and panel report - monash council · and lyn denison (member) and a panel hearing was held in glen...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Monash Planning Scheme

Amendment C115

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area

13 August 2013

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area

Chris Harty, Chair Robin Crocker, Member

Lyn Denison, Member

Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 13 August 2013

Contents Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

1 Background ................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2 The Panel ................................................................................................................. 2

2 What is Proposed? ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Details of the Amendment ...................................................................................... 5 2.2 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 6 2.3 Administration of the VPO1 .................................................................................. 10 2.4 Review of VPO1 ..................................................................................................... 11

3 Planning Context ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Policy framework ................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 16 3.3 Other planning strategies ...................................................................................... 18

4 Identification of Issues .............................................................................................. 19 4.1 Summary of concerns raised in submissions ........................................................ 19 4.2 Approach adopted by the Panel ............................................................................ 19 4.3 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................. 20

5 Strategic justification ................................................................................................ 21 5.1 What is the issue? ................................................................................................. 21 5.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 21 5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 26 5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 32 5.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 33

6 Planning Scheme protection of vegetation ............................................................... 34 6.1 What is the issue? ................................................................................................. 34 6.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 34 6.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 36 6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 38 6.5 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 38

7 Other issues .............................................................................................................. 39 7.1 What are the issues? ............................................................................................. 39 7.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 39 7.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 43 7.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 45

8 Overall Conclusions ................................................................................................... 47

9 Consolidated Recommendations............................................................................... 49

Appendix A List of Submitters


List of Tables Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 4

List of Figures Page

Figure 1: Locality plan for VPO1 ............................................................................................. 8

Figure 2: Examples of canopy trees providing community and biodiversity benefits in Monash .................................................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Examples of development areas with few canopy trees on private land .......................................................................................................................... 9


List of Abbreviations

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NCO Neighbourhood Character Overlay

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay

VPO1 Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

of 53 Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 13 August 2013

Executive Summary

Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme proposes to amend Subclause 3.0 – Permit requirement of Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area by expanding the permit exemptions to relax the need for planning permits and to increase the flexibility for landowners to manage vegetation (large canopy trees over 10 metres in height) on private land.

A total of 391 submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, of which equal numbers either supported or objected to the Amendment and the remaining submitters sought further changes. Council was unable to resolve submissions and requested the Minister for Planning to form an independent panel to hear submissions and make recommendations. The Panel comprised Chris Harty (Chair), Robin Crocker (Member) and Lyn Denison (Member) and a Panel Hearing was held in Glen Waverley in mid June 2013.

The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and evidence and has responded to the key issues of:

Strategic justification

Planning scheme protection of vegetation; and

Other issues raised buy submitters.

In conclusion, the Panel considers Amendment C115 fails to demonstrate adequate strategic justification and is not considered appropriate or satisfactory in dealing with the protection, maintenance and enhancement of large canopy trees which contribute towards the ‘Garden City Character’ of Monash.

The Panel sees the Amendment as failing to retain appropriate focus on wider landscape character issues by proposing changes that the Panel considers goes too far in relaxing the permit requirements of the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area.

The Panel considers Council should consider conducting a municipal wide strategic investigation of large canopy trees to better determine vegetation values (with expert and community input) and review planning policies as part of an integrated approach towards vegetation protection and management under the Monash Planning Scheme.

Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

1. Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme should be abandoned.

2. The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area (VPO1) should be retained.

3. That Council should undertake additional work to better determine vegetation values (with expert and community input) and to review planning policies as part of an integrated approach towards vegetation protection and management under the Monash Planning Scheme.


1 Background

1.1 The Amendment

Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme, as exhibited, proposes to amend Subclause 2.0 – Permit Requirements of Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) relating to exemptions from the need for a planning permit for the removal or destruction of vegetation.

Currently, the VPO1 in the Monash Planning Scheme requires a permit only for the removal and destruction of large canopy trees that have a trunk circumference greater than 500mm (diameter 160mm) measured 1200mm above ground level and are higher than 10 metres or are higher than 7 metres located at the former Monash Primary School site at 24 Samada Street, Notting Hill. Current exemptions from the need for a permit are provided for trees that are dead or comprise a select range of species including willows, pines, evergreen elders, sweet pittosporums or desert ashes.

The Amendment expands the above exemptions from the need for a planning permit for removal or destruction of any tree where the tree will be replaced by two new plantings which will grow to become canopy trees; for maintenance of a tree under the guidance of a qualified arborist; for dead, dying or dangerous trees; for the construction of a dwelling, dwelling extension or outbuilding or within 2 metres of such a building or for a non‐native tree and environmental weed species.

The planning authority is Monash City Council.

1.2 The Panel

This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 8 May 2013 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of the Amendment.

The Panel consisted of:

Chris Harty (Chair);

Robin Crocker (Member); and

Lyn Denison (Member).

(i) Hearings and inspections

A Directions Hearing was held on Friday 31 May 2013 at Planning Panels Victoria, East Melbourne. The Panel Hearings were held on Monday 17, Tuesday 18 and Wednesday 19 June, 2013 at the Monash City Council Municipal Offices, Glen Waverley.

The Panel conducted unaccompanied inspections of residential areas covered by the VPO1 around Glen Waverley and Mount Waverley and were assisted by parties to the Hearing nominating various sites for viewing by the Panel.


(ii) Exhibition

The amendment was exhibited between 7 February 2013 and 15 March 2013. Notices were placed in the Waverley Leader newspaper, on Monash City Council’s website, in the Victorian Government Gazette and letters were sent to properties located within the area covered by the VPO1 (mainly Glen Waverley, Mount Waverley and Wheelers Hill).

(iii) Submissions

As a result of the public exhibition of the Amendment Council received 372 submissions. A further 19 submissions were subsequently received bringing the total number of submissions to 391. Of the 372 submissions considered by Council:

39% objected to the Amendment;

39% supported the Amendment; and

22% supported the Amendment but requested further changes.

The Panel have considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.

The Panel heard the parties listed in Table 1.

Submitter Represented by

Monash City Council Mr Terry Montebello solicitor of the firm Maddocks Lawyers supported by Mr Brian Goyen, Coordinator Strategic Planning

Ted Mason

Lindsay Coster

Suzanne James

Dr Erika Winter

Brian McGuire

Miriam Wan

Douglas Maaser

Richard Layton

Lynette Mitchell

Margaret McKay

Evan Carstairs

Richard Clivaz

Freya Headlam

Dianne and Christopher Carra Dianne Carra

Sally & Anthony Clarke Dianne Carra

Elizabeth Anthony

Dr Sharron Pfueller Dr Pfueller called the following expert evidence from:


- Dr Gregory Moore, Arborist and Adjunct Senior Lecturer from University of Melbourne

Frank Carder, President of Friends of

Damper Creek Reserve Inc.

Sally Walker, President of Friends of

Scotchmans Creek and Valley Reserve Inc.

Lisle Rudolph

Eileen Richards

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

A list of all submitters is included in Appendix A.


2 What is Proposed?

Amendment C115 proposes a change to the VPO1 which expands the exemptions from the need for obtaining a planning permit to remove or destroy any vegetation which has a trunk circumference of greater than 0.5 metres (0.16 metres diameter) measured at 1.2 metres above ground level and is more than 10 metres in height1. Effectively, at more than 10 metres in height, the VPO1 relates to large canopy trees. The amendment seeks to reduce the necessity to require planning permits for the removal and destruction of large canopy trees and would streamline and make easier the process in relation to the removal of trees. Council considers the changes to the VPO1 will provide residents with a simpler, cost effective ability to manage the appearance, safety and upkeep of their properties while continuing to encourage tree planting in the VPO1 area.

2.1 Details of the Amendment

Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme proposes to amend Clause 3.0 of the VPO1 to introduce four (4) additional exemptions from the permit requirements.

To clearly show the proposed changes, Clause 3.0 – Permit requirement of the VPO1 is reproduced below with the proposed new wording underlined and wording proposed to be deleted struck out:

A permit is required to remove or destroy any vegetation that:

Has a trunk circumference greater than 500mm (160mm diameter) at 1200mm above ground level and

Is higher than 10 metres.

or

Is higher than 7 metres located on 24 Samada Street, Notting Hill. (former Monash Primary School site)

This does not apply to dead vegetation or to the following species:

the removal of any tree where the tree will be replaced by two new plantings (which can be planted anywhere on the same property) and which will grow to become canopy trees with spreading crowns, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Prior to the removal of the tree for which the exemption is sought, a plan or simple diagram of the site identifying the tree to be removed and the species and planting location of the two replacement tree plantings, must be submitted to and endorsed by the responsible authority.

The two replacement tree plantings must be planted within six months of the tree removal taking place and then appropriately maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1 The structure of the permit exemption provisions also includes reference to vegetation greater than 7

metres in height for the former Monash Primary School site at 24 Samada Street, Notting Hill, which is currently not excluded, or proposed to be excluded under the Amendment from any of the permit exemptions.


for tree maintenance or where a tree is being maintained in accordance with a management program, developed by a suitably qualified arborist.

dead, dying or dangerous trees.

the removal of a tree necessary for the construction of a dwelling, dwelling extension or outbuilding where no planning permit is required subject to a building permit having been granted and tree(s) are only removed from the building footprint or within 2 metres of the proposed building.

The removal of a non native tree and environmental weeds or to the following species

- all willow trees - radiata or monterey pines - evergreen alders - sweet pittosporums - desert ashes.

An application to remove or destroy vegetation must be accompanied by the following information:

A plan showing the location of the vegetation to be removed or destroyed.

The type and quality of the vegetation to be removed or destroyed.

The justification for the proposed removal or destruction.

A statement of alternatives examined to removal or destruction.

An application to remove or destroy vegetation in conjunction with development of the land must be accompanied by a site analysis plan and a written statement demonstrating how the removal or destruction of the vegetation is essential for the proposed development to proceed, including an assessment of alternative design solutions retaining the vegetation.

2.2 Background to the proposal

Amendment C115 relates to Schedule 1 of the VPO. The VPO is one of the planning tools available under the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) that relate to the environment. According to VPP Practice Note – Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas, August 1999 (PN07), it is specifically designed to protect significant native and exotic vegetation in an urban or rural environment and can be applied to individual trees, stands of trees or areas of significant vegetation. The VPO1 was selected, developed and applied by Council in its new format planning scheme to areas of vegetation within those parts of the City of Monash that were considered to contribute towards the leafy green character (‘Garden City Character') of its residential neighbourhoods. It assists with the policy outcome of protecting, maintaining and enhancing vegetation (primarily canopy trees) on the basis of its contribution towards the maintenance of the ‘Garden City Character' of Monash.

(i) The VPO1 and the nature of the area covered

The purpose of the VPO1 is to conserve significant treed environments and ensure that new development complements the ‘Garden City Character' of the neighbourhood. As stated in the VPO1, the significance of vegetation in Monash is in its contribution to the urban character of the municipality, particularly in residential areas. In including the VPO1 as part


of the new format Monash Planning Scheme, Council’s key reason was to control the extent of ‘moonscaping’ that had been occurring in the municipality i.e. developers clearing trees off land prior to planning permits being obtained. Community expectations were that such activity should be prevented when the character of an area is dependent on canopy trees. Although the header Clause 42.02 of the Monash Planning Scheme includes reference in its purpose to maintenance and enhancement of habitat and habitat corridors for fauna, the Schedule 1 to the VPO is not focused on protection of vegetation for its biodiversity values – its purpose is protection of vegetation for its contribution towards neighbourhood character. Although protection of habitat may be a benefit of retaining large trees it is not the primary purpose of the VPO1.

The VPO1 was introduced in November 2000. The Overlay applies to approximately 25,000 residential properties within the City of Monash. It applies predominantly in the north and east of the municipality, including the suburbs of Ashwood, Burwood, Mount Waverley, Glen Waverley, Wheelers Hill and Mulgrave (refer to Figure 1). These are the residential zoned areas in which the existing vegetation has been recognised as making a contribution to the neighbourhood character of the area (refer to Figures 2 and 3). The highest concentration of trees in Monash is found in the creek valley reserves and within private and public land adjacent to creeks and over old drainage lines and other easements. The western slopes of the Dandenong Valley are known for having a dense canopy of native trees. While most of these are due to planting that has occurred since development, there are some large remnant trees throughout the area.

Originally, the VPO1 required a planning permit for the removal, destruction and lopping of trees higher than 7.5 metres with an exception for dead vegetation. Following a review of the VPO1 provisions in 2004, the criteria for requiring a planning permit were relaxed focusing on taller canopy trees. Amendment C44 amended the VPO1 in 2005 requiring trees taller than 10 metres to obtain approval for removal.

