Original source · versioned page text
2019-02-12 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
The original of this document is very large (14.5 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 FEBRUARY 2019
The remaining mature trees to be retained on the frontage (as per plan) will be protected and
more native trees planted during OpWks. Council can condition a tree risk assessment for
the remaining trees if the landscape plan does not satisfy the information request.
Reaffirming the landscaping plan will recommend offset native planting on the frontage for
any mature tree removed. Long term the landscaping and new plantings will improve the
property frontage.
Retaining the mature gum could not be achieved, the tree protection zone could not be
achieved. The size of the tree requires a very large tree protection zone. The age of the tree
is a significant risk to persons and property and council’s liability with the increased
pedestrians, vehicles and buildings being exposed to aging falling limbs. The tree is not
mapped in a biodiversity overlay so it is also preferred koalas are not encouraged into a
developing urban area exposing themselves to being hit by vehicles or domestic dog attacks.
Prior to proceeding to notification the applicant did not provide an assessment of the mature native
trees by a certified arborist and appears to have made assumptions regarding the retention of the
trees based on the proposed development layout. The purpose of the Information Request was for
the applicant to retain the significant landscape trees and recognise that boundary fencing and
proposed development layout may require alteration to accommodate the retention of the trees.
After the completion of the notification period and being advised the officer recommendation would
likely be for a Preliminary Approval, the applicant provided an arborist report. The arborist report
makes comment on the retention of the trees based on the previously supplied layout but does not
specifically address the information request items and does not provide an amended layout. The
report details activities within 50% of the Tree Protection Zone of Trees 2 and 3 (adjacent to units
13 and 17) however provides no recommendations for the amendment of the layout to reduce the
amount of intrusion into the Tree Protection Zones. The recommendations within the report are
based on the submitted layout plan and do not provide Council assessment officers with sufficient
information to support the removal of trees.
It is noted that amendment to the development layout would safely allow for the retention of the
trees. Though it is unclear as to the specifics of the modifications required and the resultant impact
on layout and yield, it is likely that the retention of the trees will result in an amendment to the
location of the access driveway to Olivine Street and potentially to the setback of units adjacent to
Olivine Street.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. Referral Agencies
No referrals were required to any Referral Agencies.
4.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Environment Officer
Coordinator Engineering
4.3. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Planning Act
2016. Three properly made submissions were received. The following table provides a summary
and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Matters Raised Comments
Environment It is agreed that the proposed layout will require the
Destruction of trees and habitat for kangaroos removal of a number of existing mature native trees. The
and several bird species applicant provided an arborist report after the notification
period assessing the impact of the proposed layout on
An Environmental Impact Survey should be
the mature native trees within the road reserve. It is
provided
Page 28 of 94
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.