• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The review was confined to conditions 1(a), 1(b) and 3, rather than the overall merits of the dwelling extension and pool. The dispute arose because the Council approved the pool but imposed conditions requiring retention of Tree No. 2 and measures linked to protecting it. Condition 3 required an arborist report or supervision if large roots were found close to the proposed pool excavation. The Tribunal explains that this condition “stems from the requirement to retain tree No 2” (Reasons, “Review Hearing”, para 4).

The original vegetation-removal proposal also concerned a large bifurcated tree crossing the boundary between Nos. 1 and 2 Rosella Rise. That tree had already been removed after storm damage in April 2008 (Reasons, “Review Hearing”, paras 2–3). The review therefore focused on whether the remaining Red Box near the pool should be retained.

The site was in a Residential 1 Zone and Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2. The judgment says a permit was required under clause 43.03 of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme for removing native vegetation and erecting structures within five metres of an established canopy tree. It also identifies clause 22.12, the Neighbourhood Character Policy, as relevant. The local area was described as a relatively contemporary residential neighbourhood where remnant native canopy trees, particularly Red Box trees, contributed to its character.

Both parties provided written submissions, photographs, aerial material and arborist reports. The Member also visited the site and viewed the tree and surrounding neighbourhood. The decision was issued on 25 March 2009 by Peter O’Leary, Member.

The order varied the Council’s decision. Conditions 1(a) and 1(b) were replaced with planting requirements: two new Red Box canopy trees in the northeast corner of the rear yard, at least one indigenous canopy tree in the front yard, and three additional small trees or shrubs of local indigenous provenance in the rear yard. The order also specified deletion of the existing Red Box near the proposed swimming pool. Condition 3 was deleted.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal did not treat the tree as irrelevant to neighbourhood character. It accepted that the tree formed part of a larger stretch of canopy between the rear of properties on Rosella Rise and Opal Court. It also acknowledged that the tree was not in bad condition and could be retained with some effort, including arborist supervision (Reasons, “Basis for decision”, para 1). Those findings show that the decision was not based on poor health or inability to preserve the tree.

The key question was the tree’s relative contribution to the character of this particular area. The Tribunal identified a larger Red Box at No. 16 Opal Court, with a broader canopy, as an important backdrop. It regarded Tree No. 2 as “subservient” to that larger tree (Reasons, “Basis for decision”, para 2). It also noted that the northern side of the subject site had the biggest gap in the canopy, partly following the earlier storm-related loss of the boundary tree (para 3).

Against that context, the Member accepted the applicant’s argument that removing Tree No. 2 would not substantially affect the neighbourhood’s important canopy effect. That was a case-specific finding, not a statement that individual trees can generally be removed whenever replacement planting is offered.

The replacement planting was important to the decision. The applicant had offered six plantings, although the Tribunal was not fully certain whether the offer related only to Tree No. 2 or also accounted for the tree already lost to storm damage (Reasons, “Basis for decision”, para 4). At the hearing, the applicant agreed to a more particular planting arrangement: three Red Box trees, including two in the rear yard between the eastern boundary and the rear of the new extension, one canopy tree in the front yard, and other smaller indigenous trees or shrubs throughout the site (para 6). The order translated this arrangement into conditions.

The Tribunal considered both immediate and long-term effects. It accepted that removal would cause some short-term loss of upper canopy, and that replacement trees would take years to establish. But it found that the nominated locations offered a better opportunity to fill the canopy gap over time. The Tribunal also considered that planting trees in those locations would avoid the possibility of Tree No. 2 being lost during excavation close to it (para 7). Its reasoning therefore joined two concerns: the risk to the existing tree from nearby works and the potential contribution of replacement trees in selected locations.

The preferred neighbourhood character statement was considered, but the Member found some of its described features were not present in this part of the neighbourhood. The reasons refer to the absence of features such as low side fencing and native gardens continuous with road vegetation. Even so, the neighbourhood’s relatively narrow streets and broad upper canopy were identified as features that distinguished it from more conventional suburban areas (para 5). The finding was not that the policy did not apply; rather, the Tribunal assessed the character actually present and the tree’s contribution to it.

Finally, Condition 3 was deleted because it depended on retaining Tree No. 2. With removal allowed under the varied permit, the related arborist condition was, in the Tribunal’s words, “superfluous” (Reasons, “Conclusion”, para 1).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment records an application for review under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It identifies the relevant planning controls as the Residential 1 Zone, Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2, clause 43.03 of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme and clause 22.12, the Neighbourhood Character Policy.

Before the review decision, the Council’s permit conditions required retention of Tree No. 2 and included a related arborist requirement. After the decision, the permit conditions were varied: the tree could be removed, replacement planting was required in specified locations, and the condition concerning arborist reporting or supervision was deleted.