Amendment C44 expanded the exemptions to the permit requirement in the original VPO1 to include a number of specified species as follows:

All willow trees.

Radiata or Monterey pines.

Evergreen alders.

Sweet pittosporums.

Desert ashes.

The Amendment C44 Explanatory Report stated that the intention of the Amendment was to require permits for destruction and removal of fewer trees allowing Council greater efficiencies in tree conservation. It was intended that the Amendment would focus Council resources on taller canopy trees. Amendment C44 also removed the requirement for a permit to lop vegetation pursuant to the VPO1.

Amendment C66 amended the VPO1 again in April 2012 so that a permit is also required to remove or destroy any vegetation that:

Is higher than 7 metres located on the 24 Samada St, Notting Hill (former Monash Primary School site).

Amendment C66 was a site specific amendment to rezone the former primary school site to a Residential 1 Zone and apply the VPO1. The VPO1 was amended to introduce stricter


requirements in respect of that site following an arboricultural assessment and report identifying potentially significant tree on the site.

Currently, the VPO1 is protecting, via the requirement for a planning permit (and not a prohibition), only limited vegetation. VPO1 essentially only applies to living trees over 10 metres in height which are not causing or threatening damage to property and provided they are not a species listed in the permit exemptions.

Figure 1: Locality plan for VPO1

(source: City of Monash)


Figure 2: Examples of canopy trees providing community and biodiversity benefits in Monash

Figure 3: Examples of development areas with few canopy trees on private land


2.3 Administration of the VPO1

Currently, the VPO1 establishes a planning permit requirement for the removal or destruction of large canopy trees (a permit is not required for lopping). If Council determines that a tree is healthy, safe, not causing damage to buildings or structures and not subject to any of the exemptions in the VPO1, then a planning permit application is required for its removal or destruction. An arborist report is required as part of any planning permit application to support justification for the application.

Mr Terry Montebello, on behalf of Council submitted to the Panel:

From the introduction of the VPO1 in November 2000 until 30 December 2011, Council received 471 planning permit applications for tree removal (not including applications in which tree removal was one of a number of permissions sought). Of these applications, Council issued 380 permits (80.7%) and refused 40 applications (8.5%). The remaining 51 applications either did not require a permit, lapsed due to failure to provide further information or were withdrawn by the applicant.

Since January 2012, Council has received a further 121 planning permit applications for tree removal not associated with other works. Of these applications, Council has issued 104 permits (83%) and refused 4 applications (3%). The remaining 13 permits either did not require a permit, lapsed due to failure to provide further information or were withdrawn by the applicant.

There have been no applications for review to the Tribunal against Council’s refusal to grant a permit to remove vegetation.

As part of supporting the administration of the VPO1 Council introduced the TRE process. This aimed to minimise the burden on residents seeking to remove trees and reduce the need for investigation and enforcement. The TRE application process was developed to assist and guide property owners in relation to the exemptions in the VPO.

The TRE application process involves the property owner filing an assessment form for trees affected by the VPO. The Council then attends the property at an agreed time to assess the specified trees. An arborist consultant from Tree Logic inspects and assesses the tree on behalf of Council. Following the inspection, Council advises the property owner in writing whether the removal of the proposed tree was exempt or not from the VPO1 requirements.

There is no application fee or cost imposed for the application, inspection or advice given by Council. If the site inspection shows any visible damage to buildings or structures caused by the tree, that the tree is unsafe or that the tree is dead, diseased or structurally unsound, Council provides authorisation for immediate removal of the tree. The TRE system essentially woks on the basis of the existing exemption regarding emergency works.

From November 2000 until early 2011, the inspection and assessment of trees as part of the TRE process was carried out by Council officers. The process ceased for a period of time and was reintroduced in 2012 with external consultants carrying out the inspection and assessment of the trees.

From the introduction of the VPO1 in November 2000 until December 2011, 5178 requests for tree removal were assessed under the TRE process. Of these requests 3710 or 72% were


supported and the owner advised that they could remove the tree. For the remaining 1468 requests or 28%, they were not considered by Council as satisfying the permit exemptions and advised that a planning permit would need to be submitted. From January 2012 until present a further 139 requests have been assessed. Of these, 49 requests or 35% have been supported. The remainder were not supported as were not considered to meet the requirements of the exemption.

2.4 Review of VPO1

In 2011 Council resolved to review the VPO. Council had concerns that while the VPO1 has proven successful in preventing development sites from being cleared of vegetation via ‘moonscaping’, the majority of planning permit applications being received by Council tended to relate to issues not associated with development sites, but more to do with maintenance, safety and amenity matters. Council questioned whether, from the applicants’ perspective the VPO1 was unduly onerous.

Given the above concerns, Council sought to review the VPO1 having regards to:

Whether Council should restrict ordinary residents in relation to decisions about the form and character of their gardens;

Analysis of applications made pursuant to the VPO provisions since it’s commencement;

The exemptions relating to approval to remove vegetation and the potential to increase flexibility;

Alternatives available to prevent ‘moonscaping’ of development sites and which don’t affect other residents who are merely seeking to exercise discretion over the nature and form or their gardens;

Alternatives to conserve, encourage and protect vegetation;

Application costs and the requirement on residents to provide arborist reports to support applications;

Opportunities for more flexibility by allowing residents to replace significant vegetation with more appropriate species of significant vegetation if they so choose;

The extent of community benefit provided by the VPO; and

The liabilities and responsibilities of Council.

To inform that review Council officers prepared a discussion paper that explored the purpose of the VPO within the Council’s Garden City Strategy and the policy objectives articulated in Monash 2021, the Monash Council Plan and the Monash Planning Scheme.

The discussion paper also presented a range of options to address the issues being considered by Council in its review of the VPO and presented a number of alternatives to the TRE application process. These included:

Other Planning Scheme Provisions such as: - Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO); - Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO); - Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO);

Council’s legal responsibilities and liabilities;

Revoking the VPO;

Modifying the VPO;

Replacing the VPO with a local law;


Council providing arborist advice;

Providing a panel of arborists; and

Provision of education and maintenance assistance grants.

The outcome of this review was a proposal to modify the current VPO. Council resolved to consult with the community on possible changes to the VPO and conducted a survey to seek their views. Following the survey, Council prepared Amendment C115.


3 Planning Context

This section of the Report outlines the policy context for the Amendment and focuses on the strategic and policy aspects. It includes a brief appraisal of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), zone and overlay controls and related matters.

There are many planning policies that are in some way applicable to the consideration the Amendment. The Panel does not propose to set out the details of all the policies that may be relevant; rather, the Panel will refer to them as appropriate.

3.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

The following Clauses of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) are relevant to the Amendment.

Clause 10 ‐ Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework – seeks to foster the objectives of planning in Victoria through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.

Clause 11 – Settlement – requires planning to recognise the need for, and as far as practicable contribute towards (where relevant to Amendment C115), matters such as health and safety, diversity of choice, a high standard of urban design and amenity and protection of environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources.

Clause 12 ‐ Environmental and Landscape Values ‐ seeks to ensure that planning should help to protect the health of ecological systems and the biodiversity they support (including ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic diversity) and conserve areas with identified environmental and landscape values.

Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage – seeks to ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) contains planning policy relevant to vegetation and its management with regards to neighbourhood character in both the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and in local planning policies (LPP).

Municipal Strategic Statement

Clause 21.01‐3 – Municipal Overview under Garden city character ‐ refers to the leafy character of the suburbs within the City of Monash:

The City of Monash is characterised by its leafy suburbs, comprising both front and rear private gardens, and its treed streetscapes.


The Garden City Character is represented by the extensive and heavily treed residential areas, the industrial areas with clearly defined precincts and buffers, wide streets, large well landscaped setbacks and an overall high quality environment.

Clause 21.02 – Key influences – identifies one of the relevant factors influencing planning and development in the city includes the importance of neighbourhood character, in particular maintenance and enhancement of the ‘Garden City Character'.

Clause 21.02‐2 – Garden city character – describes how:

The Garden City Character is a legacy of the early planners of Monash and a very important defining feature of the municipality. It is characterised by a general feeling of “greenness” created by significant tree canopy cover contained within large, vegetated set backs and areas of open space.

The Clause describes how large front setbacks have facilitated the retention of canopy trees and their values not only with respect to their contribution towards neighbourhood character but, also with respect to softening built form, provision of shelter, shade and visual appeal and benefits for air quality and water balance. The Clause identifies that:

Erosion of the Garden City Character, through loss of significant vegetation and tree canopy and inappropriate redevelopment of residential and industrial areas is a key concern, as its value is recognised by both Council and the community.

Council has invested significant resources to ensure the Garden City Character dominates most areas within the municipality through the planting of street trees along arterial roads and consistently applying a decision making process within which the Garden City Character is a core factor.

Importantly, the Clause recognises that maintenance and enhancement of tree canopy and the “green, open space” feel in residential areas is a key goal of Council and that, maintaining the ‘Garden City Character' remains a key influence on planning decision making.

Clause 21.02‐6 – The importance of neighbourhood character and heritage – describes:

Neighbourhood character is an important element of the residential areas within the City of Monash. Competing interests of the need for housing diversity and maintenance of existing neighbourhood character require careful planning to ensure that development outcomes are of a high quality design standard and are sympathetic to the preferred neighbourhood character and streetscape. An important element contributing to neighbourhood character in most areas is the Garden City Character, which describes the tree‐lined and vegetated aspect of the municipality.

Also, the Vegetation Protection Overlay identifies existing treed environments where the special leafy character valued by the community is protected. It also aims to stop development sites from being “moonscaped” of significant canopy vegetation prior to development occurring.


Clause 21.03‐4 – Strategic Framework Plan – identifies major strategic directions as relevant such as:

Maintaining and enhancing the established Garden City Character of Monash on both private and public land including along main roads.

Identifying existing treed environments where the special leafy character valued by the community is to be protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay.

Clause 21.03‐5 – Monash’s Garden City Character – established that the City of Monash’s Garden City vision aims to maintain and enhance the established canopy treed environment throughout the municipality and to continue its significance in defining the character of Monash. The Clause goes also states that:

The Garden City Character is a core value held by Council and is an important consideration in all land use and development decisions. Planning decisions should seek outcomes which continue to contribute to, consolidate and enhance this character and image.

The Clause specifically identifies the role the VPO has in identifying areas where canopy trees are of particular significance and provides controls regarding removal of this vegetation.

Clause 21.03 also includes reference to the Monash 2012 – A Strategy for the Future.

Goals of the strategy include:

Apply the principles of sustainability in all of Council's operations to continually improve the natural environment within the City.

Plan for attractive and environmentally sound use of land that allows for diversity while remaining sympathetic to existing neighbourhood character.

Strategic directions include:

Maintaining and enhancing the established Garden City Character of Monash on both private and public land including along main roads.

Conserving locally significant residential, commercial and industrial heritage buildings, places, streetscapes and natural environments.

Clause 21.04 ‐ Residential development ‐ states that recent development has:

… significantly reduced both the canopy tree environment and landscaped area, while increasing the hard surface coverage of each development site. This adversely impacts on Garden City Character of the municipality.

Monash City Council is committed to managing the ongoing process of incremental change that is occurring across its urban areas. Some of these areas possess a special leafy character, valued by the community.

The Clause identifies issues with providing for the needs of a changing and older population but also reinforces the need to conserve treed environments and revegetate other areas including new residential developments to maintain and enhance the ‘Garden City Character' of the municipality.


Clause 22.05 – Tree Conservation Policy ‐ Includes objectives:

To maintain, enhance and extend the Garden City Character throughout Monash by ensuring that new development and redevelopment is consistent with and contributes to the Garden City Character as set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement.

To promote the retention of mature trees and encourage the planting of new canopy trees with spreading crowns throughout Monash.

and policy that:

Existing semi‐mature and mature canopy trees be retained wherever possible to ensure maintenance of the tree canopy.

Semi‐mature canopy trees with spreading crowns be planted as part of any new development, in open space areas, along boundaries adjacent to neighbouring open space and in front setback areas to reinforce the Garden City Character of the area.

The Monash Municipal Strategic Statement and tree conservation policy recognise the importance of canopy trees as a significant aspect of urban character. Council recognises that canopy trees unify the streetscape in residential areas, avoid the impression of visual clutter, and provide a strong naturalistic image and a sense of enclosure within a street. Existing on‐site canopy trees are acknowledged as contributing to the ‘Garden City Character' of Monash.

(iii) Practice notes

The VPP Practice Note ‐ Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas, August 1999 (PN07), provides guidance on assessing vegetation significance, and protecting significant vegetation through the planning scheme. The note discusses the need to include appropriate text in the MSS and outlines the function and use of a range of overlays, including the VPO, and other measures to protect vegetation. Enforcement and monitoring are also discussed.

