Bush Fire Risk Treatment Standards 2020

The Standards deploy several defined concepts that determine the scope of the permission. A “risk treatment area” is land to which the Standards apply (under clause 4) and that lies within 20 metres of a “relevant building”. That phrase is defined in clause 3 to mean a building classified under the Building Code of Australia as Class 1, 2, 3, 9 or 10c, or Class 10a within 6 metres of such a building, and that was built under a development approval obtained before 8 December 2015. The date is critical: only buildings approved before that date qualify. The reference to the Building Code means that commercial, industrial, and outbuildings may be relevant depending on classification. The “inner zone” is the part of the risk treatment area within 10 metres of the relevant building, and the “outer zone” is the part between 10 and 20 metres. Carports, verandas, balconies, patios, pergolas and similar outdoor structures contiguous to the building are treated as part of the building for measuring these distances, so a large patio effectively extends the risk treatment area outward from its edge.

“Vegetation” is defined in clause 3 as everything that is not a tree, and a “tree” is a perennial plant with one or more woody self‑supporting trunks and standing at least 5 metres high. Smaller woody plants or shrubs are therefore vegetation and can be cleared anywhere in the risk treatment area. The distinction matters because trees in the outer zone cannot be removed (only pruned if branches are below 2 metres), whereas vegetation can be cleared anywhere in the 20 metre zone. “Collar” of a branch is the base where it meets the trunk, and pruning back to the collar is the standard for authorised branch removal. “Development approval” includes not only approvals under the Planning and Development Act 2005 but also any approval, authorisation, consent or permission under any other written law that would significantly affect the physical character of land. This broad definition captures approvals under local laws, the Heritage Act, and possibly the Environmental Protection Act.

The most complex concept is the list of excluded land in clause 4(2) and (3). The Standards do not apply to land within 100 metres inland from the high water mark of the coastline (extending across river mouths), land covered by riparian vegetation of a wetland or watercourse, Bush Forever areas, land subject to biodiversity conservation covenants under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, conservation covenants under the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945, restrictive covenants under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 that limit clearing, covenants under the National Trust Act 1964 limiting clearing, Aboriginal sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, registered heritage places or areas subject to protection orders under the Heritage Act 2018, reserves under the Land Administration Act 1997, nature strips under the Road Traffic Code 2000, and land subject to an agreement under section 121(1)(c) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Additionally, the Standards do not apply to any lot (or part of a lot) containing threatened flora or a threatened ecological community under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Each of these exclusions overrides the otherwise applicable clearing permission.

The primary class of persons affected is owners and occupiers of land that qualifies as a risk treatment area. This means any person who owns or occupies a lot that (a) is in a bush fire prone area designated under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 section 18P, (b) is not excluded by any of the nine categories in clause 4(2) or the threatened species carve out in clause 4(3), and (c) is within 20 metres of a relevant building that was approved before 8 December 2015. Occupiers include tenants and other lawful users. The Standards also affect neighbours when trees straddle boundaries. Clause 6(2)(b) permits removal of a tree located on the owner’s land and also on a neighbour’s land only if the owner or occupier obtains the consent of that other person. Similarly, pruning of overhanging branches from a tree not on the owner’s land is limited to cutting back to the boundary unless the neighbour consents. So neighbours have a right to refuse, which can prevent full fuel reduction.

Local governments are affected indirectly because the Standards override any local planning scheme provisions that would otherwise require approval for clearing within the risk treatment area, but only for buildings that meet the date threshold. Local governments remain responsible for administering significant tree registers under their planning schemes, and clause 6(4) expressly prohibits removal or pruning of any tree listed on such a register, regardless of the distance from the building. This creates a conflict point: a tree on a local significant tree register within 10 metres of a relevant building cannot be removed under the Standards, even if it poses a bush fire risk.

The Standards also affect persons who own or manage land in the excluded categories. For example, an owner of land within 100 metres of the coast cannot rely on the Standards at all, and must seek other approvals. Similarly, land subject to a conservation covenant is entirely outside the Standards, so clearing requires the consent of the covenant holder or the relevant agency. The date threshold for relevant buildings means that owners of buildings approved after 7 December 2015 cannot use the Standards; they must rely on the general law, local planning schemes, or other fire risk treatment mechanisms. This distinction may create inequities between neighbouring properties with similarly situated buildings but different approval dates.

