By Mikayla Van Loon
Yarra Ranges councillors moved in support of four trees being removed in Mount Evelyn despite contradicting views and opposition to the proposal from some councillors.
In November last year, the council heard from Hereford Road resident Vanessa Walton who urged the council to remove eight trees surrounding her property after a number fell during the June 2021 storms.
This came after an assessment of 25 trees deemed only seven suitable for removal but councillors voted to approve the removal of a further eight trees.
With four trees residing on private property, a permit application had to be submitted, the other four fall within the 10 metre distance from a dwelling and are exempt from requiring a permit.
Another assessment of the trees identified that seven of the eight were at a low risk of falling and should not be removed under the Yarra Ranges planning scheme guidelines.
Ms Walton again spoke at the council meeting on 27 June objecting to the council officers recommendation to retain the eight trees on or around her land.
“With a really full heart, and a very grateful heart, I moved my family back into that house three weeks after that council meeting, after 18 months being without a home and being disconnected from our community,” she said.
“I felt so confident in the council’s democratic process, and trusted that the trees would come down within a matter of months, which was the timeline suggested to me.
“It’s now the 27th of June 2023, more than seven months since receiving unanimous councillor support to have the trees removed and more than two years since the storm and the trees are still here.”
Between November and the most recent council meeting, it was discovered that a portion of the land between 134 Hereford Road and Kookaburra Lane was not council owned but rather privately owned, requiring a permit to be granted for the tree removal.
Councillor Richard Higgins questioned the executive team on how the council can submit a planning application on behalf of someone else.
Planning and sustainable futures director Kath McClusky said it is within the council’s rights to lodge a planning application for the landowner but they cannot act on it.
“We have to give notice to that person which we have done. It’s up to that private landowner on whether they would ever act on that planning permit…We can’t act on their behalf to remove the trees,” she said.
The landowner would have to act on the permit within two years and have the work completed within four years, unless they pursue an extension.
Ms Walton pleaded with the councillors to not go back on their word from November and to issue a permit.
“At the end of the day, the money doesn’t matter. I’ll pay whatever I have to pay because fundamentally, only one thing is important, and that’s my family’s right to feel safe in our home,” she said.
“So I’m here asking for nothing more than the council to keep their word and offer a gentle reminder of the unanimous vote that this very council gave to have all eight trees removed.”
Cr Tim Heenan moved an alternative motion to approve the removal of the four trees requiring a permit and was seconded by Cr Andrew Fullagar.
Within the permit conditions, Cr Heenan said there would be vegetation offset to counteract the loss of trees on the property.
“It talks about making these available to the responsible authority and the offset is fairly stringent too to make sure all of this can happen through the native vegetation credit register before anything can go forward,” he said.
Cr Richard Higgins and Cr Johanna Skelton both spoke in opposition to the alternative motion because the permit application was being put forward on behalf of someone else.
“This to me seems quite bizarre…to be today considering issuing a permit to an unknown owner, who hasn’t been spoken to, that he can cut down trees if he wants to, if he even knows they exist, feels really strange,” Cr Higgins said.
“It seems really misleading to the residents that we’re going to give them a planning permit saying you can cut down trees but they don’t belong to you.
“It makes it really hard for me to say that’s the right thing to do. You’re giving these people hope that these trees can go.”
Cr Skelton agreed that granting a permit on behalf of the land owner who is not aware of the permit may result in disappointment for Ms Walton and her family.
“That land holder has to put the request in to remove [the trees] and as it is, I don’t have very much confidence that that land holder is going to do that.
“They may, in which case we’re saying tonight yes, give a permit and go ahead and take down, because they’re on our land, trees three and four which I don’t think if I was the residents of that house would be enough satisfaction to want to remain living comfortably in that house because there are still many many other trees closer to your home.
“I don’t feel comfortable giving approval tonight to take down two trees on the hunch and hope that others may come forward to be removed.”
Speaking in support of the motion, Cr Sophie Todorov rebutted by saying at least a pre-approval for the permit allows for the landowner to act should they wish.
“If we choose to live in an area like that, we’re always going to have risk and if it’s not these trees, it may be others in the future,” she said.
“But I think at least issuing the permit application tonight gives us options for the future and for that neighbouring property to make that decision on their own terms.”
Cr Jim Child also spoke in support and said it was up to councillors to honour their decision from November to support Ms Walton and her family.
“We did make a commitment last time this item came before the council and that was a tough night and my position hasn’t changed and I’ll do whatever I have to do to support what I actually moved and voted for that night,” he said.
In closing his plea to the councillors, Cr Heenan said with the unpredictability of the weather patterns across the region and because of the previous commitment to Ms Walton, it seemed only fair to issue the permit.
“We’ve just gone through the second anniversary of the horrendous storms that really destroyed a substantial amount of the major tree canopy in the Dandenong Ranges and in some of the low,” he said.
“I’ve seen destruction at all levels of houses in Mount Evelyn and of course in the Dandenongs with the damage that trees have done in recent times and and yes, we are going through very uncertain weather patterns again until probably the end of the year.
“We did give a commitment all those months ago. I know things have become complicated and yes, there are conditions now that didn’t exist before and yes, they must be followed but I believe in what we’ve done here tonight”
The alternative motion was passed without the support of Cr Higgins and Cr Skelton.