The judgment does not cite or analyse earlier cases, nor does it set out a general legal test for when a significant tree may be removed. It should therefore be read as a planning decision applying the identified controls and policy to the site, the tree, the proposed pool and the replacement planting offered at the hearing. The outcome illustrates the Member’s assessment in this matter; the text alone does not establish a general rule that replacement planting will always justify removal or that canopy effects can be assessed without regard to the relevant planning scheme.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The central finding is: “the tree can be removed without substantially affecting the important canopy effect that is a primary contributor in this neighbourhood character” (Reasons, “Basis for decision”, para 3). In plain English, the Member accepted that the tree mattered, but concluded that its loss would not materially undermine the key canopy feature of the neighbourhood in this case.

The Member also stated that “more will be gained by allowing its removal and insisting on a replanting regime” (para 6). This explains the balance struck. Retaining the existing tree remained possible, but the Member considered a planned replacement arrangement more beneficial over the longer term.

The reasoning about location matters. The Tribunal did not merely count replacement trees. It considered where they would be planted and whether those positions could help fill the existing gap in the upper canopy (para 7). The order accordingly identified areas for new planting rather than leaving the obligation as a general promise.

The Tribunal acknowledged a time lag: the replacement planting would be immature, and restoring upper canopy would take years. In plain English, the Member accepted a short-term loss in exchange for a longer-term planting arrangement considered better placed to contribute to the canopy.

On Condition 3, the judgment says it was deleted because it was “superfluous” once the permit was varied (Reasons, “Conclusion”, para 1). This means the arborist condition was no longer needed in the form imposed because its premise, retention of the tree beside the pool works, had changed.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a permit dispute involving a proposed structure within five metres of an established canopy tree, where a planning control requires a permit and the local planning context includes a Significant Landscape Overlay and neighbourhood-character policy. It concerns a residential site where native canopy vegetation is a defining feature and where the decision-maker assesses the particular contribution of a tree to that feature.

The factual combination considered here included a tree close to proposed excavation, evidence that the tree could be retained with effort, a larger nearby tree contributing to the same canopy setting, an existing gap in the canopy, and a concrete offer of replacement planting in nominated locations. The Member also had the benefit of site photographs, arborist reports, submissions and a site inspection.

The judgment is not a general precedent for removing any tree near building works. Its reasoning depends on the relative role of Tree No. 2, the neighbouring canopy, the history of canopy loss, the position of the proposed pool and the planting regime accepted at the hearing. Where those circumstances differ, the reasoning may not transfer directly. The judgment does not discuss other planning schemes, different overlay provisions, tree-protection regulations or separate statutory tests.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no citations to other decisions and provides no information about later treatment of this case. It is therefore not possible, from this source alone, to say whether later courts or tribunals followed, distinguished, approved or otherwise treated it.

The decision identifies no binding appellate ruling or subsequent interpretation. Any assessment of its later precedential treatment would require sources beyond the judgment provided here. On the text available, the safest characterisation is that it records a VCAT Member’s fact-specific determination of permit conditions in a particular planning review.

Still-open questions

The reasons do not provide detailed measurements of the tree, quantified canopy coverage, a full arborist assessment or a detailed analysis of the tree’s expected lifespan. They say the tree was not in bad condition, could be retained with effort, had a wound and leaned towards or over the rear boundary (Reasons, “Basis for decision”, para 1). The text does not set out the competing arborists’ full reasoning, so the evidentiary details behind their differing views cannot be reconstructed from this judgment alone.

The judgment also records uncertainty about whether the original offer of six replacement plants related to Tree No. 2 alone or both that tree and the boundary tree lost in the storm (para 4). The final planting arrangement was clarified at the hearing and reflected in the order, but the reasons do not provide a detailed species schedule for all of the smaller indigenous trees or shrubs.

The reasons do not specify the timing, maintenance, replacement obligations if new plantings fail, or a monitoring period for the replacement regime. Nor do they explain whether other permit provisions dealt with those matters. The order’s wording specifies the type and location of planting at a high level, but the supplied text does not indicate how compliance would be assessed over time.

The relationship between the planning policy and the tree’s individual ecological value is also not elaborated in detail. The reasons focus on neighbourhood character and canopy effect. They do not separately discuss biodiversity, habitat value or any other environmental assessment criteria.

Finally, the judgment’s practical reasoning should not be mistaken for an abstract legal test. It records that this tree could be removed on the particular assessment made, subject to the altered planting conditions. It does not say that a larger nearby tree will always offset a smaller tree’s loss, or that future planting necessarily compensates for mature canopy in other cases.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.