a need for assessment & analysis of what is there and what needs to be managed.

Currently there are approximately 51,907 public trees: 29,700 street trees. 22,207 park trees.

Private trees within the municipality are estimated at 5,000 (Approximately 8.75% of total urban forest) (Note source of estimated private tree number unknown. Presented in ‘Planning Committee Report 10 November 2009). Approximately 91% of trees are on public land and approximately 9% in private land.

Of those trees located on private land:

• Where are the private trees located? How many are in residential allotments, and how many are located in other zoned private land - commercial or institutional land i.e. trees in church or university grounds where public typically have access to such trees – almost perceived to be public trees. These trees may not be subject to Local Government regulations.

• How many are weed species?

• How many are of good health and structure? What is the quality of those trees?

• How many are presently functionally appropriate for their setting i.e. not causing issues with adjacent infrastructure?

• How many have adequate space for future growth and are therefore functionally appropriate for mature size?

• What is the longevity of the trees that are well suited to retention based on above factors? (Big is not always best).

• How many trees left after this filtering process. How many are worth protecting?

There appears to be a need to undertake some survey work (combined field/desktop

Page 10 of 24


3

survey or canopy cover study; QuickBird, Lidar) to establish quantity and quality of private trees. Try to establish if there has been a noticeable increase/decrease in the private tree population over recent years? And what are the driving forces; environmental, development, aging tree populations, or changes in community expectations.

According to Couglin, Mendes & Strong (1998) tree regulations should be preceded by landscape analysis and a municipal landscape plan for retaining trees and planting new ones in municipal-scale patterns that will be most effective in attaining energy, environmental, and scenic goals. Effective implementation would require incentives and education in addition to enforcement of the regulations.

Once it is established what is worthy of protection and that it meets broader community goals approaches can be investigated as to how best achieve those goals.

The City of Seattle is currently reviewing its tree regulations (See International case study, page 9). The review process identified a number of issues with the current process, three of which may have relevance for the City of Melbourne’s consideration.

• Focusing on the preservation of the largest trees in denser areas, such as urban centres where growth is anticipated, can be problematic.

• Enforcement outside of development is challenging and costly. (Difficulty in restructuring the scene after tree removal, violations occurring outside business hours, people not familiar with regulations, difficulty in regulating plant growth, involves risk assessment, access to private property, indirect death such as poisoning. Fines not strong enough.)

• Regulations should be consistent and apply equally to trees within a site undergoing development as well as trees outside of development.

Page 11 of 24

Page 12 of 24


4

3.0 Review of existing private tree protection regulations

Many municipalities in Greater Melbourne have tree controls or regulations that generally provide a blanket approach to tree protection. These regulations usually include all trees over a predefined size (trunk diameter or crown height) threshold. Regulations can also protect trees within the planning schemes, defined significant landscapes or neighbourhood character precincts.

Table 1. Review of existing tree regulations in selected municipalities

Municipality Type of tree regulation

Fees/penalties No. of applications per

year

Resources Comment/issues

Stonnington Local Law (Part 7, Division 5, Clause 719)

$20 fee Penalties - 20 pts ($2,000)

480 - 600. >600 in 2010. Applications were tending to go up.

Contractor $60,000 per annum. Approximately 15-20 hours per week for in-house staff.

Majority approved. Council currently not particularly supportive. 98% pruning approved. 90-95% removals approved.

Port Phillip Community Amenity Local Law No. 3. Clause 38. Significant Trees

$75 application fee. Penalties - $2,000

Approximately 190 per year.

All In-house. Estimated at $200 - $300 per application. ($38,000 to $57,000 per annum)

Approximately 90% get approval

Banyule Controls incorporated in Planning scheme. VPO. Schedule 1, 3, 5. ESO Schedule 4 (Sig. Tree List). SLO. DDO8.

Tree removal applications up to 3 trees on non-development sites $110.00. Tree pruning applications $55.00. Can be refunded if application withdrawn.

Were 240-250 applications per year. This has recently increased by 10-12 per month due to new VPO5 introduced 11/2010

1 full-time planning arborist.

Approved removals include 2:1 replanting (difficult to monitor). Approximately 85% approval for tree removals outside of development process. Unsure of approvals within development process. Controls allow education where refused tree removal applications can be withdrawn and tree pruning occurs.