3.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Overlays

Clause 42.02 – Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) includes the purposes:

To protect areas of significant vegetation.

To ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation.

To preserve existing trees and other vegetation.

To recognise vegetation protection areas as locations of special significance, natural beauty, interest and importance.

To maintain and enhance habitat and habitat corridors for indigenous fauna.

VPO1 triggers the need for a permit only for large canopy trees i.e. higher than 10 metres and with a trunk diameter of more than 160mm measured 1.2 metres above the ground. All other vegetation not fitting these criteria is not affected by the VPO1 (with an exception for the former Monash Primary School site).


The VPO states the retention of canopy trees helps integrate new development into the existing urban form and reduces the impact of higher densities or larger buildings on neighbourhood character. Council recognises that the tree canopy presents a “special” leafy character valued by the community in terms of consistent and visible vegetation and the opportunity for residents to live in a treed, predominantly low density, detached house environment. Retention of existing canopy trees is necessary to complement any new development.

(ii) Particular provisions

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation ‐ covers native vegetation only and land greater than 4,000m2 – so does not cover residential sized lots or non‐native species of trees.

Clause 54.03‐6 – Significant trees objectives (of ResCode) ‐ for one dwelling on a lot where a permit is required, under the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). This Clause seeks:

To encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood.

To encourage the retention of significant trees on the site.

The Clause objectives are implemented by ResCode Standard A8, which requires:

Development should provide for the retention or planting of trees, where these are part of the neighbourhood character.

Development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made.

Clause 55.03‐8 – Landscaping objectives (of ResCode) ‐ for two or more dwellings on a lot where a permit is required under the R1Z. Similar to the single dwelling objectives above, this Clause seeks to:

To encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood.

To encourage development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance.

To provide appropriate landscaping.

To encourage the retention of mature vegetation on the site.

The Clause objectives are implemented by ResCode Standard B13, which requires (in part):

The landscape layout and design should: - Protect any predominant landscape features of the neighbourhood. - Maintain existing habitat and provide for new habitat for plants and

animals. - Provide for the retention or planting of trees, where these are part of the

character of the neighbourhood. - Provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been

removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made.

Both of these ResCode provisions seek to prevent the ‘moonscaping’ of lots in preparation for new development or redevelopment for residential purposes. However, they are limited to the forms of development where a permit is required i.e. a single dwelling on a small lot up to 500m2 in size or for medium density residential development involving two or more dwellings.


Accordingly, the Panel notes that for a single dwelling, whether as a new development on a vacant lot, or for redevelopment with the demolition of an existing dwelling and its replacement on a lot greater than 500m2, the protection from ‘moonscaping’ offered under Clause 54.03‐6 is not provided. Hence, the current VPO1 retains some level of protection of ‘moonscaping’ of lots greater than 500m2 associated with single dwelling development.

3.3 Other planning strategies

Other strategies and documents relevant to the Amendment are summarised below.

Monash 2021 – a thriving community, City of Monash (no date). This broad strategy includes four primary areas for focus including:

A green and naturally‐rich city – that keeps its green leafy character and values open spaces ...

For council, this means balancing new development to accommodate more people with retaining the suburban garden character of the city that the community values.

Monash City Council Environmental Sustainability Road Map, 2011‐2015 (undated). This is a key document for informing and supporting Council’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Garden City character is an important component:

Monash is one of the few councils that has adopted a Garden City vision to guide the strategic planning, use and development of land within its municipality. The vision represents a core value held by Monash and is an important consideration in all land use and development decisions. The Garden City Character forms a central component of land development and ensures the City will remain characterised by treed residential streetscapes … wide streets and large well landscaped setbacks (p32)

Challenges with the natural environment include:

Decreasing vegetation and permeability

Reduction in biodiversity values within the community

Ensuring the survival of trees and vegetation

Monash Urban Character Study, and Monash Neighbourhood Character Guide, Gerner Consulting Pty Ltd, 1997. Monash City Council commissioned the Urban Character Study (1997) to identify and evaluate urban character within the City and to develop strategies for its management. This was originally documented in the Monash Urban Character Study ‐ Volumes 1 & 2, (Gerner, 1997), which identified five residential character types. An additional character type was later identified. The Character Study formed the basis for the existing VPO.

Monash Conservation and Environment Strategy, PPK for City of Monash, 1997. The strategy was prepared to provide an environmental management framework for the City, to ensure long‐term sustainable development. Very little information is provided on vegetation, with no information on significant species or communities.


4 Identification of Issues

4.1 Summary of concerns raised in submissions

From the submissions to the Amendment, the Panel identified a number of key concerns raised, which can be summarised as follows:

Has a need to change the VPO1 been adequately demonstrated?

The desirability of providing residents with a simpler, less costly ability to manage large canopy trees and the appearance, safety and upkeep of their properties while continuing to encourage significant vegetation in the VPO1.

The Amendment results in lack of tree protection?

Problems related to canopy trees will be exacerbated by requiring each canopy tree to be replaced by two.

Lack of recognition that some properties cannot accommodate additional canopy trees.

The requirements in the VPO1 would remain too onerous.

Inconsistency with the Garden City character and desired residential future character statements in the planning scheme.

The VPO1 should remain unchanged to protect vegetation which contributes to neighbourhood character and has environmental benefits.

The difficulty and cost of enforcing the provisions, in particular the planting of two replacement trees within six months which will grow to become canopy trees with spreading crowns.

Individual property owner rights versus community benefit of restricting removal of large canopy trees.

No protection for replacement trees with change of property owners.

Inappropriate exemption for removal of non‐native trees, which offer many benefits.

The ecological, environmental and other benefits of mature trees would not be ‘replaced’ in the short or medium term by the planting of smaller trees.

Poor and ambiguous wording.

4.2 Approach adopted by the Panel

It is clear that the purpose of the VPO1 is the protection of neighbourhood character and provides a mechanism to support the Monash City Council commitment to conserving, continuing and extending the ‘Garden City Character' of the Municipality and all its elements in Monash. To ensure that development is in keeping with and contributes to the ‘Garden City Character' as set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement, Council has been following a policy of retaining the existing tree canopy on private and public property.

The submissions received raised a number of issues many of which were directly related to the objectives of the current VPO1 in retaining neighbourhood character. The purpose of the Amendment, as stated by Council, is to streamline the process in relation to the removal of trees and provide residents with a simple, less costly ability to manage the appearance, safety and upkeep of their properties while continuing to protect significant vegetation in the VPO1 area. In considering the submissions and the stated purpose of the Amendment, the Panel has reviewed and considered all submissions received. Although many of the


submissions were focused on the key intent of the VPO1 and the proposed Amendment, a number of submissions raised issues which the Panel believe are important to consider when assessing whether the proposed Amendment will achieve the broader objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement and Monash Planning Scheme.

In assessing the material presented to it, in written submissions arising from the public exhibition process and submissions and evidence presented during the Panel Hearing, the Panel has considered the issues that are directly relevant to the VPO1 provisions and the maintenance of neighbourhood character. These have been considered in assessing the issues outlined in section 4.3. However, the Panel also believe that a number of issues raised by submitters in relation to environmental and habitat impacts of removing large trees as well as enforcement are also significant and need to be considered. These have been addressed separately in Chapter 7.

4.3 Issues dealt with in this Report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Strategic justification;

Planning scheme protection of vegetation; and

Other issues.


5 Strategic justification

5.1 What is the issue?

The Council and a number of submitters put forward a range of views on the purpose and basis of the proposed Amendment. The key issue is whether there is adequate strategic justification for the Amendment. Other issues revolving around such a consideration include:

The basis for introducing the Amendment.

The Amendment and policy support which includes how well the Amendment supports and is supported by the planning policy framework of the Monash Planning Scheme.

This chapter outlines submissions and evidence on these issues and the Panel’s discussion and conclusions.

5.2 Evidence and submissions

Mr Montebello discussed the background, context and justification for the proposed Amendment. He submitted that it was developed in response to a series of issues, including:

The complexity and cost to residents of the current VPO1 regarding the removal of trees;

The need to ‘cut red tape’ as set out in the state government report Cutting red tape in planning (DSE 2006) to simplify planning;

The issue of private rights (e.g. diversity of choices in landscape decisions) versus community benefit related to canopy trees; and

The fact that most applications under the VPO1 have been for maintenance, safety or amenity reasons, not related to development sites (where the overlay has been relatively successful in preventing clearing of these sites prior to application for a planning permit). The Council queried whether the VPO1 requirements may be unduly onerous.

The Panel requested a response from the Council on a number of matters raised at the Directions Hearing. These included:

Advice regarding whether any strategic study or assessment was undertaken, other than the community survey, that has formed the basis for the Amendment; and

Clarification/elaboration of statements in the Explanatory Report including; 'the Amendment will not impact on natural resources or ecological processes', 'not give rise to adverse environmental effects' and 'assist with removing bushfire risk', having regard to the scope and intention of the effect of the proposed exemptions.

In responding to these matters, Mr Montebello advised that no specific strategic assessment was undertaken to assist in developing Amendment C115.

(i) The basis for introducing the Amendment

Council’s position for the basis of the Amendment was largely focused on arguments that community members should have more freedom to choose how their garden is managed, and that the current requirement for a permit for tree removal under VPO1 should be


relaxed. The report considered by Council on the VPO at its meeting on 25 January 2011 highlighted:

Concerns have been raised that Council’s current policy objectives, the operation of the VPO provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, inappropriately frustrate ordinary residents who are simply concerned about safety or amenity issues.

Flowing from the above concerns, Council officers prepared a discussion paper (25 March 2011) setting out in detail the policy basis for VPO1, and included information relevant to consideration of the need for the Amendment.

The discussion paper prepared by Council officers provided comments on the reasons put forward for the removal of trees. These included:

Work required to clean up debris;

Fear of the potential risks from large trees; and

Ageing residents concerned about maintenance work and costs.

Comments made in support of requests to remove trees included:

The value of the property would increase if the trees were removed;

Another tree like it fell down;

I don’t want a tree;

Leaves litter my garden; and

The tree has no value.

The Panel observed that reasons given in the discussion paper for wanting to remove trees were often not compelling enough to abandon key protection provided under VPO1 e.g. problems with leaf litter and maintenance and concern at perceived risks from specific large trees.

The discussion paper notes that ‘… the concept of the VPO was primarily introduced to stop development sites from being ‘moonscaped’ … (but) ‘… it has been very effective in minimising tree removal across the whole extent of the VPO area’. This indicates that VPO1 has been successful in supporting the policy objective of protecting canopy trees by deterring applications to remove trees. The comments suggest that a relaxation of the current VPO1, as proposed in the Amendment, may lead to significant tree loss, given that there will be little impediment to the removal of canopy trees.

Overall, the officer discussion paper recommended retaining Council’s policy objectives, evaluating the introduction of a local law to manage ‘moonscaping’, and making a minor amendment to the existing VPO1 (re: dead, dying and dangerous vegetation).

The response of Council was to survey the community to seek and assess community views on possible changes to VPO1.

An extensive community survey in 2011 resulted in about 48% of respondents favouring removal of VPO1, 34% favouring modification, and 15% favouring retention. Separate to the survey, written comments were received indicating 15% support for removal, 2% for modification, and 82% for retention. No explanation for the difference between survey and written responses was provided.

The Panel also notes that some submitters expressed concern about the survey, including the information and options presented and possible confusion between private and public


spaces. The survey did not include specific questions related to the full suite of changes now proposed in Amendment C115 (apart from the concept of tree replacement).

Several submitters at the Panel Hearing supported the right of residents to manage their garden as they choose (Mrs James), and to remove inappropriate tree species that were planted years ago (Mr Layton and Mr Carstairs).

Others saw no compelling justification for changing VPO1 (Mr Mason), or argued that the current system works well and the process should have started with a review of the MSS and effectiveness of the current system (Ms Carra). Mr Carder noted that the Council does not have a significant tree register or zones of special environmental significance and Ms Carra suggested that Council consider a survey of significant trees for protection. Ms Walker outlined the tree protection overlays and local laws in surrounding municipalities and asked why Monash should be different?

Dr Pfueller was concerned that the level of need to relax the existing VPO1 was not apparent, the Amendment would allow open slather for tree removal, and it would be useful to provide a more sympathetic process when there is genuine need.

The other key plank for the Amendment was the desirability of reducing unnecessary planning permit applications. Mr Montebello submitted that Council considers the Amendment is consistent with the drive to ‘cut red tape’ and simplify the planning system in Victoria. He urged the Panel to consider the tests established in the 2006 ‘Cutting red tape in planning’ report relating to new permit requirements, which are:

Can other existing regulatory or process mechanisms directly and effectively deal with the issue sought to be controlled?

