Item No: C0819(2) Item 1
Subject: Tree Management DCP
Prepared By: Gwilym
Griffiths - Urban Forest Manger
Authorised By: Elizabeth
Richardson - Deputy General Manager Assets and Environment
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council adopt the amended
draft Tree Management DCP shown as Attachment 1 and replace the existing
controls as set out in:
a. Part 2.20 Tree Management of the Marrickville
Development control 2011;
b. Part 4 Tree Preservation and Management and Tree
Replacement and New Tree Planting contained within Chapter C, Sustainability
of the Inner West Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) 2016 for
Ashbury, Ashfield, Croydon, Croydon Park, Haberfield, Hurlstone Park and Summer
Hill; and
c. C1.14 Tree Management contained with part C
– Place of the Leichardt DCP 2013.
|
DISCUSSION
The Draft Tree Management DCP was placed on public exhibition and every
household and property owner were notified. The flyer was available in six key
languages English, Greek, Italian, Chinese (simplified), Spanish and
Vietnamese.
A total of 489
submissions were received with the majority (81%) of submissions outlining
support for the Draft DCP.
The key themes raised in the submission
were:
1. Concern with costs - General
concern with the cost of maintaining trees including the Council fees
associated with lodging an application. Several comments regarding concerns
with the cost of having to apply to Council every year to have pruning done on
their tree.
2. Trees are important - Many
statements where received outlining that trees are important in our area and
they should be protected.
3. Expand exempt weed list -
Request for the exempt weeds list to be expanded to cover more trees. One tree
species mentioned many times was Camphor Laurel.
4. Concern about reducing protections
- General concern with the nature of this DCP amendment and opposition to
making it easier to remove trees on private property.
5. Concerns with neighbouring trees
- Distress with neighbouring trees, with some submissions expressing the view
that Council should be more involved in dealing with neighbour tree disputes.
6. Guide where trees are planted
- Comments that residents need permission to remove trees but not to plant
trees and a call for guidelines to be developed to inform residents of what to
look out for when planting a tree.
7. Lack of notification on draft
- Concern that the Draft Tree DCP wasn’t notified sufficiently.
8. Protected tree definition too
broad - The criterion that defines a protected tree is too broad.
9. Support for Council subsidised
costs - Comments received outlining support for the proposal to provide
subsidised costs to residents who have valuable canopy trees.
10. Increase distance exemption –
requests for the distance exemption (500mm) be increased as it is not enough.
11. Against distance exemption –
requests for the distance exemption (500mm) be deleted from the DCP as it
should be on a case by case basis.
12. Support removal DA's for HCAs –
Support for the removal of the requirement to lodge a DA for tree work if your
property is located in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), permit only
required.
CONCLUSION
As a result of
comments made during the exhibition process it is recommended that the
following amendments are made to the Draft Tree Management DCP:
• Expansion of the exempt weed list. Six new
tree species have been added to the list (including Camphor Laurel). Refer page
4.
• Addition of long-term tree works permits.
Council will consider the submission and approval of a long-term tree
management plans for works on trees. This will allow an applicant to carry out
an agreed scope of work to trees within their property without application to
Council within a set timeframe (maximum 5 years). Refer page 9.
• Inclusion of diagrams to add visual clarity
to the document.
• Addition to tree removal assessment criteria to factor
in existing contribution to canopy cover from other trees on the site when
determining approval to remove a tree. Refer page 9.
• Inclusion of economic considerations to the
decision making for tree removal when damage to underground services (such as sewer lines, water services) is established.
See page 10.
• Addition of the ability to allow
compensation planting for tree removal on a property to be offset at a
different location if there is no space on the original property. Refer Page
11.
• Insertion of the statement ‘if the
tree was there first’ to consideration for solar access to solar panel or
clearance to data receivers. Refer page 10.
• Other minor issues identified such as
numbering and referencing
These changes
are reflected in the Draft Tree Management DCP - see attachment 1.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Council will be developing a subsidy/ grant
program which will be made available to residents who have valuable canopy
trees on their property and require assistance to maintain those trees. Funding
of this program will be allocated from existing tree management budgets to the
value of $25,000.
Comments
Post a Comment