Page 13 of 24


5



year


Bayside Local Law No. 2 Environment. Clause 36, Amendment Local Law No. 6

Pruning - Standard application: $66.00 for the first 2 trees & $13 for each additional tree. Pruning by a Qualified Arborist application: no fee. Removal - $132.00 for the first two trees and $32 for each additional tree Penalty - 20pt ($2000)

970 applications in 2010

All in-house. 4 day per week admin. 1.5 arborists.

Approximately 98% get approval. Approximately 7-10 go to appeal each year. Would prefer to see tree protection within planning scheme - greater control and penalties.

Boroondara Tree Protection. Local Law No. 1F

No application Maximum Penalty: Twenty (20) Penalty Units per offense.

960 (low) - 1200 (high) per annum.

In-house. 1 arborist. 90-93% of applications are approved. Average 7-10% applications are refused. Need a clear process defining what is to be protected. Clear tree assessment guidelines. Clear appeals process. Appeal could involve another arborist opinion. Permit required for tree removals only.

Whitehorse Incorporated in planning scheme. Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1 & VPO3), Significant Landscape Overlay (VPO 1-8)

No information available.

Jan 10 to Oct 10. ~55 applications specifically for tree removal/pruning. Numerous applications for development requiring tree removal

6 in-house planners. 1 full-time planning arborist.

Need amendment to change Overlay. No condition reviews of existing trees within Overlays (particularly VPO).

Page 14 of 24


6



year


Sydney Tree Preservation Order 2004. About to change to ‘Development Control Plans’ State Govt. initiative

$47 per application (can be multiple trees). Will increase to $110 with new DCP. DCP will allow greater enforcement capabilities such as on-the-spot fines.

700 applications per annum. Removal and/or pruning.

2 full-time arborists. Fees do not recoup costs.

Of all applications: 44% are approved for removal 42% are approved for pruning 14% refused (Some of these were removals but were allowed to prune).

Page 15 of 24

Page 16 of 24


7

3.1 Additional comments on existing regulations

Stonnington

Approximately 65% of TWPA are for tree pruning. These are generally always approved with no comebacks.

Approximately 35% of TWPA are for tree removal. Majority approved due to legitimate reasons, such as dead, severe decline, inappropriate location, etc. Of the removal requests that are refused, that is the tree is in good condition and suitable, 50% go to appeal. Where appeal fails, and this could involve upper management and/or Councillor input, trees may be removed clandestinely.

Difficult to monitor and prosecute unauthorised tree pruning/removals.

Stonnington is not aware of how many private trees there are within the municipality.

Port Phillip Process - resident application -> inspected by Council officers; approx. 70% are knocked back or request for further information such as an arborist report. Can get Councillor pressure. Approximately 90% get approved at end. No Significant Tree Register to date. Would like to see tree protection incorporated into planning scheme - feels there would be more weight in controls.

City of Boroondara Tree Protection. Local Law No. 1F. Are generally pleased with the tree regulations and are achieving the organisation's goal – see below.

Council recognises the contribution that the Municipal District’s tree canopy makes to the quality of its suburban environment. Damage and or removal of significant trees or canopy trees results in a degradation of this established character. This Local Law is based on the following principles;

1. Significant trees must be retained and cared for and will be the major determining factor in any redevelopment of land in the vicinity of the tree.

2. Trees that contribute to the Municipal District’s overall tree canopy character should be retained where practicable. Works near significant trees or canopy trees should be minimised to prevent damage and disruption to tree roots or growing conditions.

3. Owners of land and or contractors will be responsible for the loss or damage of significant trees or canopy trees that are required to be retained.

This Local Law gives Council the necessary controls to effectively care-take trees listed in Council’s Significant Tree Study ensuring they are maintained in accordance with the urban character, local amenity and biodiversity of the Municipal District.

City of Whitehorse Generally pleased with the tree regulations sitting within the planning scheme. Overlays achieving

Page 17 of 24


8

goal of protected environmental and urban character objectives. Unauthorised removals still occur, which are presumed to be primarily based on ignorance. Rely on neighbours to report unauthorised removals / tree work.

City of Banyule Comprehensive array of tree controls incorporated with planning scheme (VPO. Schedule 1, 3, 5. ESO Schedule 4 (Sig. Tree List). SLO. DDO8). The controls allow education where request for tree removal can be withdrawn where the applicant agrees to prune the tree. Soon to introduce on-line application to expedite process. The Significant Tree Register (ESO4) provides a good trigger for tree protection. Emphasis on tree replanting and landscaping guidelines.

City of Sydney

15.5% of the total area of the City of Sydney is covered by tree canopy (LIDAR study). 60% of the land is private land.

