Tag Archives: tree protection


Unfortunately we have encountered a glitch which we are working to over come.

The post will appear as soon as the glitch is overcome.

Our apologies.



Unlike all other Metro Melbourne Councils, Glen Eira does not have a significant tree register or a tree protection policy for trees located on private or public (ie. street or park) land.

Over the years, successive Glen Eira Councils, have considered introducing tree protection measures yet, except for the loss of more trees, nothing has been achieved.  GERA,  as per our 2015 posting -“Why doesn’t Glen Eira have a Significant Tree Resister or Tree Protection Strategy ‘, concluded this was because “Glen Eira Council, despite residents expressed wishes, doesn’t want either a Tree Register or Tree Protection Strategy”

Last October residents elected a new Council.

With the current development boom, significant trees located on private land are now seriously at risk – particularly as moonscaping seems to be the preferred first stage of redevelopment.

Mayor Mary Delahunty is currently seeking residents support to get a significant tree register added to the Community Plan at next Tuesday’s Council Meeting (27 June).

Although the register is still at the conceptual stage (ie. without detailed information on tree registration processes or criteria), GERA urges residents to support this initiative.  It is a long overdue first step in a many step process that finally shows Council recognises the importance of tree preservation for current and future generations.

You can register your support for a tree register by sending a letter or email to the Mayor (with a copy all Councillors).   Below is a sample letter/email

Subject:   Request for Significant Tree Register to protect trees on private land.

Too many old and gorgeous trees are being lost for more housing.  Glen Eira needs a significant tree register to protect trees on private land.  It is the right thing to do to keep our city green and environmentally friendly. I urge you to support the inclusion of a significant tree register in the Community Plan. 

Councillors names and email addresses

Cr Mary Delahunty (Mayor): MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au

Cr Jamie Hyams: JHyams@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Jim Magee JMagee@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Nina Taylor NTaylor@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Margaret Esakoff: MEsakoff@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Clare Davey: CDavey@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Tony Athanasopoulos: TAthanasopoulos@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Joel Silver: JSilver@gleneira.vic.gov.au
Cr Dan Sztrajt: DSztrajt@gleneira.vic.gov.au

Letters can be mailed to

Glen Eira Council at PO Box 42, Caulfield South 3162


As more and more properties are being totally or partially cleared of vegetation, the above question is increasingly being asked by residents. Tree Protection is a longstanding issue that residents have consistently flagged as a high priority numerous times over many years and that Council has been working on for just as many years. Yet Glen Eira still lacks both a publicly available Tree Register and a Tree Protection Strategy. Instead Glen Eira relies on Planning Scheme provisions which, without defining “significant”, are only “triggered” when two events coincide, ie. a planning permit is lodged with Council and an inspection of the property identifies “significant” vegetation.   To address this obvious issue, the majority of other Victorian Councils enacted (local law) Tree Registers and Tree Protection Strategies years ago, however, Glen Eira is still working on it and in March 2015 voted* to defer this work until an unspecified time.

Consequently and sadly, this leads us to suspect that the answer to the above question is that Glen Eira Council, despite residents expressed wishes, doesn’t want either a Tree Register or Tree Protection Strategy.

* The vote was a split decision – Crs. Lipshutz, Esakoff, Magee (Mayor), Lobo and Okotel voting for deferral with Crs. Delahunty, Pilling, Sounness and Hyams voting against deferral.  Extract from Council Minutes – 17/3/2015.

So what is and are the implications of establishing both a Tree Register and a Tree Protection Strategy.  When both are combined they result in a Tree protection outcome that is consistent with the principles of good town planning.   Basic definitions are