Is the scale of the proposal sufficient to generate an impact that justifies the need for planning consent?

Does the cost of compliance outweigh the community benefit?

Is it likely that a planning assessment will improve the outcome?

Does the control capture matters that do not specifically relate to the purpose or objectives of the control?

Mr Montebello considered these tests provide a useful benchmark for the changes proposed to the VPO1. He submitted that, although it is not the purpose of these tests, they usefully ask whether it is possible for other regulatory or process mechanisms to directly and effectively deal with the issue sought to be controlled. The Panel considers these ‘tests’ later under Section 5.3 Discussion.

(ii) The Amendment and policy support

The MSS and associated Council policies and strategies support the ‘Garden City Character’ of much of Monash with retention of its canopy trees (section 3). Monash City Council has stated that it is committed to conserving, continuing and extending the ‘Garden City Character' and all its elements throughout Monash. To ensure that development is in keeping with and contributes to the ‘Garden City Character' as set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement, Council is following a policy of retaining the existing tree canopy on private and public property. This is set out as the protection objective of VPO1.


Components of the Amendment raising strong concerns from submitters include:

Allowing the removal of any tree where two new plantings were to be undertaken. This would effectively negate the planning policy outcome of protecting, maintaining and enhancing the ‘Garden City Character' of the City of Monash. Many submitters noted that no proper guidelines are provided on tree replacement and no effective Council monitoring proposed to ensure appropriate species selection, maintenance and survival;

Allowing landowners to determine if a tree was dying or dangerous prior to removing it;

Allowing removal of any tree for an extension, outbuilding etc;

Allowing removal of any non‐native tree; and

Combining non‐native trees and weed species.

Regarding the purpose of the Schedule 1 to the VPO, Mr Montebello submitted that:

This is not an environmental overlay concerned with individual trees but rather a character overlay concerned with environments in a neighbourhood character context.

He posed two questions for the Panel: 1. Is the VPO necessary to maintain that neighbourhood character? 2. Can the VPO be modified to simplify the way it operates and still maintain that

neighbourhood character?

He argued that many areas around Melbourne do not have a VPO but still retain their character and hence the answer to the first question is likely to be no. Mr Montebello however, qualified this view by advising that Council continues to see a role for the VPO1 and that the Amendment does not remove the VPO1 but has merely sought to streamline its operation.

Regarding the answer to the second question, Mr Montebello advised the Panel that Council considers the VPO1 can be simplified while maintaining its objective with respect to protecting the leafy green character. This would be achieved by the Amendment not proposing to change the objective or policy position of the VPO1 and by requiring a two for one tree replacement requirement for the first exemption provision to operate.

A range of submitters stated that the proposed amendment is largely at odds with the Garden City theme and may have a substantial adverse impact on canopy trees. Ms Wan submitted that the Amendment does not conform with the Monash Planning Scheme and Council strategies or with state/federal government policies. Ms Headlam submitted that the many benefits provided by trees would be lost with the Amendment, and that the ‘Garden City Character’ would be totally undercut.

A series of other submitters from community organisations also set out reasons why the Amendment does not align with the MSS and related policies and strategies. Ms Walker (Friends of Scotchmans Creek and Valley Reserve), expressed support for the current VPO and opposition to the proposed Amendment because it is … unnecessary, unenforceable and will result in the removal of many healthy canopy trees … She quoted parts of the MSS and various Council strategy documents to support the argument for the retention of canopy trees.


Ms Anthony stated that the Monash 2021 strategy supports the retention of ‘Garden City Character’. It identified community values including ‘tall trees’, ‘tree‐lined streets’ and ‘green and leafy’; maintaining leafy character was a priority for the next 10 years.

The Amendment relies heavily on successful implementation of a two for one tree replacement policy. Many submitters expressed concerns about this proposal raising serious doubts about its application and practicability. Even if it was implemented successfully, there would potentially be a cumulative effect resulting in major loss of canopy trees lasting for many years. Clearly the objective ‘… to retain the existing tree canopy on private and public property’ would not be achieved.

From a state government perspective, Mr Emile Kyriacou, Senior Statutory Planner, from the former Department of Sustainability and Environment (now Department of Environment and Primary Industries), expressed concern about the Amendment with respect to native vegetation, it:

.... could lead to widespread removal of large old trees with the only requirement to provide two small tubestock trees in their place, and would seriously jeopardise the intent of the current VPO which is to retain large canopy trees.

… Clearly, the value of large canopy tree(s) … cannot be supported by two replacement trees, which if established, will take many decades to deliver such wildlife benefits, with no guarantee that the planted trees will in fact become established.

The Department considers that the recommended changes … will substantially weaken the Council’s “Garden City” image, especially as it relates to retaining native vegetation on private land.

Dr Greg Moore, an expert witness on arboriculture, called by Dr Pfueller, spoke against the proposal for two for one tree replacement permit exemption. He said that about eight young trees would be needed to provide a similar sequestration benefit to one mature tree. Additionally, experience showed that many trees do not survive in replacement programs. Specific maintenance guidelines are essential including specification of planting stock, planting guidelines, formative pruning, and ongoing mulching and irrigating. The Panel noted that the Amendment does not include any guidelines for tree management of such replacement plantings.

Ms Walker expressed concern that the two for one replacement permit exemption would take many years (perhaps 20 or 30 years) to grow to a size that would add to the tree canopy, and the benefits of canopy trees would be lost in that time. Ms Headlam felt that the two for one policy would not work due to lack of staff to supervise, the fact that most new gardens do not have trees that will grow to more than 3 metres tall, that many new residents don’t have skills to manage new trees, and that replacement of removed canopy trees will take 20‐100 years.

A written submission from Mr Roberts (No 292), a qualified arborist with 12 years experience in Monash, expressed considerable concern that the Amendment would allow ‘… the likely decimation of our local mature trees. (It) … will effectively allow any tree removals to occur … with no guarantee that the new plantings will reach their full maturity.’ He listed four other councils that have stronger laws to protect mature trees.


In response to the time lag issue with the length of time it takes canopy trees to achieve maturity, Mr Montebello referred the Panel to decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)2 where it has been held that this is a common situation with any redevelopment, but where the focus is on ensuring sufficient room is provided for planting trees that can mature to become sizeable canopy trees. He argued that concerns expressed by submitters over the time taken for new plantings to mature to replace canopy trees removed under the permit exemptions is an acceptable short term impact.

5.3 Discussion

The Panel notes Council’s acknowledgement of the strong policy support for the retention of significant vegetation under the Monash Planning Scheme and other Council policies. Mr Montebello submitted that the Amendment is an attempt by Council to strike a balance of recognising the Community’s preference to be entitled greater discretion with regard to the management of vegetation on private property, while retaining sufficient control to ensure that the decisions of residents do not negatively impact on the ‘Garden City Character' of the Municipality.

(i) The basis for introducing the Amendment

The community survey was presented to the Panel as an important element for the Amendment and an important strategic consideration with respect to what the community desires regarding vegetation management and how it should operate under the VPO1.

The Panel has considered the consultation outcomes broadly, without attempting to assess the validity of the survey methodology. To the Panel, the survey represents a position expressed by the community for a strategic review of the VPO1 and what it seeks to achieve in a planning policy sense. The option presented to the community in the survey questionnaire regarding modifying the VPO made reference to retaining the requirement for a planning permit but providing scope to approve a planning permit application on the basis of a suitable replacement tree being planted. No indication was given in the survey about any specific changes, as proposed under the Amendment. How the Amendment proposes to change the VPO1, however, falls short with respect to the effect of how the proposed changes implement the outcomes sought under the current planning policy framework of the Monash Planning Scheme.

The Panel found that the 2011 survey does not represent a strategically considered investigation into how the issues should best be managed with regards to urban tree management. The survey was very broad in scope and did not include any strategic assessment of trees or tree protection across the VPO1 area.

There appears to have been a significant leap between a form of consultation (i.e. community survey) which identified a desire for review of vegetation controls (i.e. VPO1), and no evident strategic analysis of the integrated operation and management of vegetation controls and their relationship to achieving policy outcomes (i.e. protection significant vegetation and maintenance and enhancement of ‘Garden City Character') with further opportunities for community input into what form, any such review outcomes, should entail.

2 For example, W & D Perrett & Period Developments Pty Ltd v Frankston CC [2010] VCAT 1359.


This ‘leap’ is perhaps best demonstrated when comparing the first dot points of Council’s resolutions made between its meetings on 27 September 2011 to 27 November 2012 where there is a change from the earlier resolution maintaining a planning permit requirement to the latter resolution removing any reference to requiring a planning permit with no explanation for the change in emphasis. This issue was raised by the Panel during the Hearing, however, Council found it difficult to explain apart from the emphasis on increasing discretionary freedoms for landowners to manage their gardens.

The Panel recognises individual landowner concerns about specific trees but does not accept that this warrants expansion of permit exemptions to the extent proposed under the Amendment. These concerns could be addressed through adjustments to existing permit requirements and procedures. For example, considering the scope of matters considered with any planning permit application, such as the Schedule objectives and decision guidelines, to ensure that those issues of concern to landowners could be better considered in a more integrated manner and within a wider landscape context.

Mr Montebello submitted that Council recognises that planning is … the imposition of a community benefit over the rights of the individual. The alternative, priority of individual rights above community aspirations, would be contrary to the underlying principles of the Victorian planning system.

He noted that … the Amendment does seek to shift the balance between the broader community benefit and individual rights slightly towards the latter to recognise legitimate concerns motivating residents’ desire to remove vegetation.

The Panel considers that the proposed Amendment would shift the balance almost completely in favour of individual rights at the expense of community benefit. It is considered the scope and extent of the permit exemptions proposed under the Amendment are such, that very few permits would be required. This has the potential to significantly reduce the ability for both cumulative impacts on landscape character, and the wider landscape context, given the neighbourhood character emphasis of planning policy, to be effectively considered by Council.

The Panel noted that Council has not undertaken any recent municipal‐wide studies of vegetation or related environmental values and sees this as an important precursor of any significant proposal to change management or protection measures under the Planning Scheme (see Section 6).

The Amendment also acts to support the reduction of unnecessary permits. The ‘Cutting red tape in planning’ report identified 41 actions to improve planning efficiency. Of interest and reinforcement of the Panel’s views expressed above, is the extract from the report included in Council’s submission:

The review identified opportunities to streamline the planning system by working with stakeholder groups and the community to identify what needs to change and how to make these changes.

The Panel considers the Amendment fails to work with the community on how to make any changes work in a way whereby any changes are considered within the landscape context applicable to the scale associated with landscape character at the neighbourhood level. Any changes should be based on the planning policy outcomes not being undermined to the


extent that the Panel considers would occur based on the extent of permit exemptions proposed.

The ‘Cutting red tape’ report includes tests for new permit requirements to which Mr Montebello urged the Panel to consider. His response to each of the tests and the Panel’s view is provided below:

Can other existing regulatory or process mechanisms directly and effectively deal with the issue sought to be controlled?

Council considers an alternative process is to remove the need for a permit for removal of vegetation provided a method of replacement is available. The two for one tree replacement exemption, based on an endorsed plan, allows for this, and is considered by Council to have the benefit of eventual enhancement of vegetation cover in the longer term. Council views this as being no different to what currently occurs with respect to the consideration of planning permit applications, where often, approval is granted with conditions requiring tree replacement planting. The exemption provision remains enforceable as a requirement of the planning scheme, as apart from a permit condition.

With respect to the changes proposed under the Amendment, Mr Montebello stated:

Council submits that there are no disadvantages other than the removal of the ability to say no.

The Panel considers that this test is linked to the issue sought to be controlled which in turn is linked to the purpose of planning policy. That policy purpose, as acknowledged by Council, is the retention of the ‘Garden City Character' of the City of Monash. The Monash Planning Scheme only has the VPO1 as its planning overlay tool relating to environmental matters. In the case of the VPO1 its focus is on vegetation or large canopy trees and their contribution towards the leafy landscape found within the City’s residential neighbourhoods. The aim of the VPO1 is to conserve significant treed environments and ensure new development complements the ‘Garden City Character' of neighbourhoods. Currently, the VPO1 requires a permit only for the removal and destruction (not lopping) of large (greater than 10 metres high) canopy trees. The issue sought to be controlled is the prevention of loss of large canopy trees in a neighbourhood landscape context that could reduce the contribution towards the ‘Garden City Character' or leafy green appearance of the City’s residential neighbourhoods.

