Dead Tree Removal - Council Insists on 3:1 Replacement Planting, Any Way I Can Get Exemption

AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 15:04

Hi all,

Just looking to see if anyone got any suggestion on dealing with council.

There's a dead tree at the front of the property which is located in the City of Kingston - VIC. It has been certified by the council's arborist that it's dead, and a permit has been issued for the removal. However the condition is that there must be a 3 to 1 ratio replacement planting, meaning for every 1 tree removed, 3 replacement trees must be planted.

I found that a bit unreasonable as my primary concern is the safety risk the dead tree poses to the surrounding area. There are two large trees around it so it's not like I'm trying to get rid of all the trees so I can develop.

In response, I've requested an exemption from the 3 to 1 ratio replacement planting or an alternative solution from the council that can address the hazard without such strict replacement conditions. Unfortunately, the council's response stated that an exemption cannot be granted and didn't offer any alternative options.

Just to be clear, I did not poison the tree; it died for some unknown reason in the past year. Two other large trees within a 5-meter radius of the dead tree remain in perfect condition.

Any advice on how to persuade the council to grant exemption of the replacement planting? I've suggested pruning the tree to make it less hazardous but that would mean that I have to prune it every year until it decays by itself. I would be okay if it's 1 to 1 ratio, but somehow this council is very insistent on 3 to 1 ratio.

I've mentioned that I'm trying to minimize the legal liability in the the letter to request exemption should the tree fall one day during a storm or on a windy day and causes harm to people or property damage, but the council seems to not wanting to budge on this matter. Is there a way to ensure that I protect myself from future legal liability, if the council refuses to grant exemption of 3 to 1 ratio replacement planting and I just leave the tree to decay on itself own. (Putting the legal liability on the council that they wouldn't provide a reasonable solution, from my point of view anyway, to remove the dead tree).

Thanks in advance

Home & Garden

Comments

  • lewislardboy on 02/08/2023 - 15:09
    +34

    They'll replace 1 massive tree with 3 small saplings — what maintenance or hazard implications are you foreseeing from this?

  • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 15:14
    +10

    The replacement trees have these conditions

    a. Three (3) canopy trees indigenous to the City of Kingston area capable of growing to minimum mature dimensions of 10 metres height and 6 metres width;
    b. A minimum of 2 metres in height at the time of planting; and
    c. Maintained to the satisfaction of Council.

    so won't be small trees unfortunately.

    • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 15:18
      +12

      I'd get someone to prune the dead tree of unsafe branches and leave it where it is.
      It will still be of value to wildlife and birds.

      • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 15:26
        +5

        Forgot to mention, that council requires a permit to prune tree as well………………

        • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 15:45
          +1

          That seems reasonable, but still the best option in my view

        • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:05
          +1

          "Forgot to mention, that council requires a permit to prune tree as well………………"
          Problem being?

          • cookie2 on 02/08/2023 - 20:11

            @Protractor: Extra cash and trouble I'd suppose would be potential problems.

            • Protractor on 03/08/2023 - 09:52

              @cookie2: OP won't ever get to that point. He doesn't want anything other than his well developed plan A

          • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:38
            +2

            @Protractor: It's just that I can't prune it just because it's the best thing to do, it's that I would still need to wait for council to give me permission to do so, and I don't know what other request may come with it.

    • Kail on 02/08/2023 - 16:46
      +7

      That's rough, how much would the 3 trees cost?
      2m at time of planting sounds expensive.

    • Musing Outloud on 02/08/2023 - 21:13
      +5

      Great Rule.

      My local council requires 9 trees per 1,000m2 block, so for you to only need to replace 1 tree with 3 while you only have 2 others is pretty good in the scheme of things. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and just plant them.

      My neighbour has removed most of the trees from his property as part of extensions and has not replaced them in accordance with Council rules. He now enjoys the view across my property and his wife yells out the window of their 2 storey when we are in the yard. I need our boundary fence done. Once that is sorted I'll call council.

      • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:41
        +1

        There are other trees in the property as well, I'm only pointed out 2 other trees around it to illustrate that I'm not removing tree to gain anything. My problem it's not with how many trees in total, it's about the fact that one tree has died and in order to make it safe I have to plant 3 more large trees. Most other councils as far as I'm aware don't even required a permit if the tree is dead.

      • idonotknowwhy on 04/08/2023 - 09:15
        +1

        and his wife yells out the window of their 2 storey when we are in the yard

        She yells at you when you're in your yard? Or just yelling generally and you hear it?

    • LFO on 03/08/2023 - 14:03
      +1

      "so won't be small trees unfortunately."

