a) The renovation and extension of an existing single dwelling to modern living standards is not an unreasonable expectation. > > b) The retention of the original significant dwelling within the streetscape is preferred to an alternative outcome where the existing dwelling is demolished and replaced with a modern dwelling. > > c) The tree is large and located close to several dwellings. This may pose a safety risk in the future and pressure for removal. > > d) The development has been designed to provide a space for a large tree to be accommodated on site, behind the dwelling, and, > > e) Although the plantings to the rear of the dwelling are noted in the heritage guidelines, Heritage Overlay HO118 does not include controls on the removal of vegetation.

• In my opinion, the Council Officer's assessment is a realistic and balanced response to the situation. Four large, rear garden canopy trees are proposed that will secure the canopy cover of the precinct for the next century with trees of different scale and form being introduced to the site.

3. It was Ms Mays evidence that:[10]

9.31 The current architectural plans indicate the retention of 6 site trees (Trees 4, 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13) and removal of 7 site trees (Trees 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23). The landscape plan indicates the additional removal of Tree 13.

9.32 The plans that were originally assessed by Council have been altered to reduce the impact of the proposed works on Tree 12. These changes include replacement of a spa and pool proposed within the NRZ of this tree with a permeable terrace that can be constructed above existing soil levels.

9.33 While all site trees proposed for retention can be appropriately retained and protected, Tree 12 is showing signs of Ash Dieback as well as decay within two large pruning wounds located near the union of its main scaffolds. Based on this, its removal and replacement is recommended. Furthermore, Trees 10 and 13 are species recognised as environmental weeds within the Banyule Weed Management Strategy. Should any of these trees be removed, Tree 12 will require a VPO3 permit for its removal, whereas Trees 10 and 13 are exempt from permit requirements based on their weed status.

9.34 Of the trees proposed to be removed, 3 are species included on Banyule's Weed Management Strategy (Trees 19, 21 and 23), 2 have poor structure and/or are in poor health (Trees 15 and 16) and 1 (Tree 17) is a species that is generally inappropriate for an urban site and is likely to outgrow its location and cause possible future shading and light entry issues both within and neighbouring the site. All six trees are of low arboricultural value. The location of the seventh tree (Tree 18), combined with its large canopy and NRZ makes it very difficult to design a family home of modern-day standards around its retention, especially given the restrictions placed on changes to the front of the existing dwelling by a heritage overlay and the presence of an drainage and sewerage easement through the centre of the site. This tree is of high arboricultural value. A VPO3 permit is required for the removal of 4 of these trees - Trees 15-18. Council's Development Planning Arborist considers the removal of all seven trees to be appropriate.

9.35 No neighbouring trees are expected to be impacted by the proposed works with encroachment into NRZs either within the footprint of existing encroachments or defined as a minor encroachment under AS4970:2025.

1. There is policy guidance for the construction of additions to the dwelling on the site as previously detailed. Such guidance in the context of VPO3 includes the need for development to have regard to the contribution existing vegetation makes to the character of the area
2. Clause 02.03-4, Built environment and heritage - Neighbourhood character includes a strategic direction that seeks retain and plant significant trees, substantial trees and other vegetation to protect and improve neighbourhood character and streetscapes.
3. Relevant purposes of the VPO at clause 42.02 seek development that minimises loss of vegetation and preserve existing trees and other vegetation.
4. Clause 1,0 of Schedule 3 to clause 42.02 amongst other things states that in this area of Banyule, vegetation, particularly tall trees are considered to be an integral part of the character of the area that is appreciated by residents and visitors.
5. Clause 2.0 of Schedule 3 to clause 42.02 includes vegetation protection objectives that seek to retain and enhance the vegetation, and in particular the tall trees in the area that contributes to the identified character of the area, ensure that prior to removal of tall trees, all alternatives are considered, including redesign of proposed buildings and associated works and ensure that where a tree to be removed, comprehensive landscape plans are prepared and provision is made for substantial vegetation and trees elsewhere on the site.
6. Relevant decision guidelines at clause 5 of Schedule 3 to clause 42.02 seek consideration of the contribution vegetation makes to the visual amenity and character of the GS3, whether removal of vegetation will result in an undesirable change to the character of the area, the alternative designs considered that would avoid the need for vegetation removal and proposed replacement tree planting of similar ultimate size.
7. Neighbourhood character policy at clause 15.01-5L-01 includes all areas objectives that encourage the retention and planting of canopy trees and understorey vegetation to soften the appearance of dwellings and enhance landscape settings. Whilst all areas strategies encourage retention of existing trees.
8. Relevant Garden Suburban wide objectives[11] seek to maintain and strengthen the landscape setting of each precinct with spacious leafy gardens, tree-dominated streetscapes, spines of trees in rear setbacks and ensure development on sites zoned NRZ3 and GRZ2, prioritises tree protection and planting around and between dwellings to create an attractive, treed landscape setting.
9. The proposed dwelling addition is to be located to the rear of the existing dwelling. The proposed garage and retreat comprise a separate building that is located proximate to the rear boundary of the site. This building is separate to the built form of the existing dwelling and proposed additions as shown below.