  • Tree Register is a publicly available list of trees, which includes details of the specimens which have been deemed to be significant. Details usually include species name (botanical and common), tree location, type of location (private or public land), condition and brief statement of significance. Under the Tree Protection Strategy, once designated as significant, or given a “pending review” status, the Tree Protection Strategy and appropriate Planning Scheme Provisions are activated. A tree register is not a static list, it is updated if trees die or require removal and new specimens are identified.
  • Tree Protection Strategy incorporates the rules governing the addition or the removal of trees to/from the tree register. Typical components included in a strategy are:
    • Assessment criteria – many and varied.   For example the City of Kingston’s criteria considers horticultural value, location or context, rarity or localised distribution, age and potential life span, outstanding size, aesthetic values or curious growth form, outstanding examples of their species, cultural or historical significance.
    • Assessment process – from nomination to determination of significance by a panel of arborists and landscapers.   Most Councils have a open to all nomination process, however, past Council Minutes indicate that, since implementation of tree register may create local controversy (neighbour vs. neighbour), Glen Eira Council favours a closed nomination process.
    • Tree maintenance activities that may/may not require a permit, permit requirements and fees
    • Appropriate protection measures to be adopted (reference to Planning Scheme and additional protective measures if, and as, considered appropriate).
    • Availability of tree maintenance advice, provided by Council Arborists, to the custodians (owners) of significant trees on private property.
    • Appropriate penalty clauses.

Readers should also note that establishing a Tree Register and Tree Protection Strategy

  • In combination, ensure tree protection that is consistent with good planning principles
  • are an addition to Planning Scheme Provisions, they neither replace nor diminish those provisions
  •     they offer a higher level of protection than the Planning Scheme since permission is required before any action that can damage a classified tree may be undertaken. The protection “trigger” is not restricted to the lodging of a planning permit application on the property where the tree is located.
  •     provides for shared responsibilities for the retention and care of significant trees that span property boundaries
  •     does not preclude arborist site inspections when a planning permit is lodged and the identification of a tree considered worthy of addition to the tree register.
  •     additionally, a tree’s inclusion in a publicly available Tree Register will ensure that if the property is to be re-developed, the retention/protection of identified significant tree/s must be taken into account during the preparation of the proposed development’s plans.

GERA considers this a significant improvement to the current process,

  • which as per the Officers Report, involves significant tree identification and protections occurring after the development’s plans have been lodged with Council.
  • as the Tree Strategy would/should include an orderly and appropriate process for determining if and when significant trees are to be permitted to be removed because of redevelopment requirements. Under the current process, the decision to allow significant tree removal is “discretionary” – with many residents complaining that significant trees located in the growth zones are ”assessed in the same way as the Gum in Neerim Road was”.   Extract from Council Minutes 28/06/2011

“There is one high value tree at the rear of 179 Neerim Road (Manna Gum) according to Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer. This tree is not proposed to be retained and is not protected by a planning scheme control or local law. In any event, the tree in its residential context is considered to be too large for its setting. It is also located on a site identified as being a strategic location for housing diversity. On balance, its removal is considered acceptable. Recommended conditions will require the planting of 7 new advanced canopy trees throughout the site.”

  •  It would also strengthen ResCode’s “defacto tree retention control” mentioned in the Officer’s Report. This control requires that any town planning permit assessment must consider any trees removed within the 12 months prior to application lodgement as still existing.   Given land-banking and/or the elapsed time between contracting to purchase a property and lodging a permit, it does not provide the same disincentive to totally or partially clear a site that a Tree Register and Strategy provides (ie. how do they know what trees were there, goes beyond 12 months plus 1 day).

In addition to the comments made above, we further comment

  • That while we applaud the comment that “it is estimated that over 200 valued trees are protected each year” we are concerned that number cannot be verified and are questioning the planning zone applicable to the location of the 200+ trees. Resident’s report that few significant trees are identified in the growth zones.
  • While again we applaud the comment “that every approved multi unit dwelling proposal has a permit condition which requires a landscape plan to be submitted and approved by Council. The landscape plan process is an opportunity to ensure the planting of well advanced (between 2m to 3m in height when planted) future canopy trees. The landscape plans are prepared by a suitably qualified person and, importantly, signed off by Council’s landscape architect” we are again concerned about the provision of future canopy trees, particularly in the growth zones.

The high density growth zones are the areas which will benefit most from the planting of future canopy trees – come to GERA’s forum tomorrow night to find out why. However, in these zones, most of the developments include boundary to boundary basement car parks with either

  • Minimal soil coverage to service both landscaping plants and canopy trees or
  • The construction of above ground concrete planters for canopy trees

We also have concerns about the enforcement of conditions related to landscaping and the planting of future canopy trees. In the above mentioned instance of a Neerim Road property, soil coverage is minimal and the required 7 (at a minimum of 3.0 metres tall) future canopy tree plantings (4 within the Neerim Road setback and 3 in the South-West Corner) have either not been planted or subsequently died and not been replaced.

