HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (REGULATED TREES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:46): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Development Act 1993. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This Family First bill reintroduces legislation the government allowed to lapse in 2008. It was a sensible bill we were keen to support at the time, and it is designed more sensibly to regulate the removal of large trees from suburban backyards. The government's Development (Regulated Trees) Amendment Bill was stalled in 2008 by a coalition of ill-advised groups, and the government has not since reintroduced it.

By reintroducing this government bill in identical terms to the bill previously on the Notice Paper, I hope to re-enliven the debate regarding the regulations surrounding tree removal on private property. I stress that this is, word for word, the bill the government allowed to lapse last year.

In his answers to my questions without notice yesterday, I thank the minister for indicating that the government still stands behind this legislation, and he made an important point in his answer when he referred to the Development (Significant Trees) Amendment Act 2000, which amended the Development Act 1993 to regulate the removal of or damage to trees in designated urban areas.

The legislation had good intent, namely, to protect some of the iconic trees in neighbourhoods, and certainly Family First supports that, particularly in relation to some of the beautiful old river red gums we still find in many parts of Adelaide. To be declared 'significant', unless it was multi-limbed, a tree was required to have a circumference of more than two metres at one metre above the ground and also meet several other requirements, including looking at the importance of the tree to the local biodiversity.

However, some local councils simply decided that all trees with a circumference of more than two metres were significant and that others were not. As the minister noted yesterday, that sort of arbitrary black and white position regarding trees was never meant as the intent of the original legislation. The minister realises that there is a problem, and we therefore look forward to government support for the bill which is, after all, simply a reintroduced identical version of the government's bill.

The plain fact is that circumference alone is a pretty poor measure of whether or not a tree is significant. Some rare native apricots are pretty small trees, but no-one would say they were insignificant. On the other hand, I know that in Prospect, the area which I reside, we have some areas where tracts of fast-growing pinus radiata become significant trees simply because of their circumference, even though they have little connection with the local habitat or ecosystem.

The regulated trees bill made plain that not all trees with a circumference of over two metres are necessarily significant, and many of these can be removed without radically disturbing the local ecosystem. I think it is a sensible standpoint, and for that reason I reintroduce the bill. In fact, I have spoken in the media regarding this issue (and some members may have heard me) and taken calls from a number of constituents who have been unable to remove trees that most reasonable people, I think, would agree they should have the power to remove if they are on their property.

In many cases, people who have had tree limbs continually falling on property or putting people and animals at risk are nevertheless still finding themselves unable to remove problem trees if the circumference is over two metres, even in cases where they have arborist reports (or in the case of one constituent, two arborist reports) recommending removal of that particular tree. Some members may recall reading a story in the Sunday Mail of 7 June which stated:

A tree planted 35 years ago which nearly killed a Burnside man has cost him $30,000 in legal costs—because his...local council has banned him from chopping it down.

The article continued:

In 2002, a branch plummeted from the 14 metre tall Wallangarra white gum tree, missing almond grower Andrew Lacey by metres. He said his golden retriever Toby saved him because his barking made him move out of the way. Mr Lacey decided to chop down the tree for safety reasons, but when the Burnside Council refused permission, he took the case all the way to the Supreme Court—and lost...He said the case had cost him in the range of $30,000—

which, coincidentally, was the fine for illegally removing the tree. A constituent from Klemzig has advised me that she has had a large tree drop limbs on their fence twice, requiring extensive repairs. Her insurance costs have gone through the roof because of the continuing damage caused by this large tree. She has obtained two arborist reports recommending that the tree should be removed, yet she has been stonewalled by her council under the current legislation and refused permission to remove the tree.

Another constituent from Kensington Gardens has young children whom she is afraid to let play in her own yard due to a large river gum that continually drops branches. She has replaced two fences damaged by the tree in recent times. However, this is a type of gum that naturally drops branches and an arborist report has confirmed that it is a healthy tree. She has obtained the signatures of all of the neighbours surrounding that property, calling for the removal of the tree. They are all agreeing to it, yet she, too, has been refused permission by her council.

I also have a letter from a constituent named Bill Thomas, who asked to be named and to whom my office has spoken at length regarding his tree troubles. I believe this is the same constituent mentioned by the Hon. Mr Wade yesterday during question time. A large 'itchy pod' tree, as he calls it, growing on his neighbour's property has caused tremendous damage to his studio building, lawn and backyard pavers.

The damage was such that he could no longer use the studio because the floor had lifted and falling branches had broken the roof. In his case also, the council indicated that it would take no action. On this occasion, the tree was not necessarily classed by the council as significant, but the response from the council indicates that some councils more than others can be reluctant to protect property from trees, as is the case in this example.

Another concern is the general requirement that nearly all councils have for the applicant to supply at their own cost an arborist report with each application. This is a council requirement rather than a legislative one and can add $500, and in some cases up to $1,000, to the development application. Again, this is tremendously unfair, particularly if a landowner is trying to protect property or trying to protect the safety of their family from a particular tree; this could include neighbouring properties as well.

Members will be aware that this bill sets up a far more sensible scheme to regulate these matters with a two tier system of 'regulated trees' along with 'significant trees'. Trees with a circumference above two metres become regulated trees rather than automatically being declared significant. They are only declared significant following a more detailed assessment. The government also previously proposed listing several types of trees as being exempt from the definition. Only if the tree met the new definition of significant would an arborist report be required.

To protect some important native flora that does not grow to a circumference of two metres, there is even a provision for trees with a smaller circumference to be declared significant such as the rare apricot tree that I mentioned at the start which might be an example of where this could be appropriate on some occasions and allow for the institution of an urban tree fund.

I think this bill is a tremendously important environmental initiative that is a positive for the environment. Members who are considering whether or not they should support this bill may wish to consider that this bill would establish an urban tree fund which would be used in the assistance of cultivating trees that require it.

Family First believes that this bill will do a lot to more properly define the types of trees that are genuinely significant. The bill will be a tremendous advantage in protecting and conserving those trees, which we would all agree is something we would like to continue, while at the same time enabling landholders to properly deal with trees on their own property that are either dangerous or simply not in keeping with the local ecosystem and present some significant problem.

The situation right now with respect to these trees is clearly unacceptable. Everyone acknowledges that the system needs to be fixed. I believe it is time to step up to the plate and support this bill because, after all, it is the government's own legislation. This bill would provide clarity and would allow everyone to move forward, whether it be the councils, individual landholders or anyone else involved in the entire cycle.

I want to make clear that the purpose of this bill is not to unreasonably attack councils. In fact, to be fair to councils, they have had to deal with legislation that is probably not that clear, and councils have done what they consider to be the safe thing, and that is to take a fairly consistent and hard line approach to this issue, and I think any reasonable person would understand why they have taken that approach. This bill, if passed, will clarify the situation.

I realise that, when this bill was debated last year, a number of amendments were raised, and that the debate on various issues extended into the committee stage. I have reintroduced this bill in exactly the same form as the government introduced it, but I welcome amendments to the bill, as the previous bill was amended, and I look forward to hearing other honourable members' contributions.

This is the government's own bill, word for word; I have not changed the government's bill whatsoever. I think there is the goodwill in this council to fix this situation once and for all. For that reason, I commend the bill to members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT