Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Significant Trees
14 July 2015
Page 1 of 28
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Significant Trees
14 July 2015
Mandy Elliott, Chair
Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Contents Page Executive Summary ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 The subject land and surrounds ...... 2 1.2 Background to the proposal ...... 3 1.3 Issues dealt with in this report ...... 4 2 Planning context ...... 5 2.1 Policy framework ...... 5 2.2 Planning scheme provisions ...... 5 2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 6 2.4 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 6 3 How are significant trees identified? ...... 7 3.1 The issue ...... 7 3.2 Evidence and submissions ...... 7 3.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 9 4 Tree Protection Zone ...... 11 4.1 The issue ...... 11 4.2 Evidence and submissions ...... 11 4.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 12 4.4 Recommendations ...... 12 5 Impact on development opportunities ...... 13 5.1 The issue ...... 13 5.2 Evidence and submissions ...... 13 5.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 14 6 Maintenance of nominated trees ...... 15 6.1 The issue ...... 15 6.2 Evidence and submissions ...... 15 6.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 17 7 Site specific issues ...... 18 7.1 The issues ...... 18 7.2 Recommendations ...... 19 8 The Form of the Amendment and Planning Provisions ...... 20 8.1 The issue ...... 20 8.2 Evidence and submissions ...... 20 8.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 20 8.4 Recommendations ...... 21
Appendix A List of Submitters Appendix B Post Exhibition Changes submitted by Council
Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
List of Figures Page Figure 1 28 Newsom Street, Ascot Vale (T204) ...... 11 Figure 2 20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds (T205) ...... 14
List of Abbreviations DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former) ESO Environmental Significance Overlay LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework MSS Municipal Strategic Statement MVCC Moonee Valley City Council MVSTRR Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014 ROW Right of Way SPPF State Planning Policy Framework TPZ Tree Protection Zone VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Overview Amendment Summary The Amendment Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Common Name Significant Trees Subject Site The Amendment applies to a number of properties identified in the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014. The Proponent Moonee Valley City Council Planning Authority Moonee Valley City Council Authorisation Council received an email from the DELWP on 3 February 2015 indicating that it may prepare Amendment C149 without authorisation after 10 February 2015 Exhibition Council exhibited Amendment C149 from 12 March until 17 April 2015 Submissions There were 17 submissions. One submission (number 2) was withdrawn prior to the Hearing
Panel Process The Panel Mandy Elliott, Chair Directions Hearing Moonee Valley City Council Civic Centre, 18 May 2015 Panel Hearing The Clocktower Centre, Moonee Ponds, 16 June 2015 Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 18 May and 16 June 2015 Appearances Moonee Valley City Council (MVCC) represented by Ms Bridget Maplestone, Principal Planner MVCC. The MVCC called expert evidence from Ms Emma Barrett from Homewood Consulting (Arborist). National Trust of Australia (Vic) represented by Ms Anna Foley of the National Trust. Mr Alberto Dimaggio. Date of this Report 14 July 2015
Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Executive Summary
Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 – Significant Trees was prepared by the Moonee Valley City Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to: Amend Clause 21.03 (Sustainable Environment) of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to refer to the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014. Amend Schedule 2 to Clause 42.01 (Environmental Significance Overlay) of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to include the additional trees as identified in the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014. Amend Tree Reference No T113 and Planning Scheme Map 15ESO to refer to six instead of 13 trees at 25 Wingate Avenue, Ascot Vale (Ascot Vale Housing Estate). Delete the Environmental Significance Overlay from: 33 Brewster Street, Essendon (Tree Reference No T13) 49 Churchill Avenue, Ascot Vale (Tree Reference No T84) 5 Newhall Avenue, Moonee Ponds (Tree Reference No T138) Insert new planning maps 5ESO, 6ESO, 8ESO, 11ESO, 12ESO, 14ESO, 15ESO, and 16ESO. Following exhibition, Council proposed two changes to the Amendment: No longer proceed with inclusion of Tree Reference No T209 at 3 Neal Street, Keilor East as this tree has since been removed. Minor changes to the Amendment documentation following gazettal of Amendment C134 (Planning Scheme Review) on 5 March 2015, including updating the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014 as a reference document in Clause 21.04 not Clause 21.03. The Amendment applies to trees within the municipality that have been assessed as being significant and have been included in the Significant Tree Register and seeks to implement the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014.
(i) Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends: 1. Adopt Amendment C149 to the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme, as exhibited subject to the following modifications: a) Amend Clause 21.03 (now 21.04) Sustainable Environment to refer to the Moonee Valley City Council Significant Tree Register Review 2014. b) Amend Tree Reference No T113 and Planning Scheme Maps 15ESO to refer to 6 instead of 13 trees at 25 Wingate Avenue, Ascot Vale (Ascot Vale Housing Estate). c) Adopt the post exhibition changes to the Amendment documentation to reflect the removal of Tree Reference No T209 at 3 Neal Street, East Keilor.
Page 1 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
1 Introduction
Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 – Significant Trees (the Amendment) was prepared by the Moonee Valley City Council (MVCC) as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to: Amend Clause 21.03 (Sustainable Environment) of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to refer to the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014 as a reference document. Amend Schedule 2 to Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to include the additional trees as identified in the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014 (as outlined in Table 1 of the Explanatory Report). Amend Tree Reference No T113 and Planning Scheme Map 15ESO to refer to six instead of 13 trees at 25 Wingate Avenue, Ascot Vale. Delete the Environmental Significance Overlay from: 33 Brewster Street, Essendon (Tree Reference No T13) 49 Churchill Avenue, Ascot Vale (Tree Reference No T84) 5 Newhall Avenue, Moonee Ponds (Tree Reference No T138) Insert new planning maps 5ESO, 6ESO, 8ESO, 11ESO, 14ESO, 15ESO, 16ESO. The Amendment was placed on public exhibition from 12 March until 17 April 2015, with a total of 17 submissions received. Of the 17 submissions received, six opposed the Amendment. At its Ordinary Council meeting held on 16 December 2014, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C149, as well as refer any submissions received to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 29 April 2015 and comprised Ms Mandy Elliott (Chair). A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 18 May 2015. Following the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, submitter number 2 withdrew their submission from the Amendment. The Panel then met at the Clocktower Centre in Moonee Ponds (next to the Council offices) to hear submissions about the Amendment on 16 June 2015. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1. 1.1 The subject land and surrounds The Amendment applies to trees within the municipality that have been assessed as being significant and have been included in the Significant Tree Register and seeks to implement the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014. The individual or groups of trees reviewed are located both on public and private land, with 24 on private land and eight being on nature strips or other Council owned land.
