What is the fine for removing a protected tree?

As the title suggest, approximately what is the fine for removing a protected tree?

I am trying to get a planning permit for a house in the leafy outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I have done absolutely everything by the book. I have got permits to remove scrappy and insignificant trees, I paid $3500 for an arborists report, and I designed my house to fit in well with the natural landscape. There are two protected gums on my block, one is close-ish to where I proposed to build my house.

The arborist recommended for us to either build the house using non-invasive building techniques (he said this was expensive but we are doing this) or move the house back 4m from the proposed siting - cheaper and easier. We chose to use non-invasive building techniques. So we went ahead and did the engineering, did all the plans, sent them into council, and now council have said despite what the arborist said, they still feel it's safer for the tree to move the house back 4m.

I don't want to move the house back 4m!!! We are already 15m back from the street, and it will cost is another $1500 to get the whole house re-engineered.

I am positively seething, this is so unfair, the tree will be perfectly fine. I am at the point that I just want to pull this stupid tree out of the ground. Hence my question, if we did that, what ramifications can I expect?

Quick goggle search revealed this for a NSW council:

"If you remove, damage or lop a tree without Council's consent, you may be liable for a fine of up to $1.1 million if prosecuted in the Land and Environment Court. In addition, the Court may direct an offender to plant new trees and vegetation and maintain them in a healthy state until mature, as well as providing a monetary security for the performance of this obligation. You may also be liable for a penalty for engaging a contractor to do the work on your behalf.

Council may sign post areas of tree vandalism and offer rewards of up to $10,000 for information leading to the successful prosecution of offender under the Tree Preservation Management.

To avoid breaching Council's Tree Preservation it is suggested that before any tree works are undertaken that the owner of the tree determine if they require Council consent. This may involve obtaining a copy of Council's Tree Preservation and positively identifying the tree on which the proposed works are to be carried out. Works undertaken on protected trees due to incorrect identification will be considered a breach."

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that the maximum penalty for illegal tree removal or destruction in breach of the Act is a fine of $1.1 million and a further fine of $110,000 for each day that the offence is continuing.

Geez, 1.1 million dollars
I don't understand how so many others get away wih it. My mother in law lives in a street that has a vegetation overlay, and someone came in cleared the block completely, and he got a slap on the wrist. Those were his words! Im so upset I just want to sell the block and forget the whole thing altogether.

The problem is that you've sought permission first, rather than doing it and begging for forgiveness afterwards.

Of course what a number of people do is to poison or otherwise kill off the tree in question, and then get the arborist to report back to the council that the tree was dead, and then the tree is 'easily' removed.

I just don't understand why councils persist in protecting big old gum trees, when they'll often end up falling on either the owners house or the house next door in suburbia.

I think I'd be speaking to the neighbour on the sides where the tree could fall (that's if they aren't "treehuggers" themselves), and suggest they could help you out by contacting their insurance companies to write a letter to the council, holding the council responsible for any possible damage this protected tree might end up doing sometime in the future. Letting your neighbour know that you are concerned about possible damage to their house.

How tall are these gum trees that are protected ?

Bpratt the gum is 16m tall. If it did fall it wouldn't even come close to damaging the next door neighbours place (we are all on 1/2 acre blocks). What upsets me the most is that we have a perfectly viable option - use non invasive building techniques. However in the words of the council "the best option is to move the house back 4m", despite an adequate option being the non-invasive techniques. There is zero compromise and it's completely unfair. They don't give a rats that it will cost us more money to get our plans changed, as far as they are concerned that gum tree surviving the next twenty years is paramount. Until it dies and then it's my problem and my responsibility to get a tree lopper in to remove it. It's madness! I'm all for protecting trees, we love the area for it's trees, but we are doing the right thing and it's still not good enough for them. Urgh makes me so mad!!

Just so damn disappointing for you in the meantime though.

I know what it is like, I've been stopped at putting up my amateur radio mast at our new build, primarily due to the neighbours thinking I'm going to zap the neighbourhood, and whom are also good friends with the covenant people of the estate... a $6000 mast is now going to be a dust catcher.

what a shame. Can you sell it??

I probably could, but it is 'secondhand' now, which would mean I'd be lucky to get $1000 for it.

I have some options still though, that when we finally finish and move in, I will be looking at alternatives.


You might buy a block of dirt, but it still really isn't yours to do what you are otherwise legally entitled to do on it.

Bugger bpratt did you offer to make them their very own foil hat??

The silly woman phoned me up when she first cottoned on to the idea that I was a amateur radio operator (my car with several aerials sort of gives it away), and was virtually hyperventilating when I told her what I was doing, as she asked me a specific question about the hole dug for the mast. I wasn't going to lie to a new neighbour, so I told her the truth, as that point I doubt she heard anything else I said. Mind you, she was on her mobile phone ignoring the studies that talk about EMR issues with mobile phones, and claiming my stuff that people have been using for 50+ years is now in effect more dangerous than radioactive waste, particulary when part of our licence conditions concerns EMR. Not only that, we will always be the closest to the transmitter, so we will be certain that we won't be 'zapping' ourselves.