The central right conferred by the Standards is in clause 6(1): the owner or occupier of land that is a risk treatment area may clear any vegetation from the land. This is a broad permission covering all non‑tree plants within 20 metres of the relevant building, with no consent or notification requirement. For the inner zone (within 10 metres), clause 6(2) additionally permits the owner or occupier to remove a tree that is located on the land (trunk meets the ground or is above the land at less than 2 metres), provided the tree is not also located on a neighbour’s land or, if it is, the neighbour consents. For overhanging branches of a tree not located on the land, the owner may prune the branch back to its collar if the tree is on land owned by the same person (or with consent), or otherwise back to the boundary. In the outer zone (10 to 20 metres), the right is more limited: clause 6(3) allows pruning only of branches that are less than 2 metres above the land, and again only back to the collar (if the tree is on the owner’s land or with consent) or to the boundary. Trees themselves cannot be removed in the outer zone.

The key duty is a prohibition in clause 6(4): the owner or occupier must not remove or prune any tree that is listed on a register of significant trees established under a local planning scheme. This duty applies regardless of zone or fire risk. It does not require the register to be gazetted or published; it is simply “established under a local planning scheme”. That may include registers adopted by local government policy. The duty creates a potential trap because such registers may not be centrally accessible.

There is no duty to clear; the Standards are permissive. Owners may choose to leave vegetation or trees untouched. There is also no duty to notify the local government or any authority before clearing. However, the right is contingent on the land meeting all the conditions of a risk treatment area. If an owner clears vegetation that is later found to be within an excluded category (for example, riparian vegetation not apparent on the surface), the clearing may be unauthorised. The Standards place the information burden on the owner or occupier to verify that none of the exclusions apply. The onus is also on the owner to correctly identify whether a building qualifies as a “relevant building” by reference to the date of development approval and the Building Code classification. Misclassification risks enforcement action under the Bush Fires Act or other laws.

The Standards themselves do not create penalties. They are a set of permissions and prohibitions under the Bush Fires Act 1954. Enforcement occurs through the parent Act and potentially through other statutes that protect the excluded land categories. Under the Bush Fires Act, clearing vegetation in a bush fire prone area without lawful authority can amount to an offence. The Standards provide a lawful authority for clearing that falls within their scope. If a person clears in a way that exceeds the permissions (for example, removing a tree in the outer zone, or pruning a significant tree, or clearing on excluded land), that clearing is not authorised by the Standards, and the person may be liable under section 33 of the Bush Fires Act (unlawfully setting fire, but more likely under the general prohibition on clearing without a permit in bush fire prone areas). The maximum penalty under the Bush Fires Act for clearing without authority is a fine of up to $25,000 for an individual or $50,000 for a body corporate, and possible imprisonment for some offences. Additionally, clearing on land excluded under clause 4(2) may contravene the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (clearing of native vegetation without a permit), the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (taking threatened flora or damaging a threatened ecological community), the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (damaging an Aboriginal site), or the Heritage Act 2018. Those statutes carry their own penalties, which can be substantially higher and include remediation orders.

Enforcement is likely to be complaint driven. Local government rangers, Department of Fire and Emergency Services officers, and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions officers all have powers to investigate unauthorised clearing. The Standards do not impose a reporting obligation, so proving that clearing occurred outside a risk treatment area will depend on evidence of the date of building approval, the measurement of distances, and the status of the land. For significant tree registers, enforcement depends on the local government maintaining and publishing the register. The absence of a central database increases the risk of unintentional non‑compliance.

There is no private right of action under the Standards themselves, but a neighbour who suffers damage from clearing (for example, by removal of a shared tree) may have rights under the common law of nuisance or the Dividing Fences Act 1961, or under tree dispute provisions in local laws. The Standards do not confer immunity from civil liability for damage caused by clearing, so an owner who removes a tree that supports a neighbour’s land may still face a claim.

The Standards sit within a complex web of land use and environmental regulation. They are expressed as not applying to a significant list of land categories protected under other laws. For land within those categories, the Standards provide no permission, and the owner must comply with the underlying regime. For example, clearing within 100 metres of the coastline may require a permit under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (for native vegetation) or approval under the Planning and Development Act 2005. Similarly, land covered by riparian vegetation is excluded, so clearing there requires authorisation under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 or the Environmental Protection Act.