To aid the growth of future canopy trees, we urge Council to apply the same set back requirements to basement car parks as are applied to above ground building envelope.


GERA has delayed updating our earlier postings urging Council to acquire the rare and unique 3142 sqm property at 487 Neerim Road, Murrumbeena, until Council and/or individual Councillors responded to our 15/12/2012. GERA’s 15/12/2012 was the last in a series of correspondence with Council commencing on 06/12/2012.  Regretably GERA reports no further response from Council.


Tallow Wood

Tallow Wood – Neerim Road Entrance

Acquisition of the property (and recognised significant vegetation+ – pictures) would which have resulted in a 40-50% increase in the Riley Reserve, Murrumbeena – a reserve located equidistant from, and within easy walking distant of, the Hughesdale and Murrumbeena Housing Diversity Housing Areas (targeted as high density development areas) – for a cost more favourable than the acquisition of 2 house lots in Packer Park (acquired during the 2008-2012 Council term). On 20/12/2012, the property was auctioned and sold for development. Although the property is located in a Minimal Change Area, in 2009 (and despite receiving a significant number of objections) Council granted a planning permit for 2 two storey buildings (23 dwellings) on the site (as a result of a developer appeal to VCAT site intensity was later increased to 3 stories and 26 dwellings) – Extract from Council Meeting Minutes – 30th June, 2009.    Residents are now extremely concerned that site intensity will be further increased and that Council actively enforces vegetation protection measures lodged/proposed on the site in 2009*.


GERA’s 15/12/2012 letter was in response to Cr. Jamie Hyams letter of 14/12/2012  which, without explicitly stating that a decision not to purchase the property had been made, outlined Council’s reasons for not acquiring the 487 Neerim Road property. In addition to re-iterating the open space benefits the property presented, GERA’s  15/12/2012 letter also requested an opportunity to discuss acquisition of the property and clarification of a number of points raised by Cr. Hyams. Even though Council “responsiveness goals” includes a commitment to respond to all correspondence from residents, GERA has yet to receive a response from either Council or any individual Councillor (all Councillors were copied in all correspondence from GERA). It should be noted that although GERA’s sent copies of all it’s letters to all Councillors, Cr. Hyams’s letter does not show that copies were forwarded to each Councillor.

As mentioned in many previous posts, Glen Eira has the least amount of per capita open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Glen Eira’s per capita open space at 1.4 hectares per 1000 is half of the average for Melbourne and is falling even lower as development intensifies in Housing Diversity (high density) Areas and the expansion of pavilions and associated car parking consumes open space.

Given the significance that residents have been placing on Glen Eira’s limited open space in every community/council plan and State Government “Satisfaction Survey” since 1998, this lack of response (both from Council and individual Councillor’s) is disconcerting. This lack of response is reminiscent of Council’s adoption of silence rather than informing residents of GESAC opening delays. As result GERA must question Council’s

decision making process

o who made the decision?
o what information was provided to ensure an informed, impartial decision was made? The information presented should have been extensive and have included, but not be limited to, Council’s current and future financial position, project population growth for the Hughesdale and Murrumbeena Housing Diversity (high density), projections of future open space availability and costings across Glen Eira, potential economies in parkland maintenance, costs of purchase and rehabilitation of the property.
o did Councillors have some input into the decision or were they advised after the decision was made?

Possible acquisition of the 487 Neerim Road was not discussed at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18/12/2012 – the property was auctioned on 20/12/2012. The Records (ie. minutes) of the Assembly+ included in the Minutes of the 18/12/2012  are prior (4/12/2012) to GERA’s initial correspondence (6/12/2012) recommending Council consider purchasing the property.

At last Tuesday’s Ordinary Council Meeting (5/02/2013) – the first for 2013 – again no mention was made of 487 Neerim Road property. Nor were any Records of Assembly, for the intervening period (05/12/2012 – 05/02/2012) presented to the meeting.

Under the wide ranging Delegations of Authority*, Councillors have given to the Administration, the decision not to purchase the property may have been made without Councillor input (who were informed after the decision had been made). Reporting to Councillors of administrative decisions made, under delegations of authority, is at the discretion of the administration.