I did think of putting the Coles and Woolies brochures in here letterbox with the aluminium foil adverts highlighted for her benefit.

The funny part about it all is that if I were forced to use the radios in my car, I would be parking less than 10m and about the same elevation as their living room, yet the mast was going to be some 60m away, and around 20m above it too. Taking in to account EMR studies that I've done indicate using my maximum power levels, as long as you remained more than 4m from the 'pointy end' of the antenna, it was within safe levels.

You get a hell of a lot more dangerous radiation from a leaking microwave, and by the time you discover it was leaking, it has done you some serious harm. If you have young kids like her, you probably have spills around the door opening, and that creates a leak for radiation to escape.

I might add that I found out from several neighbours, that this woman went around the whole neighbourhood with a petition to stop me, and nearly everyone told her to go away, as I assume they didn't see any issues and didn't want to get involved with a neighbourhood tit-for-tat crap.

I'm starting to wonder if she's used her mobile phone too much, and it has started to have a negative effect on her.


Wow, we've gone a long way off topic regarding a fine for a cutting down a protective tree. Sorry to the OP, but like them I'm not happy that a block of dirt you pay good money for, you can't do what you bought the block for, within reason of course.

In the OP situation, I think I'd would done things different at the start, particulary if you know the local council is a tree-hugger council. I would like to think that they should be able to do what they've spent all their money with all the plans and studies they had commissioned.

Is still apply to council to cut it down and if knocked back take them to VCAT as you've taken appropriate measures

Yeah I'd try to get it removed also. Depending on the position and the intended use of the block, for a large gum tree you can use the potential risk to family/visitors/passers by from falling limbs. I know this is the route one of my neighbours went and successfully had two large gums removed from their property. Your arborist should have been able to advise of the likelihood of limbs dropping off. With gum trees it's always high risk on mature trees and more so on particular species.

I don't know Vics laws but in NSW as a result of several nasty bushfires the state govt has relaxed the laws and if you are in a bushfire zone or area you can remove substantial trees within 50m of your house. It has also caused quite a bit of contoversy as a result. This applies over the whole state both rural and suburban. It may be worthwhile to have a word with the local RFS and see what they say.

Stewie

At Buccan you could, but not Jimboomba. Rural and rural residential are chalk and cheese. Outta sight, outta mind.

Because there are differing level of protectionist criteria, and differing penalities given by different Bureaucracies.
Eg MY prev council deemed any tree over a certain size to be protected. I just trimmed the trees down to make them undersize.

Some trees are classified under state , and/or federal law. If the tree is very rare, or houses an endangered species, etc, then they could give you a big fine. the 1.1m would be for commercial enterprises who are serial flouters, and I doubt if anyone has ever been fined that much.


Yeah, well, that might just be a good idea. Count the $3500 as a small price to pay. you've now learned that protected trees are a monumental pain. they do drop large branches which can kill, and they will drop crap on your roof as well, you'll be continually cleaning gutters. the tall hieght attracts cockatoos, crows, and other noisy birds. they shed bark. When they die they have to be tree lopped (expensive).

If you really love the block and the location , before you sell, do this
1. The arborist should be qualified to identify the species for you. Get this in writing from him (or someone who is qualifed to identify it)

2. then check first your council, then the state, then the Cwealth Dept of Environment, and see what laws they have in place for this species on your property. Enquire under a false name, and another property address nearby where other such trees exist. These checks will reveal any restrictions,a nd possible penalites for "unlawful removal".

3. You also need to suss out your neighbours and their attitude. the other comments about safety are relevant - its a residential block, and you cant be held to ransome by a protection order when it produces an unsafe situation.

4. If none of that works, you might be able to kill it biologically ( a fungus,etc) in a way that does not leave a fingerprint which points to human interference ,google the subject and see what turns up.

IF you get no joy from those, I'd sell. Quite frankly, large trees should be banned from all residential blocks under 1000m2 or so, they cause more problems than they are worth.

.

Ah just what we need on these forums - more rednecks with their chainsaws !

We're about to lodge our plans with our council and we are building 4m from a large Jacaranda tree. It is about the best thing about our rear garden area and we have designed around it.
Some of the best suburbs here on the Northern Beaches are the ones with the most trees.

Stewie

Just to clarify Stewie's comments, the new rules in NSW (for those in the designated zones) allow for the removal of trees up to 10 metres from a home, not 50 metres.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/plan-and-prep ... n-clearing


Where it says "10 metres of a home" - it is not just limited to your home on your property. If a tree on your property is within 10m of your neighbour's home, it can be removed under the code even if the tree is more than 10m from your house.

The op is talking about removing a tree for a proposed dwelling,
not an existing house whereby the tree has grown too big and
is dangerous.

Your doubts are incorrect... there are some large fines (maybe not 1.1 million, but still in the thousands) that have been handed out... e.g.

$132,000 fine
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brigh ... 19hji.html

This one isn't so bad... but still $22,500 fine
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6000767789

Another one for $35,000 for each tree lopper
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6229348521

.

Thanks for clearing that up zelig. I knew 50m was in the equation but I didn't realise 10m was too.

Stewie