Page 2 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
1.2 Background to the proposal Significant tree registers in various forms have been in place for approximately 20 years in the municipality. The first was completed in 1993 and was a manually typed register with photos that had 163 records identified by the former City of Essendon. In 2001, the MVCC undertook a review of this register and expanded it to the municipal boundary as the Council area had changed since the 1993 register. The original register, which included 192 records (a record can include either an individual tree or a group of trees) on both public and private land, was never formalised by MVCC in terms of preservation controls or a management framework. At its 3 November 2010 meeting, Council resolved to undertake a review of Council’s Significant Tree Database and, upon the completion of this review, receive a report advising on the findings of the review and recommendations to protect significant vegetation. Subsequently, Council appointed Homewood Consulting in September 2011 to review Council’s Significant Tree Register. The review assessed trees against the National Trust Significant Tree Criteria (discussed in section 3). It found that of the 239 records, 203 were recommended for inclusion, 31 did not meet the criteria for inclusion and five were located outside the municipality. The final draft of this Review was completed in September 2012 with the content informing the development of Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C130. At the Ordinary Council meeting on 24 September 2013 Council adopted the Panel recommendations for Amendment C130 which introduced the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register 2012 and submitted the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. The approved amendment was gazetted on 19 December 2013. The Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register 2012 recommends updating the Significant Tree Register on an annual basis. Amendment C149 proposes to implement this annual review. Homewood Consulting was commissioned by the MVCC in July 2014 to undertake a review of 32 trees. Some of the trees were nominated by members of the public who requested they be investigated. Other trees were identified for further investigation within the Panel Report associated with Amendment C130. Council advised the Panel that trees investigated on private land were not always nominated by the landowner. The review by Homewood Consulting identified that of the 32 records, 20 were recommended to be included and 12 were considered to not have met any of the National Trust Significant Trees Criteria and therefore should not be included within the MVSTRR 2014. As well as the tree itself, in order to manage each of these trees, Council and its expert witness, Ms Barrett (Arborist) described that it is also necessary to apply a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) surrounding the tree. This is necessary to prevent damage to the trunk and root structure. The TPZ is calculated as 12 x diameter at breast height (trunk diameter at 1.4 metres above ground level). This remains unchanged from the 2012 review. The TPZ is then reflected in the relevant ESO maps associated with that Tree or row of trees.
Page 3 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
In addition to the trees proposed to be added to the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Review 2012, there were three (3) trees which need to be deleted altogether from the register as these trees have since been removed. These include: Tree Reference No T15 at 33 Brewster Street, Essendon (Manna Gum) Tree Reference No T103 at 49 Churchill Avenue, Ascot Vale (Spotted Gum) Tree Reference No T166 at 5 Newhall Avenue, Moonee Ponds (Bhutan Cypress). There was also one group of trees at 25 Wingate Avenue, Tree Reference No T113, which needed to be amended to include only six (6) not 13 trees due to the other trees having been removed since the 2012 Significant Tree Register. The trees were identified as having been removed through recent aerial photography. 1.3 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: Planning context How are significant trees identified Tree Protection Zone Impact on development opportunities Maintenance of nominated trees Site specific issues The form of the Amendment and planning provisions.
Page 4 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
2 Planning Context
Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report and its submission to the Panel. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies. 2.1 Policy framework
(i) State Planning Policy Framework Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF: Clause 11 – Settlement Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage. The Amendment will implement these policies by protecting a place identified as exhibiting ‘…high scientific, nature conservation, biodiversity, heritage, geological or landscape value’ (Clause 11.03‐2). The application of the ESO will also ‘…provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value’ (Clause 15.03‐1).
(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) objectives: Clause 21.04 – Sustainable Environment. The amendment seeks to preserve the most significant trees within the Municipality and in effect meets the objective of ‘to protect and enhance the natural assets of the City’. Clause 21.06 – Built Environment. This clause identifies the key built environment issues for Moonee Valley as character, urban design, heritage and signage. Of relevance to the Amendment, this policy seeks to protect ‘…objects of natural, Aboriginal and cultural significance’. 2.2 Planning scheme provisions
(i) Overlays The MVCC suggest that the use of the ESO is the most appropriate tool to achieve the desired outcomes for the protection of Moonee Valley’s significant vegetation. It seeks a permit to remove, destroy or lop the trees, as well as a permit for any buildings and works within the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ), thereby further protecting the root structures. The ESO has been used in accordance with the VPP Practice Note Vegetation Protection in Urban Areas (August 1999). The use of the ESO to protect significant Trees in the Register has previously been the planning tool adopted by the MVCC (refer to Amendment C130 – Significant Tree Preservation).
Page 5 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
(ii) Particular provisions The planning provisions to be introduced in this amendment include new planning permit requirements for certain properties.
(iii) Other planning strategies The Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register 2012 formed a key component of the Amendment and it is the review of this document that Amendment C149 proposes to implement. The Amendment is consistent with Theme 2 of the Council Plan 2013‐2017 ‘Green, clean and beautiful’ which refers to further developing the city’s urban forest to provide shade, support local ecology and improve neighbourhood amenity. 2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act, Ministerial Direction No 9 – Metropolitan Strategy, Ministerial Direction No 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments and Ministerial Direction No 15 – The Planning Scheme Amendment Process. 2.4 Discussion and conclusions The Panel considers the Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Act and with Ministerial Directions Nos 9, 11 and 15. The Amendment provides certainty and appropriate guidance for the protection of identified significant trees within the Municipality, which may not be provided by the current planning controls. The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.
Page 6 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
3 How are significant trees identified?
3.1 The issue Submission number 5 from Mr Dimaggio queried how particular trees (specifically Tree number 205, 20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds) were nominated for inclusion on the Register. 3.2 Evidence and submissions Council stated that each of the trees were assessed against the National Trust Significant Trees Criteria, which includes 12 significance categories relating to: Horticultural or genetic value Unique location or context Rare or localised distribution Particularly old specimen Outstanding size Aesthetic value Curious growth habitat Historical significance Connection to Aboriginal Culture Outstanding example of species Remnant vegetation Outstanding habitat. Council and its expert Ms Barrett advised the Panel that only one of the above criteria needs to be met in order for a tree or group of trees to be placed on the Register. Ms Barrett’s expert evidence described the process of undertaking assessments in order to identify relevant trees. Ms Barrett stated: ‘The review assessed trees nominated on public and private property throughout the municipality. All trees were assessed using differentially corrected GPS (Omnistar HP subscription) providing accuracy generally in the order of 10‐20cm….. Some of the trees were nominated by members of the public who had requested they be investigated since the previous assessment was undertaken in 2012…. The trees were measured and assessed for: Address and spatial location (Easting/Northing) Physical dimensions, heights, width, trunk diameter at breast height and trunk diameter at base Condition, health, structure, useful life expectancy and approximate age Risk assessment and defects Recommended works and comments Significance category and statement 2 photographs
Page 7 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Following the assessments, all data was collated, photos matched and overlaid with Council’s GIS data. A report was prepared outlining which trees were identified as significant or not. Tree significance was adapted from the National Trust Significant Tree Criteria …’ The National Trust uses its own criteria to nominate trees on its Register of the National Trust and Ms Foley, representing the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) submitted that one of the current registered trees on the Moonee Ponds Significant Tree Register (T216, located at 28‐68 Flemington Street, Travancore) has recently (15 June 2015) also been placed on the National Trusts’ own Significant Tree Register. The Trust’s Register of Significant Trees recognises individual trees, avenues and important stands of trees as valuable community assets that must be preserved. The National Trust classification does not carry statutory weight. Ms Foley stated that Amendment C149 aligns with the Trust’s objectives of ensuring statutory protection for significant trees and that the Moonee Ponds Significant Tree Register further complements the Trust’s own Register in that it: Creates an awareness of the contribution that trees make to the aesthetic, cultural and historic fabric of the state Promotes awareness of the value of trees to the community Provides information on trees that may be considered for our Register in the future. Mr Dimaggio (submission number 5) opposes the tree at 20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds (Tree Reference No T205) being included in the Moonee Ponds Significant Tree Register because he states that the tree (which the submitter suggests is an Argentinian Peppercorn Tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)) is considered to be ‘a noxious weed in many countries including Australia’. Mr Dimaggio also submitted an Arborist report by Mr Gentry (Treespace Solutions) as part of his submission regarding Tree 205 at 20 Grace Street. Mr Dimaggio submits that this tree is in decline and that this is another reason why the Tree should not be on the Significant Tree Register. Mr Gentry’s assessment of Tree 205 is that: the structure of the tree was considered to be ‘poor’ and that significant decay was observed throughout the main trunk (ground level to height of 4m). The tree has put on large bands of reaction growth in response to this decay’. Mr Gentry concluded that ‘the subject tree is a significant feature within the landscape and appears to be in excess of 100 years old. The tree is in ‘good’ health but displays ‘poor’ structure, due to inappropriate past management/pruning practices. Further investigation is required to more conclusively ascertain the level of risk the tree may pose to the property at 19 Mantell Street, Moonee Ponds. The issues Mr Dimaggio raises in regard to maintenance and the potential for the tree limbs to fail and possibly damage his property/persons is described in section 6.
Page 8 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Ms Maplestone, representing MVCC, submitted that the tree is actually the Schinus molle (Peppercorn Tree) which is listed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) as a weed species but not a noxious weed. The particular tree in contention has been listed because it has been considered significant by meeting three of the National Trust Significant Tree Criteria of ‘location of landscape context’, ‘outstanding size’ and ‘particularly old specimen’. Ms Maplestone also stated that there are other examples of Peppercorn trees that are listed on the Moonee Ponds Significant Tree Register, as well as on the National Trust (Victoria) Register of Significant Trees. Council also suggest that ‘given the urban context of the tree, it would be very difficult for the tree to become a weed problem. Therefore, Council does not see any reason to remove this tree from either the Review or Amendment C149’. In regard to the tree in question being in decline, Council submits that ‘while it is understood that the tree has a ‘poor’ structure there is no evidence this tree is “in decline”. Therefore, Council does not recommend removal of this tree from The Review of Amendment C149’. 3.3 Discussion and Conclusions The Panel notes that the Council previously used the National Trust Significant Trees Criteria in its 2012 Significant Tree Register which subsequently went through a Panel process and completed by the Minister for Planning approving Amendment C130 on 19 December 2013. The National Trust Significant Trees Criteria was not an issue in itself, rather one submission raised the issue that the tree was a noxious weed and should not be on a significant tree register. Although only raised in one submission, the Panel considers it important that the criteria used to identify the trees that are listed, or proposed to be listed, on the Significant Trees Register, is appreciated and understood. The Panel notes that the Council followed a consultative process with its community in its revision of the 2012 Moonee Valley Significant Trees Register and it commends Council for this initiative. The Panel encourages Council to use the same process for further annual reviews of the Moonee Valley Significant Trees Register. The MVCC involved its community in the identification of significant trees, which involved a four week exhibition period, letters to all affected landowners and occupiers affected by the application of the ESO, letters to those who nominated trees to be reviewed, notices in local newspapers, information displays at Council and local libraries and information on the MVCC’s website. Mr Dimaggio suggests that tree number 205 (20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds) is a noxious weed and that the tree itself is in decline and therefore should not be included on the Moonee Valley Significant Trees Register. In response to me Dimaggio’s submission, although the Peppercorn Tree is a known weed species, the Panel agrees with the Council that this tree is unlikely to cause a weed problem in the urban environment of which it is placed. Council agreed through questions asked of Ms Barrett from Mr Dimaggio that it would be beneficial to have a risk assessment undertaken of Tree Reference No T205 (20 Grace Street) as recommended by Mr Gentry in his report that accompanied Mr Dimaggio’s submission.
Page 9 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
The risk assessment will include a detailed assessment of the health of the tree and what works and maintenance are is required for its ongoing survival. The Panel concludes that the methodology used for identifying significant trees within the municipality is sound and one that has been used previously by Council, other municipalities and the National Trust of Australia (Victoria).
Page 10 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
4 Tree Protection Zone
4.1 The issue Mr and Mrs Gonzalez (Submission No 1) raised issue about the extent of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), although the submitter did not have an issue with the listing of the tree on the Significant Tree Register in itself. 4.2 Evidence and submissions Ms Barrett submitted that tree protection requirements need to follow the requirements of AS4970‐2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites). Ms Barrett’s evidence stated that TPZ’s are calculated by multiplying the trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level (DBH) by 12. Where there is an avenue or group of trees, the average trunk diameter was used and applied across the whole group of trees to determine the TPZ. Submission No 1 states that ‘while we are happy with the addition of the tree on the nature strip at 28 Newsom Street, we do not agree that our property at 30 Newsom Street is affected. We would like that you delete our property from the list as stated in amendment C149’. Ms Barrett stated that the TPZ of the Tree Reference No T204 has been calculated using AS4970‐2009. Specifically in relation to T204 at 28 Newsom Street, Ascot Vale, Ms Barrett submits: The TPZ of the tree T204 has been calculated using AS4970‐2009. This calculates the TPZ as 12 times the truck diameter at 1.4m above ground level. Using the TPZ radius of 10.8m supplied in the tree assessment sheets, the TPZ encroaches under 10% into the front garden of 30 Newsom Street. This is considered a minor encroachment according to AS4970‐2009 and no root investigation is necessary. I can see no problems if the owners at No 30 Newsom Street want to develop on their property in relation to this tree.
28 Newsom Street
Figure 1 28 Newsom Street, Ascot Vale (T204)
Page 11 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
4.3 Discussion and Conclusions The Panel understands that a methodology was undertaken using AS4970‐2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites) to determine the extent of the TPZ which then has been reflected in the ESO Maps 6ESO, 8ESO, 11ESO, 12ESO, 14ESO, 15ESO and 16ESO. The methodology was not contested nor the use of an ESO as the planning tool to protect the identified significant trees. Issues related to potential impacts on development of particular properties because of the extent of the TPZ are dealt with in section 5. The Panel concludes that the methodology used to calculate the Tree Protection Zone is sound, follows an Australian Standard and that no adjustments are needed to any of the exhibited ESO Maps, including Tree Reference No T204 at 28 Newsom Street. 4.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends: 1. That planning maps 6ESO, 8ESO, 11ESO, 12ESO, 14ESO, 15ESO and 16ESO be adopted as exhibited.
Page 12 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
5 Impact on Development Opportunities
5.1 The issue Submissions number 6 (Maree Mullen) and 17 (Andrew Davies) raised concerns that the proposed controls will impact on their right to develop their property or repair damage to existing structures within the Tree Protection Zone (ESO areas). 5.2 Evidence and submissions Ms Barrett submitted that the ESO as a planning control to a property was not designed to hinder the resident, rather a check that is put in place when buildings and works are planned. The ESO does allow for emergency works and allows for the ornamental and minor pruning of a tree in accordance with AS4373‐2007 Pruning Amenity Trees. Ms Barrett’s evidence is that “For most trees in most situations it [the ESO] will have little effect on a day to day basis”. Ms Barrett further suggested that in relation to buildings and works, in many cases these can be accommodated within the ESO or TPZ’s, however the method of construction may need to be adjusted. Where excavation works and depth is an issue, Ms Barrett suggests that strengthened, reinforced concrete to reduce excavation depth may achieve the desired outcome. She suggest that ‘in most cases, the ESO will have little impact on properties and minor design or construction changes will allow the tree to be successfully retained and the desired outcome achieved’. Ms Mullen raised issues with an ESO potentially placing restrictions on future building alterations/additions in relation to Tree Reference No T205 (20 Grace Street) to their property at 17 Mantell Street, Moonee Ponds. Ms Barrett’s evidence is that no issues are foreseen if the property owners at 17 Mantell Street wished to develop their property in relation to this tree. Mr Davies in regard to Tree Reference No T205 (20 Grace Street), is concerned that the TPZ will encroach into their backyard and the developments that exist there including fencing, alfresco area and an in‐ground pool. The submitter seeks assurances that any damage to these existing structures could be repaired without a requirement of any additional planning permit applications as a result of the Tree Reference No T205 at 20 Grace Street being placed on the Significant Tree Register and an ESO be put in place to protect it. In response to the issues raised in these submissions, Ms Barrett states that the encroachment into the property of submitter 6 at 17 Mantell Street is approximately 10%. According to AS4970‐2009 a 10% encroachment is deemed minor. In regard to submitter number 17’s issue of being able to fix up infrastructure that may be damaged by a significant tree without a permit is a planning decision for Council, rather than an arboricultural one. However, Ms Barrett went on to explain that there are exemptions for pruning (as long as it is no more than 10% of the canopy) and for part of a tree that is deemed to be a hazard.
Page 13 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
20 Grace Street
Figure 2 20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds (T205) 5.3 Discussion and Conclusions The Panel accepts the evidence of Ms Barrett and submission of the Council that the purpose of the TPZ is to ensure adequate protection around a tree so that the Significant Tree is protected from building and works. The proposed planning controls do not prohibit development, rather they ensure that development can occur with protection of the Tree and its root system considered as part of the decision making process for trees placed on the Significant Tree Register. The Panel agrees with Ms Barrett that the ESO as a planning control to a property was not designed to hinder the resident, rather a check that is put in place when buildings and works are planned and for the most part an ESO will have little effect on a day to day basis. The ESO does allow for emergency works and allows for the ornamental and minor pruning of a tree in accordance with AS4373‐2007 Pruning Amenity Trees. The Panel concludes that no changes be made to the proposed inclusion of Tree Reference No T205 (20 Grace Street) on the Significant Trees Register and that Map 12ESO remains as exhibited.
Page 14 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
6 Maintenance of nominated trees
6.1 The issue Three submissions (submission numbers 2 (Geoff Steinicke), 3 (John and Angela Grasso) and 5 (Alberto J Dimaggio)) state concerns with the ongoing maintenance of a tree placed on the Significant Tree Register (submission 3) and potential injury from falling branches (submissions 2, 3 and 5). These submissions relate to Tree Reference No T212 located at 22 Middle Street, Ascot Vale and Tree Reference No T205 at 20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds. 6.2 Evidence and submissions Council informed the Panel that the issue of tree maintenance has been discussed in numerous Panel reports to implement ESO controls. These include Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C130, Banyule Amendment C5 and Kingston Amendment C93 Part 2. Council took the Panel to some of these by way of example and provided the following extracts from previous Panel reports that have dealt with this matter: Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C130: ‘The Panel supports the identification of this tree as significant and its protection under ESO2. Council’s proposal to allow pruning of up to 10 per cent of its canopy without the need for a permit would enable branches overhanding Mr Di Conza’s property to be trimmed, thereby reducing the impact of falling leaves and acorns.’(pg 22). Banyule Amendment C5: “Mrs Musson wants the tree protection controls removed because of substantial shading of her property by the tree, the maintenance burden of removing tree litter from guttering, nuisance caused by falling limbs, potential interference with services and the potential cause of cracking in her front fence. However, the Panel is satisfied that the tree warrants inclusion in the overlay, and notes that the exemption provisions at Clause 42.01‐2 include tree removal or lopping ‘if the tree presents an immediate risk of personal injury or property.’ Furthermore, application can be made for a permit to have the tree removed or lopped, and that application will be considered against the provisions of the planning scheme” (pgs 9‐10). Kingston Amendment C93 Part 2: “The Panel has concluded that the Amendment will not cause liability or property maintenance problems for owners of significant trees identified in the register that will be different from those that may be experienced by other property owners with trees adjacent to their homes or business premises” (pg 39). Council also reinforced that the proposed ESO includes a planning permit exemption for emergency works to trees under the following condition: ‘The vegetation presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property and only that part of vegetation
Page 15 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015 which presents an immediate risk is removed, destroyed or lopped.’ It is therefore considered by Council that Amendment C149 will not put in place controls that will endanger the safety of those affected. Council submits that it understands that large trees require ongoing maintenance to prevent gradual damage to assets, including drainage systems and roofs. However when these trees are located on private land, this is considered an issue that should be resolved by private landowners, as Council does not have the necessary resources to undertake ongoing maintenance in these situations. In Moonee Valley Amendment C130, the Panel supported the inclusion of a provision to exempt minor pruning of trees from having to obtain planning consent. The ESO2 as gazetted now states that a permit is not required to ‘prune trees for maintenance purposes provided that the branch size is no greater than 10 centimetres in diameter and the total amount removed is not more than 10 per cent of the canopy in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373‐2007’. Submitter number 3 raised concerns about large branches falling into their yard from Tree Reference No T212 and that gutters have to be checked on a regular basis due to the amount of leaves coming from the property of Tree T212. In response to this submission, Ms Barrett suggests that many native trees, especially eucalypts, are prone to Sudden Limb Failure. This is an event where sound branches may fail for no apparent reason and is nearly impossible to predict. Ms Barrett observes in her expert witness report that ‘the tree has not been managed regularly in the past and does require some risk reduction pruning and deadwood pruning to reduce the risk it presents in the landscape. The tree also has evidence of previous failures, one fairly recent. Carrying out these works and regularly maintaining the tree will reduce the frequency of failures’. Mr Dimaggio (submission number 5) also raised concerns about the potential failure of limbs that he suggests overhang onto his property at 19 Mantell Street and he is quite concerned that a branch from Tree T205 (20 Grace Street) may fall onto his residence and cause damage to property and/or persons. As noted in section 3, Mr Dimaggio is concerned that the Peppercorn tree is actually in decline. Mr Dimaggio stated that he has been in correspondence with the owners of 20 Grace Street in regards to the matter of maintenance and liability of this tree. Ms Barrett’s revised paragraph 62 of her expert witness report, which was prepared after a further site visit by Ms Barrett to 20 Grace Street to assess Tree T205, states: There is a ‘high’ risk of branch failure due to an area of decay 4m up the trunk and inside the branch union. This is difficult to see from the ground. These branches need to be pruned back or removed to reduce the risk of failure. The owner is contacting an arborist to carry out these works’.
Page 16 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
6.3 Discussion and Conclusions The issues raised by submitters are about the ongoing maintenance of trees listed on the MVCC’s Significant Tree Register and responsibilities for this maintenance. In regards to Tree T205 at 20 Grace Street (or any other Trees nominated for listing on the Significant Tree Register) and the potential for overhanging limbs/branches to fail and cause damage to property and/or persons, and the submission by Mr Dimaggio that ‘on further legal advice this liability may also shift to include the Moonee Valley City Council and Planning Panels Victoria should the tree receive accreditation of registration’. The Panel notes that responsibility for ongoing maintenance of trees (whether they be on a Significant Tree Register or not) is not a matter for the Panel to make specific recommendations about as part of Amendment C149. The Panel notes the reference in the National Trust’s submission that the Panel for Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C212 made the following conclusion in reference to an English Oak at the rear of 328‐330 King Street, Melbourne: In relation to the effect the tree may be having on the adjoining property, pruning of overhanging branches and cleaning gutters is normal practice in maintaining any property. In conclusion, the Panel agrees with the evidence and statement of Ms Barrett that “clearing debris from vegetation is generally seen as a standard requirement for any homeowner and is regarded as normal maintenance”. Council has agreed that a risk assessment is to be undertaken for Tree T205 at 20 Grace Street prior to the gazettal of Amendment C149 and the Panel recommends that this occur. This may assist in reducing the concerns of the submitters about the ongoing maintenance of this tree. The Panel also takes some comfort that the owners of 20 Grace Street is contacting an arborist to assist in pruning Tree T205 to ensure that limbs are not overhanging the property at 19 Mantell Street.
Page 17 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
7 Site specific issues
7.1 The issues A small number of site specific issues have been raised in submissions and are described below. 7.1.1 Tree Reference No T206 at 144 Pascoe Vale Road, Moonee Ponds Nine (9) submissions were received from adjacent or nearby property owners supporting the inclusion of Tree No T206 located at 144 Pascoe Vale Road. A submission was not received from the property owner at this address. Submissions suggest the large tree (a Moreton Bay Fig) is unique and attracts a variety of birdlife and contributes to the ecology of the area. Submitters also regard the tree as contributing to the amenity and aesthetic value of the area. Ms Barrett also states that this tree is home to a number of birds, has aesthetic value and adds character and greenery to an otherwise built up environment. Council advised the Panel through its submissions that a Planning Permit has been issued by VCAT on the 5 February 2015 (MV/756/2013) for a multi‐level, mixed use building on the site. A subsequent demolition permit for the building on the site was issued on 24 March 2015. As of 15 June 2015, the tree has not been removed and the buildings have not been demolished. The development permit would likely impact on the health of the tree or cause it to be removed. While Council is aware that the landowner can act on this demolition permit at any stage prior to gazettal of this amendment, Council is also aware of a number of instances where both planning and demolition permits lapse. It is for this reason that Council considers it appropriate that this tree remain in The Review and as part of Amendment C149. The Panel agrees with Council that Tree Reference No T206 located at 144 Pascoe Vale Road should remain on the Significant Tree Register, although acknowledges that the owner has been issued with a permit to remove it. 7.1.2 Tree Reference No T209 at 3 Neal Street, East Keilor Submission number 16 provided information that the tree (No T209) proposed to be protected through the ESO at 3 Neal Street, East Keilor has since been removed. The Moonee Valley City Council issued a planning permit (MV/21651/2010) for construction of two double storey dwellings and a two lot subdivision. The submitter notes that the existing weatherboard house was demolished and all vegetation removed as of 25 February 2015. Council confirmed to the Panel that the tree no longer exists. Given that the tree has been removed from 3 Neal Street, East Keilor at the end of February 2015, this tree should no longer be included in the Review. The Council proposed the following changes to the Amendment documentation following exhibition to remove this tree:
Page 18 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Renumbering of tree reference numbers in the explanatory report and Clause 42.01 (ESO2); Removing the map 5ESO as it relates to 3 Neal Street; Updating the instruction sheet to reflect this change. The Panel agrees with this approach and recommends these changes be made to reflect deletion of Tree Reference No T209 at 3 Neal Street, East Keilor. 7.1.3 Tree Trunk Extending Over ROW Mr Dimaggio (submission 5) identified the trunk for tree No T205 as extending over the Right of Way (ROW) and this limits access for vehicles to use the ROW as well as access in and out of his garage. Council sought advice from its Technical Services Department in terms of whether this tree would cause any safety issues or obstruction to vehicles. This advice indicated that the existing tree causes no issues for traffic utilising the ROW. The ROW is 2.81 metres wide. This is reduced by 38cm at the furthest extremity of the tree making an overall width of 2.43 metres. This is ample space for a vehicle to enter and exit the ROW. Council’s Technical Services Department indicated there were no issues when reversing into 19 Mantell Street garage when entering the ROW from Derby Street and also no issues when entering the garage in a forward direction from the Holmes Road end. Ms Barrett, in her expert witness report, suggests that the trunk of T205 protrudes approximately 25cm into the ROW and it is her opinion ‘this is not enough to obstruct vehicles entering the ROW’. Ms Barrett also states that ‘canopy lifting is required over the ROW and this should be carried out as soon as possible to have a 3m clearance for cars and vans. These works should be carried out by a qualified arborist and conform to the Australian Standard, Pruning Amenity Trees (AS4373‐2007)’. The Panel asked Council to confirm the responsibilities for ensuring ROW are kept clear of overhanging branches. The Council responded in its closing submission that although the Council is responsible for the ROW, the property owner is responsible for maintenance of trees. 7.2 Recommendations The Panel recommends: 2. Adopt the post exhibition changes to the Amendment documentation to reflect the removal of Tree Reference No T209 at 3 Neal Street, East Keilor, specifically: Renumbering of tree reference numbers in the explanatory report and Clause 42.01 (ESO2); Removing the map 5ESO as it relates to 3 Neal Street; Updating the instruction sheet to reflect this change.
Page 19 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
8 The Form of the Amendment and Planning Provisions
8.1 The issue Are the ESO and the planning controls proposed through this Amendment the right tools to protect trees on the Significant Tree Register? 8.2 Evidence and submissions Following exhibition, Council proposed two changes to Amendment C149: No longer proceed with inclusion of Tree Reference No T209 at 3 Neal Street, Keilor East as this tree has since been removed (this has been discussed in section 7); and Minor changes to the Amendment documentation following gazettal of Amendment C134 (Planning Scheme Review) on 5 March 2015, including updating the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014 as a reference document in Clause 21.04 not Clause 21.03. The post exhibition Amendment changes are attached in Appendix B. Specifically, Council needs to make the following changes to the planning scheme amendment documentation to ensure it reflects the current Local Planning Policy. Update the explanatory report to refer to Clause 21.04 (Sustainable Environment) not Clause 21.03 on pages 1 and 4; Refer to ‘natural’ not ‘environmental’ assets under the objective ‘to protect and enhance the natural assets of the City’ on page 4 of the explanatory report; Update the explanatory report to refer to Clause 21.06 (Built Environment) not Clause 21.05 on page 4 of the explanatory report; Update the instruction sheet to refer to Clause 21.04 not Clause 21.03; and Update Clause 21.04 (Sustainable Environment) not Clause 21.03 to refer to the Significant Tree Register Review 2014 as a reference document. Council submit that the ESO and proposed planning tools continue to implement the MVSTRR and considers that the ESO should be applied to the additional trees identified in the 2014 report, and deleted from areas where significant trees were located but have since been removed. Council also stated that the planning controls proposed through this Amendment are consistent with those approved under Amendment C130 (Significant Tree Preservation) and include a planning permit requirement for the removal of trees identified within the Register as well as a planning permit requirement for buildings and works proposed within each tree’s respective Tree Protection Zone. 8.3 Discussion and Conclusions No party to the hearing or in the submissions opposed the planning tools proposed to protect the significant trees identified in the Moonee Valley City Council Significant Tree Register Review (2014). Rather, there were some submissions about the extent of the TPZ that informed the ESO’s over particular properties, impacts to being able to develop the property and responsibilities for ongoing maintenance of registered trees.
Page 20 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
The Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014 and associated Amendment C149 will assist Council in preserving the municipality’s significant trees, which provide numerous benefits for the community. The Panel agrees with the Council that the ESO and the proposed planning provisions and controls are the most appropriate for implementing the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014. 8.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends: 3. Adopt Amendment C149 including Council’s minor post exhibition changes. Specifically: a) Amend Clause 21.03 (now 21.04) Sustainable Environment of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to refer to the Moonee Valley City Council Significant Tree Register Review 2014 b) Amend the Schedule 2 to Clause 42.01 ESO of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to include additional trees as specified in the Moonee Valley City Council Significant Tree Register Review 2014 c) Amend Tree Reference No T113 and Planning Scheme Maps 15ESO to refer to 6 instead of 13 trees at 25 Wingate Avenue, Ascot Vale (Ascot Vale Housing Estate) d) Delete the ESO from: 33 Brewster Street, Essendon (Tree Reference No T13) 49 Churchill Avenue, Ascot Vale (Tree Reference No T84) 5 Newhill Avenue, Moonee Ponds (Tree Reference No T138)
Page 21 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Appendix A List of Submitters No Submitter Mr and Mrs Alberto Gonzalez 1 2 Mr Geoff Steinicke 3 Mr and Mrs John and Angela Grasso 4 Mr John Migiannis 5 Mr Alberto J Dimaggio 6 Ms Maree Mullen 7 Mr Brian Gannon 8 Ms Lynne McKellar 9 Mr Peter Humphreys 10 Ms Elizabeth Every & Mr Boris Cheligoy 11 Mr Trent Olsen 12 Mr and Mrs Bak and Souvanny Khov 13 Ms Julie Ryan 14 Mrs and Mr Christine & Craig Batteshill 15 National Trust of Australia (Vic) 16 Ms Brigit Straus 17 Mr Andrew Davies
Page 22 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Appendix B Post Exhibition Changes submitted by Council
Page 23 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
Planning and Environment Act 1987 MOONEE VALLEY PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C149 EXPLANATORY REPORT Who is the planning authority? This amendment has been prepared by the Moonee Valley City Council, which is the planning authority for this amendment. Land affected by the amendment The amendment applies to a number of properties as identified in the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Register Review 2014. A full list of addresses of significant trees proposed to be added to the Environmental Significant Overlay Schedule 2, as well as a full list of affected properties is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Location of significant tree and affected properties Tree Property Address Affected Properties Location of Reference of Significant Significant No. Tree Tree(s) T204 28 Newsom Street, 28 Newsom Street, Ascot Vale Nature Strip Ascot Vale 30 Newsom Street, Ascot Vale T205 20 Grace Street, 20 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds Back garden of Moonee Ponds 18 Grace Street, Moonee Ponds property 17 Mantell Street, Moonee Ponds 19 Mantell Street, Moonee Ponds T206 144 Pascoe Vale 144 Pascoe Vale Road, Moonee Ponds Rear of property, Road, Moonee 148 Pascoe Vale Road, Moonee Ponds within car parking Ponds 150 Pascoe Vale Road, Moonee Ponds area 21 Primrose Street, Moonee Ponds 23 Primrose Street, Moonee Ponds 25 Primrose Street, Moonee Ponds 27 Primrose Street, Moonee Ponds 29 Primrose Street, Moonee Ponds T207 23-39 Salmon 23-39 Salmon Avenue, Essendon Salmon Reserve Avenue, Essendon 26 Cooke Street, Essendon 29 Wright Street, Essendon T208 Bournian Avenue, 1 Bournian Avenue, Strathmore Naturestrip Strathmore 2 Bournian Avenue, Strathmore 4 Bournian Avenue, Strathmore 6 Bournian Avenue, Strathmore 8 Bournian Avenue, Strathmore 32 Upland Road, Strathmore T209 3 Neal Street, 3 Neal Street, Keilor East Front garden Keilor East 5 Neal Street, Keilor East T21009 41 Rosehill Road, 41 Rosehill Road, Essendon West St Bernard’s Essendon West College T21110 140 Buckley - Median Strip (17 Street, Essendon trees) Page 24 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015
T21211 22 Middle Street, 9 North Street, Ascot Vale Back garden of Ascot Vale property 11 North Street, Ascot Vale 3A East Street, Ascot Vale 5A East Street, Ascot Vale 5 East Street, Ascot Vale 22 Middle Street, Ascot Vale T21312 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Front garden Street, Travancore T21413 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore T21514 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore 69 Mooltan Street, Travancore 71 Mooltan Street, Travancore T21615 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore 71 Mooltan Street, Travancore 73-75 Mooltan Street, Travancore T21716 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore T21817 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore T21918 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore T22019 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore T22120 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore (5 trees) 53 Mangalore Street, Travancore 100 Flemington Street, Travancore 150-152 Cashmere Street, Travancore T22221 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore 53 Mangalore Street, Travancore 150-152 Cashmere Street, Travancore T22322 28-68 Flemington 28-68 Flemington Street, Travancore Hospital grounds Street, Travancore 70 Flemington Street, Travancore What the amendment does The amendment implements the findings of a review undertaken of Council’s Significant Tree Register. The amendment proposes to: Amend Clause 21.03 Sustainable Environment of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to refer to the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Study 2014. Amend the Schedule 2 to Clause 42.01 Environment Significance Overlay of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme to include the additional trees as specified in the Moonee Valley Significant Tree Study 2014 (as outlined in Table 1).