42% of tree canopy cover is located on private land;

32% on roads/streets; and,

26% in parks.

City of Moreland and City of Glen Eira do not currently have any regulations protecting private trees. Both municipalities are considering implementing regulations and significant tree studies.

3.2 Overview of survey

It would be fair to surmise that tree regulations utilising a Local Law can be expensive to administer with a small percentage of trees being retained.

Opinion varied from the administering officer/arborist as to the efficacy of the tree regulations.

There appeared to be a general opinion that tree regulations encapsulated within the planning scheme offered greater controls, particularly enforcement avenues.

There was only one municipality that included tree planting as a component of the tree regulation.

3.3 International case study

In terms of history and evolution, northern hemisphere countries (USA & Europe) are more advanced in regard to tree regulations.

Seattle tree regulations

Seattle is currently going through a review of their existing tree regulations. Seattle currently has tree protection regulations that regulate tree removal both outside of and during development process, and a land use code that requires planting of trees and vegetation as part of new developments.

Page 18 of 24


9

Tree protection regulations outside of development

Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.11, Tree Protection, provides means for protecting trees in Seattle. Under this chapter, exceptional trees are given particular protections and are broadly defined as follows:

"Exceptional tree" means a tree or group of trees that because of its unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value constitutes an important community resource, and is determined as such by the Director according to standards and procedures promulgated by the Department of Planning and Development.

This Director’s Rule provides clarification for determining trees that should be considered for exceptional status as well as the standards and procedures for this determination.

Rule

An exceptional tree is a tree that:

1. Is designated as a heritage tree by the City of Seattle; or

2. Is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance, age, and/or contribution as part of grove of trees as determined by the method (not included).

Size Thresholds

Certain tree species have predefined size thresholds based on trunk a diameter at breast height (dbh). Trees meeting size thresholds are considered exceptional unless they fail to meet the risk criteria (risk assessment process).

Lots undergoing development

During the development process, exceptional trees in Single-Family, Low-rise, Midrise, and Commercial zones must be protected unless doing so would prevent the property owner from realizing the full development potential of their lot. The concept of full development potential varies by zone but is generally based on lot coverage in Single-Family zones, and floor area or dwelling units in other zones.

Landscaping and replanting are also required or incorporation of ‘Green Factor’, although no details are listed here.

The review of existing regulations has highlighted a number of important lessons that have informed the proposed amendments to the regulations. Of the four points raised in the review, three have relevance to Melbourne;

• Focusing on the preservation of the largest trees in denser areas, such as urban centres where growth is anticipated, can be problematic.

• Enforcement outside of development is challenging and costly. (Difficulty in restructuring the scene after tree removal, violations occurring outside business hours, people not familiar with regulations, difficulty in regulating plant growth, involves risk assessment, access to private property, indirect death such as poisoning. Fines not strong enough)

• Regulations should be consistent and apply equally to trees within a site undergoing development as well as trees outside of development.

Page 19 of 24


10

Canopy cover analysis undertaken between 2002/3 and 2007 found that there was an increase in canopy coverage without a tree removal permit. Possibility to achieve canopy density goals without regulations if other educational and incentives are explored.

Seattle’s proposal

Seattle’s proposal is to meet landscape objectives (canopy coverage goals) by implementing a flexible landscaping requirement that allows owners to meet overall canopy and environmental goals through tree planting or retention. A tree credit standard would require applicants to meet a specified tree credit number per lot area (one credit per 18.5m2 – 200 sq, ft. after the first 140m2 - 1500 sq. ft.) that could be met through retention or planting. The tree credit allowed per tree retained or planted would be based on the diameter of the tree with additional credit for larger trees.

Seattle’s proposal is summarized as follows:

• Implement a tree credit requirement in Single-Family (residential) zones, rather than exceptional tree provisions. Credits based on tree size.

• Implement landscaping standards for institutions in Single-Family (residential) zones.

• Require street trees during development in Single-Family (residential) zones.

• Use Green Factor as an incentive-based approach to tree retention during development and remove exceptional tree regulations in Lowrise, Midrise, and Commercial zones; revisit Green Factor scoring methodology to consider further incentives for the retention of large trees.

• Simplify the process for allowing departures to height, setbacks, and parking to preserve large trees during development by creating an alternative to the design review process.

• Apply Green Factor requirement for principal commercial and retail uses in Industrial areas.

• Discontinue interim tree regulations.