Based on the structure of the changes proposed under Amendment C115, the scope and extent of relaxation from the need for a planning permit for the removal and destruction of large canopy trees without any consideration of the wider neighbourhood landscape impact means that the VPO1 is required. It is notable that Council acknowledges that the proposed changes to the VPO1 results in the ‘removal of the ability to say no’. This is important because it demonstrates that the effect of the Amendment is that the ability to continue to support the planning policy outcomes sought by both the VPO1 itself, and the planning scheme, would be lost. The considerations under the changes to the VPO1 under Amendment C115 would reduce down to site by site, individual considerations focusing only on where and what replacement plantings should occur. Wider considerations of both landscape scale impacts on character and cumulative impacts from multiple and consecutive


loss of individual canopy trees could see significant undermining of the leafy character sought to be retained under the current planning policy framework.

As noted earlier in Section 3.2(ii), the current VPO1 retains some level of protection of ‘moonscaping’ of lots greater than 500m2 associated with single dwelling development, which is not covered by the ResCode landscaping provisions.

The Panel considers that VPO1 is an appropriate mechanism to deal with the issue of conservation of significant treed environments. Alternative overlays such as an Environmental Protection Overlay (ESO) or Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) could be applied but this was not proposed by the Council.

Is the scale of the proposal sufficient to generate an impact that justifies the need for planning consent?

Council considers the Amendment will not result in large scale clearing of vegetation. For this to occur, it relies on the attitude of the community and its appreciation of the values of vegetation. Council’s view is also reinforced by the two for one tree replacement exemption acting to encourage a long term regeneration of trees that would enhance tree coverage.

The Panel considers that the prevalence of the ‘Garden City Character' is such that retention of the ‘Garden City Character' of Monash is very important and justifies the process set out in VPO1. The Panel considers that the VPO1 sets in train a process where careful consideration is given by a landowner about the condition, location and benefit of large canopy trees within the VPO1 areas. This is a beneficial effect, not necessarily reflected in the planning permit application statistics. The requirements for lodging an application do entail careful consideration of the merits of any proposal to remove a large canopy tree and also allows the Council, as the determining authority, to assess any applications. The Panel considers that the current VPO1 acts as a sieve to weed out those proposals that would be highly unlikely to be successful and which offer the greatest risk to creating detriment to achieving planning policy.

Does the cost of compliance outweigh the community benefit?

Council’s position was that the costs of compliance may not be generally prohibitive, however if a similar outcome could be achieved at little to no cost, such a change (increased permit exemptions) would be appropriate.

The Panel considers that community benefit derived from the leafy landscape appearance of the City’s residential neighbourhoods is important. This was clearly evident to the Panel during the inspections. The landscape contribution to the ‘Garden City Character' is strongly outlined and reinforced in the planning scheme. The Panel considers that the prevalence of the ‘Garden City Character' framed by the extent of existing large canopy trees contributes significant benefit to the broader community. The Panel notes that the majority of applications for tree removal have been approved and considers the cost of administering VPO1 is broadly justified in protecting the ‘Garden City Character'.


Is it likely that a planning assessment will improve the outcome?

Council considers the current permit system and conditional approvals that include tree replacement for approved removals are similar to what is proposed under the Amendment with respect to the two for one tree replacement exemption. Hence, the planning assessment does not, in Council’s view improve the outcome.

The Panel does not agree with Council’s view and considers the planning assessment process has the important ability to consider wider impacts, other than those on the land subject to the planning permit application. The broader landscape context of the neighbourhood is able to be considered which is important when considering the planning policy framework of the planning scheme and importantly some of the particular planning policies such as Clause 22.05 – Tree Conservation Policy.

The current permit system involves assessment of the values of trees, assisting in the provision of appropriate outcomes. The Panel noted that there are opportunities to review the decision guidelines to improve efficiency.

Does the control capture matters that do not specifically relate to the purpose or objectives of the control?

Council submitted that wider purposes other than what is the focus of the VPO1 may be taken into consideration by the control. Mr Montebello argued that the fact that many submitters raised environmental matters, when VPO1 is focused on neighbourhood character matters, is evidence of how the VPO1 can capture matters that do not specifically relate to the purpose of the control.

He reiterated that the detail of VPO1 is the focus of control rather than the more general considerations under the head Clause 42.02 of the VPO. The Panel considers that the control cannot be considered separately with the focus of consideration solely on the Schedule and not the head clause provision. The VPO1 should be considered as one form of control with both the purpose and decision guidelines of both the head clause and the Schedule considered together as an integrated package. Accordingly, environmental matters, particularly if native vegetation is involved become a relevant consideration in conjunction with matters revolving around neighbourhood character and landscape character.

The Panel also notes that the VPO1 focuses on permit triggers associated with trees over 10 metres tall, i.e. it relates directly to the objective of the control which is to retain existing canopy trees.

Overall Assessment

Overall, the Panel found that the current VPO1 ‘passes’ the tests set out in the ‘Cutting red tape in planning’ report. The report identified 41 actions to improve planning efficiency. One of the actions relates to overlays: ‘7.4 Rewrite overlays so that only matters linked to the purpose of the control need planning approval.’ The Panel does not consider that VPO1 needs to be rewritten: it currently meets this action. The Panel notes that the report makes reference, on page 16 to tree pruning as a matter that could benefit from full or partial exemption. The Panel notes that this has already occurred with VPO1 through the removal


of the permit requirement for lopping and increase in minimum height of trees from 7.5 to 10 metres under Amendment C44. Notwithstanding this, the Panel recognised Council’s desire to streamline the permit process, and noted some opportunities to improve the decision guidelines.

(ii) The Amendment and policy support

As noted, the key objective of VPO1 is to retain the existing tree canopy on private and public property.

Mr Montebello argued that the Amendment is consistent with the outcomes sought by the planning policy framework of the Monash Planning Scheme. He submitted the Amendment does not propose to change the objective, the statement of nature and significance of the vegetation to be protected or decision guidelines of the VPO1. He stated:

What the Amendment does is to recognise that an application to remove vegetation may be motivated by equally significant planning factors, such as safety, diversity of choice and catering for an ageing population.

Council’s view is supported by reference to the objective of planning in Victoria to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working environment including safety, diversity of choice and need to provide flexibility for aged residents.

The Panel considers that diversity of choice is a broad concept and could equally mean diversity is provided within the City of Monash by the fact that there are residential areas that have the VPO1 and other areas that do not. Catering for an ageing population relates more to how trees are managed and perhaps a better strategy for Council is to offer incentives or advisory services to support the management of trees by elderly residents who may struggle to do so, on their own.

Regarding support for planning policy, the Panel notes the comments from Mr Jason Close, Planning Manager, Eastern Section, former Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) (now Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI)), who expressed concern about the implications of the Amendment for tree retention in the Ministerial Authorisation to Council in December 2012:

I am concerned with the conflicting intentions the proposal will generate … For instance, sub‐clause 2.0, Vegetation protection objective to be achieved is somewhat or wholly negated by the first dot point of the proposed exemption. In practice, it is unlikely that it would be possible to conserve any tree on land within the subject schedule. I am of the view that the stated requirement for removing a tree is poorly articulated and would be difficult to monitor to ensure that the desired objective of the new plantings growing to become canopy trees with spreading crowns. The trade off appears heavily weighted in favour of the option to remove.

It also appears that there may be limited statutory mechanism to enforce the requirement to plant replacement trees within 6 months.

I therefore urge Council to review the wording of the exemptions and refine the schedule to strengthen the conditions for removal …


Mr Close also suggested an alternative approach: … to retain the VPO for its most significant areas and produce a local law to areas of lesser significance ...

The above comments relating to policy achievement and support for the Amendment resonates with the Panel. As mentioned above, the scope and extent of the permit exemptions results in almost no planning permits being required for the removal of large canopy trees. With the increased flexibility provided by the range of proposed exemptions, there is little ability to not only say no, but also to allow any consideration of broader landscape contextual issues. This means that the cumulative impact of multiple and consecutive individual tree losses will potentially result in a decline in existing large canopy trees to the detriment of planning policy outcomes sought for the leafy ‘Garden City Character' of Monash’s residential neighbourhoods.

The Panel is perplexed by the fact that it is acknowledged by Council that VPO1 has been successful in reducing the loss of vegetation and ‘moonscaping’ of lots, yet Council views this as a failure given it is proposing to change the VPO1. The Panel notes that the VPO1 was changed under Amendment C44 in 2005 which increased the tree height threshold (from 7.5 to 10 metres) and removed the need for a permit for lopping which Council advised lead to a 30% reduction in planning permit applications. This appears to confirm what could be considered to be a successful reduction in red tape and workload on Council.

The Panel considers that Amendment C115 fails to demonstrate support for the achievement of, or be supported by, the planning policy framework of the Monash Planning Scheme. The scope and extent of permit exemptions effectively means that few, if any, planning permits will be triggered and that the policy intent of the VPO1 and the planning scheme will be seriously undermined because landscape character issues cannot be considered on other than an individual property level.

5.4 Conclusions

Monash’s planning scheme and other strategic documents consistently support the concept of the Municipality as a Garden City ‘characterised by treed residential streetscapes’.

In line with this concept, the existing VPO1 aims (in part):

To protect areas of significant vegetation.

To ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation.

To preserve existing trees and other vegetation.

The Panel concludes that the proposed Amendment, which provides little constraint on the removal of large trees, is not compatible with existing Council policies and strategies, particularly the Garden City concept. The Council did not conduct any strategic study to investigate how the desires of the community expressed in the community survey could be considered in any strategic review of the VPO1 to inform an amendment. Arguments put forward do not support abandonment of the protection measures included in the current VPO1. Removing protection for existing tall canopy trees is not in accord with provisions in the planning scheme including Monash’s stated policy of protecting and enhancing its ‘Garden City Character’.


The Council’s proposal for the Amendment was not supported by DTPLI or DEPI, by an internal officer’s report, by the two community groups represented at the Panel Hearing, or by the majority of submitters from the general community, presenting at the Panel Hearing.

The Panel also found that the Council has very limited knowledge of the distribution, value and significance of vegetation across the Municipality. A number of other Councils have up to date information on the values and significance of biodiversity, trees, and landscape and neighbourhood character. This knowledge is fundamental to the development of planning policies and management strategies.

The Panel noted that some applications for a permit under the current VPO1 entail a significant amount of work by Council officers and believes that some simplification of the approval process should be considered. This could reduce the cost to the community while maintaining adequate protection of important trees. Additional consideration could be given to problems caused by very large trees planted in the early days of residential development that are now located adjacent to dwellings.

The Panel also noted that landowners are responsible for tree maintenance and management whether or not their property is covered by a VPO. Tasks such as cleaning roofs and gutters, raking up fallen bark and twigs and trimming branches are normal requirements of tree maintenance. However, the Panel accepts the concerns expressed by, or on behalf of, individual landowners about the costs and work involved in maintaining large canopy trees. The Panel supports the consideration of Council assistance to individuals in cases of hardship.

The Panel concludes that:

Strategic justification for the proposed Amendment has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the Amendment should be abandoned.

The VPO1 continues to have an important role in ensuring that canopy tree vegetation supports the leafy image of Monash and should be retained.

Improved management of large canopy trees would benefit from landowner assistance, particularly in cases of hardship.

5.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme should be abandoned.

The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area (VPO1) be retained.


6 Planning Scheme protection of vegetation

6.1 What is the issue?

The use of VPO1 or the proposed Amendment raised questions about the basis for vegetation protection in Monash. The issue is whether the existing overlay or the Amendment provides appropriate and adequate protection of significant vegetation.

6.2 Submissions

Several submitters raised questions about the appropriateness of VPO1 (or the Amendment) to protect trees and other vegetation. Some stated that the Amendment effectively provides no protection. Many submitters argued that the Amendment fails to recognise the environmental values offered from how the overlay protects canopy trees. In response, Mr Montebello noted that Schedule 1 to the VPO relates primarily to neighbourhood character matters as apart from other environmental values to which some submissions had focused upon. He submitted that those submissions were ‘not on point’ and did not relate to the main purpose of what the Schedule seeks to address.

The 2011 Council officer discussion paper discussed options relating to protection and management of trees under the VPO1 including a range of overlays and possible use of a local law to protect vegetation.

A review by Port Phillip & Westernport CMA: Assessing the Effectiveness of Local Government Planning Scheme Controls in Protecting Native Vegetation in the Port Phillip & Western Port Region, 2009, found that

… the relevant zones and overlays have generally not been appropriately or adequately applied in many municipalities. In many instances the most significant vegetation in some municipalities has no or very modest protection through planning provisions …

… it is evident that where there are no specific provisions relating to vegetation, the losses have been substantial.

… the most effective native vegetation protection method in an urban area is the application of the ESO in association with a native vegetation precinct plan.