Please note that the above questions are not only pertinent in this instance.   GERA regularly receives these questions from residents on a range of issues – from planning permit approvals, tree felling, concrete plinths in parks to traffic and parking management. Increasingly residents report feeling that decisions are made by the Administration with little or no input from Councillors.

the addition of two implied conditions to open space acquisition (neither condition being raised during any community consultation) included in Cr. Hyams response

o “New open space may well be of even greater priority than enlarging existing open space” .   Such a statement not only lacks justification but also implies a limitation on the parkland opportunities that will be considered rather than assessing each opportunity on it’s own merits.

Additionally, this emphasis placed on “new open space”, which references the Booran Road Reservoir Park (formerly the Glen Huntly Reservoir), raises a question on Council’s priorities.  Council’s at-no-cost acquisition of the land was first mooted in the late 1990’s, Council’s first community consultation on the proposed park occurred in March, 2008, yet rehabilitation works will not be commenced until 2017 and will not be completed until 2019/2020.

o “Council’s priorities will be to adopt and implement a prioritized and costed plan to meet the communities need for public open space”.   Such a statement lacks clarity as it implies focus on events that can be planned and costed (eg maintenance of existing parkland, pavilion developments) rather than recognising the unexpected nature of real estate opportunities.

 It also adds strength to residents arguments that Council hold a specifically designated fund (eg. the Open Space Levy paid by developers – which has generated $12.8m since 2003) in reserve to enable Council to take advantage of unexpected opportunities. Residents should also note that since 2003 Council acquisition of additional parkland has been restricted to the 2011 purchase of 2 house lots abutting Packer Park for $1.9m. This purchase was an “enlarging of existing open space”.

With the impending review of Council’s Open Space Strategy (last updated in 1998) residents should

objectively evaluate Council’s performance in meeting the community’s very vocal open space objectives against the previous strategy, and

actively participate in the impending review to ensure that their objectives are truly reflected in the new strategy and that the

o manner and means for Council to achieve the objectives are clear cut and unambiguously defined.
o quantifiable unambiguously defined performance measures are included
o regular reporting of Council’s performance to residents, with defined content, is included.
o date of next review is stated


* Significant Vegetation – pictures.   GERA representatives and residents confirm that the vegetation mentioned in the below extract are still exist on the site and are healthy.   Extract from above referenced June 2009 Council Minutes – “The current application seeks to retain 14 significant trees on the subject site, including 3 significant Tallow Woods and 2 Washingtonia Palms … Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has confirmed that, subject to the careful implementation of tree protection measures, all significant trees can be retained.

… Before the commencement of the development, the owner of the land at 487 Neerim Road, Murrumbeena, must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, with covenants relating to:
• Implementation of the Tree Management Plan during the construction phase of the development; and
• Ongoing maintenance of trees and landscaping in accordance with the Tree Management Plan by the future residents of the competed development.

… A memorandum of the Agreement is to be entered on Title and the costs of the preparation and execution of the Agreement and entry of the memorandum on Title are to be paid by the owner of the land to be developed under this permit”

+ An “Assembly of Councillors” , as defined in the Local Law, is an in camera briefing session, involving both the Administration and Councillors, to enable the Administration to report day to day activities to Councillors and inform (or highlight to) Councillors of current and future significant issues – particularly issues that are likely to be contentious. As per Local Law decisions are not permitted to be made at Assemblies, decisions can only be made at Ordinary (open) Council Meetings.

Assembly meetings are usually held every Tuesday. In the event of an Ordinary Council Meeting being held on the same day, the Assembly occurs prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting.

As the Christmas/New Year Holiday period falls within the 4/12/2012 – 05/02/2013 timeframe, it is acknowledged that Councillor Assemblies may not have been held on a regular weekly (Tuesday) basis. However, Assemblies would have been held and the absence of these records is disconcerting and, as previously mentioned, is as disconcerting as it was during the GESAC opening delays.

Although the records/minutes containing minimal information (ie. attendees and topic headings), they do advise residents that the issue was raised at the Councillor level rather than handled solely by the Administration. Unfortunately, due to the absence of Records of Assembly since 4/12/2012 to the 5/02/2013, GERA is unable to advise residents if Councillors were involved in the decision not to purchase the property or the extent of their involvement in the decision.

** Delegations of Authority – Delegations of Authority (ie. the instruments which confer on the Administration the authority to act, on behalf of the elected representatives, when undertaking the day to day administrative activities associated with the Municipality)