      They will be tiny irrelevant saplings when planted. Today.

      IF they survive will grow to become real trees. Tomorrow, many years from now.

      • Hangryuman on 04/08/2023 - 15:45

        some trees can grow quite tall in 5 years - not so many years from now.

        • LFO on 05/08/2023 - 10:44

          "quite tall" and "many years" are, I'm afraid, very relative terms. More like my opinion vs your opinion dilemma.
          Height in meters and time in precise years solve the ambiguity.

          Also there are trees and trees.
          Fast growing trees will achieve some height and foliage fast but perish within 10 or 15 years. Other trees may last "thousands" of years being massive and imposing.

  • EightImmortals on 02/08/2023 - 15:20
    +13

    "Unfortunately, the council's response stated that an exemption cannot be granted and didn't offer any alternative options."

    hahaha, what a firckin surprise.

    For further research: "Kafkaesque".

    Lesson: Should have just removed the dead tree and not said anything/

    • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 15:25
      +2

      yeah I tried, but the tree cutting trade can't do it without permit in that council and even they tried to talk to council and the council refuse to let them cut the dead tree without permit. Dunno why the council is like that.

      • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 15:47
        +2

        We love trees and we’re committed to holding on to them and protecting them, especially large canopy trees that take years to mature…In line with the State Government’s Biodiversity Strategy, we're aiming for no further net loss in tree canopy cover in our beautiful city.

        • EightImmortals on 02/08/2023 - 16:02
          +6

          1, the tree was dead.
          2, three trees to replace every one dead one equals a 2/3 increase in coverage which is not a 'net loss'.
          3, Was the tree on council land? If not then my comment stands, OP should have just removed it. Oh that's right, the tree removal guys don't want to lose their 'licence' gosub point 2 'Kafkaesque'. So if the tree was OP's property and they have to ask 'permission' (I wonder what the cost of that was?) then does the OP really own their land? If the tree removal guys need 'permission' to do their job then who are they really working for? It's like one big plantation.

          They've got us by the balls.

          • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 16:10

            @EightImmortals:

            1. The tree is still dead.
            2. "…we're aiming for no further net loss…"
            3. Tree is on OP's property.

            As a property owner, OP has a responsibility to comply with laws and regulations. Or OP can choose not to comply. Easy.

            • Hangryuman on 04/08/2023 - 15:46

              @GG57: it is often easier to ask for forgiveness than to obtain permission

              'really ? oh - so sorry - I didn't know that was not allowed …'

          • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:08
            +1

            @EightImmortals: Live things live in dead trees. Not all life forms have to comply with human approval to exists, even though it's our default position to obliterate as much as we can.
            Like almost every thread in this genre, there's always more unsaid that said.

            I'm all for scrapping local govt. That should happen LONG before we pick fights with habitat

            • EightImmortals on 02/08/2023 - 19:18
              +1

              @Protractor: Sure but as it was a dead tree I think the OP was worried about it falling over or dropping branches. We have a few dead trees on our land and TBH there's not too much living there. Birds seem to prefer the lives ones as do other animals.

              • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 19:24
                -2

                @EightImmortals: Yeah, but it was a live tree that died a mysterious death recently. I'm of the opinion that that matters.

                There's a multitude of wildlife and fauna that use dead trees, Google it.
                Heaps of species of birds,lizards,bats,and invertebrates live in dead trees.
                OP is making a big deal about safety and planting 3 measly trees. Refer first sentence above

      • trapper on 02/08/2023 - 19:49
        +3

        but the tree cutting trade can't do it without permit …

        The chainsaw can :)

      • CocaKoala on 03/08/2023 - 23:16
        +8

        Dunno why the council is like that.

        I'm going to let you in on a secret: Councils are (profanity) leeches in general. They employ dumb cretins who need 4 days to respond to any email, and their response generally is along the lines of "you need a permit, it will cost you $440". This is regardless of what you asked them in the first place. They use the revenues raised to employ more dumb mouthbreathers who are a burden to the local community.

        • ssfps on 04/08/2023 - 01:48
          +2

          This has been my experience with various councils. In some ways they are worse than the big boys, because it's so sad how little power can go to their head.

    • derrida derider on 02/08/2023 - 17:36
      +10

      Plant the extra trees in parkland somewhere in the municipality - you can even ask council for suggestions as to a good place. Look up the wording of the bylaw - I bet it doesn't say the replacement trees have to go into the same spot where the dead tree was.

      • chriskq on 02/08/2023 - 22:03
        +1

        i like this thinking

      • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:45
        +1

        Man, I checked and was disappointed to see that "Before the expiry of this permit, replacement planting up to a ratio of 3:1 for every tree removed is to be planted at the subject site."

        • JakeyJooJoo on 03/08/2023 - 23:22

          Could you maybe plant 2 of them somewhere else on your block, such as the very back corner of your yard or something?

        • spal on 04/08/2023 - 07:29

          Plant all three trees in the same whole. Probably only one would survive, or they will grow looking a single tree. The word is 'subject site', and you are following the permit to the letter.

  • donbot on 02/08/2023 - 15:25

    tell them you've seen a possum in the tree… doenst that stop councils doing anything to a tree to protect wildlife?

    • Muzeeb on 02/08/2023 - 16:03
      +1

      Even better - an orange bellied parrot.

    • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 16:11
      +2

      I think you mis-read; council doesn't want anything to happen to the tree.

  • Ocker on 02/08/2023 - 15:57
    +2

    Is the tree in question on your property, or the nature strip?

    • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:46
      +3

      On the property. If it's on nature strip, it won't be my problem, it would be council's responsibility to remove and replant, and I doubt they would replace it with 3 trees.

  • Worf on 02/08/2023 - 15:59
    +2

    Is the tree on the nature strip or your front yard?

  • JIMB0 on 02/08/2023 - 15:59
    +7

    Maybe 2 out of the 3 trees meet a horrible fate.

    • neo on 02/08/2023 - 16:00
      +22

      Then you gotta replace those two with another 6 haha

      • JIMB0 on 02/08/2023 - 16:02
        +9

        That's what happens when you get the bureaucrats from the council involved. They don't deviate from the rules. Best to leave them out of it from the start.

  • JimmyF on 02/08/2023 - 16:03
    -5

    In response, I've requested an exemption from the 3 to 1 ratio replacement planting or an alternative solution from the council that can address the hazard without such strict replacement conditions. Unfortunately, the council's response stated that an exemption cannot be granted and didn't offer any alternative options.

    Plant the 3 trees…… They can be tube stock. Take pictures etc. If 2 don't make it over the next 12 months, say over the hot summer. what is the council going to do?

    • Muzeeb on 02/08/2023 - 16:04
      +5

      Did you even read the previous posts?

      Especially this one by the OP?

        • Muzeeb on 02/08/2023 - 16:06
          +5

          Scrolling where? Your post was the last one and 30 seconds old.

          • JimmyF on 02/08/2023 - 16:07
            -3

            @Muzeeb:

            Scrolling where? Your post was the last one and 30 seconds old.

            On to the next thread or whatever you are doing. You didn't have to respond which was the point.

            • Muzeeb on 02/08/2023 - 16:08
              +8

              @JimmyF: I did have to reply to bring to your attention that your post was inaccurate.

              • JimmyF on 02/08/2023 - 16:09
                -3

                @Muzeeb: No you really didn't need to, but you wanted to.

                • Muzeeb on 02/08/2023 - 16:10
                  +7

                  @JimmyF: Correct and glad I did. Didn't want to mislead anyone else, that didn't read the complete thread, with your incorrect facts.

        • ssfps on 04/08/2023 - 01:50

          "Did you really have to call me out on my shitty comment"

          Got a laugh from me, thanks.

  • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 16:20
    +12

    I'm all for these quotas tbh.

    Tree canopy retention and improvement is critical in neighbourhoods

    • Almost Banned on 02/08/2023 - 17:11
      +8

      I think plenty of people support the retention of shade trees and native vegetation while still realising that forcing someone to replace a dead tree with three new trees of not less than 2m in height where there are already established trees that are in perfect health without any exceptions is council overreach.
      If someone were clearing a block of native vegetation, requiring replanting is not likely to be an issue. But if a tree just dies without any outside influence, you should just be able to replace the tree.

      • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:15
        -4

        Yes, always let everyone else do the lifting. NIMBY efforts.
        How's that going?

    • noideaa on 03/08/2023 - 16:40

      Yet, they’re notorious for planting the wrong tree in the wrong spot.

      Inagine if they planted a 3m max native tree or a Dogwood, Crepe Myrtyle or Cherry trees instead of monsterous Gums, London Plane, Elms Ficus, Jacaranda and the likes.

      We wouldn’t be seeing mickey mouse shaped trees today.

    • ssfps on 04/08/2023 - 01:52
      -2

      Trees in the cities are to make them look pretty, we're not creating biodiversity hotspots here, although that's how they sell it.

      • callum9999 on 04/08/2023 - 07:42
        +4

        No. Trees in the city are meant to do many things. Yes look pretty, but also provide shade, decrease temperatures, reduce CO2 emissions and improve air quality.

        Obviously it's not "creating a biodiversity hotspot", but it absolutely does increase the amount of habitat available and so promote increased biodiversity.

        With the changing climate, we're going to need far more tree cover than we currently have. I fully understand why the OP and many people on here think that shouldn't be the responsibility of the OP to help with, but the goal itself is laudable and necessary.

        • idonotknowwhy on 04/08/2023 - 09:19

          decrease temperatures

          Do you mean they decrease the temperature of the surface they're blocking (shade), or are they somehow generally decreasing the temperature in the area?

      • Drakesy on 04/08/2023 - 12:23
        +2

        Ummm, no…

        There's the heat island affect which has a bit impact, head out to suburbia in the middle of summer and you'll feel like it's Baghdad. Trees do a lot more than make cities look pretty.

  • ihbh on 02/08/2023 - 16:44

    minimize the legal liability … should the tree fall one day during a storm or on a windy day and causes harm to people or property damage

    Called act of God. Not you liability unless you know it's dead and did nothing.

  • Mad Max on 02/08/2023 - 17:06
    -3

    Isn't Victoria cutting down millions of trees to make room for enviromentally friendly solar farms and wind farms?

    • derrida derider on 02/08/2023 - 17:38
      +4

      No.

      Short answer to a really dumb question.

        • Wort on 02/08/2023 - 20:32
          +7

          The Glenrowan solar plant is being built in the middle of a paddock. An empty paddock. There wasn't any trees there 20yr, nor today. Yes farmland, but hardly the most productive land in the area. Much better saving the better farmland in the latrobe valley from coal mining and hey we get cleaner power and have a power station located on one of the main interstate grid interconnects. So what is the point to your question?

          • Ghost47 on 05/08/2023 - 15:56

            @Wort: Think their point was to bash Victoria and the Victorian government. Happens a lot in these forums.

  • Tee Rex Arms on 02/08/2023 - 17:12
    +4

    1000% you arranged for the tree to die

    • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:26
      +3

      1000% and then some

    • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:49
      +3

      I know it seems like it but i really dunno how it happened, it's not in a place to put driveway, there's already an existing driveway and to do anything to that space, the other 2 trees would need to be removed as well.

      • Protractor on 03/08/2023 - 09:56

        The mystery rapid exit tree disease might be fortuitously contagious?.
        Hope they hang in.

        3+3+3 = 9 trees

    • smartazz104 on 04/08/2023 - 08:48

      There's also a 400% that chance you killed the tree.

    • Nebargains on 04/08/2023 - 13:36

      Why? Trees die sometimes.

      I had 5 pretty large trees in my backyard when I bought the house, one died a couple of years after moving in. No idea why, just died. Fortunately where I am no permit required for a dead tree.

  • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 17:17
    +1

    So it was a big tree that died?

    Do you have the space for three large trees in total? Is it a requirement you plant them in your yard? If the council wants a ratio of 3:1 they should be open to you planting the tree elsewhere in the area, like in a park or something.

    • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 17:29

      I like that actually.

      • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 17:30

        Maybe reach out to them to see if it’s possible. Makes no sense to plant 3 * 10m tall trees if you have no space for it.

        Keep us updated!

        • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:50

          I read the permit again and it does state "Before the expiry of this permit, replacement planting up to a ratio of 3:1 for every tree removed is to be planted at the subject site." So unfortunately it needs to be at the property. Also the tree that died was like prob more than 10m tall.

          • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 23:13

            @AT1013: I would still reach out and see if you can negotiate that. That's stupid.

          • jjjaar on 03/08/2023 - 07:53
            +1

            @AT1013: “Subject site” usually means your property, not in the exact same location the tree was. Do you have any other location in your yards (front/back) that could be suitable?

    • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:18
      +1

      Yes, good idea, then all the tree haters have a central point to poison en masse.

      • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 18:19

        People poison trees? Ultimately the joke is on them as more trees are planted overall.

        • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:21
          +2

          As the climate heats up, more humans breed, those 3 trees will never be the trees the older ones were.

          Poisoning trees is a sport in suburbia .Only second to greedy,selfish stupidity

          • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 18:33

            @Protractor: Fair point, trees can take a while to fully mature.

            Didn't know it was that common, people must have good lives if trees annoy them.

  • outlander on 02/08/2023 - 17:23
    +1

    I'm guessing you're close to the beach?

    A lot of rich assholes chop down trees to "improve the view". Thus these kinds of absurd rules

    • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:22
      +7

      A lot of rich assholes chop down trees to "improve the view"

      I love the smart councils who replace poisoned trees that deliver a view, with big fat ugly high wide billboards and signs. We should make them the last local govt areas we abolish.

  • megaclix on 02/08/2023 - 17:27
    +5

    Bikies Termites

  • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:03
    -2

    OP what's the real reason?

    3 more trees in a 'boiling world' is a cheap impost on your life.
    After all you are only worried 'about safety'.H-hm

    • Ocker on 02/08/2023 - 18:26
      -2

      OP has gone to ground and is not answering any questions.

      • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 18:27
        +1

        Maybe council is taking drill core samples of the dead tree?

    • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 22:58
      +3

      I don't want to plant 3 threes in order to remove a hazard. If it was to plant 1 replacement tree then I would be okay and that's reasonable to me. To plant three trees feels like I'm getting punished for trying to do that right thing. I understand the rule prob exist to determine people from removing tree for no good reason or to make sure property development also protects the habitat. In this situation the tree died (which can happen to living things…..look mate, I didn't do anything to it, up to you if you want to believe it or not), and I want to make sure I don't get sued and trying to protect my property which is within 8m from the massive tree. I think a reasonable person would foresee the potential hazard and try to do the right thing and it feels like the council doesn't want me to do that. It's not about 3 trees or 4 trees or 5 trees.

      • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 23:08
        +2

        Yeah sure,sure. OK
        So about the other thread you had about clashes with council and amateur legal endeavours.
        About circumventing rules to suit you.
        And of wanting to bend the rules to suit preserving your view, 'because neighbours build' annoys you . How did that go?

        Did you ever see the enormous burden of two extra pitiful trees was a generational legacy?

  • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 19:37

    OP is a big fan of councils too>

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/781357

    • Muzeeb on 02/08/2023 - 23:08
      +2

      They lived in Boroondara in that post but live in Kingston in this post. Hmmm.

      • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 23:10
        +3

        Round,round get around I get around…

        OPs obviously a mover and shaker.
        They probably don't live in Vic at all

  • GordonD on 02/08/2023 - 19:37
    +9

    Had to laugh at this thread.

    I've been fighting my local council because it decided to cut down all the big mature trees that made my street a leafy one, improved property values, sheltered people walking around to the shopping centre in summer rather than driving there in their air conditioned SUVs, and protected the planet. It decided that the 30 year old trees that I bought into the street because of needed to be cut down in the name of "streetscape renewal", and went ahead and did it. It planted saplings to replace some, not all of them, then let the saplings die. They killed them by putting a wire cage around them to "protect" them, so that when the wind blew the sapling bashed against the top of the cage, and broke off at the top.

    I even tried to get the state Environment Minister to stop them, after he went on TV and said Adelaide needed more tree coverage and the state government was going to pay councils to plant more. When I complained to his office I just got fobbed off. I was told "the council must have had a good reason for cutting them down". When they worked their way along other streets cutting the trees down there too I complained again to the next state government's Environment Minister, who said it wasn't his responsibility, and passed my complaint to the MInister for Local Government, whose flunkeys said "the council is doing it to even up the amount of tree coverage across the local government area". You do that by planting more trees where there's less, not by cutting them down where there's more.

    • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 20:14
      -3

      The only (ONLY) way humans get out of this boiling pot is to stop deforestation, plant more trees and breed less humans.
      That's never going to happen. WE love being rich & clever (LOL) way too much.
      We are too stupid,greedy,lazy and arrogant. The end of us is not the worse news. But it will come. It's all the avoidable collateral damage,we do until then.
      Ironic that we profess to understand basic physics and invent capitalism, and think it can somehow defy it.
      In the scheme of things species survival is always about individual effort.

      Sweet dreams kiddies

    • AT1013 on 02/08/2023 - 23:01
      +3

      Yeah, this is what I don't understand, for the council to cut trees down, they can do whatever they want. Whereas when I want to cut down 1 dead tree, I would have to plant 3 larges trees. Why is that such double standard, why all these massive development building going up and I don't see any large trees being planted on the property when it's full built to the max, and council it's fine with that because it generate lots of money for the council.

      • bokka on 03/08/2023 - 21:04
        +1

        I imagine the three for one rule is designed to counter the fact tree coverage is worsening. People remove trees without replanting, or trees die naturally and aren't replanted, the net effect is fewer trees. It falls to the generous and law abiding ones to do their bit.

    • Ocker on 03/08/2023 - 08:37

      Seems like a serial council hater who thinks they should have special rules applied to them

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join