Specific comments were not provided regarding Monash except to note that only 3% of the original native vegetation remains, nearly all of which is endangered.

The Report of the Panel and Advisory Committee on the Monash New Format Planning Scheme (1998) supported the application of a VPO over about one third of the Municipality, based on the 1997 Urban Character Study.

The Practice Note Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas, 1999 (see section 3 (iv)) discusses a range of options available in planning schemes and sets out a process for developing a strategy to protect vegetation. In summary, this involves:

A survey of vegetation values (biodiversity, social, aesthetic, character etc.);

Determination of vegetation significance;

Development of a local policy based on this data;


Application of overlays (and/or local laws etc.); and

Enforcement and monitoring.

Separately from the Practice Note, the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) has developed an assessment process to identify cultural significance of trees (exotic and native). This includes assessment against 10 criteria and may have application in Monash.

Monash’s vegetation policy and VPO1 are based largely on the 1997 Urban Character Study and Neighbourhood Character Guide. This work provides a limited basis for policy development and Planning Scheme protection. A single criterion related to height is used to determine whether a tree should be protected. Biodiversity values and other values identified in the National Trust assessment are not included.

The information available on vegetation values in Monash is very broad:

The City of Monash has a reputation of being a well wooded municipality. However, prior to development much of the land was probably cleared of trees for agriculture and little of the original vegetation remains.

The highest concentration of trees is to be found in the creek valley reserves. Within residential development adjacent to creeks and over old drainage lines a denser tree canopy expresses the underlying landform.

Wheelers Hill is known for having a dense canopy of native trees. It is likely that most of these are due to planting that has occurred since development, though there appears to be some large remnant trees in the large lots on the highpoint of the hill between Viewmount and Lum Road. The fringes of the Dandenong Creek floodplain also has a number of large and mature native eucalypts.

… windrows that once sheltered the markets gardens and orchards from the prevailing winds can still be found in a number of locations. These are of some cultural significance and provide a link with past landuses.

Urban Character Study and Neighbourhood Character Guide: Vols 1‐6, 1997 (Vol 26, p 26).

The Monash Conservation and Environment Strategy, PPK for City of Monash, 1997, identified the need for a survey to identify native flora (and fauna) but this does not appear to have been undertaken. The Strategy was prepared to provide an environmental management framework for the City, to ensure long‐term sustainable development. Very little information is provided on vegetation, with no information on significant species or communities.

Other councils, e.g. Whitehorse, have undertaken more detailed vegetation assessments and determined that more than one criterion should be used to determine significance:

Application of girth alone in our view is not an appropriate criterion as at the least it would need to be varied according to species. It would also have the disadvantage of identifying all trees irrespective of health or form. We agree with the Council approach that there are a number of other bases of significance besides size against which the trees should be assessed3.

3 Panel Report, Whitehorse C83, 2009, p 11


6.3 Discussion

Under the current VPO1, a permit is required to remove or destroy a tree greater than 10 metres in height. Unless a tree satisfies the current exemptions which relate to tree health, species, height and trunk width, a permit is required.

One of the concerns expressed by Council related to the operation of the VPO1 being onerous on landowners wishing to remove a tree for reasons other than the poor health, safety or species of a large canopy tree. This is evident in the report considered by Council at its meeting on 27 April 2011 where it stated:

Once a formal Application for Permit to remove a tree request is made, the legislative and procedural requirements of the Planning and Environment Act and Monash Planning Scheme take effect and options become very limited.

Council has no option but to apply the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act, specifically Clause 42.02 of the Monash Planning Scheme and the schedule to that clause.

The fee for an application for planning permit to remove a tree is $102.

Applicants are required to provide expert evidence in the form of an arborist report justifying removal of a tree. This is a cost to the applicant.

The assessment test for a permit application includes an assessment of the significance of the tree and its significance within the treescape/landscape of the locality.

Only a suitably qualified professional with experience in this field (arborist, arboriculturist) is capable of providing definitive expert advice that can be relied upon by Council. This process is expensive for the resident who is applying for the permit.

The grounds upon which Council can make a decision to remove the tree are also very narrow and effectively mean that only in instances where Council accepts expert evidence that a tree is dead, dangerous, causing damage or a listed inappropriate species, will Council grant approval for removal of the tree. For example, there is no scope for Council to consider removal of a tree where a resident is simply wanting to reconfigure their garden with a more appropriate planting – even if that more appropriate planting will lead to a superior vegetation outcome for the neighbourhood.

Having regard to the above, it is clear that Council considers the onerous nature of the current VPO1 to be based on the costs involved in making and assessing a planning permit application, the perceived limits upon which such applications can be determined and the lack of flexibility for landowners over how they manage vegetation on their land.

Under Amendment C115, the combined effects of the proposed exemptions effectively result in few requirements for a planning permit. One situation where a planning permit may be required is if only one tree replacement planting is proposed instead of two. In reviewing the proposed exemptions, the Panel queries why the exemption for tree maintenance, including under the advice of an arborist is included. It is assumed that maintenance includes trimming etc., however the requirement for lopping was removed


under Amendment C44 in 2005. The Panel also considers this exemption may be open to abuse because there is no limit to the extent of removal of vegetated material from tree maintenance. Generally, this exemption appears confusing, out of place and limitless.

The exemption for tree removal within the footprint of a dwelling, dwelling extension or outbuilding where no planning permit is required and 2 metres around such buildings means that much residential land use and development that is ‘as of right’ may result in the loss of canopy trees without any opportunity for Council to consider impacts on neighbourhood landscape character.

With respect to ‘dead, dying and dangerous’ trees, the Panel notes that the current VPO1 already includes dead vegetation and with respect to dangerous trees, the head Clause 42.02‐3 includes an exemption relating to emergency works where:

The vegetation presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property and only that part of vegetation which presents the immediate risk is removed, destroyed or lopped.

The need for including dangerous trees is considered to duplicate the above existing exemption. The term ‘dying’ was queried by the Panel during the Hearing with concern that this type of exemption can be easily misinterpreted and lead to abuse of the exemption through misrepresentation of poor tree condition for a dying tree or other poor or inappropriate treatment of trees that may lead to trees dying.

All of the above elements of drafting create a series of flaws with how the proposed changes will operate under the VPO1.

The Panel considers the permit requirement is an integral part of how vegetation identified under the VPO1 as significant (i.e. large canopy trees at over 10 metres in height) should be subject to some form of approval from Council for removal or destruction. A planning permit application allows for wider considerations in conjunction with issues relating to the tree itself to be considered and thus provides the scope within which landscape character and contextual issues can be considered.

The concerns of Council relating to the limitations of considerations could be addressed by reviewing the objectives and decision guidelines of the VPO1 to give both applicants and Council greater scope to consider matters such as the type and species of tree, its condition and location on the land and in relation to existing or proposed buildings and works and its relationship and role within the neighbourhood with respect to its contribution or otherwise to the landscape character of the area.

The Planning Scheme protection of significant vegetation in Monash (including VPO1) is based on limited and old data. A single criterion is used to determine vegetation that is to be protected, and this is limited to certain large canopy trees. Protection is essentially non‐existent under the proposed amendment.

There are opportunities for Monash to better understand current vegetation values, to determine significance, to review policy and to consider options for improved protection through the VPO1, other overlays or other mechanisms including incentive and advisory schemes to assist landowners who find it difficult to manage large trees on the properties.


6.4 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the Amendment has missed an opportunity to review how Council and the community value and regard large canopy trees within the City of Monash. The Panel notes that currently the VPO1 only regulates the removal and destruction of large canopy trees (trees over 10 metres in height). All other forms of vegetation other than large canopy trees are not subject to any controls under the VPO1. The Panel considers this to be adequately flexible for landowners to manage their own private gardens. What the VPO1 currently does, in the view of the Panel, is provide a level of protection that is already limited to large canopy trees, a form of vegetation that currently makes a significant contribution towards the ‘Garden City Character' of Monash.

The Panel concludes that Amendment C115 fails to provide appropriate and adequate protection for large canopy trees within Monash. Council should consider conducting a new investigation into vegetation values across the municipality that is based on expert assessment, and the views of the community, and identifies what the vegetation contributes to the City and how best it should be managed. In this regard, the Panel considers:

Council could consider undertaking an assessment of vegetation (including biodiversity, social and aesthetic values, and a review of landscape character) for the whole municipality to provide a sound basis for the development of revised planning provisions.

Council could consider undertaking a further review of vegetation protection measures adopted by other municipalities and revise VPO1 or introduce other overlays and/or local laws.

6.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That Council should undertake additional work to better determine vegetation values (with expert and community input) and to review planning policies as part of an integrated approach towards vegetation protection and management under the Monash Planning Scheme.


7 Other issues

7.1 What are the issues?

A number of submissions raised a range of other issues that were not directly related to the retention of leafy character to maintain the neighbourhood character of the residential areas covered by the VPO. However the Panel believe that the issues raised are important considerations when assessing the implications of amending the VPO1. These include some of the other environmental benefits of large canopy trees including:

Providing shade during the summer and the cooling of houses (cutting energy use etc.)

Providing habitat to native birds and animals

Climate change benefits of trees

One of the key issues raised by a large number of submissions was the inability of Council to enforce the provisions of the amended VPO1 – in particular the monitoring of the planting of the replacement trees, the maintenance of those trees to enable them to reach maturity and the protection of replacement trees with a change in property ownership.

There were also submissions that raised concerns about maintaining large trees in small yards where redevelopment has occurred around existing trees. This was a particular issue for people in smaller units with limited yard area.

Concerns were raised about the exemption for non‐native trees which are also considered to add to the ‘Garden City Character'. Inclusion of this exemption would allow these mature trees to be removed without a permit.

Impacts of the recently announced proposed reforms of the native vegetation regulations were also raised, in particular whether the Amendment is consistent with these reforms.

7.2 Evidence and submissions

(i) Environmental Benefits of Large Trees

A number of submitters raised concerns about the potential impact on the environment if the mature trees are lost. These impacts include the role of trees in reducing the impact of climate change and the associated increase in temperatures. These can range from providing shade to individual homes to the overall impact that shade from trees can have in reducing the urban heat island effect. Dr Pfueller, Ms Headlam and Ms Winter all provided submissions at the Panel Hearing raising concerns about the role of trees in mitigating the urban heat island effect. Dr Pfueller discussed how trees moderate climate and can decrease heat island effect which is linked to climate change and increasing temperatures in urban environments.

Their views were supported by the evidence given by Dr Greg Moore.

Mr Montebello acknowledged the environmental benefits of large trees but stated that these were not relevant considerations for the VPO1 as its intent is specifically about neighbourhood character and not these broader issues. Mr Montebello submitted that these benefits need to be weighed against the benefits residents derive from having greater discretion to manage vegetation on their property.


Ms Anthony submitted that young trees are more susceptible to increased temperatures that may arise due to climate change making their survival to mature trees very difficult. The inability of trees to survive will, overtime, diminish the ‘Garden City Character' of Monash which the VPO1 has been established to protect.

Ms McKay submitted that the role of trees in reducing air pollution is well known, and raised concerns about the potential for air pollution levels to increase if mature trees are lost. Dr Moore, when questioned by the Panel stated that deciduous trees can be better for air pollution removal because they can absorb pollutants in their leaves which then a dropped when leaves are shed. He commented that there are no native deciduous trees, which adds to the issue of the exemption for non‐native trees in the proposed Amendment.

Ms Carra, in her submission, stated that the quality of trees needs to be considered, not just quantity. There is significant use of mature trees by local fauna. The loss of mature trees is removing habitat and affecting the biodiversity of the region. Ms Anthony, in her submission, stated that both Knox and Maroondah Councils have provisions in their planning schemes that protect habitat and commented that this is not happening in Monash. She also raised concern about the loss of habitat with loss of mature trees.

(ii) Exemption for Non‐Native Trees

Many submitters, both in support and opposing the Amendment, raised concerns about the exemption for non‐native trees. In their submissions at the Panel Hearing, Mr McGuire and Mr Maaser commented that there was no basis for non‐native tree exemption and that the VPO1 should not discriminate between native and non‐native trees. This view was supported by many written submissions. A large number of people commented that non‐native trees added significantly to neighbourhood character and should not be exempt. Ms Carra raised the issue that the community was not surveyed on this issue. The community survey that was circulated to gain community views on changes to the VPO1 did not raise the issue of exempting non‐native trees. Dr Pfueller questioned the exemption for non‐native trees commenting that they contribute to habitat for birds and fauna and add to neighbourhood character.

Dr Moore, in his evidence, stated that although there are some differences between natives and non‐natives, there is no simplistic ‘one is better than the other’ that would support a blanket exemption for non‐native trees. His opinion was that the suitability of trees is about species of tree not whether it is native or non‐native.