For land that is not excluded, the Standards appear to provide a complete defence to any requirement for a clearing permit under the Bush Fires Act itself, but they do not necessarily override other laws that impose separate approval requirements. The definition of “development approval” in clause 3 includes approvals under the Planning and Development Act and other written laws, but the Standards do not expressly state that they displace those requirements. The practical effect is that within a risk treatment area, the owner may clear without needing a clearing permit from the local government under the fire risk provisions, but if the clearing would otherwise be “development” requiring planning approval (for example, removal of all vegetation on a lot), the Planning and Development Act may still apply unless a relevant exemption exists. However, the Standards are made under the Bush Fires Act, and section 18P of that Act allows regulations or standards to provide for bush fire risk treatment that “may permit or require” clearing. It is arguable that the permission in the Standards operates as a statutory authorisation that overrides inconsistent local laws to the extent of any inconsistency, but the Standards do not explicitly state this. The interaction with the Planning and Development Act 2005 is ambiguous and may need judicial resolution.

The Standards interact with local planning schemes primarily through the significant tree register prohibition. They do not override local laws that restrict clearing for reasons other than bush fire risk (e.g., heritage, streetscape, or conservation reasons), unless the land falls under an exclusion. They also interact with the Building Code of Australia classification system, which is incorporated by reference as amended from time to time. That means changes to the Building Code automatically affect the scope of “relevant building” without amendment to the Standards. The Standards incorporate the National Construction Code series and the Building Code of Australia, which are published by the Australian Building Codes Board and are not necessarily free or publicly available at all times, creating a modest compliance cost.

The original Bush Fire Risk Treatment Standards 2020 were published as SL 2020/220 on 6 November 2020, with operational provisions taking effect on 7 November 2020. Since then, three amendment standards have been made, all of which modified clause 4 (areas to which standards apply). The Bush Fire Risk Treatment Amendment Standards 2023 (SL 2023/53) published 19 May 2023, operative from 1 July 2023; the Bush Fire Risk Treatment Amendment Standards (No. 2) 2023 (SL 2023/175) published 1 November 2023, operative from 15 November 2023; and the Bush Fire Risk Treatment Amendment Standards 2024 (SL 2024/304) published 23 December 2024, operative from 31 March 2025.

Each successive amendment added new exclusions to clause 4(2). The 2023 changes inserted references to Aboriginal sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, heritage protection under the Heritage Act 2018, reserves under the Land Administration Act 1997, and nature strips under the Road Traffic Code 2000. The 2023 No. 2 amendment added land subject to an agreement under section 121(1)(c) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The 2024 amendment added the exclusion for lots containing threatened flora or a threatened ecological community (clause 4(3)) and refined the definition of the coastline exclusion in clause 4(4) to cover river mouths and riverine estuaries. The trend is towards narrowing the application of the Standards by carving out more categories of protected land. This reduces the scope of the deregulation and increases the complexity for owners, who must now check against a longer list of exclusions. Each amendment also required the Standards to be republished as a compilation. The fact that all amendments have been to the exclusions suggests that the core clearing permissions in clauses 5 and 6 have been stable, but the mapping of where they apply has become more restrictive over time.

There are no reported cases interpreting the Bush Fire Risk Treatment Standards 2020 as of the date of this analysis. The Standards have been in effect for only a few years (since November 2020) and amendments are recent (the latest operative from March 2025). Litigation may arise in the future over the meaning of key terms, particularly “relevant building” and the date threshold “development approval obtained before 8 December 2015”. There could be disputes over what constitutes “development approval” under the broad definition, especially if a building has multiple approvals or if an approval was amended after that date. Another likely source of litigation is the boundary of excluded land: for example, what qualifies as “riparian vegetation” or whether land is “within 100 metres inland from the high water mark” when the coastline is dynamic. The definition of “tree” under clause 3 (height at least 5 metres, woody self‑supporting trunk) could also be litigated when owners clear a multi‑stemmed shrub that reaches 5 metres with woody stems. The provision in clause 6(2)(c)(i) requiring consent to prune a branch back to its collar if the tree is located on land not owned by the person may lead to neighbour disputes, but these are likely to be resolved in local courts rather than through administrative law. The interaction with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Environmental Protection Act 1986 may generate judicial review questions. For now, practitioners should treat the Standards as largely untested by litigation, and advise clients accordingly.