Seattle is also looking at incorporating Green Factors into development plans. Green Factor is a flexible alternative to traditional landscaping standards that allows applicants to meet an overall environmental services goal by choosing from a menu of options including tree retention, new planting, green roofs, green walls, and permeable pavement.

The proposed changes to Seattle’s tree regulations have not been ratified and are still going through a consultative process.

To date, the proposed changes have engendered very strong and divergent opinions. The most consistent opinion is against requiring tree removal permits outside of the development process.

(City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations July 14, 2010.) 4.0 Tree regulation options for Melbourne The survey of Melbourne municipalities that have tree regulations, in particular local laws, would suggest that there is a lot of expense and time expended for a small percentage of trees being retained. It could be argued that the small percentage of trees retained via regulations may have also succumbed to the chainsaw had regulations not been in place.

However, it would appear that political and economic constraints have hampered the effectiveness

Page 20 of 24


11

and evolution of tree regulations. The protection of urban trees and other natural resources is greatly influenced by the importance assigned to the rights of the individual versus society. A widespread appreciation for trees exists throughout the world, but societal consensus on their protection varies widely (Profous & Loeb, 1990. Seattle, 2011).

As indicated it is difficult to regulate a living thing, where there are multi-disciplinary interests combined with passionate, sometimes subjective public opinion.

A tree regulation for Melbourne would receive broad acceptance, generally in a compliant manner. As with any rule/regulation most people will comply. But is a compliant community a goal?

There is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach for tree regulations that would specifically suit the City of Melbourne. The tendency to look at other municipalities for tree regulation solutions presumes that the tree resource of that authority and the community’s vision for its management is the same as Melbourne’s. What is good enough for others may not be so for Melbourne. The City of Melbourne is unique in the context of the Greater Melbourne municipal area - it should strive for a unique approach to tree regulations.

A combination of regulatory and non-regulatory land use controls will provide the best strategy for retaining trees on private land (Liegel, 1995).

According to Profous and Loeb (1990) “Countries and cities which have instituted public relations programmes indicate greater success in tree protection efforts. Education is considered a strong component of tree protection in most countries, although few cities or countries have adopted comprehensive programmes to avoid the compliance problems caused by a lack of public awareness and understanding.”

In Canada and the United States, public enlightenment and negotiation with developers are considered by many to be the most effective tools for preserving existing trees. (Profous & Loeb, 1990).

Schmied and Pillmann (2003) found that a regulation (law) “concerning tree protection seems to make sense, if it can be implemented in a non-bureaucratic, professional and efficient way, respecting the protection and conservation of nature. It should be structured simply and equitably, and its administration and implementation should be simple and efficient.”

There has to be a clear outline of the goals that want to be achieved by tree controls. The fostering of community support is absolutely critical to ensure the tree protection controls effectiveness. The community needs to be involved in the tree protection process; the success of the controls relies on the community’s support.

The goals for tree regulations could be:

• To reflect the tree aspirations of the community

• Maintain and enhance the urban forest across Melbourne

• Expand the City’s tree canopy

• That trees are not seen as a burden to property owners

• An increase in voluntary retention, including the provision of incentives for tree retention

• An increase in voluntary tree planting

Page 21 of 24


12

The following points need to be considered:

• Regulations and incentives should be understandable, enforceable and financially feasible.

• Consistency between tree protection requirements for publicly managed trees, private trees outside of development framework and private trees subject to development.

• An emphasis on the preservation of the largest trees in dense urban areas where growth is anticipated is potentially problematic. Consideration must be given to other citywide requirements such as growth management, transportation, and sustainability.

• Enforcement outside of the development framework is difficult and costly (fines may require court process).

Relevant Australian Standards;

• AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

• AS 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees.

Other considerations - Risk management and legal implications; obliged to exercise reasonable care in considering whether to permit the removal of the tree(s). (Legal precedent - Timbs V Shoalhaven City Council 2004).

4.1 Tree regulation options

It is recommended that a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory land use controls will provide the best strategy for retaining trees on private land. This could include education, some form of tree regulation incorporated into the planning scheme and tree planting incentives.

Although easier and potentially less expensive to initiate, Local Laws seem least effective in retaining trees with inadequate enforcement capability.

Tree regulations incorporated into planning schemes were seen as more effective in retaining trees, have a greater educational capacity and have stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Note that estimated costs to implement recommendations have not been included. Cost to implement a tree regulation is obviously important, however the research would suggest that a clear set of goals with community support and a clear professional process is more important as to the efficacy and success of any regulation.

i) Undertake an education and marketing plan to increase the awareness and importance of privately owned trees within Melbourne’s urban forest.

A combination of brochures (benefits of trees, recommended tree species, why hire an arborist, etc), messages on rate notices, information on the internet and field days with expert presenters and tree giveaways could all be used to educate the community about the urban forest and how to enhance it.

Implement community tree planting programmes. Supply appropriate trees that meet urban forest goals and functional requirements. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has a private land tree planting program. This program assists private landowners by offering technical and financial support to enhance their properties through the planting of vegetation.

Page 22 of 24


13

The City of Melbourne could provide subsidised tree costs (bought at wholesale price) and/or planting services. Landowners would need an indemnity Council against any comebacks in future. Opportunities would exist for commercial partnerships with new or existing partners and nurseries.

This would result in a net gain of trees across the city. This could be perceived as a more proactive cost expenditure – not costs spent in administering a regulation sustaining a small percentage of trees.

In regard to the regeneration of the urban forest, David Nowak stated (in Clark, et al, 1997), “People want and need to direct the renewal process because natural regeneration does not meet most urban need.” Therefore urban forests cannot be sustained by nature, but by people.

ii) Undertake exceptional trees of Melbourne study.

Incorporate those trees deemed exceptional within a Local Law or incorporate within the planning scheme as a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO). Would require a study to establish what and where are the exceptional trees.

Could provide financial incentive to tree owners, such as rate reduction subsidised arboricultural management, to have tree on list. This VPO would require periodic amendment as trees are removed (no tree will last forever).

Examples: City of Whitehorse, City of Boroondara, City of Banyule.

iii) Develop a VPO within the planning scheme that values trees within designated area (suburbs, neighbourhoods) within the city.

This may not include the CBD, or other commercial or industrial precincts. This VPO would place a value on every tree (that would meet a predefined size or characteristic). The control would consider the perceived value of the vegetation in the context of the proposed development and consider the space for other green infrastructure if trees cannot be retained. Trees could be valued based on size or other characteristic that equate to a like-value being incorporated back into the design of the proposed development. Other ‘Green Infrastructure’ options are not limited to tree retention but rather considers the green space (Once a tree has gone then space has gone. Tony Hall. Urban Research Program, 2007). Like the City of Seattle, consider the incorporation of green infrastructure (Green Factor) into development plans. Green Factor is a flexible alternative to traditional landscaping standards that allows applicants to meet an overall environmental services goal by choosing from a menu of options including tree retention, new planting, green roofs, green walls, and permeable pavement.

Examples: City of Seattle.

4.2 Other considerations

Consider regulations for removal only. Tree pruning could be controlled by; education, AS 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees and recommended contractors list.

The challenges for tree regulations are too big in the more densely developed commercial areas of the city. These areas are constrained by higher planned development densities, additional

Page 23 of 24


14

environmental factors relating to air quality, light, access, reduced space combined with functional aspects like retail businesses, traffic movement and parking. (Rely on trees in public domain. Consider other ‘Green Infrastructure’ options).

Consider a threshold for trigger of tree removal permit based on land size, i.e. trees in church grounds university grounds require permit, tree in back garden of residential house block does not. Premise being that with the larger private allotments (commercial institutional), public typically have access to such trees – they provide greater contribution to neighbourhood character being prominently located. Such trees already perceived to be public trees?

4.3 References

City of Seattle (2010). Proposed tree regulations. City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development.

Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., Cross, G., & Wake, V. (1997) A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1). January 1997.

Coughlin, R. E., Mendes D. C. and Strong, A. L. (1998) Local programs in the United States for preventing the destruction of trees on private land. University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Fine Arts, Department of City and Regional Planning, PA

Landry, S. & Pu, R. (2009) The impact of land development regulation on residential tree cover: An empirical evaluation using high-resolution IKONOS imagery. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 94, Issue 2. Page 94-104

Ligel, K. (1995) Land use control as a strategy for retaining and integrating urban forest landscapes. In: Bradley, G. A. (1995) Urban Forest Landscapes. Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. Washington. Ch. 6.

Profous, G. V. and Loeb, R. E. (1990) The legal protection of urban trees: A comparative world study. Journal of Environmental Law (1990) 2 (2): 179-193

Schmied, A., and Pillmann, W. (2003) Tree protection legislation in European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2 (2003) pp 115-124.

Page 24 of 24

Documents

City of Melbourne homepage - City of Melbourne ... › about-council › ...2 Attachment 3: Exceptional Tree Criteria Information Exceptional trees are considered out of the ordinary