An issue related to the exemption for non‐native trees is the safety issue related to falling limbs. Most submissions that raised concerns about safety and falling limbs were related to native trees – in particular lemon scented gums. This raises further questions in regard to the validity of the proposed exemptions.

Mr Montebello, on behalf of Council, stated that the purpose of the non‐native tree exemption that has been proposed is to reduce administrative burden on Council by reducing the number of applications. He stated that the current exemptions for some non‐native trees (which are considered to be invasive or weeds) have not impacted on overall treescape character and that the proposed exemption will also not impact.


(iii) Enforcement Issues

A large number of submitters raised concern about Councils ability to enforce the provisions of the amended VPO1 and the potential impacts if this doesn’t occur. The concerns fall into the following areas:

Planting and maintenance of replacement trees;

Monitoring survival of trees to maturity;

Not sufficient Council officers to carry out inspections; and

No requirements for new home owners/developers to protect replacement trees – can be removed if under a certain size.

Mr Montebello stated that Council does not believe enforcement will be an issue. Council will investigate anything it becomes aware of, but this approach is a complaint‐based system – someone must notify Council that the provisions for planting and maintaining the younger trees have not been met. Council expects most residents will plant and maintain the replacement trees as required and there will be little need for ongoing monitoring. Council advised that there are not enough officers to do inspections on a regular basis.

Mr Mason in his submission strongly believes that enforcement is an issue and believes that Council won’t do it. Council has not stated how it will monitor the requirement to be ‘maintained to the satisfaction of Council’. There were concerns raised about what would happen if a resident changed their mind about the replacement tree before it reaches a size that requires a permit. Currently trees can be removed without a permit if they are below 10 metres in height. However, if replacement plantings are removed it would be a breach of the planning scheme under the proposed amendment. This will be difficult for Council to monitor and enforce. If the trees are removed or not maintained to reach maturity, the outcome will be a gradual decline in the leafy character of residential neighbourhoods which the VPO is trying to protect.

Mr Maaser, Ms Winter, Mrs Richards and Ms Headlam, in their submissions, also raised concerns about survival of trees and who will monitor to ensure they reach maturity. There is no provision in the Amendment that requires a young tree that dies to be replaced, even if it is a replacement tree. Losing a young tree which is not replaced leads to an overall loss of trees in the area, leading to a gradual decline in ‘Garden City Character'. A number of submitters provided examples of where they had planted young trees which had subsequently died. Ms Mitchell, in her submission, stated that she moved to Monash because of trees, including non‐natives, and the ‘Garden City Character'. Since living in Monash she has had a tree removed and planted two in its place however only one survived. If a tree dies does it have to be replaced? There are no provisions in the Amendment to address this question; the Amendment only says they have to be planted. There was support from a number of submitters for the need for a safety net for replacement of trees and the replanting of a young tree if it dies. Mr Maaser suggested that Council should require a bond paid to ensure new trees survive.

Mrs Carra, Ms Walker and Dr Pfueller also raised concerns about enforcement, in particular how removal of new trees can be tracked. Although a plan will exist in Council that shows where the replacement trees have been planted, this is unlikely to be passed onto new property owners and developers. This could lead to a gradual loss of trees over time.


Dr Pfueller also raised concerns about enforcement being complaint‐based with no ongoing monitoring by Council. She is of the strong view that this will lead to a loss of trees and a degradation of the ‘Garden City Character' in Monash over time.

(iv) Planting of Replacement Trees in Small Yards

The issue of planting and maintenance of large trees in small spaces was raised by a number of submitters particularly people who live in units. Mr Layton lives in a unit and has two large trees in two small areas of private open space. The Panel visited Mr Layton’s property as part of their inspections. Mr Layton stated that he had spoken to Council about removal of the trees as the maintenance, and clearing of vegetated material was an issue for him. There was also a fear that the limbs from the trees may fall and damage his property. His concerns were also raised by a number of other submitters who had small yard spaces.

Mr Layton had approached Council about being able to remove his trees and plant replacement trees in public space within the local area. This would retain the total number of trees while removing the issues at his property. This was not supported by Council.

With regards to Mr Layton’s situation, the Panel notes that in redeveloping land for unit or townhouse development, the developer would have submitted a landscaping plan as part of the planning permit application requirements for a medium density residential development. The landscaping plan may have shown any large canopy trees being retained. For residents living in these types of developments, the ability to remove a large tree from their property may not necessarily be a matter that is directly called up under the VPO1 but, more relevantly, a matter associated with applying for an amendment to the original planning permit granted for the unit development and in particular to any approved landscape plan for that development. The proposed Amendment does not remove this requirement.

Mr Layton and other submitters questioned whether the Amendment could be modified to include a clause to deal with small yards. For most people with small yards, including Mr Layton, the planting of two trees for every one removed is simply not practical. Could replacement trees be planted in public open space nearby as a trade off? Dr Pfueller supported Mr Layton’s views and stated that the Amendment as drafted is blunt and needs refining. Dr Pfueller felt that there needs to be an exemption for two replacement trees in small yards. She suggested, in support of Mr Layton’s recommendation to Council, that people with small yards replace only one tree in their yard and one in public open space nearby. The amendment as drafted requires a permit if two replacement trees cannot be planted.

Many submitters were of the view that planting two replacement trees will just create a bigger problem and exacerbate the issues currently being experienced by some residents. Many submitters commented that some people simply won’t have room for two trees and therefore the Amendment as drafted cannot be implemented. Mrs Richards also stated that the two for one planting is simply not viable.


(v) Assistance for Residents in Management of Large Trees

Mr Montebello submitted that part of the purpose of the Amendment was to assist elderly residents who have difficulty in the management of large trees and the associated vegetated material produced. Mr Montebello stated that the removal of the need for a permit to remove the trees would reduce the burden on these residents. Mr Layton stated in his submission that the Amendment did not assist him at all. There was still a significant cost to him as he still requires a permit to remove the trees on his property as they are taller than 10 metres. There is no mechanism in the Amendment that would assist him in the maintenance of the trees and the cleaning up of leaves etc. The planting of two trees would only increase the issues that he is currently experiencing. Ms Headlam also commented that the Amendment does not assist the elderly and suggested that, instead of changing exemptions, Council should give consideration to providing assistance to elderly residents through maintenance grants or providing a free pruning service every 5‐10 years similar to what is being implemented in other municipalities including Knox.

(vi) Native Vegetation Reforms

On 22 May 2013, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change released reforms to Victoria's native vegetation permitted clearing regulations. These reforms include changes to the way Councils assess and decide on applications for permits to remove native vegetation in relation to biodiversity considerations. The reforms introduce a risk‐based approach to assessing applications for permits to remove native vegetation. This approach includes changes to the application requirements and decision guidelines in the native vegetation clauses of the VPPs. In addition, a new incorporated document has been developed to provide guidance on how to apply the clauses. In response to questions from the Panel in regard to the relationship between the proposed Amendment and the native vegetation reforms, Mr Montebello stated that the reforms principally affect Clause 52.16 of the VPP that relates to native vegetation precinct plans and Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation. Mr Montebello stated that there are no native vegetation precincts in the Monash Planning Scheme and therefore Clause 52.16 is not relevant. He also stated that an exemption exists in Clause 52.17‐6 for native vegetation on land less than 0.4 hectares. Very few sites exist in Monash that exceed 0.4 hectares. The reforms do not affect the Amendment.

7.3 Discussion

There was a lot of discussion through the Hearing about the role of non‐native trees contributing to neighbourhood character and many of which have large canopies. The Panel in its inspection of the VPO area noted the significance that non‐native trees play in the neighbourhood character of the area. There seems no logical reason to exempt non‐native trees from the requirement for a permit for removal. Dr Moore’s evidence was that the distinction should not be between native and non‐native trees but should exist for different species of trees. He also stated that there are actual environmental benefits in retaining non‐native trees as they provide a role that native trees do not in the removal of air pollution. Council, in their response, clearly stated that the proposed exemption for non‐native trees is about removing administrative burden on Council, not about neighbourhood


character that the VPO1 is aimed at protecting. The community survey did not raise the issue of native versus non‐native trees so the community views on this issue have not been adequately gauged. The Panel believes that there is no basis for the exemption for non‐native trees. Most non‐native trees are rarely classified as weeds and significantly contribute to the overall character of the City of Monash. The stated reduction in administrative burden on Council is not in the Panel’s view sufficient reason for an exemption that could lead to a significant change in neighbourhood character.

If Council proceed with a further review or redrafting of the Amendment the Panel believes this exemption should be removed. Instead, Council should provide a list of trees, both native, and non‐native that are suitable replacements for any tree that is removed. In developing a list of suitable trees, consideration should be given to the safety issues associated with particular species, including lemon scented gums and ensure that inappropriate species for urban settings are not promulgated with replacement plantings.

Council should, in the view of the Panel, also give consideration to developing a significant tree register for the municipality.

The Panel is of the view that the planting of two replacement trees for every tree removed is not likely to be viable in many instances. For many residents that have existing problems with large trees their problems would most likely be further exacerbated if both trees survived to maturity. For people in smaller properties such as units like Mr Layton, simply do not have the space to plant a two for one tree replacement arrangement. The Panel considers the Amendment creates a blunt instrument in the form of the two for one tree replacement exemption that fails to consider the appropriateness of offset plantings for the loss of mature canopy trees without the benefit of any assessment of merits available under the planning permit application process.

Special consideration needs to be available for people with smaller yards and a decision guideline would perhaps go some way to address these circumstances. The planting of replacement trees in public open space in the local area should also be examined as a practical alternative for the two for one replacement on individual properties. By incorporating this option the overall tree canopy in the municipality would be retained while alleviating problems for individual property owners with limited space. Council could also provide a list of trees that are suitable to be planted in smaller spaces to assist residents in replanting of trees.

Although Council has argued that the broader environmental benefits of trees are not relevant to the VPO1, the Panel believes that these benefits cannot be ignored. The Panel supports Dr Moore’s position that in assessing any changes to the VPO1 that may lead to changes in number of large trees in the municipality that all costs and benefits need to be assessed to ensure that there is a net benefit to the community as a whole. The Panel is of the view that community benefits need to be carefully assessed when making any decisions about removing the permit requirements for removal of large canopy trees and allowing greater individual discretion with regard to managing large canopy trees over private property.

With respect to the maintenance of large trees and problems raised, particularly for the elderly with waste leaves etc., the Panel does not accept that the Amendment addresses these issues. If an elderly person proposes to remove a large tree they will still be required


to pay for such removal, including potential costs for engaging an arborist. This process has a cost associated with it. Council should give consideration to implementing assistance schemes for the maintenance of large trees similar to those being implemented in other municipalities. In this way, the core issues revolving around whether the tree should be removed or not can be addressed, such as maintaining the health of the tree, whether the tree is an inappropriate species for its site context or not or what contribution the tree makes to the character of the neighbourhood etc. These could take the form of maintenance/assistance grants or providing assistance for residents who are physically unable to maintain large trees. To support its strategic vision for a Garden City, Council could consider encouraging residents to keep large trees and provide support to residents who are endeavouring to achieve this.

The Panel is of the view that enforcement of the provisions within the Amendment by Council will be challenging. Without active monitoring of replacement plantings and maintenance of these trees that there is a real risk that the number of trees will significantly diminish over time. Using a complaint‐based approach to enforcement will not work to ensure maintenance of the tree canopy over time. If a complaint is received about the removal of a replacement tree, it is too late for Council to act. The tree has already been removed. Even if a further tree is planted, the time it takes to grow to maturity is significant. The Panel is concerned that over time this will lead to a loss of tree canopy and will change the overall character of the neighbourhood. Council, if it were to proceed with the Amendment, would need to develop a strong enforcement strategy to ensure that this does not happen. Consideration also needs to be given to how replacement trees can be protected due to change of property ownership and/or redevelopment.

7.4 Conclusions

In reviewing the submissions made both in writing and at the Hearing, the Panel concludes that there are significant issues that are not currently addressed in the changes proposed to VPO1 that affect the Amendment. These include:

The need for a strong proactive enforcement strategy to ensure that the replacement plantings are undertaken and maintained so that the long‐term tree canopy in the municipality is not diminished;

The viability of two for one planting requirements and the implications of this approach in the long‐term. Does it just exacerbate a problem that some people are already experiencing?;

The practicality of implementing the two for one tree replacement planting in small yards and exemptions for smaller properties;

There does not appear to be a strategic basis for the exemption for non‐native trees. The Panel is of the view that non‐native trees do contribute significantly to neighbourhood character and that this exemption is not supported;

A full assessment of all costs and benefits, including additional environmental and social benefits offered by trees, must be undertaken to provide a strong basis for any amendment to the VPO; and

The Amendment does not address the issues being faced by older residents in the maintenance of tress and the associated waste. Council should consider the implementation of assistance schemes to assist older and low income residents with the


maintenance of large trees. This could be modeled on similar schemes being implemented in adjacent municipalities.