Page 25 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015 Amend Tree Reference No. 113 and Planning Scheme Map 15ESO to refer to six instead of 13 trees at 25 Wingate Avenue, Ascot Vale (Ascot Vale Housing Estate) Delete the Environmental Significance Overlay from: - 33 Brewster Street, Essendon (Tree Reference No. 13) - 49 Churchill Avenue, Ascot Vale (Tree Reference No. 84) - 5 Newhall Avenue, Moonee Ponds (Tree Reference No. 138) Insert new planning maps 5ESO, 6ESO, 8ESO, 11ESO, 12ESO, 14ESO 15ESO, 16ESO. Strategic assessment of the amendment Why is the amendment required? This amendment is required to more effectively protect Council’s natural assets, specifically significant trees within the Municipality. In order to the keep the policy up to date, Council has reviewed its Significant Tree Register and prepared a subsequent amendment to implement the recommendations of this review. How does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria? The following objectives of planning in Victoria, as defined in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, are considered most relevant to the amendment: To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity. To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. To balance present and future interests of all Victorians. The amendment will assist in the implementation of these objectives by: Protecting trees within the Municipality which have a particular cultural, historical or aesthetic value. Maintaining vegetation which contributes to the ecology of the region, including the providing a habitat for native species. Ensuring that significant natural assets are preserved and protected to be enjoyed by current and future generations. How does the amendment address any environmental, social and economic effects? The amendment will provide environmental benefits as it will aim to protect Council’s natural resources. The amendment will provide economic benefits as the protection of significant trees contributes to the character of the Municipality. The prevalence of significant trees within the City of Moonee Valley is considered a valuable asset and is enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. The amendment will provide a social benefit through the preservation of significant trees which contribute to the quality of life for residents and visitors. Does the amendment address relevant bushfire risk? The amendment does not present any bushfire risk as the subject trees are located within an already urbanised area. Does the amendment comply with the requirements of any Minister’s Direction applicable to the amendment? The amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act.
Page 26 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015 The amendment is also consistent with: Ministerial Direction No. 9 – Metropolitan Strategy; Ministerial Direction No. 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments; and Ministerial Direction No. 15 – The Planning Scheme Amendment Process. How does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework and any adopted State policy? The amendment strongly supports and assists in the implementation of the State Planning Policy Framework and in particular; Clause 11 - Settlement and Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage. These policies further implement the strategic direction provided by the Metropolitan Strategy. The amendment will help implement these policies by protecting a place identified as exhibiting ‘...high scientific, nature conservation, biodiversity, heritage, geological or landscape value’ (Clause 11.03-2). The application of the ESO will also ‘...provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value’ (Clause 15.03-1). How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework, and specifically the Municipal Strategic Statement? The amendment will support the Local Planning Policy Framework and Municipal Strategic Statement of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme as follows: Clause 21.0304 Sustainable Environment includes the objective ‘to protect and enhance the natural assets of the City.’ This amendment seeks to preserve the most significant trees within the Municipality, effectively protecting valuable natural assets. Clause 21. 0506 Built Environment identifies the key built environment issues for Moonee Valley as character, urban design, heritage and signage. Of relevance to the proposed amendment, it seeks to protect ‘...objects of natural, aboriginal and cultural significance’. The proposed application of the ESO to additional trees will ensure that future development is carried out in a manner that is sympathetic with the intrinsic value of Moonee Valley’s significant trees. Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions? The ESO has previously been identified as the most appropriate tool for protecting significant trees within Moonee Valley. This amendment seeks only to apply the existing ESO provisions to a number of additional trees. How does the amendment address the views of any relevant agency? The amendment will be exhibited to the relevant stakeholders. Does the amendment address relevant requirements of the Transport Integration Act 2010? The amendment will not have any significant impact on the objectives and decision making principles set out in the Transport Integration Act 2010.
Page 27 of 28 Moonee Valley Planning Scheme Amendment C149 Panel Report 14 July 2015 Resource and administrative costs What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority? The planning provisions to be introduced in this amendment include new planning permit requirements for certain properties. However, overall this will not have a significant impact on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority. Where you may inspect this Amendment The amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at the following places: City of Moonee Valley, Civic Centre, 9 Kellaway Avenue, Moonee Ponds Moonee Valley City Council’s website www.mvcc.vic.gov.au The amendment can also be inspected free of charge at the Department of Transport, Planning, and Local Infrastructure website at www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/publicinspection . Submissions Any person who may be affected by the amendment may make a submission to the planning authority. Submissions about the amendment must be received by Friday 17 April 2015. A submission must be sent to: Moonee Valley City Council PO Box 126 Moonee Ponds, VIC, 3039 Panel hearing dates In accordance with clause 4(2) of Ministerial Direction No.15 the following panel hearing dates have been set for this amendment: directions hearing: Week 1118 May 2015 panel hearing: Week 815 June 2015
Page 28 of 28