City of Stirling Tree Protection and TA17 Retention Private land - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

• 24 November 2009, Council resolved: That a report be presented to

the Planning and Development Committee Meeting proposing any appropriate recommendations:

– to establish a register of trees lost through development; and – to ensure a tree is installed to each street verge abutting a Property, the subject of a development application, in the absence of an existing tree.

• Councillor workshops were held in June and November 2010 to

address this matter.

• meeting held 22 February 2011, Council considered a policy

framework for tree retention on development sites that considered the following policy options:-

– Options 1 - Accept ‘Business as Usual’. – Options 2 - Develop ‘Moderate Standards Policy’. – Options 3 - Develop ‘Comprehensive Tree Retention / Replacement Policy’.

TA17

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

At 22 February 2011 meeting, Council subsequently resolved - item relating to Tree Retention and Protection when Developing Land be REFERRED to workshop to allow way to be looked at to encourage retention of trees on private land”.

• meeting held 13 December 2011 Council resolved;

– That Council ENDORSE IN PRINCIPLE the following: A framework for the draft 'Tree Retention and Protection When Developing Land' policy.

TA18

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

• On 31 July 2014, Councillors were invited to comment on a

draft ‘Tree Management Policy – Tree Retention on Development Sites’ and draft LPS3 Amendment No.9, and as a consequence of the comments received, the draft Policy was amended.

• Council resolved at its meeting held 11 November 2014:

“That the City SET a target of an average of 18% canopy cover across the City by 2030, as a means to measure the effectiveness

• f the Million Trees Program and other initiatives to increase the

City's canopy cover.”

TA19

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

On 17 February 2015 Council considered the draft Tree Management on Development Sites Policy and resolved. Initiation be REFERRED to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting to allow Councillors to attend a workshop.” Two further Councillor Workshops were held on 30 March 2015 and 9 November 2015.

TA20

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

• Councillor Workshop - 30 March 2015
• potential options available to retain and manage trees on

development sites.

• Tree retention forms part of the City’s Strategic Community Plan;
• There is a community benefit to retaining trees;
• The most recent data relating to tree canopy loss indicated that in

2014/2015, 21.91 ha of tree cover was lost from both public and private land;

• The City could propose Policy and Local Planning Scheme provisions

that encourage retention of trees; and

• Applicants could be required to plant new trees on-site or make a

cash-in-lieu contribution.

TA21

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

• During the Councillor Workshop, the following concerns

were raised by Councillors:-

– The draft Policy will not prevent existing trees being removed from development sites; – There need to be more incentives to encourage retention of existing trees; – The draft Policy and Scheme Amendment are too complex; and – The cash-in-lieu contributions will be viewed as a Tree Levy on

• wners.

– In light of the matters raised by Councillors, a further workshop was requested to be held outlining the basic principles and

• ptions regarding tree retention on development sites.

TA22

City of Stirling – Tree Protection and Retention – Private land and verges

• Councillor Workshop - 9 November 2015
• Approximately two-thirds of the City’s existing canopy is on non-residential land, with one-third being on

residential land;

• Canopy losses over the last three years show that the City has lost twice as much canopy from residential land,

when compared to non-residential land;

• Existing Average Tree Canopy Cover across all land is 12.7%;
• By 2030 ‘Business As Usual’ would result in:
• The equivalent of 58,000 mature trees being removed;
• 45% of existing residential canopy cover would be lost, dropping from 9.4% canopy cover to 5.2%;
• R40 would lose 80% of its existing canopy, dropping from 8.2% canopy cover to 1.5%;
• R30 would lose nearly half its existing canopy, dropping from 9.3% canopy cover to 4.8%;
• All suburbs would have less than the 18% canopy cover target;
• Tree loss was not confined to areas subject to redevelopment, such as the City’s
• Residential R40 zones. Tree loss was also occurring in low density areas where large single dwellings (or additions

to single dwellings) were resulting in significant tree loss;

• 10% of the existing canopy on non-residential would be lost;
• If the City continues with its current tree planting program, the City would still be
• projected to have less total canopy cover at 2030 (12.5%) than in 2015 (12.7%), and the City would still spend an

estimated $78 million;

• It is projected that if ‘Business as Usual’ losses continue, for the City to achieve

an 18% cover, the City would have to plant around 22,000 trees per year for 15 years (which is three times the current planting rate).