The above issues are considered by the Panel to represent significant failings for the Amendment and further reinforces to the Panel that Amendment C115, as proposed, should not proceed.


8 Overall Conclusions

In conclusion, the Panel considers Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme is not strategically justified because it fails to either support or be supported by the planning policy framework of the Monash Planning Scheme. The Panel finds that the scope and extent of changes proposed under the Amendment would result in few, if any, planning permits being required for the removal and destruction of canopy trees (i.e. large canopy trees that over 10 metres in height). The Panel believes this would create little value in retaining and protecting canopy trees where they make a contribution to the ‘Garden City Character' of Monash.

Although Council has promoted the Amendment as one which provides greater flexibility for landowners who may be struggling to look after canopy trees, it was clear to the Panel that there is a significant amount of concern in the community over the potential detrimental effects from relaxing the VPO1 controls.

The Panel noted the submission of Council that the result of the community survey provides appropriate justification for amending the VPO1 control. However, the Panel remains unconvinced that the survey is an adequate reflection of the changes proposed to the VPO1 by Amendment C115. The Panel considers the survey as an indicator that a review of the VPO1 is appropriate. However, the Panel considers the format of changes proposed have not been the subject of the same level of consultation with the community.

The Panel makes the observation that much of the drive behind the Amendment appears to be on the basis of relaxing the permit requirements of the VPO1. This relates to reducing or even eliminating the perceived onerous nature of having to apply for any planning permit under the VPO1. The changes proposed are considered by the Panel to go too far. The weakening of the operation of the VPO1 under the Amendment is of concern because the role of the VPO1 in protecting, retaining and enhancing large canopy trees that support the landscape character of the City of Monash’s residential neighbourhoods is significantly weakened.

The Amendment is fatally flawed in the view of the Panel because it is not supported by any strategic investigation of the vegetation and what its values and purpose for Monash is or what role the planning scheme should have in managing vegetation in a strategic sense.

The drafting of the Amendment with the permit exemptions is viewed by the Panel as creating a vacuum whereby removal of canopy trees can occur for a range of reasons without any opportunity for Council to consider the broader landscape context of any removal or cumulative effects of multiple or consecutive removals.

The Panel found that the proposed Amendment was poorly and inconsistently drafted, provided no effective protection for any vegetation in Monash or adequate recognition of its intrinsic values to the community, and was criticised by government agencies and many members of the community.

The Panel considered providing comment on each component of the Amendment but believes that drafting inconsistencies and the basic premise of allowing any tree to be removed was against existing policies and strategies and it would be preferable to retain VPO1.


In this report, the Panel has made reference to Council reviewing the VPO1, in conjunction with the planning scheme generally, with regards to vegetation management and considers the Council should take into consideration not only landscape and neighbourhood character issues but other environmental values that many submitters highlighted during the Panel Hearing.

It is for these reasons that the Panel concludes that Amendment C115 is not appropriate and should be abandoned.


9 Consolidated Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

1. Amendment C115 to the Monash Planning Scheme should be abandoned.

2. The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Tree Protection Area (VPO1) should be retained.

3. That Council should undertake additional work to better determine vegetation values (with expert and community input) and to review planning policies as part of an integrated approach towards vegetation protection and management under the Monash Planning Scheme.


Appendix A List of Submitters

No. Submitter 1. John Keech

2. Chiang Kong

3. Submitter 1

4. Andrea Maroulis

5. Dr Ian Bell

6. Ian & Pamela Reid

7. D & M Pigrum

8. L Dowse

9. Anonymous

10. D Johnson

11. A Dowse

12. J Turnbull

13. Submitter 4

14. Rosemary Nichols

15. Mr R Petronik

16. John & Sue Peterson

17. Denese & Ron Jowett

18. Submitter 1

19. Scott Eddington

20. B Letty

21. R & S Francis

22. P & T Marley

23. L Flood

24. E & P Keesing

25. William Flood

26. George Beutler

27. B McGuire

28. R Lattenstein

29. R Marshall

30. A Always

31. J Emmins

32. D Byrne

33. R Gosbell

34. P & S Windsor

35. L & D Mann

36. M Karpinski

37. D McLean

38. G Chatziyakoumis

39. J Chatziyakoumis

40. I Thompson

41. A Canobi

42. W Duff

43. J Rothlisberger

44. J Riscalla

45. B & D Reidy

46. Anonymous

47. R & I Forsyth

48. L & Y Smith

49. L Gras

50. R Flower

51. J Sale

52. M Hill

53. B & P Miechel

54. J Aumuller

55. E & K Carstairs

56. J Elliston

57. P Tongeren

58. F & D Buckley

59. P & L Filby

60. K Cook

61. J Willcox

62. R Ashe

63. T Cai

64. S Krishnananthan

65. B Vertigan

66. D Miles

67. K Campbell

68. B Saunders

69. P & C Stewart

70. L Mitchell

71. E Mah

72. S Kennedy

73. P Morrow

74. R Ling

75. Submitter 73

76. K & C Moore


77. B Yeoman

78. H Clements

79. N & M McLean

80. T Sarris

81. K Moorthy

82. M & C Visseren

83. J Lillingstone‐Hall

84. Mr & Mrs Shant Cullu

85. S Ruglen

86. H & M Kennedy

87. Geoff Bull

88. N & R Darby

89. A Snell

90. B & G Norton

91. D Booth

92. P Booth

93. R Robb

94. F & H Dedehayir

95. R Taylor

96. H & B Clissold

97. I Wells

98. J Evans

99. J Bungey

100. M Adler

101. J Spurling

102. R Hall

103. U Raiskums

104. G Millsteed

105. R & B Layton

106. H Smith

107. R Allan

108. J Glover

109. K Lillingstone‐Hall

110. D Maaser

111. D & G Livingston

112. G McLean

113. N & H Gardner

114. J Munday

115. Z Yang & Y Liao

116. K Jong

117. I Placzek

118. C Cooper

119. E & S Cole

120. T & R Cahill

121. R Watson

122. J Nielson

123. Dr Stella Robinson

124. P Broderick

125. L Thompson

126. I Mitchell

127. S Taunt

128. J Clements

129. M Lavars

130. F Dillon

131. J Targownik

132. C Lavars

133. M Buultjens

134. Submitter 133

135. A Wee

136. P Wan

137. A Tong

138. J Vun

139. K & J Vun

140. E Vun

141. T & P Spina

142. X Liu

143. L & R Clark

144. J Tan

145. E Rigby

146. B & G Howell

147. H Xu & N Chen

148. G Riddell

149. T Mason

150. W James

151. P Johnson

152. Z & D Winters

153. K & E Maloney

154. L Rudolph

155. E Hake

156. C Hake

157. P Winston

158. D Hayden


159. Y Xu

160. C & K Kinnane

161. S Vun

162. R Young

163. L Sheng

164. M Maslen

165. P Stephanou

166. S Stephanou

167. J Liu

168. B Johannessen

169. K Ha

170. B Head

171. N Mason

172. W Stow

173. M Fraser

174. J & N Thek

175. Z & D Winters

176. P Buchler

177. A Green

178. J Franek

179. R Fasken

180. G & P Little

181. Friends of Scotchmans Creek & Valley Reserve Inc.

182. J Duke

183. J & G Chatto

184. J Kelaart

185. H & E Kuebler

186. A Walters

187. H Murray

188. D Tueno

189. B Gooden

190. J & Q Lolato

191. S Brown

192. E Adam

193. VicRoads

194. M Shin Ho & H Shen

195. S Zhou

196. D Morgan

197. Z Zhou

198. V Barnett

199. S Morgan

200. C & J Christie

201. J Balson

202. B & R Singham

203. E Kotnik

204. C & R Leavy

205. R Clarke

206. M Umber

207. K & C Robertson

208. L Williams

209. E Martin

210. K Soh

211. M Yip

212. G Huray

213. D & H Roberts

214. A Banerjee

215. D Banerjee

216. B & L Brown

217. Y Gao‐McBean

218. G Atkinson

219. Anonymous

220. J & M Hillel

221. G Bindley

222. J Allen

223. G & P Merrill

224. S Pfueller

225. M Learmonth

226. G & S Boully

227. C Thorpe & P Jones

228. S & M Pike

229. J & P Patton

230. B Blake

231. J & T Ashton‐Smith

232. C & I Nicholls

233. W & S Ramsay

234. E Shaw & T Houlihan

235. C & G De Silva

236. Y Beynon

237. B McDonald

238. J Miller

239. J & D Payne

240. S James


241. M Putrino

242. S Putrino

243. R Putrino

244. Not a Submission

245. S & G Morrison

246. W McWilliams

247. B Boysen

248. B & H Brennand

249. M Bock

250. L Kojadelian

251. W Morck

252. I Thomas

253. H Weigold

254. C Lansdell

255. B Grant

256. M Bakowski

257. A & C Coster

258. T Ashton

259. I & J Swinson

260. D Molloy

261. Anonymous

262. G Lyon

263. G Beecroft

264. T Rossouw

265. E Winter

266. J Mathieson

267. A & B Reed

268. P & V Sfindilis

269. M Williams

270. W & L Brewer

271. R & R Shinners

272. T Tomoda

273. B May

274. L Perry

275. R & M Clivaz

276. B & H Cumming

277. B Milne

278. Submitter 271

279. D Curnow

280. I & A McPhee

281. D & W Lumb

282. J Quin

283. L McDonald

284. Anonymous

285. K Clark

286. H Marcun

287. V Rapson

288. G Russell

289. F Lee & S Loh

290. E Asscher

291. S Samanthar

292. A Roberts

293. B Kelly

294. C Seracino

295. C Bjorkman

296. J Martens

297. P Clarke

298. Friends of Damper Creek Reserve Inc

299. A Allan

300. C Chan & W Soo

301. B Nagorcka

302. Department of Sustainabilityand Environment

303. M Cook

304. R McGregor

305. J Maaser

306. K Young & M Biviano

307. Errol Bruce Stewart

308. Sue Robertson

309. Freya Headlam

310. Peter & Margaret Skafte

311. Andrea Holden

312. Lyn & Irvyn Kitching

313. Petition c/‐ Janet & Peter Flinn

314. Damian Quin

315. Dikran Chabdjian

316. John Wearne

317. Lyn & David McLean

318. Malcolm & Janet Savage

319. Glenn Howard

320. Robert Yates

321. Kevin Ryland


322. Kerry Arthurs

323. Jinshi Yamada

324. R L Barker

325. Gillian Russell

326. Kim & Mee Ng

327. Judith Delahenty

328. Anonymous

329. Dawn Millsteed

330. Val Wilkin

331. Libby Anthony

332. Dianne & Christopher Carra

333. Diane Harris

334. Submitter 318

335. Leanne Boucher‐Darlington

336. Submitter 331

337. Submitter 331

338. Not a submission

339. Submitter 323

340. Submitter 281

341. Submitter 10

342. Siew Peng Neo

343. Carol Deane

344. Christina & Graeme Chugg

345. Anthony & Sally Clarke

346. Andrew & Lisa Hocking

347. Kisten, Fiona & Madalyn McCandless

348. Vito Genova

349. Cathryn Coles

350. Barry & Rosemary Lang

351. R M & C S Reed

352. Eileen Richards

353. Rex & Rosemary Dusting

354. Anna Genova

355. Alan T & Glenis J Dunn

356. Eva Kelly

357. M L Coleman

358. William Chow

359. Robert T Grondman

360. Shirley V Grondman

361. Yew Teo

362. Natalie Kowalczyk

363. Ron & Phylis Young

364. Katalin Mindum

365. Alesksander & Elena Idel

366. Don March

367. Jeanette Kinchington

368. Douglas Coles

369. Bryan C Loft

370. Joan van Elferen

371. Francis Jeon‐Ellis

372. W M Macpherson

373. Sheldon Harsel & Yoshimi Mtsuda Harsel

374. Lorraine Foster

375. Margaret McKay

376. E Woods

377. Katherine Smith

378. Lorraine Mandel

379. T Mowthorpe

380. Eva Kowalcyzyk

381. Geoffrey Baker

382. Submitter 277

383. J M Powell

384. B Sudbury

385. Submitter 331, 336 and 337

386. Dean Oliffe

387. Ivana Vescovi

388. Miriam Wan

389. Melbourne Water

390. K Orford

391. V Eaves

and panel report - monash council · and lyn denison (member) and a panel hearing was held in glen...

Documents