Ratepayers Victoria Inc

Lest we Forget – The Trees!

Council hears regular appeals at the General Committee for permits to remove or prune large trees. Invariably, such appeals are lost. The limit to the right to do what you wish with your trees is set out in Local Law No 2. We maintain that trees planted on private land were put there by the land owners and they have a responsibility to prune, remove, replace and otherwise maintain their trees, so that they do not constitute a nuisance or hazard to their owners and the public. This responsibility should not be interfered with by Council.

Local law No 2 is conflicting, unnecessary and stupid. It limits the pruning or removal of trees above 450mm in diameter at 1 metre above ground. If the sum of all growth at this height is above 450mm a permit is also required to prune. A good sized Oleander bush would fit this rule.

The people who grant the permits are the arborists. Council uses consultants for this role. They work without Council imposed guidelines. Obviously they have a vested interest in refusing permits to remove trees. They have a single assignment to remove a tree but get an assignment every second year into the future for every request for pruning that tree. The record shows that removal permits are rarely issued and pruning permit requirements are always imposed.

TALL TREES ARE DANGEROUS

They should be treated in the same way as dangerous walls or other structures. An apple falling from a 30 metre high gum tree will travel at about 85km/hr when it hits the ground. A 75mm diameter branch will not be far behind.

And - The Hooligans!

Much has been written in the Bayside Leader about the anti-social young people who use the City of Bayside as their play-pen. They have drunken parties, damage property – particularly cars – and spread graffiti on many of the available spaces. Often, especially with the street parties, the parents are happy to see their under age drinkers causing damage and being unruly.

What can Council do about it? The answer is - lots!

Council has its Local Laws and the Summary Offences Act which between them prohibit all manner of things from drunkenness, obscene language, and graffiti to riding a motorbike on private land. It has 10% of its 400 staff authorised to lay charges under both these laws.

Does it do anything? Nothing that requires effort or the disturbance of the comfort of its staff!

Have you ever seen a Council vehicle patrol the streets after 5pm? Most of the anti-social activities occur between 8pm and midnight. It’s a bit difficult to have a night-time street presence between 9am and 5pm.

Council’s answer to the ongoing complaints of neglect is to propose the hiring of a contract security firm. Apart from the difficulty of giving them authority to act, the budget constraints will give an obvious excuse to drop the matter.

Councillors, we want you to work smarter and use your existing resources more effectively. We don’t want another building block in your overgrown empire.

This heritage problem is not very different to those which we have previously seen during the past twenty years. It’s different this time as the pro-heritage groups seem to have been so enthusiastic, they have managed to side-step caution and the limitations of the Local Government Act. We have sound evidence that Councillors gave an advantage to “selected” persons (Council’s words) to nominate properties included in the document involving the “Listing with Intent”. These persons managed to have themselves identified in the consultant’s report. As the group was assembled outside the provisions of Council rules and procedures, the “invited group” is simply a collection of citizens acting in concert with a group of Councillors and staff. What legal liability does this incur? The damages are already running at much more than $100 million.

The Minister for Local Government can appoint an inspector of municipal administration to look into (and alter) the actions of Council. We have sought this appointment. However, it does not preclude the injured parties from taking further action. Indeed, if the Minister fails to take any action it simply allows the cause of damages to run and increases the magnitude of any legal action for damages.

This is always a possibility in claims where heritage controls apply. The basic claim is that the heritage control removes a property right. The constitution requires that acquisition of a property right should be made only when the compensation paid represents “fair value”. The detail requires the establishment of the connection between the control and the property right. This connection is already set out in the Heritage Act. Other possible claims cover the action of Council in refusing and preventing demolition permits being granted, without proper grounds.

We have a sound audit trail of documents which follow the irregular action of Councillors (and selected representatives of incorporated Associations), in this matter.

This is to object and protest at each step of a complicated and often unintelligible process. The steps are - publish a report – seek a planning amendment – appoint a planning panel – review the results – seek approval from the minister. It is possible to object at each of the five steps. If we follow this route we plan to organise objections at each step of the way

We went this way in the past. Our experience is that it is only partly successful and patently unfair. The theory is that only a panel of experts can properly judge the merits of the claims. This system has been shown to be open to manipulation by Council – using the simple trick of not putting all properties before the Panel. For the C37/C38 Planning Panel, only 15% of those listed individually were examined; similarly, only 13 of the 27 precincts were examined. The selection of the properties to be considered was left to Council – hence our claim of manipulation.

If we follow our experience, we can look forward to Council seeking to have as many properties as possible nominated without being examined. Any claim that statements of significance are inadequate is also likely to be by-passed. Following the system is theoretically the best route to follow but experience indicates that it has serious flaws.

We have already taken the first option of trying to get the various Ministers involved. However, those members with suspended building and demolition permits are advised to make an immediate request for a review at VCAT as Council currently has no reason to withhold permits. Further legal action will depend on individual circumstances at this time.

We must continue to prepare for the formal process of evaluation, the third route. If you have not already done so, submit your objection to the report on the simple grounds that it is false, largely irrelevant and substantially fictional. If and when Council consider such objections, prepare a three minute speech to be made at the General Committee

when dealing with the matter. Make sure you formally request to speak and take the whole of the three minutes to do so. You will be in good company as we will be encouraging the hundreds of objectors to attend the meeting and speak.

P.O. Box 2147, Hampton East, 3188 e-mail: baysideratepayers@hotmail.com