1. The existing dwelling is setback approximately 8.9 metres from The Eyre frontage. As the proposed built form demolition and additions are to the rear of the existing dwelling, the front setback and dwelling façade including the first four rooms remain externally unaltered.
2. The rear portion of the existing dwelling is to be demolished for an approximate depth of 6.0 metres. The proposed addition to the rear of the dwelling is two storey in scale. The dwelling will extend 22.0 metres into the rear yard from the retained portion of the existing single storey dwelling.
3. Tree 18 is located within the backyard of the existing dwelling and has an approximate height of 22.0 metres and canopy width of 17.0 metres.[13] Tree 18 is located approximately 9.0 metres from the rear of the existing dwelling as shown below.

1. The proposal seeks to remove tree 18 and construct the two storey addition in the rear yard area. Mr Kelletts evidence states that tree 18 has fair health, good structure, a long life expectancy and high retention value. Whilst Ms May's evidence states tree 18 has good health, fair structure, ULE of 20 plus years and a high arboricultural value. Therefore, having regard to the evidence, there is no reason from a health, form, life expectancy and retention/arboricultural value perspective to support removal of tree 18.
2. The applicant submits the location of tree 18 within the rear yard inclusive of its Nominal Root Zone ('NRZ') and Structural Root Zone ('SRZ') impose a siting constraint on the two storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. In support of the submission regarding the constraint imposed by tree 18, the applicant provided plans at the hearing that they say show the likely impact on the dwelling addition if tree 18 was retained. The plan showed a potential development area to the north of the existing dwelling, however it did not provide any detail with respect to the design options that were considered.
3. The dwelling additions seeks to construct a kitchen, meals and alfresco area over the area occupied by tree 18. The evidence from Ms May states that whilst tree 18 has a high arboricultural values its location within the centre of the backyard combined with its branching structure, large NRZ and restrictions imposed by the HO and easements, severely limits the potential for the design of a family home of modern-day standards.[15] Similarly, it was Mr Patricks evidence the location of tree 18 limits the opportunity for an extension of the dwelling.[16]
4. Whilst tree 18 imposes a constraint on possible development, I am not persuaded the constraint results in the conclusion that removal of the tree is the only outcome. In circumstances when a tree imposes a constraint, the relevant vegetation protection objective and decision guidelines require demonstration that alternative options to tree removal have been explored.[17]
5. It may be that a design response that retains tree 18 may have a lesser area, however that does not mean the existing dwelling cannot be extended. An acceptable demonstration that a family home of modern-day standards could not be built including the options considered and why the outcomes are unacceptable was not provided. The proposed design response in the absence of a demonstration that alternative options have been considered is of limited assistance having regard to the relevant provisions of the planning scheme and decision guideline.
6. It is not for the Tribunal to design the provision of accommodation that meets the needs of the applicant. However, in the absence of the applicant being able to acceptably demonstrate that alternative options to the removal of tree 18 have been explored, I have not been persuaded the proposal is acceptable. Therefore, in the context of the guidance in the planning scheme that seeks to achieve site responsive design that retains trees, I am not persuaded an acceptable attempt has been made to explore alternative design options that would enable retention of tree 18. In this context, I am persuaded by the respondent's submission that states:[18]

The application does not propose a modest extension conscious of its site constraints, but a dwelling of significant size with a living area of 435m² and an overall area of 636m².

It would appear that the design response is based entirely on the need for a certain size and layout of dwelling at the expense of managing site constraints which include existing vegetation. The design would appear to place need above site responsiveness with even the Council officer who supported the application acknowledging at page 58 of the officer report that "the development will require the removal of most of the existing trees and other vegetation on the site". The design incorporates built form along almost the entire length of the site with any vegetation located centrally proposed for removal rather than incorporated into the design.

1. It was Mr Patricks evidence the proposed planting shown on the landscape plan would contribute to the recruitment of replacement canopy vegetation. The proposed landscape plan provides replacement planting including 10 canopy trees that vary in mature height from 4.0 meters to 14 metres. Whilst replacement of canopy vegetation to secure future canopy may be an appropriate outcome it does not mean that a tree that has good health, fair structure, ULE of 20 plus years and a high arboricultural value[19] should be removed to make way for the new planting. Trees of high arboricultural value such as tree 18 can be retained whilst also providing for replacement planting canopy vegetation sought by Mr Patrick.
2. In this context, I find the proposed removal of tree 18 is contrary to a relevant vegetation protection objective that seeks to retain and enhance vegetation, and in particular the tall trees that contributes to the identified character of the area.[20] Therefore, I have not been persuaded the proposed replacement planting is sufficient to justify support for the removal of tree 18.
3. Therefore, I find the proposal fails to meet the purpose of VPO as it fails to ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation and preserve existing trees. Further the proposal also fails to acceptably respond to relevant vegetation protection objectives at clause 2 of the Schedule 3 to clause 42.02 that seek to retain and enhance the vegetation, and in particular tall trees and demonstrate that prior to removal of tall trees all alternatives have been considered, including redesign of proposed buildings and associated works.

1. For completeness, I note the parties submissions and evidence addressed a range on matters including whether the proposal is an acceptable heritage outcome. Having found the proposal to be unacceptable with respect to the VPO at clause 42.0 and Schedule 3 to clause 42.02 - Eaglemont, Ivanhoe East and Ivanhoe area this is sufficient basis for refusing a permit. There is no utility in making findings on the other matters.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[12] Plan prepared by HDZN Building Design, TP5 of 13, Revision C, dated 24/11/2025.

[15] K May evidence statement [9.19].

[16] J Patrick evidence statement [9.37].

[17] Clause 2 and clause 5 of the Schedule 3 to clause 42.02.

[20] Clause 2 of the Schedule 3 to clause 42.02.