TA23

Draft Street and Reserve Trees Policy (on Public Land)

• At the time of the workshop, the Parks and

Reserves Business Unit presented a draft Street and Reserve Trees Policy;

– The Street and Reserve Trees Policy would provide improved protection of verge trees adjacent to development sites; – The existing tree valuation system is used to set verge tree bonds; and – A number of bond options are available to Council, which would be incorporated into the adopted Street and Reserve Trees Policy.

TA24

Draft Street and Reserve Trees Policy (on Public Land)

• This Draft Street and Reserve Trees Policy was

subsequently adopted by Council on 8 December 2015 and included an ‘enhanced verge bond’ provision that requires a bond of between $3,000 and $6,000 to be paid prior to the issue of a Verge Permit.

• A number of Policy options were presented to the

workshop as follows:-

– Option 1 - Business As Usual; – Option 2 - ‘Off-Set’ Tree Loss Policy; – Option 3 - Moderate Tree Retention Policy; and – Option 4 - Comprehensive Tree Retention Policy.

TA25

Draft Street and Reserve Trees Policy (on Public Land)

• Following the presentation to Councillors, discussion ensued, which

covered the following issues:-

– The facts presented dictate that the City needs to take some action to retain trees on development sites; – There is a lack of broad public understanding of the extent of the problem and a wider education program needs to be initiated; – The introduction of incentives may encourage the retention of existing trees; – The draft Policy and Scheme Amendment are too complex; – Any Policy provisions should be reinforced through penalties for non- compliance; and – There is a conflict between urban consolidation and the desire to retain existing trees.

TA26

Reasons for Policy

A growing awareness and understanding of the impacts of tree loss

• Council’s previous resolution to set a target of an average of 18%

canopy cover across the City by 2030 will not be met with the current rate of tree canopy loss.

• The majority of tree canopy loss results from development activity,

primarily on, but also adjacent to development sites.

• The Planning and Development Act 2005 does not include cutting

down trees as development and LPS3 does not restrict landowners from removing trees on private land. In order to implement a draft Tree Management for Development Sites Policy, the City will need to initiate a Scheme Amendment in tandem with the Policy that would provide a mechanism by which trees on private land could be retained through a condition of development approval.

TA27

Options – Trees on Private Lands

Option 1 - No Policy Response

• based on the projected tree canopy loss

information presented to the Councillor Workshop held 9 November 2015, would result in a net loss of approximately 290ha in tree canopy cover by 2030.

TA28

Option 2 - Retain or Plant Trees (Policy and Scheme Amendment)

• involves a Scheme Amendment and Local

Planning Policy requiring developers to retain trees on-site or plant replacement trees on- site at a rate of one tree per 500m2. This

• ption also proposes that developers provide

a street tree in the road reserve adjacent to the lot where one does not exist.

TA29

Option 3 - Retain, Plant or Cash-in-lieu for Trees (Policy and Scheme Amendment)

• is the same as Option 2, with the addition of

providing for developers to choose not to plant or retain trees on-site and pay an “off-set” fee to the City (which will plant a tree off the site).

• This off-set fee would also include a refundable

bond in order to protect trees (retained or new) for a two year period after the development has been occupied.

TA30

Option 4 - Comprehensive Tree Protection (Policy and Scheme Amendment)

• requires significant trees across the City to be

placed on a Tree Register for their protection. Removal of registered trees will not be permitted except on rare occasions under special circumstances (Development Approval will be required in each case).

TA31

Street Trees

• Council adopted a ‘Street and Reserve Trees Policy’ on 8

December 2015 (Council Resolution Number 1215/010), which was aimed at increasing the long-term viability of City trees on verges adjacent to development sites and defining the circumstances under which street trees may be removed and replaced.

• Also, to help improve local streetscapes, minimise the

impact of additional crossovers from new developments and increase the tree canopy across the City, it would be beneficial to require developers to plant new street trees

• n verges adjacent to development sites where no street

trees exist.

TA32

• A draft Trees and Development Local Planning Policy and Local

Planning Scheme Amendment have been prepared which address the retention of significant trees or planting of replacement trees on development sites and verges.

• This was advertised for public comment and the feedback has

been largely positive from the public. Developers??

• Findings to go a Planning and Development Committee

Meeting in October.

Conclusion

TA33