Several traps await the unwary. First, the definition of “relevant building” excludes any building constructed after 7 December 2015, unless the development approval was obtained before that date. A building constructed in 2016 under an approval obtained in 2014 qualifies; a building constructed in 2015 under an approval obtained in 2016 does not. Owners must obtain evidence of the approval date. Second, the definition of “development approval” is very broad, but it is not always clear what “significantly affect the physical character of any land” means. A local council’s letter of consent for minor works may not qualify, so the building may not be a relevant building. Third, the exclusion for “riparian vegetation” is not mapped in the Standards or in any single accessible database. An owner who clears vegetation near a watercourse risks prosecution if the vegetation is later deemed riparian. Fourth, the 100 metre coastal strip exclusion applies to the coastline “at ordinary spring tides” and extends across the mouth of a river or riverine estuary. This can cover land far inland along tidal rivers. The mapping of the high water mark is not part of the Standards; owners need expert advice or may rely on the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s coastal hazard mapping, which is not incorporated by reference. Fifth, the prohibition on removing or pruning a tree listed on a significant tree register under a local planning scheme is absolute. These registers are not centrally maintained; many local governments do not publish them online. An owner may inadvertently breach this prohibition. Sixth, a tree that is located on the owner’s land and also on a neighbour’s land (trunk on both lots) can only be removed with the neighbour’s consent. There is no mechanism to compel consent even if the tree poses a high fire risk. Seventh, the outer zone only allows pruning of branches below 2 metres in height. A branch at 2.5 metres cannot be pruned under the Standards, even if it overhangs the roof. Eighth, the Standards do not override other approval requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 for clearing native vegetation. If the land is not excluded but the vegetation is native, a clearing permit may still be required unless a specific exemption applies. The Standards do not create an exemption from the EP Act. Ninth, the measurement of the 20 metre and 10 metre distances is from the relevant building, including any carport, veranda, balcony, patio, pergola or similar outdoor area. A large pergola effectively extends the risk treatment area, which may surprise owners who built it after the building was approved. Finally, the Standards are silent on what happens if the relevant building is demolished or removed. The permission likely ceases because there is no longer a qualifying building.

Compliance begins with a series of factual inquiries that should be documented. First, confirm that the land is within a bush fire prone area designated under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 section 18P. This can be checked via the Department of Fire and Emergency Services’ online mapping tool. Second, check whether any of the exclusions in clause 4(2) or (3) apply. This requires a site inspection and title search. Look for the high water mark of the coastline (within 100 metres), any wetland or watercourse with riparian vegetation, Bush Forever areas (check the Metropolitan Region Scheme or redevelopment scheme), and any covenants or agreements on title (biodiversity conservation covenant, conservation covenant, restrictive covenant under the Transfer of Land Act, or National Trust covenant). Check for Aboriginal sites via the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System, registered heritage places under the Heritage Act 2018, reserves, and nature strips. If the lot contains threatened flora or a threatened ecological community (check the DBCA’s Threatened Flora and Threatened Ecological Community databases), the Standards do not apply to any part of that lot. If any exclusion applies, the Standards provide no right to clear; separate approvals are needed.

If no exclusion applies, the next step is to identify any relevant building on the land (or neighbouring land within 20 metres). Determine the building’s classification under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and whether it was built under a development approval obtained before 8 December 2015. Obtain a copy of the development approval from the local government. If the building does not meet both criteria, the Standards do not apply. If it does, measure 20 metres from the outer edge of the building, including any contiguous carport, veranda, balcony, patio or pergola. Divide that area into the inner zone (within 10 metres) and outer zone (10 to 20 metres). For the inner zone, all vegetation can be cleared, and trees can be removed if they are not on a local significant tree register and, if the tree straddles a boundary, with the neighbour’s consent. For the outer zone, only pruning of branches below 2 metres is permitted, subject to the same consent requirements for boundary trees. Before any pruning, verify that the tree is not listed on any significant tree register under the local planning scheme. This requires checking with the local government. If it is listed, no action is permitted. Finally, for trees not on the register, ensure pruning cuts are made back to the collar (for the owner’s trees) or to the boundary (for neighbours’ trees). All work should be carried out safely and in accordance with any applicable local laws on the protection of fauna (e.g., nesting birds). Keep a compliance file with the development approval, distance measurements, evidence of consent from neighbours (if obtained), and evidence that the land is not excluded (e.g., screenshots of mapping, title search results). This file may be critical if the clearing is later challenged.